WORD BY LETTER : English CROSSWORD SOLVER and others things ...
Words starting with : 
Words ending  with : 
Find a definition : 

definition of the word Wiktionary:Requests_for_cleanup

by the Wiktionnary

IC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup - Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup

Definition from Wiktionary, a free dictionary

Jump to: navigation, search
Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | Archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for verification
add new | history | archives | Index

Verification and GENERAL DELETION nominations and discussion.

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

Deletion for policy problems; request listings, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Special page deletion requests, questions and discussions.

{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-cjkv}} - {{rfcc}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} - {{rfr}}

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

This is a manually created and maintained list of pages requiring cleanup. There is also a Category:Requests for cleanup, which is an automated list of such pages. /pas Use the Make a new nomination link below to add your nomination to this page.

If you wish, you may include a brief explanation of your reason for nominating the page for cleanup, but please put any extensive discussion in the Talk: (Discussion) page of the article itself.

When the article has been cleaned, please strike the word here, and put any discussion on the talk page. This makes it easier to see what has been done and what still needs to be concentrated on.

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 They are automatically withdrawn from the category when the template reference is removed (or, if the template has not been used, when [[Category:Requests for cleanup]] has been removed from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

  • Entries in the category should have a discussion of why the entry needs cleanup within the Talk: (Discussion) page of the article itself.

Make a new nomination

Error: No results!
Oldest tagged {{rfc}}s

and all
mola d"o sinno
voluntas ordinata
Puto Bumbong
monkey flip
vertical bar
yarn ball
bon sao
gener sororis
cage fighting
Mexican pool
Session Bean
olla podrida
an offer one can't refuse


New sense of "Jose" as a common name in Kerala is missing some detail. Rod (A. Smith) 16:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

EC: There is a mass of these RQ templates. This one is used in only one place. Were they an experiment and now need cleaning up ? If they are to be left in place, in the Template namespace, can you please do something to document the use of them (either within the template using noinclude or comments, or in the discussion page, or in the WT:I2T page). Or, if they really only for private use, they should be moved to your own user space, not in the shared template name space.--Richardb 06:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

They can be used by everybody. Documentation is still needed, but see Wiktionary:Quotations/Templates. Would be nice if they were on WT:I2T, indeed. But then: maybe we want people to use {{quote-book}}? H. (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Needs to be de-Wikipedia-ified, split into two separate entries, etc. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please elaborate. Doremítzwr 13:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) (Author of entry)
Okay, but from the etymology it appears to be a borrowed word in English as well. 22:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is, but I thought the English meaning was less specific, just being a pejorative reference to a previous ruling body, eg the previous management of a business which has since been taken over (and thus able to be used in the plural, though I forget the plural form) rather than just referring to the French aristocracy, as in the present def. But I could be wrong. --Enginear 16:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC) (This comment applies more properly to ancien régime.) --Enginear 01:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that there is a distinction between Ancien Régime and ancien régime. The lower-case version is regularly used for the specific pre-Revolutionary sense (in both languages). Widsith 16:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • This entry seems wiktified. Last comment doesn't indicate that this entry is in any way wrong, AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 18:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z

A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z

  1. Shouldn't these all have {{see| }} at the top?
    Yes. Go for it.
  2. Shouldn't these all be listed as ==English==?
    Yes. Go for it.
  3. Under what circumstances should they also be listed as ==Translingual==?
    Well, they are used in most European languages as well.
  4. Shouldn't these all be listed as ===Letter===? Or are we using ===Symbol===? (Why are they split about 50/50?)
    They should ALL be letter. But many are used as symbols as well, so should also have a symbol section. The split is probably due to different people having different ideas.
  5. Shouldn't these all have audio and IPA pronunciations?
  6. Shouldn't the vowels have long and short pronunciations?

--Connel MacKenzie T C 18:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Added some thoughts (I don't understand pronunciation though). SemperBlotto 15:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • My opinion is that the primary heading for these should be ==Roman alphabet==, not ==Translingual==. Then the secondary header should be ===Letter===. This is the way I did the Cyrillic alphabet (ж), and have begun the Arabic (ب). —Stephen 15:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should move this to the Tea room? The idea of nominating it for cleanup is to have standard language headings for each of these alphabets; an alphabet itself is not a language. Using =Translingual= seems much better, to me. That's why I've been changing so many alphabet entry definitions. But I don't wish to go through these all (again?) if there isn't agreement on what they should look like. (Roman alphabet being only one of very many.) As it is right now, without the =Translingual= heading, many of the foreign language alphabet entries find their way back on to my various automated cleanup lists.
  • Pronunciation: currently, [z] has the audio files listing the "ABCs" sound, not the sound the letter makes. My question is: is it too silly to ask for all 52 entries to have both soundfiles (how it sounds and how the letter is spoken individually in the "ABCs.") The vowels, of course, have long and short sounds. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've started deleting some of these. They seem to all be bad-faith edits. But there is a lot (and they all look almost reasonable at first glance.) --Connel MacKenzie 16:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that these don't need cleanup, but perhaps these are not in bad faith. This anon's entries are apparently nearly all taken more or less verbatim from the 1811 Dictionary of Vulgar Tongue, and would be reasonable except for the use of the vulgarities categorization; at the least, however, most of these should be categorized as archaic. Jeffqyzt 17:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The definitions on this page seem very repetitive, and could probably be winnowed down. --EncycloPetey 02:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've "winnowed it down" some - it's now only at 6 definitions (1 was tagged for verification and I left it as is) instead of 9 .... surprised it hadn't been touched before. The cleanup tag is still on it, as the def could probably be better. L☺g☺maniac chat? 16:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Previously tagged, not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 07:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this a misspelling of a phonetic transcription? --Connel MacKenzie 17:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't seem to be able to decide whether this is capitalised or not (see the section "Stateful Session Beans", for example). Could someone who is familiar with the terminology check and modify the Wiktionary entry as need be, please. — Paul G 09:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Adjective - Alternative spelling of chubby.
  • a type of rug
  • Urban word for bitch
  • Noun - pet name for a mouse originating in Australia.
  • Boy's name
  • place in Zambia

a brief google search didn't turn up anything matching these meanings --Versageek 04:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As a spelling of chubby, it’s illiterate. For the mouse, I suppose it means that the term originates in Australia, not the mouse. It cannot be an Asian name because it doesn’t give the language, and almost all Asian languages are written in scripts other than Roman. Can’t be a place in Zambia, because that requires capitalization. Too many serious problems, too little of any value, delete. —Stephen 08:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Is a place in Zambia (non-capitalization was a mistake): Place in Zambia:

http://www.fallingrain.com/world/ZA/4/Chubi.html http://www.tageo.com/index-e-ir-v-16-d-m4290266.htm http://www.multimap.com/wi/293837.htm


http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1066950/ (an actor's name)

Urban word for bitch:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chubi —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

The entry certainly needs to be cleaned at this point, it didn't have all of these meanings when I initially rfv'd it. I think there is enough to support a proper noun entry for Chubi (Upper case), for the two name senses & possibly the rug as a derivitave of the place name. The urban dictionary entry is tosh, and I'm still not sure about the original two.. --Versageek 13:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

To rfc. Perhaps to come back later. Andrew massyn 07:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Where in the Appendix does this go? --Connel MacKenzie 07:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Does belong in the main namespace, it is a single cuneiform sign. Needs some serious formatting though. (Translingulal/Akkadian/Hittite/Sumerian language sections.) Robert Ullmann 08:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it belongs in the main namespace, just like letters of the alphabet and Japanese kana syllables. Instead of ==Translingual==, I prefer ==Cuneiform script==, with Akkadian, Hittite, and Sumerian sections. —Stephen 12:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Level 2 headers are all languages, or "Translingual". "Cuneiform sign" belongs at level 3 (in Translingual). The language sections following do belong at level 2, in alphabetical order. The references should be at L4, under the L3 Cuneform sign heading. All this is the same way we do everywhere else. Robert Ullmann 12:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Alphabets and scripts are different from words. We spent a lot of time thinking about this before doing the Cyrillic and Arabic alphabets and came to the conclusion that names of scripts and alphabets where letters are concerned were the equivalent of names of languages where words are concerned. As for "translingual", I wouldn’t consider anything to be translingual unless it was used by most major languages. Periods, commas, and numerals are translingual (used not only by all languages that use the Roman alphabet, but also the languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet and some languages that use the Arabic script, and to a large extent in languages that use Chinese ideograms and in most languages that use various syllabaries), but cuneiform glyphs, while used by several ancient languages, are not, in my opinion, translingual and are not used by any language except those few that use cuneiform. Cuneiform certainly is not equivalent to modern periods, commas and numerals. —Stephen 13:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather have a consistent way of dealing with all symbols, by placing them in ==Translingual== so we know where they can be found. "Cuniform script" is a little too specific to only one alphabet. Do we need a ==Miscellaneous== language heading? I don't want to see 7,000 separate alphabets, listing only the alphabet of a rare script and nothing else. --Connel MacKenzie 17:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Symbols and letters are different. Symbols such as !@#$%^&* are translingual. Alphabets may be used by many languages (Roman), some languages (Arabic), a few languages (Cyrillic), or only one or two languages (Greek, hiragana, hangul, Tamil, Oriya, Khmer, Thai, Lao, and many, many others). It is very consistent to treat symbols as translingual (when they are, since some are not), and scripts according as done for the Cyrillic and Arabic scripts. —Stephen 17:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I followed that. Wouldn't that imply that there would be a language heading for each language that uses that character? Or should alphabets simply be kept in the Index: or Appendix: namespace, with no trace left in the main namespace? I know this has been discussed before, but I do not recall where, nor what the outcome was. --Connel MacKenzie 20:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
No, each language that uses the letter in question would be in alphabet order following a #: ==Cyrillic alphabet==, ===Letter===, Г, г, # Fourth letter of the Bulgarian Cyrillic alphabet, representing the sound ...; # Fourth letter of the Russian Cyrillic alphabet, representing the sound ...; # Fourth letter of the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet, representing the sound ...; # Fourth letter of the Ukrainian alphabet, representing the sound ...; etc. Then if, besides being a letter of the alphabet, it is also a word or abbreviation, it gets the usual language headers: ---- ==Russian== ===Abbreviation===, etc. —Stephen 17:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Since all level two headings are considered "languages," that approach will really hose up the statistics I currently generate. I'm sorry, but I don't see the compelling reason to make the exception to the "Translingual" language heading. That already is our one place to put stuff like that. --Connel MacKenzie 18:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is your place to put all the letters and syllabary syllables that are used by only a single language, such as most of the Asian scripts (both alphabets and syllabaries) as well as some African and American scripts (such as the Cherokee syllabary). Headings like ==Cuneiform script== and ==Cyrillic alphabet== seems much more useful and practical to me than statistics. —Stephen 17:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that they go under ==Translingual== because even in English, we refer to those symbols as "An alphabet character of the xxx script." --Connel MacKenzie 23:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
My understanding of translingual is that, like !@#$%^&*(), it can be used in numerous languages. Many scripts and alphabets are used by only one language, and most other scripts contain several or many glyphs that are used by only one language. A letter such as the Ӳ ӳ of Chuvash. While it is a Cyrillic letter, it is not translingual since no other language uses that Cyrillic letter. Actually, I think the symbol should be listed as Cyrillic rather than translingual, because it is only used by languages such as Russian that use the Cyrillic alphabet, due to the fact that these languages have no N on their keyboards. Languages that use the Roman alphabet, such as English, do not use that symbol, but write No. instead (or , etc., depending on the language). —Stephen 06:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
That still seems unsatisfactory (inconsistent) to me. What other approaches haven't we tried yet, or mistakenly rejected in the past, that would work better? --Connel MacKenzie 21:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like we rather simply have to think about another word for ‘Translingual’, such that letters also fit under it, since I really think they belong there. What difference does it make whether a symbol is used in only one language or more than one? We want an entry for it, and we want that entry to explain what kind of symbol it is and how it is used in which languages. It is generally agreed that this should not be put under the header for the languages in question, so a general header is needed. This is Translingual, but due to the ‘trans’ some people are not happy with it. How about just Symbol? (And have those that are now ==Translingual== ===Symbol=== be ==Symbol== ===More specific type of symbol=== (i.e. punctuation or IPA or ...)) Re: ‘We spent a lot of time thinking about this before doing the Cyrillic and Arabic alphabets’: who is we here? I already planned to ‘clean up’ those entries after I finished the Greek alphabet (in the far future, that is ;-)) H. (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't yet perfect (still needs some cuneiform script, but has been tagged with a script request), but has been greatly improved. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Most should be removed or moved to English abbreviations? --Connel MacKenzie 16:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Rather long list of synonyms. Even if valid (unlike Wikisaurus type synonyms), the formatting is quite messed up. --Connel MacKenzie 11:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this really our entire template help page? Gah! --EncycloPetey 03:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Should it be a redirect to WT:I2T? --Connel MacKenzie 20:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe. I wind we had a stated policy on what exactly was supposed to go in which namespace. I would expect policy on template use to be in Wiktionary:Templates, a list of templates to be in Index:Templates or Category:Templates, and help in using them in Help:Templates, but having that much division of the information could itself be detrimental (or just plain mental). --EncycloPetey 05:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there are 101 words in there. Secondly, I often see a word that ranks somewhere over a Hundred in Gutenberg, but is in this category. Third, there are so much of those lists around, I do not know which one to choose. henne 17:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This was a list of words created and designated by THEM, and is not based on what words are most common. It's a "starter vocabulary", and the equivalents of these words are deemed to be a good starting point for a new Wiktionary project. --EncycloPetey 06:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
My analysis of Project Gutenberg (as a corpus) has no relation to this person's project. I find them interesting in comparison to each other, as well as to the other Frequency lists we have.
Perhaps if I actually had compared them in earnest, I would have noticed (before now) that it links to a copyright site, that has a no-commercial reuse clause. So this should move from WT:RFC to WT:RFDO.  :-(
--Connel MacKenzie 06:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
But I will not move it to RFDO myself, as that would possibly look like I'm favoring Project Gutenberg unfairly, or some-such. --Connel MacKenzie 08:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need an obtuse paragraph for each definition? Perhaps someone could pare this down to something more reasonable? --Connel MacKenzie 04:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing something similar; a list of 850 (later 1000) words with an exact concept in spanish and italian. The "weight of the word" (so to speak) is based also on if it has or not a direct translation in 1 word. The uses are different (to manage a basic vocabulary on N languages); but it may help. I'm basing first on the "simple english" dictionary, with some deletions and additions and later on a vocabulary based on frequency that I found (in ~5 languages).
At least it's a way to study languages, but I may give input on this category. This dictionary is on my userpage--Esteban.barahona 19:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

A couple of people just worked on reason, but it can use some more work. Please have a look.—msh210 21:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The definition looks fine now - at least to me - can we strike this discussion or is there yet work to be done? L☺g☺maniac chat? 17:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Needs to be trimmed, consolidated, and examined for POV. -dmh 17:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this represents a weakness in our translingual scheme, or just an error. This obviously isn't used in Spanish (alone) to indicate emphasis. Also, the e-mail separator is a protocol-level indication (that I'm not certain is valid) but does not apply to application-layer use (i.e. in your e-mail program of choice.) --Connel MacKenzie 19:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

We really need a better way of tagging words that are sometimes spelled with diacritics, but normally not, like this. --Connel MacKenzie 20:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Spot checking several sections of this, I can't see how any of these assertions are made. As many parts overlap my NY accent, it seems odd that so very much does not correspond.

So, do we have a way to label this as "controversial" or "disputed" or something?

--Connel MacKenzie 05:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It certainly needs a bit of a clean up. It could also use references. Though, I'm not 100% sure, Connel, what you mean. Parts also overlap with my Sydney accent and parts don't. Is this odd, considering that it's a list of dialect-dependent homophones? I must be missing something. Jimp 07:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My definition is not that good - could someone provide a better one, please? — Paul G 10:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

When adding Hebrew translations for 'nice' I noticed that there is an extra translation section, not corresponding to any of the definitions: showing or requiring great precision or sensitive discernment. I personally don't think that this is a meaning of nice (although I'll accept different opinions if such exist), and (based on the translations), this actually belongs in the definitions of 'fine'. Does it seem reasonable to remove it? AggyLlama 01:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that the translations section is all jacked up. Personally, I think that only two of the definitions are valid (1 & 3). We should try and figure out exactly how many definitions we want, and then we can start working on the translation tables. Atelaes 08:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I think nice sometimes has the stated meaning of "showing or requiring great precision or sensitive discernment"; for example, a nice distinction. Here it does not mean pleasant, attractive, or tasty, it means something like fine. —Stephen 08:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Has Wikipedia-esque links. --Gobbler 09:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned it up bvut can someone check this def: conspiracy- the ability to have the material means and a motive to commit an act against the law.

probably said by some official, in purpose to give anyone with a real wiev of the goverment a hard hitting name.

Computer science entry needs to be trimmed and formatted. — Paul G 18:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of the definitions don't seem to make sense:

  1. comic good times marked by special events
  2. a parade group masquerading, especially when overstepping the bounds of decorum

Paul G 12:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Patricknoddy is a new user and has been adding place names in Alaska. All well and good, except he's been giving them plurals and what have you. I've cleaned up a few (such as Valdez) and let him know what he is doing wrong, but there are quite a few more. — Paul G 14:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. --Jackofclubs 10:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a word pronounced /ˈwɒri/ that has "ware" as one of its spellings. This pronunciation has crept on to the page for ware without a definition being given because "ware" is listed on the rhymes page for -ɒri. Please could someone add this word. Alternative spellings are "warree", "whare", "wharre" and "wharry". — Paul G 16:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

And others, same contributor. Could someone else please try to explain this to this contributor. The idea that we have a standard format is not getting through ... Robert Ullmann 11:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid that you can't tell this contributor anything - he's military and doesn't take orders from people like us. SemperBlotto 09:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Too many definitions.

Please see discussion page in order not to duplicate the discussion.

There are no less than five distinct words (that is, five different etymologies) in the entry sol, all with only one floating pronuciation section at the top. I've added the pronunciation which applies to the musical term, but does anybody else care to figure out to which of the senses that floating pronunciation applies? -- Beobach972 22:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would add a request for clarification on capitalization. Is the period of time capitalized (as here) or not (as on wp)? May the name of the star (our star) be written in either capitalization? \Mike 20:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

-- Beobach972 21:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted; not a suffix but an inflectional ending. --EncycloPetey 19:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
But what was the entry? It’s a plural suffix in English.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The entry was only for the Latin language, and I had created the entry long ago. If you think an English entry under that name is desirable, then you can create the entry without worrying about edit history (since it was only as Latin). --EncycloPetey 13:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Aah, OK. Still, don’t you reckon it’d be useful to have the Latin entry, too? We needn’t call it a suffix, if you deem that inaccurate (though I’m at a loss to decide what we should call it instead); the English etymology for many of these suffixes will just be “From Latin [inflexional ending].”, and the lack of a Latin-language referent would make that problematic. I’d quite like to have all these case and other endings treated on here in isolation from their usual paradigmata (like bellum for neuter nouns of the second declension, amō for much of the first conjugation, &c.); being a learner of Latin myself, I’d find that very useful — especially if our entries could elucidate the origins and historical development of the various endings. Since you “created the entry long ago”, you must have thought that to be appropriate at some point; what made you change your mind?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, if neither of us has a proposal for how to label them, then that makes the issue of keeping the entry moot, doesn't it? It's really difficult to keep such an entry if it has no header name.
Which English suffixes are you talking about? I don't know of any English suffixes that derive from Latin inflectional endings. They all seem to come from Latin suffixes. In any event, the origins and historical development of most of those endings (and even Latin suffixes) is not known or very obscure.
What made me change my mind was a better understanding of the difference between a suffix and inflectional ending. A suffix (as we use the term here) is used to form a new word, while an inflectional ending is used within a word. A word that has an inflection table will already have all the necessary forms listed. Not so for various suffixes. --EncycloPetey 13:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it's worthwhile to have entries for nonzero inflectional morphemes, where possible. (Sometimes it might not be — the inflectional morphemes in "mice" and "gave" are hard to pin down — but oftentimes it is.) —RuakhTALK 13:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

English, but with Cyrillic spellings? Are we sure this isn't Russian/Polish/Bosnian and not English? -- Beobach972 04:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that when a Serbian Bogdan emigrates and becomes a citizen of Britain or the U.S., then his name will be English. Certainly the Russian/Bulgarian/Ukrainian is Богдан. —Stephen 18:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the 'virginity' sense a noun or a verb? It is given the Verb POS header, but defined as 'The act of [...]'. -- Beobach972 18:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The synonyms look regional; for example, "skip" is the UK (Commonwealth?) term for the Americanism "dumpster", so "skipping" is probably a UK (or Commonwealth) term. The regionality of these terms needs to be researched and suitable labels added. — Paul G 09:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Do we add labels in the synonyms section? DAVilla 07:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
In Australia we use the word "skip" for the very large rubbish bins. I've never heard the verb "skipping" but I am familiar with the term "dumpster diving" but perhaps only from American sources/influence. I couldn't say "dumpster diving" is or isn't used in Australia but I can say that "dumpster" alone is not used there. It could be similar for the word "closet" which we don't used but we do used expressions such as "to come out of the closet" etc. — Hippietrail 00:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a section Mandarin there? AFAIK, that is not written in roman alphabet. If it is Pinyin, then it should be marked as such. Also, the pronunciation contains a double ˥, which seems nonsense to me, but I have no experience with tonal languages. H. (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Should be first tone first tone or first and neutral, but I don't know exactly how to mark that. And is it actually informal? Just because there's a more formal way to say it doesn't make this informal. DAVilla 18:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The computing noun sense contains typos, uses jargon, making it unclear, and has an example that seems to be for an attributive usage ("attribute set", if there is such a term). — Paul G 14:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely this could be more concise? --EncycloPetey 19:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I think...? it may still need some work. :) At least it's better. L☺g☺maniac chat? 20:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"LIS" is not a language; these seem to be Laboratory IS terms that might fit somewhere in the Appendix: namespace? Translations for each belongs on the entries, not in this tiny table (too small of a subset, anyhow.) So the non-English terms should just be removed from the table. --Connel MacKenzie 00:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Marked Roman spelling unknown/invalid header. There are many of these, but I have seen no suggestions for a different solution. A few languages such as Serbian are currently written in either the Roman or the Cyrillic alphabet at the writer’s whim, so every Serbian word has a Cyrillic spelling and an equally valid Roman spelling. (Russian, by contrast, is only written in Cyrillic, and any romanizations are due to equipment or software limitations or as an aid to people who are simply at sea with the Cyrillic alphabet.) Before these headers can be changed, another solution must first be decided on. —Stephen 17:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

But romanizations, whether used (e.g. romaji, pinyin, etc.) or just transliterations, are always given right on the inflection line. And then linked if they are used, and have their own entries.
Things like "Devanagari spelling" are a bit different, they clearly should be Alternative spellings (whether tagged as Devanagari or just treated as obvious ;-). Robert Ullmann 18:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
What I meant was that with Serbian, the Roman spelling is not a romanization, it is an alternative spelling. Serbian written in Roman or Cyrillic is like Urdu written in Arabic or Devanagari. Many people write Serbian exclusively in Cyrillic, and many others write it in the Roman alphabet instead. —Stephen 13:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
What about a level 3 version of the "Alternative spellings" header, which is already in use? --EncycloPetey 07:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I am all for a new method of listing these terms. But, I'm not in favor of using "Alternative spellings" header. Alternative spellings suggests that the word is pronunciated the same way (or very similarly) as another, but it is written just a bit differently. That is the case in English and how the header is used here. In this case, it is written in a different script. That deserves a completely different section. Making it a level 3 does not change anything and might even cause others to "fix" it. --Dijan 18:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Well they are alternative spellings so they would not be misnamed. Fewer kinds of headings is good - we don't really need specially named ones for each language which has been written in more than one script. We shouldn't worry about what the brief wording in headings or any other part of the user interface "suggests" because we can document them fully. This is already the case with the alternative spellings heading which has been contentious for years for "suggesting" it means something other than what it is. We can't put lengthy sentences in headings and labels and category names so we put the best concise term we can and then we explain it in lengthy sentences in the documentation. I don't see any problem with putting a (Cyrillic), (Urdu spelling) or somesuch for these under the one-size-fits-all "alternative spellings" heading. We already attach notes to many alt spelling entries to explain what countries it's used in, dates the spelling was standard, etc. — Hippietrail 00:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Latin spelling now on inflection line. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Unformatted quotations, a bunch of funny Cf.'s, derived terms defined on page. DAVilla 18:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 00:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Robert’s AutoFormat bot added this, however I think the L4 header ‘Names in other languages’ is appropriate here. ‘Translations’ is not appropriate, since there is no source language. Maybe it should handle Translingual entries with special care? H. (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If we agree on the header, is there a way to set a mark for the bot to ignore certain things? H. (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The header handling is all controlled by User:AutoFormat/Headers (like the documentation says ;-). It is listed as "non-standard" so it is recognized and not tagged. (for now, then we can decide what to do) There are other headers it is discovering along the way; this one was new (not in my previous reports on L3/4 headers). Robert Ullmann 17:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
While I very much appreciate all the work you're doing on the Greek letters, this has rather larger ramifications, I think. I propose that a BP discussion be started on the formatting for letters. There are a number of issues regarding grapheme entries which need to be addressed (for example, see the previous entry and some of the other cuneiform entries and the back and forth which has gone on between Stephen and Connel). These need to be settled properly. Also, I think it would be a good idea to set out a sort of standard format for letter entries, so that they don't all become so hodge-podge. Atelaes 11:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
A thought: wouldn't this "Names in other languages" be better as the Translations table at gamma. Wouldn't they be duplicates? I think this entry might just refer there? Robert Ullmann 11:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Translations moved to gamma. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read the def. I still have no idea what this word means. Widsith 17:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had linear algebra at the university level, and did well, and still have no idea what an eigenvalue is. DAVilla 22:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
That was largely my experience as well. I can work with the given definition to determine (on a case by case basis) whether a particular scalar is (or is not) an eigenvalue, so the definition is practical to a trained mathematician. However, I wouldn't want to try to explain the term eigenvalue to someone who didn't already understand the terms matrix, scalar, and determinant. --EncycloPetey 23:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The amount one must add or subtract from each element in a square matrix to reduce the determinant to zero. ;-) Robert Ullmann 11:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Not quite. To tweak your definition: The amount one must subtract from each element of the main diagonal of a square matrix to reduce the determinant to zero. I think adding that to the definition might very well make it clearer. --EncycloPetey 16:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I entered the original definition, but I was not as verbose as this. The thing is, you simply can't define words in higher mathematics without using non-technical language. If you want to understand what an eigenvalue is, then, as EncycloPetey says, you must already understand what matrices, scalars and determinants are. It's a bit like explaining to Galileo what the Internet is knowing that he doesn't understand what a computer is, or even what electricity is. — Paul G 15:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Eigenvalues needn't be associated with matrices. For example, the stationary solutions to the elementary wave equation in a bound medium, such as a column of air in a pipe or a stretched string clamped at both ends, are standing waves with associated discrete frequencies. Those frequencies are the eigenvalues of the problem/system and the corresponding waves are the eigenfunctions. — iharoldz 09:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Eh,yes iharoldz, but that is a special one-dimensional case, and yes a one-dimensional matrix is simply a number. I suppose a simplified definition could be "the number by which a vector is multiplied if a rotation does not affect its direction". Jcwf 17:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this a good title? -- Beobach972 18:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to my ears. --Connel MacKenzie 18:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
A past particple is a verb (form), no? It's not clear. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
No, it's a bad title. A verb can't be its own past participle. The participle of a verb can, however, be the same as its infinitive. A better title might be "Verbs whose past participles have the same form as their infinitives". (One example is set.)
See Appendix:English verbs with base form identical to past participle, which allows more flexible arrangement, which facilitates discovery of others derived from the base irregular verbs that account for these. What are the advantages of having this kind of thing as a category instead of an appendix? DCDuring TALK 23:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
If it were automatically generated by {{en-verb}}, it might pick up some cases that the appendix would miss. But it seems quite useless in its current form. -- Visviva 02:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Suggest Category:English verbs with past participle identical to base form, to be populated solely by {{en-verb}}. -- Visviva 03:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
So far, I've had more luck finding errors in the use of en-verb (forfeit didn't have forfeited as PP when that consistitutes >98% of current uage, fit only had fitted) The manual list missed a few stem verbs, not just derivatives. It seems to me that we need an Appendix to error-check. Quality improvement seems to need redundancy. The approach of using ad hoc or annual runs against dumps that are designed to check for specific problems seems way better than narrow-purpose categories. I'm inclined to have this one deleted in favor of an Appendix. Is it worth filling up space at the bottom of the screen. For the short stem verbs (fit, bit, bet, etc) the Category can be a few clicks below the landing screen. In contrast, the inflection line presents the fact of form-identity. I don't know why a user would look to the category for others. DCDuring TALK 12:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This was transwikied a while ago, and quite a few of its definitions seem to be red links. It would be nice to have some editors go through and copy-and-paste those into formatted articles where appropriate. Dmcdevit·t 09:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this genuine and useful, or part of User:KYPark's effort to link English and Korean? The differentiation of "native Korean" words from "Euro-Korean" makes me suspicious. — Beobach972 22:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This is part of KYPark’s delusion about Korean being genetically related to the Indo-European languages. Besides his steadfast refusal to use our approved Korean transcription system, he insists that he has the right to use Wiktionary to promote his unpopular linguistic theories. —Stephen 17:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright then, let's move this discussion to WT:RFDO. — Beobach972 02:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This category has articles from more than one language. Needs tidying up.--Williamsayers79 09:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


I'm going through and cleaning up the etymological nonsense, but I'd appreciate any help. Here are a bunch of entries that need cleanup : , , 등대, , 바르다, 까까, 과자, 설탕, , 바다코끼리, 두껍다, 엄마, , 부레, , bakke, , , 가다, , 솔기, 불라 (linked to Arabic! I'm impressed!), 두다, , bal, , 도끼 (again, impressive!), 썰다, 방아, 울안, 오른, 써리다. — Beobach972 03:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

See also and . — Beobach972 03:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
For some background on this subject, take a look at User talk:KYPark. A number of editors have attempted to deal with this (myself included), but it is a pickle, no doubt about it. Atelaes 03:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I've read through all that... that's why I didn't bother adding (what would just be yet another) section on this subject to the page. — Beobach972 19:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This monster of a word has 42 definitions. Surely some of them can be taken together no? Anyway, it needs some love. H. (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made some progress. I've made this a project of mine (but obviously, any help is welcome), I'll try to clean it up and group the ones that are related but cannot be combined. — Beobach972 15:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Why are the links in the definitions showing up in a different color on this page? --EncycloPetey 15:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The request-for-date template has some yellow text. For a while, links on this page to previously-visited pages mysteriously turned from blue to black instead of purple. Is that it? — Beobach972 14:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Part-serious, part-sarcastic aside: wait till we've finished working on "set". That has literally hundreds of separate senses. — Paul G 12:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean that hundreds of senses need to be added? I see only 40 or so senses (at most) on the page. — Beobach972 20:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

needs the works. Andrew massyn 20:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

One small section of this looks to be a mistake. Anyone more learned than me care to take a look. ===Adverb=== '''so''' # [[very|Very]]. #: ''He is '''so''' good!'' #: ''It’s not '''so''' bad.''

To me, ignorant as I am, this looks more like adjective use than adverb use.--Richardb 12:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So in "so good" and "so bad" is an adverb. Try translating them into some languages that differentiate adjectives and adverbs more clearly and you will see. —Stephen 13:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Redundant senses, ambiguous translation section. --Connel MacKenzie 12:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This entry is labelled "Scottish". Is it Scottish Gaelic, Scots, or Scottish English? --EncycloPetey 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is in the OED so must be English. They give its etymology as "Sc." - I think that means Scots. (And it was my mistake in the first place) SemperBlotto 08:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The grammatical notes in the translation tables are too discursive to fit comfortably. These need to be moved to the pages for the translations themselves. (I'd do this myself but I don't have time right now.) — Paul G 12:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact all the pronouns need a serious going-over. This is planned as one of my major summer projects when I'll have more time (in about two or three weeks). --EncycloPetey 15:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Needs formatting; in particular, needs the italbrac template. (I'd do this myself but I don't have time to right now.) — Paul G 12:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Which category naming scheme should be used, Category:German cardinal numbers or Category:de:Cardinal numbers? The subcategories need to be cleaned up. If, as I suspect, the Category:de:Cardinal numbers-style names are prefered, there is a lot of recategorising that we'll need to do. — Beobach972 20:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Numbers should have the respective language name, as in "German cardinal numbers", since they are actually German cardinal numbers (eins, zwei, drei, vier, fünf, etc., are German cardinal numbers). Since German cardinal number is a logical term, the "de:" format is not needed. —Stephen 13:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The community uses prefixes like de: for topical categories and language names like German for part of speech categories. Stephen dissents in this matter. For cardinal numbers, I use Category:de:Cardinal numbers and the like because it's a topical rather than a grammatical category. That is, there are words that may be defined as cardinal numbers for mathematics but which do not function grammatically as numerals. The cardinal number aleph-null is my standard example for this. It represents the number of items in a particular kind of infinite set. However, since most cardinal numbers function in a particualr grammatical way, I would include Category:de:Cardinal numbers within a grammatical category like Category:German numerals (or Category:German numbers, since the vote reached no consensus). This way they may be found by looking through a grammatical over-category.
You are correct that we have been very inconsistent in categorizing Numbers/Numerals, with different editors and languages using different terminology and approaches. As I noted above, I ran to vote to standardize them. The result was two small strongly-opinionated (and opposed) points of view with a large group of apathetic abstentions. --EncycloPetey 20:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
That’s probably because you probably held the vote on a "new" voting page which does not appear in people’s Watchlists. The dearth of votes isn’t due to apathy, but because the vote is effectively secret. —Stephen 13:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I didn't say there was a dearth of votes, I said that there was a large group of abstentions. They voted to abstain, so they obviously found the page and voted. The vote was announced in the Beer Parlour as well, though not everyone announces new votes that way. However, all votes are linked through a single coordinating page, so if you are having trouble keeping track of new votes then I suggest you put Wiktionary:Votes on your Watchlist. --EncycloPetey 15:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, alright. I've started to recategorise them. — Beobach972 02:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Wait a minute... we divide by POS... 'cardinal number' is a POS and is accepted as a header. What's the distinction here? — Beobach972 02:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

if anything, this page should be a Template: page, not a Wiktionary: page, if necessary at all? --Richardb 07:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think ideally it should be a help page or style guideline for concordances. But concordances are still a very underdeveloped area of Wiktionary at the moment. Dmcdevit·t 08:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

the heat is now off. Time to clean up and unprotect

Hopefully our visiting autocratic anarchist has done his dash and moved on to other parts. So time to clean up this horribly compromised entry. I've added my small suggestion at the end of the discussion page. --Richardb 14:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected. —Stephen 20:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(from RFV)

The sense "hair" - this has a citation so seems OK, but is it under the right etymology? — Paul G 10:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not a simple question to answer. The OED etymologies for poll are convoluted in the extreme. Appparently there were once several words spelled "poll" in various senses and origins; these led to several derived terms; these then collapsed back into the form poll, but the details are complicated. We're also missing many, many definitions of this word. Note that the Poll page is currently a redirect to poll. --EncycloPetey 16:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The poll tax article at Wikipedia mentions that "poll" once meant "head". It seems like a bit of a stretch to say that Stephenson meant "head" in this cite, but to me it clouds the "hair" definition a bit. Afiler 16:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • POS is "Abbreviation", but are these acronyms or just initialisms?
  • The expanded forms are given with initial capitals, which is probably incorrect. (The fact that an abbreviation is made up of capitals says nothing about the capitalisation of the expanded form.)
  • No meaning is given for the full phrase (although it can be guessed at).

Paul G 12:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is a nonstandard numbered POS heading used here? Just to mess up bots? Or just to be incomprehensible? --Connel MacKenzie 16:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's because the entry has two homographs, each of which has a different declension. Our structure has no other way to match declensions when we have homographs that belong to the same part of speech but decline differently. I've handled levo (for Latin) by assuming that there are two different etymologies for the two words, though I don't know what those etymologies are, and they may not in fact be different. --EncycloPetey 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
That seems to be a non-sequitur...if they have the same etymology, then they are the same word (with the same declination.) If they are separate words (homographs) then something in their origin is different. --Connel MacKenzie 17:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The lemma form is a homograph, but there are two different inflection lines because the other forms are different. It is possible for two words to share an etymological origin, but inflect differently. The point is that outside of English, we seldom have etymologies entered. For many languages, no good etymological research exists. We have to be able to cope with this fact. --EncycloPetey 17:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Entering "Unknown" for an etymology section is perfectly valid (when accurate.) Why should an exception be made for other languages? Etymology is equally counter-intuitive for definitions of English words. To be less ambiguous about what I said earlier: each lemma homograph is a separate word, with a separate etymology (even if they all say simply "unknown.") --Connel MacKenzie 03:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
In the same way that English sometimes has more than one plural to accommodate different senses (antennas, antennae), even though they have exactly the same etymology, Russian often will pronounce a word that has one spelling two different ways, with two different declensions, though they have the same etymology. Likewise, Arabic nouns frequently have different plurals for different senses of a word, sometimes even different genders, even though they share the same etymology. The same thing occurs in many different languages, and while there are occasionally different etymologies, usually the homographs share the same etymology. —Stephen 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, antenna is a good example of what I mean: the things sticking up on an insect's head are not the same word (lemma?) as the electronic devices used to relay radio waves. Certainly, the etymology of the electronic device should not be the same, as that word's origin came from an imitation of the things sticking up from an insect's head. (When the Latin word for the things atop an insect's head was devised, electronics did not exist. When the term was borrowed from Latin into English, electronics did not exist. When television sets were invented with two things sticking up from the "head", Latin was already "dead.") --Connel MacKenzie 06:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
But surely they are the same, the radio devices being named after the insects' —Saltmarsh 05:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, the situation is generally different in the case of English, since English has borrowed the vast majority of its lexicon from other languages, especially Old French. Most languages have not done this, or at least not in historical times, and homographs are not borrowed from two similar languages, but are native vocabulary. So, the only etymological differences, if there are any at all, are the etymologies of the plural affixes. The stems of homographs usually have the same etymology. —Stephen 20:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I have, coincidentally, just runn into the same problem with θέρος with 2 genders, 2 meanings (harvest & summer) but surely 1 etymology. —Saltmarsh 05:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Or лебедь with two genders, two declensions, one meaning (but one poetic, one regular). Same etymology. —Stephen 18:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure that my logic above is right and philologist I aint. But if θέρος has 2 genders, it is 2 words not one they both evolved from Ancient Greek when both meanings (harvest and summer) had the same n. gender. At some point the word for harvest changed gender so θέρος (n.) θέρος (m.) have different etymologies - the masculine version has a step beyond the neuter version - whether this was taken last year or 500y ago is irrelevant? —Saltmarsh 14:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Verb: still needs a rewrite. --Connel MacKenzie 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've rfc'ed this category for two reasons: primarily to establish its parentage as it occurs to me that intensifiers should not be considered a Parts Of Speech category. Secondly, I believe there are some items in the category which do not belong. __meco 11:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Usually, intensifiers are Adjectives, so no, I do not believe that inventing a new p-o-s classification is correct. Also, not all definitions will necessarily be identified as an intensifier, so having the ability to simply tag individual definitions is better, in my opinion. --Connel MacKenzie 16:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Intensifiers can also be adverbs, and in some languages particles. This isn't a part of speech, it's a function like negation is. --EncycloPetey 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this a noun? Should it be capitalized, then? --Connel MacKenzie 16:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It’s a pronoun. Cleaned up. —Stephen 20:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The quotations need some work. H. (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done ; ) L☺g☺maniac chat? 21:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Etymology is a mess. --Connel MacKenzie 15:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now edited this quite a bit, but I left the clean-up tag since the exact quotation is still needed. -- WikiPedant 14:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
An American Glossary - Page 762
by Richard Hopwood Thornton - 1912
1868 1839 What in sam hill is that feller ballin' about ? ... He had bought him
a little bobtailed mouse-colored mule, and was training him like Sam Hill. ...
Also, I didn't find "Sam Hill" in TKAM, but it does seem to be present in the "Play" adaptation for Broadway. But searching "Sam Hill" on b.g.c. shows that it is much older than that etymology suggested. (Thank you for cleaning that up, BTW.) --Connel MacKenzie 08:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The definition makes no sense to me. Needs attention from somebody familiar with this concept. -- WikiPedant 02:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The etymology is spread all over the article, should be brought together. H. (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, we had quite a run with the "whale penis" vandalism. I think it was Paul that verified it as completely untrue (just a 4chan vandalism effort or something.) --Connel MacKenzie 21:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I mean the ‘door key child’ thing, which should be split in its own etymology. H. (talk) 08:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
That seems to me to be an RfV-sense candidate. DCDuring TALK 12:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Put in rfv. H. (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 21:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's O.K. now, at least cleanliness-wise. Properly speaking, the term should probably be capitalized ("Click wheel" or "Click Wheel", I'm not sure which), but plenty of b.g.c. hits don't capitalize it; this might be a matter for RFV. The bigger problem as I see it is that we currently give only the iPod sense of the term, which while currently the primary sense (if Google is any indication), is presumably not going to last as long as the traditional sense. —RuakhTALK 23:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree the definition could be rewritten. An iPod is merely an example, but probably shouldn't even be mentioned. --Connel MacKenzie 15:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged, but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the plural of these words? Any botanist know what the various plants referred to are? Every dictionary I look at seems to have different definitions. — Paul G 06:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not in Mabberley (The Plant-Book), so I couldn't guess which plant(s) is meant. Common names for plants can be highly regional. Consider that Populus alba (the white poplar) is commonly called a sugar maple in the Ozarks and Oauchitas, even though it's not even remotely a maple tree. For an animal example, consider that the robin is an entirely different bird in the US and UK. About their only similarity is a bit of red color (or colour) on the breast. My guess for the plural is that it's the same as the singular. For almost any plant, and especially grasses and shrubs, a group of individual plants uses a mass noun identical to the singular, as in: The hillside was covered in heather. An inflected form for the plural shows up when individuals are being emphasized, as in: The forest was dark under the oaks.; or for showy flowers, as in: We strolled among the roses.; or when the common name is used to refer to a suprageneric taxon such as a family, as in: The lilies have flowers with six tepals and a superior ovary, I couldn't say what form the plural would take in this case, as it might not even be used. --EncycloPetey 06:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. The reference works with differing definitions are the OED (two defs: heart-clover; floating heart), onelook (two defs, including "wild ginger"); and Wikipedia (Houttuynia cordata as a root vegetable). — Paul G 06:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, I don't have access to a British Flora these days. For the OED, we'd be dealing with nomenclature from over 100 years ago, subject to lots of changes. So, the species might have been split into two new ones, or it might have been subsumed into another one. I can say that most clovers are in genus Trifolium, and most have heart-shaped leaflets (in threes) at the end of each leaf. I wouldn't want to guess at "floating heart" (which does not have an OED entry!), since it could be a water lily or a member of the litle floating aquatic plant species with heart-shaped leaves (whose name escapes me at the moment). Wild ginger is usually Asarum canadense (which is in no way related to the plant used in cooking as ginger). --EncycloPetey 06:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
As for the plural, I wonder whether it is "-leafs" or "-leaves"; if this is a plant you can buy, would you ask for "two heart-leafs" or "two heart-leaves"? Comparing Google hits doesn't help much. — Paul G 06:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Calling all botanists again... What is the plural? Which binominal name is correct? The OED has Ouvirandra fenestralis but Wikipedia has Aponogeton madagascariensis and Aponogeton fenestralis. — Paul G 06:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the International Plants Names Index, Ouvirandra fenestralis is now called Aponogeton fenestralis. The genus Ouvirandra was subsumed into the genus Aponogeton. --EncycloPetey 07:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - that's very helpful. I'll update the article accordingly. — Paul G 08:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:picture. --Connel MacKenzie 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary comment: "rfc novial : shouldn't the stuff in Derivation be in a standard Etymology section?" User:Hippietrail. --Connel MacKenzie 22:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Done DCDuring TALK 17:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No POS entered. --Connel MacKenzie 22:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have started working on this in hopes of updating it enough to remove both the rfc and the webster's warning tag. I would appreciate any advice or thoughts or evaluation here or on Talk:leader. DCDuring TALK 20:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Attention Cantonese added. DCDuring TALK 17:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 22:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Done IMHO. DCDuring TALK 17:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Students of Hebrew and Aramaic use those terms in English. There really are no common English equivalents that someone who knew nothing about Hebrew would understand. English has some parts of speech that do not exist in some other languages, and some languages have parts of speech that are different from the English ones. Sometimes we try to use an English term, such as gerund for the Russian деепричастие, but it causes a lot of confusion since it is quite different from an English gerund. For example, an English gerund is a verbal noun, but a деепричастие is in no way a noun. Trying to force foreign languages into an English mold may work for closely related languages such as Spanish, French, and German, but the more distant the language, the more it does not fit the mold. —Stephen 16:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Stephen, we don't ONLY have our current format, so that the end result is comprehensible (unlike this current entry.) We also avoid things like "Qal construction" as headings to avoid allegations that we are taking some of our material from copyright-protected sources. While I agree that the etym/POS breakdown does not work, even for English, it is the Wiktionary way. From my perspective, there is no way that the POS heading "Participle" can be a Level-5 heading. For the "Qal construction", that is quite absolutely, undeniably "Etymological" information!
This is the English Wiktionary, with articles written for ENGLISH READERS. Writing an entry in a style comprehensible only to Hebrew linguists is not appropriate. --Connel MacKenzie 09:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at what I've done with this? DCDuring TALK 01:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Now deleted. DCDuring TALK 01:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC) done. DCDuring TALK 02:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the entry seems to be how to handle the vast number of examples: on second thought, anyway, but seriously folks, .... Shouldn't this be a category or a grammatical marker for senses or even a PoS heading? The words and phrases that are used as discourse markers appear under PoS headers of idiom, phrase, interjection, adverb, and possibly others. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is upset by me listing these 113 previously tagged, but unlisted entries, I'll be happy to move them as a list to my userpage-space, and continue adding them here only intermittently. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If this is a Provençal given name, then it should not be under an English language header. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It’s English with a Provençal etymology. —Stephen 16:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a Greek placename — albeit Romanised — not an English one, and should therefore not be under an English language header. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It’s English, just as Athens and Beijing are English. —Stephen 16:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As per Amfilohia. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As per Amfilohia. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As per Amfilohia. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As per Amfilohia. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As per Amfilohia. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably not English, but rather Spanish or Belizean Kriol. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 08:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved to ايفاء. —Stephen 16:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Should the translations all just be marked with "TTBC"? --Connel MacKenzie 08:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Two are, but no point in adding 20 ttbcs. DCDuring TALK 17:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 08:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Change to {{rfd-sense}}? --Connel MacKenzie 08:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The indentation levels are incorrect and sort out which meanings belong to which etymology. Also clean up cites (dates and markup). H. (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up structure, but not cites. DCDuring TALK 11:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What a mess. Tagged, but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 19:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The derived terms section includes terms derived from terms in the list (eg, "ideally" from "ideal") which should be moved out of this table; further, not all terms are derived from "idea": those beginning "ideo-" are certainly not; these may well be related, however.

Note that this table was mistitled "Related terms", so probably lumped all derived and related terms together. — Paul G 14:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The usage notes are a bit messy (I moved one from in between the definitions). Citations need dates as well. Doe we want WEAE in pronunciation sections? H. (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The language of the definition seems a little old-fashioned, and the definition doesn't correspond with emir (which lists amir) as an alternative spelling). Pistachio 08:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Improved. —Stephen 14:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. *-* Pistachio 17:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved from RFV.

Is this any more than the sum of its parts? SemperBlotto 07:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem any different from most of our {{legal}} terms. There is a sense missing, in the context of group benefits meaning groups of groups. I'd say yes, this is a technical definition...just jargon specific to both the legal and health insurance industries. --Connel MacKenzie 03:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Did you mean to RFD? Keep per Connel. DAVilla 17:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

POS? --Connel MacKenzie 19:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Not an easy question to answer. I've begun learning a little Indonesian, and I'm baffled so far by the way they handle parts of speech. The definitions I can find for this word are sometimes verbs, sometimes adjetives, sometimes adverbs, and even nouns. And no, the definitions are not sorted according to these various POS as we understand them. As near as I can make out, Indonesian uses a number of base forms and the addition of affixes shades the meaning to the desired sense, grammar, and part of speech (see w:Indonesian_language#Grammar). It will take someone very familiar with both Indonesian and the study of grammar to categorize any Indonesian word we have questions about. --EncycloPetey 18:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a symbol, right? --Connel MacKenzie 23:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a letter, used in cuneiform languages. However, it's also a word, and so does require all the separate language sections that it has. Unfortunately Dbachmann was one of the few people on Wiktionary who knew enough about these characters to write a proper entry on them. My suggestion is to simply leave them as they are. While they are rather garbled, I believe they do contain a fair bit of good information. Hopefully, someone will come along, in time, who knows enough about cuneiform languages (and is willing to follow Wiktionary formatting policies) to create a better entry. Atelaes 23:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Cuneiform is a script used to write long-extinct languages. While research exists for these languages, most of it seems to be heavily copyright protected research. Two of the 19 references listed on w:Cuneiform seem OK, but are written in German. The notion that we should wait for a native speaker come along and flesh out these entries is not reasonable. The information that is there offhand seems highly suspect; either it is is translated from German (where it might violate NOR,) or is gleaned from copyright-protected sources. Simply leaving it alone seems precarious. I suppose the argument could be made that the information has been "common knowledge" since 1841, but I wouldn't believe that the whole body of research was, personally. The fact that the "contents" of the entry is unintelligible (codes cross-referencing modern research texts, presumably) make this more suspicious. Move to RFD? Or to WT:BP? --Connel MacKenzie 01:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone User:Michelo moved this entry from "evil" to "badness". It needs to be split ito "evil" and "badness", as it is a fairly useless mish-mash as it is.

And why they moved it is beyond me. There is an evilentry in Roget's for starters. Do they think "Evil" and "badness" are the same thing ?

And then some of the words in it are completely dubious for either category - funmaker, joker, elf, bad boy, mischief ???

Which does raise a question about whther Wikisaurus will ever work if people are that s*!$@d.

I'll try to clean it up, work out what they were really trying to do. --Richardb 03:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

We have been trying to fit foreign languages into English patterns, sometimes disasterously. Maybe we should have a miscellaneous header, such as ===Other===, which could be followed with Predicative, or Predicate marker, or whatever the case may be. In adalah for example, the word is a predicate marker, and while it is in no wise a verb, it is often translated as one. Russian words such as нельзя are predicatives, words that act as a sort of verb but which are not verbs. Changing the headers to ===Other=== 'Predicative, etc., would be much better than mistakenly changing to ===Preposition=== or ===Verb===. —Stephen 16:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not use Particle? --EncycloPetey 22:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Particle is vague enough that it could be used for this one case, but it still has to mention that it’s a predicative marker because particle is too broad. But there are a number of other cases where different languages have parts of speech not found in English and where particle can’t be used. There are some words that could be labelled "impersonal verbs", but which cannot be called simply "verbs". Since they are not verbs and the header "impersonal verb" is too exotic, something else needs to be found (I think it would be a stretch to call them particles). There are other words that may be called predicatives, but they are neither verb nor adverb. German has something vaguely similar to some of these called modals, but modals are true verbs, and predicatives are not verbs. There might be some little-known term for some of these words that I don’t know about, but that offers no help. There are some Russian words that are occasionally called gerunds, but which are nothing like English gerunds and are not verbal nouns or any other kind of noun (some people call them gerunds because there are partial parallels with the Latin gerund). If they cannot be called what they are (adverbial participles), then we need a vague term like ===Other===. I don’t think anything like particle, noun, verb, or adverb will work for them. I can add the correct term for all these words, but the correct term is frequently different from standard English grammar and so someone has to clean them up by "Anglicizing" the headers. It seems to me that the safest thing to do would be to create a catch-all header like ===Other===. That way at least, predicative markers would not get changed to ===Preposition===, and Russian gerunds would not be changed to ===Noun===. —Stephen 23:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand the problem. I'm partial to using ===Participle=== in Latin because calling them "verb" or "adjective" isn't adequate. Personally, I would rather see a new positive descriptive header used to tell the user what an entry is, rather than use a vague ===Other=== which simply tells the user what the entry isn't. This might mean expanding the unofficial list at WT:POS, but then we are trying to include "all words in all languages", so there are bound to be some POS headers that look unfamiliar to English speakers. In this particular case, why not use Particle and add some Usage notes to explain the entry's function a bit? --EncycloPetey 23:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I would much prefer to call things what they are. Participles play major roles in Russian and Arabic, too. Russian participles are complex and "adjective" is not adequate for them. Arabic participles are sometimes used as adjectives, sometimes and nouns, but very often in place of finite verbs, and therefore they cannot be called adjectives. There are numerous other cases specific to certain languages. But there are complaints that calling things what they are has a deleterious effect on some statics and cause problems for bots. I haven’t seen these statistics and it’s difficult to imagine why they would be of more than passing importance, but I do understand the bot argument, more or less. What if we included an invisible code at the beginning of nonstandard headers, such as ==={{@}}Participle=== which would tell the bots to ignore it? I doubt that there is any reasonably good solution to this problem, especially because of the statistics concern. Right now it’s a mess, and people cleaning pages in languages they don’t understand are just messing them up. —Stephen 16:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
That's one of the key reasons I moved to get WT:POS started. The idea was to have a reference list for POS headers in use that bot users could compare against. If there was a need for a new header, there would be a place to list it and explain the rationale for including it. As one of the people cleaning up messy old headers, I can understand the concern. We have Pronoun, but also Personal Pronoun, Demonstrative Pronoun, Interrogative Pronoun, etc., and all of these can simply be Pronoun. At the same time I understand the issue that not all languages fit neatly into the classical mold of Latin grammarians. I suspect once most of the cruft is cleaned away and a bit more standardization is in place, there will be less concern for bot issues. In any event, having a list of headers (even if it's still unofficial) should solve much of the bot problem. Connel and Robert would be better able than I to speak on that issue. --EncycloPetey 01:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: If there are some POS headers you've been wanting to see added, a discussion on this topic has just begun in the Beer Parlour. --EncycloPetey 05:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this French slang for drunk/stoned (lit?) --Connel MacKenzie 10:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it’s an Anglicism. I’ve never heard allumé used to mean drunk or stoned before. —Stephen 17:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard it, either; I think it might be heavily dated slang. The digitized Trésor de la Langue Française (TLFi) includes as a sub-sub-sub-sub-sense (sub-sense of the figurative sub-sense of the light-related sub-sense of the adjective sub-sense):
Arg. [Slang], pop. [native] ,,Échauffé par le vin.`` ["Heated by wine"] (LARCH. 1880 [i.e., the def was taken from an 1880 source])
and gives a cite from 1887.
RuakhTALK 19:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Should this word be under, or include, Hindi script? Pistachio 17:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The "usage notes" are longer than the dictionary entry. This is becoming an encyclopedic entry, and need to be cleaned up. —This unsigned comment was added by Littlebum2002 (talkcontribs) 21:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

I tried to clean it up, but there are probably NPOV problems now. More eyes welcome. —RuakhTALK 01:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the fact that the usage notes are longer than the entry should bother us, especially for such a term, where the usage is subject to so much debate and the term is so frequently used with a fairly precise definition. Many of the usage notes in American Heritage (at least online) are longer than the terms' definitions, and they have concerns about concision (at least in their printed editions) that we don't have.
The usage notes as they were were not encyclopedic. People coming to a dictionary expect to understand a word's meaning and how it's used (along with pronunciation, etymology, and other things), and many dictionaries employ usage notes, quotations, and example sentences for that reason. Many terms that cannot be effectively summed up in a section shorter than the definition, and I think we should include racism among them because of the many common usages of the term that are not encapsulated in mainstream dictionaries.
The current usage notes section is just a list of rather unclear ideas about the term, some of which don't belong on that page. For example, I don't really think reverse racism deserves more than a simple mention; the paragraph currently there belongs in some form on the reverse racism article itself and not on the article for racism. Personally I feel like the usage notes have gotten significantly worse than they were before, but I don't exactly have an unbiased opinion (even were such a thing possible). That said, they should probably just be removed until someone with more interest in citing their sources than I is willing to take a stab at them. I've always been more interested in arguing ideas than in researching (the latter of which is much more valuable and certainly more appropriate in this forum). Jun-Dai 02:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

several words which appear not to be synonyms, and not listed under any other heading.--Richardb 13:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What...the...@#$%? --Connel MacKenzie 20:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No idea what the person was trying to do. --EncycloPetey 23:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Vietnamese section probably needs a L3 ('POS') header, if not other cleanup. — Beobach972 02:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The definition is in term of verbs, while the word is a noun. Wikipedia gives something else to interpret. H. (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This entry needs cleaning up and formatting better, but I'm not certain how to go about it. Thryduulf 17:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The noun and verb senses need standardising. I'm not certain how to sort it, particularly the noun sense which is almost exclusively used in plural (some senses are plural only) but the singular does exist. Thryduulf 21:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The noun senses refer to numbered senses of other definitions which are no-longer accurate. For exmaple definition 6 starts "by extension of (6)... ". Thryduulf 11:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Needs wikilove. --Connel MacKenzie 19:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. The definition needs to be split and probably made not quite so technical (and that’s coming from me!). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The two senses seem to be an avalent and a copula sense of "look" with the preposition "like". Do they belong at "look"? Rod (A. Smith) 19:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think this deserves its own entry, though I'm not sure that the first sense currently on the page is worth retaining here. It looks like it's only a particular use of "like", and is synonymous with "look as though". However, the second definition isn't synonymous with the same set of uses. Rather, the second definition is synonymous with "resemble", so its meaning is equicalent to that of other words-in-their-own-right. There's also a third sense, as evidenced by the construction: "It looks like rain," which isn't covered by either of the existing definitions. That puts two solid definitions on this one contstruction (if we discount the existing first one), neither of which shares the same set of synonymous expressions as the other. --EncycloPetey 19:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I probably didn't express myself clearly. I wasn't RFD'ing the entry, but rather RFC-ing it because I think the definitions belong at "look" noting their use with "like". The idiomatic sense seems part of the verb "look" with a normal sense of the word "like". Consider the following:
  • It looks like I'm stuck with you.
  • It looks as though I'm stuck with you.
  • Ostriches look like emus to some people, but they are only distantly related.
  • Ostriches look similar to emus to some people, but they are only distantly related.
Rod (A. Smith) 16:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Like "look like", "look alike" probably belongs on "look". Consider these two sentences:

  • They look alike.
  • They look identical.

Rod (A. Smith) 18:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a look alike should be listed as a noun as well. But "look like" seems to be sum-of-parts. --Connel MacKenzie 18:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
For example, "The Dodge Shadow was more than a look alike of the Plymouth Sundance; they actually were the same car with only a nameplate change." --Connel MacKenzie 18:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Random combination of words, or a regional equivalent of air show? --Connel MacKenzie 20:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

To me an air display is a performance of aerobatics, etc. (more than just a fly-past) at an event that is not an air show. For example I went to the British Grand Prix (Formula One) a few years back, and there were air displays by the w:Red Arrows (Sunday) and the w:Blue Eagles (Saturday). An airshow being an event where aircraft are the primary focus - e.g the w:Royal International Air Tattoo. Thryduulf 21:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
That's pretty much my understanding too. Although the term might sometimes be used synonymously with "air show", that doesn't seem to fully capture the meaning. For example, as you say, a performance at a Grand Prix would normally be called an "air display", not an "air show". In the UK anyway. Matt 00:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC).
Alrighty then, moving to WT:RFC instead. --Connel MacKenzie 05:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 01:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you checked whether this is a copyvio? Thryduulf 08:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone decrypt this into English please? :-) I have no idea what it means to say. Dmcdevit·t 03:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The link to here uses PAGENAME, not FULLPAGENAME, so I've masked the "Transwiki:" portion.
RFC 3251 is about telephone-over-ip "Session Initiation Protocol". Their definition is:

Address-of-Record: An address-of-record (AOR) is a SIP or SIPS URI that points to a domain with a location service that can map the URI to another URI where the user might be available. Typically, the location service is populated through registrations. An AOR is frequently thought of as the "public address" of the user.

and although similar to the definition given in the transwiki, doesn't convey that that it is the reported address you'd connect to, to establish connection with someone over a bridge or through a NAT firewall, etc. --Connel MacKenzie 04:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this a noun? --Connel MacKenzie 18:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

From the example sentence I'd have said it was an adjective, but The Chambers Dictionary (1998) has it as a noun. Thryduulf 20:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Move to "milk"? Rod (A. Smith) 20:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --EncycloPetey 21:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Moving to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#milk it. Mglovesfun 11:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This Japanese Romaji entry needs formatting and cleanup. --EncycloPetey 22:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Made it look like a normal romaji entry Cynewulf 03:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The order of entries needs correcting, a translation table needs constructing and the definition wouldn't harm from condensing. Thryduulf 23:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
"Nounal sense"? What is the preoccupation with unfamiliar terms, when actual English words suffice so much better? --Connel MacKenzie 04:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Noun and verb are nouns; nounal and verbal are adjectives. I am merely being grammatical. (Connel, just what exactly is your esoteric definition of an “actual English word”?) † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 07:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, the normal adjective form of noun would be nominal, and while perhaps verbal has an adjective sense definable as "of or pertaining to a verb", its main sense is quite different. Secondly, there's nothing ungrammatical about using a noun attributively, as in "noun sense" and "verb sense". Thirdly, seeing as the translation sections appear within the part-of-speech section to which they apply, immediately after the definitions, I don't think including the part of speech in the table header is helpful or useful. Fourthly, there's a convention here of giving glosses in the translation table header — essential if another sense is later added. —RuakhTALK 16:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitions overlap etc. Native speaker needed. H. (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The "separate" definitions (all) under etymology 2 and 3 should be one single definition. The (very, very rare) stitching tightness is just a figurative use from same definition, certainly not a separate etymology. Bizarre that someone split it up so much. --Connel MacKenzie 15:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The numerous unnecessary headers need cleanup. --EncycloPetey 05:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Needs to be made into a table. —Stephen 12:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This needs controlling by native (better) speakers of Spanish and Swedish, copied over from Tamil. H. (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the Spanish section. --EncycloPetey 08:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The Swedish section is ok. Striking this. \Mike 10:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

All but two senses seem bogus or non-sensibly over-precise. For example, marijuana and tobacco are both weeds, but the slang usually refers only to marijuana. Rather than list the senses on RFD/RFV, I tagged them so it is clear (clearer) what my complaints are, directly in the entry. After cleanup, if any remain I guess they can be nominated on RFD or RFV.

The translations seem to depend on the Polish language's distinction of lots of sub-senses. The English meanings shouldn't be split out to accommodate that, rather, the translation tables where it applies should list the three variants and what restrictions apply (one or two words, with usage notes or full glosses given as explanation on the target Polish entries.)

--Connel MacKenzie 02:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments on some of the senses to be discussed:
  • I can cite usage of weed to mean tobacco from Tolkien (and it's in the OED). I remember the Peter Jackson film sticking to the original line from the first book of "Finest weed in the South Farthing", which caused unintended laughter amongst the Berkeley audience I saw it with. We should keep the "tobacco" sense, however, we should probably mark it as archaic or obsolete, given that it's no longer understood to mean that by most English speakers.
  • The sense of "cigar" is listed and cited in the OED (likely obsolete now), so is the "animal unfit to breed from" although the OED specifically applies it to horses and says that it pertains to a mangy straggly sort of appearance.
  • The "underbrush" sense is not redundant. Look closely and you'll see it's (uncountable), and is therefore not truly combinable with sense 1.
  • I don't find any evidence of "sudden illness" or "somthing unprofitable" as possible definitions.
--EncycloPetey 06:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I've made some of those changes, and reordered the current meanings to come before the obsolete meanings, and the rfv-senses to come after that. --Connel MacKenzie 18:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure media whore is an appropriate word for a dictionary , it's more an insult than something else and it should at least get the appropriate definition(not the one it has now, as it is a term to refer ppl using their popularity). Anyway, the better thing to do remains to be to delete the word's page on wiktionary right now. —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Firstly, as a real word in a real language it is suitable for inclusion in Wiktionary. I have added a second definition based on my understanding and a suggestion at talk:media whore, and marked both definitions as (derogatory) to better convey how the word is used. If you feel the definition is still lacking, please either improve it yourself or let us know specifically how you feel it can be improved. Thryduulf 16:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I think this is merelt a specific use of the general word whore with a modifier, so it does not require a separate entry. --EncycloPetey 19:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The etymology for this Dutch word seems to be for another Dutch word, or am I mistaken? --EncycloPetey 06:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be under Derived terms rather than Etymology. —Stephen 14:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. I think the User who created this entry is regularly confusing Etymology with Derived terms. Thanks for figuring this out. --EncycloPetey 18:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition given:

  1. "the relative structural importance of events as heard within contextually established rhythmic units" takes place over the time-span segmentation

It's apparently from the referenced source: Lerdahl, Fred (1992). Cognitive Constraints on Compositional Systems, Contemporary Music Review 6 (2), pp. 97-121.

I can't make much sense of the given definition, but it needs to be written anew from a copyright standpoint, anyway. Rod (A. Smith) 06:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As noted in WT:BP#DeLone copyvios?, the music definitions for the above entries contain definitions for which DeLone and Lerdahl hold the copyright. Rod (A. Smith) 05:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 13:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the English form should be moved to lowercase. —Stephen 12:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The Portuguese translation translates the definition, not the headword. It needs to be replaced with a proper definition or, if none exists, trimmed into a brief gloss (the current one is far too wordy). — Paul G 13:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this could maybe have a good entry some day, but right now has no content and should really be cleaned up and have a decent def and format put in. Neskaya 22:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

These two entries need cleaning up in conjunction with each other. They each imply that a double negation to imply a weak positive (e.g. "not bad" meaning "alright", "so so"; "not unhappy" meaning neither particularly happy nor unhappy) is the other. Thryduulf 15:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether this has been changed yet, but based on the current definitions, I disagree:
Firstly, neither of them necessarily mean a "weak positive"; Double Negatives can just be considered bad english, and Litotes quite often imply a strong positive.
Secondly, the overall opinion of the two differ widely; Litotes are used deliberately, and intended for emphasis, whereas Double Negatives are generally frowned upon, and considered a mistake.
P.S. This is my first comment; I hope I'm not out of place! Dave
—This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 09:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC).
We may disagree, but they are not out of place.
An entry is not supposed to be written as if we were a grammar, usage, or style guide. We have a "lexical" focus, about words as words. We usually hint at such matters, perhaps illustrating the phenomenon with examples, as we would other entries with a photo or drawing, and pass the user on to Wikipedia or an Appendix. DCDuring TALK 14:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, the "usage notes" don't really belong there, because they aren't describing how to use the phrase double negative. Equinox 13:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I have reworded the first sentence at double negative to make it more like a real usage note, while still hinting at the "correctness" matter. The other material is commented out or moved to an Examples box. Is the Examples box useful? DCDuring TALK 14:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I have moved the examples at litotes to an Examples box and added a double negative example.
Many linguistic and rhetorical entries exhibit inappropriate modality. The location that should be for usage examples of the word is instead used for illustrations of the phenomenon. Ruakh's recent {{Examples-right}} provides a format for such things that eliminates, I think, the modal confusion. Many similar linguistic and rhetorical entries need to be appropriately modified. DCDuring TALK 15:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Lowercase? --Connel MacKenzie 22:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Seemingly like the names of most cheeses, the capitalisation of the name is not fixed (e.g. cheddar and Cheddar are used interchangeably to refer to the cheese, although the toponym is universally capitalised). In this instance, there are too few b.g.c hits in English to form a representative sample, but about 70-80% of the google web hits are capitalised.
According to the google web hits, "Ardi Gasana" is not a toponym, but is Basque for "sheep's cheese" (or "ewe's cheese"). My knowledge of capitalisation in Basque is non-existent, but the name of the cheese should get a Basque entry at whichever is correct (similarly also French and German and possibly other languages, based on the b.g.c hits). The individual words should also get Basque entries if they haven't already (I haven't checked). Thryduulf 22:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotes need dates etc. One definition is a bit strange, native speaker needed. H. (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree about that definition, I've marked it for RFV. Thryduulf 11:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the etymology for this is wrong... It's from the Arabic المناخ (al-manaakh) rather than the Greek, I'm sure. We might've got the word through Greek, but it probably came from the Arabic to start with. المناخ means "the climate" Sorry if I'm wrong Jakeybean 18:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually this word has a confusing origin. It is likely that it went from Coptic to Late Greek to Hispano-Arabic, and then from there into Arabic المناخ as well as to Latin or French. Arabic المناخ has two distinct meanings, climate and way station, presumably both from نوخ (náwwaxa, to stop for a rest)...since the meaning of climate is quite a stretch, it is possible that this meaning of المناخ is unrelated to the other, but was borrowed from Hispano-Arabic and associated with نوخ by backformation. —Stephen 12:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This definitions for allopathic and allopathy are no good. The origins of the word and its current usage differ significantly. See Talk:allopathic for examples of its usage. There is wide regional variation in how the term is used, and in the connotations it carries: U.S v U.K. v India. Can someone with some Wiktionary expertise take a look. Thanks. —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 17:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC).

Here in the US, I've never heard either. Very interesting, though. Google news is suggestive, that it may be an India-only set-phrase. If that is so, then it should have {{India}} at the start of the definitions. (Note the Connecticut news item had to define it in parenthesis.) The allopathic definition should explain what allopathy is and perhaps give an example that uses 'homeopathic medicine' (its antonym) as a counter-option. --Connel MacKenzie 05:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
In my region of the US, I've only heard “allopathy” in discussions about homeopathy. Specifically, I've heard people in chiropractor's offices refer with disdain to the American Medical Association and, seemingly by association, to allopathy in general. I don't specifically remember hearing “allopathic”, but I'm sure it's part of the vocabulary of those who say “allopathy”. Rod (A. Smith) 05:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, I've only heard "allopathic" when a friend of mine specifically mentioned both kinds of medical college in one sentence; otherwise she referred to allopathic ones as simply "medical schools". —RuakhTALK 06:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Note: lots of reading material on talk:allopathic. --Connel MacKenzie 04:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Our current definition of allopathy is "traditional medicine" but the wikipedia article it linsk to defines it as "Allopathic medicine or allopathy, a term for scientific, research-based orthodox medicine". I'm not convinced this is the first use of traditional I'd think of. RJFJR 12:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a transcript of recent congressional testimony where the word is used frequently:
Salsberg, Edward.Testimony to United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. Association of American Medical Colleges. 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:allopathic for some sources. 20:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC) [Copied from Allopathy/Allopathic below DCDuring 22:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]

Circular definition. --Connel MacKenzie 17:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Redundant defs (translations obviously only to one encompassing definition.) --Connel MacKenzie 17:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I merged the first two defs. The remaining unmerged one (“the computing department of an organization”) seems distinct to me, so I didn't merge it. Opinions? Rod (A. Smith) 17:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree/but - it would be shorthand for "IT Section", "IT Dept", etc? BUT then we have Engineering for "Engineering Dept", English for "English Dept" - so I'm not so sure. —Saltmarsh 14:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Should probably go to RFV if not removed outright. This is familiar enough in uppercase (although I concur with Saltmarsh that it seems like part of a general pattern of department-naming) and especially in the abbreviation "IT"...but using the lowercase spelled-out form seems quite odd. -- Visviva 17:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I nedd help with formatting. I'm not sure how to set up etymology for the verb form. And the noun is a problem: the noun is actually mopy fish, which should actually have the odd capitalization MOPy fish, but I can see people trying to look up mopy if they saw the term mopy fish somewhere. (Sorry about the mess). RJFJR 13:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

{{subst:notenglish}}: ik; wij; jij/u; jullie; hij/zij; zij. --Connel MacKenzie 19:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what cleanup you're asking for. The list you've given are the Dutch pronouns "I, we, you/you (formal), you (pl), etc." Each pronoun should proceed the corresponding verb inflection. I don't see anything to clean up. --EncycloPetey 23:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think Connel's saying we should use the English labels "first person singular" and so on. I'm inclined to agree, actually, though I see both ways. —RuakhTALK 00:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
That would make the table very messy. Instead of saying "jij/u", we would have to say "second person singular familiar preceded by pronoun and third person singular formal preceded or followed by pronoun". Dutch has two second person familiar verb forms that differ depending on which second person pronoun is used; one (jij) precedes the verb while the other (je) follows the verb when it appears in a question. --EncycloPetey 02:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The table is already messy, but that aside: it is described in Dutch, not English. At least link the things to a special appendix, or do something to describe them in English. My preference, would be to see "I, we, you/you (formal), you (pl), etc." instead of the Dutch currently there. A less acceptable compromise would be "I (ik); we (wij); you (jij); you (formal; jiju); you (plural; jullie); etc." But listing only in Dutch belongs on nl.wikt, not here. --Connel MacKenzie 23:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Do not forget to also fix the derived templates {{nl-verb-refl}} and {{nl-verb-sep}}. H. (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove bad Italian translations. Remove links to nonexistant Commons entries. Format headword properly. Add brief description. Remove word "cat" from article name where appropriate. SemperBlotto 07:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nkhukutemwa is not a ===Phrase===, it’s a single word. —Stephen 13:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if this belongs in WT:GP, not here...

The following templates seem to be incorrectly plural (the labels should be singular, the categories plural):

{{dogs}}, {{particles}}, {{proteins}}, {{steroids}}, {{vehicles}}.

I think vehicles should be a redirect to automotive. Anyone feel like fixing these?

--Connel MacKenzie 17:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the first one should even be a context label. Vehicles is okay because it defines a narrower category within automotive. DAVilla 15:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Note that the label in {{particles}} is physics, and the category Category:Elementary particles. There could be a redirect from {particle} to {particles}. Right now {Particle} redirects to {particle}, which contains "Particle" and isn't used anywhere at all ...
In general, there are sub-cat templates that label for the parent classification. There is a Category:Dogs Robert Ullmann 09:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The Category:Elementary particles and its templates are a bit of a problem, since some of the particles listed aren't actually elementary. A new user has suggested we rename the category Category:Particle physics, which I agree with. --EncycloPetey 05:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd clean it up myself but don't know whether it's accurate. Rod (A. Smith) 00:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Both sound unlikely. Move to RFV? --Connel MacKenzie 16:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The first sense has been used by Ellery Queen and Dashiel Hammett; it is in the Oxford Thesaurus. The second sense checks out too, but might a bit harder to find citations of use. Robert Ullmann 09:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

These words can be used for ‘the X people collectively’. However, most of the translations for these definitions mention singular persons. H. (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Practically all our entries that are language names need to be redone thoroughly. --EncycloPetey 04:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Completely wrong syntax for Wikisaurus title. --Connel MacKenzie 16:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Moved, not by me. I don't think the title has a "completely wrong syntax", though. --Dan Polansky 21:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Many of the language entries seem to be spelled pandiero (incorrectly?). SemperBlotto 07:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Two pronunciations, one embedded in the text - definitions improperly split. SemperBlotto 09:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There are indications of quotes that are nowhere to be found. Some definitions are repeated. Obsolete definitions are given before common ones. The only confirmed translations are Dutch and German.

This suffix entry has a huge list of hundreds of ostensibly derived terms. Some are clearly not as they do not even end in -eous (!), and others’ entries’ etymology sections (such as those for heterogeneous, hideous, and homogeneous) conflict with the assertion they are thence derived. It appears that the list was automatically compiled from a blanket search of the online Oxford English Dictionary, thus not only erroneously adding underived terms (as the search was for a word ending, not a common suffix), but also adding terms whose only probable relation to -eous is that their entries refer to the suffix, or make use of an -eous-terminal word. Lastly, a minor point — such a huge list ought most certainly to be enclosed in a rel-table (as translations are in trans-tables). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 22:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The entry has dubious claims and is not formatted per WT:CFI. Rod (A. Smith) 04:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The claims seem fair enough to me, but I think maybe it should be resited as an encylopedia article, expanded and given a bit of a tidy-up. (S. Dorrell) 11:28, 1 March 2008 (GMT)

Wrong language, copied from another wikt. Robert Ullmann 08:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Right language, wrong spelling. Fixed while patrolling Category:ca:Languages and moved to correct spelling, feroès, finding this RFC when I checked for broken links after the move. — Carolina wren discussió 00:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The "examples" thing needs a more creative approach. Or not. --Connel MacKenzie 04:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 04:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

English, Polish, German, Spanish. Placed in Category:Glossaries. Still some redlinks in all languages, even English. DCDuring TALK 20:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

vi? --Connel MacKenzie 08:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam, like other countries in China's sphere of influence, used to use Classical Chinese for a lot of writing, and also to use Chinese characters for native writing. "Han tu" are characters that weren't used for native writing, but we probably still want to include them because different countries pronounced these characters differently, so Classical Chinese words have Vietnamese pronunciations, Japanese pronunciations, and so on. (These fall into a larger umbrella called "readings", and it can be quite complicated; in modern Japanese the same "kanji" — Chinese character for Japanese — will often have a "Chinese reading" and a "Japanese reading", with some expressions using the one and some using the other.) In the case of "han tu" I'm not sure if it makes more sense to list the character as Vietnamese, though, or to give its Vietnamese reading somewhere in one of the other language sections. —RuakhTALK 15:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel qualified to start Wiktionary:About Aleut and set about gathering input from Aleut-speaking editors and formalizing policies as to what POS headers would be appropriate? (I don't think we have a language considerations page for any agglutinative language yet, so you'd be treading new territory. For one thing, these languages will definitely test how serious we are about including "all words in all languages". From what I understand, an entire English sentence can often be cast as a single, grammatical word in Aleut; will we therefore require that Aleut sentences be attested wholesale in order to merit inclusion?) Until we have a header for such things, listing these entries here seems pointless. —RuakhTALK 19:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I know a little about Aleut, but more about Yup’ik, which is a related language. I think these languages may be too exotic for Wiktionary at the present time. Yes, Aleut is polysynthetic, which means that suffixes can be piled on apparently without limit to build very complex words that mean an entire sentence or more in English. Still, there are some simple words, such as Aleut kartuufilax̂ (potato), kurix̂ (cigarette), suupax̂ (soup), paltux̂ (coat), braatax̂ (brother) (note the similarity with Russian картофель, курить, суп, пальто, and брат); or native Aleut ulax̂ (house]], angalix̂ (day). Aleut nouns are declined for three numbers, and the verb morphology is complex: asx̂alakax̂txidix (those two did not kill someone); ayugikux̂txichin (they went out in their boat); dux̂taasaĝilakatxichi (you don’t have a guest). Unfortunately, these languages require the use of some unusual grammatical terms such as postbases, relational case, aequalis, vialis, terminalis, and so on, and I am not able to make it palatable to a reader who knows little about grammar and cares less. I can’t even figure out how to do relatively easy languages such as Russian and Arabic, or even how to format the letters or syllables of scripts such as Cyrillic and Burmese. Right now I limit myself to easily described words such as nouns, basic adjectives and adverbs. Words that call for difficult or odd headers like "expression" or "impersonal verb" will have to wait for another time (and this includes Ojibwe, Aleut and Yup’ik and any other polysynthetic languages). —Stephen 16:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
That's disappointing, but I understand where you're coming from. The less a language is like English, grammar-wise, the harder it is to integrate into a system that we originally designed with English in mind. —RuakhTALK 16:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Cherokee often does this as well, which is one of the reasons that I have been very reluctant to add words, because there are words for such things as become an entire sentence in English. --Neskaya talk 18:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Very cute POV ranting, but the problem isn't the system; it is the desired end result. The target audience here is English readers, with familiarity of English. It is hard because it is very hard, not because of systemic restrictions (as you assert.) Fitting unexpected structures into a comprehensible scheme is very difficult. It seems obvious to me, that you are currently pushing in some ways, to undermine the little coherency and consistency we do have.
How many "sentence words" does Aleut actually use? Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words? If so, then our consideration for Aleut words cannot be "space delimited" as that would not apply. If it is instead, a small (or finite) collection of terms, they of course should have individual entries. Do you know which it is, or are you ranting for the sake of ranting?
--Connel MacKenzie 17:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Very cute personal attack, but my comment was brief, calm, and sincere; not a "rant" at all. It did reflect my own POV, obviously, but that's inevitable; obviously your comments reflect your POV. I am by no means criticizing the system, besides to state the obvious: it was originally designed with English in mind. Some things are easy to extend; the languages that I speak all fit nicely into this system, as do many others (granted, one editor has objected to Hebrew having a "Root" POS section with a "Forms" subsection, but that's not a consequence of the system itself). However, with polysynthetic languages it's more difficult, because they don't all have "words" in exactly the same way we do, and it's hard to figure out how to incorporate them into our system in a coherent, consistent way (which is something that both you and I prize).
Believe it or not, it actually seems like you and I mostly agree about this. (Our main disagreement seems to be that whereas you think it's more important to fit other languages into the mold of English so that English-speakers will feel like they understand whether or not they actually do, I think it's more important to try to extend the mold in coherent, consistent ways so that our entries are accurate while still being maximally useful.)
Regarding your specific questions:
  • Re: "How many 'sentence words' does Aleut actually use?": From what I understand, an unlimited number. That's the way the language is normally structured, with everything kind of being rolled into the verb. (Caveat lector: I don't actually speak Aleut, and my understanding may be wrong.)
  • Re: "Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words?": I didn't assert that. Please look up the word "often".
  • Re: "Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words? If so, then our consideration for Aleut words cannot be 'space delimited' as that would not apply. If it is instead, a small (or finite) collection of terms, they of course should have individual entries.": Aleut does have things that can be considered "words", but I don't think the boundaries are always well-defined. From what I understand, there are a lot (or perhaps arbitrarily many?) of what are called "portmanteau affixes" that blend different kinds of tense/mood/aspect and agreement information into single forms, that then interact with adjacent affixes in different ways … but I really don't know how it works, exactly: hence my suggestion that people who do speak the language start a Wiktionary:About Aleut and set about figuring out how to fit Aleut into our system -slash- extend our system in a coherent, consistent way so that we can cover Aleut.
  • Re: "Do you know which it is, or are you ranting for the sake of ranting?": Neither.
RuakhTALK 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry if I incorrectly attributed malice to your tone; other posts of yours at the time were directed at me and rather scathing. In that light, it is hard to see your comments as having been neutral. Yet, I still did not make a personal attack; I'm sorry you feel that way. But, perhaps we can move past all this, anyhow?
You seem to have missed the crux: the system isn't designed with English in mind causing these restrictions. We've had foreign language entries from very early on here on en.wiktionary.org. The system is designed to cater to English readers. Aleut having trouble fitting into a coherent mold is understandably difficult, but I don't think that implies (as you seem to imply) that the structure as designed can't accommodate Aleut. The en.wiktionary.org entries for Aleut terms may not end up taking the same approach as other English-to-Aleut and Aleut-to-English dictionaries. But then, en.wiktionary.org doesn't take the same approach for defining English words (and especially word forms) as other English dictionaries.
It doesn't mean that we can't have Aleut entries. It does mean we need to think about how we incorporate knowledge about Aleut words into Wiktionary. I would not be at all surprised to learn that we can't use any other Aleut-to-English dictionary's format. Unlike you, I don't think that is any great travesty. If anything, it will reduce (if not effectively eliminate) the possibility of copyright violations creeping in.
--Connel MacKenzie 03:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: "But, perhaps we can move past all this, anyhow?": I'd like that, yes. :-)
I completely agree with your last paragraph, except that part that implies I think that's a travesty. :-)   I'm not saying that we need to do things the way other Aleut dictionaries do; I'm just saying that we need the Aleut-speakers here to figure out a way to do it that presents Aleut accurately and jibes with our system here. It's my opinion that this will require bending the system a wee bit, but we'll never know until they try. ;-)
Re: "You seem to have missed the crux: the system isn't designed with English in mind causing these restrictions. We've had foreign language entries from very early on here on en.wiktionary.org.": I suppose so. It looks to me like most discussions here still take place with mostly English in mind, and we simply transfer these results into other languages, having specialized discussions when necessary. Heck, the "narrow community" clauses in CFI seem to exclude entire languages that are only spoken in narrow communities (not that such an interpretation would find any support).
RuakhTALK 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Very good. Is it a verb, then? --Connel MacKenzie 23:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this particular one could be called a verb, an expression, or a sentence. Aleut is a polysynthetic language and the parts that go to make up expressions usually cannot stand independently as words. Polysynthetic languages don’t have many of the simple words that Indo-European languages have, and the smallest unit is often a sentence or clause (but not a phrase, since phrases are characteristic of analytical and agglutinative languages). —Stephen 07:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see how "phrase" doesn't fit. Since when does it need to be more than one word to be a phrase? Our definitions certainly imply that it does not need to be more than one. That said, if you can say with any certainty that it should be a 'verb', then by all means, please make that correction. --Connel MacKenzie 23:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. The hyphen in Aleut doesn’t separate words, it only separates phonemes, like writing "work-s" or "work-ed" in English. —Stephen 16:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your examples of either "work-s" or "work-ed." Could you please rephrase that? --Connel MacKenzie 23:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I think he meant, “hyphen in Aleut [...] only separates morphemes”. He illustated that concept by showing how the English words works and worked would look if English orthography called for separating morpheme by hyphens. Since work, -s, and -ed are English morphemes, works would be written as work-s and worked would be written as work-ed. With that in mind, if toe and skin are Aluet morphemes that combine into a single word, they would be appear as toe-skin. Does that help? Rod (A. Smith) 00:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Unspeakable that such a thing could be entered, not listed as an error. --Connel MacKenzie 23:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Note this is not an RFV - rather a request for SOME way to list the blasphemy. Yes, I am well aware that WT:CFI is broken beyond repair...but there has to be some way this can be tagged as an illiteracy without the usual suspects going ballistic. --Connel MacKenzie 00:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This term is usually used as a noun; this can be explained as a substantive use of the adjective (since nearly all English adjectives can be used substantively), but in this case it's so pervasive that I think we should have a "noun" header. —RuakhTALK 02:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, never mind; you can distinguish nouns from substantive adjectives in various ways, and this seems to be a substantive adjective: "the apparently unsayable", not *"the apparent unsayable". —RuakhTALK 15:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
"Unsayable" is neither blasphemy nor an illiteracy. It is perhaps better known to readers of philosophy than some others, but it is a perfectly valid English word. Rodasmith has now added quotations from very reputable sources to the article and I have added verified references citing other dictionaries. As for POS, I'm more comfortable classifying it as an adjective, although I agree with Ruakh that it is often (although I'm not so sure about "usually") used substantively, especially in the expression "say the unsayable." -- WikiPedant 05:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I missed your mention of that expression previously. The expression is "speak the unspeakable" over here. --Connel MacKenzie 03:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
With the senses properly split up the senses (thanks, WikiPedant), I was able to add what I think Connel hopes to see in this entry, i.e. tags that indicate a limited use of the word. Does it seem right, now, Connel? Rod (A. Smith) 18:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The references cited each give a single sense. I don't agree that our two senses should be worded in a way that makes them distinct, as they (by the citations) aren't. The synonyms, likewise, list "unspeakable" for only one sense, yet the first citation of the "other sense" uses it synonymously. Where a marked difference in connotation exists, with one word that is very common, while the other is obscure, something should indicate #1) the common form (unspeakable,) #2) how this rare form differs from the common form. Trying to use "unsayable" in normal context, I maintain, is an illiteracy. Looking at http://news.google.com/news?q=unspeakable&scoring=d&num=100 and http://news.google.com/news?q=unsayable&scoring=d&num=100 it seems apparent that this is yet-another-pondian variant. (A couple odd US quotes in the US for the latter, presumably from visitors. Likewise, a handful of UK quotes for the normal word. CW countries split evenly between them?) Even if one were somehow to ignore the regional issue (as it would be understood in a poetry context in the US,) it would be quite silly to ignore the order-of-magnitude preference for the common form. [1] vs. [2]. --Connel MacKenzie 06:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how you are reading the quotations, but they certainly don't seem to give the same sense to me. The first series of quotations (e.g. “...there are limitations on what we can say—we must always attempt to say the unsayable”) use unsayable to describe something that nobody can say (everyone is incapable of saying), e.g. due to logical limitations or those of would-be speakers. The last quote—the one associated with the second definition (i.e. “He was sacked, rather, for, saying the unsayable: for telling the truth.”)—describe something that nobody may say (everyone is prohibited from saying), e.g. due to social pressures. Which sense do you seem to think is the one used with those quotations? Rod (A. Smith) 08:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Connel MacKenzie that "unspeakable" is not a suitable synonym for only one of the senses, since (among philosophers, at least) it has the same double sense as "unsayable." I'm going to modify the entry so that "unspeakable" shows as a synonym for both senses. But I agree with Rodasmith that two distinct senses of "unsayable" clearly do exist in usage, and are readily documentable with quotations, so the entry is correct to distinguish them. Connel MacKenzie is correct that other dictionaries do not show the 2 senses (although the Am. Heritage defn provided at Dictionary.com gets close), but that is just one more point on which Wiktionary is doing a better job than the competition. -- WikiPedant 14:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
To WikiPedant and Rod, it is misleading not to combine those two senses (that are not distinct) into a single, broader sense. I do not understand the mentality of misleading our readers by suggesting that the minute distinctions aren't in fact, tremendously intertwined...to the point of being only a single sense. Other dictionaries list a single sense because they have paid professionals writing their definitions, who easily can see when combining redundant senses will convey the total meaning of the word better. The hard part of writing a definition, always, is to keep it brief and succinct enough, yet still be complete. Pointlessly splitting senses into not-really-distinct sub-senses doesn't do that; it just gives our readers more cruft to sift through. But I admit, splitting is the easier (lazier, IMO) way.
As to the addition of just a synonym, WikiPedant, I think you missed the central issue for the entire cleanup request here. The definitions themselves (well, the single definition) should clearly show that there is a preference for "unspeakable." (Confer the links given above.) The definition should then clarify what circumstances are appropriate for "unsayable" and how it ("unsayable") casts different shades of meaning. You know, genus proximum, differentiam specificam; classify then differentiate. If you aren't going to explain that much, then <joking>the entry should just say # Unspeakably rare variant of unspeakable. </joking> :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 02:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Connel, do you seriously think we should create a broad definition with specific sub-definitions? (unindenting)

If we follow what you appear to be suggesting, it would look like this:

  1. not able or allowed to be said
    1. (philosophy, poetry) Not capable of being said.
      • 1938, G. E. Moore, Ethics, University of Chicago Press, page 215:
        Nonetheless, in some unsayable way, value sentences are about values and reflect the structure of values.
    2. (rare) Not allowed or not fit to be said.
      • 2007, "Talking points: Racism and the cult of knee-jerk outrage," The Week, iss. 605, 17 March, p. 20,
      He was sacked, rather, for, saying the unsayable: for telling the truth.

None of our style guides seem to recommend sub-senses, so I don't understand why you are suddenly advocating that format. Rod (A. Smith) 17:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't advocating that format; I was suggesting the two definitions be reworded into one broader definition. Discussing this particular entry on IRC, it was suggested that we require all Wiktionarians to read w:Definition and related articles before being allowed to edit.  :-)   Your usage note does address my original complaint (thank you.) --Connel MacKenzie 23:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
In response to points made and reiterated in a number of postings above, the only significant differences I see between "unsayable" and "unspeakable" are (1) that "unsayable" is less commonly used and (2) that "unspeakable" has the extra sense of "extremely bad" (many dictionaries give 3 senses for "unspeakable"). I do not see any substantive differences between the 2 senses of "unsayable" given in the Wiktionary entry and the 2 matching senses of "unspeakable," recognized by most dictionaries, so no comparative classificatory exposition is appropriate. Further, I am unconvinced that the second sense of "unsayable" is the extreme rarity or the un-Americanism which Connel MacKenzie believes it to be. In support of this point, I have added 2 more quotations for the 2nd sense, one from the NY Times and the other from Time magazine.
And, as for Connel MacKenzie's gratuitious embedded comment above (i.e, <!--Please Lord, tell me they have heard that before...somewhere, but just forgot.-->), I shall refrain from suggesting that it sounds to me like the sort of thing a smart aleck making a personal attack would write. -- WikiPedant 05:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Your specious omission of addressing the links (evidence, counter to my expectations) that I provided above, that show this term to be undeniably specific to the UK (despite an errant NYT quote) is curious. Also, are you suggesting that I am making a personal attack against all contributors (myself included?) Yes, the comment wrapped in "<joking>" was snarky, but please.
Yes, Wiktionary's criteria is broken. Thank you for providing quotations that illustrate the point admirably. Yes, I still disagree that the second "sub-sense" is, in fact, a distinct "sub-sense" at all. If the first sense were worded properly, it would encompass both aspects. Instead, someone has reworded it to emphasize a distinction that does not really exist (neither for the writer nor the reader.) Without exposition, neither "sub-sense" can be inferred. And yes, I am using the term "sub-sense" loosely, in the hope that Rod won't detect any ambiguity, this time. --Connel MacKenzie 15:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
One further point: you mention a fallacy above: You say "many dictionaries" but alas, I can't tell if you are being intentionally misleading because of some perceived hostility, or are just mistaken. Dictionary.com, indeed lists two senses, not three, while Cambridge lists zero {{notaword}}, Webster's 1913 lists zero {{notaword}}, Wordnet lists zero {{notaword}}, M-w.com lists one, Encarta lists one and even the COED lists only one. "Many" = one? By that logic, we should add erroneous "second senses" whenever any dictionary anywhere else has an error. --Connel MacKenzie 15:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Connel, might I suggest that you read comments carefully before lambasting them? WikiPedant's only use of the phrase "many dictionaries" was in mentioning how many senses they give for unspeakable, not for unsayable. I cannot believe that you're interpreting his comment differently from how I do; rather, you simply didn't read it carefully enough. (It wouldn't have been a big deal, except that your comment was unjustly mean. So I guess what I'm saying is, either read carefully, or restrain yourself.) This is exactly the sort of thing that causes needless strife. —RuakhTALK 19:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
And your incorrect butting in helps? He was making accusations and specious arguments, ignoring what Wiktionary, Wikipedia and real dictionaries say on the topic. So you, in your typical fashion, irrationally exonerate anyone in opposition to me, no matter how petty the topic is? I think you are the one adding needless strife here. WikiPedant's irrational defense of his POV (after shown to be wrong on several levels,) combined with his accusations is increasingly suspicious.
Note also that he went ahead and damaged the entry, removing Rod's "Usage notes" section. Any good intentions to suspect in that action? Any? --Connel MacKenzie 07:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
As for WikiPedant, no, his specious arguments have no merit. Changing the subject, suddenly criticizing the correct word-form is entirely beside the point. His assertion is still about what the entry unsayable and its 'usage notes' section should say. (Did you misread what he wrote?) Looking to what most other dictionaries say, we could say that unsayable is not a word in English. Looking at usage, we can instead perhaps say it is a rare poetic use, an uncommon British term, or a rare error. His irrational opposition to reasonable tags smacks of gaming the system and remains inexplicable. He again, seems to be gaming the system when choosing bizarre statistical aberrations (NYT & Time) and immediately stuffing them into the entry, as if they somehow represent typical use. If there were any way I could imagine it was a casual error on his part, I would.
You should be able to see pretty clearly in the above, how he turned friendly banter into some kind of accusation-fest. Your immediate support of that, Ruakh, can be explained, precisely how? --Connel MacKenzie 06:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Look, sorry, I didn't mean for my comment to be "butting in". I addressed one specific part of your comment that was seriously flawed; I did not criticize the rest of your comment, and I did not say anything about WikiPedant's comment except as it bore on the one part of your comment whose serious flaws I was pointing out. I have a good deal of faith in WikiPedant, and rather suspect that everything he did was eminently reasonable; but I look before I leap, and as I have not looked into all of it, I am not leaping to its defense. (Regarding your claim that "he turned friendly banter into some kind of accusation-fest", I can only say that it takes two to tango. You included an HTML comment that you didn't intend personally; he took it personally and overreacted a bit, implying it was a personal attack; you then overreacted in turn, and took his implication as carte blanche to stop assuming good faith on his part. Neither of you handled this very well, but I'm not in a position to judge; G-d only knows how many times I myself have overreacted in online discussions-cum-arguments. The beauty of a community like this is that we can all do our best to learn from our mistakes, and to help each other learn from them as well.) —RuakhTALK 21:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This entry is a mess. I did what I could, but people from all possible languages have to look at this. H. (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm… I think English does distinguish the subject, object, and possessive forms of one; consider the existence of one’s and oneself, as well as the fact that the subject and object cases of it and the object and possessive cases of she (her) are homographs, yet we still say that the cases are distinct for those pronouns.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This does appear to be a valid Sherpa word... It appears, however, that the Sherpa language can be written either in Tibetan or Devanagari script, not in Roman. Can someone more clueful than I please move this entry to its proper spelling in one of those scripts? -- Visviva 15:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don’t have a source for Sherpa. Apparently "kangmi" means snowman. Typing it phonetically, it would be ཀང་མི་ (kang-mi) or possibly ཁང་མི་ (khang-mi). —Stephen 17:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

who carries his flag on the main-mast is written aftert he bold heading for noun. This seems to be a non-standard format. RJFJR 15:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

See <http://www.bookrags.com/ebooks/5402/2.html>. I understand the confusion of the anon who created that entry: it's hard to tell whether "who carries his flag on the main-mast" is supposed to be part of the headword. —RuakhTALK 16:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It certainly seems to be part of the headword; the location of the flag distinguished different ranks of admirals (only full admirals could carry their flag on the mainmast), and the wit (if any) of this coinage lies in comparing the publican to a full admiral based on the location of the flag... But personally I would not mind seeing this kind of entry deleted as uncited and unciteable. Have we not enough to do? Must we weigh ourselves down with the implausible inventions of long-dead lexicographers? -- Visviva 17:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 02:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Should this redirect? --Connel MacKenzie 04:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, striking. Mglovesfun 10:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Are the 2 senses given here sufficiently distinct? The example sentence for defn1 would work just fine for defn2 as well. -- WikiPedant 13:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think they are the same. I would guess that the contrib. intended to put the UK idiomatic noun telling off for nº2 - Algrif 16:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is the demonstration that it is not restricted to the Commonwealth realm, but should be current in North America too with regard to the origin of the dictionary, should not it? Please, remove the UK tag. Bogorm 22:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Junk in last translation section. --Connel MacKenzie 15:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Redundant senses. --Connel MacKenzie 17:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This needs formatting. It probably should be simple but I'm too tired to do it now. Thryduulf 00:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If “LOCATOR” meets WT:CFI, it belongs at “LOCATOR”. Does it meet WT:CFI? Rod (A. Smith) 06:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone doesn’t seem to know what a Derived term is. These[3] are not derived terms. —Stephen 01:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are correct: I do not understand how you can say that those are not derived from the headword. --Connel MacKenzie 05:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

These[4] are not derived terms. —Stephen 01:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

These[5] are not derived terms. —Stephen 01:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly seem like it. "Related" is better? --Connel MacKenzie 17:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

These[6] are not derived terms. —Stephen 01:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

These[7] are not derived terms. —Stephen 01:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What's with the Usage note here? Is it a copyvio? Or is it just unnecessary information? Widsith 11:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ax [8] --Connel MacKenzie 05:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It is an interesting aside, for those of us who find such things interesting. However, it is a verbatim Ctrl+C of the page mentioned by Connel, and, there is indeed a source given for the information. Possibly, one could put in a proper referance, or rewrite the text somehow, with sourcing? V85 22:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing a slew of derived terms (medicine and botany.) The definitions given, themselves seem sketchy. --Connel MacKenzie 04:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is either spelled wrong or not Yiddish: Yiddish does not use the Latin alphabet.—msh210 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is either spelled wrong or not Yiddish: Yiddish does not use the Latin alphabet.—msh210 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is either spelled wrong or not Yiddish: Yiddish does not use the Latin alphabet.—msh210 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is either spelled wrong or not Yiddish: Yiddish does not use the Latin alphabet.—msh210 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I supposed this should be spelt עקפֿעלד (ekfeld), but I’m not familiar with the term. It’s a noun but I don’t think it qualifies as a proper noun. —Stephen 12:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me whether the abbreviation section refers to the abbreviation ll or the abbreviation li. Rod (A. Smith) 17:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is the lowercase of "LL". The doubling of the l indicates the plural in the same way that pp = pages, or LL.D. = Doctor of Laws. —Stephen 11:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone decided to mark the parts of speech by using template calls to n., Template:v, Template:adv, Template:prep, etc. These all need to be removed/replaced since these templates either do not exist (and shouldn't) or else they are used for something else. --EncycloPetey 13:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that page even supposed to have definitions? —RuakhTALK 15:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
In the long run, no. However, it may have started as an import to be carved up into entries. --EncycloPetey 03:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The usage notes say this:

Incorrigible is a complex term that has antithetical denotations. In certain contexts, it may be cognate with impeccable.

The two words are certainly not cognates. Should it say, "synonymous"? Rod (A. Smith) 23:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear that noun sense 4 under etymology 1 does in fact belong under that etymology. We need either to remove this claim, or to back it up with one or more references. —RuakhTALK 05:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... to me sense 4 seems like the most natural fit of all the senses there. Throwing a pot on a wheel is nothing but an act of twisting and turning (the clay). -- Visviva 15:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, to clarify: the question is about noun sense 4 ("A single instance, occurrence, venture, or chance"). —RuakhTALK 19:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly too many definitions? Most of them seem to give the same definition just in different words. Maybe they can be concentrated into a few? Jakeybean

Needs a rewrite. --Connel MacKenzie 22:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That will be problematic, since the person who wrote the article is the only Albanian speaker here. Note that this is not a prefix. It is an enclitic form of a particle or pronoun. Prefixes join with an exisitng part of speech to modify, clarify, or inflect. This does none of those things, it is a separate contracted form of another word. --EncycloPetey 22:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If it passes rfv. H. (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

b.g.c. indicate this is influenza for animals? --Connel MacKenzie 05:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

WP redirects it to Bovine malignant catarrhal fever. But I found an online dictionary entry that said one of several diseases of animals. Further catarrhal is a medical term meaning inflammation of the mucous membranes of the respiratory tract with discharge so any disease with fever and a cough might work for this term. RJFJR 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I just edited the necromancy entry. I changed quite a lot of stuff, and I'm sure the Middle English translations could be put into a better format? Feel free to change things around; I had so much to include, it got a bit confusing where to put it. Jakeybean

The entry’s in the right order, but the transcriptions of the Ancient Greek etyma need to have the acute accents indicated, and the quotations need to be reformatted as per WT:QUOTE. You definitely don’t need to list all (eighty-eight?!) of the Middle English alternative forms in the translations section — choose the “primary” spelling (good luck!), and list the other alternative forms at the Middle English entry (in a rel-table, I suggest). Nota bene that Middle English became Early Modern English circa 1470, so some of the 15th century and all of the 16th–18th century forms will need to be listed as (Modern) English obsolete spellings. Last point: all translations should be linked, even if you just intend to leave them as red links.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like the right way to go about it, I've done this before in the past with some of the other divination entries.--Williamsayers79 19:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

pōnō, like many Latin verbs, has its lemma entry (the first person singular present indicative) and pōnere (the infinitive) swapped. Is there an easy way to tag them all? Rod (A. Smith) 02:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There are many declensions and grammar notes in the translation table. As more languages are added, the translation table will become unwieldy. Should the declensions and grammar notes be moved into the foreign language entries? Rod (A. Smith) 17:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. As per discussion elsewhere (where?) I would advocate only listing the lemma form (usually the masculine nominative singular), or at most the set of nominative singular forms (with gender). Any more than that becomes unwieldy. --EncycloPetey 19:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The other discussion is WT:BP#Noting lemma forms in WT:ELE. I brought this here, though, because some editors have been vocal about translating words from some parts of speech (e.g. pronouns) into all forms, so words from closed classes (e.g. articles) probably deserve individual discussion. Rod (A. Smith) 19:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Many of the derived terms listed therein are not derived thence.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 10:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternative spellings and cites need cleanup. Formatting is definitely not my strong point. sewnmouthsecret 16:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Usage note on 2nd etym refers to both etyms, and also repeats some of the info in the usage note on the 1st etym. Both usage notes need copyediting. The first sense blongs at youse not at you'se.—msh210 17:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Strange copyvio. --Connel MacKenzie 18:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the "Yale" edition citation with the apparently identical text from Project Gutenberg. MW3 attributes the original idea of serendipity to a "Persian folk tale", for which I am not aware of sources. I have ascribed to Walpole the introduction into English, since multiple sources agree on that. DCDuring 00:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure what to do with this, other than to say that: the formatting is all off, languages/capitalization ought to be considered, and the etymology could use some tidying. I'm out the door myself right now; apologies! Medellia 19:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Now cleaned up, and I can confirm that אב really is the Hebrew word for "father". Unfortunately, abbas and Abbas were created by everyone's favorite long-term sysop vandal, so who knows what in there is real and what isn't? —RuakhTALK 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I've done some additional cleanup and checked the listed Descendants (excluding the Dutch). The only things I see left to do are to verify the AGr. listing; verify that it came from Hebrew, and fix the 3rd-declension Latin noun declension table template, which isn't displaying macrons properly. --EncycloPetey 05:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'll ever understand the dividing line between our "topic" vs. "grammar" category trees, but should this category be called "Category:English ordinal numbers"? Rod (A. Smith) 23:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the perennial number/numeral issue. The problem you've noticed exists for all numerals. My personal practice is to consider "Numeral" the part of speech, and use subcategories like Category:Cardinal numbers and Category:Ordinal numbers (or Category:es:Cardinal numbers, etc) for the specific words.
The core difficulties are (1) no one can agree on whether to call the POS "Number" or "Numeral", where a vote on the matter deadlocked, and (2) not all cardinal numbers (by topic) are also cardinal numbers (by grammar). That is, there are cardinal numbers such as aleph-null that are cardinal numbers by definition, but do not function like the grammatical class of cardinal numerals. As a result, the dividing line here is very, very fuzzy.
In my edits, I've chosen to categorize these words topically, then group the topical categories as subcategories of grammatical categories like Category:Spanish numerals. It's a compromise designed to avoid some of the difficulties. ...I hope that's clear, because this is a diffuclt issue to explain because of the inherent imprecision of the labels. --EncycloPetey 02:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there are a number of terms that do not belong here.

The fact that an exclamation mark is used to end a sentence or phrase does not, in itself, make that sentence or phrase an interjection.

"Go to the dickens!" is a complete sentence (a verbal phrase in the imperative) so I don't quite see how this can be considered to be an interjection just because it ends in an exclamation mark. Similarly, although "Every man for himself!" is not a complete sentence, I wouldn't say it is an interjection. "Does a bear shit in the woods?" is another complete sentence, and is definitely does not belong in this category.

Ideally, I would like to see the part of speech "interjection" reserved for words that express an emotion and have no grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence (interjections in the purest sense), such as "oh!" and "phew!". It is not possible (or even practical) for us to be this strict, however, because there are some phrases that function like interjections, like "good riddance" and "for heaven's sake". Strictly, we would classify these as pro-sentences, but this is not a part of speech.

Certainly, however, some of the terms listed in Category:Interjections (and the corresponding category for other languages would more accurately be described as pro-sentences, verbal phrases or complete sentences.

See the Wikipedia article for more discussion. — Paul G 05:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Category talk:English interjections. DCDuring TALK 20:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content of usage notes. --Connel MacKenzie 05:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The definition is preceded by '''(OED 1933)''', so I assume said definition was copied thence. As that source is seventy-four years old, I think copyright still applies. Ergo, copyvio. What needs to happen — does the entry need to be deleted (to make the copyright-violating material inaccessible-via-history) and then recreated, or can the definition just be rewritten, preserving the copyright violation in the history?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

After checking the OED, it’s obvious that the original editor intended the parenthetic comment as a reference, and that the entry was not a copyvio of the OED’s. I reformatted the entry accordingly. However, the definition needs trimming — it’s three sentences long.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned it up some, and removed the tag. Michael Z. 2008-09-17 20:12 z

--Connel MacKenzie 23:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone with easier access to OED please check; looks like the "references" simply repeat verbatim. --Connel MacKenzie 07:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone asserts that this is a preposition. It is not a preposition. —Stephen 08:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone asserts that this is a part of speech called a conjugation. It is not a conjugation. —Stephen 08:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought the header was supposed to be ===Related terms===, not ===Relative terms===. —Stephen 14:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. --EncycloPetey 01:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Done by EncycloPetey, striking. Mglovesfun 11:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

17 senses? --Connel MacKenzie 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Reduced to 8 senses, two of which are RFV'd. Moglex 20:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 ?? Did you forget to save your changes, or something? —RuakhTALK 22:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Evidently. (Arrrgggghhhh). Moglex 08:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

7 senses? --Connel MacKenzie 19:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added sense 8, which, I hope combines senses 4-7. I'm not really happy that it accurately includes sense 4 (fencing), though as that seems subtly different. I've left the other senses. Moglex 19:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 22:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 22:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 22:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 22:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 22:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 23:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Should this be nāh, as it's listed in the inflection line? There are quite a few of these created by Drago—like fuġol‎, ānro, ġēar, rēocan, and so on—for Old High German, Old English, and Romani. Dmcdevit·t 05:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio? —Stephen 06:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 21:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 21:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: is this about the presence of multiple "noun" sections in the same parent section? —RuakhTALK 21:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes. --Connel MacKenzie 22:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
So, what would you prefer? —RuakhTALK 17:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, what would you prefer? Such structure seems to be the only way to achieve a goal that I thought you (Connel) supported: moving grammar details from definition lines into headword/inflection lines. Rod (A. Smith) 18:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"В гостя́х хорошо́, а до́ма лу́чше" is not a Derived term. —Stephen 20:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Etymology needs trimming. --Connel MacKenzie 22:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Some or all translations are for August (month), not for august (adj.). DCDuring 22:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about concepts, not words. It looks like the real problem is that for some languages for which the 8th month on the Gregorian calendar is written "august", there is no entry under "august", though there is a translation shown under "August" (Interlingue and Sundanese). I don't trust myself to get it right, so I'd rather someone with a firmer hold of this make the remaining changes. Someone should just look to make sure that the translations and entries are consistent. I suspect that there other kinds of inconsistencies as well as the one I mentioned above. DCDuring 15:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Needs definitions, needs assignment of quotes to definitions.—msh210 23:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

méh second noun section, Hungarian. Definiton is: MEHHHH also known as "Shmeh" a migration of "Meh" the "meh" face also a hit. sasjb

RJFJR 14:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism to me, so I removed it. If it's just terribly formatted, terribly worded, and full of typos, then someone can replace it.—msh210 18:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Something is broken in template invocation but I can't fix it. RJFJR 21:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorted out and moved to Hiryū and hiryū. 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What part of speech is "conjugation"? This is not a conjugation. —Stephen 21:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The Participle → Conjugation thing was a brief error in one of the pages that AutoFormat reads for configuration. The error has since been fixed, but that didn't undo existing damage. When you find such pages, you don't need to bring them here; you can just fix them. —RuakhTALK 22:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagged, not listed. —RuakhTALK 06:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Should this be moved to Appendix:English inflection? Rod (A. Smith) 04:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably. DAVilla 06:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Etymology needs Ancient Greek script and antonyms, derived terms, synonyms, and translations all need categorising. The German section also needs a pronunciatory transcription.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Now all that is left to do is to correctly categorise the translations and to give the German section a pronunciatory transcription.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Added German pronunciation. —Stephen 23:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a stray would-be Spanish language entry. DCDuring 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This is already listed on RfV, so it doens't need to be duplicated here. --EncycloPetey 16:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Is that the rule? Only one Rf per entry? Each Rf seems to have a different function. DCDuring 16:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is redirected from bawbles which should instead have its own page. Also, there are two definitions here, which should be split. Also, they should have quotations. Also, this looks like a simple plural; if it is, then either the definition or the etymology should indicate as much.—msh210 18:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

which in turn is a misspelling of baubels (singular baubel) --BigBadBen 21:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Indonesian and Latvian section: cryptic descriptions, improper formatting. Hm, maybe this belongs in rfv. H. (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It also needs to have the Quotation template subst'ed. --EncycloPetey 16:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is labelled "Scottish". Is it Scots or Scottish Gaelic? --EncycloPetey 16:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is labelled "Scottish". Is it Scots or Scottish Gaelic? --EncycloPetey 16:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is labelled "Scottish". Is it Scots or Scottish Gaelic? --EncycloPetey 16:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is labelled "Scottish". Is it Scots or Scottish Gaelic? --EncycloPetey 16:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Needs a lot of cleanup. --EncycloPetey 23:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Needs a lot of cleanup. --EncycloPetey 23:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Latin section needs a lot of cleanup. I'm through following BiT around with a shovel. --EncycloPetey 23:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Formatting, sources consist of "See Wikipedia article" (which, granted, has plenty of them for whoever cleans this entry up). Globish 02:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Quotations are too long (and old format). DAVilla 05:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Improperly entered without language line. Said to be Norwegian. Sense: "roadfence" made of steal. DCDuring 23:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It means cornice. Fixed. —Stephen 23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Derivations seem misplaced. --Connel MacKenzie 06:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Would spontaneous generation and alternate generation merit their own entries extracted from the material already there ? DCDuring 18:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Everything included under the second etymology looks suspect. I don't know whether there is any salvageable material, either for homer or Homer. It would help if you know your Homeric Greek. DCDuring 19:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Crap removed. Striking. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This may prove to be a tricky rfc... some background first: the first two Swedish senses of this word ("effort" and "work", respectively) was entered by a user who has attracted my attention more than once before, so as I didn't recognize them, I looked them up. Yes, they exist...ed. Sort of. They are described in SAOB - the not-yet-finished Swedish version of OED - as having been mentioned as "föråldrade" (='archaic' or 'obsolete') in a 1807 dictionary - then they continue by claiming that the word was "resurrected" during the 19:th century through literature. I'm fairly confident though that these senses didn't survive far into the 20:th century.

Well, the problem then, is that the definitions given in SAOB seems to me to be a *bit* of a stretch from these presently given in our article, but as said, I'm not familiar enough with the words to know how to define them instead, and neither can I find these senses in other dictionaries I have at hand. Hence this is a call to any other Swedish-speakers to try to come up with better definitions... \Mike 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

NE's dictionary defines it as "träget arbete", i.e. something like "strenuous work", and lists it as archaic. The examples given in SAOB either refers to labourious work or occupation, activity etc. Both definitions are marked as "numera bl. i högre stil l. arkaiserande" ("nowadays only in archaizing or higher style"), and that part of SAOB was printed 1933. I would say that the word in that sense is unknown by a vast majority of the Swedish population, and if it has any place in Wiktionary, it must be clearly noted that it's largely dated and effectively unusable today. The verb "att idas" however exists in some dialects today and I assume that it's related to the word "id", since it means something like "being (physically or mentally) able to undertake a task" (i.e. orka, gita etc). HannesP 19:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:allopathic for some sources. 20:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume your objection is the second inflection line within the noun section. If we accept that each inflection line needs its own POS heading, the natural solution is to add a second ===Noun=== section. You objected to that solution, though, in Wiktionary talk:About Spanish#Reflexive verb formatting. Could you please clarify your objection? Navigation to non-English entries in general is limited to the language section. That is, in an entry with the structure ==Portuguese==/===Noun===/==Spanish==/===Noun===, adding another ===Noun=== section to the ==Spanish== section wouldn't affect MediaWiki navigation at all, so what is your objection? Rod (A. Smith) 00:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The separate POS sections are supposed to be listed under separate ===Etymology === sections. --Connel MacKenzie 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 17:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleaner. Would probably meet RfV, IMHO. DCDuring 23:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

These photos can't be reused on commons:, right? They are royalty-free, but copyright protected. Is there any point in keeping the link, or is it just (inadvertent) spam? --Connel MacKenzie 17:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, Connel. Ideally I would like to add my own photos on commons, but for now I just thought enquirers might like to see the variety of breadsticks. Please delete the link if you think it is inappropriate.
Dbfirs 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the Wiktionary policy on links to photos elsewhere on the web? (I know it is quite likely to lead to a broken link sometime in the future.)
Dbfirs 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Linking to the image or embedding it into the Wiktionary page? I don't know Wiktionary policy, but the latter is very bad Netiquette, as it uses the server housing the picture.—msh210 19:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Mooted by inserting wikicommons images and category link. DCDuring TALK 20:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A Finnish word meaning contest, but it isn't clear whther this is a noun or verb. --EncycloPetey 03:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It’s a noun. The verb would be kilpaa. —Stephen 07:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How much of this is salvagable? It looks like an encyclopedic dump. --EncycloPetey 15:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A new user has entered a Middle English word using Wikipedia formatting conventions. He could probably use some gentle guidance. Widsith? --EncycloPetey 04:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Only section is Spanish. Isn't the given name with an accent Máximo? --Bequw¢τ 22:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Moved. —Stephen 13:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Presumably medical jargon, but it's encyclopedic and has no language header. --EncycloPetey 10:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No language header, needs formatting. --EncycloPetey 10:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Stephen 13:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This need a rollback or a rewrite? --Connel MacKenzie 21:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd vote for the last version before the anonymous contributor gave us the WP article. I'll put in a pedialite link and some "see also"s to make the other anti-trust terms more accessible. DCDuring 23:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Had old obscure cleanup tag on - it is a very scruffy page, dubious definitions and quotations, vague and unhelpful usage note, translations to be checked and sorted too and probably unclear headings - It would be an interjection, not a particle. --Keene 01:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As you say, 2nd sense is clearly an interjection, very much like er, um, erm, uh, and possibly others that indicate hesitation. I have so amended it. Could the first sense be viewed as an impersonal pronoun, specifying "that which you know I mean, but don't want to say"? Reminiscent of you-know-who and similar. I will sleep on it and think about it tomorrow. DCDuring 02:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
My best guess would be pronoun for sense 1, and I agree with calling the second one an interjection. Good catch. --EncycloPetey 02:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

RuakhTALK 19:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't read like it's in Wiktionary style. I'm not certain if the final section needs to be here at all. Thryduulf 23:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a nice simple entry at bad. Noun sense: fault, mistake. Maybe the usage note at my bad should suggest that "bad" could be "your bad", "her bad", etc. It is, of course, very difficult to find the specific sense we are talking about because most collocations of a possessive pronoun with "bad" are not in this sense, even in fiction. DCDuring 00:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
General-purpose noun-ish "bad" in this sense probably meets CFI — a minute or two of creative Google Book Searching is enough to pull up [9] and [10] — but "my bad" is definitely its own thing, at least for me. Consider "my brave" and "my proud"; these are already a stretch, but I don't think I'd even understand "your brave" if I came across it in context. —RuakhTALK 06:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My Bad is the way it is used to try and change it to fit your context would take it out of it context...although it would seem that Wiktionary could stand some improving —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 09:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC).

There are five phrasal verb entries buried here that I can't make properly now. DCDuring 16:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got them covered, except for reckon upon. DCDuring 17:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The language is given as Arrernte, but is this Western Arrernte (iso=are) or Eastern Arrernte (iso=aer)? --EncycloPetey 18:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how "computer" is any sort of usable definition for this. But the whole thing needs an actual entry written. --Connel MacKenzie 21:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

RuakhTALK 04:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A well-meaning, but misguided translator has destroyed this entry, splitting into separate senses things that aren't separate senses in English. --Connel MacKenzie 07:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? I don't see any problems. --EncycloPetey 15:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The entry looks like it could use more separate senses for the preposition, not fewer. MW3 has 5 main senses (not all of them in our entry ("in" as in "in the key of" is missing) and 18 subsenses. I'm fairly sure that we don't have a lot of the more figurative sub-senses. DCDuring 01:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Copied to Talk:in. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Needs complete rewrite. Definitions are pretty rambling. Missing the definitions for "apply for a job" and "That rule only applies for foreigners". An important word too. --Keene 20:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And those are the definitions we use most often. Well, I'll see what I can do. Connell66 07:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

So, the primary definition of language for the past four years has been "an expression of an understanding", which is in turn a reference to a book. While in the context of the book, I imagine that definition is quite meaningful, however I'm hoping everyone else also sees that it is hardly appropriate for Wiktionary. So here's the problem, there are quite a few translations attached to this meaning (perhaps simply because it has been the first entry for so long). It seems to me that this definition should be cut, and its translations relegated to the trans-check section. Thoughts? Atelaes 20:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I had similar feelings last time I looked at that entry, but haven't been brave enough to tackle the cleanup. More cleaning power to you! --EncycloPetey 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I've gotten rid of that ridiculous definition and allocated all of its translations to ttbc. However, in my opinion, we could shave off all but maybe three of the definitions. They're highly redundant. However, I'm just not feeling that bold. If some langophiles feel like attacking it, it could use some help. Atelaes 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm? I'm not sure about the distinctiveness of sense 2, but I'd keep all the others myself. --EncycloPetey 05:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think two and three are defined by one. The rest should stay. Atelaes 05:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
They may need improvement but they are seem distinct to me. MW3 has 6 main senses and 9 subsenses.
BTW, Meaning 2 refers to the generic capability of communication, but seems to exclude sign language as a part of that capability. If we are harkening back to an age when such languages were ignored, this sense should remain unrevised and a more inclusive sense added. Alternatively, a weasel-worded clause or phrase would be needed to indicate that some include and some exclude sign languages from the "gift of language". DCDuring 12:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand how to read the two different pronunciations, which are given three different "region" markers. I can't see which belong where, as I don't know much about pronunciation in general... \Mike 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

These Wikipedia-naming-convention articles need to be moved to Wiktionary names (i.e. remove "List of ".) There are about a dozen or so left. Special care should be taken not to delete the redirects for two weeks after each move, so that double-redirects can be fixed in a semi-orderly, semi-automated fashion. --Connel MacKenzie 18:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This entry ranks near 550 on the "page ranks". That high ranking must be an artifact of the partiicular corpus selected. It should have been a stopword, I think. It makes the page ranks generally look suspect. Do they need review and updating? DCDuring TALK 19:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The general senses given in the translations and the specific ones in the definitions overlap. It's difficult for me to determine exactly how many senses we should list. Rod (A. Smith) 17:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My MW3 has 20 main senses and a few subsenses. We are missing many basic and early senses. I can barely understand the economics one and, if I do understand it, disagree. To tackle that one, I'm going to have to improve my work area so I can have a few reference books open and within reach at the same time. DCDuring TALK 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

zorched Adj, "(slang) intoxicated on alcohol." Where is this slang used? RJFJR 20:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Move to RFV? --Connel MacKenzie 20:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

An anon removed the synonyms section - is it offensive or something? --Connel MacKenzie 20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Move =Derived terms= to Index:Italian. --Connel MacKenzie 20:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth moving them to Index:Italian - they're "hidden" on that page so not so cluttered, and besides, putting them all into Index:Italian would take ages because of the alphabeticalness theron. --Keene 16:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
They'll get copied to the index when I build by Italian index building bot (year after next) SemperBlotto 22:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The sociology definition needs rewriting, I'm not entirely sure what its trying to say. Thryduulf 20:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It might just be tosh. We inherited it from the original version of wikipedia:Catastrophe, which is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe?oldid=4963215 and doesn't exactly fill me with confidence: the contributor didn't even spell the word correctly. However, it does clarify one thing that our entry doesn't, which is that this sense (if it exists) is just a more-precise definition that sociologists use for the same general sense. —RuakhTALK 00:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Tosh. A layman's catastrophe without "magical explanations" wouldn't be a sociologist's catastrophe? DCDuring TALK 03:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Tagged, not listed ages ago. I agree - I've never heard this used in a way that restricts it to cinemas. --Connel MacKenzie 09:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Dictionaries have, though, fwiw. But [11] is just one example of a use referring to a hotel. Simple cleanup: change the definition. Do we agree on so doing?—msh210 19:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Many of the senses are included in the first (past and participle of). Do we want to have (among those) only the first, or only the others? or double indents (##)? (If we keep the many senses, then we should add the math sense.)msh210 20:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed all senses given, all from verb. Added adjective with 3 senses. DCDuring TALK 11:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This is given as "Persian", but is in the wrong script. It is supposedly a surname from Iran. --EncycloPetey 23:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In Persian it would be نانکلی, but I don’t think foreign surnames are useful entries except in notable cases such as Pahlavi or Khrushchev. Foreign given names (in the correct alphabet) are good to have. —Stephen 15:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Reads more like a Wikipedia stub than a definition. Any equestrians here? --EncycloPetey 04:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm no equestrian, but it's not clear that it's the right term. "Sport pony" gets more hits. I've left a message on the user's page and will follow up in a week. DCDuring TALK 02:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

More important than formatting and wikification, this needs to be checked by someone clueful on the subject. An awful lot of seemingly random and difficult-to-verify stuff has been added. -- Visviva 16:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have Wikipedia formatting. --EncycloPetey 05:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not at all clear how to fix it though. The folk-etymology seems to be accurate and referenced. Why was tag removed? --Connel MacKenzie 21:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Would converting to footnote templates (which by using anchors avoid the basic problem of cite.php) solve the problem? -- Visviva 03:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There's some weird stuff in the Adverb definition. Since I don't speak Latin, not sure if they're badly formated quotes or citations, or what. --Bequw¢τ 20:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of these Japanese terms are missing and could be used to create independent articles, and some of the English transliterations would probably pass attestation as a word borrowed into English, judging by the citations already present. Someone might want to see what you can salvage from this list. Dmcdevit·t 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Long etymology, definite POV, possible copyvio. Incidentally, the Latin etymon should probably be in the form used by lemmata with this suffix. —RuakhTALK 22:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have questionable TM status (former?) Not sure if the current entry matches the trademarks resolution for Wiktionary of November 2007. --Connel MacKenzie 20:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The usage notes section needs reformatting and possibly rephrasing. Thryduulf 14:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And generally, all of Ehonobe (talkcontribs)’s contributions. H. (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This needs formatting, but I don't know whether this is singular (what's the plural then) or plural (what's the singular, or is it a plurale tantum?). Thryduulf 22:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, as a borrowed Latin fourth-declension noun, the plural is the same as the singular (like deer is in English). That doesn't mean that English hasn't fashined it's own plural form, mind you, but strictly as a borrowed Latin term, that's the expected plural situation. --EncycloPetey 22:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This very basic English word has one massive translation table that needs to be split according to senses. --EncycloPetey 23:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that better? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a start, but the translations themselves still need sorting. That will take many experts to accomplish. --EncycloPetey 00:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: the title of this section was previously [[:averroist]].

This is marked as a noun, but the defninition seems to be defining a person - in which case (if it meets the CFI) shouldn't it be a proper noun with a capital letter? Thryduulf 15:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: capital letter: Yes. This is an old conversion-script error. Re: proper noun: No, it's a common noun (and for that matter an adjective). The definition rambles a bit and talks about the guy for whom the sect is named, but for "one of a sect" you can read "any one of a sect". (Unfortunately there's no good way to express this; actually including the "any" in the sense line would sound silly.) —RuakhTALK 23:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Would "a member of a sect" be better, or have I misinterpreted it? Thryduulf 23:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if it would be better, but yes, you've interpreted it rightly. I've tried a different approach that I think might be simpler and clearer; let me know what you think. —RuakhTALK 00:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
That's generally much clearer, but the phrase "a certain sect" seems very odd to me. It reads like "they belonged to a specific sect, but we aren't going to say which one". Thryduulf 00:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
How about "Any member of a particular sect of peripatetic philosophers that appeared in Italy before the restoration of learning."? (See also user:Msh210/specificity.)—msh210 15:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That works for me. Thryduulf 16:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate Adjective sections (history shows it going between noun and adjective). --Bequw¢τ 13:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This entry needs something doing to it as at present its a very off-putting big block of dense and not brilliantly worded text. Possibly some example sentences would help, if there is anything we could illustrate then that might help as well. Thryduulf 18:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The English section needs splitting into multiple etymologies - I'm sure the Italian money changers' benches are not the origin of the nautical, aviation or rail transport senses (I'm not certain this latter is not more general either, e.g. w:Sutton Bank), etc. Thryduulf 01:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This needs cleanup, but I don't understand what it is trying to define. It was transwikied from Wikipedia, but hasn't had any significant changes since. Thryduulf 23:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm....my botany's a bit rusty, but wouldn't that be cuticle? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Take a look. DCDuring TALK 18:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
In English, this is just called "cuticle". --EncycloPetey 23:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The verb section in particular is very dated. Must have come straight from some out-of-copyright (out of date) dictionary. Also related meaning in noun section. Haven't got time to work on it myself just now.--Richardb 23:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no shortage of entries with the weaknesses you have identified. You could find a lifetime supply by looking for the entries that still have the {{webster 1913}} template. Then you could review those entries that had those tags removed without the definitions having been fully worked over, such as jaw. If you could figure out some good rules for searching for and rapidly improving some of the sense lines based on search and replace (with manual review) you might be able to make some real headway. DCDuring TALK 23:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The primary definition is so very dated

  • A structure serving as an abode of human beings.

Needs updating.--Richardb 23:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

still missing some basic dictionary definitions

It is still too easy to find basic words, such as head, which have far fewer meanings listed in Wiktionary than in many a concise dictionary. I pointed this out about head a couple of years ago. Yet it is still missing some simple definitions:-

  • head of steam, head of pressure.
  • head of a door frame
  • it cost him his head (it cost him his ilfe, but his head may still be in place!)
  • $10 per head
  • side of a coin
  • part of a tape or disc player, printer etc
  • promontory
  • events come to a head; a climax
  • the top of a pimple;spot;boil
  • out of one's head; off one's head

etc etc.

some parts are confused:-

  • (countable) The topmost, foremost, leading or principal operative part of anything.

What does it say on the head of the page?
Principal operative part of a machine has nothing in common with head of the page

I previously tried to get some sort of Quality Control Project going on the top 1000 words, but was defeated by apathy (mine and everyone else's). It has to be a team effort, but team efforts never seem to succeed here. Everyone seems to want to do their own thing. So Wiktionary still seriously lacks credibility in it's most basic function - as an English Dictionary.

I'm no longer interested in trying to take this on. But unless quite a decent group takes it on, the dictionary is still going to be lacking credibility, despite all the other wonderous stuff which people spend time adding.--Richardb 00:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible additional sense:

  1. Will, intention.
    He gave his horse its head.

I am uncertain as to the relationship of -head to head. The entry for -head shows it as a suffix. It is also a combining form, which is not shown in the entry, which possibly needs to have split etymologies. As a combining form it can take most meanings of head. In some cases it might have different meaning, which, of course merit inclusion. Following are two types of usage of -head which are combining forms only if there is a proper associated sense (possibly archaic or obsolete) in head.

  1. Terminus for a means or route segment of transportation; transhipment point
    railhead; bridgehead; beachhead; airhead
  2.  ???
    bulkhead; as in bulkhead line; (pierhead probably already included, also as used in pierhead line). DCDuring TALK 14:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
w:Bulkhead_(partition)#Etymology is somewhat illuminating... haven't authenticated that sense yet. -- Visviva 14:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

From the Richardb's list we are still missing at least the side-of-a-coin and promontory/placename (used in both -head and head forms) senses. Also as short for heading and, possibly short for header, the top margin of a page. I intend to do a specific comparison with MW3's 75 senses, but only after we have gotten the senses that come to our (collective) minds, taking that as a crude indication of the importance of the senses. DCDuring TALK 14:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am skeptical of those myself. I'm not yet convinced that head is actually used to mean heads (side of a coin) or Head (promontory); these are both quite plausible but need to be verified. I also came up empty when looking for the "heading" sense -- the phrase "a head of north" brings up nothing relevant on b.g.c. The top margin sense probably does need to go in -- I saw it on Wordnet, but was unsure whether it was really distinct from the "topmost part" ("head of the page") sense already present. -- Visviva 14:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd be amazed if we couldn't find cites for names like "Nag's Head", "Marblehead", which both refer to headlands. If a sense historically must have been a meaning of head in order to now exist as combining forms and parts of proper nouns, I would think that we would show it with some kind of tag. I also wonder if there is a connection between the bulkhead-line and pierhead-line senses and promontory/headland. Because it is all metaphorical and figurative, I find it hard to see why we would exclude the heads/tails sense and include some of the others, especially since not all coins have literal faces or heads on them, though all (???) seem to have an image that includes a head. Perhaps the coin sense belongs at heads, but, if so it will be unhelpful for someone not to find a prominent reference to it at head. DCDuring TALK 15:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I have provided 3 cites for the heading/topic sense in citation space. There are abundant citations to be found for the promontory/headland sense using Subject:Pilot Guides at b.g.c. a harbor, bay, bight, or sound has two "heads", only one usually visible from each direction of coastwise navigation. I don't think headlands is really a synonym, because such a head could be relatively low, but still be usefully visible to a navigator. DCDuring TALK 16:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This needs a proper definition writing. Thryduulf 21:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That any better? Conrad.Irwin 08:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

We have twice as many translation boxes as senses for each of these, because they have been split into maternal/paternal translations, even though those are nat the same meanings as the English words (there is no distinction). Some languages do differentiate, but this is a bad way of handling that, because then the other languages that don't distinguish and map onto English don't have a good place to go. People are adding translations to those sections for "paternal uncle" and "maternal uncle" now, instead of just "uncle;" it should just be tío in Spanish, for example, not "tío paterno" and "tío materno," and now Tbot has propagated these basically sums of parts into articles. If a language has two words for one English word, they should still both go in one translation box, rather than creating multiple ones for senses that don't exist in English. These translations need to be merged. Dmcdevit·t 08:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

After dredging this up I took the lead and merged the translation sections. I tried to throw out overly specific terms ("tío paterno" instead of just "tío") if they were obvious, but language experts will have to look too see. For all four, there existed seperate "maternal ..." and "paternal ..." entries. I integrated the specific translations from the base entry into those. Those that know more languages *please* look the translations sections over for mistakes. Some of the list items are a bit messy (noting paternal vs. maternal, by blood vs. by marriage, and in some cases elder vs. younger). --Bequw¢τ 19:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Seven meanings, one set of translations. Sorry, I've fogotten thte correct way to flag this.--Richardb 10:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've sorted the translation section. The markup may have changed since you were last active, but its done now for this entry. --EncycloPetey 14:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of this before, but it seems to exist. However, it also seems to be either an adjective or a preposition; I really can't see which. I see no indication of it being a noun, at least. \Mike 15:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be from Latin declivis (inclined downwards, sloping, steep), declive (slope, declivity), declivitas (declivity) from clivus (gradient). The Latin would be an adjective which can also be used as a noun. —Stephen 15:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

General formatting and templatisation needed, including in the pronunciation and etymology sections. Thryduulf 01:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the section order, added the inflection line template, and cleaned and expanded the Pronunciation section. --EncycloPetey 00:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Split the etymology, cleaned up ety, except Arabic. What about the "American Spanish alteration" of atun? It would seem to merit an entry in the Spanish section. DCDuring TALK 16:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this an adverb or an interjection? Thryduulf 13:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard this used in the sense it's defined. It sounds like a protologism based on "for the last time". Either way, it's still an adverbial phrase. --EncycloPetey 14:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be disagreement about whether the first five definitions can be combined, and whether the two words are from the same etymology. Conrad.Irwin 22:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is already a discussion on Talk:cosmocrat, probably best to add comments there. - TheDaveRoss 20:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The verb definition was recently modified, and the result doesn't make sense to me. Firstly, I'm not convinced that "boast" is the right sense of "swagger" here; and secondly, I don't see what the "in association with elegance" part is referring to. —RuakhTALK 22:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dmcdevit noted above about "uncle, aunt, grandmother, grandfather" having translation sections split for issues that don't effect the English definitions ("maternal" vs. "paternal" and "in-laws" vs. "blood relation"). Seeing that note I found that these four do it also. (FYI I did harmonized some of the definitions). Nephew and niece fall foul for distinguishing between sororal and fraternal cases. Grandson and granddaughter fall foul for differentiating between "child of a son" and "child of a daughter" (are there adjectives for those?). Some of the entries actually have 3x translation sections (e.g. a section for "sororal", "fraternal", and "either"). For the ones mentioned by Dmcdevit there existed separate entries for each "maternal ..." and "paternal..." variant so overly specific translations were moved out of the base entry and into those more specific ones. Currently, there exist no extra-specific variant entries for these terms. I'd merge these translations sections together but I just wanted to post before doing so in case someone had a big problem. --Bequw¢τ 20:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This entry needs a proper definition. The current one is uninformative. --EncycloPetey 02:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Took a stab, please revise as needed. As far as I can tell, "X is behoveful for Y" is the same thing as "X behoves Y." That may be why this fell out of use so quickly. -- Visviva 09:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

this needs splitting into etymology sections and the pronunciation section needs formatting. Thryduulf 10:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been split and the pronunciation section cleaned up. All it needs now is the attention of an Arabic expert (...Stephen?) --EncycloPetey 12:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Amgine added this tag to Peripatetic stating "Adjectival use is not proper noun/capitalized". Dictionaries here, here, etc. indicate that the word should be capitalized in both its noun and adjective forms.--T. Mazzei 18:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There might well also be non-capitalized use in this sense, but we have deemed the two-way "see"s at the tops of the entries to be enough. I think our users would be better off if we included sense-line references to the capitalized forms in each uncapitalized PoS. DCDuring TALK 19:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
<nod> Actually I was requesting someone who knows more than I to clean that up, because I was not sure what was the correct response in that circumstance. Good to learn more! - Amgine/talk 22:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: your last sentence: I agree. I also think we should have sense-line pointers to forms that look regularly inflected but meaning-wise aren't. —RuakhTALK 23:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't grasp your last point. DCDuring TALK 00:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
For example, the word links (in the golf sense, I mean) looks like a regularly inflected form of link, such that readers coming across it in a text are likely to look up link. Our entry for link should have a sense line that directs such readers to links. —RuakhTALK 01:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Got it. I'm in full agreement. It would seem to be worth BP discussion and eventually, if consensus emerges, some kind of non-obligatory "guideline". It might be argued that it has implications for something like the Adjective PoS for attributive use of Noun, though that is a distinguishable situation. DCDuring TALK 02:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. Several of the senses in the adjective section appear to be adverbs (eg, "I feel it deep in my heart") - try changing "deep" to "deeply" to see which this is true for. They need to be removed and possibly added to the adverb section if they give senses not already in that section.
  2. Senses 13 onwards seem to duplicate senses given earlier or are adverbs. Is the American football sense the same as the sports sense?
  3. "Three deep" is not a helpful definition - does this have the same meaning as "in a number of rows or layers"?

—This unsigned comment was added by Paul G (talkcontribs) 09:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC).

This needs cleanup to the standards of other letter entries. Thryduulf 17:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make sure that this should indeed have been a redirect and not something else. -Oreo Priest talk 08:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is consistent with our practice.
We have extensive discussions on collocations that may be idioms and have many inflected and synonymous forms.
  1. Is it really an idiom (actually "Does it meet WT:CFI)?
  2. What is the right form for the main entry?
  3. Which synonymous forms merit entries?
  4. Which merit redirects?
  5. How can usage examples be used to lead searchers to the main entry?
We don't yet have a well-form guideline AFAIK, let alone a policy, let alone a policy that is consistently applied. It would be nice to have some facts about the impact of alternative approaches on users' success on Wiktionary under different approaches, but the metrics might be too hard. DCDuring TALK 09:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Another approach to my condolences would be to make it a real entry, defining it as short for "I would to like to [[offer one's condolences|offer my condolences]]. DCDuring TALK 09:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, google books:"you have my condolences" gets several times as many hits as google books:"I would like to offer my condolences" (and likewise on regular Google); I think it's fair to say there's not one specific expression it's always short for. The meaning (or lack thereof) is presumably the same, though. —RuakhTALK 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
condolences seems like a more logical target for a redirect; but should probably have its own entry per DCDuring above, since it is used in ways that "your condolences" and "our condolences" generally are not. -- Visviva 11:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Part of the reason the idiom needs its own page is that translations won't be obvious and logical (which is in fact the reason I created it). While I'm rocking the boat, I may as well suggest that WT:CFI for idioms be modified such that if the (near) does not have a clear translation target, it be included anyways (as with every translation dictionary). -Oreo Priest talk 18:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Was RFCed a while ago, never cleaned. Formatting is crap. - TheDaveRoss 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A user has requested dates for several quotations, and also notes that the glosses on the compound terms need to be moved to those entries. --EncycloPetey 16:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Tagged but apparently not listed here. This needs a lot of work. Thryduulf 21:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of odd content here. I'm not sure what to keep or where to put it. --EncycloPetey 23:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this need to be moved to Citations:tidal wave ? Mutante 17:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

At least it should be incorporated there somehow, I guess. It's linked there. -- Gauss 14:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Has two noun headers, neither has the meaning of "an unsteady gait". Should also have a verb sense meaning to move unsteadily. --Panda10 23:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Categorized as Hindi, L2 is Persian, and the script is Latin (although there is some Arabic on the inflection line). Could someone double check this please? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Lacking L2. While it claims to be a Latin phrase, I wonder if this should be marked English. I guess I don't know. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

hrm. It's a bad copy-and-paste move from the (now deleted) WP article of the same name. Dmcdevit·t 07:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If it's kept, it ought to be English. The Latin equivalent is merely sum of parts for "cheap body". Latin vilis means "cheap, mean, worthless". --EncycloPetey 13:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Inflection line says "sɬx̣ʷəm̕əy̕qsən". Not knowing Saanich, I have no way to know which is right. PierreAbbat 08:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The title of the page was right. However. All of the Saanich entries we have need to be corrected. They don't use the standard orthography which is all caps. I really should not have entered them without knowing the language. Sorry. Nadando 23:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt this is English as the heading suggests Mutante 13:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Mandarin. —Stephen 18:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

ACT = Australian Capital Territory This is listed as both an Initialism and an Abbreviation. To me it is only an initialism, but hardly my expertise. --Richardb 23:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

But isn't an initialism a kind of abbreviation? —RuakhTALK 23:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There are too many definitions - several of them really have the same meaning. Needs careful rationalisation.


Seems to be the same meaning to me in these two defintions.

  • (countable, uncountable) That which is captured or the amount which is captured, especially of fish.
    The fishermen took pictures of their catch.
  • (countable) A find, in particular a boyfriend/girlfriend.
    Did you see his latest catch?


  • (transitive) To detect; sense.
    He was caught on video robbing the bank.
Is this not the sense of capture? There is no sense or detect until someone looks at what is captured.
  • (transitive) To understand.
    Did you catch his name?
I'd question if this is the right defintion/meaning. It's not "did you understand his name", its more "did you capture his name". You can catch what someone says, without understanding the meaning of it.
------------- --Richardb 01:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Took a quick stab at this entry, but it still needs some work. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Richard, why does your outline not include the game? To "play catch" is not to "play (that which is captured)". It also makes no distinction between physical grasping senses and mental recognition senses. That's an important distinction. --EncycloPetey 07:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for removing definitions which were deemed necessary. However, after reading the definition, I'm under the honest impression that many people would have a hard time comprehending the definition, which is an issue to me. It's very convoluted. Macai 07:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Survey of verb definitions in various dictionaries now at Appendix:Dictionary notes/catch. Based on this I think the exclusion of sense/detect is plausible, but there is abundant precedent for some separate treatment of the "catch his name" sense. -- Visviva 10:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Having also surveyed noun definitions, I don't see any precedent for considering these two senses to be the same (particularly since the "find" sense is often used of a desirable future partner). On the other hand, there is plenty of precedent for splitting the countable (thing) and uncountable (quantity) senses, which I have now done. The survey process also made me keenly aware that the senses in the entry were actually far too few, a condition which I have tried to remedy. The entry now stands at 20 noun senses and 43 verb senses, all of which I believe to be clearly and verifiably distinct. I may of course be wrong. -- Visviva 13:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hamaryns has added an rfc tag to this template and to Template:en-verb with the note "HTML validator gives warnings in display table". I do not know what this means, since I have noticed no problem. However, this does mean that the queue will have to deal with every English noun and verb entry following the edit of these two templates. --EncycloPetey 13:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That should never have been placed on the templates themselves. Removing them will load the queue again.
He appears to be saying that the table is generating some kind of invalid HTML; however the templates use wikitables, so if there is a problem, it is in WM s/w, not in the templates. (Is also kinda useless: what warnings?) There is an HTML div wrapped around the table(s), but this is legit. In any case, we don't need to care about warnings (not errors) not generated by the template code itself. Robert Ullmann 14:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Validates fine for me (trying various pages that include {en-noun}). Looks fine in source too, nothing odd at all. Robert Ullmann 14:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The local validator that I have moans about the fractional width values, though I'm not au fait enough with the specs to know if this is allowed or not. Conrad.Irwin 12:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Fractional percents are a no-no. Some browsers compensate for them, but not necessarily in the same way for each browser. If we're going to specify percent widths, then they should be integral values to ensure proper and consistent page display. --EncycloPetey 17:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The odd thing is, while HTML 4.01 doesn't seem to allow fractional widths, CSS 1 and 2 do, so I can't see why a browser wouldn't just do for width="49.75%" what it does for style="width:49.75%". It's not like browsers have a tradition of enforcing the arcane constraints of HTML. :-P —RuakhTALK 00:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Listed as Jurchen, but in Latin script. Is Jurchen script supported by Unicode? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone look at the fomatting of Wikisaurus:body? Thank you. RJFJR 13:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This was added to Requests for cleanup by User:Atelaes today. IMO, it should be a request for deletion instead, because few people would look up this combination of words. hast should have an entry as an inflected form of haben, and haben should describe that in combination with the preposition zu, it has the meaning to have to (maybe with a stronger meaning). i think, that even in the base form (which is non obvious to me: zu haben? haben zu?) this word combination wouldn't be an entry in a German dictionary. --Zeitlupe 14:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this should be deleted, or at least moved to haben zu (to have to). hast is just the 2nd-person singular present tense of haben. —Stephen 06:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
hast du (do you have?) is much more common, almost sounds like a misspelling / typo of that one. Mutante 16:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

zu haben is the infinitive of this verb phrase. It's a common phrase in Germany and of sure it has a stronger meaning. It has nothing to do with the hast du. it has an entry in a German dictionary:

  • Der kleine Wahrig Page 433 (der kleine wahrig is after the Duden the most popular dictionary in Germany.) 13:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Listed as marijuana, which is hemp, Cannabis sativa/Cannabis indica. Leonotis leonurus w:Leonotis leonurus aka. Wild Dagga, Lion's Tail or Lion's Ear is an entirely different plant. The only thing in common with marijuana is that its smoked. Mutante 09:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not English- needs a definition and a correct language. Nadando 17:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Japanese--Hikui87 20:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Mostly the inclusion of alternative spelling within the sense. Not sure how this would be addressed - is this a UK spelling only for this sense, or for all senses? - Amgine/talk 03:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The page is getting very long and there are items that date from January. Jcwf 02:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Both adjective and noun on a capitalized page name? Mutante 10:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Many English adjectives that come from proper nouns are themselves capitalized. This one is too, at least in the few situations where I've ever seen it. --EncycloPetey 20:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Before i inserted the {{rfc}}, the {{sisterlinks}} and {{wikipedia}} template boxes overlapped the upper right corner of the listing (P cont.), so "German prepositions" was unreadable. Also the pages in the category root should be moved to the right subcategories, maybe except the Index: pages. And why is Latin letters here? "phrases" and "phrasebook" seem redundant. Maybe more cleanup to make it look less chaotic. Mutante 10:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the overlap. Latin letters appears on Category:Language page of each language that uses that alphabet, in the same way that Cyrillic letters appears on languages that use that alphaet, and Arabic letters on languages that use that alphabet. Phrases and phrasebook could be combined, but the idea was that "phrases" could be used for phrases of all sorts (e.g., Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch), while "phrasebook" is for items needed in everyday conversation (which could even include a few single words such as ja and nein). In any case, some of the phrases under "Phrases" should be moved elsewhere. —Stephen 11:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the overlap. I also understand the "Latin letters" now, and i have removed some of the words from the root category into the subcategories. Now there is the alphabetical sorting left to do. Either all subcategories should be sorted by the part after de: or none of them. Mutante 08:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
My strong preference is "none of them". —Stephen 09:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The usage note needs rewriting. Thryduulf 22:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

no structure. Mutante 16:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Added structure, but needs more work. —Stephen 05:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

long-standing rfc. I have taken a stab at it and at for the love of God. DCDuring TALK 01:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

rendition second verb sense.

Perfect as they are. See heckuva job. DCDuring TALK 02:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I had created this as an RFV-sense, but really I'm just hoping to sort out how many senses there are here, so RFC is where this belongs. The sense in question is this one:

  1. to manage (something); to succeed with (something); to accomplish; to cope with (something)

That is supposed to capture the sense of successfully completing the action described by the predicate. Usually, it seems that there is an implication that the action would have been presumed difficult to accomplish, but that implication doesn't seem to be present in some uses of schaffen that get translated as "succeed" or "accomplish". Does that mean there are two different senses here or is this really just one sense with different contextual overtones? Rod (A. Smith) 16:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian H. (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You might ask Dijan directly for help with this one. --EncycloPetey 18:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. --Dijan 09:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
But now Croation has stûdio, that should come on its own page. H. (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Does the sense of a bump (as on a shield) have a different etymology from the sense of a leader? The senses don't seem to be related in any way. — Paul G 09:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, there are at least three different words here. Now duly separated. Widsith 07:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Billed as an adverb, defined as a noun. (IMHO probably actually a conjunction and a mention-y noun with high levels of attributive use, but I leave that to a cleaner-up to judge.) —RuakhTALK 18:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a swing at it and removed the rfc tag in these edits. Does it seem OK now? Rod (A. Smith) 19:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. :-) —RuakhTALK 18:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Any ideas what's going on here? Conrad.Irwin 16:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have been copied and pasted, but with minor modifications, from la:Tag#Germanica Antiqua. —RuakhTALK 18:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The formatting here is almost completely wrong, and I wouldn't be suprised if there are duplicate/overlapping definitions as well. I don't have time now to check. Thryduulf 22:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No headings, no language. Mutante 10:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Mandarin, headings added. —Stephen 13:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No headings, language=Afrikaans? Mutante 10:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

fixed, and added Dutch. H. (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Verb senses seem to overlap, and please give examples for translators. H. (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to tidy up and give some examples. Some of the senses are obsolete - should they be translated? Dbfirs 21:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Should Humphrey be referenced there? H. (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure; that provides a citation demonstrating use. --EncycloPetey 18:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Rephrased. H. (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this supposed to signify that the phrase is identical in Czech and Slovak? \Mike 09:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, in Slovak is "dobrý deň". Maro 13:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The Korean section is clearly in the wrong script. This section needs to be moved to the correct entry spelling, if it is correct. --EncycloPetey 00:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

KYPark added it; I don't know why, as he also added the correct-script . Funnily enough, he made link to sum, but not v.v. *shrug* —RuakhTALK 21:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Greek L2 hdr, no grek script, no infl line, eng prop noun category. DCDuring TALK 20:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Ληξούριον. —Stephen 16:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate if someone could check these over for formatting and possibly add references. Thank you. --NE2 06:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably contains valuable data but needs structure. Mutante 10:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up by User:Conrad.Irwin. Mutante 16:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"==Expression==" ? Category:Swedish expressions? Mutante 10:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed to "Phrase". Created category. Done Mutante 16:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

How are those five senses distinct? These definitions are as entered upon the creation of this entry, in 2005.--Daniel Polansky 14:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My take: The first three seem virtually identical, all referring to the system (names + rules). One sense refers to all the names themselves (all the names within the system or of a given population). The other refers to the names associated with a particular entity and its attributes and parts, arguably combinable with the latter. Other senses include a document listing or cataloging the names and the entire process of naming or instances of it. DCDuring TALK 14:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I've merged the senses some time ago. --Dan Polansky 21:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

One of many recent additions by User:JackPotte that isn't quite formatted correctly. The definition is ungrammatical for English, and I am not quite sure how to fix it. --EncycloPetey 18:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 14:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Scots: Many of the defining words seem to be in Scots. DCDuring TALK 00:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorted. Widsith 13:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The figurative sense of the German verb melken (to milk) is apparently transitive. Is the direct (accusative case) object supposed to be (a) that which is extracted or (b) the person or thing from which something is extracted? Also, I get the impression that the literal sense is still usually conjugated as a strong verb (i.e. with a vowel change for the past tense) while the figurative sense is usually conjugated as a weak verb (with -t, etc.). Can anyone confirm that? Rod (A. Smith) 07:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The direct object is the entity that is being drained (der Staat melkt uns wie Milchkühe). I think I would use either strong or weak in the literal sense, but I prefer the weak for the figurative sense. —Stephen 14:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Stephen. Your feedback is now incorporated into the entry. Rod (A. Smith) 16:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Needs declension table for irregular noun. DCDuring TALK 01:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 13:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not defined in English. DCDuring TALK 13:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 13:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Partially defined in Swedish. DCDuring TALK 13:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 12:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Swedish, relates to orienteer, orienteering, etc. orienteering is a participle, not a noun, btw. I have little experience formatting entries. --Una Smith 15:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Is it correct to list orienteering as a noun? --Una Smith 05:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it’s a noun. —Stephen 08:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Striking, deleted, and "orienter" is not a Swedish word which has anything with orienteering to do. \Mike 10:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Has subsenses.—msh210 22:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not any more. DCDuring TALK 00:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No POS, is it a symbol?, {{infl|mul|symbol}}? Mutante 13:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Fixed. —Stephen 16:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No structure, rfc & rfv, whatever applies. sum of parts? Mutante 13:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No structure. Valid abbreviation? Mutante 13:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Is also nominated for deletion, but "Christmas elves" seems to be correct, if you look at [12]. Probably a Finnish noun, right? Mutante 14:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

< CK`> yeah santas elve is correct

Fixed. —Stephen 19:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No headings. Mutante 14:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No headings. Mutante 14:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Google says that it is an ancient form of , but unsure of the format or language. Nadando 03:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Not defined in English DCDuring TALK 22:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 22:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No definition. Uses non-existing templates. Mutante 22:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted by Dvortygirl. —RuakhTALK 23:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
"Anglificated"(?) spelling of name of (minor) Swedish place (in wrong caps) - keep deleted. \Mike 13:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

2nd software sense is way too wordy. DCDuring TALK 00:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up.RuakhTALK 23:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Derived terms is more like an appendix. Possible new entries? DCDuring TALK 11:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

needs rel terms section for content. missing defs/abbreviations. DCDuring TALK 12:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad title, and bad id on the wikitable. (Fixing the bad title just takes someone who knows Icelandic; fixing the bad id will take a bit of work.) —RuakhTALK 23:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Also {{fornöfn}}. —RuakhTALK 12:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A Hebrew entry, but in the wrong script. --EncycloPetey 02:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A Hebrew section has been added to רשע, and this entry has been deleted.—msh210 16:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This needs lots of work. In the verb, the example sentence does not use it as a verb. In the noun form the definition is a "reason" but the example uses it as a "person". See also hors delais by the same person. SemperBlotto 07:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Supposed to be a noun, but the first definitions are as verbs. See previous. SemperBlotto 07:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen it used in English, but surely it would be an adverb if it is English. —Stephen 19:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn’t follow naming scheme, and I think the title is ill-chosen, since it is totally uninformative. H. (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

These should all be changed to Category:Spanish verb forms. —Stephen 19:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's try not to be hasty, since these "all" cover more than 100k entries, which means at least 200k in the job queue plus a lengthy bot run, so it is worth it to make a decision correctly the first time. The "appropriate" name for this category, based on current conventions, is not what it was at the time the entries were generated, we ought to make sure the one that we change them to makes sense for now and for the future. These entries have been contentious all along, we don't have a standard format for inflected forms of verbs in foreign languages, nor even within the Spanish language. When I generated most of these entries two years ago I tried to use nothing but templates in the entries, so the formatting would be easily changeable, but that got shot down. Since then I have had to change them all with the bot at least twice, and I am not the only one who has had to run a bot on them. It generally takes a couple of days to change them all, so again I say let's make the right decision and not just a decision. - TheDaveRoss 19:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all, you were quite right to try and templatize them initially. It seems that this has now been accomplished. The current practice would indeed be to put them all in Category:Spanish verb forms, but honestly, there has been almost zero discussion on the best way to handle hundreds of thousands of inflected forms. So, we don't really have a long-term answer. Since the entries seem to be completely templatized (judging from a very small random sampling), making these kind of switches are fairly easy (just change the cat in {{esbot:conjugation}}). This happens rarely enough that the drain on the server is not of huge concern. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
This just doesn't make any sense to me. Just change the category in the template, right? Or is there some problem due to the big number of pages using the template? -- Frous 21:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is just a matter of changing the template, but the template is used by 100,000 entries, and so it backlogs Wiktionary for awhile, which makes everyone a bit hesitant to do it. I've made the switch, and I imagine Category:Spanish:Conjugated verb forms should be mostly emptied out by tomorrow, if not sooner. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Self-nom: just created, probably a lot of formatting/templating/categorizing missing. 10:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The definition does not fit with the Wikipedia article. H. (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

WP alone is not much to go on. Onelook.com is pretty handy for checking defs. I'd never heard of the coarse meal sense. It is not in MWOnline, but it was in older Websters as nearly synonymous with groat. There is a missing sense of lees. There could be some expansion or differentiation of the plaster/mortar sense. DCDuring TALK 15:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Previously tagged, not listed. —RuakhTALK 02:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Did some cleanup, but rfv’d it again. H. (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Removed English section. H. (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A Geordie expression, but I'm not sure that the definition is correct. It could probably be improved. --EncycloPetey 21:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Right. What does "boundred" mean? It's not even a word, is it? And "cad" is a silly, old-fashioned word to use here.
  • The current definition is rubbish, I am a Geordie I should know. In clean terms it means "I don't believe you" or "The claim you are making is ridiculous". The vulgar side of the expression is as in most cases used to give the exclamation some conversational weight and relevance. In short: hadaway and shite, the definition is bollocks. —This comment was unsigned.

Latin entry, needs formatting. Pistachio 17:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Latinoid, yes. The problem is that, in Latin, it's purely sum of parts and not worth an entry. It's literally "after noon", which is not a single word and is not at all idiomatic any more than English "after dinner" or "before dawn" would be. On the other hand, it might merit inclusion as an English entry, if the un-abbreviated form can be found in English sources. --EncycloPetey 18:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It does occur in English texts, for example in these quotations from b.g.c.:
  • 1853, John Drew, Manual of Astronomy: A Popular Treatise on Descriptive, Physical, and Practical Astronomy, with a Familiar Explanation of Astronomical Instruments and the Best Methods of Using Them, Second Edition,[13] George Bell, page 237,
    The civil day begins at midnight, and reckons 12 hours ante meridiem, or before noon, and 12 hours post meridiem, or after noon.
  • 1923, Christopher Morley, The Powder of Sympathy,[14] Doubleday, Page & Company, page 84,
    We reached that amiable town around two hours post meridiem, exceedingly hungry from our anxieties en route.
A significant proportion of its English-language uses are as subheadings in parliamentary records, apparently separating the records of morning sessions from records of afternoon sessions.
RuakhTALK 01:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, then I'll clean this up an an English entry...though not right away, sinc eI have other things needing my attention for the next few hours. --EncycloPetey 03:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Now corrected. --EncycloPetey 20:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A few things: Bad capitalisation, a TTBC, a definition which doesn't fit, an odd selection in the See Also section, no Wikipedia link and no usage note about (un)countable/plural/singular which would all be useful. --Felonia 14:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Converted to normal plural + 3rd person singular entry. Moved non-redundant dictionary material to hop. DCDuring TALK 16:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No language, no headings, Anglo-french? Mutante 17:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Supposedly an old form and spelling from ca. A.D. 1100. I don’t see any reason to have this page. Moved to the correct Modern French, which is à outrance. —Stephen 09:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No language, no headings.. ¨Mutante 17:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up and added proper headings. Michae2109 19:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The current definition is "A period of economic recession in which credit and investment capital is difficult to obtain causing a shortage of liquidity."

Does this mean "... in which credit capital and investment capital are difficult to obtain ..." (if that means anything), or "... in which investment capital and credit are difficult to obtain ..."? In other words, does "credit" modify "capital"? I'm no expert in economics, but if, as I suspect, it does not, then the "is" in the definition should be "are". There should also be a comma after "obtain", but I can add that. — Paul G 15:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the editor in question wrote is because he views "credit and investment capital" as a single, if bifarous (is that the word?), entity. (Alternatively, it may simply have been an error in editing.) I think we strive for a rather formal level of English, which I don't think allows this; so yes, I think it should be are. —RuakhTALK 16:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Should this be a determiner? This needs someone knowledgeable at grammar (ideally with some Norwegian) to look at it. Conrad.Irwin 21:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, I was not aware of it until I took a closer look at the grammar section of my dictionary. Mye belongs to the indefinite numerals (in my Norwegian dictionary they are called "kvantorer" and many of them were previously named "adjectival pronouns"), and is now considered a determiner. I'll change the header right away. Thanks for noticing it, and sorry for any troubles you had with the example sentences:).Michae2109 22:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
PS: I have now fused the headers "adjective" and "adverb" into "determiner" and moved all example sentences to this headline. What do you think? Michae2109 22:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Much better! Thanks, now we just need to change the "irregular usage" into a proper "usage notes" section, and the "idioms/proverbs" into a "derived terms" section (as at WT:ELE). Conrad.Irwin 23:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I have replaced "irregular usage" with "usage notes" and "idioms/proverbs" with "derived terms", as well cleaning up a bit in the Etymology sections (thanks to the WT:ELE link you provided). Hope it looks better:) Once again, thanks for pointing out these important issues. Michae2109

Mutante 22:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Mutante 22:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Mutante 22:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned it up a bit and added some referenced definitions, what do you think? Michae2109 18:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, good work. Mutante 18:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Mutante 18:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have cleaned it up and added some referenced definitions. How does it look? Michae2109 18:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Much better, thanks. Mutante 18:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. Michae2109 18:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be copied directly from [15]. Nadando 00:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it; we don't want copyright violations even in our edit histories, since they're still publically accessible. (Off-topic: how come we don't have [[publically]], and how come Firefox thinks it's misspelled? I'll grant that publicly is apparently more common, but publically seems very decently attested.) —RuakhTALK 00:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who added the Australian pronunciation, but it can't be right:

  • Is /a/ really used in Australian English?
  • Shouldn't the last /a/ be a schwa?
  • There is no stress mark. (It is obvious where this should go, but the lack of it suggests to me that the pronunciation was added by someone who doesn't understand IPA, which means that the pronunciation is probably wrong.) — 13:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. —Stephen 10:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Mutante 21:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No lang. Mutante 21:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Language headers added. —Stephen 21:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The entries for cardinal numbers are a mess. Here's the monstrosity (IMO) of a definition that was there before I edited it:

  1. Two plus three. One plus four. Six minus one. The typical number of fingers on a hand, including the thumb. This many: •••••. Ordinal: fifth.


The only thing I liked about that definition was the line of dots.

Unfortunately, it is not limited to "five"; "four" looks like this too. I haven't looked any further to see what the entries for other cardinal numbers look like.

There is a further problem... the words "five", etc, are nouns ("the number following four") and adjectives, or cardinal numbers, as we denote them ("as many as is denoted by the number five", or something like that). I think we should probably define the adjective/cardinal number in terms of the noun, as I don't think it is possible the other way round.

There are also two definitions in the cardinal number sections of these entries: "Describing a set or group with n components." defines an adjective (and isn't worded too well, IMO); "one plus three; two plus two; two times two" are duplicates of this adjective definition; and "The number after three and before five" and "The typical number of fingers, other than the thumb, on one hand." are definitions for the noun.

So let's lose the ugliness and keep just the "Describing ... components" definitions (perhaps changing the wording) for the adjective section.

I also fail to see the need for the "cardinal" label in brackets - we've already said this is a cardinal number, so why are we saying it again? (The "colo(u)r" label in the entries for colours is similarly redundant.)

Paul G 14:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a long-term, well-known, and often-discussed issue. What keeps us from fixing it is (in part) a deadlock disagreement on how numerical entries should be labelled, formatted, and categorized. Really, the adjectival and noun(al?) uses are both aspects of the same part of speech: Numeral (Number), since all such words in English are a special class of Determiners that may always function as either a noun or adjective. The "Describing a set with "n" components" falls under this as well. An extra problem here is that we can't agree on whether to use "Number", "Numeral", "Cardinal number", or "Cardinal numeral" as the official header for such entries. I put forward a vote some time ago that ended with no consensus, so we still have all four headers in use, often with more than one appearing among the entries of a single language. Any attempt to standardize the headers results in people reverting to whatever was there before, and I know of at least three people who who each have a strong prefernce that differs from the preference favored by the other two. The result is that we have a mix of headers in use. If we could at least agree that "Cardinal..." is wrong, then that would reduce the number of possible POS headers by half.
The purpose of the "cardinal" label is the same as "transitive" or "comparable"; it clarifies the grammar of the word. If we choose to use "Number" or "Numeral" as the standard header, then this information is not duplicated in the header. Why then not use "Cardinal number", "Cardinal numeral"? Because it proliferates headers and adds too much detail in the header, just as we used to have with "Transitive verb" or "Definite article". There are more kinds of numerals / numbers than just Cardinal and Ordinal. There are Fractional, Multiplicative, Distributive, and Adverbial ones as well, and this again would proliferate needless header variants if we allowed all the possible combinations. So, putting (cardinal) on the definition line allows us to (eventually) simplify the headers. I agree with you about the use of (colour) however, since that is not context information. --EncycloPetey 21:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Context": Northern Australian Aboriginal. same meaning as English. Originally it was shown as a separate Etymology of belong. Is this a separate Creole language? What language? There are cites of dialog. Is it eye dialect? DCDuring TALK 11:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have inserted Kriol as the language line, but the etymology given conflicts with that, I think. DCDuring TALK 11:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Over-cited dated meanings, no current meanings. Looks like someone's notes for a part of a history paper. DCDuring TALK 10:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Mutante 11:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Put simply this looks a mess and needs some TLC. Thryduulf 17:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Just delete it, I'd say. Why does "hasn't one" merit a dictionary entry? —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
    • I've no strong opinion either way, but I've nominated it at WT:RFD on your behalf. Thryduulf 00:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitions section seems to have sub-definitions which shouldn't occur. __meco 09:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Bad formatting removed. DCDuring TALK 21:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Mutante 11:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Mutante 11:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The entry name is wrong, but more than that the entry is encyclopedic. -EncycloPetey 19:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Another user (see text below) has found some entries containing "-sss" as a result of {{en-noun}} gone wrong. The lemma pages need to have their inflection template corrected and the offending incorrect plurals need to be moved or deleted. --EncycloPetey 17:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete a few from This page too - no time for me to check them--Lethal Inspection 17:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The noun sense needs to be rewritten. —RuakhTALK 23:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

tendentious definition. DCDuring TALK 20:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The spelling is incorrect. The correct spelling is pravopizdžija. "Z", and not "ž", is the audible counterpart of "s" (changes from "pravopis" to "pravopiz-"). "Ž" is the audible counterpart of "š". --Dijan 04:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Google pravopiždžija (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive) — Google pravopizdžija (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive) — deleted as a protologism. (By the way, Dijan, are you sure you mean audible and not voiced?) —RuakhTALK 16:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, voiced. "S" before "d" becomes voiced. —Stephen 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I meant "voiced". Sorry :) --Dijan 23:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually pravopiždžija is the correct spelling, because *zdž cluster is not allowed and abides by something called hr:jednačenje po mjestu tvorbe :) So *pravopisdžija > *pravopizdžija > pravopiždžija. This is a colloquial term that rarely occurrs even in spoken language, but is hardly a "protologosim" and is listed in at least 2 common Croatian dictionaries. I'll see to find some quotations. For the future, please don't just plainly delete terms like this on sight, use formal RfV/RfD procedure. --Ivan Štambuk 18:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Entry is for Hebrew Joshua, headword and L2 are Malay? DCDuring TALK 21:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither Hebrew nor Malay, it’s Malayalam. —Stephen 21:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
In any event, it is beyond my pay grade and looked to need to be sorted out. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For Wiktionary heading purposes, can a collective noun be deemed a "hypernym" for the noun or the individual items in the collection? Even if we can, should we? This is somewhat analogous to deeming "abbreviations" "synonyms", a little bit of a stretch of the ordinary meaning of the term. The case in point: bunch and hand at banana. The Appendix on collective nouns does not seem to adequately provide convenient access to the relevant information to casual users. DCDuring TALK 16:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hypernym is the wrong word there: not all bananas are “bunches” or “hands”. Indeed, no bananas are. A closer term would be holonym. —RuakhTALK 17:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
For more, see WT:NYMS.—msh210 19:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I don’t see any relevance of these links at all. What’s the connection of “bunch” to “banana”? And how is “banana” to be a collective noun?
While we’re at it: What’s with the (overly concise) reference to Banana Boys? I’d delete it. H. (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I found out now. But the fact that I did not get the connection and had to look for it makes it clear that indeed something needs to be done there. I think it should just be put in a usage note. Note that at bunch, the reference to “banana” is missing. H. (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge adjective and noun sense? H. (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what the inflection line indicated, the adjective is comparable (and gradable) and it can probably can be used as a predicate. Therefore, it ought to be shown as an adjective. I'll try to provide some citations for both kinds of usage. DCDuring TALK 09:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. H. (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Split senses in synonyms. H. (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Mutante 15:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 16:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I’ve made a few changes; please review them. BTW, is the masculine plural not curieuces?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Nope, it's as the entry says. —RuakhTALK 17:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Mutante 15:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Added as a Tamil word, but in Latin script. --EncycloPetey 19:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be English. It has translations into other languages, such as Malayalam ഗുരുകുലം, but I believe it actually comes from Sanskrit (guru + kula, master’s family). —Stephen 14:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Mutante 15:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Done (by Goldenrowley). Now listed on RFV. —RuakhTALK 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Mutante 16:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Mutante 16:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Mutante 18:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, please take a look. —RuakhTALK 22:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be made a secondary entry, making nitpicking the main entry, per Googling, with major victory on the web and a minor one in the Google books. So it should better be moved to nitpicking by someone who was the rights to do so, moving the quotation from there over here before the move.--Dan Polansky 12:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but I expect that the hyphenated form is more often used as an adjective and the unhyphenated form used as a noun and verb form. A comparison of number of hits won't determine that. The search results have to be individually checked for grammar. --EncycloPetey 20:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Mutante 20:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. It just needed to be translated from Portuguese. --EncycloPetey 20:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How is driver related to germane?? H. (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean rider, not driver. It's a semantic relationship; in parliamentary procedure, it's often considered poor form (and sometimes forbidden outright) to attach a rider unless it's germane. It's certainly not a "related term", and I don't think it warrants a "see also" link, so I've removed it. —RuakhTALK 14:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

SOMEONE POSTED A BAD WORD ON THE ANTIC PAGE!!!! CLEAN IT UP!!!!! P.S. I'm not sure if the example was even correct.

Looks like its cleaned. Mutante 16:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Mutante 11:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation for US has a "j", which is not common in US for verb or noun. DCDuring TALK 12:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, so one of the usage notes says this should be hyphenated. I don't see how that's even possible (un-copyrightables? uncopy-rightables? uncopyright-ables? uncopyrightable-s? doesn't fit...at all...) Teh Rote 14:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; I've removed it now. (The editor who added that note was also editing [[goddessship]] around that time; I'm guessing he intended the note for that or another such entry, or simply got confused.) —RuakhTALK 16:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it was meant to be unco-pyrigh-tables. I've adjusted the usage note accordingly.—msh210 17:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What happened? This entry has three separate Translations sections, but only one POS section. --EncycloPetey 05:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Determinism. DCDuring TALK 06:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Somebody was well meaning here but lacked the syntax. Please help to repair it, so we dont loose the new info he provided and is not simply reverted. Mutante 03:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sense removed, appears to be a protologism. --EncycloPetey 03:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This entry needs a POS header and formatting. --EncycloPetey 03:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Mutante 16:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A Spanish-speaker should maybe just take a look at the following words. It seems they have all been created by User: but all were lacking part of speech. (See his talk page). I tried to insert the POSs with the infl-template to the best of my knowledge. Also some need wikification and maybe better templates and a category "Nicaraguan spanish" or something like that. Mutante 16:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

gallopinto guacamol entenada entenado desturcar descachimbar desmarimbar desguanguañar desguachipar chancho culero chiclan chaparro chaparra cerote turquear

User:Xtv has been creating many non-standard categories and templates for Catalan. This is one of them. This inflection line template generates not only the inflection line, but the definition line as well. As a result, AF tags all these entries as lacking a definition. This template needs to be cleaned up at the least, and probably replaced with a {{ca-noun-form}}. --EncycloPetey 20:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted - defective template; orphaned. --EncycloPetey 06:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is English. H. (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad formatting. Wrong part of speech. Some questionable definitions. SemperBlotto 07:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

To wit:

  • baja, Spanish noun and verb — Cleaned up by EP; still missing a bunch of noun senses, as well as the various form-of-bajar verb senses, if anyone wants to add them.
  • scissoring, English verb #2 and example sentence for #1 — Noun definition added to verb section; if this is real, I'm not sure if this is really a noun, or if we're missing a verb sense at scissor, or what. (The example sentence does suggest it's a noun, since it has "we do scissoring" rather than simply "we scissor", but it needs RFV.) Also, minor formatting problems.
  • mud, English noun #4, re-added after anonymous deletion as protologism; minor formatting problems; needs RFV.
  • fango, Spanish translation of English noun #1 — Seems to be erroneous; fango is a fairly general word for mud (though not as general as lodo), and it's hard to believe that it can have this additional specific sense. Also, minor formatting problems.
  • skull fucking, entire entry — Has received help from Widsith, but still needs work: the definition is not the one that I've heard (and that can be found on b.g.c.), which BTW is a form of skull-fuck, and even if it's right, it's roughly backward (in that it portrays the patient as the agent), and to top it off, there are minor formatting problems.
  • face fucking, entire entry — Various issues, starting with the inflection-line headword.
  • throat fucking, entire entry — Various issues.
  • google bomb, entire entry — Various issues, starting with the inflection-line headword. | Moved to Google bomb.Mutante 07:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • irrumatio, entire entry — Mostly O.K.; needs Latin; going by the b.g.c. hits, "as a receiver" is misleading.
  • deepthroat, last phrase in definition — seems fine to me.
  • tribbing, entire entry — Has received help from Mutante, is mostly O.K. now, but might warrant RFV (one relevant b.g.c. hit, and it's a mention — and is this really a noun rather than a form of a verb trib or tribb?).

RuakhTALK 17:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Should use the form-of CSS classes. H. (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And while we’re at it, maybe also make it conform to Wiktionary:Form-of templates? H. (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained inclusion of Old English and other Germanic material as "Notes". Odd entry structure. DCDuring TALK 09:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that’s just User:KYPark. He’s busy trying to prove that Korean is an Indo-European language. Germanic material removed, revised Romanization implemented. —Stephen 14:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
It still looks odd. One definition, five sets of synonyms, etc. DCDuring TALK 15:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no indication of which of the audio pronunciations is which. They need to be separated and put under the respective written pronunciations (I can't do this as I don't have speakers on my machine). — Paul G 17:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

They've all been sorted now, with each Etymology now having a pronunciation section. There were also two etymology sections that belonged togather, and these have been combined. --EncycloPetey 19:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a strange verb - sightsees sounds OK, but sightsaw and sightseed and sightseen all sound wrong to me as the past tenses. --Jackofclubs 10:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

All but "sightseed" seem to exist. Added ety (back-form) and usage note referring to "go sightseeing" as preferred by some. DCDuring TALK 11:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is an audio pronunciation here, but which sense (verb/noun) is it for? — Paul G 08:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, it's for the noun, even though the verb is much more common. *shrug* —RuakhTALK 19:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Needs structure. Mutante 06:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Does not seem to be a word. Caps would be wrong anyway. Simpler to delete. SemperBlotto 07:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of non-existing templates, needs structure. Mutante 06:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Does not seem to be a word. We have biblio-. Deleted. SemperBlotto 07:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The headword used in the page is belonging, not belongings. I know there are issues with the use of singular of this word, but I guess the entry should address them explicitly. \Mike 10:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please inspect. Compare with belonging. DCDuring TALK 11:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - makes more sense now, I think :) \Mike 12:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The English section needs cleaning up (transwikied). --EncycloPetey 19:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. --EncycloPetey 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The English section of this Transwikied entry needs to be cleaned up. --EncycloPetey 00:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. --EncycloPetey 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong present & participle forms on wear off and worn off has been started but then emptied for some reason. Mutante 09:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User may have realized that default template use wasn't going to do the job, wasn't sure how to do it right, and tried to clean up after himself without admin powers. Simple past and past part added, though we don't always inflect verbs like "wear off". DCDuring TALK 10:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The etymology of the Hungarian müezzin suggests muezzin more specifically is from Ottoman Turkish. If so muezzin also needs Ottoman Turkish script. Pistachio 11:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly a problem I've never seen before... --EncycloPetey 17:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I put it through a ten-step program, I think it's good now. :-) —RuakhTALK 02:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Translation section needs to be split into 2: the state and the island. --Borganised 10:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've set up the table sections, but the Translation still need to be checked and moved. --EncycloPetey 19:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  1. 2 pronunciations shown without accent indication;
  2. def. seems tendentious. DCDuring TALK 23:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I’ve fixed and ref.’d the prons.; def. looks fine to me…  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I've added the American pronuns. The defn. looks fine to me too; it's very close to the AHD's definition. Angr 10:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No structure. Mutante 09:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Back when Moldovan was considered a separate language from Romanian, this was the Moldovan word for "Moldovan" (as a feminine singular adjective). Nowadays it's spelled moldovenească. I don't know what our policy is regarding Moldovan in the Cyrillic alphabet. Should we label this ==Romanian== and call it a "Variant spelling of moldovenească"? Should we label it ==Moldovan==? Angr 09:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Update: I found the masculine at молдовенеск. It's labeled ==Romanian== but it's in Category:Moldavian adjectives. I don't have time to clean this up myself right now, but whoever does can follow the precedent of молдовенеск. Angr 09:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Added structure. —Stephen 09:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I changed the ==Romanian== label to Moldavian, because we also use "{{infl|mo|.." and Category:Moldavian language existed. Mutante 06:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this really Mandarin? It just said Chinese, and i put in "zh" then. Mutante 09:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Japanese and Mandarin. —Stephen 09:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This page, Category:Sciences, has been vandalised severely. I don't know how to revert it on my own, can someone help? Minor Editor 09:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed; thanks for pointing it out! Angr 09:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Need POS and formatting. I'm not sure whether it's an adjective (participle) or verb. --EncycloPetey 19:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 17:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a useful entry, especially when it stands not as the opposite of "could do without". Many learners use reverse deduction to think that if "could do without" means "to manage or to live without something", then, "could do with" should mean "to manage or to be able to live with something". As a result, they come up with sentences like "If I cannot see you and your car tomorrow, I can do with my feet.", "You don't have to send me your book now, I can do with my lecture notes.", etc. The explanation that the phrase means "to need, want" is important to learners. Examples:

I could do with two weeks away from the children and the washing-up.
You can both stop leaning against the wall; I can do with a helping hand.
This car could do with a good polish.
I have a bottle of whisky in my car. We could do with it now.

--—This unsigned comment was added by Busibodie (talkcontribs) 10:19, 27 September 2009.

could do with is a subjunctive of a defective verb. This entry does not show the relationship. The form including without trivially has the same problem since it is virtually SoP. I am not grammarian enough to be confident in the correct way to present this, but enshrining subjunctive forms because of the meaning associated with being subjunctive seems like a poor direction. DCDuring TALK 19:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Italic text

The problem arises with the idiomatic meaning encased in the phrase could do with. can do with does not have the same meaning, neither does do with. Furthermore, there is no infinitive lemma form possible. Add to that the problem of the past form, which is obliged to use the perfect modal. Finally, the negative couldn't do with does not imply the opposite of could do with. could do without and can do without are the only possibilities. -- ALGRIF talk 13:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The whole thing seems quite complicated to me. Could do with (want/need/would like) definitely seems to be alone, as you say; can do with, did with, etc. are all grammatical, but without the idiomatic sense of. However, I think do without (get by without, manage despite the lack of) is indeed an idiom, with all its forms. In theory, therefore, could do without has two idiomatic senses: the normal idiomatic sense of do without, just wrapped in the normal uses of could, *and* a special idiomatic sense that's the reverse of could do with. However, the problem is that the two aren't totally distinct. I'd gloss one as “I could deal with not having” and the other as “I’d rather not have”, which sound distinct when phrased that way, except that the former could definitely be used as a form of understatement and in fact mean the latter. What's more, I have a feeling (which quite possibly is wrong) that a reversal of this understatement is actually the origin of could do with. I'm pretty sure we should have [[do without]] and [[could do with]], but I'm not sure about [[could do without]]. —RuakhTALK 21:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Please bear with me as I try to get my arms around this. I may well end by agreeing with what you had done and disagreeing with my disagreeing self. It will probably take me a couple of days to get comfortable with it. I respect the judgment and knowledge of both of you, but still would like to get comfortable with the presentation of this for the benefit of users. I'm not at all sure that this wouldn't best be done with a long usage note at "do with" to facilitate comparisons of the forms/terms. Each of the forms or terms would need essentially the same usage note. conDCDuring TALK 00:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for putting in fairly clear language the doubts that prompted my initial RFD entry. I am also bothered by my inability to get this entry into a user friendly, Wiki agreeable and generally all-round acceptable shape. I can take on-board your objections to could do without. Perhaps do without + usage notes would be the correct solution there. But I still cannot see any alternative to the entries could do with and could have done with, due to their special case idiomatic meanings. -- ALGRIF talk 13:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The various entries revolving around these expressions seem to be taking on some kind of reasonable shape now. -- ALGRIF talk 16:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

need to be split by accent, preferably also reducing space. Are PoS headers needed (2 lines taken up)? DCDuring TALK 17:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Current BP discussion favors using ===Pronunciation 1=== and ===Pronunciation 2=== as section headers. --EncycloPetey 20:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Same split by accent, not phonetic alphabet as above. DCDuring TALK 17:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Extreme space problem. I'm not sure there is any solution within the existing rules other than show-hide. DCDuring TALK 18:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did you create 5 sections? Nadando 19:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Not intentionally. The question I ask myself is: "How did I create 5 sections?" It must have been impatient keyboarding (back button?) during a period when the WMF servers were unavailable to me. I'll go clean up. DCDuring TALK 20:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The inflection line is a complete mess, the rest of the noun section could do with a looking over too. Thryduulf 21:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've met you halfway- following most of the -ics, I marked it as an uncountable. Teh Rote 22:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Simple raw counts of b.g.c. hits for "linguistics-is" and "linguistics-are" gives roughly equal results. This might be invariant rather than uncountable. It needs some analysis to confirm that conclusion. It wouldn't surprise me if something similar turned out to be true for many of the other "-ics". It would certainly seem to fits physics, economics and mathematics. As overall fields of study they are singular only. "Physics is more popular than chemistry." But when applied to something specific, the words are countable, but invariant. "The physics of a pendulum is simple." "The physics of various abstract simple machines are the objects of mechanics." DCDuring TALK 01:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
O.K., but of the first twenty hits at google books:"linguistics are", only one is actually treating it as a plural subject. (In the rest it's "X and linguistics are" or "Xes of linguistics are" or the like, or in one case "generative and cognitive linguistics are", which I believe is elliptical for "generative [linguistics] and cognitive linguistics are".) By contrast, of the first twenty hits at google books:"linguistics is", twelve are treating either "linguistics" or "[adjective] linguistics" (e.g. "human linguistics", "historical linguistics", etc.) as a singular subject. Also, even if you accept physics as a countable plural, do you accept it as a countable singular? How does "A pendulum has a simple physics" sound to you? —RuakhTALK 01:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
You cannot say "five linguistics", so the noun is uncountable. Whether the noun is treated grammatically as singular and/or plural is a separate issue from countability. --EncycloPetey 20:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems a bit messy compared to various other Latin entries I've encountered, but not knowing Latin I don't quite know how to fix it. Teh Rote 22:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. --EncycloPetey 20:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Etym.—msh210 18:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup requested, but not listed here. --EncycloPetey 20:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

madam(s), house styles, nominalism, pervy, wererat, weretiger, word scale, vad för en, radicant, subsverience, upcomming, wage moderation, all present and correct, teky, 改寤, 美術, slowpoke town

Mutante 22:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

in a very good mood, iquest, time line, vegs Mutante 07:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Lower case adjective but definition is "pertaining to Antarctica" which belongs to Antarctic. What is the definition then instead? Compare arctic and Arctic. Mutante 00:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Other dictionaries have it, MW Online says usually capitalized. Alt spelling? Merge with cap to save any translations or move this one to uppercase? DCDuring TALK 18:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Actual meaning seems to be about the same as arctic. And its comparative form exists. DCDuring TALK 18:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Can this be rescued? Presumably a shortening of congratulations. SemperBlotto 16:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's O.K. now. —RuakhTALK 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Two noun sections under one etymology. Also has a few other problems.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

help —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 21:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC).

Many things wrong. DCDuring TALK 04:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

See also’s contain a lot of (unnecessary stuff) (← damn, couldn’t find the proper word here). H. (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The rfc asks "translations or related?" for the "See also" list in the entry of selected abbreviations of legal entity names for various countries. It seems to me that we should have an appendix for these that each individual entry could refer to in its "See also" section. I would also think we should have Latin/Roman spellings, whatever the original script, whatever the result of the more general decision about romanizations and transliterations. There are likely to be standard romanizations that are broadly agreed/accepted in international commerce. DCDuring TALK 16:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

See relatedly User:Msh210/Sandbox.—msh210 17:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
You motivated me to find w:Types of business entity. DCDuring TALK 18:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone has added content (apparently from fr.wikt), but it is not formatted or fully translated. --EncycloPetey 02:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Content useless, removed hence and from fr.wikt. —RuakhTALK 03:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A sloppy page, the definition is awkward, and the usage notes are rather sketchy too, e.g.

  1. Old man who has lost his hair and hearing and use of his legs 1: "I've just lost my hair and hearing and use of my legs"
  2. Old man who has lost his hair and hearing and use of his legs 2: Yeah? Tell me about i

—This unsigned comment was added by Jackofclubs (talkcontribs) 14:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC).

Mostly needs usage example/citation, perhaps from fiction. Can then drop existing usage note, possibly add a better one, if necessary. DCDuring TALK 12:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I have inserted 3 citations of the type I mentioned just above, edited the definition, and deleted the usage notes. Please review and make further changes, especially to definition, and add any usage note that might be appropriate. The notion that "tell me about it" often means "don't tell me about it" or "you don't have to tell me about it" might be worth including. DCDuring TALK 16:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The article gives some examples of the phenomenon. This happens regularly at linguistic or stylistic words. I am unsure how these should be formatted. Maybe we should start a discussion on WT:BP about this. H. (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As linguistics experts, mavens, and fans, we often seem tempted to exempt linguistics-related entries from our general rules. Adding non-standard headings and materials is one of the prime surviving examples. One of the best approach to finessing this is to be a little creative in the use of citations. Appendices referenced in "See also" would also do, especially to provide longer lists. But Wikipedia articles are often better. DCDuring TALK 12:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the current approach at [[non sequitur]] (having example sentences that use the term in describing an example of its referent) is fine, though sometimes it's a bit contrived. Another option is an example-box like Wikipedia has (see e.g. [[w:Adjective]]); the problem there is that Wikipedia articles are about concepts, so can easily present examples of a given concept, whereas our entries are about words, and examples are typically sense-specific. (We already handle this for images, though, so we could apply that approach to example-boxes. It's not as smooth for example-boxes as for images, but it would work.) —RuakhTALK 12:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The existing approach is not in accord with what a usage example is. It allows encyclopedic content for certain entries. It squeezes out true usage examples. It shows a contempt for the rules that are applied to non-linguistic entries. DCDuring TALK 12:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
How is it not in accord with what a usage example is? What kind of "true" usage examples get squeezed out? What rules does it contemn that we apply to non-linguistic entries? It seems like we always try to show something in our example sentences. (Admittedly, I do have some sort of sense that there's something off about this, but I can't identify what it is.) —RuakhTALK 15:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The three purported usage examples for the third "humor" sense of [[non-sequitur]] do not contain the words "non sequitur". They are examples of non-sequiturs. It would not surprise me if they formerly appeared under the "illegal" Examples header. That is the "rule" I was thinking about is that we not have "Examples" as a header, it not being in WT:ELE. I had the same perception problem for the first few times I saw these things because it is natural to want to illustrate linguistic phenomona in their entry and the space occupied by usage examples and usage notes is natural. I actually thought it was you who had recommended the idea of creative use of citations to get around the problem. Maybe it was Visviva or EP or DAVilla. Whoever it was, thanks. The idea would be to find a citation that used the headword in a passage that also included one or more examples of the linguistic phenomenon. That would respect the primary purpose of a usage example and also provide the illustration that we need.
An example box would be a desirable format. Do we already have a template or a format for such? DCDuring TALK 15:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh! Yeah, I totally agree that the quotations under sense #3 are a problem. Somehow I didn't notice them earlier; my comment above was about the example sentences under senses #1 and #2. I've just created {{examples-right}}, which is like ExamplesSidebar but with some improvements, and tried it out at [[non sequitur]]. I'm sure it's not very good, but it's a start. —RuakhTALK 17:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Perhaps an even paler yellow background, because the box itself is already distracting, because it breaks with the appearance of most of our entries. Also we should have glosses not sense numbers, in accordance with our practice in trans-top and rel-top, no? DCDuring TALK 18:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Now that we've got a good format, we can face the substance problem. The bgc hits for non-sequitur (humor OR humour) take pains to say that humor requires something more than a non-sequitur and do not use [[non-sequitur]] in sense 3. They use it in the other senses, AFAICT. The examples illustrate a humorous "surprise", something humorously unexpected. Using non sequitur for that doesn't seem accurate. Does it need an RfV-sense? DCDuring TALK 18:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The point about the examples is that the endings do follow from the preceding words, but not the first construction that comes to mind. Although we may find some evidence for this usage, it seems confused, confusing, and erroneous. I have yet to find it in another dictionary (OneLook). DCDuring TALK 18:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Excellent indeed. This is a solution I’ve been waiting for. H. (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Need to recover from a well-meaning PoV push edit. Wheat needs to be separated from chaff. I began, but was starting to lose patience. DCDuring TALK 16:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

WP article deleted. There is some bgc and scholar use of the term, but not enough to support the three definitions given. If it can't be cleaned up, then it should be RfVd to collect some citations so we can figure out what it means. Or someone could get the WP article and use that to provide one (or two) definition. DCDuring TALK 02:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Tagged, but not listed. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Wikified, simplified, moved to lowercase. SemperBlotto 07:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Another user wrote "nothing about this article conforms to Wiktionary standards" --Jackofclubs 10:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

For a start it should never have had an entry anyway... This is nothing more than free software. Conrad.Irwin 11:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
free software would just mean "without having to pay" (free beer), but there is a big difference to w:Free software as in the w:Free software movement. Also see w:Free beer & w:Gratis versus Libre. Mutante 07:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This etymology section needs lots of references --Jackofclubs 11:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The usage notes section is pretty long, and has some unverified comments too. --Jackofclubs 11:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? ALTON .ıl 06:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nemzag is doing weird things with a number of languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic. Someone who knows Hebrew or Aramaic should check. —Stephen 20:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing definitions, etc. DCDuring TALK 02:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Recently spun out of n. No inflection line missing def. DCDuring TALK 02:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Added definition. --Jackofclubs 17:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Unclean formatting. Uncategorized. Mutante 07:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 21:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I somehow messed up the formatting so that both definitions are listed as def. # 1. sewnmouthsecret 20:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. You have to have the # symbol on each line. —Stephen 21:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

French words. No use of templates. Some English translation is bad. SemperBlotto 11:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a Noun? No category, external link to some website. Mutante 09:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —RuakhTALK 14:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Etymology questionable. Usage note on pronunciation seems encyclopedic. Adverb section seems wrong in part. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Etymology section changed. Nadando 00:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Definition line needs an accuracy check, please.—msh210 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

First adj. defn. needs rewrite.—msh210 19:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Multiple definitions, most of which seem to be the same to me. Contents of Citations page is actually references. SemperBlotto 08:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Norwegian entry had/has a combined adj & adverb section. Some of the content should be split off into and independent adverb section. --Bequw¢τ 09:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Prescriptivist, judgmental, and unreferenced. —RuakhTALK 17:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the problem. It could use references, certainly (a not quite on one is at [16]), but gee, grammar is "prescriptivist". "Judgmental" seems a stretch-- does it say "people who use "different from" are cretins? Not that I can see. -- 18:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Striking. I'm O.K. with its current form. Any lurking prescriptivists, feel free to take a look and de-strike if you object. :-)   —RuakhTALK 20:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Heading for a noun instead of an initialism, could use some more explanation of what QEX actually stands for. Nadando 23:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I changed the heading to Initialism. I think it should probably be capitalised, too, but I have not checked that in detail. Equinox 19:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Characters from the Bengali alphabet. Needs a radical overhaul before user can add all the rest. SemperBlotto 15:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I did a lot of work on . It needs some transliteration and definition of the examples, but otherwise it should be in good shape. —Stephen 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Needs an inflection line and Conjugation section. New user Verbo could probbably use some guidance from experienced Dutch editors. --EncycloPetey 18:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Entries with level or structure problems | English words needing attention Mutante 23:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC). Also see sugging please.

No headings, POS, categories.. Mutante 23:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a form of eat like a bird, but I can't remember what we normally do in a situation like this. --EncycloPetey 01:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, I ran across this: WT:REDIR#Redirecting between different forms of idioms. Redirect or full entry. If redirecting from entry not merely differing by a pronoun, I would guess it might make sense to include the term in "Alternative forms" at the redirect target. DCDuring TALK 08:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The definition smells like a copyvio, but I don't have the source to check. In any case, the definition is overly complex and not written in the style of a dictionary. --EncycloPetey 01:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Needs formating, --Borganised 13:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Formatted.--50 Xylophone Players talk 19:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what such an entry is supposed to look like, but, as is, deleting this would be better than keeping it. DCDuring TALK 03:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussions I've seen disfavored the inclusion of these sum-of-parts numerical entries. The information could be better handled with an appendix on constructing and using such numbers in English. --EncycloPetey 19:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The translations sections here is considerably less developed than many other of our entries of this importance. Maybe we could have a translation collaboation here, and get [[feel]] up to the standard of [[hinder]]. --Jackofclubs 17:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Needs a few things as outlined in the tag in the entry. Also needs some wikilinks if it is to be counted by the software so when you fix it be sure to remove it from Articles not counted as "good" by the wiki software --50 Xylophone Players talk 19:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at this? The headword looks a little odd and so does some of the linking. RJFJR 16:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Should be Boon Bong Wang.

See: http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Talks/SunMyungMoon08/SunMyungMoon-080623.htm



Can the material on this orphaned talk page be somehow used to create an entry komilla? Such an entry has never existed, as it seems. -- Gauss 22:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: There is always a first time!!! The word 'Komilla' exists in many ways and in many countries. So, As long as the content is not wrong, what’s the harm in creating an entry that did not exist till now? --—This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 22:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)..

I basically called for the creation of such an entry by someone knowledgeable because the material on the talk page is too confused for me to make any sense of it. Have a look at other entries how an entry is supposed to be formatted. Questions to answer (in an entry, not here!) are, for example: Which language is komilla supposed to be? Is it a proper noun (hence capitalised) or not? For what concrete meaning is the word used? For your information, talk pages without corresponding article are normally deleted without much ado. -- Gauss 23:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Better???

Stephen thanks for your help with the Arabic Pronunciation. Although the word would be pronounced diiferrently in different languages, but can anybody help with a basic pronunciation (in phonetic symbols – British RP as well as IPA) of this word. I think the Spelled Pronunciation would be something like /kaw-me-laa/ —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 15:43, 17 November 2008.

Better, but still not clear enough. First, it is still on a talk page. Second, it is unclear which parts belong where. There is a section proper noun, which should probably end up on a page starting with an uppercase character, such as Komilla or Comilla or Komila or ... Then, there is a section adjective, which has a definition line full of nouns. That can't be right. Third, the links you provide lead to komala and kamala. So, is komila even the right form? I'm afraid I'm completely useless at sorting this. -- Gauss 15:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitions given are way out in left field. From a stationary gun, you strafe an advancing line of attackers. Video games have had absolutely nothing to do with "shifting" meaning of WWI era terms that have remained in common use, for about a century. --Connel MacKenzie 12:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The entire section seems to have been copied from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/acquaintance

Is it correct to say that such copying can't be done? Nikitakit 23:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The copying was actually from acquaintance in Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam, 1913 That source is in the public domain; for politeness' sake, we should indicate that we used it, but it's not a copyright violation or anything. I don't know why Dictionary.com tags it copyright 1998. *shrug* But yeah, our entry does need clean-up. —RuakhTALK 02:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I did some clean-up (and removed the rfc tag). I think the entry makes sense now. Someone should probably cite the source, but unfortunately I don't know the right wiki format. Nikitakit 04:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This page is a mess... How about removing the "representative power"? (defined in Webster's as "The representative power; the power to reconstruct or recombine the materials furnished by direct apprehension; the complex faculty usually termed the plastic or creative power; the fancy.") It is used only in the synonym and translation sections and the translations for it are identical to the "image-making" section. That leaves image-making and resourcefulness. Nikitakit 14:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No lang, structure. Mutante 06:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Done by Stephen G. Brown. Thanks. Mutante 16:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong templates, structure. Mutante 06:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Done by Goldenrowley. Now RFV. Thanks. Mutante 16:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The entry on the French Wiktionary seems to indicate that this is not a noun as our entry states.--50 Xylophone Players talk 22:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The French Wiktionary calls it a "prepositional phrase", but its gender note and both of its definitions are suited to a noun (-ish). I think the problem is not with our POS header, but with our translation, which is an adjective. —RuakhTALK 23:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Bad translation. Cleaned up. —Stephen 00:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Confusing mess pasted directly in from Wikipedia, and the article is written in a hand-waving haughty tone I'm not sure I like. Anyone know about this word and can tidy it up? Equinox 02:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted by SemperBlotto. —RuakhTALK 14:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up somewhat, but more work is needed. (Also, I think it's really a proper noun. The plural is barely attested.) —RuakhTALK 15:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Moved it to lc (matching most citations), added cites. bd2412 T 20:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sort synonyms, antonyms by sense; general modernisation of 1913 language. DCDuring TALK 21:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedic. By the same editor as neo-Pantheism. —RuakhTALK 23:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: the title of this section was previously [[Spiritual Naturalism]].

Same editor as neo-Pantheism and religious naturalism. —RuakhTALK 20:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

  • This, together with ALL the contributions of User:Jlrobertson need attention. Nouns defined as proper nouns, capitalization chosen at random, encyclopedic, strange section names etc. Is it worth the bother or shall we just delete them? SemperBlotto 22:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Just moved it to spiritual naturalism; the capitals aren't part of the phrase, and it's not a proper noun. I don't feel very qualified to do cleanup though! Equinox 23:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed caps but they are proper names of religions, added refs. Hay, I'm learningJlrobertson 17:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of the claims in this overly encyclopedic definition are paradoxical to say the least. I don't see how a world view can be devoid of supernatural assumptions while simultaneously allowing religious interpretation and a concept of god. This strikes me as borderline gibberish. -- WikiPedant 05:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/voodoo&diff=4021623msh210 20:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this a conjunction, adverb, or both? --EncycloPetey 06:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I changed the entry to conjunction because the usex and sense were derived from that PoS of since. But both since and ever since also seem to be to be usable as prepositions "ever since the election" and possibly adverbs "I saw him then, but haven't seen him since". DCDuring TALK 12:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added what seems to me to be an adverb sense. SemperBlotto 13:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, so it seems to be as complicated as I thought, if not more so. I have to agree, DC, that it seems to function as a preposition as well, and will add the appropriate section for that. --EncycloPetey 18:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that we've addressed the cleanup and added the adverb to since, it is so obvious that this is SoP: an intensifier + since. DCDuring TALK 19:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... you may be right. Do you want to take this to RfV or should I? --EncycloPetey 19:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. It has become "obvious", but wasn't. Perhaps the best result would be to have the usage examples with "ever" included at since. Maybe someone could see a reason to keep it. I'll RfV it. DCDuring TALK 19:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Taken to WT:RFV. --EncycloPetey 22:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The etymology section needs cleanup, in my opinion. --Shruti14 18:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In what way? What's wrong with it? --EncycloPetey 18:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
What? C'mon EP, everything and its mom was wrong with it. Incorrect ety formatting, incorrect spelling of Greek, no distinction between grc and el, rambling and incoherent explanatory notes..... I have cleaned it up and removed the tag. Please feel quite free to reinstate it if you feel it remains unacceptable. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I never said the entry wasn't flawed; I was trying to elicit specifics. Saying something "needs cleanup" is extremely vague, and specifics can help, even if someone just says "I find this hard to read". --EncycloPetey 23:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

For which is the plural? H. (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Two conflicting etymologies are offered; which is correct? Also, there is an older problem with the references section, which is unclear.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

conflicting sources. Online Ety Dictionary seems best. Hard to avoid copyvio without finding a definitive scholarly source, IMO. DCDuring TALK 16:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much all major modern dictionaries, including the MW3 and OED, favor the Italian antico as used to mean "grotesque." "Antique" should be mentioned, but seems to be only indirectly related. -- Visviva 22:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The usage note is not understandable. At least I cannot parse it. I moved the example to the definition, but a better one could be given. H. (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it and the tag and conformed translation gloss to definition. A disagreement as to whether a maven was "self-styled" was aired in the entry instead of on the talk page. A maven is not necessarily self-styled according to other dictionaries and my own experience. DCDuring TALK 17:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree "self-styled" is completely incorrect. I've added {{Australia}} per the talkpage, but suspect that the regional tags should be removed altogether: any Rightpondians/Canadians around?—msh210 18:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And all other Romansch categories: interestingly, Ethnologue calls it Romansch, but SIL calls it Romansh. Which one should we follow? Wikipedia seems to have chosen for Romansh. H. (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia lists several possible spellings, and typically holds onto the earliest spelling of an article title when several variants exist. So the reason they use the spelling "Romansh" is simply that it's what the initiator of the article chose. Even the earliest version shows that the author was aware several spellings for the language name existed, but we've no idea why that particular spelling was chosen in 2001 for the article.
The current spelling for our category was chosen after examining multiple print sources regarding the language and books on languages in general. The Romansch edition of Wiktionary also used that spelling before it was closed. The Ethnologue listing is usually more useful than SIL, since Etnologue is the printed and edited version published by SIL, and often contains additional refinement. We should retain the spelling Romansch. --EncycloPetey 20:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Any Chinese folks have any idea how to do this? I'm rather lost here. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am continuing to find well-meaning but wrong entries for Latin "suffixes". I'd like some input on how to revise this entry. The first definition is incorrect, in that it implies "-ium" is a formative suffix used to form nouns. However, the first example goven for this (auditor - auditorium) is clearly incorrect. The correct sequence is that the noun auditor (one who hears) became an adjective auditorius (pertaining to listeners), whose neuter singular nominative has the inflectional ending "-ium". It is rather common for the neuter singular of adjectives to take a substantive (noun) sense. So "-ium" is not a formative suffix in this situation. I cannot tell whether the other example (castellum - castilium) is valid, since "castilium" does not appear in my Latin dictionaries (for either Classical or medieval Latin).

The second definition, for forming chemical elements in New Latin would need support. By the time these new elements were being named, Latin was no longer the international language of scientific communication. I am not sure that the "-ium" element names are actually New Latin at all, since those names aren't used in the languages I'm familiar with (e.g. the Spanish name for osmium is osmio).

So, what do people recommend doing with the entry? --EncycloPetey 04:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If there's an ISO code for dog Latin, this would probably qualify. :-) Otherwise I'm not sure what to do with "suffixes used in some modern languages to make up Latin-looking words." The chemical sense could perhaps be Translingual, though as you note it is not used in many languages. -- Visviva 05:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, to begin with, it seems like this suffix could be considered a combination of -i- and -um, with -um being a second declension neuter (nominative, accusative, and vocative, right?) stem, and.....I'm somewhat confused about what -i- means, but I suspect it is similar to what's currently presented in the entry. Otherwise, it could simply be considered the neuter form of -ius, meriting only an inflected form entry. Note that I'm only talking about Latin, not English. I suggest that someone (someone being an utterly unambiguous reference to EP :-)) write good entries for -ius and -um, and see where that takes us. The English seems ok to me. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
What part of speech is an inflectional ending? Generally, we haven't ever included inflectional endings as their own entries, unless it was a formative suffix. In Latin, the -us would indicate (usually) masculine nominative and second declension, but is not tied to one part of speech. It can show up in nouns, numerals, adjectives, and participles, but there are several verb forms that end in -(am)us, -(em)us, or -(im)us. The comparative of many adverbs ends in -ius. In short, there isn't anything useful or specific that could be said in an entry about the ending. The ending appears in every major part of speech and it is only part of an inflectional pattern in each (except adverbs, which technically do not inflect). --EncycloPetey 22:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Needs to be formatted as abbreviation, provided it meets CFI in this form (uppercase?). -- Gauss 19:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No lang, no structure. Mutante 16:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Given lang, structure. —Stephen 20:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The definition is not quite right. This really means an explosive personality (i.e. the personality of someone with a temper). It is not the term used to refer to a physical explosion. bd2412 T 00:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Needs to be split by etymology. —RuakhTALK 01:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I added two translations into Arabic, transliterated. In hidden comments I included URLs to sources where the words appear in Arabic script. Could someone with an Arabic keyboard please fix up these entries? --Una Smith 16:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. —Stephen 23:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone fluent in Italian, French, and English etymologies should sort through and weed the list of descendants. Most of the listed terms come from a word other than mitto. --EncycloPetey 22:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed most of those descendants and they should be added to the compound verbs when they are made. I expanded the derived terms as well. Is this sufficient to remove the tag? Regarding mass, I presume it's enough to have the descendant only on missa and for mess, to have it on missum. Caladon 10:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. --EncycloPetey 14:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not English. Not a noun. What to do with it (and many more to come from the same author)? SemperBlotto 22:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a noun, in use in English. That makes it an English noun. no?—msh210 23:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It’s a valid term that needs a definition, at least at the moment. I don’t know if it’s going to be around for a long time or disappear before it’s ever recorded in a significant text. I think we should keep it. —Stephen 07:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
There are about 10-12 of these. Are they Translingual? Is it really worth having all of them? Any of them? DCDuring TALK 17:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how we handle demonyms. Is this one SoP? Is the more common capitalisation of the collocation ("aboriginal American") SoP? The adjective PoS seems not always to be attributive use. DCDuring TALK 00:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the first-'a'-lowercase version is SoP, to answer your second question. The first-'A'-uppercase version I think is not SoP: although it has the same referent as Aboriginal + American, it gets at that referent via a different reference (if that makes any sense).—msh210 19:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The word gets a lot of googles but I'm not convinced the definition is good. RJFJR 02:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Italian "tin" and "water hole" senses have different etys. DCDuring TALK 16:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I see. I thought it was only "stannum" that meant "tin" in Latin. Lewis and Short give "stagnum" a 'perhaps' for that meaning. I wonder if part of their chain of evidence is the Italian! Do we need another opinion on stagnum#Latin? DCDuring TALK 21:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    Lewis and Short mark the word with a double-dagger, which indicates "found only in inscriptions, or in the old grammarians or lexicographers." It is, most likely, a word recorded in previous Latin dictionaries. Without a citation, we could choose to ignore it, but leave some kind of Dictionary note. --EncycloPetey 21:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The adjective sense given seems correct based on hits, but is not the definition Onelook has for this word: it has a verb, which I cannot seem to cursorily attest. Can anyone attest the verb and add it? Is the adjective truly attested?—msh210 17:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A jumble, especially of etymologies. DCDuring TALK 13:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Help! Supposed to be Kikongo (a macrolanguage according to w:Kikongo); given definition is not particularly intelligible and difficult to verify. -- Visviva 12:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

4 defs, some amateurish. Too specialised. Some SoP. DCDuring TALK 01:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Synonyms section needs splitting by senses, and hyponyms need to be spun off into their own (also split-by-sense) section. —RuakhTALK 09:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Etymology needs work, probably trimming. —RuakhTALK 16:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to incorporate as much of the word-evolution information as possible into the etymology: but that wasn't much, because most of the 'languages' aren't considered separate by our (and ISO) standards, and the spellings differed from ones other reference materials agreed upon, too. But I added another sense to the English ("I'll have my people get back to you" - although now I question whether or not this belongs at *?my people/one's people insead or not), and RFVed the French section. — Beobach972 17:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I think the additional sense is fine where you put it; my people would be too specific (you can say "I'll have my people call your people"), and one's people might be over-thinking it. (We need the placeholder when it's in the middle of an expression, like in eat one's heart out, but otherwise I think it might be too much work for a nebulous distinction.) —RuakhTALK 22:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition is vague and it lacks an inflection table. I can't find many "useful" sources to define the word, but [17] says it means of the Cape or from the Cape Colony, or of the Cape of Good Hope, South Africa. Caladon 20:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Generally, it means "from the Cape Province, South Africa, which includes the region of the former Cape Colony. --EncycloPetey 10:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge of Ukraine would help. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 01:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As a proper noun I know of it. Is it also a common noun in English? —Stephen 20:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This entry was for some reason treating this forename as primarily Czech, which is nonsense, even stating it's "often used in Czech Republic,...", which is utter nonsense (10 people thus named in Czech Republic phone book [18] &c). I removed all the mentions relating to Czech (language or republic) and leave the rest to those who might know in which languages it's relevant. --Duncan 20:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Labelled as "Gaulish", it does not specify which Gaulish. Each branch of Gaulish has its own ISO code. --EncycloPetey 22:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Labelled as "Gaulish", it does not specify which Gaulish. Each branch of Gaulish has its own ISO code. --EncycloPetey 22:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Transcluded in fast#Usage notes and easy#Usage notes. Should be briefer, clearer, and better referenced. Or maybe just deleted. —RuakhTALK 20:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleting it would be the most easiest and most practical way to make this briefer. We have no need for such things in a dictionary. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete, indeed. H. (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC) I come back to this. I think it is a good way to make sure both pages have the same content, which seems to be wanted here. But it should be briefer. H. (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition is much too restrictive. Several senses missing. (and I'm too busy with Italian) SemperBlotto 11:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would move the citations (or at least some) to the main page, to illustrate the definitions. H. (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And which citation refers to ill-boding, portentious according to you? All three illustrate the second meaning and 3 citations in the main entry under a single meaning are numerous, to say the least. Bogorm 14:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
That is my main concern about citations pages: it is often not clear to me which sense they are supposed to illustrate. Anyway, then at least one can be moved or copied to the main page. H. (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Tagged, but not listed: overlong usage notes; ety includes alt form? usexes uninformative as to meaning (I suppose usexes = usage examples) H. (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This Lithuanian verb needs cleanup. --EncycloPetey 18:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A b.g.c. turned up some confused usages, but they seem to verify the first sense, at least. There also seems to be a woman's name or pet name Wiggie. However, the entry needs cleanup, and this isn't a word I feel I can define properly myself. --EncycloPetey 21:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The definition needs considerable trimming. --EncycloPetey 07:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Radically trimmed. DCDuring TALK 15:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

destroyed, used when you are angry at an object. For example, you broke a lamp, you say: "This blighted thing!" —This comment was unsigned.

Inserted {{rfdef}}. Is the example above synonymous with "This damned thing!" and "This flipping thing!" ? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 00:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Our definition is a possible copyvio of the OED’s.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Replaced with Webster's 1828. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 20:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was against WMF policy to have links to pay sites. Does en.wikt have its own policy on this? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
IMO such links should certainly be avoided and replaced with alternative resources where possible, but I'm not aware of any fixed policy. Where they are useful or necessary for referencing, we should have them. And the OED is, well, the OED; we can't replace it with an equivalent resource in most cases because there aren't any equivalent sources. -- Visviva 01:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the entry is coming along nicely, but I should note that the original entry was not copyvio, in my estimation, since it was also verbatim from the 1st edition (volume 9 part II, page 255), published 1919.[19] I've been daydreaming of an OED1 import project...-- Visviva 01:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Better than the average daydream! A citation to any OED print edition or free online would be fine with the pay OED online link as an optional substitute for the fortunate or deserving few. The 1919 isn't fully scanned yet, is it? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 02:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Go hither and enter the card number GWP3230000X; my gift to you and whomever else: free access to the OED.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Worked once. Thanks for the try. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 00:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
You’re welcome.   *shrug*   It’s funny — it still works for me…  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A user has made badly-formatted additions. --EncycloPetey 20:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Now partly cleaned up. I wasn't sure how to handle sense #1; its subsenses don't seem to be actual subsenses, in that (e.g.) "nationalism or patriotism" doesn't seem to be a kind of "membership in a particular nation", and for that matter, I'm not familiar with all of them. (I've never heard "nationality" used to mean "nationalism or patriotism"; is it dated, or regional, or just something I'm not familiar with?) I'm considering removing the {{rfc-sense}} and instead adding {{rfex}}, {{rfquote-sense}} or {{rfv-sense}}, to try and elicit more information about those senses before deciding what to do with them. (BTW, is this approach to subsenses standard now? I remember them being discussed, but I don't remember the conclusion.) —RuakhTALK 22:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The sense of “nationalism” is attested in NOAD, M–W online, and from dictionary.com: Random House Unabridged, AH4, and Webster's Revised Unabridged. The NOAD divides all senses into two types of nouns: one's nationality or status vs a nationality or group, while the others classify them more specifically. Michael Z. 2009-01-11 16:16 z
If it is attested in the NOAD, then perhaps you could share some of their evidence? I don't own the NOAD or have access to a copy to see what evidence they provide. I also don't see how "independence" is a form of "one's nationality". --EncycloPetey 17:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm not totally sure which of my questions you're replying to. By giving a list of dictionaries that the "nationalism" sense is attested (?) in, I'm guessing you mean to reply to "is it dated, or regional, or just something I'm not familiar with?", and are implying that it's neither dated nor regional, but just something I'm not familiar with; am I guessing right? And by describing other dictionaries' division of senses, I'm guessing you mean … no, I don't have a guess, sorry. Care to rephrase? :-/   —RuakhTALK 18:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant it's defined in those dictionaries, not attested. You can see the sources for yourself—the NOAD is the built-in dictionary on every Mac, and Merriam-Webster[20] and Dictionary.com[21] are online.
Regarding “nationalism” or “patriotic sentiment,” Webster's expands on this as “the quality of being national, or strongly attached to one's own nation; patriotism.” I'm not familiar with it being used this way either, so I'm just citing these sources. None marks this dated or regional.
Regarding political independence, this particular one would apply mainly to groups, countries, nations, or members of them. It's not a separate sense in the NOAD, but is in five other sources (I've since looked at the CanOD's entry).
It seems to me that the first four are senses of nationality as a status, a state, or a quality of a thing; they are abstract nouns whose meanings may overlap. In contrast, the fifth is a concrete noun. Only the NOAD establishes these two groups of senses, but I found it helpful in trying to form a mental model of all these—it's like grouping the senses into two families, or two finely-sliced sub-etymologies. Michael Z. 2009-01-12 00:48 z
Do I understand correctly that you're using this structure:
1. foo
1.1. bar
to indicate that "foo" and "bar" are related senses? I find that incredibly confusing; to me, that structure indicates that "bar" is a special case of "foo" — say, a specific figurative use, or a use of "foo" with a specific syntax, or a particularly common instance. If you want to use a subsense structure to indicate that "foo" and "bar" are related senses, I think you should create a meta-sense that covers both of them (likely with a non-gloss definition), and list them both as subsenses, rather than trying to make one into a subsense of the other. Or am I misunderstanding?
RuakhTALK 01:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I used this structure because the NOAD uses it this way. My interpretation is that the first sense is the most general of the first four, and the other three describe more specific nuances of that one. I'm not married to the sub-sense structure, but it works for me. Michael Z. 2009-01-12 06:37 z
So I've explained why I used subsenses this way. It's certainly not common around here, and I'll be fine with it if you'd prefer to flatten the definitions. Go right ahead, because it doesn't look like there will be much other forward motion on this entry real soon. Cheers. Michael Z. 2009-01-12 15:58 z
  • This is getting overly complex and confusing: Michael Z. says that nationality is "National or ethnic character", "Nationalism or patriotism", "Political existence, independence, or unity". I am sure, it’s copied from another online dictionary, but this lacks some common sense.
"Nationalism or patriotism" is forms of ideology, while "nationality" is a status of affiliation: you can’t mix them or use as definition. Also the "Independence" is a state act. These could be related to "nationality" but they are not synonyms at all, nor could be used as definition. The "ethnic character" meaning of the word "nationality" is rarely used in modern English: today it is primarily a Russian/Ukrainian meaning of this word and it it used this way mainly by English speakers with Slavic heritage.
Michael Z. is saying that he is not familiar if these definitions being used this way, so he is just blindly copying it from other sources without complete understanding or experience.
To put it simple in one word, in modern English the word "nationality" generally means "citizenship". There are some nuances, which reflected in Wikipedia, but here in the Wikionary let’s keep it simple and let’s not overload this with inadequate words and translations of these words. Besides, the offered Slavic translations are incorrect, making assumption, that "nationality" is the equal to "ethnicity". Some fresh web quotations on this aubject::

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nationality nationality

1) the country that you are a citizen of.
2) the country that you hold a passport of.
3) you can claim nationality of a country by birth, descent (child or grandchild of citizens) or naturalization (marriage)


Difference between race/nationality/ethnicity
Nationality generally refers to what country you are a citizen of (Canadian, German, American, Japanese). Ethnicity vaguely refers to what "original" socially and linguistically-coherent group of people one is descended from. This is different from nationality since while most people living in Germany and Austria are citizens of their respective countries claiming their respective nationalities, for the most part, they all belong to one German ethnic group sharing a pretty common culture and language (while many immigrant groups live in these countries and can claim German or Austrian nationality, they aren't ethnically German).


nationality (From: Encyclopedia Britannica)
Affiliation with a particular nation or sovereign state. People, business corporations, ships, and aircraft all have nationalities.


- citizenship of particular nation: the status of belonging to a particular nation by origin, birth, or naturalization


Nationality is a pseudo-relationship between a person and their state of origin, culture, association, affiliation and/or loyalty. Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person, and affords the person the protection of the state …The legal sense of nationality, particularly in the English speaking world, may often mean citizenship

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nationality&oldid=3445883 (earlier version)

nationality (plural nationalities)
1. citizenship


nationality synonyms
1. Citizenship
native land, allegiance, adopted country, political home; see country 3, origin 2.


Alternative term for citizenship.
I would at least revert to this EncycloPetey version 5950283. I could also offer my own one-sentence definition. Nationality: "Membership of individual or organization in a particular nation or state, by citizenship, origin, birth, naturalization, ownership, allegiance, etc." Chelentano 07:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have added the following other definitions (Taivo 11:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)):

From Random House (at dictionary.com):

1. the status of belonging to a particular nation, whether by birth or naturalization: the nationality of an immigrant.
2. the relationship of property, holdings, etc., to a particular nation, or to one or more of its members: the nationality of a ship.
Note that both of these definitions include a legal status, that is, citizenship. An ethnic definition of "nationality" cannot include legal status, only a birth status.

From American Heritage (at dictionary.com):

1. The status of belonging to a particular nation by origin, birth, or naturalization.
Once again, the legal status implied by "naturalization" is only appropriate when discussion citizenship, not ethnicity.

For both of these two authoritative dictionaries of American English, the notion of "citizenship" is the first definition of "nationality" and the notion of "ethnicity" is secondary. Websters has citizenship as the last option. Thus, two out of three American dictionaries give citizenship as the first options. (Taivo 11:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

The definition has been carefully compared to the definitions in the three major American English dictionaries and includes the primary meanings and variants found therein in a consensus order. Please justify your reversion to an inferior definition. (Taivo 12:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

The most common definition found for nationality is "citizenship". That is the primary usage in English sources. The first definition should therefore be citizenship. Subsequent definitions generally involve ethnicity and membership in a "nation". Other definitions include the sovereignty of a "nation" or "region" and patriotism. (Taivo 12:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

You're making a few leaps in logic.
Perhaps naturalization implies a legal status, but it follows origin and birth, which do not require one. You've also imposed a restricted sense of nation = “country”, which these dictionaries do not do not. And you're saying that since (you suppose) 67% of your references define this with citizenship before ethnicity, then the other 33% is dead wrong—but that isn't true, and I believe these dictionaries' editors intended that all the senses define the word, not just the first.
You haven't shown that the notion of citizenship is first, or even present in these two dictionaries, and you've shown no reason to disqualify the third (Webster's), except it more clearly doesn't support your argument. (And why only consider some U.S. dictionaries?) I haven't even seen a dictionary definition of nationality which even mentions the word “citizenship”, so let's stop jumping through elaborate and tenuous hoops of logic to try to turn these into synonyms. Michael Z. 2009-01-12 20:23 z
Actually, there are two words the are not clearly defined in the speech of native speakers which you seem to be treating as clearly defined. First: "nation". This term has two meanings for native speakers, and this is clearly reflected in the dictionaries--"ethnic group" and "state". The "ethnic group" definition is often used in technical descriptions, but in the common speech, there is not a clear distinction between the two meanings. America and Canada are often called "nations", but they are not in a technical sense since they are multiethnic. Second: "nationality" carries forward this ambiguity between "citizenship" and "ethnicity". There is a clear difference between a legal status--citizenship, and an ethnic status--ethnicity. Both meanings are used for "nationality". For example, ships are often listed by "nationality". This is unequivocally a legal status. The definitions also refer to naturalization. Naturalization is not an issue of ethnicity, but only of citizenship. It is a legal status and legal status only refers to citizenship. You do not gain an ethnic status by naturalization. Indeed, you cannot ever change your ethnic staus. You mention that the use of "birth and origin" seem to unequivocally confer an ethnic meaning for "nationality", but this is not the case. Most people get their legal citizenship status by birth and origin. It is also not unusual for these two issues to contradict ethnicity. For example, a child of Japanese parents born in the U.S.--an American by citizenship/nationality, Japanese by ethnicity/nationality. Because of this ambiguity it is important to separate the disparate meanings of nationality and to accord first place to the meaning most commonly encountered in reliable sources. From my examination of the major American English dictionaries (American Heritage, Random House, Websters), the majority of sources place the citizenship definition first. (Taivo 04:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC))
You're still making several leaps by applying your own restricted meanings to dictionaries' definitions, as well drawing false inferences from what I wrote above.
And as I have written before, citizenship may be inferred to be included in nationality, but the two are not synonyms by a long shot. Naturalization includes several things, including non-legal definitions, as well as residency and landed immigrant status, so, for example, per the US legal definition “nationals” of a country includes people who are not citizens. Barring DNA testing, people's “ethnic status” is not absolute—it is much more commonly self-determined by an individual, or arbitrarily assigned based on outward appearance. And how does your speculation about “native speakers” and “common speech” belong here?
So if your favourite majority of three actually did say that citizenship is primary, then what about Webster's? Are you saying their entry should be discounted as unreliable, or perhaps that the order of senses doesn't convey their importance?
But still, no dictionary mentions “citizenship” in defining nationality. Michael Z. 2009-01-13 16:29 z
That's not true. See my links above. The word "citizenship" is mentioned in Urbandictionary, Encarta, Wikipedia, Wiktionary (until you overwrote it), yourdictionary.com, businessdictionary.com -Chelentano 17:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I only counted the real dictionaries which we had seen to date. I didn't consider online forums, inadequately-referenced self-published work, and out-of-context quotations from encyclopedia articles which discuss various aspects of the subject. Michael Z. 2009-01-13 18:31 z
Chelentano, your urbandictionary cite was written by “anonymous” and given a thumbs up by ten other anonymous website readers. Your Yahoo answer was the best of three posted on a public forum, as selected by coffeecrazed75. Your encyclopedia.com/Britannica cite is an excerpt from the article “Citizenship”, so it's no wonder the word is mentioned. Your Encarta cite paraphrases the Encarta Dictionary entry, comprising 5 senses (one of them summarized citizenship; hooray!). Your YourDictionary.com cite is from the thesaurus section—it is not a definition, it is one of several synonyms, which means it overlaps some sense of the word to some degree. Your BusinessDictionary.com cite is from an anonymously-published advertising website (but see nation). If my contribution “lacks some common sense”, then I have to give you credit for compensating. Michael Z. 2009-01-13 21:02 z
To muddy the waters a bit further, I've started Appendix:Dictionary notes/nationality. Please revise/expand as appropriate. At the moment, it covers only the 9 dictionaries that I have ready access to; however, data from NOAD and Webster's International, etc., would be most welcome. Since it had just come up, I made a note of which dictionaries mention "citizenship" (Collins Concise and the Longman DCE).
Overall, the lexicography of "nationality" is rather scattershot, and there are wide variations in approach. 7 out of the 9 dictionaries include the "nationalism" sense, but only the OED bothers to mention that this sense is "now rare." (My own earlier check on b.g.c. had brought me to the same conclusion -- one can find a few uses, but they are thin on the ground and most are at least a century old.)
Out of the 10 rows currently in the table, there appears to be broad lexicographic consensus on 5 senses, with 3 additional distinct potential (but very obscure) senses, and 2 possible senses that IMO are unlikely to be distinct.
Only 2 of the 9 dictionaries use subsenses; the fact that the OED and MW3 assign these in completely different ways suggests -- to me -- that we might be better off sticking to a flat list.-- Visviva 17:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I added a couple—sorry to add rows, but they differed in substance from the existing table rows. Michael Z. 2009-01-13 20:30 z
You will notice at Appendix:Dictionary notes/nationality that the "citizenship" meaning has the most entries as the number 1 definition ("State or quality of belonging to a nation"). But your attempts to remove "citizenship" as an important component of the "nationality" definition hinges critically on a tight technical definition of the word "nation" as an ethnic group. If you actually compare the definitions of "nation" in these dictionaries you will discover that there is no such tight distinction between "ethnic group" and "state" in the definitions of "nation". (Taivo 21:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC))
BS. “Citizenship” appears in 2 of 11 entries. How am I “attempting to remove it” if it's mostly absent?
Many of these definitions of the sense of “status of belonging to a nation” simply rely on the definition of nation, while some go further and add by origin, birth, and naturalization, and Webster's fills it out as “or being connected with a nation or government by nativity, character, ownership, allegiance, etc.” Obviously, citizenship may be an aspect of some of these, but lumping them all as “citizenship” is a too-big stretch. If it just meant citizenship, why wouldn't it just say “citizenship”?
My point to you and Chelentano is that it is not restricted to only citizenship, nor is it primarily related to citizenship. I have not said that nationality only means ethnicity. I have cited myself as a counter-example for your restrictive thesis: to me it relates mainly to ethnicity, and to others it means an association with a country (which is not necessarily citizenship, either).
Sorry to sound like a broken record, but the sense of nationality as “belonging to a nation” is a broad series of concepts, meaning different things in different contexts and to different people. Only one sub-sub-sense of these is the legal relationship of citizenshipMichael Z. 2009-01-14 01:45 z

I've flattened the subsenses and add archaic to the sense of nationalism—I think this may satisfy the original request for cleanup. Since it concerned the break-down of senses, I think we should confirm that the important senses from various dictionaries are represented, and the cleanup tag removed.

The proposed definitions by Chelentano and Taivo, and question of citizenship's primacy appear to be an issue of definitions—shall we resolve that here too, or move it to the Tea Room for more opinions? Michael Z. 2009-01-14 02:03 z

I think the TR is the place to go for a fresh start. -- Visviva 02:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I never stated that "citizenship" was the sole meaning for "nationality". I have always said that both citizenship and ethnicity were equally part of the definition. It was you who were trying to remove citizenship as a component even though it is clearly visible by the terms "naturalization", etc. in the definitions. Here is the definition as I had edited it:
1) Membership of individual or organization in a particular state, by origin, birth, naturalization, ownership, allegiance, etc. See citizenship
2) Membership of individual in a particiular nation by origin or birth. See ethnicity
3) A people sharing a common origin, culture, language, etc.
4) Existence of a region or people as a distinct nation or state
5) An emotional attachment to one's nation; patriotism
You will notice that this definition compasses both the different meanings of nationality of ethnicity and citizenship, but that each is clearly stated. (Taivo 05:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC))
  • "Membership of individual in a particular nation by origin or birth" is not the same as ethnicity. Ethnicity must be removed in any case. Chelentano 02:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
In that case, I will say that I agree with you in principal, although I still like the definition as I wrote it. Now we can just work out the details, yes? Michael Z. 2009-01-14 06:17 z
While your currently worded definition and that offered above agree in general, I believe that my list is better for three reasons. First, the order of definitions in my list more closely reflects the order of usages in general found in the dictionaries and in common usage and understanding--1-2) a noun referring to individual membership found not only in general prose, but also as a label for blanks on official forms; 3) a concrete noun to describe a collective; 4) an abstract noun referring to the state of being a collective; and 5) an archaic sense. You have the archaic sense ordered number 3, which implies that it is in more general usage than your 4 and 5. Second, the distinction in usage and meaning between the "citizenship" and "ethnicity" meanings is more clearly delineated in my version. We agree that "nationality" encompasses both of these meanings, but the ambiguity is not clarified in your version. A more precise delineation of the boundaries of the ambiguity is important so that readers can understand the exact nature of the ambiguity. While your version implies ambiguity, the reader is left to deduce this on his or her own. A dictionary should spell out ambiguities explicitly and mark out the boundaries thereof. Third, while your wording replicates the exact phrasing in some dictionaries, that wording is a bit too brief for true clarity. My version, I believe, offers more complete phrasing for each of the definitions so that greater clarity is achieved. (Taivo 08:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC))
This discussion is not about cleanup, and belongs in the Wiktionary:Tea Room, where we can get more input.
The order you suggest is fine. [I updated the entryMichael Z. 2009-01-14 17:53 z]
But your proposal eliminates sense 2 “character”, and splits sense 1 into two distinct and discrete types of “membership in a nation”. I don't think any of the dictionaries does this, and I can see why. I think you are artificially applying a restriction of the sense to one or the other, while the word is often used without this distinction. When asked what is their nationality, one's valid responses can include “United States” (a country), “German” (a nation-state), “Welsh” (an ethnicity within a country), “Ukrainian-Canadian” (an ethnic community in a different country), “Roma” (an ethnicity with no country), or “Mennonite” (a community defined by religion rather than country or ethnicity). One's nationality may mean “either one's country or ethnicity, or both”, or some other similar status. A dictionary definition must capture just what is required to define the meaning, but not restrict it too far.
The sense of “national character or quality” is allied with membership in a nation, but distinct (and it can also is associated with nation as either country, ethnicity, or both, or something else). Michael Z. 2009-01-14 17:40 z
Regarding sense 4: I think it is a bit more specific than “referring to the state of being a collective”. I think it refers to the degree or state of national autonomy or sovereignty, as in “Ukrainians' steps towards full nationality included the adoption of the self-appelation Ukrainian in 1830–1917, their forced unification in the Ukrainian Soviet Republic in 1939, and independence in 1991.” I'm not sure if we're in agreement here or not. Michael Z. 2009-01-14 17:51 z
Concerning the first definition, I would be happy if the wording was "nation or state" instead of just "nation". That way we cover all the potential ambiguity between ethnicity/nation and citizenship/state. We are in agreement on 4. (Taivo 21:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC))
  1. State or quality of belonging to a nation by origin, birth, or naturalization; citizenship.
  2. Patriotism/nationalism
  3. Race or people; nation; ethnic group; traditions
  4. Relationship of property, holdings, etc., to a particular nation, or to its members: the nationality of a ship.
  5. National integrity/independence
-Chelentano 02:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note that "Citizenship" appears in 4 definitions of Appendix, or 5 if we count the original Wiktionary definition before it was removed by Mzajac. -Chelentano 02:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • ...and some responses to Mzajac from previous section I missed:
  • Nothing wrong when dictionaries created by people: we are creating one. Definitions created by people indicate well what’s the real life usage/meaning. These definitions could be more accurate vs. some archaic dictionaries. When some Russian is trying to modify English in order to fit his language, it’s much worse then dictionaries created by American people. btw UrbanDictionary is listed in Wikipedia as one of few online dictionaries.
  • Yes, Yahoo answer is best of three, so what: you’ve asked for the word “citizen” to be mentioned – you got it mentioned. Now when you’ve got the whole bunch, and you complain that these must be definitions. Can you make up your mind?
  • Encrata’s definition is perfect. It does not summarize, but it expands the meaning of the word “citizenship”.
  • YourDictionary.com cite is not from the thesaurus section, it’s from synonyms section. Yes, it says that synonym for "nationality" is "citizenship" - something you strongly oppose!
  • BusinessDictionary.com cite is NOT from an anonymously-published site. I've seen many Wikipedia articles use this site as reference. BusinessDictionary.com is operated by WebFinance Inc. You can learn about them just by making a few clicks on the BusinessDictionary. Tip: when you’d like to learn about a site, just click ‘’’About Us’’’ button. That’s about “some common sense”. Chelentano 03:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
BusinessDictionary.com's “About” page does not say who edits the dictionary or what its source is, or give any indication whether any lexicographical research or expertise went into it at all. It's definition of nationality is far poorer than any other's.
I said that nationality is not exactly equivalent to or restricted to the same meaning as citizenship. Of course the list of possible synonyms in a thesaurus may contain a hundred terms which capture some nuanced or restricted sense of the word, so citizenship should appear in this context. Michael Z. 2009-01-15 18:09 z
BusinessDictionary.com really does not belong in the same class as the other dictionaries under consideration. You're right that it is not published anonymously, but the other dictionaries in Appendix:Dictionary notes/nationality are major, authoritative general-purpose dictionaries, peer-reviewed by a long list of academics and specialists. (Collins is perhaps an exception, in that we currently have only the watered-down, abridged version). I see nothing to suggest that BusinessDictionary.com is anything more or less than a specialized glossary put together by a small company. It may be a valuable resource for sussing out specialized business usages, but it does nothing to illuminate the lexicographic consensus. Encarta is the only other digital-only dictionary on the list, and it's the only such one I can think of that would merit inclusion. -- Visviva 04:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • There is some great stuff in this discussion, but there is also a bit of ad hominem sniping going on. This is fine, tempers always get frayed on the wiki, but I suggest that we move the constructive parts of this discussion to WT:TR#nationality and leave any personal grudges here. Cheers, -- Visviva 04:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Tempers, for sure. But how do you like this? Mr. Mzajac is editing historical English article in Wikipedia using word "nationality" in Ukrainian way. I am telling him the proper meaning of the word "nationality". He insists that "nationality" is not "citizenship" but "ethnicity". Next after I point him to that article in Wiktionary, he jumps to the Wiktionary article and scraps it! It's dangerous how quickly people could to rewrite language and history. - Chelentano 05:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, let's clear the air here.
Chelentano, your speculation and innuendo about my own ancestry doesn't belong here. Maybe I've been brusque, but at least I've tried to critique your arguments, and not yourself. Why don't stick to the facts and references instead of trying to imply that I'm the wrong type of person to engage in this discussion? Enough references like “Yes, the Russian meaning of nationality is in fact "ethnicity", but this is an English-language article and we must use this word the English way,” “mainly by English speakers with Slavic heritage,” “primarily a Russian/Ukrainian meaning of this word,” “using word "nationality" in Ukrainian way,” and “some Russian is trying to modify English in order to fit his language, it’s much worse then dictionaries created by American people.”
You don't know a thing about my background and don't consider yourself fit to evaluate it. Just because you encounter a use of English different from your own doesn't make it wrong. And my parentage doesn't give you any right to cast aspersions on my knowledge of English.
It's none of your damned business, but I will indulge you: I am not Russian. I am born, raised, and well educated in Canada. I am a native speaker and literate in both Ukrainian and English. Now how about you shut up about this, we'll move on, and continue improving the dictionary? Michael Z. 2009-01-15 18:09 z
I've never said that you are Russian. It's a figure of speech and actually it was an attempt not to offend a Ukrainian. I could have said "some Polish" or whatever. But you got offended anyway, sorry if that's the case. You are born and well educated in Canada. Very well, it's just odd to me that you are not aware of the primary meaning of the word nationality, and you Ukrainian background certainly explains it. One could disrespect my opinion, but (speaking of facts) the fact is that the citizenship definition has the highest ranking in that Appendix comparo, while ethnicity is the last on the list: number nine! Another example is the use of the word nationality all over the English Wikipedia (not-Slavic biographical articles). You dismiss various web example I offer, while you are unable to offer much sufficient facts. --Chelentano 19:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
So you're saying my Ukrainian background explains why I'm wrong and you're right? Did you notice that no one else in Wiktionary agrees with you either—are you going to blame that on their race too?
You should really start writing about the issues in question, and not your opinions about other editors, or you'll continue to waste a lot of time because you'll continue to be ignored. Michael Z. 2009-01-18 18:40 z

I can't marry this properly to our entry structure. 1 Pronunciation spans 2 etymologies; another applies to just one. Don't see how to properly label pronunciations in single pronunciation section. Alternative spelling only applies to one PoS. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 06:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is one reason I've advocated numbered Pronunciation sections. --EncycloPetey 18:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Latin and Spanish sections. H. (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing in the Latin section to clean up. The form gustō is the lemma. --EncycloPetey 18:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Spanish cleaned up. —Stephen 10:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of the translations are listed under "Noun", while it is obvious that some (I guess most) of them belong under "Adjective". I fixed cs, gd and sk, but I'm not certain that all are wrongly placed, so I'm bringing it here. --Duncan 16:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed using the edit history. The Noun section was added after almost all the translations were in place. (That is, a user added ===Noun=== between ===Adjective=== and ====Translations====.) —RuakhTALK 17:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a valid entry with many b.g.c. hits, but enough outside my area of knowledge to properly clean this entry up and write a decent definiiton. --EncycloPetey 01:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the format, but the definition needs much work. --EncycloPetey 04:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

no POS. Mutante 07:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nor any definition. Fixed; striking this. \Mike 17:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

no structure. Mutante 07:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.—msh210 17:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Are Etymologies 2 and 3 really different, pointing as they obviously do to the same sense? The 3rd Ety was added by a user who was only active here in December 2007 and January 2008. --Duncan 17:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Merged. Ƿidsiþ 16:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is plain Dutch. All English “quotes” are actually from Dutch titles, I don’t really get it. H. (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I’ve added three Google-groups cites; are they any better?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Not really. You might notice that the quotes you added were all written by people with Dutch names. My conclusion is that this is simply a typical misspelling by Dutch people. And I seriously doubt the plural vacuä, with dieresis, will be attested, since even in Dutch it is vacua. H. (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh man, I tried translating the quote, but the English is very terrible. Someone should have a look at it! H. (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I've improved the English translation a little, but I'm stuck on the final phrase. --EncycloPetey 04:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The context is that ‘de vrienden van het volk’ are some anthropologists that wanted to record a drinking song from an old lady in the rest home. Since it didn’t work, they’re off. The author is very cynical about them, since they belong to another social class than ‘het volk’, by which he means the fourth world people, the laboring, poor people, he describes in the book. Does that help? H. (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
That helps. I've massaged the rest of the translation now. --EncycloPetey 16:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The citations should be moved to the Citations namespace and use the proper format. H. (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Fix definition. "Born yesterday" does not mean "naive", as then "I wasn't born yesterday" would mean "I wasn't naive", whereas it means in fact something like "I'm not naive". Probably the fix is: The entry should be "be born yesterday", should indicate that it's used only in the negative and past-tense (or just have the entry be "was not born yesterday"), and have it defined the way it is now.—msh210 20:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's restricted to the negative, since subjunctive uses are possible:
  • 2005: Howard Zinn, Donaldo Pereira Macedo, Howard Zinn on Democratic Education‎, page 69
    If you don't know important things about history, then it's as if you were born yesterday.
...as are comparisons in the present tense:
  • 1998: Gwyn Hyman Rubio, Icy Sparks‎, page 155
    "Compared to me, you were born yesterday."
--EncycloPetey 21:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps then this is not a definition of "born yesterday" but merely an entailment (is that the word I mean?)? Meaning, that "born yesterday" means, well, born yesterday, being one day old, and the fact that it refers to naïveté is not part of the dictionary definition at all.—msh210 21:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
And if that is the case, then it's SoP, but perhaps we should keep it anyway, with the definition literal and the other stuff in a usage note.—msh210 21:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
AHD and collins have this, but not other OneLook dictionaries. It might slow a non-native speaker/reader down, I suppose. The problem is not a missing "be", it is that there is a necessary shift in tense for a definition employing the most obvious and helpful defining words. "To have been born yesterday" is equivalent to "to be naive". This seems like a case where the usage example helps the user a lot and a grammatically precise analysis helps only those of us who like grammatical precision. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 00:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the associated verb is a form of be, which is notoriously irregular, it might be best to leave this entry at the current location despite the fact that it seems to be mostly (always?) associated with that verb. A usage notes section could explain the usually associated verb and frequent negative usage. --EncycloPetey 00:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Needs some love, I would copy or move some examples to the main page. H. (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • rfc-sense: Alternative form of relevancy.

Are "relevance" and "relevancy" just alternative forms of each other, or is there also a difference in meaning? If they have the same senses, they should better be merged. In any case, "Alternative form of relevancy" does not strike me as a sense that could be listed along other senses.

Century 1911 has "relevancy" as the main entry, while having "relevance" link to it.

  • relevancy in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911

--Dan Polansky 09:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And here comes the homework that I have forgotten to do:
Judging from Google rates, "relevance" should be the main entry, as it is in Wikipedia.
--Dan Polansky 09:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I have removed "Alternative form of relevancy" from the entry. Still, I am confused about how the following two senses are different:
1. The property or state of being relevant.
2. Pertinency.
--Dan Polansky 16:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

move explanation for sense 1 to usage notes and/or related/see also/whatever. Please also put one representative citation for each sense on this page H. (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It would also help it the citations made clear the meaning. DCDuring TALK 13:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
You’re right. In that case, I’d plead for someone giving it some love and providing more quotations, as I have done. H. (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added the pronunciation in IPA and also removed the Adjective section since it was merely attributive use of the noun (no b.g.c. hits at all for the comparative or superlative). --EncycloPetey 19:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No headings & structure, a little too encyclopedic? Mutante 19:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Judging by the entry, it is a nonce word used in a single movie. --EncycloPetey 16:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

use of non-existing template, no category. Mutante 19:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned the Chinese up as well as I could, but I don’t know if it is factual. Needs more work. —Stephen 00:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Mutante 00:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the template was not used the right way. Mutante 19:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 00:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Mutante 00:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymology needs a lot of crap removed- non IE cognates, etc. Nadando 07:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

We have at the moment a noun definition for Ety 1 saying: "(countable, usually in plural) An item of merchandise" and one at Ety 2 saying: "(finance) Identical items that are produced, then traded, bought, or sold, for the purpose of consumption". Don't they refer to the same sense? --Duncan 22:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The second etymology seems wrong. The Online Ety Dictionary says that plural "goods" for "property" is attested in 1280, with previous OE use of the singular with the same meaning. It just seems like a redundant sense if the separate Etymology is wrong. DCDuring TALK 23:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ety 2 deleted, tag left for the time being. --Duncan 23:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Tag removed, striking. --Duncan 11:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Needs more information. Currently it sounds as if this is a general term for any Tarot card, which I don't think is the case. (Also, should this be at Tower?) —RuakhTALK 23:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be an attempt at a Hiberno-English entry. --EncycloPetey 23:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Seems to be attempting to claim that English scared comes from Irish. See also w:Scaird. —RuakhTALK 04:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

formatting H. (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What formatting? You mean changing the dashes after the dates into commas? --EncycloPetey 16:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Cleaned up. By the way, even many established editors are so bad at formatting quotations that I don't think it's worth it to list them here except in extreme cases. If you have time to fix them, do so, but if not, just tag {{rfc-sense}} or something. —RuakhTALK 17:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I recall that the #* line was to end with a comma, and now I see at WT:QUOTE that it's to end with a colon. Is my memory faulty or did the BCP/policy change at some point?—msh210 19:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
It changed, after discussion at Wiktionary talk:Quotations. —RuakhTALK 20:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are there two translation tables here?--Vahagn Petrosyan 17:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Because of this edit. I'm not certain whether to delete one of the tables or whether to bring back the determiner header, though. --Duncan 18:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The tables contain mostly identical items because the example sentence that was there did not show use as a pronoun, but as a Determiner. In "these pretzels", these is a determiner, but in "These are hot." it is functioning as a pronoun. Only the Portuguese and Spanish translations are correct in both tables as far as I can tell (and you can see they are different). --EncycloPetey 21:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I divided the entry again into Determiner and Pronoun sections, and except for es and pt (per EncycloPetey) and cs, gd, sco and sk (per myself) put the translations into ttbc sections under each POS like this. --Duncan 21:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A month has passed, no objection appeared. Tag removed, striking. --Duncan 22:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad structure, tried to fix it a bit, but is Cantonese = zh, or chi, or zho, or yue? (see them all on w:Cantonese). Are we missing a language template here? Cantonese != Mandarin, right? Mutante 19:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Now marked for attention by a Cantonese linguist. —Stephen 16:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"adverbial phrase" ? Is that really a POS? Mutante 19:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed the POS but it needs a better deifnition line.—msh210 19:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I expanded defn1 a bit and added 2 more senses with e.g. sentences. The defns are clear and consistent with other dictionaries. I removed the rfc tag. -- WikiPedant 03:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

RuakhTALK 02:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Has been tagged for a long time. What is the status of that Shorthand header? Can’t we simply put that under Trivia or some such? The relevant reference I could find was Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/2007/October#Shorthand, seems like it got abandoned. I do think it is useful information to have, though. Maybe just get rid of the L4 header, as suggested in the archive? H. (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be possible to change all the "Shorthand" headers to "Alternative forms" and handle them that way. --EncycloPetey 05:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
That's for alternative forms in en-Latn. Shorthand is a specialist notation – does our mandate include it? If so, how many different shorthand notations are going to eventually show up in English entries? Are we also going to include Morse code, semaphore, pig Latin, etc? Michael Z. 2009-03-05 15:43 z
Shorthand seems as quaint as a mimeograph machine, doesn't it? Somebody once wanted to do it, won some level of consent, started, then abandoned the effort. It's an interesting relic and an object lesson in how projects can turn out.
You don't have any actual experience that would suggest that we run the risk that some antiquarian could decide to add all kinds of obsolete formats beyond the reach of search engines and the interests of users, do you? DCDuring TALK 19:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely we can do better than this. SemperBlotto 10:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Slightly better now? --Duncan 05:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Seems so. Striking. --Duncan 17:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

wild horse in page title, Equus in definition. Mutante 14:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The entry should be cleaned up now. --EncycloPetey 17:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, added Category:Horses and plural, and done. Mutante 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No POS. Mutante 14:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete, sum-of-parts (que + si). One can also say "que oui !", or "que non !", or "qu'il est vilain !". —RuakhTALK 15:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Cleaned up. Most people have trouble with French si, and compounding that with que makes it even more confusing ("that if?"). Keep. —Stephen 16:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This was added as a French noun, but defined as an adjective. --EncycloPetey 03:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Labelled as a "prefix", this word is not actually prefixed to other words. Is it a noun? adjective? particle? --EncycloPetey 07:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviation of manong. Fixed. —Stephen 14:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As above; see example sentences in entry. --EncycloPetey 07:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It’s either a noun or an adjective (hard to pin down which). Fixed. —Stephen 14:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin please move this to Wikisaurus:vomit? For the verbs "vomit" and "regurgitate", there is the dedicated entry Wikisaurus:regurgitate. Thanks. --Dan Polansky 11:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done

There seem to be multiple senses here, even if we’re just taking into account the three quotations provided.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that enyl should be located at -enyl since I've only ever seen this as a suffix. The proper term for this noun appears to be alkenyl 09:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not as common as alkenyl, but check out google books:"the enyl". —RuakhTALK 03:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

An anon (varied IP) has been adding numerous translations for numerous languages, many of which are suspect. Could experts in various languages please look over and correct/remove translations? --EncycloPetey 04:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Too much information. Probably best dealt with by someone who knows US military terminology and practices. -- WikiPedant 06:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Etymology given as "past participle of passen" - of which language? Dutch or German (or Proto-Germanic or another) --Jackofclubs 19:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Can’t be German, could be Dutch, but probably Middle English. —Stephen 17:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
etymolology wiktified (Middle English). Tag removed. DCDuring TALK 15:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Needs much cleanup. Is this ever used as a verb (bedabble) or just as an adjective? --EncycloPetey 16:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've put it as the past form of bedabble, which entry I have also made just now. -- ALGRIF talk 17:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The definition is unclear as to whether files in HTML, RTF, and the like formats are considered "text files" (it says only the one extreme, sans formatting, is so considered, and the other is not), so needs clarification.—msh210 20:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the term itself is unclear. Even if you stick to the fairly objective criterion of the MIME media type (see http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/; it's what goes in HTTP's "Content-Type" headers and so on), there's some vacillation. HTML is text/html; unspecified XML is both text/xml and application/xml; and XHTML is application/xhtml+xml. (IIRC, the relevant spec says that the difference between text/… and application/… is that if a user agent doesn't recognize a text/… type, it can treat it as text/plain — i.e., it's something expected to be vaguely useful to a human. With this in mind, you can take the change in MIME type from HTML to XHTML either as a change in expected userbase — time was, it was expected that most Netizens could look at HTML and recognize angle brackets as containing "stuff I don't care about" — or as a change in expected context — time was, it was expected that most HTML files were mostly text documents with a bit of markup, which is certainly not the case today. I'm sure there's a document somewhere giving the rationale for this change, but I haven't looked for it.)
The Google hits for "just a text file" might interest you; you can see some of the different ways people interpret it. Some seem to take it to mean "an ASCII-coded plain-text file, with no special markup and no non-ASCII characters" (one of the extremes you mention); others seem to take it to mean "a file with a specific text-minded character encoding, that you can open in a text editor (assuming it supports the encoding) and do useful things with"; and at least one seems to take it to mean something like "a file with a .txt extension" (regardless of what's actually in the file), which is both more extreme and less extreme than the extreme you mention.
RuakhTALK 20:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
This term encompasses at least two different, but perhaps overlapping, attributes of a file: its encoding and its content.
Technically, the encoding of a file is, broadly, either text or binary. Text encoding denotes a range of types too, whether it be ASCII, ISO-Latin or another code page, Unicode, etc. Most text files are 8-bit bytestreams, but some kinds of Unicode text files, for example, are not. In this sense, all HTML and XML files, all UNIX mbox mailboxes, all tab-delimited data tables, all or most RTF formatted text documents, etc., are text files.
But the content of a file may be text only, or text plus markup, or text and images. In this sense, a file which contains only text is more specifically called a text-only or plain text file. Michael Z. 2009-02-21 21:12 z

By the way, isn't this just sum-of-parts: text (4) + file (2)?—This unsigned comment was added by Mzajac (talkcontribs) 22:57, 21 February 2009.

I think so, since it has no clear definition.—msh210 22:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It needs expanding and cleaning up. I am unsure whether this exists since I cannot find anything on it. If it doesn't then I presume the Italian radice is derived from the Latin rādix instead. Caladon 14:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up; it's the ablative singular form of rādix. --EncycloPetey 05:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Just look. Mutante 06:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless you want to call it English, delete. —Stephen 19:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Moving to Wiktionary:Requests for verification#wa alaikum assalam. Mglovesfun 11:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

no structure. Mutante 06:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved to exchange zone and fixed.—msh210 22:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No language, no structure. Mutante 06:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 13:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Typo?—msh210 18:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Must be – even the quotation says rotogravureMichael Z. 2009-02-23 18:55 z
Certainly a typo, but apparently a common one: [22] --Duncan 18:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Not really. If you search English pages and go to the last page (&start=900), you get the more accurate count of 42 results.[23] Michael Z. 2009-02-23 19:19 z
The Web hits are mostly copies of us, identifiable scannos, and probable typos. I moved the quote (of "rotogravure") to that entry and took the liberty of deleting [[rorogravure]]. If anyone feels it desirable, it can be reverted, but should be put through RfV. DCDuring TALK 19:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Michael, as a former rotogravure printer myself I'd been rather shocked. Thanks, DCD, I'm certain you handled it exactly as it should have been handled, and I defy anyone to defy it ;-). --Duncan 20:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

See WT:TR#zar#Pashto. I saw this discussion room after posting it in TR. I am note sure which of them is more suitable for that. Bogorm 14:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose this refers to زر (zar, gold), سپین زر (spin zar, silver). —Stephen 19:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I copied what was left from the entry to Requæſted entries:Paſhto, if you are intereſted, you can check whether I committed any miſtakes, ſince I am not knowledgeable in Arabic ſcript. I copied from Paſhto language#Paſhto alphabet. The uſer highteth Bogorm converſation 20:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong script, or not Yiddish. Yiddish does not use Latin script.—msh210 21:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it’s English, a variant of meshugge. —Stephen 19:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Yiddish does not use Latin script? I think it does, don't you mean "Hebrew" does not use Latin script ? For example de-wp:Jiddisch says it's a "west-germanic language with hebrew AND slawic elements" that is "usually" written in Hebrew script, but also later "Im Englischen ist das Wort Yiddish seit 1886 belegt, so zuerst in dem Roman Children of Gibeon von Walter Besant mit der Erklärung, dass es sich um eine aus Polnisch, Deutsch und Hebräisch gemischte Sprache handele" (Yiddish as a mix of Polish, German and Hebrew)... So there is a German influence, compare meschugge. Mutante 19:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Msh210 is quite right; Yiddish does not use the Latin script, it uses the Hebrew script. Written meshuggah, it's an English loanword from Yiddish משוגע. Angr 19:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Yiddish is a Germanic language, yes, and it has influence from Slavic languages, but its script is Hebrew. If you would translate the quotation, it would help me understand your evidence, Mutante.—msh210 17:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Completely useless - Azeri is written in Cyrillic script (there are certain modern efforts to impose Latin), but in no way in Arabic. Before blanking the section, I would like to hear others' opinions. Bogorm 09:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Azeri is written in all three scripts. Arabic script is the only script used by Azeris in Iran. Azeri Wikipedia and Wiktionary use both Latin and Arabic scripts. --Dijan 18:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Azeris in Iran? Well, there may be ſome, as there are Tajiks in Afghaniſtan, but that does not juſtify impoſing Arabic ſcript on Tadjik Wikipedia. Latin and Arabic?? Where is Cyrillic, the official ſcript of that language? The uſer highteth Bogorm converſation 19:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
South Azeri (Iran, around 20,000,000 speakers) uses Arabic script. North Azeri (Azerbaijan, 8,000,000 speakers) now officially uses the Roman alphabet, but Cyrillic is still common there. —Stephen 21:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Dijan and Stephen are right. Azeri (considered as the union of North Azeri and South Azeri) is spoken by more people in Iran than in Azerbaijan, and in Iran the Arabic script (specifically the Perso-Arabic script) is used. In Azerbaijan itself the Latin alphabet has been official since 1991, though the Cyrillic alphabet is still widely used. The Azeri Wikipedia uses both Latin and Arabic, but not Cyrillic. Angr 19:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Striking, as the consensus seems to be that the request was misguided. —RuakhTALK 14:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Irish words without part of speech, category, and a few other glitches.:

amhlaidh, amhras, anall, aois, aontaím, araon, athraím, athrú, atá, ádh, áirid, áirithe

Mutante 19:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Angr 20:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Obnosis scientology based edit wars on citations page

Use for the word "obnosis" is no longer simply a scientology source, but has clear durable sources meeting rfv:

See Citations page (which is edited by Scientology word purists with non-durable sources):


The nomination for cleanup is for obnosis, to include the original content.

User Asil created the page, the word was accepted with a mixed tag, now the citations page and word page are whittled away with non-durable sources removing without indicating first on any talk or discussion page FIRST.

The page/word needs to be either correctly designated (by the many durable sources in the citations that indicate this is not a scientology page) or it must be deleted as being "outside of common use".

There are three registered Wiki users who will also nominate it for deletion if it has not been correctly described.

The current UseNet references are outside of durable sources and common use.

The page then needs to be protected.

Asil 02:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

An entry that meets CFI will not be deleted simply because three sockpuppet accounts have said they will nominate it for deletion. Wiktionary doesn't work that way. --EncycloPetey 05:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Old cleanup tag. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Needs severe editing; currently reads like an encyclopedia article. --EncycloPetey 05:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Was just an ephemeral thing. I've reverted it back to the previous version. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't make sense of the etymology, pronunciation, and structure of this. Is there a good base model for Translingual and English of this type of entry? DCDuring TALK 23:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of. If someone does set up a good model for these pages, please do let us know. --EncycloPetey 20:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Musical derived terms have definitions, might need to be used for new entries. DCDuring TALK 16:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP added what looks like a useful quote for citations purposes, but it needs cleaning up and checking that I'm not prepared to spend the time to do just now. Carolina wren 01:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

PoS? caps? Encyclopedic? DCDuring TALK 19:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Adjective??—msh210 19:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not an adjective. Section removed. --EncycloPetey 20:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

None of these edits follow standard formatting conventions, but all seem to have useable content. --EncycloPetey 20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up except for those where he put the information in the "to be checked" section. The "to be checked" stuff can be handled by a Tagalog-speaker in due course. —Stephen 20:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

An "Arabic" word in the wrong script with lots of mixed information. --EncycloPetey 15:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Shown as Translingual noun. Entry ought to generate 3 Translingual genus names, Latin form, and possibly vernacular names or links thereto/from. DCDuring TALK 20:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up (I think). Nadando 19:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the name of the category is misleading. It seems to be used for nouns that can be either masculine or feminine and that's not what an invariable noun is. {{fr-noun|mf}} might be to blame. —Internoob (Talk|Cont.) 21:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right. oasis is invariable (it's a rule in French for -s, -x and -z words), but almost all nouns currently in this category are variable. Lmaltier 21:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The category:French invariable nouns seems to be of little interest (most such nouns will be words ending with s, x or z). A category French nouns which can be either masculine or feminine is very interesting, but only if it excludes words such as Abkhaze, i.e. nouns which are used as masculine ou feminine nouns depending on the gender, because these nouns are much too numerous and would hide interesting cases... This category exists on fr.wikt: Noms multigenres en français. Lmaltier 19:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There's at least a little debate over what invariable means. From example the plural of oasis is oasis, but it does have a plural. But some nouns can never have a plural and it's nothing to do with what letter they end in. Like numbers (cinq yes, cinqs no) names of letters (thêta yes, thêtas no) and given and surnames (in English you could pluralise Emma for example, but never in French). So I prefer to differentiate between a singular and plural with the same spelling and a noun that can't have a plural. I suppose the only couple of examples that come to me in English are sheep and salmon. You can't tell me that there is no plural of sheep, can you? Mglovesfun 22:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm now a sysops, so I've removed the troublesome parameter in {{fr-noun}}. I'm certainly not against renaming the category, finding a good way to fill it up will be much harder than that. Mglovesfun 08:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, [[Category:French epicene nouns]] might be ok since we have one for masculine and feminine nouns. Invariable in this contexte is borrowed from the French invariable, meaning that it doesn't accept any inflections. Mglovesfun 08:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, in French, "invariable" words are words always written the same way, whatever their use. oasis, toujours, et are good examples. Note that some surnames can be pluralized in French (e.g. les Bourbons, because it's a royal family). Lmaltier 09:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Latin, no layout —This unsigned comment was added by Amgine (talkcontribs) 06:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC).

Laid out, tagged with {{attention|la}} for further attention by a Latin-speaker. —RuakhTALK 20:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Poor format throughout and it seems untidily to point out some kind distinction between the term as it is in Portugal and Brazil. 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is probably an easy one for someone who knows anything about the topic — which I don't. —RuakhTALK 16:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

  • This is one of many articles by the same user. They all need looking at - but I haven't got any enthusiasm for the job. SemperBlotto 16:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Of the ones I know something about, the content isn't bad, though a little wordy. I'll put his new pages on my tasks. DCDuring TALK 18:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

They are the same, but the etymologies are quite different, as are the regional remarks. H. (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

These look like sum-of-parts expressions with attributive use of ballpark (2).
I'm starting to perceive a problem with definitions like this being distributed over four or more various entries. I think we need a form-of template like {{common expression including}} to link them all to the lemma. Michael Z. 2009-04-09 14:25 z
We can already do that for any idiom. Just set up one main entry containing the defn, with ancillary {{alternative form of}} entries. I completely agree that redundant full entries for the same thing are bad news (since they always get out of sync). -- WikiPedant 22:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think ballpark figure is sum-of-parts, because both portions have multiple senses, but only one combination of them applies. I agree with you about ballpark estimate. --EncycloPetey 22:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't interfere with our usual application of “sum of parts.” It may feel obscure because ballpark is not used in its literal sense, but this is a reasonably common expression. It would be useful to mention or define this set phrase for the sake of English learners, however, but we don't currently have any guideline which recommends or allows it. Michael Z. 2009-05-14 14:00 z

Derived terms need to be split. Modernise, check senses seemingly from MW1913. Etystub, rfp. DCDuring TALK 01:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


Looks suspiciously like a cow to me. Yep it's a cow. Mglovesfun 22:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
It certainly is. But this is a horse, of course, of course. Angr 14:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:egg timer. Retro00064 05:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Atelaes is quite right, we’re not here to educate users on the correct term to use, but to record the terms that people use and describe the meanings that we give those terms, logically or illogically. —Stephen 14:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. Retro00064 10:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Latter-Day Saint -- 21:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

English inflections gone wild. —Rod (A. Smith) 05:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned-up. Striking header.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - The word and the definition match up just fine. WritersCramp 19:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Not the first quotation, the first synonym, the antonym... I think that's what Hippietrail had in mind. (And a few moments before he rfc-ed it even one definition was for a "system"). --Duncan 21:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Treated, tag removed, striking. --Duncan 20:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at married please. For one thing the first verb section looks odd since its definitions are the same as those for the adjective section. RJFJR 20:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up.RuakhTALK 03:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

All the non-English language sections need cleaning up; viz., the definitions need correcting, appropriate POS headers need to be used, and they need expansion and elaboration generally.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed definitions. —Stephen 03:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No part of speech and translation Mutante 01:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 03:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This definition is incorrect; it is describing the cross of Lorraine.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, with a slight modification, the definition is correct. The Latin cross has only one horizontal crossbar; the cross of Lorraine has two horizontal crossbars. --EncycloPetey 00:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Sorry; I misread the definition.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The hyponyms section includes a long list of "scientific names" that are not scientific names. All the items are names of ingredients as described in Latin. The item folium mori for example means "leaf of the mulberry". This information needs to be translated and moved to the entries they apply to, not placed as a list on the entry for 解表药. Why was the creator of this (and many similar pages) Whitelisted? --EncycloPetey 00:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

should be reviewed--Diligent 10:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Something weird must have happened when the last vandalism was reverted. Although all the steps look fine in the history, the page contained new glitches apparently created by the MW software. I've reverted (again) which has corrected the problem. --EncycloPetey 22:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Needs cleanup; Mandarin word. --EncycloPetey 22:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Also English. It’s the English name of one of the Chinese languages, like Hakka, Wu, and Cantonese. Gan (赣语) is named after the Gan River, which flows through central China. —Stephen 07:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What language is this? Looks just like a transliteration. Kamboja has also been tagged since December 2007.--Makaokalani 16:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Needs split ety, pron. DCDuring TALK 14:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've split it, though I don't know the etymology of meaning 2. Angr 14:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Another Chinese medicine entry where the glosses are given in Latin instead of English. Example: "radix Angelicae sinensis" means "root of the plant Angelica sinensis. --EncycloPetey 19:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

i've converted 3 terms from Latin to English, and will continue to clean up the other names. The 3 terms are angelicae, longan, and polygonum. In the context of traditional Chinese medicine, the Latin names are used more frequently in the English translations of Chinese medical texts, including dictionaries. In addition, scientific and peer-reviewed articles and other publications frequently use the Latin names. The inclusion of Latin names is to facilitate reference to published materials. Psoup 02:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I don’t know much about alchemy and early modern chemistry, but I know that until the twentieth century, a lot of names were used for chemicals and medicaments that are no longer in use, such as essentia lunarum, auri potabilis Angelicani, and so on. It sounds as though these Chinese medicines might be in that category. If these are really terms that used to be used by English chemists and physicians, then we should include them. However, I don’t know of a resource where they can be corroborated. —Stephen 02:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Kindly refer to the following for corroboration of current usage in peer-reviewed articles. There are many other articles if you need me to post them:
  • "The analysis of Radix Angelicae Sinensis (Danggui)", Journal of Chromatography A, Volume 1216, Issue 11, 13 March 2009, Pages 1991-2001. Lunzhao Yi, Yizeng Liang, Hai Wu, Dalin Yuan.
  • "An herbal decoction of Radix astragali and Radix angelicae sinensis promotes hematopoiesis and thrombopoiesis", Journal of Ethnopharmacology, Mo Yang, Godfrey C.F. Chan, Ruixiang Deng, Margaret H. Ng, Sau Wan Cheng, Ching Po Lau, Jie Yu Ye, Liangjie Wang, Chang Liu.
  • "Microwave-assisted extraction of flavonoids from Radix Astragali", Separation and Purification Technology, Volume 62, Issue 3, 22 September 2008, Pages 614-618. Weihua Xiao, Lujia Han, Bo Shi.
  • "Analytical comparison of different parts of Radix Angelicae Sinensis by gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry", Journal of Chromatography A, Volume 1187, Issues 1-2, 11 April 2008, Pages 232-238. Shui-Yin Wei, Cheng-Jian Xu, Daniel Kam-Wah Mok, Hui Cao, Tsui-Yan Lau, Foo-Tim Chau.
  • "Characterization of chemical components in extracts from Si-wu decoction with proliferation-promoting effects on rat mesenchymal stem cells", Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry, Volume 16, Issue 9, 1 May 2008, Pages 5109-5114. He-Ping Zeng, Ting-Ting Wang, Wei Chen, Chun-Yan Wang, Dong-Feng Chen, Jian-Gang Shen. (This article used the names: Rhizoma chuanxiong, Radix angelicae sinensis, Radix paeoniae alba, and Radix rehmanniae praeparata.) Psoup 03:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Needs cleanup (and probably verification too). I note that the "US definitions" include UK-specific terms. --EncycloPetey 19:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Can this only qualify adjectives? In other words, must the adverb be taut when used with verbs? For example, "A tautly stretched drum" (taut qualifies an adjective); "Hold it taut" (taut qualifies a verb).

The example we give applies it to a verb - is it possible to say "Hold it tautly"? Compare "Hold it straight" (not "straightly") - here, the meaning is "Hold it so that it is straight" (adjective), not "Hold it in a straight manner" (adverb). Or does it depend on what the verb is?

If it can only qualify an adjective, we need a user note to this effect. — Paul G 15:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Two Web results with clear use as an adverb modifying a verb: "Tie on some plain brown twine, and drape it over and through branches several times, tautly."[24], "Similarly, the raised foot draws the skirt more tautly against the leg, illustrating the side placement of the seam coursing from waist to hem."[25]. In any event I think that "hold it taut" is using taut as an adjective, not as an adverb. I cannot think of a use for taut as an adverb, and doubt that it is one. Probably it's merely the case that tautly is the adverb but is {{rare}}.—msh210 21:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I can find many examples of "sat tautly" a few "walked tautly" on b.g.c, and I assume other movement and posture words would generate additional examples. --EncycloPetey 04:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin please move "Wikisaurus:flatulence" to Wikisaurus:flatus, given the sense "expulsion of gas through the anus"? Or is there as a better headword than "flatus" for the sense? Wikisaurus:fart comes to mind, but "fart" is labeled as mildly vulgar. --Dan Polansky 10:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Is RFC a good place for this? Would perhaps Tea Room have been better? --Dan Polansky 10:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Either way, job done.

Seems to have duplication.—msh210 16:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned-up.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
You didn’t clean it up, you butchered it. It is two completely separate words, not one word with two meanings. One is an invariable possessive pronoun, the other is an oblique case of a standard personal pronoun. If you want to avoid duplication, you might think of another heading for one of the pronouns besides pronoun. —Stephen 17:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. The two Etymology headers now clarify that these homographs derive from different roots — you’ve gotta admit that, before you added them, it sure did look as if all that was just the result of redundancy and novice formatting. Could you add etymologies to the entry please, so as to make explicit the fact that these are distinct words?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

encyclopedic, bad usex. DCDuring TALK 01:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Now better def; removed old usexes, added 2 rfex tags; removed rfc. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The POS is "verb", but the definition reads like a noun. I believe this should also be "to button-punch". — Paul G 09:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yuk... since when do we capitalise animal names and include taxonomical names in derived terms? The taxonomical names belong in the entries themselves. — Paul G 09:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this all right? --Duncan 12:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, except for not being a prefix. And there are not very many adjectives, nouns, or adverbs that don't appear with hyphens before and/or after. We could soon break 2MM entries by including similar terms. See head and -head for an interesting case of not including a combining form. DCDuring TALK 14:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a German noun, definitions don't read like normal Wiktionary definitions, also an English word? --Jackofclubs 17:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It is a German word, obviously you are not German or you would know that, see reinrassig. WritersCramp 18:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I know it is a German word, but is not a noun - it is an adjective. My German is just about good enough to know that. --Jackofclubs 18:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Cleaned up. —Stephen 00:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Needs to have italicizing double quotes removed from around all the transcriptions in the Translations section. --EncycloPetey 13:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed. —Stephen 15:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Needs to have italicizing double quotes removed from around all the transcriptions in the Translations section. --EncycloPetey 13:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed. —Stephen 14:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Needs to have italicizing double quotes removed from around all the transcriptions in the Translations section. --EncycloPetey 13:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 14:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

see entry. 50 Xylophone Players talk 16:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

was deleted. --EncycloPetey 18:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There are now five definitions, entered in this series of edits. Is this wanted? --Dan Polansky 13:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OED has one computing sense. It would take an expert to say whether there are any real distinguishable technical senses here, but they all look the same to me. Michael Z. 2009-05-17 17:24 z

An adjective definition:

(linguistics) A term sometimes used as a translation of the word used for both "green" and "blue" in certain languages, such as Welsh, that do not distinguish between certain shades of the two colors.

Is it a description rather than gloss, to be marked within {{non-gloss definition}}? Or should it be moved to the noun heading? An example sentence would help I think. --Dan Polansky 15:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The former, I believe. Not sure whether it sees use (as opposed to mentions) though.—msh210 15:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It does have use. I first encountered it in a discussion with a linguist who specializes in Welsh, who was explaining the concept of color in medieval Wales. (I have unusual friends.) The definition is a bit clunky, but I'm not sure how to improve it. It is indeed an adjecitve, along the lines of other such color words, and although it might also be a noun (as are many color words) I've not seen it used as such. --EncycloPetey 00:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition needs to be modernized- are there modern synonyms for this, or is it just dated? Nadando 22:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Mollusc classification is in a state of flux right now. I'm not familiar enough with the group to judge the literature I've found, but at least one recent source classifies the limpet and abalone in separate superfamilies within a clade called Vetigastropoda. I do not know if this can in any eay be considered a synonym (lexical or taxonomic), or whether Zygobranchia (note capitalization) has been dismembered, subsumed, or otherwise. The term does not show up in my old college zoology texts, and based on that and the literature I've seen, my best guess is that the term is dated, although it may be better described as archaic. (That is, archaic within the realm of malacology; it would be obsolete to the general population, most likely). --EncycloPetey 02:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up and moved to Zygobranchia. --EncycloPetey 18:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Needs wikification --Jackofclubs 11:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Inflections etc. Equinox 21:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Done, I think. Michael Z. 2009-05-16 22:40 z

The French section needs whatever the current template is for French adjectives, so that the inflection isn't overlapping down into the Galician section. --EncycloPetey 22:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed with a spacer. —Stephen 23:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Only for the one entry. The other 150+ entries that use the same template will also need special formatting to accomodate the table. --EncycloPetey 23:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone who knows how could add something to the template for this, but I looked at twenty or so entries and so far have found only one that showed a problem. The vast majority seem fine. —Stephen 01:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Verb. Should the usage note be converted into a new sense? Also: Is the existing sense transitive or intransitive?—msh210 17:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The current definition is constrained to video games, which seems suspect to me. I would expect the third-party entry to closely follow the third party entry: if I understand it correctly, "third-party" is not much more than an attributive use of third party. --Dan Polansky 08:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought this was quite straightforward, but MWOnline has a very particularistic software-context definition. [[third party]] needs work too. I had always assumed that "third party" arose in a legal context but was very general in its application. DCDuring TALK 11:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Needs a better definition, but I'm not sure what that is.—msh210

Turkish proper noun: Can't figure out what contributor was trying to say: '"nobilited about goodness" -like a pundit'. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sinek cleaned up. —Stephen 18:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Format of references, combine philosophy senses, more ordinary sense needed. DCDuring TALK 16:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonstandard references. DCDuring TALK 16:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain that especially the first two definitions under determiner and adverb belong to each, and there seems to be the pronoun POS missing altogether. Can anyone have a look? (I'd rather not meddle with it myself as in my native language "determiner" is only considered a function, not a POS in its own right, so I'm afraid I might make more damage than good.) --Duncan 10:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

A determiner can serve in a pronomial capactiry (in English and Spanish), so the pronoun sense isn't missing. It looks as thoought the pronomial sense has been listed as a "Noun", and I'm not sure that's correct. I'll have a look at the entry. --EncycloPetey 17:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I've combined the apparently synonymous defintions, which reduces the number of definitions to 2, 2, and 1. Does that look better? I do think, however, that we might want to call the "noun" sense a "pronoun" instead, but that would affect a number of entries if we do. --EncycloPetey 17:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, it's much better now. Yes, I think that the "noun" sense is in fact either a pronoun or an adverb, but certainly not noun - at least not in the examples given. --Duncan 20:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't the person who added the cleanup template, but it doesn't seem to be here so I'll add it. I'd suggest separate annexes for each language. Appendix:English Palindromes or Palindromes in English. Mglovesfun 10:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This needs some sort of cleanup, and may need to be moved to a Cyrillic spelling. --EncycloPetey 17:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That’s Greek, but I don’t know whether it’s also used in English. The dance is named for the Bulgarian village of Пайдушко, so I would think the capitalization is okay in any case. —Stephen 21:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Synonyms (and derived terms?) should be split up in senses.
  • Verb sense should be merged with weird out, and ‘weird out’ should be derived term. H. (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

See cleanup tag in entry. 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitions in derived terms. DCDuring TALK 02:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Highly doubtful IPA, since the vowel shown is actually a Cyrillic character and, even were it Latin, IPA doesn't AFAICT use grave accents.—msh210 00:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I can find the dictionary entry, but it doesn’t show pronunciation. The only material I could find on pronunciation suggests that the vowels are close to those in Spanish. So it probably closer to /bdaˀʃχ/. No idea where User:Ptcamn came up with that IPA. —Stephen 03:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
That IPA was actually not in the original entry; Amador (talkcontribs) added it. —RuakhTALK 15:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the grave accent is to indicate a falling tone. I don't know anything about this language, but its Ethnologue report confirms that it's tonal. —RuakhTALK 15:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hindi, but in the wrong script. --EncycloPetey 03:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

US(?) aviation jargon. Needs research. DCDuring TALK 15:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that the quotations given are actually for TERPS. I'd suggest RFV. —RuakhTALK 19:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Needs someone familiar with Esperanto to correct part of speech. Nadando 03:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess we either need to "merge" these entries with Category:French past participles or fill it up by recategorizing stuff like joués, jouée and jouées. Opinions? Mglovesfun 10:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think recategorizing is the way to go. --EncycloPetey 21:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done All items have been recategorized. I've tagged the category for deletion. — Xavier, 16:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: heading was previously "en avoir marre de".

A pile of crap - what's a transitive verbal expression anyway? Needs wikifying, probably moving to en avoir marre. --Rising Sun 16:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved to en avoir marre, cleaned up some. Please take a look. —RuakhTALK 17:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks fine. I'm removing the {{rfc}} tag. — Xavier, 16:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the content needs to be moved to Oriental. —RuakhTALK 14:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Should that be called a definition? lol — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 12:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we've got a bunch of those. They're mostly useless — they lump together the meanings of every binyan without any clarification, and often add in the contributor's unreferenced theories about the underlying meaning (without given any indication that this underlying meaning is unattested). And to top it off, they use punctuation (and not-quite-punctuation, such as plus signs and "X"-s) that I, for one, have never managed to decipher. We should probably just delete them; I've been reticent about doing that, since there is good information there … it's just not in a form that a reader could make use of. :-/   This one, I've cleaned up by cheating: it's not the lemma page, so I replaced it with a form-of-redlink. (Usually I move non-lemma definitions to the lemma page, but when the definitions are this unhelpful, it seems perverse to copy them to a new entry.) —RuakhTALK 17:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I assumed looking at them that they were dumped from some old dictionary. Am I wrong?msh210 16:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. They all list the Strong's number as their only reference, but their text doesn't follow Strong's. I suppose they could be plagiarizing a different dictionary, but why? —RuakhTALK 17:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be split up by etymologyies. Also, the "abbreviation" and "interjection" are largely identical. We usually don't assign POS to abbreviations, initialisms, etc. --EncycloPetey 21:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi EP-
I split up the Acronym/Interjection as per my understanding of this discussion:
following the model at SMS – my understanding is that Abb/Acr/Init do not replace Parts of Speech – for example, LOL in the internet slang sense is an interjection, which should presumably be reflected somewhere.
Regarding “splitting up by etymology”, I’m not clear on Abbreviation policy generally – you’re right, following “Break up by etymology”, each expansion of an acronym needs a separate L2 header, but that doesn’t seem to be how entries are formatted (see SMS again, which seems a model).
Perhaps we should take this to Beer Parlour, since it seems an under-standardized/policied/discussed point?
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
We might. I think putting it here first might garner more useful attention, but if there is disagreement in the conversation, then a move would certainly be appropriate. --EncycloPetey 21:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This might need to go to BP. Our existing approach doesn't work too well for abbreviations of certain types. It is adequate for nouns and proper nouns, IMO. The various pseudo-PoS headers give "pronunciation" information and the sense line effectively gives the etymology, so we dispense with those headings without harm, except to consistency.
If an abbreviation is used as a verb ("to SMS"), we would seem to need an inflection line. I don't know about interjections.
I would think this one works differently in unabbreviated form than it does spelled out, where it doesn't seem idiomatic. That seems to argue for a different PoS, whatever that should be. DCDuring TALK 21:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Reflecting on this, as DC points out, this gets pretty complicated.
I’ve accordingly started a discussion at WT:BP#Entry Layout for Abbrevations etc.? with some thoughts – LOL might be resolved here, but there are many other issues, which deserve wider attention.
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious entry. DCDuring TALK 15:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

See the citations page, where this term is used to mean a specific kind of photograph, not a photograph in general, in at least one citation, possible all of the photograph-sense citations. Needs a good definition, then.msh210 16:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup, at least, is required. --EncycloPetey 23:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Needs basic format. --EncycloPetey 23:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Done now, I think. DCDuring TALK 14:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably suppoed to be a German entry, but needs a lot of cleanup, and possibly verification as well. --EncycloPetey 17:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Most quotes not of headword or are mentions, move to Citations page under appropriate headings, at least. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Some quotes not of headword. DCDuring TALK 14:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

They should be kept together to demonstrate the history of its usage, capitalization. The first English usage of this word happens to use an obsolete spelling. I'll move them to the citations page. Michael Z. 2009-06-12 02:26 z

Adverb PoS? Really? Also: Synonyms section needs help.msh210 22:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Synonyms section needs help.msh210 22:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Good enough? DCDuring TALK 23:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and thank you. If it's McArthur after the general, then it's more likely MacArthur, incidentally. Striking anyway.msh210 21:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I propose to move this category to "Category:Heraldry"; we do not have "Category:Biological terminology" and other analogues of the title "Category:Heraldic terminology". --Dan Polansky 16:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Most terms in the category are there by template, and so can be moved by editing the template. --EncycloPetey 16:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Completed. The Category:Heraldic terminology is now redirected to the Category:Heraldry. Alternatively, it can be deleted. --Dan Polansky 07:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
It should remain for at least a few days before deletion, since we want caches and such to clear, lest people hit a dead link. --EncycloPetey 14:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Five-line definition. DCDuring TALK 00:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

no structure, 1400s English? Mutante 19:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up. Moved to RfV. DCDuring TALK 21:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

verb section. Mutante 19:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 02:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Documentation is on a subpage instead of the talkpage, and, worse, is in French.msh210 17:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed by Ruakh, whom I thank. Striking.msh210 20:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it the filing system? The card? The file of cards? More than one of these?msh210 20:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please inspect. Also, see -ex. DCDuring TALK 21:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Now there are two senses, both meaning "a system...". (Actually, I'm not sure how whether the first is not a special case of the second and removable.) But google:"on the kardex" seems to show that the card is also called "Kardex", and google:"in the kardex" seems to show that the file of cards (or some sort of file) is. But I'm not sure.msh210 22:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
At the very least the medical system should get an "especially" because it is discussed in many 21st century nursing/medical-office-administration books. The cards do have that usage, but so also do a rotary card holder, desktop card drawer cabinet, etc. I wouldn't mind if someone who knew something about this would finish this or let us know about usage in medical offices, hospitals, libraries, other offices. This is not a term other OneLook dictionaries have (except one medical dictionary), nor Wikipedia. DCDuring TALK 23:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Also Kardex AG (possibly the current owner of the paper-system trade name) is making various space-saving physical-storage devices, which may also be referred to as "Kardexes" by users. DCDuring TALK 00:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin please move this over to the more common spell checker, turning "spellchecker" into an alternative spelling entry? --Dan Polansky 08:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Done.msh210 22:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

A context template... sorta. Needs help from someone familiar with {{context}}.msh210 00:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneRuakhTALK 14:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

...and -orian#Old English both need an ang expert to clean up the content added. --EncycloPetey 01:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Olso needs some Olde English cleanup. --EncycloPetey 02:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The etymology states that the mire element derives, via Middle English, from the Native American Onondaga language! Presumably, the editor meant Old Norse (non), not Onondaga (ono). I’d make the change myself right now, except the etymology also has the problem of being {{unreferenced}}, so it’d be good if someone else took a look, too.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up: [[mire#Etymology]] confirms your suspicion. I've added {{unreferenced}}. —RuakhTALK 14:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thanks.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Not in Arabic script. --EncycloPetey 03:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be attestable as a given name, at the very least. Probably a transcription of the Arabic, but I'm not sure what "language" this name belongs to. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I cleaned up with conventions for English known names, and surnames that come from another language. Goldenrowley 02:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:teloor Jcwf 05:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Afrikaans doesn't normally capitalize nouns AFAICT; is this an exception?​—msh210 16:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you’re correct, Pantoffel is German, pantoffel is Afrikaans. —Stephen 08:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Done. This illustrates, incidentally, a problem with didyoumean's redirecting: people wish to enter a word in the case we lack. (This Afrikaans entry added by an anon to the German page, perhaps due to didyoumean (though who knows).)​—msh210 16:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This (and other recent edits by the same user) include "Examples of use" that are improperly formatted and should be formatted as quotations. --EncycloPetey 02:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The term "aneurysm" should be the main entry while "aneurism" an alternative spelling entry, I infer from unambiguous Google rates. Can an admin please move "aneurism" to "aneurysm", to keep the revision history of "aneurism"? --Dan Polansky 19:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

aneurysm seems to have all the history. Aneurism reentered with usage notes. DCDuring TALK 19:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Perfect; thank you. --Dan Polansky 21:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User is creating Ancient Greek entries with no definition. Has not responded to first message. --EncycloPetey 19:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The documentation in the template page should be removed and replaced with {{seeTalk}}, which I cannot do as the template is protected.

Can someone confirm that this template is deprecated? If so, the sentence that I have added to its documentation can be edited so:

"This template is possibly deprecated, to be replaced with the template {{topic cat}}."

--Dan Polansky 07:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated, yes, but there is still a lot of work to be done before the template is done away with. The {{topic cat}} template system isn't understood by a lot of editors here, but it does have tremendous advantages over {{nav}}. For one, it doesn't put the full pull-down list of languages into every language category (thereby reducing the system response time), but more importantly it puts the parent categories into a separate location, so that all the categories of the same name will automatically have the same parents in the appropriate language. No more independently entering, editing, and checking all the myriad categories because they're controlled from a central location for each topical category title. --EncycloPetey 14:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I have updated the talk page Template talk:nav. --Dan Polansky 07:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Needs plural (Isländerinen? Isländerinnen !). The definition is incorrect, too, I think; this means as Icelandic woman only, right?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. You were right on all counts. Angr 12:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

am#Romanian, was at first nominated for deletion but blatantly exists. I'd think some templates would fix this quite quickly. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Creates a large awkward table, and doesn't categorise the verbs, hence 70 verbs in Special:UncategorizedPages. I'd do something myself, but I'd probably just end up breaking it even more. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Why should it categorize the verb? Most conjugation tables don't categorize, becaue the inflection line template does that already. So, the way to fix the lack of categorization is to add {{infl}}. As far as size, this is actually a rather compact table compared to some. I'm not even sure it's worth making it collapsible. However, I'll defer to community opinion.
The real problem here is that {{nl-verb}} has been used as a redirect to this conjugation table template, which means the conjugation table is sometimes appearing on the inflection line. I'm not sure a bot can be made to clean this up, but what seems to be needed is (1) a repositioning of the conjugation table in a Conjugation section after the verb, (2) a use of {{nl-verb-conj}} in that Conjugation section, (3) a proper rewrite of {{nl-verb}} to serve as an inflection line template, and (4) a use of {{nl-verb}} on the inflection line. This affects over 500 entries, and will not be a simple cleanup. --EncycloPetey 13:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the table, by redirecting it internally to {{nl-verb-table}}. Also, in the inflection line, the following templates are supposed to be used: {{nl-verb-weak}}, {{nl-verb-strong}}, and {{nl-verb-irreg}}, depending on what kind of verb it is. —AugPi 17:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Just added by anon and needs cleanup. Seem to be a real word, but appears to be primarily legal. --EncycloPetey 23:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

quotations need help. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done what I can. I got only two b.g.c returns for the Cicero quote, but with no preview so I couldn't hope to identify the translator. I question the independence of the Mencken citation. I suspect the translated Cicero quote is being referenced by Mencken, since both use "divine afflatus". --EncycloPetey 18:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there two senses, separated by a semicolon, or just one? Note that the synonyms and translations are split.​—msh210 20:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As stated, is this English, French or both? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sort nyms by senses. H. (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Needs cleanup from someone who knows Japanese entry format. --EncycloPetey 21:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Misspelt. Moved to インスペクター and cleaned up. —Stephen 20:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Written like a WP disambiguation page rather than a dictionary entry. --EncycloPetey 18:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up, second opinions very welcome. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Who knows whether 2nd sense is "really" needed (rhetorical question)? Looks good to me. DCDuring TALK 18:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Shift some quotes to citations page. Usage notes are etymological (Move to ety section, under show/hide?) DCDuring TALK 11:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Translingual etymology 2: isn't it English rather than trnaslingual?​—msh210 23:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Erm, wrong script? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick Google search shows there are many Armenian-American Chaparians. So we can as well consider this sort of an English surname and have an English entry for it along with Armenian. --Vahagn Petrosyan 03:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Useless entry as is. This archived RfD of May-June 2008 was never implemented. There were supposed to be a "boatload" of redirects to make the entry findable, of which none were added, no one accepting responsibility therefor. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of speech, usage examples? DCDuring TALK 00:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My first reaction is delete as encyclopedic only. This isn't a "word" in English. But then we have 911, 999 and 112, so I guess they do meet CFI (or just haven't been nominated yet). Mglovesfun (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
(We also have 000.) My first reaction, too, was delete as not dictionary material. But I suppose we can subject it to the rigors of verification: It would seem that there are uses, as opposed to mentions, of a phone number in durably archived works: If someone dials the number (uses it) in a movie, or even in a book, I think that'd count. Some passage like "John saw her gagging and called 911": the "911" in that sentence is a mention of the phone number, but the use of the number by John is a use of the phone number and should do. No?​—msh210 16:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm just looking for the basic 411 on this. I think it needs realistic usage examples from someone who knows the term so someone could cite it. I wouldn't want to try without some plausible collocations to get at least 5% likely hits from my searches. If it can't be cleaned up, then it should be RfVed. If no one can bother or figure it out, it must not be that important. DCDuring TALK 17:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I think 911 can be used figuratively (from watching too many US films). For the others, not as sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Surely 911, 999 et al. are translingual. That doesn't particular mean that the English has to be deleted, but whatever language you speak, 999 is the emergency number in the UK. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Defs need rewording as unit of measurement. DCDuring TALK 01:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Adjective definitions in adverb PoS; No Adjective PoS section. Usexes only for "back on your feet". DCDuring TALK 01:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I was gonna delete this, but since it seems to exist we might as well clean it up. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The original source of the problem was a misspelling months ago by one of our regular editors. I wonder how many links we have to misspelled words from our entries. I think we should have none. (We might have uses in quotations.) DCDuring TALK 17:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Mglovesfun (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 16:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Noun? Verb? Both? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The noun is a dead certainty. Whether we could attest to "one-finger saluted" is the only question in my mind about the verb. If we use {[term|infl}} for the verb we wouldn't have to go through that attestation work now. DCDuring TALK 12:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Apparently not: G.B. mandatory search. I'll file an rfv. Michael Z. 2009-07-25 16:48 z
Noun added. Seems clean enough. Now at RfV for verb. DCDuring TALK 18:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Defined as polite request. Perhaps if it were "Could you please tell me". Can the translations be saved by some move? DCDuring TALK 20:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks more like a speedy delete to me. -- WikiPedant 20:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I've recategorised it under "phrasebook" (and no other) as per I love you. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this exists. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does. But what cleanup are you requesting? --EncycloPetey 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm I think I misread the article (sorry). Still an image would improve the article 100%. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Striking, found an image on Commons. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this findable with all the non alpha-numeric characters? DCDuring TALK 01:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

today, we are all X

I moved what I found at today, we are all X to today we are all. I looked at the redirects and found many. They look useless to me for search, but someone else might see something in them. I can't imagine someone ever typing in "X" for this kind of formula, nor commas. DCDuring TALK 02:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Many little things. + usage notes not about usage but about etymology, including conjectural etymology well covered in WP. DCDuring TALK 17:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And the language, too, it might have to be changed to English ("ck" is not used in Luo, and Robert Ullmann has promised to check the Luo spelling). Lmaltier 17:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

2 Etymology headers, 1 PoS. Needs structure repair: split senses by etymology or combine etys under one ety header. DCDuring TALK 17:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe it’s two spellings for the same Proto-Slavic word. Either one will do. —Stephen 16:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually hilariously bad at writing definitions for English words... so here it is. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Getting the WT:ELE right is a help. Also citations. For multiword entries I don't think that en-verb is worthwhile, though irregular verbs make its use at least arguable. DCDuring TALK 18:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The non-English terms in Category:English compound words need the parameter "lang=" added, so that they land in their proper categories for compound words. The languages concerned are Finnish and Hungarian above all, and then sometimes Norwegian, Dutch, and others. --Dan Polansky 11:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I have found all the non-English terms... The category should be OK now. --MaEr 18:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Hence struck out. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone wanting to {{rfd}} this go ahead, but at the very least, it needs some cleanup. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The fourth definition is "a trait of a dog", as though it were a noun — should it be reworded, or moved to the noun section / the entry backbiter? — Beobach972 02:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a joke definition, so delete or move to rfv. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Definition delete as fatuous. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

More "plain" English please. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Having just added demanufacture it could use some help. I am still reading about the Citation tab so any help there would be great. I also left some notes in the discussion tab.

Thank you it looks great.Noprimenumbers 18:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Partial cleanup John Cross 18:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

partial cleanup has now been done John Cross 18:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Clean up, unless it doesn't meet CFI anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The definition should be rephrased: the current definition "with extreme care, precision, and attention to detail" is of an adverb, not of an adjective. --Dan Polansky 10:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Take a look. DCDuring TALK 23:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


Encyclopedic. RfD tagged in Feb, 2009; not yet discussed here. DCDuring TALK 01:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Mostly needs a good whacking of the trimmer, but probably worth a definition. Circeus 05:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree, keep. Mglovesfun 14:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I wasn't aware gravity convects. Actually it doesn't intransitively, only transitively. I.e. the fluid is convecting, and gravity causing it. Not entirely obvious. DAVilla 08:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Is our new procedure to take a vote as whether anyone is unfamiliar with the term? Is that in WT:CFI? Is WT:CFI a dead letter? Why isn't this just an "only in Wikipedia" entry? DCDuring TALK 11:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You're confusing "having too much encyclopedic content" and "not satisfying CFI". The former is ground for trimming, not deletion. I have no idea where in WT:CFI you can read it is. Circeus 01:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
My comment was tongue in cheek. I wasn't aware gravity convects because gravity in fact does not convect (itself, i.e. intransitively), but it does effect convection on something else. Or maybe it does convect, in some sort of wave phenomenon? But that would have nothing to do with liquids or the sense in question.
Two nouns like snow train can have different interpretations depending on how you think the parts might fit together. Does it carry snow? Is it made of snow? Does it plow the snow aside for a regular train? Sometimes you have to forget you know what the term means, and see if the correct answer is attainable and certain, if it jumps out at you. This one does not, as it would seem to pertain to the gravity field itself.
I did not mean simply that I was unfamiliar with (the science of) gravitational convection, and I would find those terms shaky if used to decide these matters. (Stephen's comments are excused on the basis that he almost always votes to keep.) DAVilla 13:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep and trim. I don't see what makes this any less valid than forced convection, free convection or natural convection. It just has a lot more words. The entire description of what gravitational convection is doesn't need to be there, just the most important parts. Summarize. Concisely. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein
I'd be happy to run the other convection terms through the process for "fairness". Each entry should be standing on its own, however.
Is this an idiom? Can a dictionary definition do it justice? Does it make sense to someone who "understands" gravity and convection? Would template {{only in}} be more helpful or less misleading than a two-line definition? DCDuring TALK 03:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Kept and tagged for cleanup. Copying this conversation to WT:RFC.​—msh210 21:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


Mglovesfun (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Not Greek or wrong script. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Αδόλφος already exists. —Stephen 18:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Mglovesfun (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The category contains many words that are formed as prefix + stem, which is not compounding. These should be marked using {{prefix}} instead of {{compound}}. Example: bemerken, opbouwen. --Dan Polansky 09:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Mglovesfun (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like SB took care of it. Striking.​—msh210 22:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

split by etymology "re-" + "sound" vs. "resounen" DCDuring TALK 02:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Paul G 12:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

RuakhTALK 01:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Gotta love the irony. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I've taken a mop and bucket to it: see what you think.​—msh210 18:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! —RuakhTALK 11:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Mglovesfun (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

We have a few of these that don't start with capital letters (click on the small 'a' on the bar in the category). Some of them seems somewhat okay (adjective + noun to make a noun) but others are clearly wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 16:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Assuming this is a specific mathematics term as it says, I can't clean it up as I'm not a mathematically minded person. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, I think: please check. That said, I'm not sure it's not SoP.​—msh210 19:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

entry ratherchaotic+adv.>ex.?--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 05:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

layout-interj?--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 05:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagged for RFC some years ago - the question was whether we should indicate the trademark status of the term. As an intellectual property attorney, I say no. Not our job, and we face no liability for not including that info on someone else's mark. bd2412 T 18:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's useful s.v. =Usage notes=: people need to know how to use the term, and that depends in part on whether it's a mark. But imo a "TM" sign on the inflection line is inappropriate.​—msh210 18:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Mutante 06:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up. Korodzik 15:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Needs to become something worth keeping, rfd debate on WT:RFDO#Appendix:Arabic numeral has been suspended for the time being. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Now a redirect, so done. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Def is given as - (computing) an encryption that is performed on the fly Surely needs to be expanded, OTFE is a specific type of encryption, using mounted virtual drives.--Dmol 05:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Has passed rfd, but needs a much better definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Very verbose etymology. DCDuring TALK 21:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This entry’s quotations need page numbers and links.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Mglovesfun (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There is an inappropriate example with sexual content on it. —This comment was unsigned.

  • This website does not censor articles. If a word exists, we define it. SemperBlotto 08:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Which article? Needless sexual content can be removed if it serves no purpose. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

hoke is a valid Scrabble word, but I don't know if it means what it says in this article. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Something is wrong here. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How about now? —RuakhTALK 20:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
So the -e- doesn't get elided (broguing)? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite encyclopedic, but encyclopedic stuff can have a lexical entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

criketsens:pl insert plain engl4/so laymen getit2..--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Noun sense: "One who favors involving multiple parties when approaching foreign relations". This is pretty hard to comprehend. Also, are we sure this doesn't just mean "one who supports multilateralism"? Korodzik 15:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Transcription, or real? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Real transcription of a Japanese surname and place name. —Stephen 16:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. What is the problem with the article as it stands now? —This comment was unsigned.

  • There is no headword template - therefore the term is not in any category.
  • The definition entry contains what should be in an ===Etymology=== section, but does not define the term. SemperBlotto 11:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Also I don't think it needs a capital letter, does it? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Renamed, using span to link here. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Tosh? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

del by sb,26.9.9--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 09:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Etym., pron., and Mason & Dixon quot. all need clean-up; Introducing Foucault may need a separate sense, since the one we have is pretty vague, and the sense used seems more specific.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Any evidence for the etymology being other than simply horse + whip? The OED doesn't give the etymology we give in this entry. If ours is correct, it needs to be cleaned up, with capitals added to the language names and "portmanteau" removed if it is simply a compound rather than a blend. — Paul G 14:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Essentially the user was just giving the etymologies of horse and whip in this article, but they have their own article so I put {{compound|horse|whip}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. — Paul G 12:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is incorrectly formatted. Is the etymology truly a blend (a portmanteau) or merely a compound? — Paul G 14:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

How about now? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Much better. Thanks. — Paul G 12:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

By the same author. Looks genuine but the head word in the article and the page names aren't the same. Mglovesfun (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

German. Mglovesfun (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Tiefenmesser and cleaned up. —Stephen 01:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mglovesfun (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

DCDuring has cleaned it up. Equinox 20:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Needs a definition. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Now has a definition. --EncycloPetey 19:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hideous. Too many repetitive images. Doesn't work well with rhs ToC. DCDuring TALK 00:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I dunno if this exists. But if it does, and it might, it needs a total cleanup. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks whoever that was. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Or possibly {{rfd}}, I was torn between the two. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, copyright violation. Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A draft of the evolution of the meaning of the term, without context tags and dates, and insufficient support for the senses. DCDuring TALK 19:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mutante 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Added gender and fixed typos, so done. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Messy transwikied entry. 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Finnish word. Missing part of speech and basic formatting. --EncycloPetey 01:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

May need a better definition line.​—msh210 18:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this English? If so is it a given name? If so it needs renaming to Ananda. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved and cleaned up. But how I wish that we'd get an Indian contributor who would add etymologies and entries in original script for Indian names. Should we advertize on the main page? :-)--Makaokalani 13:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Etymons in scripts other than the Latin alphabet are not meant to be italicised. Could someone edit Template:term to fix this? — Paul G 12:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No need to edit {{term}}; it's just that you need to tell it when the etymon is in a script other than the Latin alphabet. Mglovesfun has done so. —RuakhTALK 17:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, this is a translingual category, not an Arabic language one. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Any better? L☺g☺maniac chat? 18:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

definitions need to be split, or moved to Etymology: quote from entry "In popular culture, the Mexican standoff is usually portrayed as three or more opposing men with guns drawn and ready, creating a very tense situation. Exacerbating the tension is that neither side wants to put down its weapons for fear that its opponents will shoot them. The term is considered derogatory by some, but its widespread use in a non-derogatory sense indicates that it is generally not meant to be offensive by most contemporary English speakers." --Volants 15:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The first Scottish sense is given as "cunt". Wiktionary definitions should use standard language, not slang. (My objection is not to the word itself, by the way.) So should this be "vagina" or "vulva"? — Paul G 08:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with this one. If we put (vulgar) vagina [] that just looks a bit silly, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless we have a usable definition of long word, this might as well go in the dustbin. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

usually uncountable seems to be part of some lang-noun, but not for French? - Amgine/talk 19:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

{{fr-noun-unc}}? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The problems seem to be that the first two examples don't use echarse al plato, they just use echarse. Other than that the idiomaticness seems doubtful as this just means to serve to oneself on a plate. However if the idiomatic meanings are correct it must be kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Important article (even used as a template!) written in inappropriate style, e.g. in first person. --Espoo 20:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Used in a template actually. I think I might rfd this as NPOV tosh. Also WEAE and Well-Enunciated American English redirect to it, which is absolutely wrong because mainspace entries should never redirect to appendices, template and whatnot. There's no reason it can't be cleaned up during the rfd debate. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Mglovesfun (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, mostly by SB L☺g☺maniac chat? 19:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've done what I can, without knowing the language. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Incomprehensible to a non-Turkish speaker. Or at least I think so. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. There was nothing to clean up. --Vahagn Petrosyan 13:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Borderline delete candidate. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the kind of playground expression that kids construct using a kind of specialized grammar: "I dare you" / "I double dare you" / "Well, I double dog dare you" / "Well, I triple dare you" / "That's so lame". dog has a long history of use as an intensifier, eg dog-tired. Accordingly, to me it seems SoP and ergo: delete. DCDuring TALK 15:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I cleaned it up and is now rfv'd. or should it be rfd? L☺g☺maniac chat? 15:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This needs splitting into its subcategories [[Category:French expressions]] and [[Category:French similes]]. But I'm not entirely sure how. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Might be dictionary material. Maybe. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Definition from Wiktionary
Content avaible with GNU Free Documentation License
Earn cryptocurrency with banner ads Earn cryptocurrency with EthereumAds

Powered by php Powered by MySQL Optimized for Firefox