Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2008

A well-meaning, but misguided translator has destroyed this entry, splitting into separate senses things that aren't separate senses in English. --Connel MacKenzie 07:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more specific? I don't see any problems. --EncycloPetey 15:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The entry looks like it could use more separate senses for the preposition, not fewer. MW3 has 5 main senses (not all of them in our entry ("in" as in "in the key of" is missing) and 18 subsenses. I'm fairly sure that we don't have a lot of the more figurative sub-senses. DCDuring 01:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copied to Talk:in. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More important than formatting and wikification, this needs to be checked by someone clueful on the subject. An awful lot of seemingly random and difficult-to-verify stuff has been added. -- Visviva 16:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]



User:Amgine added this tag to Peripatetic stating "Adjectival use is not proper noun/capitalized". Dictionaries here, here, etc. indicate that the word should be capitalized in both its noun and adjective forms.--T. Mazzei 18:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There might well also be non-capitalized use in this sense, but we have deemed the two-way "see"s at the tops of the entries to be enough. I think our users would be better off if we included sense-line references to the capitalized forms in each uncapitalized PoS. DCDuring TALK 19:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<nod> Actually I was requesting someone who knows more than I to clean that up, because I was not sure what was the correct response in that circumstance. Good to learn more! - Amgine/talk 22:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: your last sentence: I agree. I also think we should have sense-line pointers to forms that look regularly inflected but meaning-wise aren't. —RuakhTALK 23:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't grasp your last point. DCDuring TALK 00:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the word (deprecated template usage) links (in the golf sense, I mean) looks like a regularly inflected form of (deprecated template usage) link, such that readers coming across it in a text are likely to look up (deprecated template usage) link. Our entry for (deprecated template usage) link should have a sense line that directs such readers to (deprecated template usage) links. —RuakhTALK 01:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I'm in full agreement. It would seem to be worth BP discussion and eventually, if consensus emerges, some kind of non-obligatory "guideline". It might be argued that it has implications for something like the Adjective PoS for attributive use of Noun, though that is a distinguishable situation. DCDuring TALK 02:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this is English as the heading suggests Mutante 13:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Mandarin. —Stephen 18:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACT = Australian Capital Territory This is listed as both an Initialism and an Abbreviation. To me it is only an initialism, but hardly my expertise. --Richardb 23:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't an initialism a kind of abbreviation? —RuakhTALK 23:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not English- needs a definition and a correct language. Nadando 17:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Japanese--Hikui87 20:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly the inclusion of alternative spelling within the sense. Not sure how this would be addressed - is this a UK spelling only for this sense, or for all senses? - Amgine/talk 03:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is getting very long and there are items that date from January. Jcwf 02:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

shorter now. User:Mglovesfun (and others) has been very helpful, cutting it down. --Volants 13:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian H. (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might ask Dijan directly for help with this one. --EncycloPetey 18:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --Dijan 09:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But now Croation has stûdio, that should come on its own page. H. (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the sense of a bump (as on a shield) have a different etymology from the sense of a leader? The senses don't seem to be related in any way. — Paul G 09:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are at least three different words here. Now duly separated. Widsith 07:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billed as an adverb, defined as a noun. (IMHO probably actually a conjunction and a mention-y noun with high levels of attributive use, but I leave that to a cleaner-up to judge.) —RuakhTALK 18:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a swing at it and removed the rfc tag in these edits. Does it seem OK now? Rod (A. Smith) 19:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. :-) —RuakhTALK 18:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No headings, no language. Mutante 10:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin, headings added. —Stephen 13:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No headings, language=Afrikaans? Mutante 10:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fixed, and added Dutch. H. (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should Humphrey be referenced there? H. (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; that provides a citation demonstrating use. --EncycloPetey 18:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. H. (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this supposed to signify that the phrase is identical in Czech and Slovak? \Mike 09:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, in Slovak is "dobrý deň". Maro 13:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Korean section is clearly in the wrong script. This section needs to be moved to the correct entry spelling, if it is correct. --EncycloPetey 00:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KYPark added it; I don't know why, as he also added the correct-script . Funnily enough, he made link to sum, but not v.v. *shrug* —RuakhTALK 21:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greek L2 hdr, no grek script, no infl line, eng prop noun category. DCDuring TALK 20:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Ληξούριον. —Stephen 16:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably contains valuable data but needs structure. Mutante 10:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up by User:Conrad.Irwin. Mutante 16:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"==Expression==" ? Category:Swedish expressions? Mutante 10:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Phrase". Created category. Done Mutante 16:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are those five senses distinct? These definitions are as entered upon the creation of this entry, in 2005.--Daniel Polansky 14:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My take: The first three seem virtually identical, all referring to the system (names + rules). One sense refers to all the names themselves (all the names within the system or of a given population). The other refers to the names associated with a particular entity and its attributes and parts, arguably combinable with the latter. Other senses include a document listing or cataloging the names and the entire process of naming or instances of it. DCDuring TALK 14:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done I've merged the senses some time ago. --Dan Polansky 21:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of many recent additions by User:JackPotte that isn't quite formatted correctly. The definition is ungrammatical for English, and I am not quite sure how to fix it. --EncycloPetey 18:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —Stephen 14:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scots: Many of the defining words seem to be in Scots. DCDuring TALK 00:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. Widsith 13:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The figurative sense of the German verb (deprecated template usage) melken is apparently transitive. Is the direct (accusative case) object supposed to be (a) that which is extracted or (b) the person or thing from which something is extracted? Also, I get the impression that the literal sense is still usually conjugated as a strong verb (i.e. with a vowel change for the past tense) while the figurative sense is usually conjugated as a weak verb (with -t, etc.). Can anyone confirm that? Rod (A. Smith) 07:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The direct object is the entity that is being drained (der Staat melkt uns wie Milchkühe). I think I would use either strong or weak in the literal sense, but I prefer the weak for the figurative sense. —Stephen 14:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Stephen. Your feedback is now incorporated into the entry. Rod (A. Smith) 16:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs declension table for irregular noun. DCDuring TALK 01:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —Stephen 13:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not defined in English. DCDuring TALK 13:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —Stephen 13:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partially defined in Swedish. DCDuring TALK 13:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —Stephen 12:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish, relates to orienteer, orienteering, etc. orienteering is a participle, not a noun, btw. I have little experience formatting entries. --Una Smith 15:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Is it correct to list orienteering as a noun? --Una Smith 05:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it’s a noun. —Stephen 08:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Striking, deleted, and "orienter" is not a Swedish word which has anything with orienteering to do. \Mike 10:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has subsenses.—msh210 22:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more. DCDuring TALK 00:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No POS, is it a symbol?, {{infl|mul|symbol}}? Mutante 13:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Fixed. —Stephen 16:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is also nominated for deletion, but "Christmas elves" seems to be correct, if you look at [1]. Probably a Finnish noun, right? Mutante 14:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

< CK`> yeah santas elve is correct

Fixed. —Stephen 19:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not defined in English DCDuring TALK 22:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —Stephen 22:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd software sense is way too wordy. DCDuring TALK 00:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up.RuakhTALK 23:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t follow naming scheme, and I think the title is ill-chosen, since it is totally uninformative. H. (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These should all be changed to Category:Spanish verb forms. —Stephen 19:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try not to be hasty, since these "all" cover more than 100k entries, which means at least 200k in the job queue plus a lengthy bot run, so it is worth it to make a decision correctly the first time. The "appropriate" name for this category, based on current conventions, is not what it was at the time the entries were generated, we ought to make sure the one that we change them to makes sense for now and for the future. These entries have been contentious all along, we don't have a standard format for inflected forms of verbs in foreign languages, nor even within the Spanish language. When I generated most of these entries two years ago I tried to use nothing but templates in the entries, so the formatting would be easily changeable, but that got shot down. Since then I have had to change them all with the bot at least twice, and I am not the only one who has had to run a bot on them. It generally takes a couple of days to change them all, so again I say let's make the right decision and not just a decision. - [The]DaveRoss 19:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you were quite right to try and templatize them initially. It seems that this has now been accomplished. The current practice would indeed be to put them all in Category:Spanish verb forms, but honestly, there has been almost zero discussion on the best way to handle hundreds of thousands of inflected forms. So, we don't really have a long-term answer. Since the entries seem to be completely templatized (judging from a very small random sampling), making these kind of switches are fairly easy (just change the cat in {{esbot:conjugation}}). This happens rarely enough that the drain on the server is not of huge concern. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This just doesn't make any sense to me. Just change the category in the template, right? Or is there some problem due to the big number of pages using the template? -- Frous 21:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is just a matter of changing the template, but the template is used by 100,000 entries, and so it backlogs Wiktionary for awhile, which makes everyone a bit hesitant to do it. I've made the switch, and I imagine Category:Spanish:Conjugated verb forms should be mostly emptied out by tomorrow, if not sooner. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin entry, needs formatting. Pistachio 17:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latinoid, yes. The problem is that, in Latin, it's purely sum of parts and not worth an entry. It's literally "after noon", which is not a single word and is not at all idiomatic any more than English "after dinner" or "before dawn" would be. On the other hand, it might merit inclusion as an English entry, if the un-abbreviated form can be found in English sources. --EncycloPetey 18:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does occur in English texts, for example in these quotations from b.g.c.:
  • 1853, John Drew, Manual of Astronomy: A Popular Treatise on Descriptive, Physical, and Practical Astronomy, with a Familiar Explanation of Astronomical Instruments and the Best Methods of Using Them, Second Edition,[2] George Bell, page 237,
    The civil day begins at midnight, and reckons 12 hours ante meridiem, or before noon, and 12 hours post meridiem, or after noon.
  • 1923, Christopher Morley, The Powder of Sympathy,[3] Doubleday, Page & Company, page 84,
    We reached that amiable town around two hours post meridiem, exceedingly hungry from our anxieties en route.
A significant proportion of its English-language uses are as subheadings in parliamentary records, apparently separating the records of morning sessions from records of afternoon sessions.
RuakhTALK 01:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, then I'll clean this up an an English entry...though not right away, sinc eI have other things needing my attention for the next few hours. --EncycloPetey 03:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now corrected. --EncycloPetey 20:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few things: Bad capitalisation, a TTBC, a definition which doesn't fit, an odd selection in the See Also section, no Wikipedia link and no usage note about (un)countable/plural/singular which would all be useful. --Felonia 14:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Converted to normal plural + 3rd person singular entry. Moved non-redundant dictionary material to hop. DCDuring TALK 16:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No language, no headings, Anglo-french? Mutante 17:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly an old form and spelling from ca. A.D. 1100. I don’t see any reason to have this page. Moved to the correct Modern French, which is à outrance. —Stephen 09:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mutante 22:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mutante 22:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mutante 22:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned it up a bit and added some referenced definitions, what do you think? Michae2109 18:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, good work. Mutante 18:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mutante 18:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned it up and added some referenced definitions. How does it look? Michae2109 18:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. Mutante 18:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Michae2109 18:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be copied directly from [4]. Nadando 00:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it; we don't want copyright violations even in our edit histories, since they're still publically accessible. (Off-topic: how come we don't have [[publically]], and how come Firefox thinks it's misspelled? I'll grant that publicly is apparently more common, but publically seems very decently attested.) —RuakhTALK 00:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who added the Australian pronunciation, but it can't be right:

  • Is /a/ really used in Australian English?
  • Shouldn't the last /a/ be a schwa?
  • There is no stress mark. (It is obvious where this should go, but the lack of it suggests to me that the pronunciation was added by someone who doesn't understand IPA, which means that the pronunciation is probably wrong.) — 13:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. —Stephen 10:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No lang. Mutante 21:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Language headers added. —Stephen 21:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mutante 11:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions section seems to have sub-definitions which shouldn't occur. __meco 09:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad formatting removed. DCDuring TALK 21:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mutante 11:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Triple threat


Another user (see text below) has found some entries containing "-sss" as a result of {{en-noun}} gone wrong. The lemma pages need to have their inflection template corrected and the offending incorrect plurals need to be moved or deleted. --EncycloPetey 17:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few from This page too - no time for me to check them--Lethal Inspection 17:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tendentious definition. DCDuring TALK 20:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling is incorrect. The correct spelling is pravopizdžija. "Z", and not "ž", is the audible counterpart of "s" (changes from "pravopis" to "pravopiz-"). "Ž" is the audible counterpart of "š". --Dijan 04:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google pravopiždžija (BooksGroupsScholar) — Google pravopizdžija (BooksGroupsScholar) — deleted as a protologism. (By the way, Dijan, are you sure you mean (deprecated template usage) audible and not (deprecated template usage) voiced?) —RuakhTALK 16:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, voiced. "S" before "d" becomes voiced. —Stephen 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant "voiced". Sorry :) --Dijan 23:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually pravopiždžija is the correct spelling, because *zdž cluster is not allowed and abides by something called hr:jednačenje po mjestu tvorbe :) So *pravopisdžija > *pravopizdžija > pravopiždžija. This is a colloquial term that rarely occurrs even in spoken language, but is hardly a "protologosim" and is listed in at least 2 common Croatian dictionaries. I'll see to find some quotations. For the future, please don't just plainly delete terms like this on sight, use formal RfV/RfD procedure. --Ivan Štambuk 18:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entry is for Hebrew Joshua, headword and L2 are Malay? DCDuring TALK 21:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Hebrew nor Malay, it’s Malayalam. —Stephen 21:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, it is beyond my pay grade and looked to need to be sorted out. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge adjective and noun sense? H. (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what the inflection line indicated, the adjective is comparable (and gradable) and it can probably can be used as a predicate. Therefore, it ought to be shown as an adjective. I'll try to provide some citations for both kinds of usage. DCDuring TALK 09:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. H. (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mutante 15:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —Stephen 16:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve made a few changes; please review them. BTW, is the masculine plural not curieuces?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it's as the entry says. —RuakhTALK 17:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mutante 15:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done (by Goldenrowley). Now listed on RFV. —RuakhTALK 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mutante 16:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mutante 16:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mutante 18:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, please take a look. —RuakhTALK 22:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mutante 20:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It just needed to be translated from Portuguese. --EncycloPetey 20:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is driver related to germane?? H. (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean rider, not driver. It's a semantic relationship; in parliamentary procedure, it's often considered poor form (and sometimes forbidden outright) to attach a rider unless it's germane. It's certainly not a "related term", and I don't think it warrants a "see also" link, so I've removed it. —RuakhTALK 14:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

antic (resolved)


SOMEONE POSTED A BAD WORD ON THE ANTIC PAGE!!!! CLEAN IT UP!!!!! P.S. I'm not sure if the example was even correct.

Looks like its cleaned. Mutante 16:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so one of the usage notes says this should be hyphenated. I don't see how that's even possible (un-copyrightables? uncopy-rightables? uncopyright-ables? uncopyrightable-s? doesn't fit...at all...) Teh Rote 14:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I've removed it now. (The editor who added that note was also editing [[goddessship]] around that time; I'm guessing he intended the note for that or another such entry, or simply got confused.) —RuakhTALK 16:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was meant to be unco-pyrigh-tables. I've adjusted the usage note accordingly.—msh210 17:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no indication of which of the audio pronunciations is which. They need to be separated and put under the respective written pronunciations (I can't do this as I don't have speakers on my machine). — Paul G 17:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They've all been sorted now, with each Etymology now having a pronunciation section. There were also two etymology sections that belonged togather, and these have been combined. --EncycloPetey 19:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an audio pronunciation here, but which sense (verb/noun) is it for? — Paul G 08:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, it's for the noun, even though the verb is much more common. *shrug* —RuakhTALK 19:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The headword used in the page is belonging, not belongings. I know there are issues with the use of singular of this word, but I guess the entry should address them explicitly. \Mike 10:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please inspect. Compare with belonging. DCDuring TALK 11:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - makes more sense now, I think :) \Mike 12:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English section needs cleaning up (transwikied). --EncycloPetey 19:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --EncycloPetey 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English section of this Transwikied entry needs to be cleaned up. --EncycloPetey 00:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --EncycloPetey 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly a problem I've never seen before... --EncycloPetey 17:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put it through a ten-step program, I think it's good now. :-) —RuakhTALK 02:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation section needs to be split into 2: the state and the island. --Borganised 10:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've set up the table sections, but the Translation still need to be checked and moved. --EncycloPetey 19:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme space problem. I'm not sure there is any solution within the existing rules other than show-hide. DCDuring TALK 18:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you create 5 sections? Nadando 19:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not intentionally. The question I ask myself is: "How did I create 5 sections?" It must have been impatient keyboarding (back button?) during a period when the WMF servers were unavailable to me. I'll go clean up. DCDuring TALK 20:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fine --Volants 13:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a bit messy compared to various other Latin entries I've encountered, but not knowing Latin I don't quite know how to fix it. Teh Rote 22:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --EncycloPetey 20:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be rescued? Presumably a shortening of congratulations. SemperBlotto 16:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's O.K. now. —RuakhTALK 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A sloppy page, the definition is awkward, and the usage notes are rather sketchy too, e.g.

  1. Old man who has lost his hair and hearing and use of his legs 1: "I've just lost my hair and hearing and use of my legs"
  2. Old man who has lost his hair and hearing and use of his legs 2: Yeah? Tell me about i

— This unsigned comment was added by Jackofclubs (talkcontribs) at 14:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Mostly needs usage example/citation, perhaps from fiction. Can then drop existing usage note, possibly add a better one, if necessary. DCDuring TALK 12:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have inserted 3 citations of the type I mentioned just above, edited the definition, and deleted the usage notes. Please review and make further changes, especially to definition, and add any usage note that might be appropriate. The notion that "tell me about it" often means "don't tell me about it" or "you don't have to tell me about it" might be worth including. DCDuring TALK 16:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article gives some examples of the phenomenon. This happens regularly at linguistic or stylistic words. I am unsure how these should be formatted. Maybe we should start a discussion on WT:BP about this. H. (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As linguistics experts, mavens, and fans, we often seem tempted to exempt linguistics-related entries from our general rules. Adding non-standard headings and materials is one of the prime surviving examples. One of the best approach to finessing this is to be a little creative in the use of citations. Appendices referenced in "See also" would also do, especially to provide longer lists. But Wikipedia articles are often better. DCDuring TALK 12:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current approach at [[non sequitur]] (having example sentences that use the term in describing an example of its referent) is fine, though sometimes it's a bit contrived. Another option is an example-box like Wikipedia has (see e.g. [[w:Adjective]]); the problem there is that Wikipedia articles are about concepts, so can easily present examples of a given concept, whereas our entries are about words, and examples are typically sense-specific. (We already handle this for images, though, so we could apply that approach to example-boxes. It's not as smooth for example-boxes as for images, but it would work.) —RuakhTALK 12:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The existing approach is not in accord with what a usage example is. It allows encyclopedic content for certain entries. It squeezes out true usage examples. It shows a contempt for the rules that are applied to non-linguistic entries. DCDuring TALK 12:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not in accord with what a usage example is? What kind of "true" usage examples get squeezed out? What rules does it contemn that we apply to non-linguistic entries? It seems like we always try to show something in our example sentences. (Admittedly, I do have some sort of sense that there's something off about this, but I can't identify what it is.) —RuakhTALK 15:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The three purported usage examples for the third "humor" sense of [[non-sequitur]] do not contain the words "non sequitur". They are examples of non-sequiturs. It would not surprise me if they formerly appeared under the "illegal" Examples header. That is the "rule" I was thinking about is that we not have "Examples" as a header, it not being in WT:ELE. I had the same perception problem for the first few times I saw these things because it is natural to want to illustrate linguistic phenomona in their entry and the space occupied by usage examples and usage notes is natural. I actually thought it was you who had recommended the idea of creative use of citations to get around the problem. Maybe it was Visviva or EP or DAVilla. Whoever it was, thanks. The idea would be to find a citation that used the headword in a passage that also included one or more examples of the linguistic phenomenon. That would respect the primary purpose of a usage example and also provide the illustration that we need.
An example box would be a desirable format. Do we already have a template or a format for such? DCDuring TALK 15:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Yeah, I totally agree that the quotations under sense #3 are a problem. Somehow I didn't notice them earlier; my comment above was about the example sentences under senses #1 and #2. I've just created {{examples-right}}, which is like ExamplesSidebar but with some improvements, and tried it out at [[non sequitur]]. I'm sure it's not very good, but it's a start. —RuakhTALK 17:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Perhaps an even paler yellow background, because the box itself is already distracting, because it breaks with the appearance of most of our entries. Also we should have glosses not sense numbers, in accordance with our practice in trans-top and rel-top, no? DCDuring TALK 18:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we've got a good format, we can face the substance problem. The bgc hits for non-sequitur (humor OR humour) take pains to say that humor requires something more than a non-sequitur and do not use [[non-sequitur]] in sense 3. They use it in the other senses, AFAICT. The examples illustrate a humorous "surprise", something humorously unexpected. Using non sequitur for that doesn't seem accurate. Does it need an RfV-sense? DCDuring TALK 18:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point about the examples is that the endings do follow from the preceding words, but not the first construction that comes to mind. Although we may find some evidence for this usage, it seems confused, confusing, and erroneous. I have yet to find it in another dictionary (OneLook). DCDuring TALK 18:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent indeed. This is a solution I’ve been waiting for. H. (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? ALTON .ıl 06:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently spun out of n. No inflection line missing def. DCDuring TALK 02:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added definition. --Jackofclubs 17:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unclean formatting. Uncategorized. Mutante 07:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up. —Stephen 21:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow messed up the formatting so that both definitions are listed as def. # 1. sewnmouthsecret 20:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. You have to have the # symbol on each line. —Stephen 21:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First adj. defn. needs rewrite.—msh210 19:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prescriptivist, judgmental, and unreferenced. —RuakhTALK 17:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't see the problem. It could use references, certainly (a not quite on one is at [5]), but gee, grammar is "prescriptivist". "Judgmental" seems a stretch-- does it say "people who use "different from" are cretins? Not that I can see. -- 18:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Striking. I'm O.K. with its current form. Any lurking prescriptivists, feel free to take a look and de-strike if you object. :-)   —RuakhTALK 20:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a form of eat like a bird, but I can't remember what we normally do in a situation like this. --EncycloPetey 01:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, I ran across this: WT:REDIR#Redirecting between different forms of idioms. Redirect or full entry. If redirecting from entry not merely differing by a pronoun, I would guess it might make sense to include the term in "Alternative forms" at the redirect target. DCDuring TALK 08:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No lang, structure. Mutante 06:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Stephen G. Brown. Thanks. Mutante 16:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong templates, structure. Mutante 06:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Goldenrowley. Now RFV. Thanks. Mutante 16:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entry on the French Wiktionary seems to indicate that this is not a noun as our entry states.--50 Xylophone Players talk 22:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The French Wiktionary calls it a "prepositional phrase", but its gender note and both of its definitions are suited to a noun (-ish). I think the problem is not with our POS header, but with our translation, which is an adjective. —RuakhTALK 23:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bad translation. Cleaned up. —Stephen 00:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a conjunction, adverb, or both? --EncycloPetey 06:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the entry to conjunction because the usex and sense were derived from that PoS of since. But both since and ever since also seem to be to be usable as prepositions "ever since the election" and possibly adverbs "I saw him then, but haven't seen him since". DCDuring TALK 12:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added what seems to me to be an adverb sense. SemperBlotto 13:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it seems to be as complicated as I thought, if not more so. I have to agree, DC, that it seems to function as a preposition as well, and will add the appropriate section for that. --EncycloPetey 18:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we've addressed the cleanup and added the adverb to since, it is so obvious that this is SoP: an intensifier + since. DCDuring TALK 19:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... you may be right. Do you want to take this to RfV or should I? --EncycloPetey 19:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. It has become "obvious", but wasn't. Perhaps the best result would be to have the usage examples with "ever" included at since. Maybe someone could see a reason to keep it. I'll RfV it. DCDuring TALK 19:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taken to WT:RFV. --EncycloPetey 22:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology section needs cleanup, in my opinion. --Shruti14 18:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? What's wrong with it? --EncycloPetey 18:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? C'mon EP, everything and its mom was wrong with it. Incorrect ety formatting, incorrect spelling of Greek, no distinction between grc and el, rambling and incoherent explanatory notes..... I have cleaned it up and removed the tag. Please feel quite free to reinstate it if you feel it remains unacceptable. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the entry wasn't flawed; I was trying to elicit specifics. Saying something "needs cleanup" is extremely vague, and specifics can help, even if someone just says "I find this hard to read". --EncycloPetey 23:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The usage note is not understandable. At least I cannot parse it. I moved the example to the definition, but a better one could be given. H. (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it and the tag and conformed translation gloss to definition. A disagreement as to whether a maven was "self-styled" was aired in the entry instead of on the talk page. A maven is not necessarily self-styled according to other dictionaries and my own experience. DCDuring TALK 17:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree "self-styled" is completely incorrect. I've added {{Australia}} per the talkpage, but suspect that the regional tags should be removed altogether: any Rightpondians/Canadians around?—msh210 18:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And all other Romansch categories: interestingly, Ethnologue calls it Romansch, but SIL calls it Romansh. Which one should we follow? Wikipedia seems to have chosen for Romansh. H. (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia lists several possible spellings, and typically holds onto the earliest spelling of an article title when several variants exist. So the reason they use the spelling "Romansh" is simply that it's what the initiator of the article chose. Even the earliest version shows that the author was aware several spellings for the language name existed, but we've no idea why that particular spelling was chosen in 2001 for the article.
The current spelling for our category was chosen after examining multiple print sources regarding the language and books on languages in general. The Romansch edition of Wiktionary also used that spelling before it was closed. The Ethnologue listing is usually more useful than SIL, since Etnologue is the printed and edited version published by SIL, and often contains additional refinement. We should retain the spelling Romansch. --EncycloPetey 20:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No lang, no structure. Mutante 16:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given lang, structure. —Stephen 20:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The definition is not quite right. This really means an explosive personality (i.e. the personality of someone with a temper). It is not the term used to refer to a physical explosion. bd2412 T 00:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition is vague and it lacks an inflection table. I can't find many "useful" sources to define the word, but [6] says it means of the Cape or from the Cape Colony, or of the Cape of Good Hope, South Africa. Caladon 20:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, it means "from the Cape Province, South Africa, which includes the region of the former Cape Colony. --EncycloPetey 10:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Noun? No category, external link to some website. Mutante 09:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up. —RuakhTALK 14:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamaryns has added an rfc tag to this template and to Template:en-verb with the note "HTML validator gives warnings in display table". I do not know what this means, since I have noticed no problem. However, this does mean that the queue will have to deal with every English noun and verb entry following the edit of these two templates. --EncycloPetey 13:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should never have been placed on the templates themselves. Removing them will load the queue again.
He appears to be saying that the table is generating some kind of invalid HTML; however the templates use wikitables, so if there is a problem, it is in WM s/w, not in the templates. (Is also kinda useless: what warnings?) There is an HTML div wrapped around the table(s), but this is legit. In any case, we don't need to care about warnings (not errors) not generated by the template code itself. Robert Ullmann 14:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Validates fine for me (trying various pages that include {en-noun}). Looks fine in source too, nothing odd at all. Robert Ullmann 14:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The local validator that I have moans about the fractional width values, though I'm not au fait enough with the specs to know if this is allowed or not. Conrad.Irwin 12:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fractional percents are a no-no. Some browsers compensate for them, but not necessarily in the same way for each browser. If we're going to specify percent widths, then they should be integral values to ensure proper and consistent page display. --EncycloPetey 17:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The odd thing is, while HTML 4.01 doesn't seem to allow fractional widths, CSS 1 and 2 do, so I can't see why a browser wouldn't just do for width="49.75%" what it does for style="width:49.75%". It's not like browsers have a tradition of enforcing the arcane constraints of HTML. :-P —RuakhTALK 00:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been cleaned up --Volants 13:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entry needs a proper definition. The current one is uninformative. --EncycloPetey 02:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Took a stab, please revise as needed. As far as I can tell, "X is behoveful for Y" is the same thing as "X behoves Y." That may be why this fell out of use so quickly. -- Visviva 09:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how "computer" is any sort of usable definition for this. But the whole thing needs an actual entry written. --Connel MacKenzie 21:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. has been rewritten --Volants 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RuakhTALK 04:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, the primary definition of language for the past four years has been "an expression of an understanding", which is in turn a reference to a book. While in the context of the book, I imagine that definition is quite meaningful, however I'm hoping everyone else also sees that it is hardly appropriate for Wiktionary. So here's the problem, there are quite a few translations attached to this meaning (perhaps simply because it has been the first entry for so long). It seems to me that this definition should be cut, and its translations relegated to the trans-check section. Thoughts? Atelaes 20:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had similar feelings last time I looked at that entry, but haven't been brave enough to tackle the cleanup. More cleaning power to you! --EncycloPetey 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten rid of that ridiculous definition and allocated all of its translations to ttbc. However, in my opinion, we could shave off all but maybe three of the definitions. They're highly redundant. However, I'm just not feeling that bold. If some langophiles feel like attacking it, it could use some help. Atelaes 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm? I'm not sure about the distinctiveness of sense 2, but I'd keep all the others myself. --EncycloPetey 05:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think two and three are defined by one. The rest should stay. Atelaes 05:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They may need improvement but they are seem distinct to me. MW3 has 6 main senses and 9 subsenses.
BTW, Meaning 2 refers to the generic capability of communication, but seems to exclude sign language as a part of that capability. If we are harkening back to an age when such languages were ignored, this sense should remain unrevised and a more inclusive sense added. Alternatively, a weasel-worded clause or phrase would be needed to indicate that some include and some exclude sign languages from the "gift of language". DCDuring 12:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since 2008, this has has many improvements. RFC tag removed and striked --Volants 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This entry ranks near 550 on the "page ranks". That high ranking must be an artifact of the partiicular corpus selected. It should have been a stopword, I think. It makes the page ranks generally look suspect. Do they need review and updating? DCDuring TALK 19:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rank thing is not there now --Volants 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged, not listed ages ago. I agree - I've never heard this used in a way that restricts it to cinemas. --Connel MacKenzie 09:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries have, though, fwiw. But [7] is just one example of a use referring to a hotel. Simple cleanup: change the definition. Do we agree on so doing?—msh210 19:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good citations have been added. Striked --Volants 15:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the senses are included in the first (past and participle of). Do we want to have (among those) only the first, or only the others? or double indents (##)? (If we keep the many senses, then we should add the math sense.)msh210 20:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed all senses given, all from verb. Added adjective with 3 senses. DCDuring TALK 11:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Striked --Volants 15:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reads more like a Wikipedia stub than a definition. Any equestrians here? --EncycloPetey 04:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no equestrian, but it's not clear that it's the right term. "Sport pony" gets more hits. I've left a message on the user's page and will follow up in a week. DCDuring TALK 02:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DCDuring. This has been fixed --Volants 15:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing definitions, etc. DCDuring TALK 02:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is great now, as all of the letters of the alphabet --Volants 13:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology questionable. Usage note on pronunciation seems encyclopedic. Adverb section seems wrong in part. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology section changed. Nadando 00:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Half of adverb section in RfD. Will hide verbose pronunciation note somewhow. DCDuring TALK 02:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added two translations into Arabic, transliterated. In hidden comments I included URLs to sources where the words appear in Arabic script. Could someone with an Arabic keyboard please fix up these entries? --Una Smith 16:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Stephen 23:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone fluent in Italian, French, and English etymologies should sort through and weed the list of descendants. Most of the listed terms come from a word other than mitto. --EncycloPetey 22:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed most of those descendants and they should be added to the compound verbs when they are made. I expanded the derived terms as well. Is this sufficient to remove the tag? Regarding mass, I presume it's enough to have the descendant only on missa and for mess, to have it on missum. Caladon 10:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. --EncycloPetey 14:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entry needs a POS header and formatting. --EncycloPetey 03:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Volants 13:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should use the form-of CSS classes. H. (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And while we’re at it, maybe also make it conform to Wiktionary:Form-of templates? H. (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Opiaterein is happy with this. Struck --Volants 13:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a strange verb - sightsees sounds OK, but sightsaw and sightseed and sightseen all sound wrong to me as the past tenses. --Jackofclubs 10:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All but "sightseed" seem to exist. Added ety (back-form) and usage note referring to "go sightseeing" as preferred by some. DCDuring TALK 11:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks OK --Volants 13:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong present & participle forms on wear off and worn off has been started but then emptied for some reason. Mutante 09:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User may have realized that default template use wasn't going to do the job, wasn't sure how to do it right, and tried to clean up after himself without admin powers. Simple past and past part added, though we don't always inflect verbs like "wear off". DCDuring TALK 10:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has been rectified --Volants 13:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really Mandarin? It just said Chinese, and i put in "zh" then. Mutante 09:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Japanese and Mandarin. —Stephen 09:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]



This page, Category:Sciences, has been vandalised severely. I don't know how to revert it on my own, can someone help? Minor Editor 09:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; thanks for pointing it out! Angr 09:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many things wrong. DCDuring TALK 04:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ruakh has rectified this --Volants 13:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged, but not listed. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another user wrote "nothing about this article conforms to Wiktionary standards" --Jackofclubs 10:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a start it should never have had an entry anyway... This is nothing more than free software. Conrad.Irwin 11:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
free software would just mean "without having to pay" (free beer), but there is a big difference to w:Free software as in the w:Free software movement. Also see w:Free beer & w:Gratis versus Libre. Mutante 07:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been cleaned up. --Volants 13:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs formating, --Borganised 13:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formatted.--50 Xylophone Players talk 19:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone take a look at this? The headword looks a little odd and so does some of the linking. RJFJR 16:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ruakh has rectified --Volants 14:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a mess... How about removing the "representative power"? (defined in Webster's as "The representative power; the power to reconstruct or recombine the materials furnished by direct apprehension; the complex faculty usually termed the plastic or creative power; the fancy.") It is used only in the synonym and translation sections and the translations for it are identical to the "image-making" section. That leaves image-making and resourcefulness. Nikitakit 14:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:DAVilla has rectified --Volants 14:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned it up somewhat, but more work is needed. (Also, I think it's really a proper noun. The plural is barely attested.) —RuakhTALK 15:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=voodoo&diff=4021623msh210 20:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better --Volants 14:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]