Erolos

aĉodora

Lernu.org's dictionary uses aĉodor/o/a/i. I found 240+ entries with a google search of aĉodora. That's about 100 less than odoraĉa. Malbonodora (which is in in the Esperanto-English dictionary I downloaded from Project Guttenburg dated 1903) has over 1000 hits. By far the most common and the word that I would use is fetor/o/a/i.

While aĉ- is normally a suffix, it can be a prefix as in aĉigi, and aĉjaro (which is admittedly rare--I got it in a professionally translated work of Wittman's poetry, which I used an example sentance. There are only 2 other hits on Google that don't link to Wiktionary or a page derived from Wikitionary. I guess most Esperantists would use aĉa jaro rather than aĉjaro.)

There's enough evidence that aĉodoro and its inflected forms to keep. There's enough evidence to include odoraĉo and its inflected forms. I think that both entries should have a user note alerting the reader that malbonodoro and fetoro are far and away more common.)

Thanks for the discussion

Scott aka SonPraises 19:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

nzige

Please do not edit in languages that your yourslef do not speak. There are many errors in pblished dictionaries, and Wiktionary has had editors in the past blindly following information from printed sources that was error-prone. I myself own a Galician-English dictionary (from a major publisher) that I don't trust, because I've found countless errors of spelling and translation in it. Please stick to languages that you speak so that Wiktionary does not propogate errors. --EncycloPetey 16:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. If you can compare several sources, surely it is fine to edit for another language? I don't for a second believe that all the translations and entries on Wiktionary for other languages were done by speakers of those languages. If that policy was followed through, wiktionary would never have expanded the way it has. Are you seriously telling me that it is an administrative policy that I should never again edit anything for a language that I am not fluent in? -Erolos 17:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, how could you possibly enforce that? I have been to Africa, I have heard Swahili, I may not had a face-to-face translation of locust into Swahili, but how would you know that? -Erolos 17:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Your opinions notwithstanding, that is how Wiktionary works. We do have Swahili speakers here (our primary one is out sick currently), as well as speakers for a very large number of other languages. And no, comparing secondary sources is considered insufficient, and has even been refuted for some instances in English. There are words that appear only in dictionaries and are never used in the written or spoken language outside of those dictionaries. --EncycloPetey 17:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I only put that link in the edit summary as a courtesy. In future I won't. I am aware of which languages I have degrees of proficiency in; I consider your assertion that I should stick to only the languages I am orally fluent in one of bad faith, and certainly unenforceable, but I will attempt to limit my future edits to those. -Erolos 17:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read the Wiktionary:Assume good faith, as your response seems to indicate that you have not taken to heart Wiktionary's version of that document. You may also wish to read Help:Interacting with humans, an important document that needs a less condescending-sounding title, but which was written sincerely.

I've come to you because the community has blocked or even banned editors before who persisted in editing outside their language skill. A set of Babel boxes on your user page can help, but we've also banned users who had boxes claiming language skills that it became apparent they didn't have when their edits were examined by people who actually knew the languages they edited. So, editing in the languages you know is enforced.

Also, no one said you had to be "orally fluent". That was your interpretation of what I said, but it is not what I said. --EncycloPetey 20:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm astounded by the heavy-handedness of this. As someone who has been trying to edit helpfully and thoughtfully for years, I find it really baffling. I guess this will for the most part be goodbye to Wiktionary from me. -Erolos 22:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)