Can someone tell me how to disable AutoFormat on this entry? It keeps adding "Mandarin:" to every line in the synonyms section. Tooironic 01:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you need to stop using the {{t}} template. That template is only to be used within Translations sections, never in other sections of an entry. --EncycloPetey 03:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I tried using Wiktionary for the first time, and I have a question about how to pronounce "Wiktionary". Looking at the logo in the upper left corner of most Wiktionary pages (like http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Main_Page) there is a pronunciation guide that, to me, looks like it would result in saying "wik shen ri" rather than "wik shen air i". Is this correct?

Yes, but that is not the only pronunciation of the name. Just as the word (deprecated template usage) dictionary is pronounced differently in various places where English is spoken, so is Wiktionary pronounced differently in various places. --EncycloPetey 03:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Where can I find out more about the "Beta". I'm currently trying it out, and can see some differences. Where can I get more information. Rising Sun 12:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, pretty much all english language dictionaries, when giving the part of speech of a verb, specify whether the verb is transitive or intransitive, right alongside the part of speech. Usually just write "vi" or "vt" for part of speech, from which I can infer that it is consider equally as important as the part of speech itself. I was disappointed to see that, as far as I can tell, Wiktionary doesn't give this information anywhere, let alone alongside the part of speech. Is this intentional? Or just a gross oversight? Or is it there and I'm just overlooking it? Lethe 21:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Our goal is to provide information about the transitivity or intransitivity of a verb at each definition line. See infer for a simple example. Not all of our entries are up to that standard. See disappoint. We'd be happy to get your help in bringing entries up to our standard by inserting {{transitive}} and {{intransitive}} tags where appropriate. DCDuring TALK 10:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Which deletion template do I use for a misspelled page (juduciales) to make room for the right plural?. Ultimateria 17:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fix the bad link on the singular page and then put {{speedy}} on the other one with a short explanation. Equinox ◑ 15:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

hey, there are 10 definitions for "resolution" here (in wikitionary), but it doesn't say how and why it gets a different definition in the phrase "resolution of doubts" , then it gets meaning of solving\dissolve, right? 89.139.76.20 14:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually (deprecated template usage) resolve. We do seem to be missing this. Equinox ◑ 15:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Much of wikitionary is solid, but I find that the definitions of English words can be a bit thin. Have there been any attempts at scraping from a Public Domain dictionary that has substantial definitions?

Wikitionary definitions are equivalent to a high school level dictionary. It could be improved to be quite a bit more substantial. Look in a "collegiate" dictionary for what I mean by "substantial." -L209342 16:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there have been additions made from public domain dictionaries. See Category:Webster 1913 for one example. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 02:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure where I should be asking this (or even on which project), but is there a way that I could have the username Logomaniac for a WP account? There is already a account there with that name but (s)he only made 5 contributions on the same day in 2006. Is there a way I could "take over" that name? Also if this isn't the right place to put it (which I'm sure it isn't) where should I ask this? thanks (you can reply on my talk page if you want to) L☺g☺maniac chat? 20:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to contact the Wikipedia Bureaucrats. See Wikipedia:Changing username for procedural instructions. --EncycloPetey 21:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 15:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I stuffed up the end of this entry. Can someone help me fix it? Tooironic 13:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed redundant translation section tags. --Tohru 13:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

IPA sg/plur pl?

I'm wondering why, unlike regular English entries, most of the non-English verb entries that aren't present actives (I think) tend to have grammatical information instead of an actual definition (i.e. instead of the word's meaning, in English), e.g. absumere "1. present active infinitive of absūmō", and mates "1. second-person singular present subjunctive of matar".

This goes against what I've been told in the past about it being "considered bad form to define a word with words that are equally or more difficult". Surely most, if not all, non-English words would be considered 'difficult' by people who haven't studied the language in question. (It also looks very inconsistent when compared with other entries, as it presents grammatical information after the "1." as if that is the word's actual meaning. Is it just too much work to translate?) Is there some guideline about this somewhere I need to be directed to? Thanks very much.--Tyranny Sue 15:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it's not always the present active: it depends on language. Hebrew, for example, uses the third-person masculine singular past tense. Secondly, there's a split among the regular editors: some like to only include stuff like "Second-person masculine singular past tense of לָמַד", while others (myself included) like to include a gloss also: "Second-person masculine singular past tense of לָמַד: you learned". The reason I've seen put forth for not including the gloss is that "you learned" is not a sufficient translation for the word in question, since "you have learned", "you had learned" and other things are also. Listing all of them would be ridiculous (in many cases), so, the argument goes, list none. Perhaps proponents of listing none can explain this better, or other reasons.​—msh210℠ 16:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and incidentally, it's not only verbs. Adjectives, nouns, and prepositions (at least) also get inflected, and have similar "definition lines".​—msh210℠ 16:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The two different definition types serve different audiences. The English gloss serves readers who know very little of the target language, but it's often nearly unusable on its own to readers of Babel level 1 or greater in the target language. The grammatical definition serves readers of Babel level 1 or greater in the target language, but it's often nearly unusable on its own to readers who know very little of the target language. —Rod (A. Smith) 17:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to edit for a list of seven letter words related to gambling. Does anyone know how to go about this? — This unsigned comment was added by 74.194.238.250 (talk).

You can browse through Category:Gambling for seven-letter words. If you know of some gambling words aren't in that category, tag them yourself by adding {{gambling}} to the words' entries, or let us know so we can tag them. —Rod (A. Smith) 15:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find the correct plural of "supply" when speaking of more than one register. I believe I have seen it as "supplys" and not "supplies". To me, the plural of "supplies" should be connected with multiple, variable items as in office supplies. Please respond. Thank you.

Of course the plural of supply is supplies. In formal writing you might use supply registers anyway. I'm guessing that some writers are puzzled by the unconventional (to them) use of supply, so they pluralize it like some write computer mouses. —Michael Z. 2009-08-19 18:12 z

How many bytes is the compressed file for Wiktionary?

The BZ2 file for all (and only) current pages is about 165 MB at present. Download here; you want the "latest-pages-meta-current.xml.bz2" file. Or you can save about 50 megs by downloading "latest-pages-articles.xml.bz2", which includes namespace 0 only. -- Visviva 12:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not add names and their meaning to wiktionary ?! Names can be added to wiktionary or something like, Wiktionary:Names_Neme1. I was going through (What Wiktionary is not); nothing against adding names and their meanings to wiktionary. :) --V4vijayakumar 07:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Do you mean entries such as (deprecated template usage) John and (deprecated template usage) Smith? SemperBlotto 07:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

oh, already there ? I should have checked that first. let me add mine. :) --V4vijayakumar 07:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

For translations and categories, would Chavacano de Zamboanga be legitimate individually? -Erolos 01:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Anything that has an ISO 639-3 language code (as a language), as Chavacano does, is a language for our purposes and is includable here even if we have none of the supporting templates and categories yet. Please include the lang=cbk parameter in any templates you use such as {{infl}}, which should go on the inflection line. See WT:ELE for format details. See Category:Entries_with_translation_table_format_problems for formatting subsidiary languages in translation tables. DCDuring TALK 02:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, i would like to submit a word for recognition if it would be possible, i have been wondering, why is there such a big vocabulary in curse words now adays? So instead of having all of the different curse words why not use Domb (pronunciation Dome) because it would be alot easier, and it is already being used in the town of Boonville, Missouri, and basicly what it is is a combonation of all of the curse words, it includes randomness and is another word to be known so that it can be stopped for future use

Why is this word almost always used as "ulterior motive" ? Is there a term that describes this linguistic phenomenon? — This comment was unsigned.

From Talk:ulterior DCDuring TALK 10:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

collocation Lysdexia 23:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Wikikin
We are in need of a bilingual dictionary of Tibetan~English within the Wikimedia auspice. I am of the understanding that Wiktionary is now multilingual but am unsure of how we may fulfill each other's requirements. A community in Wikiversity are progressing a Tibetan language learning initiative which will involve translating texts to be uploaded in Source/Commons. As a byproduct is an evergrowing thesaurus that would be best integrated with Wiktionary. We already have associated and attendant resources in Wikipedia and Wikibooks. Tibetan is awkward because researchers or interested parties will search by Wylie and Tibetan script and by a suite of other systems. I consider it appropriate to focus on Tibetan script and Wylie, but am open to other possibilities. I would also hope there is an easy way for a person to add pronunciation. Is there? I have been uploading Tibetan terms on http://forvo.com/ but then considered why am I taking it outside of our Community as we have all the resources available within the Wikimedia auspice. Are there intelligent proformas, templates that can be made for specific languages to assist in standardization and ease of uploading?
I await your advice.
fanX or more formally...
Thanking you in anticipation
B9 hummingbird hovering 12:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure of exactly what your needs are, but see Wiktionary:About Tibetan and Category:Tibetan language for the current state of affairs for our Tibetan coverage. We have no active Tibetan specialists, and our existing entries are fairly meager; thus, any contributions would definitely be welcome. You might want to get in touch with User:Prince Kassad, the author of the About Tibetan page.

Pronunciation files have to be uploaded to Commons, but once uploaded they can be linked easily from entries using {{audio}}. See Help:Audio pronunciations. It is unfortunate that Forvo uses an NC license, which is incompatible with the Wikimedia projects. -- Visviva 06:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Visviva, your response was wonderful!

B9 hummingbird hovering 21:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I try. :-) Good luck with your project! -- Visviva 01:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it mentioned anywhere in WT:STYLE, but I do recall seeing some Wiktionary entries that have a separate section to list the common misspellings of a word. Is there an allowance for addition of this type of section or is it strictly forbidden to list any common misspellings? Or even redirect from them? -- OlEnglish 23:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Misspellings should not normally be included in the entry proper. A section for ===Alternative spellings=== is fine; this would be appropriate when the standard spelling varies from one region or time-period to another, or where several variant spellings coexist. However, if a misspelling is truly common, it is perfectly acceptable to create a "soft redirect" to the correct spelling using {{misspelling of}}; see tilda and accomodation for examples. -- Visviva 06:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you very much for the reply. The reason I asked is because "memoriam" is very commonly misspelled as "memorium". I created the soft redirect as explained. -- OlEnglish 17:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Just want to express my opinion in regards to the current "desired format" for the formatting of quotations (at WT:") As a dictionary user, when I look up a word and there are examples of its use (quotations), I am interested primarily in reading the actual example/quotation, and not in reading a bunch of information about the example (except perhaps the year). Therefore I find the current "desired format" not very desirable at all. I think the source info should take second place to the quote. (Of course it definitely needs to be there, but not in front of the quotation. I think having the source info further indented and in a smaller font might help, too.) Thanks.--Tyranny Sue 07:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Our quotations need so much work. I think what you are talking about could probably be fixed by templating, and then adjusting your PREFS (if someone could make that work). I am still waiting for a good way of collapsing quotations under each sense, so we can really include a proper selection without it obscuring the entry too much. Ƿidsiþ 09:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have some minor disagreements with that style, too. I agree that most users would not be interested in the publishers and ISBNs of our quotations’ source texts; however, of course, it is vital to serve the higher as much as we do the lower, otherwise we’d have nothing but definitions with ad hoc pronunciatory transcriptions. Take a look at Citations:philerast and then compare the 1924, 1990, and 2005 quotations thereat with those at philerast#Quotations; nota the removal of co-authors, subtitles, publishers, and ISBNs in the main entry, and the greater clarity that brings. This, IMO, is a good example of how Citations: pages allow us to retain information without cluttering the main entries. Does that make it better? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

But it wasn't Plato who wrote those words. It was the translator. And a mere book designer or typesetter who selected ligatures and typeface. I think we need to get more complete book production information for citations of ligature terms. Also, why does a citation of a ligatured term count as a valid citation of a non-ligatured headword? The same applies in both directions of course. I am beginning to see the need for a Wikitypography project to do justice to this vital subject before the whole field gets swallowed up by ISO-enforced uniformity. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don’t hijack this discussion with an only barely connected issue. Firstly, I faithfully replicated that text’s typography; “standardising” that in line with normal, everyday text constitutes vandalism. Secondly, it isn’t necessary for that variant to count toward attestation of the main spelling; FWIW, I would also add citations of the variant philerastes to that quotations section if I found them to be illustrative of the term’s use. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is that what is being shown in an entry is not just the meaning. Tyranny Sue focused on that because many dictionaries limit themselves by focusing on meaning. But we have other issues to encompass. Thus, out citations need to be flexible enough to support that. In the case of unusual typographies, virtually the only relevant information is the rather obscure information of how the physical representation of the work was produced and reproduced. In the case of translations, the translator matters greatly. If all of our citations were in a limited number of citation templates, then the determination of how to present the quotations would be a relatively trivial technical matter.

It would seem to me that our first priority would be to actually get the quotations into templates and to capture as much of the relevant information as possible to allow us to illustrate and attest to whatever feature of the entry was under challenge or of a surprising nature to some population of users. I don't have any good ideas for how to recruit people who would do the work themselves or had the skills to devise bots to do the work in a reasonable time. Any thoughts? DCDuring TALK 01:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

God, I dunno. It’s virtually impossible to get the information for magazine articles to fit into templates properly. A lot of our citations could be presented in our templature, but we should not expect ever to get all of them integrated. It’s also not that clear how much we’d gain thereby — the only palpable benefit I can see is that it would permit auto-categorising, but that’s about it, AFAICT, and that seems only marginally useful. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place to be discussing policy changes. The Information Desk is for people looking to ask "minor, one-off questions". A discussion about the pros and cons of current format standards is better suited to the Wiktionary:Beer Parlour. --EncycloPetey 03:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

would like to see how to pronounce words I look up - like shagreen. — This unsigned comment was added by 74.245.33.131 (talk) at 12:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC).

Look it up now. BTW, in future, two things:

1. You can request that pronunciatory transcriptions be added to an entry by including {{rfp}} in that entry, as I did in this exemplifying revision; and,
2. Please sign your posts on talk pages and in other discussion fora with four tildes (~~~~), which will produce your signature with a timestamp.

† ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(moved from Tea Room) An editor has been adding quotations of random books on the entry shaku to prove a point on Wikipedia (w:Talk:Shaku#Requested_move if you really want to know), which I feel is inappropriate as there are just far too many quotes that do not add any information to the entry. I would remove some of the quotes but I am not a regular editor here on Wiktionary and so I am not familiar with the policies - and that it's 4am and I'm not really in the mood for reading; can someone more experienced please take a look and adjust as you see fit. Also, I have my doubts of it being an English word (it definitely is a Japanese word :)) so I'd appreciate it if someone could also clarify that for me. Thanks. --Antilived 15:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotations from random books are encouraged on Wiktionary. Wiktionary attempts to document the grammatical usage and context of all its entries. I see no problem with the listings on Citations:shaku. They meet our requirements for quotations; they illustrate usage of the word; and they are from durably archived sources. This indeed looks like a word that has migrated into English. The only concerns I have are (1) the publication information has been incorrectly moved to the bottom of the page, instead of included with each quote, and (2) there are multiple quotes from single sources, which isn't so useful. --EncycloPetey 03:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the validation. Per Wiktionary:Citations, I attempted to follow the example of Citations:mauve. Unfortunately, it did not give very full bibliographic information, so I tried to improvise by adding them to the bottom, which I thought was better than nothing. If you or someone else could provide me with an example to follow, such as fixing one listed there, I will gladly tidy up the rest. Regards, Bendono 03:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Operative policy is still WT:QUOTE, AFAIK. Citations:mauve is not a good example, IMO, since it does not even follow such rudimentary policies as we have (for example, it inserts a dash between the year and the other bibliographic information, for no discernible reason). -- Visviva 03:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The mauve citations page has not been kept up-to-date with formatting standards. The dash after the date is an older format still found on a number of pages here, but not generally in use anymore. The "model" pages (deprecated template usage) listen and (deprecated template usage) parrot have the same dash after the date on their Citations pages, but the format of the quotations there is a bit more up-to-date. --EncycloPetey 03:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

We often use this word in the context of spoiling or making a mess of things. 'I made a mullock of it.' It would appear to be an Australian word for a spoil heap, originating possibly from Cornwall. However, it is well-known here in Yorkshire. It would be interesting to how widespread its use is. Any answers? Yorkshirepud 07:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like it to say "For more examples of the usage of this term see the citations page" (instead of "For examples of the usage of this term see the citations page").
(The entry in question is cuckold.)
Thanks very much.--Tyranny Sue 17:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There’s something you could do in specific cases: subst: the template and then edit the plain text that results. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. How exactly does the syntax go please? I had a play with it & couldn't figure out exactly how to do it. --Tyranny Sue 15:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

{{subst:seeCites}}
That’s how all templates are subst’d — by prefixing subst: within the template name as presented in the usual double-embraced format. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

BUT, note that many, many, many (most) templates on Wiktionary are not to be used with subst: --EncycloPetey 04:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, AFAIK, only {{unsigned}}, {{unsigned2}}, {{welcome}}, and {{welcomeip}} are routinely substituted. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 10:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's possible, but not necessarily advisable. Keep in mind that: (1) Not all entries with a citations page have citations on the entry itself. (2) Even on entries like (deprecated template usage) cuckold that do have citations among the definitions, it is possible for intervening sections of the entry to be long enough to make this fact less than obvious. In such a situation, the text "more examples" would be confusing even though it would be technically correct. --EncycloPetey 18:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I probably used the wrong wording by saying modify the template. I didn't mean a universal modification, just a modification to this one usage. Is that easy to do? (I'm thinking of how, e.g., "en-verb" can be modified to "en-verb|xxx" but pipe sytax didn't work for me with seeCites.)--Tyranny Sue 05:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I understood what you meant, but the template would require that an editor add additional information in the template to make that happen on the page. The template can't do that as a matter of its own decision. The result is that we'd have a template whose wording could become inappropriate if other content changed on the page. In any case, this no longer sounds like an Information Desk question, but a Grease Pit question. --EncycloPetey 14:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I had the same thought as Tyranny Sue a while ago and created a separate template, {{seemoreCites}}, which does what Tyranny Sue is looking for. I've used it a bit. It works OK. -- WikiPedant 04:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Woohoo!! This is perfect. Thank you!--Tyranny Sue 13:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Am battling with this phrase

"Post delivery service support"

I suspect that this is post-delivery (occuring after delivery) service support (help given by a company to customers using the service). Conrad.Irwin 14:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this right? Do people say, e.g., "She tucked her dinner"? Or is it trying to refer to "tuck in"? (I have heard, e.g., "she tucked in to her dinner" but not just "tucked".) (tuck in is included under Derived terms.) Thanks--Tyranny Sue 05:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly "tuck away" and "tuck into". But tuck by itself (as in your example)? Sounds wrong. Robert Ullmann 06:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does, doesn't it? I think it might need to be removed from the defs. I will add "tuck away" to derived terms though.--Tyranny Sue 06:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to add it to curacao (and curaçao) but the Pedia article is entitled "Curaçao liqueur" (or w:Cura%C3%A7ao_liqueur). Is there a way to make the template work on these?
Thanks.--Tyranny Sue 16:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes: {{wikipedia|Curaçao liqueur|curacao}} or {{wikipedia|Curaçao liqueur|curaçao}}. You can find that in the documentation on the template's talk page. --EncycloPetey 16:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. How do I find the template's talk page please?--Tyranny Sue 17:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Here you are; Template_talk:wikipedia. --Tohru 17:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!--Tyranny Sue 14:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering which languages have active contributors at the moment? At the moment it seems it's just me (Chinese) and Finnish, but I'm sure there are others. The reason I ask is that I've been doing a lot of translation requests for other languages, but I don't want to keep doing them if they just keep piling up and there's no possibility of them being filled. Tooironic 13:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You might find this helpful. (and the answer is, probably, more than you would have thought.) -- Visviva 15:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, thank you, very shiny! Tooironic 07:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

'dbe automated

I really like the new look on the beta version, and I like the new functionality as well. However, a recent change to the translations view is irritating me, and I'd like to see why the translations have been collapsed and give my two cents on the matter. Where can I discuss the changes in the beta version? EvanKroske 13:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the development of the beta version is at http://usability.wikimedia.org, but the issues with the translations is probably local to Wiktionary. I recently collapsed the translations boxes, to bring them back in line with the current view of Wiktionary; this is because it "has always been that way" on Wiktionary, for better or worse. If you'd like to override the site default, there should be a button at WT:PREFS "Show the translation sections expanded, instead of having them collapsed." which will leave them always open for you. Conrad.Irwin 21:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed my preferences so that I see the full translation sections again, but I think that showing the translation sections should be the site default. First of all, it saves users looking for translations a click or two. Second, it shows people the nice new "Add translation" tool, encouraging them to contribute new translations. Finally, the translations appear to be the only section of articles that are collapsed. Expanding the translation section would make the entries more consistent. (I know that other sections are sometimes collapsed, but that happens infrequently.) Sorry if this opinion is in the wrong place; if there was already a discussion on this issue, point me to it. EvanKroske 13:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Who should be contacted about getting the IPA transcription on the logo of Wiktionary corrected? It should be for US pronunciation or at least for the UK pronunciation (if that's even how people in the UK would pronounce it; I suppose I'm giving the creator of the logo the benefit of the doubt).

Rest assured that you are not the first to notice the....oddness of the current logo. It is indeed valid, but my understanding is that we're presenting the stodgiest British pronunciation possible. In any case, I wouldn't hold your breath for it to be changed. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You can read more at Wiktionary:FAQ. It's the first item listed there. --EncycloPetey 02:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Almost all requests for additions to Dutch entries can be found in Category:Requests (Dutch) or one of its subcategories. The Dutch pronunciation requests are in Category:Requests for pronunciation (Dutch). --EncycloPetey 01:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Further details of John Terry's new £160,000 a week deal have emerged - Mr Chelsea himself is set to earn a whopping £2.5m testimonial bonus, should he sell-out Stamford Bridge with a game against Real Madrid at the start of next season (News of the World)."--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 10:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• In UK football - a (deprecated template usage) testimonial is a match played in (deprecated template usage) tribute to a particular player. See w:Testimonial match for details. SemperBlotto 11:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Could someone paste hereto the character for the German Fraktur hyphen; it isn’t horizontal (ending lower at the right) and is double-barred, so it kinda looks like the = symbol. I can’t find the elusive little bugger… Thanks in advance. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone may correct me, but I believe that since the Unicode Consortium considers Fraktur to be a font difference only, the Fraktur hyphen would be considered to be covered by plain old "-". It does appear that U+2E17, from the Supplemental Punctuation block, is sometimes used for this purpose, but this would not be strictly correct. -- Visviva 15:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That’s exactly what I was looking for. Thanks very much, Visviva! † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it’s just a font change, like this: -. —Stephen 18:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It’s not that simple, since the hyphen is doubled and made oblique. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In -, it IS doubled and oblique, since it evokes the font Walbaum-Fraktur. If you don’t see it doubled and oblique, it’s only because you do not have Walbaum-Fraktur installed. —Stephen 20:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That may be the case; I have Humboldt-Fraktur installed. It’s useful, IMO, to make proper display non–font-specific. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The fonts mentioned above depend on a font-specific 8-bit encoding. They only work on non-Unicode text. It's a mistake to start mixing such non-standard text into Wiktionary. This “example text” in the entry Fraktur is not acceptable German, and doesn't demonstrate anything to anyone with any standardized system:

Aber — wenn von Wei}agungen auf den Heiland im A. T. no< ferner die Rede \ehn \oll, i| es mögli<, daß wir die typi\<e An\i<t der alten Zeit über haupt fallen la}en können? Kann wohl etwas lä<er li<er, wenig|ens unnatür li<er \ehn, als ein vier bis fünf Stellen des A. T. für wei}agend zu halten, die, wahre Dii ex machina, in die pro\ai\<e, bedeutungs lo\e Reihe der rein ver gangenen alten Zeit, aller Analogie entgegen, \i< ein ge \‍<li <en haben \ollen? Keinen Unparteii\<en wird der Einwand ungläubiger Theologen: wenn es Typen geben \olle, \o mü|e ihre Ab\i<t von den Zeit geno}en \<on erkannt worden \ehn, \onderli< beunruhigen können. Denn was kann den uner\<öpi<en Welt gei| hindern, um eine Harmonie zu begründen, die nur \einem Auge \i< ganz enthüllt, da und dort den Dingen Bedeutung zu geben, die dem men\<li<en Ver|ande im Augen bli>e verborgen bleibt, und in Hiero glyphen zu \<reiben, wovon wir nur den klein|en Theil entziffern können, der größte Theil er| mit der Zeit zur Klarheit gelangt?

A lot of historical text uses forms and styles which we don't use today. That's no excuse to abandon standards and accessibility. —Michael Z. 2009-09-21 04:50 z

I substituted a shorter title; please don’t create such long ones in future. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There are 2 quotations but they both use secreted. Don't they therefore belong under that entry?
Thanks--Tyranny Sue 16:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first is a quotation, whereas the second is an example sentence. Nota that we allow quotations for inflected and conjugated forms to be noted in the main entry for the lemma (but not vice versa). † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. It would be good, though, to see at least one quotation using the lemma.

p.s. I'm also concerned about the fact that the writers of those quotes (the first especially) could have meant 'secret+ed' rather than 'secrete+d'? It seems to me in a case like this (with this much ambiguity) that the lemma should be used in quotations instead. Otherwise it looks like a possibly mistaken assumption is being made about the pronunciation of the written word.--Tyranny Sue 17:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There ya go. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn’t the verb (deprecated template usage) secret conjugate (deprecated template usage) secrets, (deprecated template usage) secretting, (deprecated template usage) secretted? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that quote is much better.

As to the conjugation, not necessarily. See ferret & ferreted, ballot & balloted. I think the 'secreted' quotes should probably be removed from 'secrete', as there's too much ambiguity.--Tyranny Sue 07:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be worth noting the double-‘t’ conjugation in the entries, explain its disambiguating effect. As for the quotations, where should they go, then? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, which entries are you referring to? And I'm not sure what you mean about noting a double 't' conjugation.
About the quotation, I think that unless we somehow find out which heteronym Chris Horrocks was using in the 2nd quotation, it should probably be deleted.--Tyranny Sue 14:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thus. It would be absurd to delete the quotation due to such ambiguity. The OED’s entry for “†ˈsecret, v.” marks it obsolete, with the most recent supporting quotation from ante 1734, and noting “In the inflected forms it is not easy to distinguish between ˈsecret and secrete v.”; conversely, it has three entries for (deprecated template usage) secrete verbs (each from different roots, but the second and third closely related), two of which are pronounced (sɪˈkriːt) whilst the third’s pronunciation is not given (presumably to save space and redundancy). I think it is quite reasonable to infer that Chris Horrocks was using the simple past form of the verb (deprecated template usage) secrete, not †(deprecated template usage) secret. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I was aware of the OED's judgement on this but I think we need to remember to try to be descriptive about modern usage on this. Most modern readers are more likely to come across 'secreted' (or 'secreting') in written form, not spoken, and are also unlikely to be aware of (or care about) the OED's judgement on it, interpreting it however makes the most sense to them, which may well be secret+ed. (Unfortunately, I'm not a subscriber to the online OED so I can't follow those links.) So I still think the Horrocks quotation involves a subjective assumption, but I won't delete it since you object.--Tyranny Sue 16:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice you added (obsolete), presumably based on the OED. Descriptively, this is incorrect as secret+ed & secret+ing are actually in use and likely to be understood (by me & people I know). Perhaps it's a regional thing, but I do think the (obsolete) tag should be removed, though it probably does belong on 'secretted' and 'secretting'.--Tyranny Sue 16:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It’s not just the OED’s judgment, as I show at WT:TR#secrete, 2nd sense (to conceal; to steal) obsolete? or at least dated?; it’s up to you to make the opposing case. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Opposing case made (multiple citations now at secret#Verb and Citations:secret). Now back to the original issue, secrete still has only one unambiguous supporting quotation and it's from 1914. Are you able to provide any more contemporary uses of "secrete" in this sense (and of course in the appropriate tense)? At present it looks like there has been a need to resort to using the ambiguous 'secreted' instead.--Tyranny Sue 16:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And accepted. Sure, see secretes#Quotations for one from 1967–1968. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

secrete (vb 2) still lacks any contemporary (i.e. less than 50 years old), unambiguous (i.e. in the appropriate tense), independent (not made up) cited quotations. If it is really in use there should be no problem finding some. I haven't been able to find any. (Whereas I was able to provide 6 such such quotations for the verb sense of 'secret' and 4 for 'secrets'.)--Tyranny Sue 08:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not true. The use of (deprecated template usage) secretes is from 1967–1968 (max. 32 years old) and the (now verified) use of (deprecated template usage) secreted is from 1997 (12 years old). † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was true because (1) I was - as stated - referring to the entry for secrete (vb 2), not 'secretes', and (2) the 2nd quotation was still unverified & therefore ambiguous when I posted. But it's great that we've got some verification on it now. We are probably now the only dictionary in existence that accurately & dispassionately reflects actual, modern, non-region-specific usage of these words, so we should all probably congratulate ourselves at least a little on that.--Tyranny Sue 14:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we do a good job on occasion, though I wouldn’t say that all other dictionaries lack our (occasional) impartiality. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been wondering if anyone happens to know of any conclusive etymological evidence as to whether secreted (as in "secreted away", i.e. hidden away) is supposed to be pronounced as secret+ed or secrete+d?
Thanks!--Tyranny Sue 16:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

From French (deprecated template usage) sécrétion < Latin (deprecated template usage) secretionem (accusative of (deprecated template usage) secretio) < the supine of (deprecated template usage) secerno. The verb with this sense is a back-formation that was first attested in 1707. —Stephen 18:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The problem (as I see it) is that 'secret' also comes from sēcernō, and 'secreted', when written, remains ambiguous. I.e. we don't really know how a writer is pronouncing it in her/his head when they write it. The 2nd example under secrete (vb), is:

1997: Chris Horrocks, Introducing Foucault, page 43 (Totem Books, Icon Books; →ISBN

Families secreted mad uncles and strange cousins in asylums.

How do we know for sure that Chris Horrocks was thinking 'secrete+d' rather than 'secret+ed'? (If we don't know for sure we should remove that quotation, as Horrocks could have been meaning it more in the sense of secret.)--Tyranny Sue 06:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we don’t for sure, but in the absence of contrary evidence, it is most reasonable to assume that the use is the one in line with spelling rules for pronunciation and is of the verb that isn’t everywhere tagged as {{obsolete}}. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is simply an error on my part, but I've always thought of it, and pronounced it, as secret + -ed. The "secretted"-spelling argument has no sway on me, since I'm American. But as Chris Horrocks is apparently British, it may well apply to him. —Ruakh_TALK 21:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, everywhere I’ve looked calls it obsolete, so so should we if we lack hard evidence to the contrary. The double-‘t’ argument hinges on the fact that, whilst (deprecated template usage) secret may be conjugated with one only ‘t’, (deprecated template usage) secrete cannot (correctly) be conjugated with two ‘t’s. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, we do have hard evidence that it's not obsolete; check out google books:"secret it away" (as compared to google books:"secrete it away"). The question isn't whether one or the other is obsolete, but whether, how to know which one "owns" a given ambiguous cite. The double-t argument is a bit weak IMHO, since "secret" can't correctly be conjugated with two t's, either, in U.S. spelling. To an American eye, "secretted" rhymes with "fetid" or "pipetted". I'll happily believe you that U.K. spelling allows the double-t (just like how y'all seem to accept "cancelled" and "parrotted" — but not "offerred" or "happenned", for whatever reason), but unless U.K. spelling actually requires the double-t, and we can confirm that this Horrocks person uses U.K. spellings elsewhere in that book, I'm not inclined to lend that point any weight in deciding whether he meant secrete-ed or secret-ed.
Ultimately, I think the best solution is to move that citation to a citations page, with a note that it's unclear whether it's using "secret" or "secrete". Unless someone wants to contact Horrocks and ask him?
—Ruakh_TALK 01:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, secretted seems to be from "secrette" (a little secret).

IMO, secret is only a noun or adjective, and the verb is secrete (cf. breath and breathe). When secret is used as a verb, I think it is just a mispronunciation of secrete. However, the mispronunciation is so common that it is acceptable and sometimes even preferrable. —Stephen 03:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We have further hard evidence that it isn't obsolete in that at least two Wiktionarians have now attested that they use it. (This is what being the only truly descriptive dictionary around is all about.)

I don't think it's a case of 'mispronunciation' because people are mindfully interpreting the word in the way that, according to the prevalent modern senses of 'secret' & 'secrete', is the most apt & felicitous. (Since my first post I've gained a better understanding of the history of these words & 'secret' & 'secrete' have been through various trends in their histories, perhaps this is just another. Anyhow, there appears to be a solid etymological precedent for "secret+ed", as this seems to be what was used before 'secrete' came along. Perhaps it's because the 2nd meaning of 'secrete' has pretty much fallen out of use - understandably since 'secret' does the job perfectly anyway.)--Tyranny Sue 06:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruakh and Stephen, so you guys see (deprecated template usage) secretted as sēkrĕʹtĭd? Huh, funny; I guess I can see that. Good thing there’s no such verb as (deprecated template usage) to secrette, I suppose, given the already abundant confusion surrounding (deprecated template usage) secret(e); there is an adjective spelt thus though — the OED notes it as a variant spelling of (deprecated template usage) secret (which it is) used in the fourteenth century (it was used more widely than that).
Ruakh, yes, google books:"secrets it away" is particularly convincing, IMO. Regarding the Introducing Foucault quotation, I’ve e-mailed him about it and Bcc’d you (since I had your e-address handy); I’ve tried to be as neutral as possible in the way I phrased it, but would you say there’s some bias in it?
Stephen, there’s a good chance that the verb (deprecated template usage) secret was resurrected by back-formation from a mispronounced (deprecated template usage) secreting (sĭkrēʹtĭng) or (deprecated template usage) secreted (sĭkrēʹtĭd), but it’s also reinforced by unmarked verbalisation of the noun (deprecated template usage) secret (which, etymologically, is how the word first came about); as such, it does indeed make sense to the Anglophonic ear, given the current use of (deprecated template usage) secretting and (deprecated template usage) secretted. (That, by all accounts, is more likely than the dictionary-guided resurrection of an obsolete verb as some sort of fad.)
Tyranny Sue, I wouldn’t say there’s anything “mindful” in users’ interpretation of (deprecated template usage) secreted as (deprecated template usage) secret + (deprecated template usage) -ed rather than (deprecated template usage) secrete + (deprecated template usage) -ed, just that it may seem more intuitive to them. I agree now that (deprecated template usage) secret is no longer obsolete; it certainly once was, however. That said, I must take issue with an argument of yours.

• “We have further hard evidence that it isn’t obsolete in that at least two Wiktionarians have now attested that they use it. (This is what being the only truly descriptive dictionary around is all about.)” — + this

The “hard evidence” is emphatically not “that at least two Wiktionarians that they use it”, but that the existence of recent CFI-valid sources shows its current use (via Google Book Search). If we allowed the unverified personal experience of any Tom, Dick, or Harry to support entries, that’d make us the Urban Dictionary; if all that were needed were that a couple of editors here testify to using a given term for it to be kosher, then Bogorm and I could go around taking the {{archaic}} and {{obsolete}} tags off all the entries we have for ligated spellings. Wiktionary editors do not — and rightly do not — have any personal academic authority on which to stake their claims, and must back up their assertions in entries with verifiable facts; argumenta ad verecundiam only have (marginal) validity when they are staked upon a person’s academic reputation (thereby providing a strong disincentive for anyone to make claims that he cannot support), which no editor in this wiki medium can have (as an editor — I’m not talking about IRL, of course). Being descriptive has to do with describing accurately that which is the case, be it with usage statistics, etymological theories, or whatever; it has nothing to do with accepting personal testimony as fact. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I just received an e-mail response from Chris Horrocks, who clarified that he did indeed use (deprecated template usage) secreted in the sense of “to conceal in a hiding place; cache”. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you not give examples of how your words of the day ar used in a sentence. For example, how would you use "thalweg" in a sentence?

Because doing so would be pointless: you still wouldn't be able to use the word in conversation (unless you are a geologist or geographer). It's not the word's fault, it's a perfectly good word, it just isn't commonly useful. I'd say it wasn't a great choice for word of the day, but that's just my opinion. RJFJR 15:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You could say, "We hiked up the thalweg." Sometimes an entry will have quotations or example sentences, but sometimes it won't. It all depends on how much interest the community has in preparing the entry before it's featured. --EncycloPetey 15:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

amendment ... LL. amendamentum.--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 08:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

LL. = Late Latin. Fixed now. -- Visviva 12:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

ta!

• eh-no'etyl|'ll.needed?--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 18:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, AFAIK {{etyl}} is just supposed to take ISO 639 codes (languages and macrolanguages). No ISO code exists for late Latin, so we stick to the old-fashioned template. -- Visviva 17:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Times have changed. In addition to ISO 639 codes, {{etyl}} can now be made to support arbitrary codes, by creating an appropriate {{etyl:code}}. In this case, we've given Late Latin the code Late Latin (by creating {{etyl:Late Latin}}), so {{etyl|Late Latin}} works as you'd expect. (For those who prefer codes that look like codes, {{etyl:LL}} is a redirect, so {{etyl|LL}} also works.) —Ruakh_TALK 22:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Gosh darn it, I hate change. ~>:-( But I have to admit this is a more sensible way of doing. I assume {{LL.}} and friends should be considered deprecated, then? -- Visviva 08:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. Right now the {{etyl}} approach is used in one entry, whereas the {{LL.}} approach is used in 820; so if someone's deprecated the latter, they sure haven't done a good job.

I think there's probably been some delay in this case, because it's not obvious what the code should be. Should we invent a realistic language code, like ltl or something? Or a realistic but private-use code, like x-ltl? Or should we treat it as a form of Latin — either a private-use form, like la-x-late, or maybe something like la-150 ("Latin as spoken in Europe")? It's hard to say that {{LL.}} is deprecated without saying exactly what it's deprecated in favor of, and I just don't think we've decided yet what that is.

—Ruakh_TALK 13:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I can say that on Commons, the codes la-cls and la-ecc are being used for Classical Latin and Ecclesiastical Latin, respectively. However, these codes are being used for sound files and therefore represent particular pronunciation patterns more than anything. For etymologies, I don't know what I prefer at this point. Codes like la-x-med could be confusing (not only because of the "x", but because "med" could be "medieval" or "medical"), although that pattern of construction seems to be the choice that ISO recommendations prefer. Perhaps we need a discussion about this at Wiktionary_talk:About Latin. --EncycloPetey 15:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

a-ta:)--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 17:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

'd an admin change 'de' into 'den' pl?[mytypo,4got is oldflemish--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 18:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC) you mean move it to wat baten kaars en bril als den uil niet zienen wil? L☺g☺maniac chat? 18:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

done. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 00:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

y,ta both!

I just checked -san and was surprised to see it indicates friendship. Is there a suffix indicating respect, sort of like adding sir in English? RJFJR 02:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

-sama (-sama) is more respectful than -san (-san) and -kun (-kun). There is also the prefix o- (o-), as in お友達 (otomodachi). The respect expressed by o- (o-) implies that it is your friend or his friend. My own friend would merit only a plain 友達 (tomodachi). —Stephen 12:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This might be of interest in making an appendix at Wiktionay... w:Language recognition chart

76.66.197.30 13:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Any one know how the word squeegee got its name? I'm guessing from the squaky sound it makes when used... but mine doesn't squeak. RJFJR 20:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

from one of the best sources on the Web. DCDuring TALK 22:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

But I found an 1829 source for squill-gee, which is clearly a precursor device and word. DCDuring TALK 23:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OED says squeegee (1844) might come from squeege (1782), a strengthened form of squeeze. Its entries for squeegee and squilgee (1840) refer to each other, but the latter is of obscure origin. (How do we know squill-gee is clearly a precursor?) —Michael Z. 2009-10-07 02:54 z

Read the quote; inspect a contemporary squeegee at a hardware store. It seems odd that OED doesn't reference the 1829 quote. I would certainly like to know where squill-gee came from. Something nautical could have come from any of several languages originally. Are nautical meanings well documented before 1800? DCDuring TALK 03:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's write earlier, because it's unclear whether precursor means “earlier” or “etymological ancestor”. Linguists and lexicographers also base etymologies on standard language changes and the like, so we shouldn't speculate that a single earlier attestation means it's the parent word, especially when we would be contradicting the etymological dictionaries. Sailors and even captains of the day don't have a reputation for literacy, so who knows how long either of these terms was used for?

To me the descriptions of squeegees and squillgees do sound like the same thing, and I would speculate outside of dictionary entries that they are variations of the same word. For lack of real evidence, I would go with the references; in this case OED and AHD say perhaps from squeege, while others say “unknown”. —Michael Z. 2009-10-07 04:45 z

I wish I could find a little more support for the existence of "squeege" besides one quote from the Idler (1838) and one from Barry Lyndon, especially given the copious attestation of squeeze. That squill-gee and squeegee both have two syllables is suggestive. Squill-gee seems fully attestable from late 19th century quotations with the same meaning. Various non-authoriative sources have unreferenced assertions that a squeegee-like device used by fishermen existed in "medieval" times. I wonder what that was called. This looks like a case of the modern word deriving from two influences, with the OED giving sole credence to the UK and literary branch and other sources following them. Looking at the OED citations for this group of terms doesn't impress me much with the factual basis to their conclusions. DCDuring TALK 16:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just kidding, someone already notised it. I realised I should, myself, type in propper English.

I want a list of all English words + a brief definition of each .

I tried downloading enwiktionary-latest-pages-articles.xml.bz2, but this is way too much: it includes foreign words, word roots/origins, and a lot more that I don't need. How can I extract just a word list w/ definitions from wiktionary?

I know about mthes and scowl, but wiktionary supercedes these, yes?

I realize this isn't well-defined: I'll settle for an approximation

Kelly.terry.jones 00:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a tab-separated file of English words, parts of speech and definitions, with most of the wiki markup removed. It's a couple weeks out of date ATM, but you can download it here (8.2 MB zipped). Alternatively, if you don't mind working with Python, download the Pywikipedia framework and do something like this:

import re, xmlreader
dump=xmlreader.XmlDump("enwiktionary-latest-pages-articles.xml.bz2")
defs={}
for entry in dump.parse():
   if "==English==" not in entry.text or ":" in entry.title: continue
   text=entry.text.split("==English==")
   text=re.split("\n\=\=",text) # ignore any non-English sections following
   finddef=re.search("\n\#(.*)",text) # iff you only want the first one...
   if not finddef: continue
   definition=finddef.group(1)
   defs=definition

file=open("definitions.txt","w")
for d in defs:
   file.write(d.encode("utf-8","ignore")+"\t"+defs.encode("utf-8","ignore")+"\n")

file.close()

This should give you exactly 1 definition (maybe not the one you want) per word, if that's what you're looking for. The definition will come with all wiki markup intact, which may be annoying depending on what you're planning to do with it. -- Visviva 06:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Do transliterations of given names and surnames from other languages into English get their own entries? If so what language header is used? (English, Translingual?) Is there a policy page somewhere showing the guidelines for names? --Yair rand 00:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Transliterations do not get their own entries. --EncycloPetey 02:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

They don't? At what point do transliterations no longer count as such and qualify as English? Almost all English names are transliterations or mistransliterations of names from other languages, I think. If simple transliterations don't get entries then two entries I created recently, Yair and Shlomo, will have to be deleted. --Yair rand 03:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Transliterations with accent marks, like Adólphos, and any transliterated words will certainly be deleted. But we have entries like Vahagn, Kirill, Nikos. "Wiktionary:About given names and surnames" should have been written years ago.--Makaokalani 14:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

True, there is no consensus. Which is sad. I'd love to see more given names in Wiktionary, both in local script and transliterated. Particularly interested in etymologies: it has always been hard to find etys of given names and place names anywhere. Wiktionary could have helped here. --Vahagn Petrosyan 15:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone considered adding a soundex search to Wiktionary?

Is Wiktionary supposed to have translation sections in plurals as are in men and women? --Yair rand 05:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Rarely. Normally, the entry for the plural links you to the lemma form (roughly meaning the dictionary form of the word, for English nouns the singular), that would have the translations which are linked to the entry for the words used as translation, which would then define the plural. This requires two extra clicks for this process but we generally don't repeat large blocks of text, like translations, because every time an update was made in one we'd have to remember to, and correctly execute, an update to all the other locations. RJFJR 14:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So should the translation tables in those entries be removed? --Yair rand 16:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but not a high priority. Removing them might keep some other translator from wasting time on such translations. DCDuring TALK 16:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

They should preferably not be removed until any info in them is moved to ] if appropriate, though that's not completely realistically feasible.​—msh210℠ 16:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It might pay to examine all of the elements of ] and ] to see whether there is any heading that has material that must be there. To me, except for Quotations and Pronunciation, none of it seems essential, though I haven't examined the items carefully. The more is there the more low-/no-value "contributions" the entry will attract. We would like users to focus on the lemma entries which are the richest and have all the context tags and usage notes that are appropriate. I have yet to see an argument for why even irregular plurals should have much material unless they are "plural only" in at least one sense. DCDuring TALK 16:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

They should not be removed. Of course we want translations of English lemmas, but if someone wants to translate a plural or a past tense, that is useful, too. In many cases, a lemma in another language is actually a better fit for an English plural or finite verb form. Arabic, for example, has many words that are grammatically singular but semantically plural. They have to add a special singulative suffix to form the singular, which is not a lemma but merely a singulative form, and the lemma is the plural. In any case, translations are added by volunteers, and if somebody wants to translate a plural, it is useful, and for many languages, irregularly formed. —Stephen 20:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't there a soundplayer so that the correct pronounciation and spelling of words in a different language - like hebrew - can be heard?

There is a way to add audio pronunciations but there aren't too many for Hebrew yet. See Help:Audio pronunciations and Wiktionary:Audio for more details. --Yair rand 17:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Two questions:

1. Is there a page to request a bot to do some task (verb forms etc.)? Is that what WT:BOT/T is for? It's not very clear.
2. Are rhymes added to rhyme lists by a bot or do they have to be added manually?

--Yair rand 19:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Two answers:

1. WT:GP should do, or the talkpage of a user who already has a bot that you think can do the task.
2. Scs's ScsRhymeBot added rhyme-page links to entries, but not vice versa, I don't think. Nor, AFAIK, has any other bot. Should be doable, though, AFAICT.

​—msh210℠ 19:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please help me figure out how to create a page on Arabic Witkionary?Cf. WT:GP#Creating_pages_on_ar.wiktionary :)--Thecurran 01:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You have to explain the problem more clearly. Is it that you can’t type Arabic? —Stephen 09:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no trouble creating or editing pages on ar.wikipedia and no trouble editing pages on ar.wiktionary but every time I try to create a new page on ar.wiktionary, I end up downloading some index.php . There are other Arabic Wiktionarians who do not have this problem. I have tried different browsers, computers, and computer systems but I still get the same results. In Arabic, the creation link for ألبانيا is http://ar.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=ألبانيا&action=edit or without diacritics, البانيا is http://ar.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=البانيا&action=edit . In English, Albania- is http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Albania-&action=edit . In Spanish, Albania- is http://es.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Albania-&action=edit . In French, Albanie- is http://fr.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Albanie-&action=edit . In Russian, Албания- is http://ru.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Албания-&action=edit . In Chinese, 阿尔巴尼亚 is http://zh.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=阿尔巴尼亚&action=edit or in Traditional, 阿爾巴尼亞 is http://zh.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=阿爾巴尼亞&action=edit . I thought I would be able to create all of these pages if I was logged in. Of course, I would not create the ones that end in hyphens or nine. In Arabic Wikipedia, ألبانيا9 is http://ar.wikipedia.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=ألبانيا9&action=edit . In English, Albania- is http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Albania-&action=edit . In Spanish, Albania- is http://es.wikipedia.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Albania-&action=edit . In French, Albanie- is http://fr.wikipedia.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Albanie-&action=edit . In Russian, Албания- is http://ru.wikipedia.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Албания-&action=edit . In Chinese, 阿尔巴尼亚- is http://zh.wikipedia.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=阿尔巴尼亚-&action=edit . Is there anything that bars editors from creating articles in a wiki before doing other types of edits there? :)--Thecurran 01:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I’ve just created ar:ألبانيا without incident. I don’t understand why you would consider names ending in 9 or a hyphen. What is the 9 for? Russian would simply be w:ru:Албания, no hyphens or 9s. When you download the index, do you save it on your desktop? Why don’t you copy it and paste it here so that we know what you mean? —Stephen 23:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The names ending in hyphens are there to point to a generic word that has not yet been created and still is almost the same as the word I want. I used the 9 in Arabic because numerals, unlike punctuation, will be in the correct place in a text string when flipping from rightwards to leftwards and it looks sufficiently similar in Arabic numerals. Thank you! :)--Thecurran 01:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, is that "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=" in your addresses what you were talking about when you said you were "downloading an index"? That is simply the editing address. You can ignore it. When you save the entry, "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=" will become "https://dictious.com/en/" and you will have a normal entry. —Stephen 01:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you but each PC I try to download the index.php on seems to have trouble opening *.php files. I have also tried http://ar.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/ألبانيا&action=edit , http://ar.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/index.php?title=ألبانيا&action=edit , and http://ar.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/ألبانيا&action=create but each downloads an index.php . The newest Chrome and Firefox will not read it and the newest explorer shows me:

Type=Edit text
Engine=MediaWiki
Script=http://ar.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php
Server=http://ar.wiktionary.org
Path=/w
Special namespace=Special


Extension=wiki
URL=http://ar.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=index.php&action=edit&internaledit=

Any ideas? :)--Thecurran 02:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

All I can think of is that you seem to be misinterpreting and misunderstanding what you are seeing. You cannot go to http://ar.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/ألبانيا&action=edit, you have to go to http://ar.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=ألبانيا&action=edit (i.e., not "https://dictious.com/en/" but "w/index.php?title="). You don’t need to download anything or open anything, you just go to http://ar.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=ألبانيا&action=edit , perform an edit, then save (button at the bottom of the frame). That’s for an existing page. To create a new page, go, for example, to http://ar.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=البانيا&action=edit , edit and save. Once you save, the "w/index.php?title=" will automatically become "https://dictious.com/en/". —Stephen 03:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys just a quick question, I noticed not all Requests for Deletion are discussed. What happens to the ones that aren't? Do they automatically get deleted after a while or does something else happen? Cheers, Tooironic 09:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to depend on who notices them first. If it’s me, I close them out and remove them from rfd. If Equinox, for example, sees them, they are history. For me, there must be a consensus for deletion, but for some editors, a single vote to delete is enough; also enough: no vote either way. —Stephen 09:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well I've nominated quite a few Chinese ones recently that, at least to me, seem totally SoP. I would create discussion topics for them but I'm afraid there would just be too many to go through them all. (There are a number of anon IPs who mass create Chinese entires on wiktionary, with seemingly little knowledge of the language or Mandarin entry formatting). I guess I'll just leave it then... Tooironic 10:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is more difficult to get a quorum for discussion of non-English entry inclusion/exclusion. As a result the standards are likely to be lower. In English at least three unopposed negatives and at least one week of time on RfD seem to be required for deletion. From what I've seen, for non-English entries the time is usually extended greatly and, I think, the unopposed agreement of two who actually know the language seems sufficient. It might be possible to recruit contributors to help at About Chinese. DCDuring TALK 11:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why were 𒂊, 𒉎, 𒄷 and so on marked with Chinese attention tags? They're, um, not Chinese. Tooironic 10:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

AutoFormat adds these tags for some strange reason, as well as sc=Hani. —Stephen 23:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

But why? I mean, they have nothing to do with Chinese, do they? Except for the fact that they use Unicode. Tooironic 23:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No, nothing to do with Chinese. AutoFormat seems to think that the Sumerian code sux is Chinese. —Stephen 00:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And how do we remedy this? Tooironic 01:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You should talk to User:Robert Ullmann. He's the owner/runner of the bot. --Vahagn Petrosyan 08:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I did; still no reply. :( Tooironic 06:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for delay. It doesn't think sux is Chinese; it was treating all of plane 1-2 as Han (something left as to-be-fixed a long time ago, now fixed). The only reason it was doing anything was because of the cruft before the {infl} template (a redundant "transliteration" apparently). Robert Ullmann 16:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi this may seem like a random question but does anyone know of any kind of freeware/plugin/etc that can Google search lists of word/idioms and tell you how many hits each one gets? I've been thinking it would be great to run a lot of Chinese idioms through to see which ones are the most common. Cheers, Tooironic 00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Where can I download code that handles Wiktionary inflections (e.g., tire to tiring)? I tried looking up utilites that perform the general XML to HTML conversion for Wiktionary, but couldn't find anything. However, for my purposes, I just need to expand words into the associated wordforms.

Do you mean the template {{en-verb}} or do you mean the bit of code that allows accelerated creation of form entries? --EncycloPetey 04:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am interested in code that expands the templates, such as the following from the entry for 'tire':

   {{en-verb|tir|ing}}

--Tomasohara 07:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The double curly brackets indicate that it is calling a template. All of these reside in the "Template:" namespace. So, the information you are seeking is located at Template:en-verb. --EncycloPetey 17:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are misinterpreting what I am looking for. I am not looking for information on how to interpret the templates (as discussed in Template_talk:en-verb). Instead, I am looking for how the template expansions are implemented, such as when the XML lexical entry is converted into HTML. This doesn't seem handled simply through stylesheets, so I imagine there is preprocessing code (e.g., in Python or Perl) that is run prior to the HTML generation proper. Note that I am will be working with a variety of languages, so it would be a major undertaking for me to implement the template expansion based just on the descriptions in the template talk pages. --Tomasohara 00:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Special:ExpandTemplates might be of use to you. For the implementation you'd need the MediaWiki source code.--Ivan Štambuk 07:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that pointed me in the right direction. It took a while, but I finally figured out that the template expansion definition is actually in the XML source for the template article, which is probably what was being hinted at above. For example, here's a excerpt from the XML for Template:en-verb:

Third person singular<br> {{#if:{{isValidPageName|{{{1|valid}}}}}|'''[[<!-- -->{{en-verb/getPres3rdSg|{{{1|}}}|{{{2|}}}|{{{3|}}}|{{{4|}}}}}<!-- -->]]'''|{{{1|-}}}}}

So the MediaWiki system is acting as an interpreter for this template "code". Tracing through Special:ExpandTemplates invocations was harder than expected, but it seems to boil down to something like the following:

http://en.wiktionary.org/w/api.php?action=expandtemplates&text={{en-verb|tir|ing}}

--Tomasohara 11:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I added my very first quotation today @ under fire, could someone please check it to see if I've formatted it correctly? Cheers, Tooironic 11:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine to me :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 23:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In order to get English-only random results, I must click twice, on two different screens. I'd very much like to just click once to get it done. How can I get a "Random entry - English only" button onto my navigation buttons? Kingturtle 17:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you can copy what I have in my User:Stephen G. Brown/monobook.js to your own monobook.js, changing Russian and 'ru' to English and 'en'. This instruction gives me a "Random (ru)" link in my navegation bar so that I get Russian-only random entries, and it should work for you, too, with a little adjusting. —Stephen 01:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a download site with archives of the static HTML dumps for Wiktionary as with Wikipedia (see http://static.wikipedia.org)? --Tomasohara 23:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Might someone be willing to produce an HTML dump for English Wiktionary? I'm guessing it can be done via the DumpHTML extension to MediaWiki ]. I will try to do this myself, but it might take quite a bit of time just to get a local copy of Wiktionary properly installed. --Tomasohara 11:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Completely trivial question: When marking entries for imminent deletion, does the template normally go on the top of the page, or the bottom of the page? I'm just asking because a while ago I was in a situation where I added the template to the top not noticing that it had already been added to the bottom half a second earlier. Is there a standard for this? --Yair rand 06:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the RfD templates usually go at the top of the page, and since {{delete}} is even more imminent, I would imagine that it should go at the top as well. Putting it at the bottom makes it possible for readers to miss it, as your case illustrates.   AugPi 07:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Most people put it at the top, but really, don't worry about it. The template should never be there long enough for it to matter where it is. —Ruakh_TALK 22:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. I'd say put it at the top, just in case you're wrong: someone who cares should have as much opportunity as possible to change it to an rfd tag (as instructed by the template, actually).​—msh210℠ 18:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just looking around WT:STATS when I noticed it said that Wiktionary has 1065 translingual form-of entries. What is a translingual form-of entry? Are these mistakes? --Yair rand 19:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

They are, now you point them out, mainly mistakes in the statistics generator's idea of what makes a form-of entry. Specifically it assumes that any completely templated definition is a "form of". This fails for templates that I don't know about - particularly {{taxon}}}, {{mul-kanadef}} etc., however there are some actual "form-of"s, such as ^^. I will try to update the heuristics before next I run the stats. Conrad.Irwin 02:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Does that include {{non-gloss definition}}? --EncycloPetey 03:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

please add Indian languages-Malayalam(kerala state

As a newcomer I sought to make an immediate contribution to Wiktionary. But oh my, I very quickly discovered just how easily one may become 'bogged'. The sandbox, rapidly became my very own quicksand box, as I floundered about endeavouring to understand the outcomes of my effort to create a new page.

Would someone please throw me a lifeline! I'd love to contribute, but should it prove any more difficult, I fear I shall 'go under'! Surely there is a way in which the Wiki User Interface (WUI) can be made more user-friendly. I for one cannot afford to spend hours delving into the arcane rituals of "wikification".

Many thanks,

Graeme Moyse

It may help to look at existing entries and copy the format. Anything you get wrong will likely be corrected (especially if you leave {{attention|en}} in it), so come back a day or two later and see, in its history, how it was corrected to see what you could have done better. (Also, see the pages linked to from your talkpage.)​—msh210℠ 17:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I second that advice. The "formatting" on wiktionary, as it were, is not as hard as you may think. And English entries, especially, are a lot easier than Chinese ones for example! Create & update by imitation is definitely the best way to go. Tooironic 19:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This page is basically empty, including only a paragraph about "Reta Vortaro" (?) and a note about suffixes. I've been trying to work on a new version, (here), but I'm not sure exactly whether before changes are implemented on About pages there must be consensus for a change, or a discussion in the Beer Parlour, or a vote, or if changes can just be implemented without any sort of process. Could someone explain the process if there is one? --Yair rand 06:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In principle, there ought to be a consensus, but in practice most people don't work in Esperanto and will just chime in if something goes horribly awry. The key things to have are: (1) links to useful aids and checks, (2) information about language-specific tools and templates, (3) sections covering significant differences from how other entries are formatted (especially English ones), and possibly (4) standards, since Esperanto is an artifical language. The "Latin in non-Latin entries" section of WT:ALA is a key one you might copy and adapt, since some of those details are somewhat specific to a particular language. A version of that section also exists on the "About Hungarian" and "About Italian" pages. If you're feeling enthusiastic about revisions, then go for it. I get some of my best ideas browsing the other "About" pages and adapting what I find, so I'd recommend doing that as well.

However, "About Esperanto" can always develop over a long time as a work in progress. I've been working on WT:ALA for more than three years now, and there are still huge chunks of it unfinished. This is true in part because Wiktionary style changes over time, and also because I'm always learning new things and developing new ideas as a result. --EncycloPetey 03:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wiktionarians.

I've come over from strategy.wikimedia.org. We're interested to know two things about how you work here on Wiktionary.

First, do you have any competitions? On en:wp there are quite a few different competitions that seem to help motivate editors to do good work and more of it.

Here's an example:

http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wikipedia:CUP

More can be found at:

http://strategy.wikimedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Editor_awards_and_rewards#Contests

Does Wiktionary run anything like that?

Also on en:wp there are a number of WikiProjects which help editors to bond as smaller communities within the larger one.

Here's an example:

http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history

More can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wikipedia:WIKIPROJECT

Can you point to any sort of sub-communities within Wiktionary which help editors bond as a smaller group within the project as a whole?

Answers to these questions will be valuable to us as we work on Wikimedia Strategy. I will be grateful for any information you can provide. --Bodnotbod 18:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

For past competitions, see Category:Wiktionary fun stuff. Groups of people work on different languages, and communicate at ]. (There's also some other coordinated work, which is mostly due to various people's following a single person's userspace list of entries needing emendation or creation, such as (just one example) user:Visviva/Tracking, but these don't engender the degree of bonding you seek. There are quite a few such userspace pages, and they really should all be categorized, but most are not.)​—msh210℠ 20:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

We have the occasional competition, but these are infrequent and I don’t believe they are popular with most editors. There are no WikiProjects which help editors to bond as smaller communities that I am aware of. —Stephen 09:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those replies. Would you say the community here is small enough that, for the most part, you know each other? Wikimedia stats says that you have 300,000 editors but those stats are often misleading since many of them will not be regular contributors and others will have left the project. Perhaps to ask the question in a more specific way; would you say more than 50% of edits are by names you recognise? --Bodnotbod 15:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, I'd say yes. When I joined here earlier this year that is one of the things that surprised me was how quickly I could 'get to know' the active editors. L☺g☺maniac chat? 15:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I just finished writing a new guide for Wiktionary entitled How to Create a Basic Chinese Entry. I hope this might serve as an easy, step-by-step guide for newbies who wish to make a contribution to this project but find the formatting a bit daunting. Questions and comments welcome! Tooironic 01:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks very well done, we should have pages like that for more languages. (I'm a little confused why "1)" is listed twice, though.) --Yair rand 01:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wooooops. Fixed. Thanks. Tooironic 09:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to see a model at the bottom of a completed simple entry according to the directions. Such a model would help people like myself know how to patrol new entries in Chinese languages. --EncycloPetey 02:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what exactly do you mean by a "model"? The complete "model" entry is outlined in "The Template" section if that's what you're getting at. Tooironic 09:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That shows the coding. You don't really see the code when you patrol, so much as the product that the code produces. --EncycloPetey 17:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh right. Well I would display that but I don't know how to stop it linking into wiktionary like a real entry would. At any rate you can check out the real-life entry: 扳机. Tooironic 07:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

See WT:ALA. The way I provided examples with to have floating boxes with links to model pages. You could use that without causing undesired linking. --EncycloPetey 07:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Um... that looks like a lot of stuffing around, and I'm no whiz at HTML. Looks like you have to manually type in all the style formatting. Is anyone willing to give it a go for me? Tooironic 05:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You have my heart but not my life, i will love you forever. - I need to know what this is in irish gaelic.

Try Wiktionary:Translation requests. —Stephen 08:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

When should slang words be added to Wiktionary? Apols. if this has been discussed before - I couldn't find such discussion myself, although I'm just an infrequent contributor to the project.

It seems to me that certain slang words are commonly used, and hence appropriate to add to Wiktionary. Conversely, other slang words seem obscure & uncommon, so seem not to merit inclusion. But obviously, this depends on the particular editor's viewpoint. For instance, a mature, well-educated editor in one continent may well have a different view to - say - a less mature or less-educated editor in a different continent. Who's to say what slang is common & worth inclusion?

The word that got me thinking about this is tomato. The current entry lists two slang meanings for the word, neither of which I've heard before, and neither of which I personally would have seen fit to include in Wiktionary. I gather there is an 'UrbanDictionary' website, which personally I feel may be a more appropriate repository for slang.

But what is the consensus among you experienced Wiktionarians? (And if the latter's not the right word, what is, please?). Thank you, Trafford09 01:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be what you would call a veteran Wiktionarian, but my impression is that all words (and expressions) in all languages are included, provided use can be demonstrated in at least a few different real-life texts, and that applies to every word and expression, not just slang. Thus it has nothing to do with different regions or educational backgrounds, but rather if people are actually using it in some way or another. Tooironic 05:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your comment. You seem to be saying "anything goes" - depending on how one applies the "demonstrated in at least a few different real-life texts" test. With 'non-slang', it's poss. of course to do google searches on published & available books. Maybe some similar Google search could be used for slang?

My main worry remains, though, as to where one should usefully draw a line between more-common slang and the myriads of (being charitable) local slang. I personally would hate Wiktionary to include all the words in UrbanDictionary, which I find a useful site on occasions, but but one beneath the more serious and more-controlled project that is Wiktionary. If nothing else, if Wiktionary contained all slang words that anybody cared to add, in any language & local region, then the project would risk becoming unwieldy, less respected, and possibly one wouldn't see the wood for the trees. Also, given that UrbanDictionary exists, is reasonably well known & already fills some distinct purpose, one might argue that each project should stick to its own forte, rather than duplicate effort, or even compete.

So the question really might be just where one draws the line. Maybe a tangible guideline would be to include words that had made it into a recognised, published dictionary? I admit that this would mean the project wouldn't be 'leading edge', but it would afford some measurable determinant for us to follow & be seen following.

It would be nice to see a range of views of different editors. I wonder if I should cross-post this onto a discussion area (&, if so, where?). Further views appreciated, Trafford09 10:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If widespread use of a term or a new sense of a pre-existing term can be demonstrated then that would automatically exclude those bizarre creations on UrbanDictionary. Each entry is judged on its own merits and there is no hard or fast rule apart from those guidelines outlined in WT:CFI. Moreover, Wiktionary should not just include words published in dictionaries. I think most contributors here would agree that living, breathing languages go beyond what is merely prescribed in "reputable" dictionaries; one of the great things about Wiktionary is that we can cover those terms and usages which cannot be found through usual modes of research. (This is especially the case for LOTEs which may not have many dictionaries to begin with!) Tooironic 13:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Ayyavazhi mythology there are Seven Logas (Seven Upper Worlds). The Sanskrit term for Loga is "loka." Akilam six and Akilam seven of Akilattirattu Ammanai speaks about it. The Seven logas are;

Deiva Loga Yama Loga Swarga Loga Brahma Loga Vaikunda Loga Siva Loga Para Loga

Why is it that this is not included?

I have found the most common use of Loga to be in algebraic problems refering to logarithms

Well, the Sanskrit term for (deprecated template usage) loga is not loka, because Sanskrit does not use the Latin script. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am trying to unify my wiki accounts and I am getting a message that I can't because there is a blocked user on wiktionary with the same username as myself (Mamluk). Since this user is blocked, what could be done to allow me to unify my accounts across the wiki sites? — This comment was unsigned.

• OK - try again now. SemperBlotto 17:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Posh documents sometimes have a little squiggle at the end of sections that acts as a divider or space-filler, is there a name for them, or (more importantly) how would I search to find a free image of one? google:embellished lines wasn't helpful Conrad.Irwin 12:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Were you perhaps thinking of a colophon or coronis? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think scroll, not sure if we have the right sense, but http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/4468602_scroll_designs.php?id=4468602 is some examples what I was looking for. Conrad.Irwin 12:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Cirwin, they are called vignette. See w:Vignette (graphic design) and free images. --Vahagn Petrosyan 13:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! thank you. Conrad.Irwin 14:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In the Translation section there is the comment "<!-- Do not enter translations of "first" here - only enter translations of the proscribed form.-->". Um... many languages do not differentiate between "first" and "firstly" in this context, so what exactly do they mean and how is such a comment supposed to be useful? Tooironic 12:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The comment wasn't in accord with out entries. I removed it. I hope translators will heed the context tag of "formal". Such comments may have been effective for giving guidance formerly, when translations were added by general editing, but they are are less effective now that we have the assisted-translations tool. DCDuring TALK 16:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Searching for an IPA speech synthesizer, I found User:Keffy/Great Pronunciation Flood. Keffy planned to upload speech-synthesized pronunciation files based on a collection of pronunciations he made. He used the Festival software. I looked up Festival but I found no method to synthesize based on IPA. Unfortunately Keffy is not active anymore, so I ask here. Is Festival able to synthesize based on IPA strings? If it is not what method did Keffy use to transform his pronunciations into synthesized speech? Does anybody know? --::Slomox:: >< 14:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User Keffy has not been involved for almost three years. The community has, in the past, agreed that synthesized pronunciations are a bad idea. --EncycloPetey 15:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it was no proposal to revive his project. I just want to know: Is Festival able to synthesize based on IPA strings? If it is not what method did Keffy use to transform his pronunciations into synthesized speech? --::Slomox:: >< 13:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Have recently met someone from Guernsey in France who speaks this language. Is it ISO 639 recognized, or just classed as "French"? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, answered my own question, see Guernésiais. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Just created another guide for newbies on How to Add a Chinese Translation. Comments welcome. Tooironic 23:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks good, you should probably put it in the Help: namespace (Help:Chinese Translations or Help:How to add a Chinese translation or both with redirects), and link to it from Wiktionary:Translations and Wiktionary:About Chinese. The only comment I have is that it'd be preferable to use {{qualifier|explanation}} or {{i|explanation}} rather than ''(explanation)'' (these are both normally visually equivalent to (''explanation'') and are easier to interpret when trying to automatically scan the translations). (It also might be less confusing to refer to these italicised qualifiers as qualifiers, the gloss is what's in the grey bar). Conrad.Irwin 23:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that feedback. I've modified it accordingly. :) Tooironic 00:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

My name is Michael Hamm. I have a piece of paper that reads, in part:

testamur nos ornavisse Michael Hamm perfectis omnibus quae requiruntur probataque eruditione laudabili gradu atque titulo

Is my name written right, or should there be some sort of case-marker suffix on it? (Incidentally, we lack all of those words as Latin entries, except nos, omnibus, and atque.)​—msh210℠ 21:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No, we just lack some of the specific forms. We have (deprecated template usage) testor, (deprecated template usage) ornō, (deprecated template usage) perfectus, and (deprecated template usage) requīrō at least.

For the construction you've asked about, your name appears in an indirect statement using a perfect infinitive and so should be in the accusative as Michaelem. The surname may or may not be inflected. In Classical to early Medieval Latin, the final name element would be inflected in some way, but it first would be converted into a Latinized form in some way. The specifics would depend on the meaning and origin or the surname; Hamm (as an English name) originates as a locative byname meaning "meadow", and would probably be explicitly noted as such through the use of (deprecated template usage) dē if it were a proper name of a town. In Late Medieval and Renaissance Latin, by which time bynames and surnames did not always have a literal meaning, they typically were no longer inflected in Latin records if they were not already Latin (or Latinoid). Instead, they would be recorded in a (somewhat) Latinized spelling intended to preserve the sound of the original surname. As a result, you get some really bizarre-looking Latin records of names in places like Hungary and Poland. --EncycloPetey 23:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much for the info. So it should really say Michaelem Hamm I suppose. (Hamm as my surname apparently comes from w:Hamm, Germany, not any pastoral meaning.)​—msh210℠ 23:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to get a thorough understanding as to how physicists determine the existence of wimps. I do know that wimps are purported to be responsible for the extreme velocities of the movements of certain galaxies and stars. How does the Standard Model arrive at the conclusion that wimps have to exist? Why does Dark Matter and Dark energy have to exist in order to explain the extreme velocities of certain galaxies and stars? Is it possible that there are unknown fundamental physical laws that operate under extreme conditions, without having to postulate Dark Matter and Dark Matter? Why can't galaxies be held together when these unknown laws come into effect? Why do we have to assume that we can not see 90% of all the mass of the entire universe? These are very fundamental questions that I would very much like to have some one somewhere answer for me.— This unsigned comment was added by Popsjabo (talk • contribs).

This is Wiktionary, a dictionary Web site. Why do you think this is the appropriate place to ask? Try sci.physics or something.​—msh210℠ 22:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

See w:Weakly interacting massive particles. —Stephen 04:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What does "RFV" mean? (re: comment in Nominate to Delete: "move to RFV") — This unsigned comment was added by Hermitstudy (talk • contribs) at 10:43, December 23, 2009.

That would be an abbreviation for Request For Verification. See WT:RFV. --Ivan Štambuk 09:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

My sincere apology for failure to sign the query, and thanks for your answer. Hermitstudy 10:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering what I should do with noun forms. Should I stick to using the {{form of}} template, or could I go ahead and make noun form templates for the language in question, like it has been done with Swedish? With the latter; I could save some space and time and write

==Norwegian Nynorsk==
{{nn-noun-form-def-pl|båt|m}}

(or alternatively, a {{nn-noun-form}} template and pass def-pl as an argument)

instead of

==Norwegian Nynorsk==

===Noun===
{{infl|nn|noun form|head=båtar}} {{m}}

# {{form of|plural indefinite|]|lang=nn}}

Thanks, --Harald Khan Ճ 12:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to include a definition line as in your second example. Entries should always have a definition line that is separate from the inflction line template. If they are merged, then our cleanup bots will have no way of knowing whether there is a definition and will perpetually tag it for cleanup. The Swedish entries are in need of a lot of cleanup to resolve formatting problems. I recommend that you use something like:

==Norwegian Nynorsk==

===Noun===
{{nn-noun-form|m}}

# {{inflection of|]||p|indefinite|lang=nn}}

This includes the necessary lines, but is simpler than the example above by using {{nn-noun-form}} and {{inflection of}}. The new {{nn-noun-form}} would need only to display the pagename, include the gender, and categorize the page. --EncycloPetey 16:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Dang.. :-) {{nn-noun-form}} is now created and seems to work, so I'll start using it. --Harald Khan Ճ 16:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't sure where to post this. I'd like someone's help to create a Translation Studies category. I've created and edited a number of entries (Skopos, Skopos theory, source text, source language, target text, target language, translation studies and translatology) which should all be put under that category. (And NOT just under linguistics, as it is a separate discipline.) I would do it myself but I'm not very good at English entry formatting! Thanks. Tooironic 00:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've created {{Translation Studies}}. If you place it instead of (Translation Studies) it should work, I think. --Yair rand 01:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks muchly!!! Tooironic 01:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, one thing though, I noticed the linguistics category is not capitalised but the Translation Studies one is (see target language for example), I guess we should be consistent about this... Tooironic 01:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done. --Yair rand 01:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note that we already had Category:Translation (with problematic subcats) and {{translation}}. I'll redirect that template to the new one for now. -- Visviva 23:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Are "Dictionary notes" (e.g. in machine translation) really needed? Tooironic 05:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not in that form, IMO. -- Visviva 06:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I was about to delete them until I realised there is a whole category devoted to them. Can someone explain to me how they contribute to the informativity of an entry? Tooironic 23:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Many occasional contributors here will argue that something is "not a word" because it's "not in the dictionary". Dictionary notes are a place to acknowledge that certain words do not appear in established dictionaries. This is especially important for languages like Spanish, French, or Dutch that have governing bodies or officially published word lists. The dictionary notes can also make it possible to determine that a word is used more in the UK than in the US, if it appears only in dictionaries from the UK, but not in the US. there are quite a few editors here that make regular use of the Dictionary notes. --EncycloPetey 01:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

They seem rather meaningless when the edition/year of the dictionary is rarely or never mentioned. Should we use a standard template of some kind that enforces filling in the year of publication? Equinox ◑ 07:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)