text: Category:Spanish terms spelled with Î

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Category:Spanish terms spelled with Î


text:
小便斗

Noun

 * 1) urinal

title: 小便斗


text: Category:Spanish terms spelled with Ê

title: Category:Spanish terms spelled with Ê


text:
Talk:bera

Sorry for that, clicked the wrong button! --Ivan Štambuk 02:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:bera


text: Category:Spanish terms spelled with Â

title: Category:Spanish terms spelled with Â


text:
地蠶

Noun

 * 1) scarab beetle grub
 * 2)  caterpillar in the genus
 * 3)  earthworm

title: 地蠶


text:
Wiktionary:Unresolved issues/Names of specific entities

Previous Discussions: Beer_parlour_archive/2007/April

Trademark names
We need a policy for trademarks. If we have one, I can't find it (and it should be at Trademarks). I think that widely know trademark names should be included if they can be used metaphorically (e.g. Cadillac), descriptively (Mark wears a Rolex and drives a Lexus, whereas Joe wears a Timex and drives a Honda), if the mark is approaching genericism (Kleenex, Xerox), or if the mark is a specific use of word that would otherwise be in the dictionary anyway (Bounty for paper towels, Crest for toothpaste, Janus for mutual funds). I'm putting together a listing of the most widely known brand names at User:BD2412/brand names.

Also, I've noticed that from time to time folks need to look up trademark registrations here, so I'm going to provide some quick tips on how to do this.
 * 1. Go to the United States Patent and Trademark Office trademark main page.
 * 2. Near the top of the right-hand column, click [Search].
 * 3. I recommend the Free Form Search. Type in the word you're looking for followed by [comb] and you'll get a combination of searches for the word alone, with punctuation, or as part of a phrase. Also, it often helps to add "and live[ld]" to a search, as this will limit it to live marks and filter out marks no longer registered.

Cheers! bd2412 T 23:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with most of this, but disagree with your view that the Bounty and Crest and Janus trademarks should be included just because bounty and crest are words and Janus is a dictionary-worthy proper noun. (Maybe they should be included anyway, but if we develop criteria for inclusion of trademarks, I think they should apply regardless of whether the trademark represents its own entry, or simply an additional sense in an existing entry.) —RuakhTALK 03:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that trademarks that incorporate a common word for an uncommon purpose (e.g. Apple) merit a one-line entry because the word is already in the dictionary, and the trademark definition is a legitimate alternative definition of a word for which we are trying to give complete information. That said, I think such instances should be limited to trademarks that can be demonstrated by reference to a source such as a trade journal to be very widely known and very strong. bd2412 T 19:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I strongly disagree with this (sorry bd2412, I just seem to keep picking fights with you, nothing personal :-)). Certainly we should have entries for bandaid (or is it band-aid?) and xerox, because they're used in an idiomatic sense, not necessarily related to the brand itself, perhaps rolex as well.  But, my opinion is that they should not merit entries until they can be put in non-capitals, as xerox and bandaid can.  Otherwise this opens us up to including every brand name in existence, which is not dictionary material.  Unless someone can show exactly where else the line should be drawn, I say we draw it here.  Atelaes 04:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there are resources that would make it fairly easy to draw sensible lines. I've been tossing some ideas back and forth in my mind and would say, for example, that we can easily agree to exclude company names that are just collections of surnames (e.g. Morgan Stanley Dean Whitter, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Ethan Allen). I do, however, think that we should make every effort to list all brand names for medications (Tylenol, Dexatrim, Motrin, Prozac) because I can see a particular utility to such listings, in part because the drug makers tend to come up with fanciful words, and in part because most such drugs can be described by reference to their key ingredient (i.e. acetaminophen, ibuprofen). I'd also be rather inclined to include fanciful car names (Integra, Montero, Prius). There are hardly so many that it would cause a fuss. With respect to other corporate or brand names, I'd set a higher criteria than the CFI to show that the brand name is used in some descriptive or attributive sense, but that should be easy for truly mega-brands such as Coke and Pepsi, McDonalds, Microsoft, etc. bd2412 T 03:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That might be useful, but the utility argument is a very well documented logical fallacy. We're aren't aiming to be useful, we're aiming to be a dictionary (which is useful, of course, but not just). Usefulness includes TV listings, atlases, currency converters, whatever you can think of; there are lots of useful things. I fail to see why we would give any class of words immunity from CFI, and I especially fail to see why, if we did, we would want them to be medications and car models. Those aren't within the urview of a dictionary, but are more appropriate at an encyclopedia. Trademarked names or brand names still need to pass attestation with independent use (and not just mention). I would suggest a vote to make the point clear, but I'm already satisfied with CFI's wording: "To be included, the use of a trademark or company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word) has to be attested." Dmcdevit 06:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Beer_parlour_archive/2009/March

Specific entities

 * See also Talk:France, Votes/pl-2007-05/Placenames 2, Votes/pl-2007-06/Placenames 2-A, Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2007-06/Placenames 2-A, WT:RFD, Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza, Talk:Golden Gate Bridge, WT:RFD, WT:RFD

This is a request to rewrite WT:CFI as it pertains to the inclusion of specific entities, that is, proper nouns that refer to a single, unique object or place. Currently "a name should be included if it is used attributively, with a widely understood meaning". Sears Tower and until recently Empire State Building were named as failing this test. Many other current entries like Golden Gate Bridge and even France would fail as well, though there is community support to keep. In fact, there is good reason to include specific entities such as these. They have exact translations into other languages, sometimes based on the translation of certain words, or a transliteration of the spelling, or phonetic approximation, or some mixture. This can often be inaccurate from historical times but preserved to the present, so assumptions cannot be made. While an encyclopedia is useful for detailed information on the entity, translations are our linguistic duty.

In my mind the question is whether the term has entered the lexicon, which is weighed through citation, and hopefully not arduously. I propose to expand the criteria to "attributively or generically" and/or "metaphorically". I would also like to clarify what is meant by this with examples, as is done with a subpage for brand names. However, I am not certain myself on what would count, or even what does count now, particularly as there had been debate on the meaning of attributive. Your thoughts and examples on this would be greatly appreciated. Personally I don't believe that notability should play into the determination, as it does on Wikipedia but never here. However, I would like to add a clause similar to "clearly widespread use" to prevent overburdening with citation requests, perhaps with "clearly widespread knowledge of" or something similar.

What I mean by generic/metaphoric are uses that don't mean the entity itself, but an entity with analogous characteristics. For instance, use of a(n) instead of the is a great example, and thankfully not usually so difficult to search for: "the energy needed to keep a Sears Tower or a World Trade Center functioning". Also the...of as in "the Washington, DC, of Western Europe", possibly other constructions. Let me know what you think. 72.177.113.91 08:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I'd be in favour, although I'd like to give everyone a chance to point out any obvious flaws we've missed. This is a likeable proposal because it reinterprets or relaxes the existing rule, rather than adding new ones.

 * However, I think we could go even further, within our mandate, although I can't think of any suitable criteria. To support toponymy, the division of onomastics which studies place names, we could certainly allow a much broader range of geographic names.  This is done in etymological dictionaries, and specialized geographic dictionaries.

 * But we must stick to information about the terms, and not about the things they represent. Etymology, pronunciation, usage are in.  Encyclopedic and gazetteer information are not. —Michael Z. 2009-03-12 19:42 z

 * Wikigazeteer would be a great project within WMF. We could incubate it here. Initially, we could focus on the terms alone, which would build on the linguistic diversity among Wiktionarians. We would thereby, together with WP, provide a core for any eventual independent Wikigazeteer. We should be happy to serve the WMF community and eventual Wikigazeteer enthusiasts by providing the maintenance during the incubator period. Even in long run we could provide the much-appreciated service of etymological support as we do for Wikipedia and Wikispecies. We probably should provide a category structure ASAP. Who wants to run with this? DCDuring TALK 20:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Let's concentrate on a dictionary of geographic names, on etymological principals. A gazetteer is fundamentally different – it's about places, not  the names of places.  Of course someone's WikiGaz project would be welcome to grab our data and structure, but let's not duplicate Wikipedia by making a gazetteer here. —Michael Z. 2009-03-12 21:35 z
 * Do you mean, Mzajac, that London should be defined not as "1. The capital city of the United Kingdom and of England, situated near the mouth of the River Thames in southeast England, with a metropolitan population of more than 12,000,000. 2. A city in southwestern Ontario, Canada, with a population of approximately 300,000. 3. A city in Ohio, USA." but only as "1. " or perhaps "1. "?—msh210 ℠  21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Do you mean, Msh210, that if the (uncited, undated) population figures were removed, you wouldn't know which city was being referred to? —Michael Z. 2009-03-13 04:33 z

 * Do you think that there should be separate entries for London, England and London, Ontario? Or just a single entry for London with separate senses? DCDuring TALK 10:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Definitely one entry about the place name “London”, no entries about particular localities. Heck, for dictionary purposes we could list all of the places under a single sense as far as I'm concerned – but perhaps that would become unsatisfactory in the long run, as more information is added (e.g., Londonderry derives from the sense of London, England, not London, Ontario). —Michael Z. 2009-03-13 15:03 z

 * So this would an entry with a definition that needed no definition, being a locus for pronunciations and translations? I suppose you might need some ability to discriminate between pronunciations by referent, say, between Cairo, Egypt (chiro), and Cairo, Illinois ('kay-ro). Would you want the entry to indicate whether the name was in current use with respect to a specific referent (see Salisbury) and, if not, what the successor was? DCDuring TALK 17:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

 * And etymology, of course. This would add depth to the remainder of our dictionary, as words spring from place names and vice versa (Tyndall stone, chicken Kiev, cf. Київ). I'm not sure what you mean about the referent, but currency of usage is relevant, and that a place is named after another belongs in the etymology.

 * Well, London can be defined as the city that is located near the mouth of the Thames, being the capital and largest city of the United Kingdom. In practice, I suppose many places would be identified rather than “defined”.  This isn't much different from our special handling of entries on individual letters, numerals, symbols, etc.

 * I don't think the separate pronunciations for Cairo warrant two main headings – this could be done with a qualifier label for the pronunciation, or a usage note.

 * Perhaps such entries can be distinguished with a Toponym heading instead of just Proper noun. —Michael Z. 2009-03-13 22:51 z

 * (Belatedly responding to Mzajac's reply to me.) I don't mean anything. I was merely trying to clarify your intent. That said, I would not mind if only placenames that met strict criteria (such as our current attributive-use criterion) had full definitions (like "A city in England"), and all others were allowed in if attested but with only quasi-definitions like "A city name" or "A place name". I think that that's workable.—msh210 ℠  16:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

 * It could be definitionless. The entry could just be something like a Wikispecies entry, putting each place in hierarchies of places, eg, EU/Great Britain/England/London/Knightsbridge, providing etymologies, alternative spellings, synonyms, translations, and links to other projects. DCDuring TALK 22:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I personally think that most place names should go in Wikipedia. I'd be fine expanding upon the "used attributively" clause but I don't want them all here. Wikipedia handles them much better (e.g. the pop-out WikiMiniAtlas was created for them). One reason people often mention for including place names is that someone needs to catalogue translations of place names, and since bilingual dictionaries often do this we should as well. But when I want to translation a proper noun (whether place name or other), I almost always go to wikipedia and find the appropriate iwiki link. To add one that's missing, create the article (potentially a "stub") in the target language wiki and insert in the iwiki links. While it's not perfect, it does a good job. Wikipedia is different than standard encyclopedias, and analogously just because bilingual dictionaries provide translations of proper nouns doesn't necesarily mean we should. We can reinterpret our goals in the context of the wikifamily. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 01:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How many clicks does it take you? How many clicks could we offer? How likely would a user be to find us rather than Wikipedia from Google or similar starting point? DCDuring TALK 01:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

 * as a non-native speaker the standard pronunciation of say place names would be paramount for me to know to avoid ridicule of less knowledgeable native speakers [I speak from experience unfortunately, sad smiley]than one finds here in thewictionary community -- so please please, whether  under  form of links or direct entries, help make such information available!史凡 07:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The general principle is: all words in all languages. In my opinion, New York, Phoenix, Stratford-upon-Avon, William and Shakespeare are words, and should be accepted. On the other hand, Phoenix, AZ or William Shakespeare are names, but not words, and should not be accepted. Lmaltier 21:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC) And Wikipedia does not include pronunciations, etymologies, derived terms, anagrams, etc. Lmaltier 21:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, in point of fact, Wikipedia articles routinely contain pronunciation and etymological info. See e.g. Chicago.  And thanks to interwikis, they contain translations into most languages that users are likely to need (and the FL wiki article will often contain useful contextual information that one would be unlikely to find on Wiktionary).  As for derived terms, I'm not sure how much value they add, but I would support expanding the attributive use criterion to include any place name that is an etymon of one or more valid words.  (In fact, that was my original understanding of the criterion, though I have since been disabused of that.) -- Visviva 04:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Beer_parlour_archive/2009/August - Short discussion leading to a vote.

Clarification of WT:CFI
This comes from Requests for deletion, and many other discussions. I'd like to amend the guideline as follows. Please suggest improvements, and I'll start a vote shortly. —Michael Z. 2009-08-19 04:47 z

 * A name should be included if it is used attributively, with a widely understood meaning, independent of its referent . For example: New York is included because “New York” is used attributively in phrases like “New York delicatessen”, to describe refer to a particular sort of delicatessen. A person or place name that is not used attributively (and that is not a word that otherwise should be included) should not be included. Lower Hampton, Sears Tower, and George Walker Bush thus should not be included. Similarly, whilst Jefferson (an attested family name word with an etymology that Wiktionary can discuss) and Jeffersonian (an adjective) should be included, Thomas Jefferson (which isn’t used attributively) should not.

Started a vote at Votes/pl-2009-08/Clarify names of specific entities. —Michael Z. 2009-08-27 04:53 z

Since there's no discussion, I'll start the vote now. —Michael Z. 2009-08-30 17:23 z  Votes/pl-2009-08/Clarify names of specific entities - Vote fails.

Beer_parlour

Names of specific entries (again)
I thought I'd copy the URL to save time (here). The several problems I can find (for me, anyway) are:

 * 1) What is a specific entry? Proper nouns aren't always specific entries, like Stephen as you can have several Stephens. So it refers to things that there are only one of, right? Still, ambiguous.
 * 2) Used attributively. Okay I'll spare you use but attributively and attributive aren't very detailed and give almost no help. If it's just the grammatical sense of attributively, then almost any place name will meet CFI because place names (in English) don't have adjectival forms. So I'm from Leeds. A Leeds taxi, a Leeds restaurant. All of these attributive, right? I'd think as long as the place name is not extremely, the attributive form won't be either.
 * 3) Widely understood meaning. A debate broke out over Daffy Duck that even though it can be cited attributively, it doesn't have a widely understood meaning. What does that even mean? I mean Daffy Duck means a cartoon duck, right? In the same way that Leeds means a city in West Yorkshire. Is there another meaning of Leeds? Or Confucius means a 5th Century BC philosopher. AFAICT "widely understood meaning" doesn't put any limits on what the meaning is, it just has to have one.

Admittedly, and I can barely stress this enough I don't really have a better idea but maybe someone else does? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I have boldly edited Editable CFI to reflect my understanding of this annoyingly oracular passage. I hope that those who disagree will boldly revert or revise my edit, and perhaps we can eventually work out something that will have a working consensus behind it.  Here's the problem asa I see it: the lack of clarity of the current wording has given everyone cover to read whatever they want into it (or to ignore it entirely).  Any efforts to clarify it thus mean that someone's ox will get gored, and so are voted down for the most ridiculously disingenuous reasons.  It's worth reiterating that there was never any consensus for CFI to be set in stone ; the current state of  is purely the product of some erratic editing by Richardb and Connel in 2006. -- Visviva 10:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's already about 50 times better. If we could have a few more people edit it and then have a vote on it, I would be pretty happy. But at the very least, it has to be worded in a way that is a lot less ambiguous, I tend to think that everything is at least a little bit ambiguous. But hey, c'est la vie. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For (1) see Appendix:English proper nouns. Visviva got my understanding of (2+3) right (a definition independent of the referent). --Bequw → ¢ • τ 14:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Until we can agree on sets of proper nouns that should be included in their own right, I don't see a successful vote to make the change. The current proposal makes one criterion clearer, but rewords it in such a way as to exclude most names of countries, etc., which is a set of proper nouns most community editors have supported for inclusion in the past. I have made one small edit to the last sentence, since the way that is was worded would require that we include Thomas Jefferson (or any other full name) if there were more than one individual with that name, which is probably not what was intended. --EncycloPetey 01:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


text: daigaku

title: daigaku


text: shiritsudaigaku

title: shiritsudaigaku


text:
Wiktionary:Unresolved issues/Anagrams

Previous Discussions: Beer_parlour_archive/2009/August

Anagrams
I'd like to propose some changes to this. Not only does this totally ignore foreign languages, why not allow diacritics? In Scrabble diacritics are always ignored, because there are no tiles that have them! Only a few languages used diacritics for Scrabble - French and Romanian don't, nor does Italian, and Spanish only has ñ, nothing else. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm not responding to your specific points here, but since (accents aside) the definition of an anagram is so algorithmically measurable, I'd like to see this automated. I realise it's a lot of work for something of no use to most readers, though. In the same way that the alphabetical index is periodically generated, perhaps someone could look into a process that determines which (newly added or deleted) words are anagrams of others...? Equinox ◑ 15:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

 * In French, . Certainly adding anagrams by hand is pretty futile, yeah. On fr.wikt we consider that eéêèëEÉ (etc.) are all e and iîïiI (etc.) are all just i, in terms of anagrams that is. So pâté is a perfectly acceptable anagram of tape. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

 * It would make sense to not add anagrams directly to entries, either to have a category for each one, Category:English anagrams of aenv, or (I prefer) a template that is included on each entry, . It makes sense, in this case, for the title to be included in the template, as that way the edit link will point to the correct place. I have created that template and added it to the two anagrams death and hated. While creating these templates and adding them to entries with a bot is very doable, it is not totally trivial and we need to work out (probably on a per-language basis) what to do with diacritics, punctuation (and clicks), how to deal with Mapudungun (and any other language that has two seperate writing systems using the same set of letters), what to do with multi-glyph letters (does the Hungarian cs just count as c + s), and whether the phrases created must be dictionary entries (i.e. should "the da", and "Ed hat" also appear on . Given the large number of entries that may have anagrams, it seems to me that we should ammend the WT:ELE example of a vertical list for them and have a horizontal list instead (I doubt there are many words for which this list is huge). I might start having a go at doing this with User:Conrad.Bot, given that I already have the word lists, though I will wait for further comments and a VOTE before editing in earnest. Conrad.Irwin 16:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * About diacritics and multi-gryph letters for anagrams, no general rule can be defined: in French, diacritics are traditionally ignored for anagram purposes, but the tradition might be different in other languages.
 * About phrases, I would include everything included in the Wiktionary, e.g. bien sûr but not Ed hat. I would make an exception for famous anagrams (e.g. un veto corse la finira for Révolution française, but without linking this anagram sentence, of course). Lmaltier 16:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Other things to not include are misspelling entries, and (presumably) entries for Abbreviations, Acronyms and Initialisms? Conrad.Irwin 17:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree for misspellings, of course. But why not abbreviations, acronyms...? If the reader is not interested, he can skip them... Lmaltier 17:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

 * No reason really, I just don't count them as "real words" :). The other issue is for alternatives like cafe and café where it is not clear from the entries pages which spelling is preferred. It would seem strange to list them as "anagrams" of each other, but then maybe we'd want to do that for linking purposes. For pages like co-operate and cooperate, the bot can detect the template and not include the alternatives when they use the same letters in the same order. Conrad.Irwin 17:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or links s.v. =Alternative spellings/forms=? In any event, I like the idea of automating this. —  msh210  ℠  18:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Anagrams imply a different order. café is not an anagram of cafe. Lmaltier 18:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Ok, how do (death, Death, hated),   (cafe, café, face) and  (eft, EFT, FET) look?  Conrad.Irwin 01:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

At fr.wikt, we use a single line when several words are the "same" anagram. An example in fr:écran: Lmaltier 05:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ancre, ancré
 * caner
 * carne, carné
 * cerna
 * crâne, crâné
 * créna
 * encra
 * nacre, nacré
 * rance

 * I've now done that, the only issue remaining with my implementation (for English anyway) is that it lists theatres of war and theaters of war as anagrams (it excludes theater of war and theatre of war as they are clearly marked as alternatives). I presume this isn't too much of a problem, and the system has the ability to be manually overwritten (using the templates and  in the created templates). Any other suggestions? Conrad.Irwin 23:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why considering that theatre and theater are not anagrams (the letters are the same, in a different order)? Is the rule traditional for English anagrams? Lmaltier 21:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 * They are anagrams, even though they are different spellings of the same word. I think we should certainly have them listed as such. Equinox ◑ 21:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Since this is, hopefully, going to be added to the majority of English entries, I'd prefer switching to a horizontal layout. We could use parenthesis to group words differing only by diacritics. So Lmaltier's example would be " ". The word left before the parenthesis could be the one that would come first in an alphabetical sort. This would be the form w/o diacritics, if one exists. Is there much support for this? It would eventually take a vote to change the WT:ELE. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 19:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll just include them then, there are around 75000 templates I could create, so yes they'd be on most entries. The format could be changed to the one you describe just by editing . Conrad.Irwin 22:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Please indicate your opinion at Votes. Conrad.Irwin 22:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

 * This has now started. If you notice problems, please let me know ASAP. It will take it about a week to do English. Conrad.Irwin 14:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2009-09/User:Conrad.Bot to do anagrams - Vote passes.

Beer_parlour

Anagram layout
As noted by Bequw, the anagrams section of tesla was fairly monstrous, I've updated it to put everything on the same line, which uses about 5% of the amount of screen space. As this change goes against the example given in WT:ELE (though not against the text), I thought I'd ask your permission before updating Conrad.Bot to use the new horizontal format henceforth (old anagrams sections won't be updated unless they need anagrams added or removed). Are there any objections? Conrad.Irwin 02:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The "eveything on the same line" link above should be to http://en.wiktionary.org/?oldid=8078582, not what it links to now. — msh210 ℠ 02:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer the one-line way. It does seem to violate ELE, but I, for one, am willing to overlook that, or change ELE. — msh210 ℠ 02:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think they should be kept vertical unless it's longer than five or so. We have the same situation we the synonyms/antonyms lists, that they look a little ridiculous when they get really long. I don't think there should be a bot running in violation of ELE, so I think it might be a good idea to hold a vote to modify ELE. --Yair rand 03:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From memory, synonyms are supposed to be in horizontal lists, one per sense. I did think about the "up to five" idea, but it seems fairly arbitrary; a word with five synonyms has five lines, a word with six has one; if the word with six was still on five lines it would feel more consistent, but then it wouldn't make much sense. Conrad.Irwin 13:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Maybe the vote can trim the Anagram section of the ELE a bit, and have the majority at Anagrams, that way if we want to make minor layout changes a vote won't be required. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 17:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

 * What if we did like this for large sections?:

 * least
 * leats
 * salet
 * setal
 * slate
 * stale
 * steal
 * stela
 * taels
 * tales
 * teals

 * The one-line proposal is fine too. I'm not fussy about the arbitrariness of what defines a "long section", personally. —Internoob (Disc.•Cont.) 03:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't think that's worthwhile. I would prefer we be fully consistent, rather than collapsing some sections and not others, and the vast majority of anagram sections aren't long.  We could use visible columns, if needed. --EncycloPetey 04:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

 * least
 * leats
 * salet
 * setal
 * slate
 * slate

 * stale
 * steal
 * stela
 * taels
 * tales
 * teals

 * : least, leats, salet, setal, slate, stale, steal, stela, taels, tales, teals

 * I am still under the impression that all on one line is more aestetic, would people prefer multiple columns? Conrad.Irwin 12:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Using one line for all anagrams entries is a possibility with me too, as long as we do it consistently for all entries. --EncycloPetey 13:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Started Votes/pl-2009-12/Modify anagram section of ELE. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 23:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I prefer all on one line, as opposed to the two in the vote, but I'm not overly fussed. Conrad.Irwin 23:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How would you prefer to show the alphagram (the only reason that I listed two lines instead of one). --Bequw → ¢ • τ 01:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 * As above: Conrad.Irwin 11:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 * : least, leats, salet, setal, slate, stale, steal, stela, taels, tales, teals

Votes/pl-2009-12/Modify anagram section of ELE - Vote passes.

This issue was resolved following the completion of Votes/pl-2009-12/Modify anagram section of ELE, on January 17, 2010.

title: Wiktionary:Unresolved issues/Anagrams


text:
しりつだいがく

Noun

 * 1)  a private university

title: しりつだいがく


text:
g.

Noun

 * 1) year

Noun

 * 1) Mr.

Etymology
From the first letter of.

Noun

 * 1)   Mr.

title: g.


text:
o.

Noun

 * 1)   also
 * 2)   also

Declension
Sense 1:

Sense 2:

Noun

 * 1) ; Father, Fr.

Noun

 * 1) island

title: o.


text: præmature

title: præmature


text:
stýripinni

Etymology
Compare, and.

Noun

 * 1) a joystick

Usage notes

 * The terms and  are almost never used.

title: stýripinni


text:
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-12/Definition layout

Definition layout
 Voting on modifying Entry layout explained, which currently reads as follows:  The definitions are the most fundamental piece of dictionary information but do not have their own header. They are simply added in one big block, line after line, each beginning with a number sign (#). Each definition may be treated as a sentence: beginning with a capital letter and ending with a full stop. The key terms of a definition should be wikified. to read instead as follows:  The definitions (or translations; see above) are the most fundamental piece of dictionary information, but do not have their own header. They are simply added in one big block, one per line, in the section headed by the part of speech or other descriptor (see above). Each definition is introduced in the wikitext with a number sign (#), so that together they form an ordered list. Each definition may be treated as a sentence: beginning with a capital letter and ending with a full stop. The key terms of a definition should be wikified.

Definitions define whole lexemes (abstract words), not individual forms (inflections). Therefore, the definition given in a lexeme's main entry is not worded to reflect to the specific form that is used as lemma (dictionary form); for example, the Latin verb should be translated in part as “be born” or “to be born”, even though that specific form means “I am born”. Further, definitions of nouns may begin with a determiner, such as “a” or “any”, and those of verbs may begin with the infinitive-marking particle “to”, even when this is not implicit in the headword; for example, one definition of the English verb might be “to exist”, even though in running text it is “ to be” that can mean “to exist”. And modifying Entry layout explained, which currently reads as follows:  Entries for terms in other languages should follow the standard format as closely as possible regardless of the language of the word. However, a translation into English should normally be given instead of a definition, including a gloss to indicate which meaning of the English translation is intended. Also, the translations section should be omitted.

Some languages do have characteristics that require variation from the standard format. For links to these variations see Language considerations. to read instead as follows:  Entries for terms in other languages should follow the standard format as closely as possible regardless of the language of the word. However, a translation into English should normally be given instead of a definition, including a gloss to indicate which meaning of the English translation is intended. For a lexeme's main entry, the translation given should be inflection-free, as described above in the "Definitions" section.

Some languages do have characteristics that require variation from the standard format. For links to these variations see Language considerations.

In all non-English entries, the translations section should be omitted. (The green, of course, is just to make it obvious what's changing; the color won't actually be copied to ELE.)

 * Vote starts:
 * Vote ends: 24:00, 30 (UTC)

 * Vote created: —Ruakh TALK 03:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Tea_room/2009/November
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2009-12/Definition layout

Decision

 * Never begun, archiving. - TheDaveRoss  18:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


text:
կազմ

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) composition; structure
 * 2) squad; personnel; contingent
 * 3)  train
 * 4) binding, cover of a book
 * 1)  train
 * 2) binding, cover of a book
 * 1) binding, cover of a book

Adjective

 * 1) ready, prepared

Etymology
The origin is.

Adjective

 * 1) ready, quite ready, prepared; active, diligent; disposed
 * 2) armed
 * 1) armed

Usage notes
This adjective was indeclinable. If it had to be declined, it was replaced by synonymous.

Noun

 * 1) construction; preparation, furniture, ornament

title: կազմ


text: კაზმა

title: კაზმა


text: Bulgarion

title: Bulgarion


text:
B.Ed.

Noun

 * 1) Bachelor of Education.

title: B.Ed.


text:
კაზმვა

Etymology
, most likely borrowed from, from.

Verbal noun

 * 1) to tidy; to adorn
 * 2) to prepare; An act of preparing
 * 3) to saddle a horse
 * 4) to bind (a book)

title: კაზმვა


text:
живописан

Adjective

 * 1) picturesque, lively

title: живописан


text:
živopisno

Adverb

 * 1) picturesquely, lively

title: živopisno


text:
живописно

Adverb

 * 1) picturesquely, vividly

Adverb

 * 1) in a picturesque manner
 * 2) vividly

Adverb

 * 1) picturesquely, lively

title: живописно


text:
živopisnost

Noun

 * 1)  picturesqueness, liveliness

title: živopisnost


text:
živo

Adverb

 * 1) lively, briskly, actively, sharply
 * 2) clearly

title: živo


text:
живо

Adverb

 * 1) alive
 * 2) in a lively way

Adverb

 * 1) vividly, strikingly, keenly
 * 2) with animation
 * 3) quickly, promptly

Interjection

 * 1) make haste!, be quick!

Adverb

 * 1) lively, briskly, actively, sharply
 * 2) clearly

title: живо


text:
živahno

Adverb

 * 1) vivaciously, briskly

title: živahno


text:
живахно

Adverb

 * 1) vivaciously, briskly

title: живахно


text:
živahnost

Noun

 * 1)  vivacity, liveliness, vividness

title: živahnost


text:
живахност

Noun

 * 1)  vivacity, liveliness, vividness

title: живахност


text:
energičan

Adjective

 * 1) energetic

title: energičan


text:
енергичан

Adjective

 * 1) energetic

title: енергичан


text:
energično

Adverb

 * 1) energetically

title: energično


text:
енергично

Adverb

 * 1) energetically

Adverb

 * 1) energetically

title: енергично


text:
energetika

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  energetics the branch of physics that studies the flow and transformation of energy

Noun

 * 1)  energetics

title: energetika


text:
енергетика

Noun

 * 1) energetics

Noun

 * 1)  energetics

Noun

 * 1) energetics

title: енергетика


text:
виталан

Adjective

 * 1) tough, sturdy
 * 2) vivacious, energetic
 * 3)  vital, essential

title: виталан


text:
vitalno

Adverb

 * 1) vitally

title: vitalno


text:
витално

Adverb

 * 1) vitally

title: витално


text:
vitalnost

Noun

 * 1)  vitality

title: vitalnost


text:
виталност

Noun

 * 1)  vitality

title: виталност


text:
esencijalan

Adjective

 * 1) essential

title: esencijalan


text:
есенцијалан

Adjective

 * 1) essential

title: есенцијалан


text:
نخست

Etymology
From, from , from , of unclear origin, with no known cognates outside Iranian. Cognate to 🇨🇬 ('first-born') and akin to 🇨🇬, an Iranian borrowing.

Adjective

 * 1) first

Adverb

 * 1) at first

Etymology
. Compare 🇨🇬.

Adjective

 * 1) first
 * 2) foremost, primary
 * 1) foremost, primary

title: نخست


text:
fluejo

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  bed
 * 2)  channel

title: fluejo


text:
esencijalno

Adverb

 * 1) essentially

title: esencijalno


text:
есенцијално

Adverb

 * 1) essentially

title: есенцијално


text:
krucijalan

Adjective

 * 1) crucial

title: krucijalan


text:
круцијалан

Adjective

 * 1) crucial

title: круцијалан


text: hormigas león

title: hormigas león


text:
животињски

Adjective

 * 1)  animal
 * 2)  animal, best, like an animal

Adverb

 * 1) like an animal; beastly, brutally

title: животињски


text:
bodar

Etymology
From, from.

Adjective

 * 1) deaf

Etymology
, possibly via.

Adjective

 * 1) alert, brisk, keen
 * 2) strong

title: bodar


text:
бодар

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1) brisk, energetic, in high spirits

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1) alert, brisk, keen
 * 2) strong

title: бодар


text:
bodro

Adverb

 * 1) briskly, alertly, keenly

title: bodro


text:
бодро

Adverb

 * 1) cheerfully, in high spirits

Adverb

 * 1) cheerfully, freshly

Adverb

 * 1) briskly, alertly, keenly

title: бодро


text: Flavan Maron

title: Flavan Maron


text:
bodrost

Noun

 * 1)  alacrity, alertness, vivacity

title: bodrost


text:
бодрост

Noun

 * 1) alacrity, alertness, vivacity

Noun

 * 1)  alacrity, alertness, vivacity

title: бодрост


text:
cochichar

Verb

 * 1)  to whisper, to speak in quiet voice

title: cochichar


text:
izdržati

Etymology
,.

Verb

 * 1)  to endure, withstand (pain, punishment, attack etc.)
 * 2)  to persevere, persist
 * 3)  to serve (sentence)

title: izdržati


text:
издржати

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to endure, withstand (pain, punishment, attack etc.)
 * 2)  to persevere, persist
 * 3)  to serve (sentence)

title: издржати


text:
izdržavati

Verb

 * 1)  to endure, withstand (pain, punishment, attack etc.)
 * 2)  to persevere, persist
 * 3)  to serve (sentence)
 * 4)  to raise, rear (farm animals such as livestock)
 * 5)  to support, maintain

title: izdržavati


text:
издржавати

Verb

 * 1)  to endure, withstand (pain, punishment, attack etc.)
 * 2)  to persevere, persist
 * 3)  to serve (sentence)
 * 4)  to raise, rear (farm animals such as livestock)
 * 5)  to support, maintain

title: издржавати


text:
izdržljiv

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) persisting, persevering
 * 2) durable, having good endurance
 * 3) bearable, tolerable

title: izdržljiv


text:
издржљив

Adjective

 * 1) persisting, persevering
 * 2) durable, having good endurance

title: издржљив


text:
izdržljivo

Adverb

 * 1) persistingly, perseveringly
 * 2) enduringly

title: izdržljivo


text:
издржљиво

Adverb

 * 1) persistingly, perseveringly
 * 2) enduringly

title: издржљиво


text:
izdržljivost

Noun

 * 1)  persistence, endurance
 * 2)  durability

title: izdržljivost


text:
издржљивост

Noun

 * 1)  persistence, endurance
 * 2)  durability

title: издржљивост


text:
anxiogenic

Adjective

 * 1)  Causing anxiety, or pertaining to the causing of anxiety.
 * 2) * 2000 July 28, Frans B. M. de Waal, “Primates--A Natural Heritage of Conflict Resolution”, in Science, volume 289, issue 5479, 586-590:
 * Thus, self-directed behavior increases after anxiogenic drug treatment but decreases after anxiolytic drug treatment (29 ).
 * 1) * 2000 July 28, Frans B. M. de Waal, “Primates--A Natural Heritage of Conflict Resolution”, in Science, volume 289, issue 5479, 586-590:
 * Thus, self-directed behavior increases after anxiogenic drug treatment but decreases after anxiolytic drug treatment (29 ).
 * Thus, self-directed behavior increases after anxiogenic drug treatment but decreases after anxiolytic drug treatment (29 ).

Translations

 * Catalan:
 * French:
 * German: anxiogen
 * Portuguese: ansiogénico, ansiogênico
 * Spanish: ansiógeno

Noun

 * 1) An anxiogenic drug: a drug that causes anxiety.

title: anxiogenic


text:
do balacobaco

Adjective

 * 1)  trendy, happening

title: do balacobaco


text:
zadržati

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to keep, retain, withhold
 * 2)  to preserve, maintain (tradition etc.)
 * 3)  to stop, hold (up) (traffic, car, attention, action, breath etc.)
 * 4)  to stop, stay, spend time

Verb

 * 1) to delay, detain, confine
 * 2) to restrain, hold (feelings)
 * 3) to keep, retain, withhold
 * 4) to hold up (traffic)
 * 5)  to linger, be about
 * 6)  to refrain, restrain

title: zadržati


text:
задржати

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to keep, retain, withhold
 * 2)  to preserve, maintain (tradition etc.)
 * 3)  to stop, hold (up) (traffic, car, attention, action, breath etc.)
 * 4)  to stop, stay, spend time

title: задржати


text:
zadržavati

Verb

 * 1)  to keep, retain, withhold
 * 2)  to preserve, maintain (tradition etc.)
 * 3)  to stop, hold (up) (traffic, car, attention, action, breath etc.)
 * 4)  to stop, stay, spend time

title: zadržavati


text:
задржавати

Verb

 * 1)  to keep, retain, withhold
 * 2)  to preserve, maintain (tradition etc.)
 * 3)  to stop, hold (up) (traffic, car, attention, action, breath etc.)
 * 4)  to stop, stay, spend time

title: задржавати


text:
sadržati

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to contain, hold
 * 2)  to consist of

title: sadržati


text:
садржати

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to contain, hold
 * 2)  to consist of

title: садржати


text:
садржавати

Verb

 * 1)  to contain, hold
 * 2)  to consist of

title: садржавати


text:
sadržajan

Adjective

 * 1) informative (of a work, e.g. book)
 * 2) full, ample

title: sadržajan


text:
садржајан

Adjective

 * 1) informative (of a work, e.g. book)
 * 2) full, ample

title: садржајан


text: smakelijkst

title: smakelijkst


text: smakelijker

title: smakelijker


text:
sadržajno

Adverb

 * 1) informatively
 * 2) relating to content

title: sadržajno


text:
садржајно

Adverb

 * 1) informatively
 * 2) relating to content

title: садржајно


text:
sadržina

Noun

 * 1) content, contents

title: sadržina


text:
садржина

Noun

 * 1) content, contents

title: садржина


text:
suzdržati

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to restrain
 * 2)  to abstain

title: suzdržati


text:
суздржати

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to restrain
 * 2)  to abstain

title: суздржати


text:
suzdržavati

Verb

 * 1)  to restrain
 * 2)  to abstain

title: suzdržavati


text:
суздржавати

Verb

 * 1)  to restrain
 * 2)  to abstain

title: суздржавати


text:
anxio-

Etymology
.

Translations

 * Portuguese: ansio-

title: anxio-


text:
podržati

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to hold, support (also figuratively)

title: podržati


text:
подржати

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to hold, support (also figuratively)

title: подржати


text:
podržavati

Verb

 * 1)  to hold, support (also figuratively)

title: podržavati


text:
подржавати

Verb

 * 1)  to hold, support (also figuratively)

title: подржавати


text:
pridržati

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to hold for a while
 * 2)  to hold on, cling
 * 3)  to adhere to, follow, heed (rule, law, regulation)

title: pridržati


text:
придржати

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to hold for a while
 * 2)  to hold on, cling

title: придржати


text:
appreciatingly

Etymology
From.

Adverb

 * 1) Appreciatively, with appreciation: in an appreciating manner.

title: appreciatingly


text:
pridržavati

Verb

 * 1)  to hold for a while
 * 2)  to hold on, cling
 * 3)  to adhere to, follow, heed (rule, law, regulation)

title: pridržavati


text:
придржавати

Verb

 * 1)  to hold for a while
 * 2)  to hold on, cling

title: придржавати


text:
argumentive

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) Being or presenting an argument or line of reasoning.

Translations

 * Portuguese:

title: argumentive


text: asphodels

title: asphodels


text: asthmas

title: asthmas


text:
attempter

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) One who attempts.

title: attempter


text: attempters

title: attempters


text:
դոյզն

Etymology
The origin is.

Adjective

 * 1) very little, exiguous; small; frivolous, light

Usage notes
This adjective was indeclinable. If it had to be declined, it was replaced by synonymous.

Adverb

 * 1) a little; a trifle; (just) a bit

title: դոյզն


text:
basketing

Noun

 * 1)  The act of grouping together in, or as if in, a basket.
 * 2) * 1910, Hugh Chisholm, The Encyclopaedia Britannica (page 627)
 * They are chippings and basketings of maxims and quotations, and of anecdotes, often classical, put together inductively, or rather by "simple enumeration" of the pros and cons.
 * They are chippings and basketings of maxims and quotations, and of anecdotes, often classical, put together inductively, or rather by "simple enumeration" of the pros and cons.

title: basketing


text:
basketed

Adjective

 * 1) Being in a basket.
 * 2) Containing a basket, or baskets

title: basketed


text:
դույզն

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1)  very little, exiguous

Adverb

 * 1)  a little; a trifle; (just) a bit

title: դույզն


text:
πυραμιδικός

Adjective

 * 1) pyramidal, pyramidical, pyramid-shaped

title: πυραμιδικός


text: breinen

title: breinen


text:
korbo

Etymology
From, from , possibly a borrowing of. Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) basket

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1) basket

title: korbo


text: korboj

title: korboj


text: korbon

title: korbon


text: korbojn

title: korbojn


text:
գոհ

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) satisfied (with), content (with); pleased (with)

Adverb

 * 1) contentedly, with satisfaction

Etymology
The origin is.

Adjective

 * 1) content, easy, satisfied

Usage notes
This adjective was indeclinable.

title: գոհ


text:
հաշտ

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) peaceful, peaceable; propitious, well-disposed; not fighting, not quarreling

Adverb

 * 1) in peace, in harmony

Etymology
From a word of the form. Compare 🇨🇬, Manichaean 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Adjective

 * 1) reconciled; propitious, favourable, friendly, kind, kindly, benevolent

title: հաշտ


text: lignokarboj

title: lignokarboj


text: lignokarbon

title: lignokarbon


text: lignokarbojn

title: lignokarbojn


text:
çekirdek

Etymology
From. Cognate with 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬/, etc.

Noun

 * 1) kernel
 * 2) seed of any kind of fruit or vegetable
 * 3)  nucleus (large organelle found in cells)
 * 4)  sunflower seed

title: çekirdek


text: piroj

title: piroj


text: pirojn

title: pirojn


text: քցել

title: քցել


text:
fuego amigo

Noun

 * 1) friendly fire

title: fuego amigo


text:
ձիգ

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) tight, taut
 * 2) long, extended; slow, monotonous
 * 1) long, extended; slow, monotonous

Adverb

 * 1) tightly

Etymology
The origin is.

Adjective

 * 1) stretched, well tight
 * 2) extended, vast; long, prolix
 * 3) firm, hard, strong
 * 1) firm, hard, strong
 * 1) firm, hard, strong

Noun

 * 1) something woven, texture, tissue; cloth
 * 2) one of the parts of the plough, a shaft
 * 3) tendon, sinew
 * 4) shooting, the act of shooting
 * 5) arrow
 * 1) arrow

Adverb

 * 1) long, a long while or time

title: ձիգ


text:
ž.

Noun

 * 1)  feminine gender

title: ž.


text:
t.

Etymology
Borrowed from, of. Originally started on the Finnish imageboard ; popularity and ironic usage outside the nation is linked to Finnish-origin memes such as "Spurdo Spärde".

Phrase

 * 1)  Used as a way of signing off posts. Typically followed by an occupation, nationality, or field of expertise. These can sometimes be satirical, to imply said poster is being disingenuous and/or tongue-in-cheek.

Preposition

 * 1) to, until;

title: t.