. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
you have here. The definition of the word
will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
I added Irish to this list, pursuant to the conversation on the BP. --BB12 (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Ouch, another month-long vote. At least it almost perfectly coincides with my vacation :) --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
I think "language community" is poor word choice, since in my experience it means "the community of all people who speak language X", rather than anything resembling "the subset of English Wiktionarians who edit entries for terms in language X". —RuakhTALK 01:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- In the BP conversation, CodeCat pointed that out. I changed it to "community of editors for that language," but changed it in the old version rather than the new. I have corrected that. --BB12 (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- That makes sense, thanks. (I remember noticing this problem in the previous vote as well, so seeing this vote I thought that the problem had been fixed and was now being de-fixed, despite CodeCat's spot-on BP comment, and for reasons I couldn't fathom.) —RuakhTALK 02:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't think we should actually delete Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Languages with limited online documentation, since that obscures the history of WT:CFI. Instead, its current content can be replaced with a statement that it's obsolete. —RuakhTALK 01:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Should a link be included in the CTI page so people can find it, or how should that work? --BB12 (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- No, I don't think the current version of WT:CFI needs to link to it, so long as someone reading through old discussions, or old votes, or old versions of CFI, can follow the relevant links. —RuakhTALK 02:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Okay, I've addressed that as well. Thank you for all the suggestions! --BB12 (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Maybe this is a prime example of where we ought to use
{{inactive}}? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- That tag says it can be removed at any time. Is there one for obsolete pages? --BB12 (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Yup. It's
{{obsoletepage}}. Does it do the trick? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
{{obsoletepage}} does exactly what I had in mind. Thanks. :-) —RuakhTALK 12:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Actually, I have a feeling that
{{obsoletepage}} will get deleted at RFDO if anyone notices it a year from now. Would you prefer if it was an argument to {{inactive}}? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Why not just blank the page (and maybe add a small notice that information can be found in the page history)? -- Liliana • 17:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Well, it would be nice to send them to an appropriate current analogue. So why not use a pretty template? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- One that would only have one use at most? Really? -- Liliana • 18:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Hence the offer to make it an argument of
{{inactive}}. Really, though, it hardly matters, considering how few people will even bother to click through. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Most of the language-names in the list of well-documented languages are bolded. What is that about? Are they going to be bolded in the actual policy page, or is the bolding meant to convey something about the vote? —RuakhTALK 01:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Those show changes from the previous language list. I think that perhaps I should just delete all the boldfacing.... --BB12 (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Ah. That is indeed what boldface usually means, but in this case I don't get it, because (for example) "English" is in bold and "Finnish" is not, even though neither was considered limitedly-documented before and both are considered well-documented now. —RuakhTALK 02:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- The list is so radically changed, I just deleted the boldfacing. It did little good. I'm not sure if there was a reason for Finnish not being boldfaced. --BB12 (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't really understand the logic of the language breakdown. For example, Hebrew seems to be grouped with the sub-Saharan languages? —RuakhTALK 01:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- It's approximately geographic, and then alphabetical per bullet point. In this case, Hebrew is a Semitic language, which is part of the Afro-Asiatic languages. I think that Arabic was originally part of that line, but then it got expanded so much, I moved it to a separate line. --BB12 (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Well, "Hebrew = Semitic = Afro-Asiatic = African" isn't quite what I'd call "approximately geographic" reasoning; but if you do want to do it that way, then Afrikaans doesn't belong on that line, since it's almost identical to Dutch. —RuakhTALK 02:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- I considered doing the entire thing alphabetical, but I feel there is some value in providing at least a little geographical guidance so people can hone in on what they are looking for. What I'm hoping for is a list that flows naturally. There are a lot of languages and the form of organization facilitates understanding the content. I've reorganized things so the list sort of goes from Europe, south to the Middle East, then south to Africa, before heading east to India. Does this look better? --BB12 (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Looks good, although I'd (maybe) shove #2 and #4 together for conciseness, considering how oddly short they look compared to the European or Arabic lects. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Although I agree the list is a bit lopsided I would rather not do that. The groupings are already a little difficult to grasp. How about adding: "(by approximate geographical grouping)"? --BB12 (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Eh, don't bother. People can either figure it out, or not. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure this is a good way to tell people to add a new section to a page, given that the "+" tab is not a feature of Vector (which is the current default skin; if you're not currently using it, click here to see what it looks like). I'm all for teaching people to fish, but in this case I think it would be easier to just give a direct link to the add-a-new-section page. —RuakhTALK 01:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- The link you provide did not work for me, but that is fine of course. What is the code I should use? --BB12 (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Re: "The link you provide did not work for me": That's because I had a very bizarre brain fart. The "+" tab is a feature of Vector, which is the current default skin. So yeah, this is fine, sorry. Never mind. :-P —RuakhTALK 02:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand the change from "should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate" to "should maintain a list of materials deemed inappropriate". A list of appropriate (respectively inappropriate) sources can very simply be turned into a list of inappropriate (resp. appropriate) ones by adding "everything but:" at the top. So I don't think the change in wording has any practical effect, and am wondering whether it was made with the thought that it does. (It seems that each 'community' would maintain whichever list it finds easier (e.g., the shorter one, or the one with fewer exceptions (and thus easier to describe)).)—msh210℠ (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- User:Metaknowledge (currently on vacation) said that he would find it a great burden to add every single source he uses, which makes sense. Your point was not discussed, but nevertheless, I think to say that "everything but X" is "appropriate," is to condone a universe of materials with potentially bad apples, whereas that problem does not arise by saying "inappropriate." (I have trouble with negative logic problems like this, so please correct me if I got this wrong.) In either case, my hope is that the community of editors maintains a list of both; since it is likely that the number of sources is limited, it would make sense to maintain a list of works cited (and citation templates) and a list of questionable texts. --BB12 (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- I hope it doesn't sound like I'm using any shady sources or anything, but some minority languages have, for example, books set in the regions where they are spoken with minimal dialogue in that language, and it would be crazy to try to list them all. I believe the Krio example in the last LDL vote falls under that category. (Damn my Wiktionary addiction! I'm supposed to be on vacation right now, enjoying Isan.) --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Just as you are thinking of us, we are thinking of you :) --BB12 (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Ironically, your comments explain why I think a list that says "only these sources are appropriate" is better. Metaknowledge says many of his appropriate sources are "books set in the regions where they are spoken with minimal dialogue in that language, and it would be crazy to try to list them all", but imagine how many books use faux- just to give "a touch of the local flavour"; imagine how many authors might use false friends or simplified spellings, or might look words up in online dictionaries and have no idea of their correctness or precise sense (e.g. an author sees a word glossed as "bear" and assumes it's that language's word for the animal, when really it's a verb). I've already seen non-English-speaking authors use all of those types of incorrect English. And BB correctly observes that "to say that "everything but X" is "appropriate," is to condone a universe of materials with potentially bad apples, whereas that problem does not arise by saying "inappropriate.""... but that's an argument for making lists of which sources are good, the opposite of what this vote proposes. The wording this vote proposes also requires the community to reach consensus that certain sources are inappropriate before they can be disallowed: so shady sources are allowed by default until a majority can agree they're inappropriate. - -sche (discuss) 19:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- @Metaknowledge: you have to type up the name of each work you use as a source, anyway, in order to cite it in the entries based on it, don't you? So why would it be difficult to copy-and-paste that work-name into a list of appropriate sources? - -sche (discuss) 20:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- I agree with -sche. —RuakhTALK 20:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- That definitely makes sense, but it's not like all our entries are cited. We came upon this problem earlier: is this a de facto requirement that smaller languages need to be cited when terms are added, but a language like English doesn't? I make efforts to check that words I add are citeable, and I RFV them myself if I have trouble substantiating them. Except when I'm on vacation, I expect that it is highly unlikely that any Bislama terms (for example) would be added without my knowledge. In any case, I am willing to list all appropriate sources if you really want, but I remain in the opinion that it will slow down a lot of contribution to poorly documented languages. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you for disturbing your vacation again. My thought is that the citation requirement is an added burden in exchange for the lower requirement of citations. I agree that it seems odd to have this requirement for lesser documented languages than English; a partial justification is that people adding English are typically native speakers or close to it, and there are lots of native speakers double-checking English in any case, but with lesser documented languages, we just don't have proficient people to double-check. --BB12 (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- I truly am mad as a fool to be on here. I am currently looking up over the screen of my iPad across the Mekong toward the rural Lao countryside. As for the justification, I lose any faith in the reliability of native English speakers at large when I see how much of the LOP was originally in the main namespace. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Nice! To compensate for your lost vacation time, I'll give you a present – an advance notice: In the next day or two, I'm going to announce a list of language manuals from the Peace Corps that we can use (provided we attribute properly). It's an amazing list, and while nothing on the list is guaranteed, it sounds like the manuals should be available. Just a sample: Arabic (Morocco), Tamazight, Cebuano, Hiligaynon and (drum roll, please) ... Bislama. --BB12 (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Oh, and Krio, too! (The language in Sierra Leone.) --BB12 (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Awesome! I think we have two or so terms in Krio currently. Bislama is honestly a surprise - but a pleasant surprise! I have a lot of big plans for when I get back. Good ol' Peace Corps! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Okay, now back to your vacation. Just say NO! --BB12 (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- The vote is now reset and I potentially have a source for Andamanese. --BB12 (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Due to some concerns about the word "inappropriate," I have eliminated the change from "appropriate" to "inappropriate." The rule will stand as it is currently: "the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the sole source for entries based on a single mention." With this modification, I have reset the votes (keeping Metaknowledge's and my votes as we both agree with this change).
The vote before this modification and reset can be seen at . --BB12 (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)Reply