. 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.
@Daniel Carrero Some of the proposed names are very awkward.
- "English requests for term" is the worst ("term requests" isn't much better), I would have no idea what a "request for term" was without context
- "Category:English entries needing audio pronunciation" Why get rid of pronunciation? That's the only thing we use audio for.
- "Category:English requests for example sentences" -> "Category:English requests for example sentence" I don't know why it's better to make it singular. The plural sounds more natural. Same with "definitions" "etymologies", "quotations", "references".
In general I prefer the "needing" format to "requests for". It's not a request, it's something missing in the entry. DTLHS (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
- About point #1. I'm not sure what would be a good name for "term requests" or "requests for term(s)". I don't particularly like either of the names and I'm open to suggestions. It comes to mind a long, explanatory name like the one below, but it's obviously not a serious suggestion:
- "Category:Ancient Greek requests for filling in an unknown term that may have a transliteration or gloss, and is usually found in etymologies, synonyms and the like, and descendants".
- About point #2. In my opinion, getting rid of "pronunciation" ("Category:English entries needing audio pronunciation" -> "Category:English requests for audio") is a good thing, exactly because it's the only thing we use audio for. We don't need to requests for "audio pronunciation" specifically, as opposed to some other use of audio, and it's a little easier to type the category name without "pronunciation". (Then again, we may want to request a sound of a dog barking to add in the entry "bark", or the sound of a scream to add in the entry "scream", but we would still probably do this much less often than we request audio pronunciations. We could have "Category:English requests for audio examples" or some other name.)
- About point #3. I agree that these names you mentioned sound better:
- English requests for definitions
- English requests for etymologies
- English requests for example sentences
- English requests for quotations
- English requests for references
- I also think that these names sound better; these you didn't mention specifically:
- English requests for images
- English requests for inflections
- English requests for pronunciations
- English requests for quotation dates
- Sanskrit requests for translations
- Sanskrit requests for transliterations
- But, in the RFM discussion, @CodeCat and @Dan Polansky specifically stated that they prefer "Requests for etymology" instead of "Requests for etymologies". There's also some preference in the RFM discussion towards "(...) for image", "(...) for pronunciation" and others. We should discuss this.
- I maintain that, in my opinion, these categories are better described as "requests", not "needing". For example, there may be many entries needing images, but only those manually tagged by someone are categorized. (If we had a category for exactly all entries without an image or without an etymology, it would not be either "requests" or "needing" in my opinion; it could be "Category:English entries lacking images" or "Category:English entries lacking etymology". We do have categories for all entries that are lacking something, like Category:Aragonese nouns lacking gender, but they are not currently part of the vote.) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
- As for "needing" vs. "requests for", that's the main point of this vote. We do not intend to slap a template on every entry that lacks something; rather, these are for human-made requests. The entries carrying requests aren't needing things any more than those that don't. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
- I think it would be better to go back to "definition requests". That makes the singular/plural part irrelevant. Another problem is that these are not "English requests for defeinition(s)", these are "requests for definition(s) in English entries". Thus I think the old parenthesized word is better: "Definition requests (English)". --WikiTiki89 19:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
- I am fine with the old syntax: "Definition requests (English)". I admit that "English requests for definition" is awkward in that "English" should not really modify "requests", but I can live with that; I think it will be clear enough. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
The proposed phrasing " requests" doesn't make sense and amuses me. It's as if the categories contain requests written in different languages:
- English: I request x.
- Latin: Quaerō x.
- Ancient Greek: αἰτῶ x
- Arabic: أَطْلُبُ x.
- ...
This is English Wiktionary, so we don't have to translate our requests into other languages!
The language isn't what the request is written in, it's the language of the term in whose entry someone has asked for some kind of information to be added to. (Complicated!) I think a modification of the wording @Wikitiki89 mentioned in passing makes more sense, "x requests in y entries".
"x requests (y)" would essentially be a shortening of that wording, and the language name y would be more prominent. Does anyone know why that wording was replaced with the "needing" wording? It was probably before my time. — Eru·tuon 04:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
- @Erutuon: In Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/August#Proposal: Request categories with longer names, I proposed using longer names for all request categories, such as "Category:Requests for definitions of English terms". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
This is an item complained about in an above section. I think the current "Category:English term requests" can stay if preferred; it does not suffer from the "needing" defect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
- For the moment, I pluralized "terms" in the proposal: "English requests for terms". I'm not entirely happy with the idea of keeping the current "Category:English term requests" while the other proposed names would be "Category:English requests for X", but I'm still thinking about it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
DTLHS above wondered about this item. I tend to agree; why not "English requests for audio pronunciation"? An audio recording could be e.g. of meowing in entry meow, which is not pronunciation.
The dropping of "pronunciation" seems to be out of scope of the problem statement of this vote, which is "needed" vs. "request". --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
- I restored the "pronunciation". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Let me know what you think of this proposed change:
Rationale:
Using the word "requests" as in other categories. Also, avoiding category names with parentheses. In my opinion, if we kept the name "Category:Translations to be checked (Sanskrit)", we might as well have "Category:Images to be added (Translingual)", "Category:Quotations to be added (Translingual)", etc. For consistency, I'd like if all request categories used the same naming system, if possible.
Feel free to suggest other names. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
- I would leave this alone since it is out of scope of the problem statement of the vote: needed vs. requests. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
- I have now realized this pertains to multiple other rows as well. It would be better to only keep rows that address the problem statement. Other changes proposed increase the chance that the vote will fail, I think, while being dispensable for solving the problem. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
- When you say "problem statement", I think of the rationale in the vote. When I created the vote in July 28, I wrote the following rationale. It is still in the vote:
- Using consistent names, with the word "requests", not "needing". These categories track where something was requested, not where something is needed."
- The first part is: "using consistent names". When I wrote that, I'd like to try using the same naming system in all request categories. If this can be done later or is not important, I can remove that part from the vote and remove the categories. Do you think this is not important? Do you think we can achieve that later? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
- For me, the problem statement is "needing" needs to go. I do not worry about consistency all that much, or hobgoblins. But then, I admit it's me, and that if you want to have consistency as part of the problem statement, that's up to you. The renaming of some categories for consistency only could happen in a second round; Category:Translation requests (Sanskrit) is a case in point. But maybe I am too pessimistic and the vote will pass as is, including the dispensable renames, that is, dispensable from the needing-must-go standpoint. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
- @Dan Polansky: I'm afraid that if we had two separate votes (vote 1: get rid of "needing" in category names; vote 2: aim for consistent category names), then we would have to rename the "needing" categories twice, which would be a bigger hassle that I'd like to avoid. This could even serve as a reason for some people to oppose the second vote. People might say, in the second vote: "We just renamed these categories, and I don't want them renamed again.", or: "Make up your mind already, how many times are you going to rename them?"
- If possible, I prefer using this single vote to deal with both issues. I'm counting "lack of consistency in category names" as one issue. I understand that it is dispensable from the needing-must-go standpoint. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
- @Daniel Carrero: Not necessarily, there's no reason we can't delay implementing the outcome of the first vote until after the second vote finishes. --WikiTiki89 19:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
- @Wikitiki89: Good point. You are correct. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
I liked the original proposal, with "English" at the start of each name, more. It fits better with our other categories. —CodeCat 16:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
- The original proposal was about names like: "Category:English requests for definitions".
- The new proposal is about names like: "Category:Requests for definitions of English terms".
- I liked the original proposal, too, when we talked about it in RFM. But now I've changed my mind and prefer the longer names. It was pointed out in #Syntax that categories starting with "English requests" are ungrammatical. There are no "English requests", although there are requests for (something) in English entries.
- I understand that
{{poscatboiler}} can be used in categories starting with "English". Presumably, we won't be able to use {{poscatboiler}} for request categories if this proposal passes. That would be OK with me. We can use a separate catboiler as long as people agree with the category names. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
- We could also decide to use a new scheme for
{{poscatboiler}}, one that separates the language name grammatically from the rest of the name. This would be a big change, but may avoid any issues like this in the future. If you look at the interwikis for Category:English nouns, you'll see that quite a lot of Wikitionaries already follow such a scheme:
- Prefixed format (similar to our topical categories):
- Bosnian: Kategorija:en:Imenice
- Indonesian: Kategori:en:Nomina
- Irish: Catagóir:Béarla: ainmfhocail
- Spanish: Categoría:EN:Sustantivos
- Bracket format (like how request categories used to be named):
- Bulgarian: Категория:Съществителни имена (английски)
- Esperanto: Kategorio:Substantivo (Angla)
- German: Kategorie:Substantiv (Englisch)
- Greek: Κατηγορία:Ουσιαστικά (αγγλικά)
- Portuguese: Categoria:Substantivo (Inglês)
- Turkish: Kategori:Ad (İngilizce)
- Prepositional phrase format:
- Catalan: Categoria:Substantius en anglès
- Danish: Kategori:Substantiver på engelsk
- Dutch: Zelfstandig naamwoord in het Engels
- French: Catégorie:Noms communs en anglais
- Italian: Categoria:Sostantivi in inglese
- Scottish Gaelic: Roinn-seòrsa:Ainmearan na Beurla
- Subpage format:
- Swedish: Kategori:Engelska/Substantiv
- Samoan: Category:Noune/Faʻa Peretania
- Hyphen format:
- Polish: Kategoria:Język angielski - rzeczowniki
- —CodeCat 17:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks for the list, it's nice to be able to compare the various types of names. Well, I'm okay with either editing
{{poscatboiler}} as you said, or creating a separate catboiler for it. If this vote passes, thus allowing us to have categories like "Category:Requests for definitions of English terms", personally I was inclined to create a new catboiler. I'm under the impression that we have lots of catboilers because there are separate naming schemes. So, {{poscatboiler}} actually is the template for categories starting with the language name ("Category:English language" is an exception). It is not even a "part of speech category boiler" anymore, so "poscatboiler" is a misnomer. But if you want to adapt {{poscatboiler}} to introduce a naming scheme that separates the language name grammatically from the rest of the name, I'm all for it. You created/developed Module:category tree, so if anyone is qualified to make that change, I believe you are. Lua can be complicated, so I don't know if I would be able to edit Module:category tree like that. At least I'd need to spend some time to try and learn how the module works. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Would such a big change not require a vote? —CodeCat 20:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Let's see if I understood your question correctly. We have this vote to allow categories like "Category:Requests for definitions of English terms". If it fails, then we won't have a reason to change the naming scheme of
{{poscatboiler}}. If it passes, then changing the naming scheme of {{poscatboiler}} is just a way to manage the categories allowed by the vote. I believe we won't need a separate vote to do the template editing. It would already be completely justified by the current vote. That's just my opinion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Addendum: Changing Category:English nouns to Category:Nouns in English would require a vote. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @CodeCat: I would be fine with keeping Category:English nouns, Category:English verbs, etc. along with Category:Requests for definitions of English terms. In my opinion, different types categories don't have to share the same naming system with or without a preposition. "English nouns" is a great way to name the group of English nouns. It is the shortest name available, as far as I know; and it is a name using good grammar. IMO we shouldn't have "English requests" because it is ungrammatical, and the concept is a bit more complicated: requests related to entries in a certain language. So having longer names for request categories sounds justifiable to me. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
The vote started. It is scheduled to run for 2 months.
I am pinging everyone who participated in the vote talk page, the RFM discussion (including the discussion from 2014 that is still open), the original BP discussion (0 people replied) and the longer names BP discussion. I hope I did not miss anyone.
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
This is just an unfunny joke, so please don't take it too seriously. A few people said that they prefer category names with "English" in front. I thought of one naming system that not only fulfills that request, it is grammatically correct, presents the idea accurately and is meaningful to people who never used the category before. It's just a bit weird in the word order, it does not sound too natural, and for these reasons it's not an actual proposal.
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply