Talk:wordy

It's not an adjective, it's an agentive noun. Collins would have it as a "modifier" which is a nice term to cover nouns serving as adjectives. I have given up nearly on Wiktionary since it is so awful nobody in their right mind can rely on it. 92.40.144.193 15:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Etymologically, it derives from a noun, yes, but functionally it is an adjective. --EncycloPetey 15:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If you compare the definition of Wordiness on Wikipedia, and that has been proposed for merge i.e. does not stand for itself, it is far better in references, etymology, etc. than the Wiktionary entry. It's galling, then, to get a transwiki to Wiktionary which is systematically (note: not systemically) buggered up because the bots or pseudobots (humans) don't transcribe properly and lose all the references. Better to keep the definitions in Wikipedia where they make sense, I think. User:SimonTrew at en:Wikipedia. 92.40.144.193 15:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What Wikipedia chooses to merge is irrelevant. Each word has its own entry on Wiktionary.  Merges aren't possible because the same combination of letters may be a word in another language, and in any case we want separate citations, synonyms, usage notes, etc. for each word. --EncycloPetey 15:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)