User talk:Equinox

Wiktionary:Requested entries (English)/WordlistEdit

Thank you for fixing my entry. I saw you care about requested entries and I noticed someone elsewhere complaining that the English Wiktionary is missing many words from, so I created the lists above. I hope they are useful. 2700 words are missing out of those that they consider the top 37k, and 38k from their top 150k. Not bad, but still some useful suggestions in there I hope. Nemo 23:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice. I have a similar list on my computer here that I've been slowly working through, and there's probably quite a lot of overlap. (Mine is based on words valid in Scrabble.) In practice, in both my list and yours, some terms are "dictionary forms" without actual usage (e.g. certain -nesses plurals), and some are nonces (especially from Edmund Spenser), but the vast majority are worth researching. Equinox 23:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

(oxyde) blanc d’arsenicEdit

Hi Equinox. I got this French term from:

I assume that the relevant part should be parsed « [oxyde [de zinc artificiel], ou [blanc d’arsenic],] », rather than « [oxyde de zinc artificiel], ou [blanc d’arsenic], », yes? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto: Indeed it does. Equinox had noted that blanc d’arsenic did not occur separately from a preceding oxyde. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Overcook and undercook not ergativeEdit

Thanks for your better way of specifying that these words are only transitive. My understanding of Wiktionary is that inclusion of a verb in the "List of ergative words" is automatic if "ergative" is used in the specification. Another user (talk) believes that only the "intransitive" and "transitive" specs should be used, but this would then mean that ergative verbs wouldn't be included in the list. What do you think is the better way? Harry Audus (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Harry Audus

If you look at e.g. osmote then you can see that putting the "ergative" gloss on a sense line is enough to add the word to that category; you don't have to add the category line explicitly at the end. I prefer the former because it will show which specific sense lines (if there are several) are the ergative ones. Equinox 02:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I looked at osmote. It's interesting (to me, anyway) that the definition includes the verb move, which is itself ergative. Do you think this fact is enough to allow the definition not to include both the transitive and intransitive senses, i.e. "(To cause) to move by osmosis"? Harry Audus (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Harry Audus

Normally, overcook isn't ergative- but it can be: see this, this, and this, to start with. Any ergative verb can be used as a transitive, so the presence or even overwhelming preponderance of transitive usage doesn't rule out ergativity. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The first and second links just given do not include a sentence in which "overcook" is used intransitively ("would overcook" could refer to a sentence like "She would overcook the beef"). The third example is grammatically ambiguous. I contend that "They were late. The vegetables overcooked." is an example of a sentence borrowing the verb from the previous sentence, meaning "They were late. The vegetables were [understood] overcooked." Harry Audus (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Harry Audus

I can see legitimate ergative uses in Google Books, though they may not be common: e.g. "The tenderloin's thin, tapered shape made for uneven cooking; in the time it took to develop a nice crust, the meat overcooked"; "If a kernel has turned black, it has overcooked, although it is not unusual to have a percentage of these in every pot due to uneven cooking". Equinox 05:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I concede. Both words are ergative. Thanks for your research. Now I still need to resolve the difference of opinion with Talking Point whether "ergative" is preferable to "transitive / intransitive". Would you like to weigh in on that page? Harry Audus (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Harry Audus

Seems we've thwarted "Thwart" by replacing a non starter of a quote?Edit

Of course your reversing my edit (whence I removed a (very) poorly formatted quote) is within your adminisphere, so no worries there... though I _would_ or wouldn't I be remiss if I were to suggest you weren't (maybe?) itching for a joust? Certainly I am not itching for any joust, though it _is_ rather fun to feel superior at times.

[Puts on Guy Fawkes Mask] [Speaks In Shakespearean slash poorly crafted Elizabethan-era accent with too many flourishes. Reminiscent of RenFaire]

How now, does brown cow do to improve the overall usefulness of Wiktionary by replacing a non-attributed, non-sourced quote in a list of three or more properly sourced and properly attributed quotes? I ask, really because I'm uncertain how it is that the quote got put there in the first place without someone else properly editing that quote out?

So... If you're putting it back in, I therefore insist _you_ properly source and properly attribute the quote. Or I'll remove it as having been added ... speciously at best ... by you.

I meant that funnier than it came out, but alas, so much gets lost in the typing.

RobbertMacGreighgor (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Well you seem to be full of words so I hope you can help us define some. I've changed it to "Robert South". If you are able to identify the year and title then feel free to help the project further by adding them. We do a lot of work and can't always fill in every detail all the time. A partial start is better than nothing. Equinox 05:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@RobbertMacGreighgor: Special:Diff/35931554 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Unprotection of "cite web"Edit

Could you unprotect {{cite web}}? I have been tidying up our quotation and citation templates (e.g., {{cite-book}}, {{quote-journal}} and {{cite-journal}}) to standardize their appearance and parameters, and having just completed {{quote-web}} I'd like to work on {{cite web}} next. Thanks. Smuconlaw (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Smuconlaw: Yes check.svg DoneΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Smuconlaw (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't just "rabid"Edit

See this tweet, by the same guy who brought the other words to everyone's attention. Daniel Case (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Bad precedent. Saying that a woman has a shrill voice can be a fact. I hope every storm in a Twitter-cup won't start us having to change things. BTW, I've added a missing sense and the citation comes from a female writer. Equinox 21:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why not. It's as true that birds have shrill voices. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
If it's any consolation, AFAICT that was the only one of our entries to have the same problem. Daniel Case (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Political Philosphy Versus Political IdeologyEdit

I think political ideology is a better term. People often use political philosophy to mean political ideology.

Read the first three paragraphs of the Wikipedia article: IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The academic subject is only one meaning of "political philosophy". I maintain that "ideology" makes it sound more like biased propaganda. FWIW, I did a quick search on Google Books and got these numbers: "nazi ideology" 76,700; "nazi philosophy" 10,100; "libertarian philosophy" 6,500; "libertarian ideology" 3,340. I will be interested to hear whether your edits of the same kind on Wikipedia are challenged by anyone. Equinox 18:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Definition from Wikipedia: "In social studies, a political ideology is a certain ethical set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, and/or large group that explains how society should work, and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order." I see no indication that political deology is biased propaganda. I am not surprised that libertarian philosophy is more commonly searched than libertarian ideology because a large part of libertarianism is political philosphy (like John Locke, natural rights, and non-aggression principle). Should I put something on the talk page to see what other people think? IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Might be an idea; or create a discussion section at WT:TR? Equinox 23:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
In the mean time, I reverted all my edits. I want to remove the section on my talk page, but it says my edit is destructive. I was able to remove most of it, but not all of it. Could you help me remove the stuff on my talk page? I have no idea how to use this wiki thing. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia where you can't even edit your own talk page™. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove blue linksEdit

Hey Eq, any chance you can de-bluelinkify Wiktionary:Frequency lists/Catalan/Alphabetic missing? --Ce mot-ci (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

go after strange fleshEdit

This is an odd construction and I can’t find accurate definitions for the parts. go after is probably used in the 2nd sense, strange in the 1st (or perhaps 4th), but flesh is not obvious at all, unless James was referring to foreigners (which I highly doubt). I’m guessing that ‘flesh’ is an obsolete euphemism for sexual intercourse, but our project doesn’t say that (yet?). What am I missing? --Romanophile (contributions) 19:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps not too odd. The older sense of "strange" (before it meant peculiar/curious) is "alien" or "foreign". At foreign we have "not characteristic of or naturally taken in by an organism or system", which seems to be what is meant (i.e. it's saying homosexuality is not natural). "Flesh" just refers to the body (our sense 5 at flesh). So: going in search of bodies (for sex) in an unnatural way, i.e. not heterosexually. Equinox 19:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I was thinking of ‘foreign’ from an ethnographic point of view. This does make some sense, but it’s still odd to me. I feel like ‘strange’ should have been an adverb instead, like ‘go after flesh strangely.’ Intercourse is apparently an implication here; not explicit at all. --Romanophile (contributions) 20:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Try replacing "strange flesh" with "forbidden flesh" (not a perfect synonym) and the structure may feel clearer. Equinox 20:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

about botEdit

hello sir, i am user from Bangladesh . i wanted to add some bangla word . may i use bot without permission ? - Rahul amin roktim (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Please go through the process at Wiktionary:Bots. Equinox 05:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

/ɪəɹəʊ/ rhymesEdit

I'm from California, which according to Wikipedia would mean that I speak California English. Khemehekis (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

How can you sayEdit

that this edit "removed much content"? Nothing was removed. The major uses of the term were added. The term only very rarely is used to mean "Ability to produce a desired amount of a desired effect." Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have misread something. I read it as you removing the material, not adding it. Equinox 16:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes, that's easy to do. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Equinox".