Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2009

An anon has inserted unformatted quotations between the synonyms and anytonyms. --EncycloPetey 14:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

now formatted. --EncycloPetey 18:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin and Spanish sections. H. (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing in the Latin section to clean up. The form gustō is the lemma. --EncycloPetey 18:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish cleaned up. —Stephen 10:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the translations are listed under "Noun", while it is obvious that some (I guess most) of them belong under "Adjective". I fixed cs, gd and sk, but I'm not certain that all are wrongly placed, so I'm bringing it here. --Duncan 16:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed using the edit history. The Noun section was added after almost all the translations were in place. (That is, a user added ===Noun=== between ===Adjective=== and ====Translations====.) —RuakhTALK 17:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no POS. Mutante 07:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nor any definition. Fixed; striking this. \Mike 17:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no structure. Mutante 07:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.—msh210 17:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are Etymologies 2 and 3 really different, pointing as they obviously do to the same sense? The 3rd Ety was added by a user who was only active here in December 2007 and January 2008. --Duncan 17:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is plain Dutch. All English “quotes” are actually from Dutch titles, I don’t really get it. H. (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added three Google-groups cites; are they any better?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. You might notice that the quotes you added were all written by people with Dutch names. My conclusion is that this is simply a typical misspelling by Dutch people. And I seriously doubt the plural vacuä, with dieresis, will be attested, since even in Dutch it is vacua. H. (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, I tried translating the quote, but the English is very terrible. Someone should have a look at it! H. (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've improved the English translation a little, but I'm stuck on the final phrase. --EncycloPetey 04:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The context is that ‘de vrienden van het volk’ are some anthropologists that wanted to record a drinking song from an old lady in the rest home. Since it didn’t work, they’re off. The author is very cynical about them, since they belong to another social class than ‘het volk’, by which he means the fourth world people, the laboring, poor people, he describes in the book. Does that help? H. (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That helps. I've massaged the rest of the translation now. --EncycloPetey 16:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

use of non-existing template, no category. Mutante 19:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned the Chinese up as well as I could, but I don’t know if it is factual. Needs more work. —Stephen 00:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Mutante 00:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the template was not used the right way. Mutante 19:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up. —Stephen 00:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Mutante 00:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

formatting H. (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What formatting? You mean changing the dashes after the dates into commas? --EncycloPetey 16:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up. By the way, even many established editors are so bad at formatting quotations that I don't think it's worth it to list them here except in extreme cases. If you have time to fix them, do so, but if not, just tag {{rfc-sense}} or something. —RuakhTALK 17:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recall that the #* line was to end with a comma, and now I see at WT:QUOTE that it's to end with a colon. Is my memory faulty or did the BCP/policy change at some point?—msh210 19:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It changed, after discussion at Wiktionary talk:Quotations. —RuakhTALK 20:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there two translation tables here?--Vahagn Petrosyan 17:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because of this edit. I'm not certain whether to delete one of the tables or whether to bring back the determiner header, though. --Duncan 18:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tables contain mostly identical items because the example sentence that was there did not show use as a pronoun, but as a Determiner. In "these pretzels", these is a determiner, but in "These are hot." it is functioning as a pronoun. Only the Portuguese and Spanish translations are correct in both tables as far as I can tell (and you can see they are different). --EncycloPetey 21:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I divided the entry again into Determiner and Pronoun sections, and except for es and pt (per EncycloPetey) and cs, gd, sco and sk (per myself) put the translations into ttbc sections under each POS like this. --Duncan 21:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A month has passed, no objection appeared. Tag removed, striking. --Duncan 22:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad structure, tried to fix it a bit, but is Cantonese = zh, or chi, or zho, or yue? (see them all on w:Cantonese). Are we missing a language template here? Cantonese != Mandarin, right? Mutante 19:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now marked for attention by a Cantonese linguist. —Stephen 16:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"adverbial phrase" ? Is that really a POS? Mutante 19:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the POS but it needs a better deifnition line.—msh210 19:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded defn1 a bit and added 2 more senses with e.g. sentences. The defns are clear and consistent with other dictionaries. I removed the rfc tag. -- WikiPedant 03:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we can do better than this. SemperBlotto 10:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly better now? --Duncan 05:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems so. Striking. --Duncan 17:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wild horse in page title, Equus in definition. Mutante 14:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entry should be cleaned up now. --EncycloPetey 17:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, added Category:Horses and plural, and done. Mutante 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No POS. Mutante 14:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sum-of-parts (que + si). One can also say "que oui !", or "que non !", or "qu'il est vilain !". —RuakhTALK 15:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up. Most people have trouble with French si, and compounding that with que makes it even more confusing ("that if?"). Keep. —Stephen 16:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was added as a French noun, but defined as an adjective. --EncycloPetey 03:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Labelled as a "prefix", this word is not actually prefixed to other words. Is it a noun? adjective? particle? --EncycloPetey 07:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation of manong. Fixed. —Stephen 14:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As above; see example sentences in entry. --EncycloPetey 07:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It’s either a noun or an adjective (hard to pin down which). Fixed. —Stephen 14:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please move this to Wikisaurus:vomit? For the verbs "vomit" and "regurgitate", there is the dedicated entry Wikisaurus:regurgitate. Thanks. --Dan Polansky 11:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Etymology given as "past participle of passen" - of which language? Dutch or German (or Proto-Germanic or another) --Jackofclubs 19:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can’t be German, could be Dutch, but probably Middle English. —Stephen 17:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
etymolology wiktified (Middle English). Tag removed. DCDuring TALK 15:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs much cleanup. Is this ever used as a verb (bedabble) or just as an adjective? --EncycloPetey 16:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it as the past form of bedabble, which entry I have also made just now. -- ALGRIF talk 17:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It needs expanding and cleaning up. I am unsure whether this exists since I cannot find anything on it. If it doesn't then I presume the Italian radice is derived from the Latin rādix instead. Caladon 14:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up; it's the ablative singular form of (deprecated template usage) rādix. --EncycloPetey 05:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just look. Mutante 06:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you want to call it English, delete. —Stephen 19:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to Wiktionary:Requests for verification#wa alaikum assalam. Mglovesfun 11:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no structure. Mutante 06:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to exchange zone and fixed.—msh210 22:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No language, no structure. Mutante 06:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —Stephen 13:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typo?—msh210 18:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Must be – even the quotation says rotogravureMichael Z. 2009-02-23 18:55 z
Certainly a typo, but apparently a common one: [1] --Duncan 18:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. If you search English pages and go to the last page (&start=900), you get the more accurate count of 42 results.[2] Michael Z. 2009-02-23 19:19 z
The Web hits are mostly copies of us, identifiable scannos, and probable typos. I moved the quote (of "rotogravure") to that entry and took the liberty of deleting [[rorogravure]]. If anyone feels it desirable, it can be reverted, but should be put through RfV. DCDuring TALK 19:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Michael, as a former rotogravure printer myself I'd been rather shocked. Thanks, DCD, I'm certain you handled it exactly as it should have been handled, and I defy anyone to defy it ;-). --Duncan 20:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong script, or not Yiddish. Yiddish does not use Latin script.—msh210 21:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s English, a variant of meshugge. —Stephen 19:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yiddish does not use Latin script? I think it does, don't you mean "Hebrew" does not use Latin script ? For example de-wp:Jiddisch says it's a "west-germanic language with hebrew AND slawic elements" that is "usually" written in Hebrew script, but also later "Im Englischen ist das Wort Yiddish seit 1886 belegt, so zuerst in dem Roman Children of Gibeon von Walter Besant mit der Erklärung, dass es sich um eine aus Polnisch, Deutsch und Hebräisch gemischte Sprache handele" (Yiddish as a mix of Polish, German and Hebrew)... So there is a German influence, compare meschugge. Mutante 19:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Msh210 is quite right; Yiddish does not use the Latin script, it uses the Hebrew script. Written meshuggah, it's an English loanword from Yiddish משוגע. Angr 19:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yiddish is a Germanic language, yes, and it has influence from Slavic languages, but its script is Hebrew. If you would translate the quotation, it would help me understand your evidence, Mutante.—msh210 17:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely useless - Azeri is written in Cyrillic script (there are certain modern efforts to impose Latin), but in no way in Arabic. Before blanking the section, I would like to hear others' opinions. Bogorm 09:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azeri is written in all three scripts. Arabic script is the only script used by Azeris in Iran. Azeri Wikipedia and Wiktionary use both Latin and Arabic scripts. --Dijan 18:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Azeris in Iran? Well, there may be ſome, as there are Tajiks in Afghaniſtan, but that does not juſtify impoſing Arabic ſcript on Tadjik Wikipedia. Latin and Arabic?? Where is Cyrillic, the official ſcript of that language? The uſer highteth Bogorm converſation 19:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
South Azeri (Iran, around 20,000,000 speakers) uses Arabic script. North Azeri (Azerbaijan, 8,000,000 speakers) now officially uses the Roman alphabet, but Cyrillic is still common there. —Stephen 21:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dijan and Stephen are right. Azeri (considered as the union of North Azeri and South Azeri) is spoken by more people in Iran than in Azerbaijan, and in Iran the Arabic script (specifically the Perso-Arabic script) is used. In Azerbaijan itself the Latin alphabet has been official since 1991, though the Cyrillic alphabet is still widely used. The Azeri Wikipedia uses both Latin and Arabic, but not Cyrillic. Angr 19:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Striking, as the consensus seems to be that the request was misguided. —RuakhTALK 14:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make sense of the etymology, pronunciation, and structure of this. Is there a good base model for Translingual and English of this type of entry? DCDuring TALK 23:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. If someone does set up a good model for these pages, please do let us know. --EncycloPetey 20:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adjective??—msh210 19:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not an adjective. Section removed. --EncycloPetey 20:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of these edits follow standard formatting conventions, but all seem to have useable content. --EncycloPetey 20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up except for those where he put the information in the "to be checked" section. The "to be checked" stuff can be handled by a Tagalog-speaker in due course. —Stephen 20:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shown as Translingual noun. Entry ought to generate 3 Translingual genus names, Latin form, and possibly vernacular names or links thereto/from. DCDuring TALK 20:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up (I think). Nadando 19:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin, no layout — This unsigned comment was added by Amgine (talkcontribs) at 06:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Laid out, tagged with {{attention|la}} for further attention by a Latin-speaker. —RuakhTALK 20:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English inflections gone wild. —Rod (A. Smith) 05:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned-up. Striking header.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - The word and the definition match up just fine. WritersCramp 19:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not the first quotation, the first synonym, the antonym... I think that's what Hippietrail had in mind. (And a few moments before he rfc-ed it even one definition was for a "system"). --Duncan 21:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Treated, tag removed, striking. --Duncan 20:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone take a look at married please. For one thing the first verb section looks odd since its definitions are the same as those for the adjective section. RJFJR 20:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up.RuakhTALK 03:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please move "Wikisaurus:flatulence" to Wikisaurus:flatus, given the sense "expulsion of gas through the anus"? Or is there as a better headword than "flatus" for the sense? Wikisaurus:fart comes to mind, but "fart" is labeled as mildly vulgar. --Dan Polansky 10:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is RFC a good place for this? Would perhaps Tea Room have been better? --Dan Polansky 10:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, job done.

Seems to have duplication.—msh210 16:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned-up.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn’t clean it up, you butchered it. It is two completely separate words, not one word with two meanings. One is an invariable possessive pronoun, the other is an oblique case of a standard personal pronoun. If you want to avoid duplication, you might think of another heading for one of the pronouns besides pronoun. —Stephen 17:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad. The two Etymology headers now clarify that these homographs derive from different roots — you’ve gotta admit that, before you added them, it sure did look as if all that was just the result of redundancy and novice formatting. Could you add etymologies to the entry please, so as to make explicit the fact that these are distinct words?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a German noun, definitions don't read like normal Wiktionary definitions, also an English word? --Jackofclubs 17:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a German word, obviously you are not German or you would know that, see reinrassig. WritersCramp 18:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is a German word, but is not a noun - it is an adjective. My German is just about good enough to know that. --Jackofclubs 18:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up. —Stephen 00:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to have italicizing double quotes removed from around all the transcriptions in the Translations section. --EncycloPetey 13:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. —Stephen 15:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to have italicizing double quotes removed from around all the transcriptions in the Translations section. --EncycloPetey 13:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. —Stephen 14:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to have italicizing double quotes removed from around all the transcriptions in the Translations section. --EncycloPetey 13:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up. —Stephen 14:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition needs to be modernized- are there modern synonyms for this, or is it just dated? Nadando 22:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mollusc classification is in a state of flux right now. I'm not familiar enough with the group to judge the literature I've found, but at least one recent source classifies the limpet and abalone in separate superfamilies within a clade called Vetigastropoda. I do not know if this can in any eay be considered a synonym (lexical or taxonomic), or whether Zygobranchia (note capitalization) has been dismembered, subsumed, or otherwise. The term does not show up in my old college zoology texts, and based on that and the literature I've seen, my best guess is that the term is dated, although it may be better described as archaic. (That is, archaic within the realm of malacology; it would be obsolete to the general population, most likely). --EncycloPetey 02:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up and moved to Zygobranchia. --EncycloPetey 18:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The French section needs whatever the current template is for French adjectives, so that the inflection isn't overlapping down into the Galician section. --EncycloPetey 22:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed with a spacer. —Stephen 23:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only for the one entry. The other 150+ entries that use the same template will also need special formatting to accomodate the table. --EncycloPetey 23:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who knows how could add something to the template for this, but I looked at twenty or so entries and so far have found only one that showed a problem. The vast majority seem fine. —Stephen 01:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish proper noun: Can't figure out what contributor was trying to say: '"nobilited about goodness" -like a pundit'. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinek cleaned up. —Stephen 18:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we either need to "merge" these entries with Category:French past participles or fill it up by recategorizing stuff like joués, jouée and jouées. Opinions? Mglovesfun 10:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think recategorizing is the way to go. --EncycloPetey 21:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Done All items have been recategorized. I've tagged the category for deletion. — Xavier, 16:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: heading was previously "en avoir marre de".

A pile of crap - what's a transitive verbal expression anyway? Needs wikifying, probably moving to en avoir marre. --Rising Sun 16:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to en avoir marre, cleaned up some. Please take a look. —RuakhTALK 17:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. I'm removing the {{rfc}} tag. — Xavier, 16:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs basic format. --EncycloPetey 23:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done now, I think. DCDuring TALK 14:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms section needs help.msh210 22:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough? DCDuring TALK 23:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and thank you. If it's McArthur after the general, then it's more likely MacArthur, incidentally. Striking anyway.msh210 21:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to move this category to "Category:Heraldry"; we do not have "Category:Biological terminology" and other analogues of the title "Category:Heraldic terminology". --Dan Polansky 16:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Most terms in the category are there by template, and so can be moved by editing the template. --EncycloPetey 16:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completed. The Category:Heraldic terminology is now redirected to the Category:Heraldry. Alternatively, it can be deleted. --Dan Polansky 07:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should remain for at least a few days before deletion, since we want caches and such to clear, lest people hit a dead link. --EncycloPetey 14:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

verb section. Mutante 19:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up. —Stephen 02:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation is on a subpage instead of the talkpage, and, worse, is in French.msh210 17:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by Ruakh, whom I thank. Striking.msh210 20:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A context template... sorta. Needs help from someone familiar with {{context}}.msh210 00:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  DoneRuakhTALK 14:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology states that the mire element derives, via Middle English, from the Native American Onondaga language! Presumably, the editor meant Old Norse (non), not Onondaga (ono). I’d make the change myself right now, except the etymology also has the problem of being {{unreferenced}}, so it’d be good if someone else took a look, too.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up: [[mire#Etymology]] confirms your suspicion. I've added {{unreferenced}}. —RuakhTALK 14:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Arabic script. --EncycloPetey 03:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be attestable as a given name, at the very least. Probably a transcription of the Arabic, but I'm not sure what "language" this name belongs to. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up with conventions for English known names, and surnames that come from another language. Goldenrowley 02:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "aneurysm" should be the main entry while "aneurism" an alternative spelling entry, I infer from unambiguous Google rates. Can an admin please move "aneurism" to "aneurysm", to keep the revision history of "aneurism"? --Dan Polansky 19:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

aneurysm seems to have all the history. Aneurism reentered with usage notes. DCDuring TALK 19:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect; thank you. --Dan Polansky 21:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation in the template page should be removed and replaced with {{seeTalk}}, which I cannot do as the template is protected.

Can someone confirm that this template is deprecated? If so, the sentence that I have added to its documentation can be edited so:

"This template is possibly deprecated, to be replaced with the template {{topic cat}}."

--Dan Polansky 07:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated, yes, but there is still a lot of work to be done before the template is done away with. The {{topic cat}} template system isn't understood by a lot of editors here, but it does have tremendous advantages over {{nav}}. For one, it doesn't put the full pull-down list of languages into every language category (thereby reducing the system response time), but more importantly it puts the parent categories into a separate location, so that all the categories of the same name will automatically have the same parents in the appropriate language. No more independently entering, editing, and checking all the myriad categories because they're controlled from a central location for each topical category title. --EncycloPetey 14:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have updated the talk page Template talk:nav. --Dan Polansky 07:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs plural (Isländerinen? Isländerinnen !). The definition is incorrect, too, I think; this means as Icelandic woman only, right?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. You were right on all counts. Angr 12:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Written like a WP disambiguation page rather than a dictionary entry. --EncycloPetey 18:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up, second opinions very welcome. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows whether 2nd sense is "really" needed (rhetorical question)? Looks good to me. DCDuring TALK 18:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was gonna delete this, but since it seems to exist we might as well clean it up. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original source of the problem was a misspelling months ago by one of our regular editors. I wonder how many links we have to misspelled words from our entries. I think we should have none. (We might have uses in quotations.) DCDuring TALK 17:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mglovesfun (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up. —Stephen 16:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noun? Verb? Both? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The noun is a dead certainty. Whether we could attest to "one-finger saluted" is the only question in my mind about the verb. If we use {[term|infl}} for the verb we wouldn't have to go through that attestation work now. DCDuring TALK 12:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not: G.B. mandatory search. I'll file an rfv. Michael Z. 2009-07-25 16:48 z
Noun added. Seems clean enough. Now at RfV for verb. DCDuring TALK 18:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this exists. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. But what cleanup are you requesting? --EncycloPetey 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I think I misread the article (sorry). Still an image would improve the article 100%. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Striking, found an image on Commons. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 Etymology headers, 1 PoS. Needs structure repair: split senses by etymology or combine etys under one ety header. DCDuring TALK 17:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it’s two spellings for the same Proto-Slavic word. Either one will do. —Stephen 16:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The non-English terms in Category:English compound words need the parameter "lang=" added, so that they land in their proper categories for compound words. The languages concerned are Finnish and Hungarian above all, and then sometimes Norwegian, Dutch, and others. --Dan Polansky 11:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have found all the non-English terms... The category should be OK now. --MaEr 18:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hence struck out. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

split by etymology "re-" + "sound" vs. "resounen" DCDuring TALK 02:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Paul G 12:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RuakhTALK 01:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta love the irony. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a mop and bucket to it: see what you think.​—msh210 18:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! —RuakhTALK 11:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a few of these that don't start with capital letters (click on the small 'a' on the bar in the category). Some of them seems somewhat okay (adjective + noun to make a noun) but others are clearly wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up. —Stephen 16:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mutante 06:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up. Korodzik 15:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to become something worth keeping, rfd debate on WT:RFDO#Appendix:Arabic numeral has been suspended for the time being. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now a redirect, so done. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tosh? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

del by sb,26.9.9--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 09:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence for the etymology being other than simply (deprecated template usage) horse + (deprecated template usage) whip? The OED doesn't give the etymology we give in this entry. If ours is correct, it needs to be cleaned up, with capitals added to the language names and "portmanteau" removed if it is simply a compound rather than a blend. — Paul G 14:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially the user was just giving the etymologies of horse and whip in this article, but they have their own article so I put {{compound|horse|whip}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. — Paul G 12:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrectly formatted. Is the etymology truly a blend (a portmanteau) or merely a compound? — Paul G 14:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Thanks. — Paul G 12:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German. Mglovesfun (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Tiefenmesser and cleaned up. —Stephen 01:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mglovesfun (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DCDuring has cleaned it up. Equinox 20:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a definition. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now has a definition. --EncycloPetey 19:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded in fast#Usage notes and easy#Usage notes. Should be briefer, clearer, and better referenced. Or maybe just deleted. —RuakhTALK 20:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting it would be the most easiest and most practical way to make this briefer. We have no need for such things in a dictionary. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indeed. H. (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC) I come back to this. I think it is a good way to make sure both pages have the same content, which seems to be wanted here. But it should be briefer. H. (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have at the moment a noun definition for Ety 1 saying: "(countable, usually in plural) An item of merchandise" and one at Ety 2 saying: "(finance) Identical items that are produced, then traded, bought, or sold, for the purpose of consumption". Don't they refer to the same sense? --Duncan 22:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second etymology seems wrong. The Online Ety Dictionary says that plural "goods" for "property" is attested in 1280, with previous OE use of the singular with the same meaning. It just seems like a redundant sense if the separate Etymology is wrong. DCDuring TALK 23:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ety 2 deleted, tag left for the time being. --Duncan 23:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed, striking. --Duncan 11:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irish words without POS


Irish words without part of speech, category, and a few other glitches.:

amhlaidh, amhras, anall, aois, aontaím, araon, athraím, athrú, atá, ádh, áirid, áirithe

Mutante 19:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Angr 20:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An "Arabic" word in the wrong script with lots of mixed information. --EncycloPetey 15:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No part of speech and translation Mutante 01:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up. —Stephen 03:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:egg timer. Retro00064 05:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atelaes is quite right, we’re not here to educate users on the correct term to use, but to record the terms that people use and describe the meanings that we give those terms, logically or illogically. —Stephen 14:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks. Retro00064 10:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hideous. Too many repetitive images. Doesn't work well with rhs ToC. DCDuring TALK 00:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of very good work has been done to this entry, and the other letters of the alphabet. Striked --Volants 13:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly {{rfd}}, I was torn between the two. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, copyright violation. Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

usually uncountable seems to be part of some lang-noun, but not for French? - Amgine/talk 19:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{fr-noun-unc}}? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mglovesfun (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol... the fool misspelled it... It's (deprecated template usage) LMFAO... 50 Xylophone Players talk 12:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good effort from a newbie. Looks nearly ok now. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entry is named in wrong script, or else is labelled with the incorrect language. --EncycloPetey 01:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate: The header says "Arabic", the inflection line categorizes the entry as "French", and the synonyms listed are English. --EncycloPetey 23:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what title this should be under, which will make a big difference in whether the definition is positive or negative. --EncycloPetey 09:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... but it should not be speedy deleted IMO. It is an idiom. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem to me to be native-speaker English, though it is intelligible. DCDuring TALK 17:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gross national something I suppose. Not an error for GNP? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gross national income. Pingku 19:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where to start. Very odd. Pingku 20:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a go, the second sense may merit an RFV as it seems difficult to use it in that way. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, shouldn't this be an early grave? Mglovesfun (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That looks much better. Thanks. Pingku 15:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be an acronym anyway? – Krun 12:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to RFV, no point cleaning it up if it isn't in use. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to WT:RFDO#Category:Drugs

As pointed out on WT:RFDO for {{drug}}, in the US drug can mean "medication" and in the UK it doesn't ever (AFAIK). Is there any reason to start a Category:Medications as a parent category for this? I'd say yes, or people are never going to understand what the category means. I certainly don't. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not as a parent; I think it needs to be a replacement. The term "drug" has too many different common meanings to be a useful category name, IMHO. --EncycloPetey 16:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese needs wikifying. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done along with all relevant kana and kanji entries. :) 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous problems with spelling, several uncited claims, and bizarre sets of lists (especially under the heading "Communication Styles") which could be re-written in paragraph form. — This comment was unsigned.

Are you sure? Clicking on the link says that the page has never existed. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done it myself, feel free to improve even more. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rfc-sense: (transitive) (reality television) To eliminate a contestant too early in the competition.

This is clearly bollocks, it's more like the figurative sense of rob. Possibly even a literal sense of it, to steal something that is in this case, an abstract noun. But at the very least, it's not restricted to reality TV. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did it myself. Sense was redundant to one above. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need to split the topical category for [English terms for/about "Greek letters"] (eg beta) from the non-topical category for [terms that are "Greek letters"] (eg β). The former could have gone in "en:Greek letters" but since Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-08/Add en: to English topical categories did not pass I'm not sure where to put them. --Bequw¢τ 21:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See [[Category:Greek letter names]]. All non-translingual content should be there. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, well almost. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added heta - needs improving. SemperBlotto 18:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel hesitant cleaning this up as I don't know the phrase. But, should we move to the cat's whiskers first? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi, but in the wrong script. --EncycloPetey 03:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup, at least, is required. --EncycloPetey 23:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no structure, 1400s English? Mutante 19:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up. Moved to RfV. DCDuring TALK 21:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please move this over to the more common spell checker, turning "spellchecker" into an alternative spelling entry? --Dan Polansky 08:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.msh210 22:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Lithuanian verb needs cleanup. --EncycloPetey 18:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Opiaterein has cleaned up --Volants 13:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition needs considerable trimming. --EncycloPetey 07:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radically trimmed. DCDuring TALK 15:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the format, but the definition needs much work. --EncycloPetey 04:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now alternative spelling of breakdancing --Volants 13:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs severe editing; currently reads like an encyclopedia article. --EncycloPetey 05:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was just an ephemeral thing. I've reverted it back to the previous version. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French invariable nouns


I think that the name of the category is misleading. It seems to be used for nouns that can be either masculine or feminine and that's not what an invariable noun is. {{fr-noun|mf}} might be to blame. —Internoob (Talk|Cont.) 21:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. oasis is invariable (it's a rule in French for -s, -x and -z words), but almost all nouns currently in this category are variable. Lmaltier 21:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The category:French invariable nouns seems to be of little interest (most such nouns will be words ending with s, x or z). A category French nouns which can be either masculine or feminine is very interesting, but only if it excludes words such as Abkhaze, i.e. nouns which are used as masculine ou feminine nouns depending on the gender, because these nouns are much too numerous and would hide interesting cases... This category exists on fr.wikt: Noms multigenres en français. Lmaltier 19:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least a little debate over what (deprecated template usage) invariable means. From example the plural of oasis is oasis, but it does have a plural. But some nouns can never have a plural and it's nothing to do with what letter they end in. Like numbers (cinq yes, cinqs no) names of letters (thêta yes, thêtas no) and given and surnames (in English you could pluralise Emma for example, but never in French). So I prefer to differentiate between a singular and plural with the same spelling and a noun that can't have a plural. I suppose the only couple of examples that come to me in English are sheep and salmon. You can't tell me that there is no plural of sheep, can you? Mglovesfun 22:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now a sysops, so I've removed the troublesome parameter in {{fr-noun}}. I'm certainly not against renaming the category, finding a good way to fill it up will be much harder than that. Mglovesfun 08:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, [[Category:French epicene nouns]] might be ok since we have one for masculine and feminine nouns. Invariable in this contexte is borrowed from the French invariable, meaning that it doesn't accept any inflections. Mglovesfun 08:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in French, "invariable" words are words always written the same way, whatever their use. oasis, toujours, et are good examples. Note that some surnames can be pluralized in French (e.g. les Bourbons, because it's a royal family). Lmaltier 09:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RFC tag has been removed. --Volants 14:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor format throughout and it seems untidily to point out some kind distinction between the term as it is in Portugal and Brazil. 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Volants 14:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Looks suspiciously like a cow to me. Yep it's a cow. Mglovesfun 22:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is. But this is a horse, of course, of course. Angr 14:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now a definition for a horse and cow. --Volants 14:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Latter-Day Saint -- 21:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved --Volants 14:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This definition is incorrect; it is describing the cross of Lorraine.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, with a slight modification, the definition is correct. The Latin cross has only one horizontal crossbar; the cross of Lorraine has two horizontal crossbars. --EncycloPetey 00:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Sorry; I misread the definition.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

should be reviewed--Diligent 10:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something weird must have happened when the last vandalism was reverted. Although all the steps look fine in the history, the page contained new glitches apparently created by the MW software. I've reverted (again) which has corrected the problem. --EncycloPetey 22:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs cleanup (and probably verification too). I note that the "US definitions" include UK-specific terms. --EncycloPetey 19:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sent to RFV --Volants 14:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

encyclopedic, bad usex. DCDuring TALK 01:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now better def; removed old usexes, added 2 rfex tags; removed rfc. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verb. Should the usage note be converted into a new sense? Also: Is the existing sense transitive or intransitive?—msh210 17:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It look like User:Ruakh has cleaned up this --Volants 15:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs someone familiar with Esperanto to correct part of speech. Nadando 03:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:AugPi has cleaned up --Volants 15:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaans doesn't normally capitalize nouns AFAICT; is this an exception?​—msh210 16:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you’re correct, Pantoffel is German, pantoffel is Afrikaans. —Stephen 08:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Done. This illustrates, incidentally, a problem with didyoumean's redirecting: people wish to enter a word in the case we lack. (This Afrikaans entry added by an anon to the German page, perhaps due to didyoumean (though who knows).)​—msh210 16:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And German entry fixed. --Volants 14:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

am#Romanian, was at first nominated for deletion but blatantly exists. I'd think some templates would fix this quite quickly. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you've already fixed it. Stephen has removed RFC tag --Volants 14:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creates a large awkward table, and doesn't categorise the verbs, hence 70 verbs in Special:UncategorizedPages. I'd do something myself, but I'd probably just end up breaking it even more. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it categorize the verb? Most conjugation tables don't categorize, becaue the inflection line template does that already. So, the way to fix the lack of categorization is to add {{infl}}. As far as size, this is actually a rather compact table compared to some. I'm not even sure it's worth making it collapsible. However, I'll defer to community opinion.
The real problem here is that {{nl-verb}} has been used as a redirect to this conjugation table template, which means the conjugation table is sometimes appearing on the inflection line. I'm not sure a bot can be made to clean this up, but what seems to be needed is (1) a repositioning of the conjugation table in a Conjugation section after the verb, (2) a use of {{nl-verb-conj}} in that Conjugation section, (3) a proper rewrite of {{nl-verb}} to serve as an inflection line template, and (4) a use of {{nl-verb}} on the inflection line. This affects over 500 entries, and will not be a simple cleanup. --EncycloPetey 13:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the table, by redirecting it internally to {{nl-verb-table}}. Also, in the inflection line, the following templates are supposed to be used: {{nl-verb-weak}}, {{nl-verb-strong}}, and {{nl-verb-irreg}}, depending on what kind of verb it is. —AugPi 17:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stricken --Volants 14:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, wrong script? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Google search shows there are many Armenian-American Chaparians. So we can as well consider this sort of an English surname and have an English entry for it along with Armenian. --Vahagn Petrosyan 03:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stricken --Volants 14:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defs need rewording as unit of measurement. DCDuring TALK 01:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Goldenrowley has addressed these concerns --Volants 14:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defined as polite request. Perhaps if it were "Could you please tell me". Can the translations be saved by some move? DCDuring TALK 20:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks more like a speedy delete to me. -- WikiPedant 20:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've recategorised it under "phrasebook" (and no other) as per I love you. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And others have added good translations and wikified --Volants 14:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually hilariously bad at writing definitions for English words... so here it is. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting the WT:ELE right is a help. Also citations. For multiword entries I don't think that en-verb is worthwhile, though irregular verbs make its use at least arguable. DCDuring TALK 18:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. Plenty of great cleanup --Volants 14:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth definition is "a trait of a dog", as though it were a noun — should it be reworded, or moved to the noun section / the entry backbiter? — Beobach972 02:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a joke definition, so delete or move to rfv. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definition delete as fatuous. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Struck --Volants 14:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More "plain" English please. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SemperBlotto has redefined --Volants 14:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition should be rephrased: the current definition "with extreme care, precision, and attention to detail" is of an adverb, not of an adjective. --Dan Polansky 10:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look. DCDuring TALK 23:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, cleaneed up--Volants 14:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mglovesfun (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Goldenrowley has removed the RFC tag, wikified --Volants 14:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hoke is a valid Scrabble word, but I don't know if it means what it says in this article. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transcription, or real? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real transcription of a Japanese surname and place name. —Stephen 16:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mutante 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added gender and fixed typos, so done. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish word. Missing part of speech and basic formatting. --EncycloPetey 01:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hekaheka has cleaned up --Volants 14:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May need a better definition line.​—msh210 18:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has been redefined --Volants 14:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we have a usable definition of long word, this might as well go in the dustbin. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has passed RFD --Volants 14:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bg section

Apparently cleaned up --Volants 14:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usage notes seem very POV --Volants 13:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Author has cleaned up --Volants 15:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entry by a non-native speaker. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen has fixed it --Volants 15:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As above, this word needs a meaningful definition. "In a vindicatory manner" says nothing useful about the meaning. --EncycloPetey 03:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Says nothing useful? really now...I think you're shooting it down a bit too much ;P And just who is making these bloody complaints which you are going on about? 50 Xylophone Players talk 14:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anatoli, Stephen, DcDuring, and myself, among others. Why does this matter? It is a real problem. --EncycloPetey 15:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be progress if there were a real citation, especially one from the last hundred years. My imagination fails me with some older coinages. DCDuring TALK 15:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well there you go...Equinox has cited it and expanded the def. a bit. 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Came across this by accident. Scarily, {{Europe}} redirects to this, so any entries using Europe categorize in European French by default, not English. I'd suggest moving this to Europe, then just using lang=fr on the 40 or so cases where it's used. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've alrady done that --Volants 15:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

criketsens:pl insert plain engl4/so laymen getit2..--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My translation of the above: "Cricket sense: please insert plain English so laymen get it too."
The cricket sense given in the entry is this: "(adjective) (cricket, of a shot) Played with a horizontal bat to hit the ball backward of point."
The sense has no example sentence. No idea what to do with it; I do not understand the sense either, but I do not know how cricket is played, what "horizontal bat" means ("bat" is presumably something like a baseball bat), and what is the "point", backward of which the ball should be hit. --Dan Polansky 13:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see #cut 2 below. DCDuring TALK 17:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noun sense: "One who favors involving multiple parties when approaching foreign relations". This is pretty hard to comprehend. Also, are we sure this doesn't just mean "one who supports multilateralism"? Korodzik 15:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etym., pron., and Mason & Dixon quot. all need clean-up; Introducing Foucault may need a separate sense, since the one we have is pretty vague, and the sense used seems more specific.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Introducing Foucault citation looks like it may be referring to mathesis universalis. Something similar to the citation is at Foucault – José Guilherme Merquior. Also note the italics in both. — Pingkudimmi 17:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]