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

See also 갭 and 재. — Beobach972 03:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

For some background on this subject, take a look at User talk:KYPark. A number of editors have attempted to deal with this (myself included), but it is a pickle, no doubt about it. Atelaes 03:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I've read through all that... that's why I didn't bother adding (what would just be yet another) section on this subject to the page. — Beobach972 19:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of KYP's contributions still need to be checked and corrected. — Beobach 05:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

This definitions for allopathic and allopathy are no good. The origins of the word and its current usage differ significantly. See Talk:allopathic for examples of its usage. There is wide regional variation in how the term is used, and in the connotations it carries: U.S v U.K. v India. Can someone with some Wiktionary expertise take a look. Thanks. — This unsigned comment was added by 75.195.50.227 (talk) at 17:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC).

Here in the US, I've never heard either. Very interesting, though. Google news is suggestive, that it may be an India-only set-phrase. If that is so, then it should have {{India}} at the start of the definitions. (Note the Connecticut news item had to define it in parenthesis.) The allopathic definition should explain what allopathy is and perhaps give an example that uses 'homeopathic medicine' (its antonym) as a counter-option. --Connel MacKenzie 05:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In my region of the US, I've only heard “allopathy” in discussions about homeopathy. Specifically, I've heard people in chiropractor's offices refer with disdain to the American Medical Association and, seemingly by association, to allopathy in general. I don't specifically remember hearing “allopathic”, but I'm sure it's part of the vocabulary of those who say “allopathy”. Rod (A. Smith) 05:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, I've only heard "allopathic" when a friend of mine specifically mentioned both kinds of medical college in one sentence; otherwise she referred to allopathic ones as simply "medical schools". —Ruakh_TALK 06:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: lots of reading material on talk:allopathic. --Connel MacKenzie 04:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Here's a transcript of recent congressional testimony where the word is used frequently:

Salsberg, Edward.Testimony to United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. Association of American Medical Colleges. 74.72.70.247 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:allopathic for some sources. 74.72.70.247 20:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I merged the first two defs. The remaining unmerged one (“the computing department of an organization”) seems distinct to me, so I didn't merge it. Opinions? Rod (A. Smith) 17:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree/but - it would be shorthand for "IT Section", "IT Dept", etc? BUT then we have Engineering for "Engineering Dept", English for "English Dept" - so I'm not so sure. —Saltmarsh 14:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Should probably go to RFV if not removed outright. This is familiar enough in uppercase (although I concur with Saltmarsh that it seems like part of a general pattern of department-naming) and especially in the abbreviation "IT"...but using the lowercase spelled-out form seems quite odd. -- Visviva 17:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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

There are about 30 of these - see contributions --Volants 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure the first one should even be a context label. Vehicles is okay because it defines a narrower category within automotive. DAVilla 15:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that the label in {{particles}} is physics, and the category Category:Elementary particles. There could be a redirect from {particle} to {particles}. Right now {Particle} redirects to {particle}, which contains "Particle" and isn't used anywhere at all ...

In general, there are sub-cat templates that label for the parent classification. There is a Category:Dogs Robert Ullmann 09:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Category:Elementary particles and its templates are a bit of a problem, since some of the particles listed aren't actually elementary. A new user has suggested we rename the category Category:Particle physics, which I agree with. --EncycloPetey 05:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

That seems done.

Had another shot at it, still work to do, but it’s starting to look good. H. (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Hmm... to me sense 4 seems like the most natural fit of all the senses there. Throwing a pot on a wheel is nothing but an act of twisting and turning (the clay). -- Visviva 15:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify: the question is about noun sense 4 ("A single instance, occurrence, venture, or chance"). —Ruakh_TALK 19:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Sounds like the right way to go about it, I've done this before in the past with some of the other divination entries.--Williamsayers79 19:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Yes. As per discussion elsewhere (where?) I would advocate only listing the lemma form (usually the masculine nominative singular), or at most the set of nominative singular forms (with gender). Any more than that becomes unwieldy. --EncycloPetey 19:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The other discussion is WT:BP#Noting lemma forms in WT:ELE. I brought this here, though, because some editors have been vocal about translating words from some parts of speech (e.g. pronouns) into all forms, so words from closed classes (e.g. articles) probably deserve individual discussion. Rod (A. Smith) 19:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

After checking the OED, it’s obvious that the original editor intended the parenthetic comment as a reference, and that the entry was not a copyvio of the OED’s. I reformatted the entry accordingly. However, the definition needs trimming — it’s three sentences long. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned it up some, and removed the tag. —Michael Z. 2008-09-17 20:12 z

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

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

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

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

Tagged with {{attention|la}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Now cleaned up, and I can confirm that אב really is the Hebrew word for "father". Unfortunately, abbas and Abbas were created by everyone's favorite long-term sysop vandal, so who knows what in there is real and what isn't? —Ruakh_TALK 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done some additional cleanup and checked the listed Descendants (excluding the Dutch). The only things I see left to do are to verify the AGr. listing; verify that it came from Hebrew, and fix the 3rd-declension Latin noun declension table template, which isn't displaying macrons properly. --EncycloPetey 05:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Reduced to 8 senses, two of which are RFV'd. Moglex 20:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

?? Did you forget to save your changes, or something? —Ruakh_TALK 22:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidently. (Arrrgggghhhh). Moglex 08:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are too many definitions - several of them really have the same meaning. Needs careful rationalisation. NOUN Seems to be the same meaning to me in these two defintions.

• (countable, uncountable) That which is captured or the amount which is captured, especially of fish.

  The fishermen took pictures of their catch.

• (countable) A find, in particular a boyfriend/girlfriend.

  Did you see his latest catch?

VERB

• (transitive) To detect; sense.

  He was caught on video robbing the bank.

Is this not the sense of capture? There is no sense or detect until someone looks at what is captured.

• (transitive) To understand.

  Did you catch his name?

I'd question if this is the right defintion/meaning. It's not "did you understand his name", its more "did you capture his name". You can catch what someone says, without understanding the meaning of it.

------------- --Richardb 01:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Took a quick stab at this entry, but it still needs some work. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Richard, why does your outline not include the game? To "play catch" is not to "play (that which is captured)". It also makes no distinction between physical grasping senses and mental recognition senses. That's an important distinction. --EncycloPetey 07:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

No, it's not. In all honesty, I have no idea how to deal with this. We've had a similar problem with water. -- Prince Kassad 10:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Context": Northern Australian Aboriginal. same meaning as English. Originally it was shown as a separate Etymology of belong. Is this a separate Creole language? What language? There are cites of dialog. Is it eye dialect? DCDuring TALK 11:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have inserted Kriol as the language line, but the etymology given conflicts with that, I think. DCDuring TALK 11:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've put it as dialectal English, based on the quotations and etymology. — Beobach 18:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

For Wiktionary heading purposes, can a collective noun be deemed a "hypernym" for the noun or the individual items in the collection? Even if we can, should we? This is somewhat analogous to deeming "abbreviations" "synonyms", a little bit of a stretch of the ordinary meaning of the term. The case in point: bunch and hand at banana. The Appendix on collective nouns does not seem to adequately provide convenient access to the relevant information to casual users. DCDuring TALK 16:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(deprecated template usage) Hypernym is the wrong word there: not all bananas are “bunches” or “hands”. Indeed, no bananas are. A closer term would be (deprecated template usage) holonym. —Ruakh_TALK 17:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

For more, see WT:NYMS.—msh210℠ 19:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don’t see any relevance of these links at all. What’s the connection of “bunch” to “banana”? And how is “banana” to be a collective noun?

While we’re at it: What’s with the (overly concise) reference to Banana Boys? I’d delete it. H. (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I found out now. But the fact that I did not get the connection and had to look for it makes it clear that indeed something needs to be done there. I think it should just be put in a usage note. Note that at bunch, the reference to “banana” is missing. H. (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Yuk!

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Paul G 14:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a long-term, well-known, and often-discussed issue. What keeps us from fixing it is (in part) a deadlock disagreement on how numerical entries should be labelled, formatted, and categorized. Really, the adjectival and noun(al?) uses are both aspects of the same part of speech: Numeral (Number), since all such words in English are a special class of Determiners that may always function as either a noun or adjective. The "Describing a set with "n" components" falls under this as well. An extra problem here is that we can't agree on whether to use "Number", "Numeral", "Cardinal number", or "Cardinal numeral" as the official header for such entries. I put forward a vote some time ago that ended with no consensus, so we still have all four headers in use, often with more than one appearing among the entries of a single language. Any attempt to standardize the headers results in people reverting to whatever was there before, and I know of at least three people who who each have a strong prefernce that differs from the preference favored by the other two. The result is that we have a mix of headers in use. If we could at least agree that "Cardinal..." is wrong, then that would reduce the number of possible POS headers by half.

The purpose of the "cardinal" label is the same as "transitive" or "comparable"; it clarifies the grammar of the word. If we choose to use "Number" or "Numeral" as the standard header, then this information is not duplicated in the header. Why then not use "Cardinal number", "Cardinal numeral"? Because it proliferates headers and adds too much detail in the header, just as we used to have with "Transitive verb" or "Definite article". There are more kinds of numerals / numbers than just Cardinal and Ordinal. There are Fractional, Multiplicative, Distributive, and Adverbial ones as well, and this again would proliferate needless header variants if we allowed all the possible combinations. So, putting (cardinal) on the definition line allows us to (eventually) simplify the headers. I agree with you about the use of (colour) however, since that is not context information. --EncycloPetey 21:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be made a secondary entry, making nitpicking the main entry, per Googling, with major victory on the web and a minor one in the Google books. So it should better be moved to nitpicking by someone who was the rights to do so, moving the quotation from there over here before the move.--Dan Polansky 12:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but I expect that the hyphenated form is more often used as an adjective and the unhyphenated form used as a noun and verb form. A comparison of number of hits won't determine that. The search results have to be individually checked for grammar. --EncycloPetey 20:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation for US has a "j", which is not common in US for verb or noun. DCDuring TALK 12:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Somebody was well meaning here but lacked the syntax. Please help to repair it, so we dont loose the new info he provided and is not simply reverted. Mutante 03:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sense removed, appears to be a protologism. --EncycloPetey 03:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained inclusion of Old English and other Germanic material as "Notes". Odd entry structure. DCDuring TALK 09:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that’s just User:KYPark. He’s busy trying to prove that Korean is an Indo-European language. Germanic material removed, revised Romanization implemented. —Stephen 14:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It still looks odd. One definition, five sets of synonyms, etc. DCDuring TALK 15:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

1. 2 pronunciations shown without accent indication;
2. def. seems tendentious. DCDuring TALK 23:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I’ve fixed and ref.’d the prons.; def. looks fine to me… † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added the American pronuns. The defn. looks fine to me too; it's very close to the AHD's definition. Angr 10:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The inflection line is a complete mess, the rest of the noun section could do with a looking over too. Thryduulf 21:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've met you halfway- following most of the -ics, I marked it as an uncountable. Teh Rote 22:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple raw counts of b.g.c. hits for "linguistics-is" and "linguistics-are" gives roughly equal results. This might be invariant rather than uncountable. It needs some analysis to confirm that conclusion. It wouldn't surprise me if something similar turned out to be true for many of the other "-ics". It would certainly seem to fits physics, economics and mathematics. As overall fields of study they are singular only. "Physics is more popular than chemistry." But when applied to something specific, the words are countable, but invariant. "The physics of a pendulum is simple." "The physics of various abstract simple machines are the objects of mechanics." DCDuring TALK 01:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

O.K., but of the first twenty hits at google books:"linguistics are", only one is actually treating it as a plural subject. (In the rest it's "X and linguistics are" or "Xes of linguistics are" or the like, or in one case "generative and cognitive linguistics are", which I believe is elliptical for "generative and cognitive linguistics are".) By contrast, of the first twenty hits at google books:"linguistics is", twelve are treating either "linguistics" or " linguistics" (e.g. "human linguistics", "historical linguistics", etc.) as a singular subject. Also, even if you accept (deprecated template usage) physics as a countable plural, do you accept it as a countable singular? How does "A pendulum has a simple physics" sound to you? —Ruakh_TALK 01:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You cannot say "five linguistics", so the noun is uncountable. Whether the noun is treated grammatically as singular and/or plural is a separate issue from countability. --EncycloPetey 20:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Lower case adjective but definition is "pertaining to Antarctica" which belongs to Antarctic. What is the definition then instead? Compare arctic and Arctic. Mutante 00:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Other dictionaries have it, MW Online says usually capitalized. Alt spelling? Merge with cap to save any translations or move this one to uppercase? DCDuring TALK 18:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Actual meaning seems to be about the same as arctic. And its comparative form exists. DCDuring TALK 18:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The etymology of the Hungarian müezzin suggests muezzin more specifically is from Ottoman Turkish. If so muezzin also needs Ottoman Turkish script. Pistachio 11:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Restored Webster tag. DCDuring TALK 15:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Not striked, still definitions missing --Volants 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

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

How about now? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Is that better? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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

drink is incorrectly listed as an antonym. --Volants 15:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Is this OK now? DCDuring TALK 15:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The primary definition is so very dated

• A structure serving as an abode of human beings.

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

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

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

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

I've cleaned up the section order, added the inflection line template, and cleaned and expanded the Pronunciation section. --EncycloPetey 00:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Split the etymology, cleaned up ety, except Arabic. What about the "American Spanish alteration" of atun? It would seem to merit an entry in the Spanish section. DCDuring TALK 16:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

This has been through WT:RFD, and many problems were solved. Not quite enough to de-list it here --Volants 15:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

This is consistent with our practice.

We have extensive discussions on collocations that may be idioms and have many inflected and synonymous forms.

1. Is it really an idiom (actually "Does it meet WT:CFI)?
2. What is the right form for the main entry?
3. Which synonymous forms merit entries?
4. Which merit redirects?
5. How can usage examples be used to lead searchers to the main entry?

We don't yet have a well-form guideline AFAIK, let alone a policy, let alone a policy that is consistently applied. It would be nice to have some facts about the impact of alternative approaches on users' success on Wiktionary under different approaches, but the metrics might be too hard. DCDuring TALK 09:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Another approach to my condolences would be to make it a real entry, defining it as short for "I would to like to ]. DCDuring TALK 09:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, google books:"you have my condolences" gets several times as many hits as google books:"I would like to offer my condolences" (and likewise on regular Google); I think it's fair to say there's not one specific expression it's always short for. The meaning (or lack thereof) is presumably the same, though. —Ruakh_TALK 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

condolences seems like a more logical target for a redirect; but should probably have its own entry per DCDuring above, since it is used in ways that "your condolences" and "our condolences" generally are not. -- Visviva 11:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason the idiom needs its own page is that translations won't be obvious and logical (which is in fact the reason I created it). While I'm rocking the boat, I may as well suggest that WT:CFI for idioms be modified such that if the (near) does not have a clear translation target, it be included anyways (as with every translation dictionary). -Oreo Priest ^talk 18:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Right. What does "boundred" mean? It's not even a word, is it? And "cad" is a silly, old-fashioned word to use here.

• The current definition is rubbish, I am a Geordie I should know. In clean terms it means "I don't believe you" or "The claim you are making is ridiculous". The vulgar side of the expression is as in most cases used to give the exclamation some conversational weight and relevance. In short: hadaway and shite, the definition is bollocks. — This comment was unsigned.

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

Self-nom: just created, probably a lot of formatting/templating/categorizing missing. 62.147.39.219 10:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

You're absolutely right, I was not aware of it until I took a closer look at the grammar section of my dictionary. Mye belongs to the indefinite numerals (in my Norwegian dictionary they are called "kvantorer" and many of them were previously named "adjectival pronouns"), and is now considered a determiner. I'll change the header right away. Thanks for noticing it, and sorry for any troubles you had with the example sentences:).Michae2109 22:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: I have now fused the headers "adjective" and "adverb" into "determiner" and moved all example sentences to this headline. What do you think? Michae2109 22:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Much better! Thanks, now we just need to change the "irregular usage" into a proper "usage notes" section, and the "idioms/proverbs" into a "derived terms" section (as at WT:ELE). Conrad.Irwin 23:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced "irregular usage" with "usage notes" and "idioms/proverbs" with "derived terms", as well cleaning up a bit in the Etymology sections (thanks to the WT:ELE link you provided). Hope it looks better:) Once again, thanks for pointing out these important issues. Michae2109

Definition is much too restrictive. Several senses missing. (and I'm too busy with Italian) SemperBlotto 11:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Our definition is a possible copyvio of the OED’s. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Replaced with Webster's 1828. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 20:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was against WMF policy to have links to pay sites. Does en.wikt have its own policy on this? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO such links should certainly be avoided and replaced with alternative resources where possible, but I'm not aware of any fixed policy. Where they are useful or necessary for referencing, we should have them. And the OED is, well, the OED; we can't replace it with an equivalent resource in most cases because there aren't any equivalent sources. -- Visviva 01:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the entry is coming along nicely, but I should note that the original entry was not copyvio, in my estimation, since it was also verbatim from the 1st edition (volume 9 part II, page 255), published 1919. I've been daydreaming of an OED1 import project...-- Visviva 01:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Better than the average daydream! A citation to any OED print edition or free online would be fine with the pay OED online link as an optional substitute for the fortunate or deserving few. The 1919 isn't fully scanned yet, is it? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 02:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Go hither and enter the card number GWP3230000X; my gift to you and whomever else: free access to the OED. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Worked once. Thanks for the try. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 00:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You’re welcome.   *shrug*   It’s funny — it still works for me… † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a valid entry with many b.g.c. hits, but enough outside my area of knowledge to properly clean this entry up and write a decent definiiton. --EncycloPetey 01:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't marry this properly to our entry structure. 1 Pronunciation spans 2 etymologies; another applies to just one. Don't see how to properly label pronunciations in single pronunciation section. Alternative spelling only applies to one PoS. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 06:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is one reason I've advocated numbered Pronunciation sections. --EncycloPetey 18:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Needs some love, I would copy or move some examples to the main page. H. (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

move explanation for sense 1 to usage notes and/or related/see also/whatever. Please also put one representative citation for each sense on this page H. (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It would also help it the citations made clear the meaning. DCDuring TALK 13:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You’re right. In that case, I’d plead for someone giving it some love and providing more quotations, as I have done. H. (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added the pronunciation in IPA and also removed the Adjective section since it was merely attributive use of the noun (no b.g.c. hits at all for the comparative or superlative). --EncycloPetey 19:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The Citations:cuckold page needs format --Volants 13:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Etymology needs a lot of crap removed- non IE cognates, etc. Nadando 07:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Take a look now please. Leasnam 20:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yuk... since when do we capitalise animal names and include taxonomical names in derived terms? The taxonomical names belong in the entries themselves. — Paul G 09:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

An adjective definition:

(linguistics) A term sometimes used as a translation of the word used for both "green" and "blue" in certain languages, such as Welsh, that do not distinguish between certain shades of the two colors.

Is it a description rather than gloss, to be marked within {{non-gloss definition}}? Or should it be moved to the noun heading? An example sentence would help I think. --Dan Polansky 15:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The former, I believe. Not sure whether it sees use (as opposed to mentions) though.—msh210℠ 15:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It does have use. I first encountered it in a discussion with a linguist who specializes in Welsh, who was explaining the concept of color in medieval Wales. (I have unusual friends.) The definition is a bit clunky, but I'm not sure how to improve it. It is indeed an adjecitve, along the lines of other such color words, and although it might also be a noun (as are many color words) I've not seen it used as such. --EncycloPetey 00:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Needs wikification --Jackofclubs 11:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The current definition is constrained to video games, which seems suspect to me. I would expect the third-party entry to closely follow the third party entry: if I understand it correctly, "third-party" is not much more than an attributive use of third party. --Dan Polansky 08:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought this was quite straightforward, but MWOnline has a very particularistic software-context definition. ] needs work too. I had always assumed that "third party" arose in a legal context but was very general in its application. DCDuring TALK 11:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Needs a better definition, but I'm not sure what that is.—msh210℠

Definitions in derived terms. DCDuring TALK 02:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Highly doubtful IPA, since the vowel shown is actually a Cyrillic character and, even were it Latin, IPA doesn't AFAICT use grave accents.—msh210℠ 00:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I can find the dictionary entry, but it doesn’t show pronunciation. The only material I could find on pronunciation suggests that the vowels are close to those in Spanish. So it probably closer to /bdaˀʃχ/. No idea where User:Ptcamn came up with that IPA. —Stephen 03:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That IPA was actually not in the original entry; Amador (talk • contribs) added it. —Ruakh_TALK 15:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the grave accent is to indicate a falling tone. I don't know anything about this language, but its Ethnologue report confirms that it's tonal. —Ruakh_TALK 15:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Should that be called a definition? lol — opiaterein — 12:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we've got a bunch of those. They're mostly useless — they lump together the meanings of every binyan without any clarification, and often add in the contributor's unreferenced theories about the underlying meaning (without given any indication that this underlying meaning is unattested). And to top it off, they use punctuation (and not-quite-punctuation, such as plus signs and "X"-s) that I, for one, have never managed to decipher. We should probably just delete them; I've been reticent about doing that, since there is good information there … it's just not in a form that a reader could make use of. :-/   This one, I've cleaned up by cheating: it's not the lemma page, so I replaced it with a form-of-redlink. (Usually I move non-lemma definitions to the lemma page, but when the definitions are this unhelpful, it seems perverse to copy them to a new entry.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I assumed looking at them that they were dumped from some old dictionary. Am I wrong?​—msh210℠ 16:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. They all list the Strong's number as their only reference, but their text doesn't follow Strong's. I suppose they could be plagiarizing a different dictionary, but why? —Ruakh_TALK 17:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be split up by etymologyies. Also, the "abbreviation" and "interjection" are largely identical. We usually don't assign POS to abbreviations, initialisms, etc. --EncycloPetey 21:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi EP-

I split up the Acronym/Interjection as per my understanding of this discussion:

Wiktionary_talk:Entry_layout_explained/POS_headers#Shortened_forms

following the model at SMS – my understanding is that Abb/Acr/Init do not replace Parts of Speech – for example, LOL in the internet slang sense is an interjection, which should presumably be reflected somewhere.

Regarding “splitting up by etymology”, I’m not clear on Abbreviation policy generally – you’re right, following “Break up by etymology”, each expansion of an acronym needs a separate L2 header, but that doesn’t seem to be how entries are formatted (see SMS again, which seems a model).

Perhaps we should take this to Beer Parlour, since it seems an under-standardized/policied/discussed point?

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We might. I think putting it here first might garner more useful attention, but if there is disagreement in the conversation, then a move would certainly be appropriate. --EncycloPetey 21:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This might need to go to BP. Our existing approach doesn't work too well for abbreviations of certain types. It is adequate for nouns and proper nouns, IMO. The various pseudo-PoS headers give "pronunciation" information and the sense line effectively gives the etymology, so we dispense with those headings without harm, except to consistency.

If an abbreviation is used as a verb ("to SMS"), we would seem to need an inflection line. I don't know about interjections.

I would think this one works differently in unabbreviated form than it does spelled out, where it doesn't seem idiomatic. That seems to argue for a different PoS, whatever that should be. DCDuring TALK 21:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Reflecting on this, as DC points out, this gets pretty complicated.

I’ve accordingly started a discussion at WT:BP#Entry Layout for Abbrevations etc.? with some thoughts – LOL might be resolved here, but there are many other issues, which deserve wider attention.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

lol is still very much used as lots of love, particularly on facebook

Tendentious entry. DCDuring TALK 15:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

See the citations page, where this term is used to mean a specific kind of photograph, not a photograph in general, in at least one citation, possible all of the photograph-sense citations. Needs a good definition, then.​—msh210℠ 16:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Adverb PoS? Really? Also: Synonyms section needs help.​—msh210℠ 22:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Five-line definition. DCDuring TALK 00:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

...and -orian#Old English both need an ang expert to clean up the content added. --EncycloPetey 01:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:teloor Jcwf 05:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User is creating Ancient Greek entries with no definition. Has not responded to first message. --EncycloPetey 19:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there two senses, separated by a semicolon, or just one? Note that the synonyms and translations are split.​—msh210℠ 20:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sort nyms by senses. H. (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Translingual etymology 2: isn't it English rather than trnaslingual?​—msh210℠ 23:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it. Moved. --Yair rand 06:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Part of speech, usage examples? DCDuring TALK 00:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My first reaction is delete as encyclopedic only. This isn't a "word" in English. But then we have 911, 999 and 112, so I guess they do meet CFI (or just haven't been nominated yet). Mglovesfun (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(We also have 000.) My first reaction, too, was delete as not dictionary material. But I suppose we can subject it to the rigors of verification: It would seem that there are uses, as opposed to mentions, of a phone number in durably archived works: If someone dials the number (uses it) in a movie, or even in a book, I think that'd count. Some passage like "John saw her gagging and called 911": the "911" in that sentence is a mention of the phone number, but the use of the number by John is a use of the phone number and should do. No?​—msh210℠ 16:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just looking for the basic 411 on this. I think it needs realistic usage examples from someone who knows the term so someone could cite it. I wouldn't want to try without some plausible collocations to get at least 5% likely hits from my searches. If it can't be cleaned up, then it should be RfVed. If no one can bother or figure it out, it must not be that important. DCDuring TALK 17:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think 911 can be used figuratively (from watching too many US films). For the others, not as sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely 911, 999 et al. are translingual. That doesn't particular mean that the English has to be deleted, but whatever language you speak, 999 is the emergency number in the UK. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming this is a specific mathematics term as it says, I can't clean it up as I'm not a mathematically minded person. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, I think: please check. That said, I'm not sure it's not SoP.​—msh210℠ 19:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

entry ratherchaotic+adv.>ex.?--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 05:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

layout-interj?--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 05:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, this is a translingual category, not an Arabic language one. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Any better? L☺g☺maniac chat? 18:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

definitions need to be split, or moved to Etymology: quote from entry "In popular culture, the Mexican standoff is usually portrayed as three or more opposing men with guns drawn and ready, creating a very tense situation. Exacerbating the tension is that neither side wants to put down its weapons for fear that its opponents will shoot them. The term is considered derogatory by some, but its widespread use in a non-derogatory sense indicates that it is generally not meant to be offensive by most contemporary English speakers." --Volants 15:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The first Scottish sense is given as "cunt". Wiktionary definitions should use standard language, not slang. (My objection is not to the word itself, by the way.) So should this be "vagina" or "vulva"? — Paul G 08:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with this one. If we put (vulgar) vagina that just looks a bit silly, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Borderline delete candidate. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the kind of playground expression that kids construct using a kind of specialized grammar: "I dare you" / "I double dare you" / "Well, I double dog dare you" / "Well, I triple dare you" / "That's so lame". dog has a long history of use as an intensifier, eg dog-tired. Accordingly, to me it seems SoP and ergo: delete. DCDuring TALK 15:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned it up and is now rfv'd. or should it be rfd? L☺g☺maniac chat? 15:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Verb defined as adverb. DCDuring TALK 00:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this properly used to or used to be? --EncycloPetey 04:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this English, or Translingual, or what?? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Translingual, definitely. Pronunciations may differ, so I would suggest ignoring them. As well as any inclination to distinguish "acronym" from "initialization". Pingku 15:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, we should add what this organisation does--Volants 15:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see the list at User:Msh210/US pronunciations: it has 33 entries on it, and I thank CI for generating it. These words are listed as non-US but have pronunciations labeled as US. Are the words in fact used in the US (so the context tags are wrong), or are the pronunciations actually non-US? If neither — that is, all current labels are correct — then pronunciations should be removed (as they are foreign pronunciations, like a US pronunciation of an Estonian word, which we surely shouldn't have). Please feel free to remove items from the list as they're fixed.​—msh210℠ 22:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see what the big deal is - they are, after all, the same language! (And thus cannot be compared to English and Estonian!) But if it encourages more non-US people to add pronunciations, then more power to you. Although the dominance of US English pronunciations on Wiktionary can be annoying (I should know - I added the Australian pronunciation of Australia quite some time ago), it is a reality we have to live with, and sometimes having both US and non-US pronunciations can be very interesting and helpful for users IMO. Tooironic 06:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

But a word like millilitre, which is simply not used in the US, is therefore not pronounced in the US except by someone deliberately saying a Briticism. So it is like an American's speaking Estonian. (Anyone else, feel free to chime in.) The words remaining on the list are listed above now.​—msh210℠ 15:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've now commented out all the US pronunciations of these words. (And removed the space-taking list of entries from this section; it remains, for now, at User:Msh210/US pronunciations.) Striking.​—msh210℠ 16:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Unstriking, I completely object to the removal of these pronunciations. People who share a language have cause to use each other's words, and there is no contradiction in having a US pronunciation for a word associated with Scotland or England or Canada. A word like trifecta may not be used much in the UK but we are still likely to come across it in books or elsewhere and have a pronunciation associated with it, whether internally or used in speech. Ƿidsiþ 17:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course millilitre is used in the states (although it's spelled differently there). And what would an American call a bonspiel, for example w:The Bonspiel, except bonspiel?

Even real regionalisms get used outside their home region. Canadian English is not Estonian. Ideally, we'd base our “foreign” regional pronunciations on attested usage, but most of us know how our varieties of English are pronounced. —Michael Z. 2010-03-18 03:09 z

Note concurrent conversation on this topic at ].​—msh210℠ 15:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

...now at User talk:Msh210/Archive/foreign pronunciations.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

We have attracted users with strange etymological and other theories before, like KYPark (most of his entries have been corrected or verified, but NB these few remain to be checked by someone knowledgeable: 갭, bal, 불라, bakke, 헤이그, hof, 울). User:Nemzag is not new — Stephen commented above in 2008 — but I am now making a unified list (as was made for KYPark) of those of Nemzag's entries which need the attention of someone knowledgeable, due to nonstandard formatting or questionable content: coerator, hipje, hypje, hipi, خواجه, truni, נחש, lirë, njeri, ملكائيل(!). I am double-checking to see that I have not missed anything, but I believe that the remainder of his main-namespace contributions from 12:28, 3 November 2008 or later (up to 3 December 2010) have either been corrected or verified. (I have not yet checked his pre-3-November-2008 contributions.) — Beobach 03:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The following entries from before 3 November 2008 also need to be checked: پری, njer, זונה, أن, and الكون الاعلى(!), and شیطانه. The rest, as far as I can tell, have been verified or corrected. (I repeat that I have checked only main-namespace contributions.) — Beobach 03:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have dealt with the following things which were previously listed above: hypi (I restored the last good version of the page, by Jyril), Перун (I restored the last good version of the page, by Ivan Štambuk), אלהים, kuti (I restored the last good version of the page, by Conrad.Bot and Hekaheka), ملائكة (restored last good version by Interwicket and Hakeem.gadi), pret (restored the last good version by Conrad.Bot and Opiaterein); (mpret, mret); חשמן; الارفع (I have restored the last good version by Stephen). — Beobach 23:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the Pulaar section of ملاك (the Pulaar section: is it displaying improperly for me, or do we really have an Arabic-script singular and a Latin-script plural as the headword line?). — Beobach 03:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Vahag and I have cleaned mbret. — Beobach 03:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Stephen has cleaned curator. — Beobach 23:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

NB this discussion. — Beobach 03:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)