Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2007/January

Except for those four subpages below, I've moved all listed pages here to Wiktionary talk:Beer parlour, temporarily. I'm going to see how they can be recycled or stored more efficiently, so in the meanwhile they don't take up space here. — Vildricianus 15:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/Citations
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/case-sensitivity vote
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/First letter capitalization
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/Quotation pages

I'm not going to restore this a second time, as I think it'd be overstepping my bounds. However I really have to say we've failed process on this term. If you read the RFD discussion you'll see that the reasons against keeping it were that it was lengthy. The only vote was to either give it a proper entry or delete it. There were two sysop actions on it, a deletion by SB and a restoration by myslef, after which I gave it a proper entry as instructed. However there was no discussion of whether the term was idiomatic or not. It was deleted "as per above comments" although those comments applied to an entirely different version. Thankfully the sysop who deleted it did so based also on non-idiomatic status, in his opinion, but I really think that should have been based on community opinion.

The problem I think is with myself. I see RFD as a forum for determining whether a term deserves merit on Wiktionary or not. However we also need to determine if content of a dictionary entry is worth keeping or not, and that's what others are using RFD for, because it is historically the place to do so, because it is currently the only place to do so. If I had simply let the term die, then re-entered it from scratch, which frankly isn't much different than what I did, then after re-listing it on RFD it may have failed but at least with the appropriate discussion. I created {{rfr}} because I felt it wasn't always clear which decision about a word needed to be made. However the ambiguity lies not just on a word-by-word basis but in the deletion process itself. We delete on two grounds: that the content cannot currently be made into a proper dictionary article, and that the title could never be made into a proper dictionary article.

This isn't something I have a resolution for, and rather than offering suggestions I'm asking for them. DAVilla 16:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Various cleanup activities focus on reviewing that deleted request for deletion/failed verification terms stay deleted. Without (at least three) very obvious citations, it becomes very easy to stop on each other's toes in this manner. For entries RFD'ed, the challenge is actually greater, as the deletion process questions need to be addressed (explicitly?) as well.

I'm not convinced there is a need for "rfr" - as I see it, it is an added level of potential confusion (that it ironically intends to reduce.) We currently have only a handful of entries that cross-over from RFV to RFD (or back) and I believe the duplicate listing (on both lists) is the safest approach for them. I agree it is annoying.

Lastly, I consider the "title" of an entry (AKA the "headword") to be part of the content. So from my POV, I'm not sure we actually do make the distinction you describe. And if we do, we certainly aren't very consistent about it. They are simply different levels of failing our criteria, from what I can see. That is, prohibited stuff like conlangs go to requests for deletion, while unlikely terms go to requests for verification. --Connel MacKenzie 17:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we used to have a line for "r"?

This page has undergone quite a bit of modification in the last couple months, but I don't see many people (previously involved with the page) participating in the conversation(s).

http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary%3AIPA_pronunciation_key&diff=1927007&oldid=1677063

Is this page in line with our current recommendations? --Connel MacKenzie 20:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll look over the parts I know something about, and reply later this week. --EncycloPetey 13:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my being bold. Vild added the banner atop this page some months ago to link the four main discussion areas. Today I did the same for the deletion/cleanup/verification pages, and linked them (the two heading pages) to each other. --Connel MacKenzie 22:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea. I'm just surprised I hadn't noticed it wasn't already uniformly used. --EncycloPetey 00:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It had bugged me for a while, that it wasn't on them. Each had the archive links in a different place. I think I unified the most glaring inconsistencies. --Connel MacKenzie 06:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added quotations often enough to be frustrated at not being able to find a date. The format needs something in for the date, even when it's unknown. So, I've created {rfdate} with the corresponding Category:Requests for date.

Sometime very soon, I'll update the information in Wiktionary:Quotations to elaborate more on what the date for a quotation should be. For instance, I have added a quote for the alternative spelling rigamarole, taken from Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Now, finding the date that the original Russian novel was published is easily, but that date is wholly irrelevant for a quotation from the English translation by Constance Garnett. Hence, I need a date for the quotation. --EncycloPetey 03:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

1. I think the "rfdate" is a Good Thing.
2. A good translation will take on the flavor of the era of the original text so having the Russian date (so indicated) is probably good to have, also.

--Connel MacKenzie 06:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That #2 isn't always a good assumption. I read (and still own) a copy of Ted Hughes' translation of Euripides' Alcestis , in which he translated certain words as electro-technocrats, hypodermic syringes, the guitar of Orpheus, point-blank, goulash, laser, Catherine wheel, and (although I can't find it at the moment) I'm sure I recall a reference to an atomic mushroom cloud. None of these terms is a literal translation of words in the original 5th century BCE drama, of course. Nor do I fault the Poet Laureate for his translation, which is powerful and immediate. It's just that one cannot assume that the words in a translated work have ever been translated in anything resembling a literal sense. Even in the Garnett translation of Crime and Punishment, where the displacement is merely from one end of Europe to the other with no shift in time, there has been criticism for some of her inadvertent mistranslations, such as Mass (Catholic) for Liturgy (Orthodox). The choice of translation can carry a cultural connotation that was not present in the original. --EncycloPetey 08:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Connel MacKenzie and I invite all and sundry to contribute their perspectives unto the discussion at Category talk:English nouns with irregular plurals. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 18:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before, but when we added the new namespaces a couple months ago, we finally got an opportunity to clear out the Wiktionary namespace. The remaining high-traffic pages that I see are WT:RFV, WT:RFC, WT:RFD, WT:RA and WT:FWC. It would be nice if the Wiktionary: namespace were limited to policy-ish stuff only, moving these page-specific indexes somewhere else (like the Index: namespace, perhaps.)

I'd like to start with WT:RA and all its sub-pages. Are there any objections (strong or weak) to doing this, while leaving the redirects behind? --Connel MacKenzie 18:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving to which namespace? Why is the Wiktionary namespace not appropriate for discussing deletion and verification of entries (a policy issue)? --EncycloPetey 12:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Index:Wiktionary requested articles was what I was thinking. I was pingged a while back about not staying up on these, as if I could or should somehow know all the relevant changes therein. If the page-specific pages are cleared from there, such a thing is possible. But with the NS:0 page-specific stuff also sharing the Wiktionary: namespace, that still is not possible. So, I view this as ongoing, routine cleanup of the Wiktionary namespace. Nothing Earth-shattering here. --Connel MacKenzie 15:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, moving WT:RA there sounds like a reasonable move, but I'm not sure that moving RFD & RFV is a good idea. --EncycloPetey 00:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I don't understand the move. Index: to me is something that's included in the "final version" of Wiktionary, something that would be put in print. Requested articles in contrast are a maintenance item, and what belongs in the Wiktionary space if not maintenance items? I'd spend time on other things. DAVilla 17:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. Those are good points. I would like to have a way of identifying pages in the Wiktionary: namespace that are updated infrequently, but that deperately need immediate attention when they are edited. Perhaps using <DynamicPageList> on Category:Active discussions or such? Any better ideas then? --Connel MacKenzie 17:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll add Category:High volume discussion pages and use DPL for NS:4. I guess I'll see how well that works. --Connel MacKenzie 18:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, wonderful: Wiktionary:Request pages/Recent changes. --Connel MacKenzie 19:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Close, but no cigar. The ordering is not the date last edited. Using DPL to list all, I can't figure out any way to get it to sort - every option I try from m:DynamicPageList results in random ordering. The "lastedit" thing doesn't work at all, without a category that contains all Wiktionary: namespace articles. I could do something really silly, like add "Category:Wiktionary namespace" but that wouldn't catch new additions without manual or bot intervention. --Connel MacKenzie 23:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Closer: Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wiktionary:Request_pages/Recent_changes/2007-01-08 but still not able to include new Wiktionary: namespace pages without some external manipulation (to generate Wiktionary:Request_pages/Recent_changes/2007-01-08 from Wiktionary:Request_pages/Recent_changes.) --Connel MacKenzie 05:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, maybe something like this would work for Pathoschild's deleted page watcher thing? --Connel MacKenzie 05:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've always noticed that almost evey single translation is red-linked. Maybe we could try linking these words to the other Wiktionaries? It could be either that or construct a universal Wiktionary with words in every single lanugage imaginable (not including dialects of course, that would be too much). —This unsigned comment was added by Rs21655 (talk • contribs).

See WT:VOTE. DAVilla 20:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The English Wiktionary does aim to create an English dictionary of every word in every language, so those links should be normal wikilinks. This is useful to an English reader who is looking for the definition of the French word chien, for example; reading the French definition will not help. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 21:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Are there any objections to me archiving old discussions on the Info Desk? Geo.plrd 00:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No objections - I'd prefer to see Werdnabot turned on for that page, though. --Connel MacKenzie 18:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are the Norwegian-related categories (Norwegian adjectives, etc.) only one category each instead of separate ones for Bokmål and for the other Norwegian language (Nynorsk, I think it is called)? The articles themselves largely don't seem to differentiate either. I imagine this will prove to be very problematic... — SMcCandlish ツ 01:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

We've never had anyone consistently working to differentiate the two, and I suspect that most of us are cluless about the distinction because we don't use either. --EncycloPetey 02:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to fill Category:Cuneiform. For this we need guidelines in Appendix:Cuneiform script. Please note Wiktionary:Requests_for_cleanup#.F0.92.80.AD, User_talk:Dbachmann#Cuneiform, User_talk:Robert_Ullmann#cuneiform for context. Input is appreciated. Dbachmann 14:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In phrases such as "This film is not for the squeamish." The adjective squeamish is used as a noun - meaning squeamish people. Should we have a noun entry for such (many) words - or is there a grammatical reason not to? SemperBlotto 13:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In Enlgish, there may be a reason to. However, this seems to be a phenomenon of adjectives common to most (all?) European languages, and possibly other languages besides. I dont know that we want to have to do this for every adjective in every language. That said, in Latin entries I'm inclined to use Substantive as the POS header for noun use of an adjective, since it still follows the grammar of an adjective (multiple gender, e.g.) not found in a Latin noun. The substantive in Latin can have very different, sometimes subtle, meaning from the adjective sense, and this requires an explanation in the form of a definition. I can't think of a case where this is true in English, but I suspect we'll need something to explain the noun sense of adjectives in the definitions of English words. --EncycloPetey 13:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that an elision? That is, isn't the sentence to be analyzed really

This film is not for the squeamish .

such that 'squeamish' remains simply an adjective? —scs 04:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

They are still adjectives in my opinion and are misused in lazy english such as "This film is not for the squeamish." where I suspect the speaker has missed a noun, collective or not, from the end of the statement e.g. "This film is not for the squeamish folk."--Williamsayers79 09:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a terrible thing to say. One of the most beautiful things about the English language is its capability to nominalize anything and everything. Besides that, while this sense of adjectives may well be overused to the point where its subtlety is no longer appreciated, I think saying "the squeamish" instead of "squeamish folk" gives it a bit more potency. I think that words in this sense should still be classified as adjectives, since this sort of usage should be considered a standard usage of adjectives, as there is a long precedent of doing so. Cerealkiller13 10:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with you, sorry for my blunt Geordie manner, I'm one to talk anyway, my dialect and idiosyncratic grammar is mostly incomprehensible to many an English speaker! English is a good language because it is very dynamic and that is how we have so many dialects and regionalisms within it. However, we should not confuse people so I agree to leave the adjectives alone unless there is clear evidence of it mutating into a noun or used specifically as a noun regularly.--Williamsayers79 12:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this sort of nounification of adjectives is common, especially when the underlying noun is "people". Doesn't need to be added to every possible adjective. (Does "defend" have 3 distinct meanings to the cricket-loving? ;-) but there are certainly cases where an adjective has become a noun: colored. Robert Ullmann 13:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent example, as I imagine at one point it was also simply a nominalized ajdective, which evolved into a distinct noun in time. Admittedly, I have no good reference on it, as its quite an archaic term in my region. I suppose the most clear cut way to determine whether a nominalized adjective has become a noun in its own right is the presence of a plural form in common usage. I've never heard of people reference sqeamishes or poors. Past that it would need to be decided on a case by case basis. Cerealkiller13 20:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We really ought to have an appendix for all the senses of words that aren't normally listed, but can be if they are distinguished. For an animate or inanimate object, a type of that object. For an animal as well, and also the meat from the animal. For a subject, one's ability in that subject. For a language as well, and also a term in that language.

For an adjective, the use as a collective noun. A number can be the instance of that number. Certain adjectives such as colors can always be substantiated, which may be confusing if it's a noun in another sense (e.g. "I like the gold better than the black").

For an intransitive verb, the gerund as a noun or adjective. For transitive verbs, the gerund as a noun or quasi-preposition I don't know the linguistic term for, and the past participle as an adjective.

Maybe it would be a good idea to present these in topical categories in a standard way. Would we have to copy any assumed senses into all subcategories at any depth? On the other hand, a lot of times words in a category don't have a "type of" relationship to that category. Should they? DAVilla 22:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We really need an Appendix page for each part of speech we recognize. Each such page would explain the basic regular grammar of that part of speech in English with examples, and with the most common exceptions. --EncycloPetey 00:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Support. Most common, up to 500 examples per POS appendix? (E.g. irregular verbs.) --Connel MacKenzie 06:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I envision a text explanation rather than a simple list, just to make sure I was clear about that. Examples would include usage in an example sentence, not merely the word. Still agreed? --EncycloPetey 06:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought that if e.g. any of the form-of templates etc. were linked, that they should be linked to some such appendix rather than the mere defintion, to allow for explanation of the finer points of the grammar. DAVilla 21:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This use of adjectives is called a fused-head construction.--BrettR 13:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

After I removed the Noun heading for undead, EncycloPetey reverted it and wrote, "current community consensus is that grammatical use of an English word as a noun receieves a noun header and section for the entry." --Enginear and Connel MacKenzie also assert that this is consensus.

I don't see what this claim is based on. If there were such a consensus, there would be noun entries for almost every adjective in English, and this is demonstrably not the case. By the reasoning above, not only would you need a noun meaning for most adjectives, you'd need an adjective meaning for most nouns because nouns can typically function as attributive modifiers (e.g., faculty office). Again, obviously it is the rare noun that has such an heading and section, indicating that community consensus is not as it is purported to be. Certainly policy discussions (conducted by a few) are not the only aspect of consensus. Established practice (of many) is also an important consideration. And I don't believe that this is analogous to not having pronunciations or audio recordings. If people thought these adjectives were nouns, they would have put them there. (By the way, I would appreciate some help in finding evidence for this purported consensus.)

The idea that an adjective can be "used as a noun" counfounds the lexical class and the function of the word. There's a difference which can be demonstrated through grammatial analysis. Here, the adjective is functioning as a modifier in a headless noun phrase (NP), which in turn can function as subjecti or object in clause structure.

Essentially the argument for these words being nouns must use some test for English nounhood. Two tests seem to be met: the word comes after the and it can occupy the subject or object position in a sentence. These are indeed characteristic (though not exclusive) properties of nouns (they can also be filled by determiners or verbs, for example). But there are many other tests that are not met, some of which are exclusive to nouns.

• Nouns typically license a variety of determiners; undead (and other "substantives") accepts only the.
• Nouns can be modified by adjectives; "substantives" can't.
• Nouns typically have a non-inflected singular; "substantives" don't have singulars at all.
• Nouns typically have an inflected plural; "substantives" have non-inflected plurals.
• Nouns cannot be modified by adverbs; "substantives" can.
• Nouns cannot be graded; "substantives" typically can.

I see no evidence that undead and the others are nouns by consensus (though I'm willing to look at any) and clearly they aren't English nouns by grammatical analysis. They simply aren't nouns and, as such, don't deserve a noun header or section any more than nouns need a separate heading for subject and object functions.--BrettR 02:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please understand that while your reasoning is flattering to the Wiktionary community, it is flawed. Specifically, it is incorrect to assume that nearly all adjectives will have noun headers if that that would fit policy. Consider that it is policy for all words to have a pronunciation in IPA, but a huge percentage of entries do not. It is policy for all words to have quotations, but the vast majority do not. Wiktionary is a work in progress with much planning that has yet to be enacted, so one cannot assume that what is currently in place on a majority of articles is in accordance with desired style. Most articles are still in an incomplete state.

Please understand also that I don't mean to say that your view shouldn't be followed up with brainstorming community discussion to reconsider and possibly change current style. Quite the contrary. Your thoughts could lead to significant changes and improvements on Wiktionary, since you've obviously explored information that hasn't been thoroughly considered here before. I for one am not entirely happy with the current treatment of adjectives -- we have spent most of our effort in hammering out style of nouns and verbs. That leaves a number of other grammatical functions whose page layout could use careful reconsideration. Adjectives in particular have bothered me as I've been working to get Latin entries going. Latin adjectives typically have a substantive sense, but putting that information under a "Noun" heading implies that use has the inflection of a noun, which is incorrect. Please do pursue this topic in the Beer Parlour as Connel has suggested. The discussion may last a long time; it may be vigorous, even heated; and it may or may not lead to a workable solution right away. Regardless, I do think it would be worthwhile to have the discussion. --EncycloPetey 01:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, this is not analogous to missing IPA, quotes, or translations which take more time, expertise, and research than most people are willing to put in. If people really thought that finer, or whatever, was a noun, they're put a noun entry. The fact that it occurs to nobody to do so is reflective of established practice and can be taken as evidence of consensus or lack thereof on a given point.--BrettR 17:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two issues to decide on here:

1. How to extend the set of POS headings to accommodate these cases? I think everyone can agree that "Noun" and "Adjective" are both inadequate; there needs to be a new term that basically means "functions like a noun but declines like an adjective" with specific details varying from language to language (e.g., in English they have restricted reference (plural or abstract singular), in German they are capitalized, etc.)
2. When should this heading be added to a given adjectival entry, given that it's totally productive in most languages? Obviously in cases where the substantivized use has a more specialized meaning, but guidelines are needed for the fully predictable cases (strive to include all of them? strive to eliminate all of them? include the ones that occur x often in corpora? don't care?) Same goes for all of the derivational processes mentioned by DAVilla above (22:49, 5 January 2007).

CapnPrep 19:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your first numbered point. As to the second point, we do strive to include them all...is that even a point of debate? --Connel MacKenzie 19:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For (1): They don't have exactly the same properties as Nouns (e.g., no plural marking) or Adjectives (e.g., they're not modifying anything), so using one of these headings without any additional indication is misleading/incomplete/incorrect. For (2): OK, if you say so (although DAVilla's comment does acknowledge the traditional dictionary practice of not listing systematically predictable derivations). There are really a lot of zero-derivation processes in English, so get ready! CapnPrep 20:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

These need to be both renamed and clarified. In the only usage I've ever seen elsewhere, "borrowing" and "borrowed word" are simply synonyms for loanword. The vast majority of English words are loanwords, most of which keep the foreign spelling, and we already have other categories for them. I suppose this was intended for words which are not naturalized (which I suggest we should change "borrowed" to), but the line there is somewhat blurry and I would question whether some of the words already in the category qualify. --Ptcamn 13:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Most the loan words tend to sit in the categories such as category:French derivations i.e. French loanwords obvioulsy including other derivation types like blends and corruptions etc.--Williamsayers79 16:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't follow your assertion that loanwords retain foreign spelling. Why do you suggest that? --Connel MacKenzie 18:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Being the largest Wiktionary, the English Wiktionary had (and maybe still has?) a tremendous impact on the evolving of other Wiktionaries. Multilinguality is one of the main aspects in consensus. But what if a certain Wiktionary decides to include articles in its own language only? Does this deviate from the very essence and basic policy of Wiktionary as a project? This question does not fall under specific criteria for inclusion, as it is a much broader subject.

What I'm really asking for is a clarification. The main page here says "Wiktionary is, above all, a multilingual dictionary". Does this relate to the English Wiktionary only or to every Wiktionary? Does the project's multilinguality come into play when each local project includes multilingual articles, or when the entire project includes many local projects?

I'm asking all this because over at the Hebrew Wiktionary it was decided to allow Hebrew articles only (WiktionaryZ, among other things, being a reason). Some users claimed drawing such a limit contrasts the policy of every other Wiktionary on the planet. So, in short, is there even such a policy? I believe each local community is entitled to do what it wants as long as it keeps the basic principle of Wiktionary as it is stated in the logo - "a wiki-based Open Content dictionary".

I'll be happy to hear what you all think of the matter.

Happy new year, Guy 10:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I find that decision troubling, since it leaves a hole in the web. For instance, English translations of Japanese words are found here on EN, while Japanese translations of English words are found on JA. But while EN will continue to hold English translations of Hebrew words, there will be no matching repository for Hebrew translations of English (or other language) words. That said, if there is any binding policy across all Wiktionaries, it's well-concealed; nothing is mentioned on m:Wiktionary, for instance. So it appears that each Wiktionary is free to do as it pleases, within the basic limits. -- Visviva 12:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input.

The thing is the Hebrew Wiktionary has only a few "steady" contributors. We do not (and I doubt we ever will) have the ability to maintain multilinguality. But other than that I think most Wiktionaries, including the English one, made a grave mistake when they introduced multilinguality.

The "regular" MediaWiki is not suitable for multilinguality in every local project. The current method created thousands of dupes, and to be honest I see no reason why stubs such as אהבה should even exist. If you write "אהבה" in the search box it will show you the articles love and affection in the results, as the Hebrew word appears in those articles' translations. And if somebody wants to get translations of Hebrew words he shouldn't even be here, he should just go to the Hebrew Wiktionary. Why should he bother himself back and forth, you ask? That's exactly what I'm saying! That's what's WiktionaryZ (or OmegaWiki, or whatever it's called now :) is there for. It's practically impossible for a Wiktionary, even as big as the English one, to encompass every word in every language (even the most spoken ones) when the project itself is scattered over local wikis.

If you look at it from the "MediaWiki POV", I think introducing multilinguality to MediaWiki is doomed to fail in Wiktionary just as introducing Wikinews to MediaWiki was doomed to fail.

Guy 13:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really agree on the multilingual thing... A multilingual dictionary is not just a list of correspondances between words of different languages: it describes completely the words and phrases, etymologies, pronunciations, usage, etc. If I want to know the etymology and pronunciation of the hebrew word אהבה, where do I go if don't speak that language enough to read the etymology? how do I know how to use it if the usage note is written in hebrew only? There are other good reasons to have a multilingual dictionary written in English, French, Bambara...

So no, I really do not think it is an error to make a multilingual dictionary.

And Omega-wiki is far from having all the features necessary to "replace" the Wiktionaries, not to mention that the main idea is different (based on DefinedMeaning).

Of course, with few people it is difficult to make a full multilingual dictionary, but that is still the goal a are aiming for (Wikipedia is the same). That said, it is true that the Mediawiki software is not fit for a dictionary. But we can improve it like it has been done for OmegaWiki. - Dakdada 16:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I view Omegawiki as a translation engine. Ultimately, I expect the essential translation data on Omegawiki will be used to bot-fill stubs into all Wiktionaries. But that won't change the "all words in all languages" goal of this (or any) Wiktionary. I don't think the decision at the Hebrew Wiktionary will stand the test of time. Perhaps they will be able to focus more clearly on just Hebrew, for now. --Connel MacKenzie 07:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I thank everyone for their comments :-) Guy 17:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To provide complete defintions and translations between two languages, a number of things are needed: (using English and Hebrew as examples)

1. A definition of the English word in English, with usage examples and explanatory notes.
2. A definition of the English word in Hebrew, with usage and notes, including limitations and variants in translation.
3. A definition of the Hebrew word in English with usage and notes, and variants, etc.
4. A definition of the Hebrew word in Hebrew, with usage and notes.

These four essential things are, for the example word, at en:love, he:love, en:אהבה, he:אהבה. Unfortunately, with the he.wikt's exclusionary policy, the second would be missing: there would be no place allowed for a Hebrew description of the English word love. And that is essential, because אהבה and love are not symmetrical translations (Tennis, anyone?). Single word Hebrew translations—even separated by glosses— at en:love are inadequate. To make the various meanings and uses of the term accessible to Hebrew speakers requires a full entry at he:love. (Note that it does exist, contrary to the supposed policy decision, and needs at least one additional definition for the Hebrew speaker trying to understand the relationship between tennis players described in a English newspaper's sports section ;-) Robert Ullmann 13:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the grammatical tests used to classify words into part of speech are very limited and incomplete. They seem to be something like this:

• Adjective: Does it modify a noun?
• Noun: Can it be the subject of a sentence?
• Conjunction: can it join various elements to a sentence?
• Verb: Does it denote an action or state?
• Preposition: does it indicate the location of something? is it followed by a noun?
• Adverb: Does it modify a verb, adjective, another adverb or a prepositional phrase?

If further tests were made explicit (as I have done in the discussion about "substantive nouns"), it might help to clarify things.--BrettR 13:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That discussion looks like a good start towards the Appendix:English nouns that has been discussed, but it won't apply generally enough to be used as a POS "test". Some of your criteria break down in languages like Spanish and Latin (where substantives can be singular, e.g.). I expect the problems get worse when you look outside of the Indo-European language family. The problem with having a "POS test" on a multilingual dictionary is that its criteria must be universal, and most linguists will tell you that such a general description of grammar is a very active, highly technical, and rapidly changing field. --EncycloPetey 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I was careful to point out that these were tests of English nouns, not nouns in general. There's no need for the test to be universal. If you're writing about an English word, you use the English tests. Surely you're not suggesting that, because an English verb, say, is expressed as a noun in Japanese, there must be a Noun heading for it. Note that in the page layout, POS comes under the language heading.--BrettR 17:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see such tests laid out explicitly. I think that is a very good goal for the appendix pages EncycloPetey mentioned. I would also like to see the POS distinctions reduced precisely to what entry layout currently calls out, as that is the goal for providing useful information to our readers. --Connel MacKenzie 18:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Both adjectives and determiners modify nouns in phrase structure.
• Both adjectives and determiners can participate in fused-head constructions.
• A determiner is an obligatory part of many noun phrases; Adjectives are always optional
• Determiners alone can modify singular countable nouns; Adjectives alone can't.
• Most adjectives can be used predicateively; Determiners typically cannot.
• Adjectives are usually gradeable, determiners non-gradeable.
• Determiners identify nouns and mark them as definite or indefinite while adjectives describe properties attributed to them.
• Core determiners cannot co-occur with the', a, and an; adjectives can.
• Many determiners are licensed only for specific singular/plural countable/uncountable nouns, while adjectives are generally licensed independent of these considerations.
• Determiners can often function in the slot (det) of them; adjectives can't
• Determiners can often function in the slot so (det) (noun); adjectives can't
• Determiners can be modified by only a very limited set of adverbs; adjectives are less limited in this way.

Most of this information is taken from The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL).--BrettR 00:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

To see if I have the same working definition (and to offer a different means of summarizing), allow me state my interpretation of what a Determiner is in brief. Determiners are those words traditionally lumped into the category of Adjective, but which do not quite fit. The category includes words that are sometimes termed:

• articles - a, an, the
• numbers/numerals (both cardinal and ordinal)
• indefinite numerals - all, many, some
• some other words of quantity or amount - little, much
• some terms that overlap the category of "demonstartive pronoun" - that, this

How does this (less technical, less percise) list compare with your understanding? --EncycloPetey 04:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you both have the same understanding of the category, and EncycloPetey's sub-categories are potentially useful (the "possessives" are missing), but there is no substitute for BrettR's empirical approach, as tedious and technical as it is. If we take the words numerous or single, they definitely seem like "indefinite numerals" or "words of quantity or amount", but BrettR's tests can be used to demonstrate conclusively that they are not determiners.

Ideally, a stable list of precisely formulated positive and negative criteria should be established as the definition of the POS, and adding the header "===Determiner===" to an entry would mean that someone really checked and applied every test. And in fact, most determiners will fail a few of the tests, and this would also, ideally, be indicated (e.g. with additional tags) in the entry. So someone seeing that header and any associated tags would have a pretty complete picture of how that word is used in English. CapnPrep 07:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, EncycloPetey and yes, CapnPrep. Also, recall that although this seems very technical, there are only about 50 or so determiners currently in use in English (though there may be additional dialectal ones), so it's not like sores of editors are constantly going to be applying these tests.--BrettR 14:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Are these elaborate tests needed for a closed class? I must have misunderstood the purpose of having the noun tests spelled out. --Connel MacKenzie 14:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see the discussion makes a bit more sense at Wiktionary talk:Entry layout explained/POS headers. So the idea, then is to add those four headings? --Connel MacKenzie 14:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe they are needed for all lexical categories. But, obviously, in a closed class they will only need to be applied to a very few items. How does this affect your understanding of the purpose for noun tests? Which four heading do you mean?--BrettR 14:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately "closed class" doesn't usually mean that it's easy to make an exhaustive list of the members. There are core members and then lots of increasingly strange outliers that are still similar enough to be included in the class. But "similar enough" is totally subjective unless it is based on something measurable, like a battery of tests. This applies to all proposed word classes (fortunately Noun, Verb, and Adjective are mostly populated by core members that don't require a lot of work, but there are always iffy cases that require a more elaborate treatment). For the particular case of English determiners, if we just wanted a list, we could find one in the CGEL or elsewhere (I highly doubt that the lists from different sources match up 100%). But it would also be good if the label led the reader to some detailed, reliable information about grammar and usage, for the core cases and for the outliers (e.g. "satisfies criteria A, B, D, and E, but note unusual behavior wrt C, F, and G"). This is no doubt too much information for the average user, but it is part of the lexicographical identity of the word. CapnPrep 17:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Both pronouns and a certain determiners can stand alone as subjects or objects in places where we would expect a noun.
• Both determiners and pronouns have anaphoric references.
• Determiners in such cases can often be modified by certain adverbs (e.g., not, very, almost); pronouns can't.
• Determiners in such situations can always be complemented with a noun, while pronouns can't.
• Pronouns can occur in the genetive case; determiners can't.
• Pronouns can occur in tag questions; determiners can't.
• Only four items fall into both categories: what, which, we, and you.

--BrettR 15:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it has been forgotten...

The new logo has been decided, but nothing seems to have been done since that. I can't find a project that changed the logo (among the biggest).

The problem is that the logo is still discussed, and at this pace there will never be a final version...

So, what do we do ? - Dakdada 14:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Relevant links: Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/November 06#logo vote concluded, cafepress (not a spam link! Honest!).

What to be done, is an interesting question. While my feelings on the matter are clear, I don't know what the overall community will decide to do. --Connel MacKenzie 19:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an off-line discussion is best. When there is a final version, one would expect that it be implemented. DAVilla 21:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

So, the image that best resembles Wiktionary is a meaningless jumble of letters? --EncycloPetey 06:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, a proof of what I realized the other day: that "power" is not only the ability of doing, but the possibility of "not doing". (Which I guess I have exercised in copious amounts by not updating any logo, for example on sv:. ;) ) \Mike 09:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems there wasn't any real interest in a new logo in the first place? Don't worry, we won't be using this one. Or if we do, it will last about the time it takes for Hasbro's General Counsel to have his secretary get Wikimedia's General Counsel on the phone ... something less than a New York minute. Robert Ullmann 19:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know where the relevant commons: conversation is, for the image used in {{support}}? Seems like something is way out of whack, at the moment - all "support" votes everywhere have lost their cute icon. --Connel MacKenzie 18:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Image:Symbol comment vote.svg, rather. --Connel MacKenzie 18:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The icon shows up for me. If they disappeared, it may have been a thumbnailing issue that has since been automatically corrected. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, commons ticker says it is marked for deletion as a duplicate, and it is currently grayed out. --Connel MacKenzie 08:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing going on with Image:Symbol support vote.svg. I'd imagine Image:Symbol comment vote.svg would be used over Image:Symbol comment vote 2.svg just based on the name. It' supposed to be gray by the way. DAVilla 14:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It was not a grayed-out image, when it was subst:'ed dozens of times on WT:VOTE. --Connel MacKenzie 17:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be resolved now...commons:Image talk:Symbol comment vote.svg. --Connel MacKenzie 12:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Wiktionary,

There is potential for the WMF to apply for grant money from the US National Endowment for the Humanities. We need to apply with a specific project in mind, and also a specific partner such as a library, museum or archive. They need a project that "explore new ways to share, examine, and interpret humanities collections in a digital environment and to develop new uses and audiences for existing digital resources". It seems like it could suit Wiktionary to me, for example with native American languages. Note that digitising existing collections is not enough. :) To read more about the grant and to post ideas, please see m:NEH Advancing Knowledge grant. Thanks! --commons:User:pfctdayelise 11:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if by archives you mean any archive or something specific that the Endowment has power over. There are a lot of historical records on people which are researched mostly individually to reconstruct family trees. However that has the potential to be amalgomated into one giant tree, which is what some milk-your-money sites like ancestry.com try to do quite pitifully and which a wiki could accomplish spectacularly. Of course, it would easily go far beyond the specific partner that the grant application names. DAVilla 01:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

See wikitree for how not to design a wiki genealogy site - you cannot have two people with the same name - tough if your father and grandfather were both named John Smith, it's already taken). SemperBlotto 18:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean any archive in the US, I guess. And I was thinking of a "project" like a topic area project within an existing project (such as Wiktionary), rather than a completely new sister project. --commons:User:pfctdayelise 10:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Like Appendix:Names or more like Category:Ojibwe language? I don't quite follow what you are getting at. --Connel MacKenzie 17:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, something more like Category:Ojibwe language I suppose. I am not 'getting at' anything in particular because I don't have any specific idea in mind, just threads. Just seeing if anyone was inspired. commons:User:pfctdayelise 12:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean that to sound rude. Thank you for informing this community of the opportunity! --Connel MacKenzie 19:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Long vowel is expressed by a ] in IPA. However, if I read the chart correctly, I think it should be ː. Am I right in this? If yes, maybe someone could write a bot which replaces all : inside of the {{IPA}} template to become ː...? henne 19:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

For many browsers (including the one I'm using at the moment) don't display those two any differently, so it's hard for some editors to catch and fix that. We also have people marking primary stress with ' when they should be using ˈ (which can be hard to see on some browsers as well). --EncycloPetey 20:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I zoom in deep enough (Ctrl-+), my Firefox on Linux shows the difference correctly... So I suggest this also gets handled by a bot? henne 14:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the IPA long vowel mark is ː. Also all "r" characters in English articles' IPA should be ɹ. Wiktionary apparently uses a somewhat broad and/or phonemic transcription; for instance, cat is really -- English aspirates leading unvoiced consonants. Cynewulf 19:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary uses a phonetic (not phonemic) transcription. The sole exception is English /ɹ/, for which we use /r/. I don't fully understand why, or agree with this decision, but it was decided by the community that all people learning English using this site should be taught to have a Scottish rrrr in their pronunciations. --EncycloPetey 20:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

OK then, I'll add aspiration marks when appropriate. I did a run of changing "r" to "ɹ" a while ago and nobody objected (e.g. this in your) and prefer to use accurate IPA when adding new pronunciation info. I can't really fix every IPA misuse by myself, though. Cynewulf 20:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That was YOU? OK, I'll remove you from the auto-whitelisting patrolled edits thing. No wonder it was everywhere. --Connel MacKenzie 20:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You may want to fix WT:IPA. Cynewulf 20:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And make {{IPA}} not point to w:IPA chart for English Cynewulf 20:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And otherwise provide some notice other than here that what is labelled as IPA is actually not always IPA. Since we have SAMPA/X-SAMPA transcriptions, why do you feel the need for romanizing IPA in the IPA tag? How about a new vote on this for the new year? Cynewulf 21:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'm for voting, but I personally don't want to debate it any more. Just link to all the old stuff.

Depending on the outcome, Connel might have the heart to re-whitelist you. EDIT: It didn't look like anything more than an honest "mistake". DAVilla 22:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care about the whitelist (although Connel seems to be implying that using correct IPA is vandalism). I just think that either Wiktionary should use IPA when it says it's using IPA, or somehow mention that "r" means "ɹ" somewhere other than a nearly year-old BP archive (I don't see any other "old stuff" and it took some googling to find that one), because otherwise people will assume that "r" means "r" as I did. This whole thing was before my time, but if it's really as big a deal as color/colour I won't press the point. Cynewulf 22:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Who do you mean by ‘you’? Me? henne 14:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I was talking to Connel Cynewulf 15:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

1. DAVilla, you can certainly re-whitelist him yourself.

   Nah, I hardly ever check edits. (Heck, I hardly do anything around here.) It really depends on who you trust on the minor points, and how minor those points should be. DAVilla 18:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

2. De-whitelisting does not imply vandalism, (I didn't use the V-word, did I?) it means that edits should be watched for subtle errors. (Well, to me, anyhow.)
3. I am not passionate about any aspect of IPA - I think it overall is not very usable, being completely unreadable to the overwhelming majority of our readers. But I do know that some here are very passionate about it; the conclusion they reached took a while to reach.

--Connel MacKenzie 23:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is why we also have SAMPA and "AHD". I don't see why we need to vet IPA when two other user-friendly pronunciation systems are in use. For a multilingual dictionary, IPA is essential. Otherwise we won't ever be able to give pronunciations of some foreign words without repeating a lengthy discussion every time a parrticular sound not ocuring in English is used. IPA is the only system that can handle English, Russian, Basque, Xhosa, Japanese, and Arabic with a single set of well-defined and easily investigated symbols. --EncycloPetey 23:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Connel -- Sorry for misinterpreting your statement. I took your "tone of voice" here and on this diff to have more outrage than was apparently intended.

Indeed, I apologize for that; it was supposed to come across as humorous, but failed miserably. --Connel MacKenzie 23:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As for IPA being unreadable, yes, it's hard to read. I have to think to decipher it. If I forget what sound /ʍ/ or /ɯ/ is, I look it up on w:IPA. The only thing I can read "naturally" is pro-nun-see-AY-shun (pɹoʊˌnʌnsiˈeɪʃən). The reason I prefer IPA is that once you've learned it, you don't need to learn another language-specific sound transcription system. Compare m-w.com's pr&-"n&n(t)-sE-'A-sh&n with AHD prə-nŭn'sē-ā'shən (copied from dictionary.com) -- very different systems, and I wouldn't want to try to apply them to Japanese. Cynewulf 23:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the only pronunciation edits I have done, have been to add a tiny handful of audio file links. --Connel MacKenzie 23:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This topic is getting astray. My question was about ː, not about IPA in general. So does everyone agree that this symbol should be used? (Actually, I do not think this is worth a vote. It is a question of following IPA guidelines or not.) Along with ˈ instead of ' for primary stress. henne 14:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that : should be changed to ː and ' should be changed to ˈ. I'll leave the exact implementation of this up to those who will be doing it. (Sorry for sidetracking your thread.) Cynewulf 15:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Strange to say this, but this might have been more straightforward as a bot request! --EncycloPetey 15:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't exactly have a pool of AWB/Bot operators on hand, do we? We may have missed the window of giving WT:BOTREQ the critial mass it really needs (both in requests, and request-fillers.) If my little brain can be made to understand exactly what the change being requested is, then I'll run replace.py on it. Of course, anyone at all can download the pywikipediabot framework and run it themselves without the bot flag if it is less than a couple hundred edits... --Connel MacKenzie 19:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me that the articles are rather unattractive and hard to use once they start filling out. The ToC gets longer and longer, pushing things down. With a simple template twiddle, I was able to solve this (without problems I've discovered thus far, since fixing a compatibility issue between Template:tocright2 and Template:trans-top (at Template:trans-top2, rather than editing trans-top itself). I'm told that tocright / tocright2 are never used in articlespace, but I think changing this could have some good results, demonstrated here. Thoughts? — SMcCandlish 01:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks excellent, and I think it would make things easier to use. I just don't want to have any of those fruity icons like the French. Look at what happened to them in WWII. The two are obviously related. Cerealkiller13 02:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the ToC has bugged me for a long time, I usually get rid of it outright on my own pages, that solution looks good. It may be worth looking into making ToCs accept arguments for things like how deep into the nesting it should list, and perhaps other considerations. - DaveRoss 02:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

While I concur that something needs to be done to improve the situation, I wonder how this would look on pages with certain other formatting quirks. Specifically, how will the TOC interact with images, the {{wikipedia}} template box, the new {{was wotd}} template, and (perhaps most importantly) large inflection tables. I imagine that for some users, the right-hand TOC will compress all these items into the text even more, which would have the opposite effect of what you're trying to achieve.--EncycloPetey 03:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never liked the TOC. Maybe it works for Wikipedia but for us it's rather trivial and not so useful. I'm quite glad that someone is trying to push it aside.

The problems with {{wikipedia}} can be resolved. First of all the template applies to the English definition, so it makes more sense to put it under English rather at the top, above translingual and all else. But I don't think we're even doing it right in the first place. Many of the simple nouns have multiple definitions, e.g. trunk for a tree, elephant, chest.... Really in most cases the box needs to be rethought and redesigned. Images could also be reconsidered with everything else, although you're right that a solution for TOC is going to have to fit with whatever styles are included. DAVilla 06:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If we do start shoving lots of things to the right side we should probably find a standardized template (and a CSS class?) for all of them so they don't conflict with one another so frequently. Also, _NOTOC_ is a wonderful thing :D. - DaveRoss 18:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As someone who works in multiple languages, I find the TOC very useful, but I suspect that most of our users would agree with you. I also find it invaluable for editing format, since some sections are not placed at the correct heading level. The TOC is a quick way to judge whether header levels are set correctly.

Is there a way to make the TOC customizable? Specifically, I think it would be nice if users could have it appear or not depending on the presence of selected key headers (i.e. It appears if say English or Croatian appear as headers, or appears if they are absent, but otherwise displays in a default fashion. It would also be nice to be able to customize its display to a determined depth. That is, if users want to see only level 2 language headers, then they could. Perhaps they want to see down to level 3. Is this even possible at present? --EncycloPetey 18:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is in 'wikibits.js' which means that yes, Wiktionary can override that class (yuck!) and all all sorts of customization to it (presumably through WT:PREFS, instead of standard user preferences.) I personally have no desire to pursue this! This sort of thing should be done in PHP on the server side. --Connel MacKenzie 18:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The TOC is already in your preferences, under misc. For us, it should probably be off by default, and that's as far as we'd minimally need to take this thread. Does anyone know where these things are manipulated? We also need to make trans-top show by default. DAVilla 01:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

WTF? Someone has turned off the TOC on THIS PAGE and needs to turn it back on. Your Special:Preferences is where you turn off YOUR OWN TOC, and WT:PREFS is where you tell the Javascript to always display the navigation <DIV> stuff (which is what the translations section thing uses.) Currently this is limited to one translation section - if someone reminds me, I'll correct MediaWiki:Monobook.js# to do all instead. But I won't do any such thing, until the mo-fo TOC is turned back on, on this page. Finding this section of this page is a PITA without the TOC! --Connel MacKenzie 17:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Versageek! I've changed "1" to "999" (sections to expand, by default in NS:0) in MediaWiki:Monobook.js. Let's see how many complaints that generates now. Perhaps we'll need separate CSS classes for each type - translations, related terms, see also, etc. --Connel MacKenzie 17:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this should move to WT:GP. Has anyone tried yet, the new "show translations" WT:PREF (that I think is called "Don't hide the NAV sections by default")? Any feedback? --Connel MacKenzie 19:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

So that's what it does. I'll try it tomorrow --Enginear 20:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• There are at least a half dozen known plays on trans-top/trans-mid/trans-bottom and who knows how many others. Doing only the translations is very limited.
• Many assumptions have been made about formatting that has assumed {{tocright}} would never be abused/used in the main namespace.
• TOC customization should be a server-side user-preference.
• Instead of worrying about esoteric changes to the encyclopedia software components, I'd really rather be focusing on dictionary concerns, such as where stuff belongs in the first place.
• --Connel MacKenzie 18:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I made this list based on the dumps of the en: and fr: Wiktionaries. Those articles are English words that are not here on en: but that have an article on fr. Of course some are mistakes (redirects etc.) but it could be useful to detect wrong or missing articles on the two projects. Do you think it could help ? (maybe it already exist somewhere else :S... I already did it for fr, so I thought I'd propose it here too). Dakdada 20:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think it is fantastic. --Connel MacKenzie 20:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)