How is it most appropriate to add a reference from the end article to at the end of the day? I'm not too familiar with the template used at en.wiktionary.org. Thanks. --DenisYurkin 11:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
Rfv-sense for 2 senses: (1) Extreme part, and (2) Extreme line. Does anyone know what these are supposed to mean? -- Ghost of WikiPedant 17:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The end of something is the extremepart of it. My toe is the extreme part of my foot. I'm not sure about "extreme line". Equinox◑ 18:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Hm, is your toe the end of your foot or would it be better English to say that it's at the end of your foot? And does this "extreme part" sense differ significantly from the existing and much clearer defn2: "The final point of something in space or time"? I think defn2 covers this meaning adequately. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 00:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe "extreme line" was intended to be an improvement on a definition relating to "limit, border". Whatever the intent, it fails to communicate it. BTW, MWOnline has 7 main senses, 17 total lowest-level senses for "end" (noun). DCDuringTALK 19:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Rfv-sense I think that this sense is ambiguous, and it should be split into two different senses. I've already added my proposal, which is one sense for "final point" (e.g. the end of a movie), and one sense for "extreme point, edge" (e.g. both ends of a cable; burn the candle at both ends; hold the end of the thread). I haven't touched the original sense "extreme part", but I already tried to move some translations into the new senses. I have to admit I don't speak Mandarin or Ukrainian, but I'm pretty positive that the people who added "qualifier:edge" were thinking the same thing as I do. I'm not a native English speaker, so feel free to suggest a better formulation than "extreme point, edge". Additionally, you might consider adding a corresponding sense to the main part of the article. Jenniepet (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Which sense? I can't see a tagged sense in end. Also, since you're not disputing its existence, rfv seems like the wrong forum; perhaps WT:RFC. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I think (s)he split the translation tables along the lines mentioned. But RfC is a better venue for this. Sometimes (often ?) spatial and temporal definitions are better separated. DCDuringTALK 16:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I removed the WT:RFV request, undid the changes I had made to the translation senses and used some qualifiers in the original translation sense. I will not be making a clean-up request.Jenniepet (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
As a clarification, the difference is not spatial versus temporal. In spatial use, there are two cases. Objects with a start and a finish, e.g. books, and objects with two ends (or more), e.g. thread, table. To give an example in a better known language, in French you would say la fin du livre (the end of the book) and un bout du fil (one end of the thread). Jenniepet (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I would say that a book is temporal. --WikiTiki89 22:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
This is the kind of discussion that could continue without reaching an end.
A physical (spatial) path can be looked at in two ways, something with a beginning and an end (as when one is starting to take it) or with two ends (as when one is in the middle or when one is looking at it on a map). Purpose or goal is sometimes involved but I don't think it is implied by the word itself. In the case of a spatial application of the word end, the distinction is often not made or not relevant. For something temporal, normal discourse requires a distinction between a beginning and an end. That often corresponds to a purpose or an achievement. Of course end can have an essentially telic sense that is completely non-spatial and inherently temporal, in that in normal discourse a purpose or goal is always after the activity required to achieve it.
I think the question is whether there is an additional telic vs non-telic or spatial vs temporal distinction that would make a useful English distinction and/or help with clarifying translations. DCDuringTALK 22:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
One relevant distinction between the spatial and temporal is that a physical path has two ends either of which could be called a beginning. A period of time has one beginning and one end, which are not interchangeable in normal discourse. DCDuringTALK 22:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Closed. Untagged by nominator. — Ungoliant(falai) 22:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)