Wiktionary talk:Todo/archive
Explanation
This was basically an idea to get people coordinated on various little "projects" that have until now been on people's user pages. Just a note of common sense, don't remove stuff that isn't clearly wrong or is up for deletion but hasn't failed yet. If this page remains active for a period of time we might rename it, or at the very least get some more links pointing here. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- What do we think about clean-up tasks that require in-depth knowledge of a foreign language? If there aren't that many it's probably fine to have them here, but when there's a lot, I think they should be pushed out to the About Language space (eg WT:AJA#Additional help and Wiktionary:About Spanish/Todo). --Bequw → ¢ • τ 14:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Noting progress
Do we think it'd be a good idea to note progress on this page as well? It might help with motivation. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 15:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Noting completion
I'd say that single-time issues that have been dealt with can be removed completely from the page. Keep (as stricken) issues that are reoccurring cleanup tasks. Sound fine? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 01:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Relation to WT:DW
How does our Wiktionary:Todo#Regular_tasks differ from WT:DW? Should we move regular tasks to that page and leave this page for problems that are still quite large? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 17:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think that page is inactive, the Richard and Connel are on there quite a lot, and they hardly ever contribute now. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- WT:DW was also used primarily for regular and on-going tasks that would never be completed, such as responding to requests lists. --EncycloPetey 21:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
List refresh frequency
Once more of these generated lists become manageable it would be nice if refreshes could be synchronized. For instance the 12th of the month could be cleanup day (as Dec 12 is Wiktionary Day). --Bequw → ¢ • τ 17:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Cardinal numbers (from main page)
- Moved here, as no consensus exists Mglovesfun (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Language subcategories need standardization to ] -- Prince Kassad 22:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that cardinal number is a part of speech like noun or verb, so these should be topical categories. So it should be
]just as we have]not German fish. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)- I don't think there's consensus on this. See Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2007/July#Numbers on Wiktionary. People (used to) have differing definitions of "number" & "numeral" (which is written-out and which is ciphered) as well as categorization (what should the PoS be? possibly even Determiner). This should be rediscussed before major cleanup is done (on this and Category:Numbers). --Bequw → ¢ • τ 22:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I consider Numeral the part of speech. Mglovesfun has pointed out a key difficulty, in that many cardinals do not function grammatically like a separate part of speech, even in languages that have a separate PoS function for numerals. Worse, the function of a numeral differs depending on the class of numeral it is, so there aren't any overall guidelines for that part of speech except that "something numerical" is included in the meaning. In my own work on Latin, I've avoided adding the ordinals because I'm not sure whether they ought to be Numerals or Adjectives, even though they are certainly ordinals. Their function and inflection don't seem particularly different from adjecitves. Leaving aside the Latin issue, my preferred solution in the matter is to have an overall "Category:Language numerals" within each language, where words can be listed, but would have separate topical subcategories for those collections of mathematical words that people think are cardinals, ordinals, etc., regardless of how they function in the language. A topical category can do that, where a grammatical category that grouped based on function would probably just confuse most users (even the grammatically-experienced ones). --EncycloPetey 21:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Requests
- I think anything using '''{{polytonic|}}''' should lose the bold, especially in etymologies. Normally we use italics in etymologies, not bold, and even then only for the Latin script. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Japanese words using using the Latin script
{{infl|ja|part of speech}}but not sc=Latn. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. The '''{{polytonic|}}''' ones will take more human formatting since usually the transliteration and definition would need to be put into a
{{term|sc=polytonic|...}}. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)- Here a list of the matching polytonic usages in etymology sections
- As for the the missing sc=Latn on Japanese entries in Latin script, does this actually cause a problem? We put the script in so that browsers will be able to match the font correctly for uncommon languages. Is there a chance the browser would pick a font that doesn't have glyphs for the the Latin set? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 02:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- It defaults to
{{Jpan}}. So it's very much needed unless you want people to see the headline in a Japanese font. -- Prince Kassad 02:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)- I know, but don't most Japanese fonts have glyphs for the Latin blocks as well? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 07:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- It defaults to
English nouns without categories
Astonishly enough, the current list (which is imperfect) is 7230 English nouns that are not in the English nouns or English plurals categories! I have a text file with all of them in. Even doing 100 per day it's gonna take me until July to do them, anyone fancy helping me? Oh and worryingly, this is just the nouns in English. It makes you think that at least 10% of our entries are missing PoS categories. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- My recommendation is to find a the common patterns and use AWB to do a first pass to get most of them (Conrad can regenerate a list for the ones that need to be manually done). An easy pattern is where the page name is bolded on the inflection by itself. To do this, you could replace
- (==English==(?:|==+)+==+Noun==+\s)''']+'''+
- with this:
- ${1}{{infl|en|noun}}\n
- Then just make sure the term that was bolded was actually the page name. After correcting a bunch I'm sure you're aware of the common patterns for simple plurals as well. --Bequw → τ 18:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Redirects for macrons
Per the Grease Pit discussion a few weeks ago, how about a list of redirects from macroned forms to macronless forms, for example hūs > hus. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Working on this, should be ready in about an hour. Here is my (hopefully complete) list of macrons: ĀāǟǡǢǣḆḇḎḏĒēḔḕḖḗḠḡẖĪīḴḵḺḻḸḹṈṉŌōṒṓṐṑȫǬǭȬȭȱṞṟṜṝṮṯŪūǕǖṺṻȲȳẔẕ Nadando 21:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Numbered senses
List of entries where we use numbered senses glosses - eg (1). They should be turned into word glosses. Can anyone makeup a good list? --Bequw → τ 16:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Nadando. --Bequw → τ 21:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
template:form of with hash in second parameter
Hi. Can someone please generate a list of all entries that call {{form of}} with the second parameter containing a # character? (This relates to a discussion on my talkpage.) I'd do it, but don't know how. Depending on how many there are, they might need automated fixing also, but we can cross that bridge once we know how many there are.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- There are a ridiculous amount of these. Are we absolutely sure this can't be fixed in the template code? Nadando 20:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- We can revert my recent edit to the template, but I think it was a positive edit. I can't think of any other way, though obviously there may be one.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have found 29,691 pages with an unlinked hash mark as the second parameter. If someone wants to use a bot to fix them I can send them the list. Nadando 21:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- We can revert my recent edit to the template, but I think it was a positive edit. I can't think of any other way, though obviously there may be one.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Transliterations for Turkish
At least twice now I've seen a transliteration for a Turkish word in the template {{t}}. Turkish uses a more extended version of the Latin alphabet than English, which sticks to 26 letters almost all of the time, but we don't want transliterations for Latin script languages, do we? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's of course nonsense. If a word is already in Latin script, there's no need to add a transliteration to the very same script. -- Prince Kassad 21:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- To clear up, stuff like ş = sh. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- So, can someone make a list, please? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Do you want to look for other languages or inside other languages? --Bequw → τ 00:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- So, can someone make a list, please? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- To clear up, stuff like ş = sh. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Done- see Wiktionary:Todo/Latin script transliterations. Nadando 03:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Inflection tables not under header
Especially Swedish, but other languages have free floating declension/conjugation/inflection tables not under any appropriate header. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- WT:Todo/templates with right-aligned elements. Please remove false positives such as templates we want to float right (eg
{{wikipedia}}) and ones that merely have a right-aligned elements in a table that is overall left-aligned. --Bequw → τ 00:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
CJKV Characters in translations
The Beer Parlour discussion seemed pretty favorable to dump these all together. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- WT:Todo/CJK in translation sections. Smaller than I thought, only 277 entries. --Bequw → τ 00:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Chinese translations
I note that best man has a 'Simplified Chinese' translation. Shouldn't this be just under Chinese, specifically Mandarin, Min Nan, Wu, Cantonese (etc.) Simplified Chinese isn't a language so much as a way of writing Chinese. So, should we ditch these (hence make a list of them). Also Traditional Chinese, obviously. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if you've been noticing, but I've been standardising this very stuff for the past few years. How does one make a list of it? ---> Tooironic 22:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- By analysing dumps. If I knew how to do it, I would have done it already! Mglovesfun (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- You are looking for a list of all pages which have "Simplified Chinese" within a translation table? That seems doable. - DaveRoss 14:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Also for "Traditional Chinese". Let us know how you go. ---> Tooironic 22:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- You are looking for a list of all pages which have "Simplified Chinese" within a translation table? That seems doable. - DaveRoss 14:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- By analysing dumps. If I knew how to do it, I would have done it already! Mglovesfun (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- There are other variations, where it says "see Mandarin" under "Chinese" or Mandarin is separate.
The only agreed version is:
* Chinese:
*: Mandarin: {{t|zh|心理學|sc=Hani}}, {{t|zh|心理学|tr=xīnlǐxué|sc=Hani}}
--Anatoli 01:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK so one month has passed, has anything been done about this? ---> Tooironic 07:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, totally forgot about this, I have been busy at work. I am running this right now and should have something ready in a short while. - DaveRoss 02:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Here is the list. Let me know if there are any on there that shouldn't be, I can refine it. - DaveRoss 02:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wow is that all? I'm quite hopeful. :D ---> Tooironic 14:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Those are all the ones which have translation tables (correctly formatted) which contain "Simplified Chinese", "Traditional Chinese" or "Mandarin" as a primary entry. There may be more in other formats which were not found. - DaveRoss 16:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks very much, that is extremely helpful. :) ---> Tooironic 08:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Those are all the ones which have translation tables (correctly formatted) which contain "Simplified Chinese", "Traditional Chinese" or "Mandarin" as a primary entry. There may be more in other formats which were not found. - DaveRoss 16:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wow is that all? I'm quite hopeful. :D ---> Tooironic 14:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've been fixing a lot, haven't completed yet but could you make another dump, please? Thanks for your help! --Anatoli 01:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Translation cleanup things
See . A list of entries which contain Romani sublects not sorted under the macrolect could be made. (Does the trans-adder automatically nest the sublects? If not, it should.) - -sche (discuss) 21:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Re: generating the list of entries: That sounds straightforward enough. What are all the sublects?
- Re: trans-adder: If you mean the bot that converts between
{{t}},{{t+}},{{t-}}, and{{tø}}, then — no, it's nowhere near that smart. (Yet.) Maybe KassadBot (talk • contribs)? - —RuakhTALK 00:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Re: trans-adder: I mean the JS that lets users easily add translations (MediaWiki:Gadget-TranslationAdder.js).
- Re: sublects: I'll check what names we give them and get back to you shortly. - -sche (discuss) 00:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, duh, sorry. It looks like that JS has no special understanding of the language code rmy, so it doesn't apply any special nesting rules for Vlax Romani. As for East Slovak and Kalderash, they don't seem to have any language codes at all, so unless I'm missing something, translations into them can't even be added by that JS. —RuakhTALK 02:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I just searched the site for instances of each Romani lect's name ("Balkan Romani", etc). It turns out, the only ones* that appear anywhere outside of English entries about themselves and the external-links section of the entry Romani are: "Kalo Romani" (which also shows up as "Kalo Finnish Romani"), "Vlax Romani", "Kalderash" (a subdialect of Vlax I will convert to Vlax+
{{qualifier|Kalderash}}), and "East Slovak" which is a variant of the Eastern variety of the Northern subdialect of Carpathian Romani (that's splitting some hairs!). "Kalderash" and "East Slovak" only appear in one entry, anyway; "Kalo" is in nine, "Vlax" is in six... actually, it looks like I can just find and correct all these by hand, without calling you away from your great work on the new "T-Bot" to make a list. :) - -sche (discuss) 03:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)- * that is, the only ones I can find... there may be some more codeless, hairsplitting sublects I have no way of knowing about. Hmm, perhaps something TODO is to find all 'languages' in Translations sections (anything betwen * or *: and : {{t or : ,"framed":false,"label":"Reply","flags":,"classes":}'>Reply
- I just searched the site for instances of each Romani lect's name ("Balkan Romani", etc). It turns out, the only ones* that appear anywhere outside of English entries about themselves and the external-links section of the entry Romani are: "Kalo Romani" (which also shows up as "Kalo Finnish Romani"), "Vlax Romani", "Kalderash" (a subdialect of Vlax I will convert to Vlax+
links to Wikipedia formatted as external links
One think a bot could check for (and probably even fix): "external" links to Wikipedia, which should be "internal" links. - -sche (discuss) 22:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Citations pages
Another idea: check if there are any Citations: pages which do not use {{citations}}, or perhaps even more specifically, which do not start with either {{citations}} or {{also|...}} followed by {{citations}}. - -sche (discuss) 03:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
incorrectly labelled languages
Is this done already? If not, it's an idea: find entries like this, this and this, which use {{head|onelanguagecode inside ==Anotherlanguagecode== L2. - -sche (discuss) 18:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- User:Yair rand/uncategorized language sections picks these up. Having said that, this hasn't been regenerated in quite a while, maybe we should move it to the Wiktionary namespace and have BequwBot generated it (if Bequw can do it). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Perfect example: User:Yair rand/uncategorized language sections/English picked up నాకు నీ సహాయము కావాలి (nāku nī sahāyamu kāvāli). Mglovesfun (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- It also picked up the three that -sche linked to (since the last database dump was more than a week ago). —RuakhTALK 16:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you both! - -sche (discuss) 19:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- It also picked up the three that -sche linked to (since the last database dump was more than a week ago). —RuakhTALK 16:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Perfect example: User:Yair rand/uncategorized language sections/English picked up నాకు నీ సహాయము కావాలి (nāku nī sahāyamu kāvāli). Mglovesfun (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Entries only in Category:Idioms and no others
Such a list would allow us to find a fair few of the entries lacking POS categories. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
reciprocal links
Sometimes existence of a link in one direction should imply existence in the other:
- homophones — should always reciprocate, though this is not bottable, as it might be accent-specific
- rhymes — the entry and the Rhymes: page should always reciprocate, though this is not bottable, as it might be accent-specific
{{also}}— should usually reciprocate (whether it links to another entry or to a forms-of appendix)- 'nyms and related terms— should usually reciprocate, though this is not bottable, as it might be sense-specific
- derived terms — where listed as derived at ] should also list foo in the etymology; not usually bottable, as explanation is needed in the etymology, but perhaps if there is no etymology section at all then one can be added listing just the word?
Any others?—msh210℠ (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- (Note that although I said "also should usually reciprocate", I elsewhere questioned how usual the "usually" actually is.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC))
- I'm struggling to think of specific examples, but for related terms I sometimes use see
{{term|foo|lang=foo}}to avoid repetition, something like dogmatically could link to dogma, as a specific example. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm struggling to think of specific examples, but for related terms I sometimes use see
Robert Ullmann's lists
As I imagine RU's analyses won't be run anytime soon, I've looked through his subpages for cleanup lists that we might want to independently generate. He had other projects, several aimed at finding missing entries, but I'll leave those for others. I've made a rough list of those I think we should try and replicate, and those I'm not sure about.
- User:Robert Ullmann/L2/invalid (my version at Wiktionary:Todo/Invalid L2s)
- User:Robert Ullmann/L3/invalid
- User:Robert Ullmann/L4-5/invalid
- User:Robert Ullmann/IPAchars
- User:Robert Ullmann/Pronunciation statistics
- User:Robert Ullmann/Trans languages
- User:Robert_Ullmann/Mismatched_wikisyntax
Unsure:
- A bunch of Han stuff that I don't think was current
- User:Robert Ullmann/Context labels
- User:Robert Ullmann/HTML entities
- User:Robert Ullmann/Contexts
- User:Robert Ullmann/Missing
- User:Robert Ullmann/Missing forms
- User:Robert Ullmann/Oldest redlinks
- User:Robert Ullmann/Pronunciation exceptions
- User:Robert Ullmann/Redirects
- User:Robert Ullmann/t16
- User:Robert Ullmann/t17 (entries with explicit table syntax)
- User:Robert Ullmann/t19
- User:Robert Ullmann/t23
Anyone want to tackle any of these. I think I can do the L2/invalid one without too much hassle.done --Bequw → τ 15:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Mglovesfun's lists
If anyone wants to tackle any of the subpages of User:Mglovesfun/to do, please do. I'll be around a lot less so a lot of these lists may never get done unless someone else fixes a few entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
IPA cleanup things
Until just a moment ago, our edittools wrongly contained a non-IPA g in . It could be corrected to . (It could be corrected straightaway without a list; there is no reason why a g in text should have a voiceless symbol.) A list could also be made of g (the non-IPA "g") in IPA sections (there may be valid uses of it, e.g. in refs). - -sche (discuss) 03:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- A bot could also convert instances of .ˈ and .ˌ, and if they exist even ˈ. and ˌ., to ˈ, .ˌ, if this is indeed policy (to not mark syllable breaks with dots where there is already a stress marker). - -sche (discuss) 03:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
A bot could also convert diphthongs like /aɪ̯/ to /aɪ/ (especially in German entries?), if and only if the latter is (as I think) the preferred broad transcription format. - -sche (discuss) 07:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know if there is a way to catch this sort of thing, but: accents entered without
{{a}}. - -sche (discuss) 21:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- From User talk:AutoFormat#Latin_g_to_IPA_.C9.A1: "In
{{IPA}},{{IPAchar}}and{{rhymes}}templates (excluding lang= parameters) the following substitutions should be made by AF on an ongoing basis:"
from to g (U+67) ɡ (U+261) ε (U+3B5) ɛ (U+25B) ǝ (U+1DD) ə (U+259)
- Also from AF's talk: 'Let's not forget the colon ":" versus the IPA colon "ː".' - -sche (discuss) 05:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- And: 'dotless-i ı (U+0131) should be corrected to small capital i ɪ (U+026A).' (Does anyone write the former meaning the latter? *Shudder* I'll try to handle this myself soon.) - -sche (discuss) 05:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- And ' (apostrophe) to ˈ (primary stress). That one might need a human to look it over, because in languages like Georgian or Tigrinya it might see erroneous use for ʼ (ejective marker). But a bot can at least do it automatically for the Germanic and Romance languages, which don't have ejective consonants. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Loads of Catalan entries are using the comma instead of the primary stress mark. That's what brought me here. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Using AWB, I've found 130 entries where
{{IPA|...}}contains ε, ı, ǝ or :, and started replacing them. - -sche (discuss) 03:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Sense used instead of context, qualifier or gloss
Another thing someone could check for: {{sense}} used in definition lines, like this. {{qualifier}} or {{gloss}} (or, if sense is at the start of the line, {{context}}) should be used instead. - -sche (discuss) 20:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've even found
{{head}}and{{infl}}used where someone just wanted a formatted link. DCDuring TALK 23:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
{{a}}makes its way into the mix, too: . - -sche (discuss) 05:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Fuzzy task: find SOP phrases linked-to as if they weren't
In ], I just unlinked {{t-|it|persona che veste in un certo modo}}. I wonder if other mistakenly-linked SOP phrases could be found by a search for any redlink {{t-}} term (redlink and {{-}} because neither we nor the other Wiktionaries are likely to have entries for such entries) containing, say, more than two spaces. Obviously, this is "fuzzy" and would also find some valid translations of idioms, etc. Perhaps that could be reduced by excluding translations of Idioms, Proverbs or Phrases. - -sche (discuss) 23:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Convert parentheses in Tbot entries to Gloss
Would it be possible/desirable to automatically convert parenthetical glosses in Tbot entries to use {{gloss}}? Perhaps only those entries with one set of parentheses per sense line could be converted, and any with more could be flagged for human eyes (which might decide to run a second bot pass on them all, lol). As usual, I'm just throwing ideas out here as they come to me. - -sche (discuss) 20:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Find language codes used in wikilinks
Example of the problem: . —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe this could be fixed as part of a larger effort to standardize links with
{{l}}or some other template. DTLHS (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Fix {homophones} bot error
SemperBlottoBot batch-loaded a bunch of French verb forms a while back that didn't have lang=fr specified in {{homophones}}. An example of the problem can be found here. Perhaps this could be added automatically like what Autoformat currently does for {{IPA}}? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Redundant transliterations
It seems like nobody pays attention to this page anyway, but I was wondering if someone can figure out how to bot-remove redundant Armenian and Old Armenian transliterations like the ones here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Etymology 2 without Etymology 1
It would be worthwhile to periodically check if there are entries like this, i.e. entries which
- have an ===Etymology 2=== without an ===Etymology 1===, or indeed have any number higher than 1 without also having all the numbers that lead up to it, or
- have an ===Etymology #=== section with L3 (rather than L4) POS sections in it.
I just fixed all current instances of the first problem. - -sche (discuss) 09:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Italian plurals reinterpreted by bots as singulars
In addition to the obvious problem with diff being broken across multiple lines, a user has just pointed out that it also took what was clearly labelled a plural form and incorrectly labelled it a singular. I don't know if there are more entries like this out there. - -sche (discuss) 21:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think it might be easier just to redo all of the Italian verb forms- there have been so many bots doing different things I can't imagine there's much consistency any more. DTLHS (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've just searched the site for all pages containing both "third-person singular imperative of" + "second-person plural present of", and fixed the pages I found. In doing so, I noticed that some lines still haven't been templatized, e.g. "feminine plural past participle of contaminare" and "of dare" and "of impregnare", which don't even contain a wikilink to the lemma. - -sche (discuss) 21:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
RFC discussion: August 2014–July 2015
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Everything in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:accent:Others should be changed to specify which "other" accents, I think. And Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:accent:not according to standard pronunciation should be shortened to "nonstandard", at least. And how do we feel about using {{a}} to specify part of speech? See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:accent:adjective, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:accent:adverb, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:accent:singular, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:accent:plural, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:accent:noun, etc. Should these entries be switched to {{qualifier}}? - -sche (discuss) 08:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- The switch to a module has made it harder to track these, but they still exist and are problematic. In particular, quite a range of unstandardized labels are in use in German entries. It would be useful if someone could make a list of all accent labels which are in use, so that unusual ones could be standardized or (in the case of e.g. "Others") cleaned up. 07:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
RFC discussion: June 2015
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Many words from the 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, which are generally findable/recognizable as such because they cite that dictionary and/or use the context label "1811", are labelled and categorized as "obsolete". (Indeed, the "1811" label inalienably includes an "obsolete" label.) In many cases, however, there are as many or more citations from the modern period (using the term to create a historical atmosphere) as from the historical period, such that the correct label seems to be "archaic". FYI. - -sche (discuss) 22:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)