User talk:-sche/Archive/2012

I agree with your judgment here, thank you very much for this good decision. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

That's inaccurate. There are restrictions on how rollback can be used; there aren't with regular undoing Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 05:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Restrictions between one way or another of making the penultimate revision become the last one? So bureaucratic... --Daniel 11:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

- -sche (discuss) 09:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I added this param for {{surname}}. If you need it added on any other template, let me know. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 03:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

you really think so?Lucifer (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that Spanish-speakers call it "American tape". It's an interesting thing to associate with Americans. I suppose Americans did invent it (which is better than can be said for German and "German chocolate"), but they invented Scotch tape, too, but it doesn't get the appellation. - -sche (discuss) 07:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

furthermore, the term originaged from the construction sense and removing it is ridiculous!Lucifer (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Neither the construction sense nor the wrestling sense was cited; in fact, the wrestling verb sense had a citation for the noun "piledriver". However, I've now cited all senses properly. Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 17:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I know it wasn't cited but it was not contested, the can we verify only appeared for a single sense. Either way thank you for saving the entry and following common sense over technicalities.Lucifer (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I found this quote while working on ], which I have attempted to mark in such a way as to discourage translators from using it, except in a specific context.

• Lua error in Module:quote at line 2951: Parameter 1 is required.

I am not entirely happy with the entry, especially the archaic marking and the overlap of the senses. DCDuring TALK 11:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, sense 3 "(archaic) sequence" and sense 2 "(obsolete) a succession or series of any kind" do seem to overlap; at least, the difference is not apparent to me. Are you opposed to merging them into something like "(obsolete) a sequence, succession, or series of any kind"?

Is sense 1 the one that could theoretically also mean "outcome, consequence"?

I find a few uses of the word by Indian authors. This means the word not only could be but is used by non-native speakers. We could add that to the {{context}}, if you thought it would be helpful, e.g. (obsolete, modern use only by non-native speakers) with the bit in brackets optional. Alternatively, I just found ] and ] (which Equinox created); usage notes like those seem like a very good idea, regardless of what else (like context tags) we do. What do you think of that? Obviously, in the case of consecution, which Google Books suggests was widely used in earlier centuries, the usage notes have to be more detailed, e.g. "This word fell out of use around , and use of it today is generally an error by non-native speakers. Words like sequence and consequence are more likely to be understood by English-speakers."

As an aside, I suppose the reason these words are in online dictionaries is that it is helpful to know that consecution ⇒ ‘outcome’ if you're trying to decipher an old text. Fortunately, we have a better, less ambiguous (consecution ⇍ ‘outcome’) way of providing that information: the {{trans-see}} template you've used. - -sche (discuss) 18:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the consult. The research for the "fell out of use c 1XXX" clause seems quite tedious for senses of polysemic terms, especially for the relatively obscure ones in question. {{trans-see}} is good as a preventive, but in many instances translation tables already exist. I am loath to replace them with {{trans-see}}, though I think inserting {{trans-see}} may discourage additions to the translation table.

I believe that consecution was earlier in wider English use almost entirely in scholarly writing, because scholars would have had ready recourse to Latinate terms when more common terms were more ambiguous, in turn because they knew their Latin.

I have a suspicion that several Romance languages have a descendant of consecutio. Once one, possibly lazy (like me), lexicographer decides that "consecution" is a good translation for a cognate, I would expect that others might use the term when searching for an English translation for the cognate or a synonym of the cognate in their language. I also suspect that some translation dictionaries are not careful about using context tags. Do those suspicions seem justified to you? DCDuring TALK 20:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've edited the usage note to say that it is obsolete, without specifying when it became obsolete. I agree that many translation dictionaries are not careful in their application of context tags; in particular, tags like "obsolete" and "archaic" are quite often missing. - -sche (discuss) 21:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

hey, what's your issue with femicentrism? all the centric words are pejorative toward who they represent but there seems to be sugarcoating of it in the case of this word, and I am wondering why? -centrisism such as afro-centrisism or anlgo-centrism or ameri-centrism is almost always used in a negative light in order to highlight the perils of one sidedness, i do understand from reading such books as Feminism is for Everybody that it does have the occasional usage as an empowering term to reflect that the female perspective needs to be addressed notwithdtanding the predominant usage like all the other centric terms is a usage to describe the sexism and misandry related to this cosmovision just as malecentricness is by its nature nearly always misogynistic, femicentrism is mostly misandric and I am wondering why you are leaving it out? Also it says focus on women twice in one definition and that is simply superfluous, we should improve this entry it's not there yet.Lucifer (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I presume you're referring to ]. A look on Google Books shows that it's used as a neutral term for the viewpoint, whether the viewpoint itself is regarded as positive or negative. The definition is two-part, "focus on women" ; "a worldview which results from femaleness and/or a focus on women"... we could compact that to "(a worldview which results from femaleness and/or from) a focus on women", but Wiktionary is not paper, so why not keep the clearer current wording? As for femicentrism: I suspect it's not attested, hence the RFV. - -sche (discuss) 21:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note! I respectfully disagree, it's certainly more "durably archived" than previously without the link to Internet Archive. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Replied at my talk page. I appreciate your efforts to reach out to me, very much, and thanks for the apology. Bear with me being a bit frustrated over all this, please. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

• wall humping

Maybe you can revisit? Hopefully I've added additional citations such that I've improved the page to your satisfaction? :) -- Cirt (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

The video game sense is well cited now! :) I've reworded the definition a bit, after looking at a few videos of the phenomenon. The original definition was broader, as if "wall humping" didn't have to involve a wall? Is that so? If so, we should re-broaden the definition. - -sche (discuss) 08:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hrm, yes probably it is a bit broader. Thanks very much for your help with rewording that particular definition! :) -- Cirt (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I respectfully disagree with the RFV-sense tagging. Usenet is not the only appropriate cite. And there are multiple different other appropriate cites I have added there. -- Cirt (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please see Talk:assholocracy. -- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please note that I'm still in the process of additional research on these topics. I'd appreciate a bit more patience. Let's not move too hasty on this. There's no rush. It's not an emergency. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've replied at WT:ID. - -sche (discuss) 03:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why the sudden emergency to delete? Can't you see I am making a good faith effort to learn from more experienced members of the community, taken on constructive feedback, and improve the pages? -- Cirt (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've replied in WT:ID. - -sche (discuss) 04:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

You've previously told me these things take time. I don't know why, all of a sudden, today, you seem to be making all this extra effort to get these emergency deleted so fast, when I'm in the middle, right now, of doing additional good faith research on this? -- Cirt (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is far from an emergency, or urgent, or speedy... the -ocracy words have been uncited since December. Policy is to delete uncited terms after one month; what I am doing is very tardy/patient cleanup. I also emphasize that none of your research will be lost: the definitions and citations will be kept on the citations page until they meet CFI. - -sche (discuss) 04:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've added an update to the RFV page. The citations:assholocracy page demonstrates that the main entry should not be deleted. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we can discuss this one together? :) -- Cirt (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

-sche, you stated to me after my good faith efforts at research and my actions of adding citations: "The video game sense is well cited now! :)". Surely this means the page itself will not get deleted? -- Cirt (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Right. :) If the first two senses are deemed to not be sufficiently cited yet, they are their citations will be moved to Citations:wall humping, but the third sense, the video game sense, will stay where it is (and so the page will stay a bluelink, so to speak). - -sche (discuss) 04:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Can you please discuss with me which of the citations for the first 2 senses you have problems with? And why? -- Cirt (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've replied in detail on Talk:wall humping. Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 04:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much! I've responded there. -- Cirt (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Update: Please see this version. I've implemented your suggestion from the talk page verbatim. Except for the fact that you appear to mistakenly have been under the impression that a few of the newspaper articles were "website only", somehow, that is not true. I found them from newspaper article durable archives such as LexisNexis. Can we now consider this particular page resolved successfully to your satisfaction? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I've formally passed the page on RFV. I'll have to look into LexisNexis; thanks for telling me about it. AFAIK, we don't have a policy on it, as to whether it is durable or not, we have only the beginnings of discussions on the BP (but I may be mistaken). - -sche (discuss) 05:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, if something's cited in LexisNexis, it's generally also cited in multiple other databases that are durably archived, including WestLaw and NewsBank. -- Cirt (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

thanks for fixing my john boehnerLucifer (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

is under attack by User talk:67.87.59.248 what can be done!Lucifer (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Aww, couldn't you at least rfv it!? I think it might pass, plus it's an awesome term!Lucifer (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

lol, it sure is a creative term, as I said in the deletion summary! - -sche (discuss) 06:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I didn't even create it meself! It's not as creative as BPI's pink slime goop, talk about gross.Lucifer (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I hope that makes it clear however you are right it's the same as squeeze into, do we have that?Lucifer (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think we don't have ] because it would be sum-of-parts... although I think it could actually have all the same senses as squeeze in. (I squeezed it into my schedule; we had to squeeze into her small car; he squeezed into the crawlspace to rescue the cat.) - -sche (discuss) 08:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

See the quotation now in the entry. It's from Pliny. I think it might be read as "grow to become a tree" or "grow into a tree". DCDuring TALK 23:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean "-sche" as in Low German <-sche>, the feminine suffix?ᚲᛟᚱᚾ (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

That's one of the things that went into it, yes. :) A lot of things went into it, really... it's also an abbreviation of Asche (it removes the Λ lines of the A). (Tell me that's not the strangest way of abbreviating something that you've ever heard, haha... taking some of the lines of some of the letters out.) - -sche (discuss) 22:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Nein, nein. Buchstabenteile auszulassen ist doch aucl  eir mal etv as andeı es. (Nur macht es das Wort nicht wesentlich kürzer.)Korn (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Could you restore "pussyman", it was deleted by Ruakh who said "no usable content given" but that label is usually reserved for nonsense as the entry, the term as I added it including three citations and can easily be found more on google books meaning a "stud" or "player".Lucifer (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dutch has a category for such words: Category:Dutch pronominal adverbs. Maybe the same could be done for English? Then a template wouldn't be needed anymore. —CodeCat 19:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

English has a category, too, but See also sections are still helpful. (Compare the discussion of whether or not to do away with the "Coordinate terms" section just because there are categories, in which I agree with those who say categories don't obviate the need for Coordinate terms sections.) I modeled the there-, here-, where- templates on {{decimate equivalents}}. - -sche (discuss) 20:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

But because most there-words have an equivalent where-word and here-word, maybe a collapsible table with three columns would be better instead? —CodeCat 20:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Good point. I'll see about combining them. - -sche (discuss) 22:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page at mediawiki.org. Sumanah (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ich möchte gerne die Einträge mit Etyl: OSX > NL korrigieren und wurde hierher verwiesen. Gibt es einen Weg, sie schnell zu finden?Korn (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:osx enthält alle Einträge, die {{osx}} verwenden. Ich schau in die Herkunftsabschnitte der darin gelisteten Einträge, und sehe, ob {{nl}} in Klammern nach {{osx}} steht, als ob es eine Tochtersprache wäre. (Ctrl-F „Saxon“.) Jemand, die Botkenntnisse hätte, könnte eine kürzere Liste von Einträgen, die osx ... ( ... nl ... ) enthalten, erstellen und vll. sogar per Bot korrigieren... das kann ich doch leider nicht. - -sche (discuss) 02:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ich hab dog bis bog (die sind nicht alphabetisch geordnet) geprüft. Möchtest Du vielleicht mit Wetter anfängen? Und die letzte 1000 sind überwiegend Appendix:-Seiten, die hoffentlich fehlerfrei sind. - -sche (discuss) 02:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

User:Korn letzter AbschnittKorn (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Do you think you could fix these as well, along with the osx/nl problems? According to WT:AINE, we have different notation for all six 'semivowels' depending on whether they are consonantal (nonsyllabic) or vowellike (syllabic). But many of our PIE links write dipthongs as ei, ai, oi, eu, au, ou, which should be written as ey, ay, oy, ew, aw, ow respectively. Do you think you could fix those occurrences? (Note that the first vowel might have a macron, acute accent, or both) —CodeCat 22:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh... and if it's not too much trouble, maybe you could fix aspirated consonants in the same run as well? bh, dh, gh, ǵh, gwh/gʷh/gwʰ should become bʰ, dʰ, gʰ, ǵʰ, gʷʰ respectively. (But not when the h is h₁, h₂ or h₃) —CodeCat 22:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I will fix these problems if I see them in entries as I'm fixing the OSX problems; sorry for the late reply. In general though, could a bot compile a list of entries with PIE problems? Then (or even in the same run) it might be possible to tailor code so that a bot could also fix many of the problems, without introducing new problems (e.g. accidentally aspirating/superscripting h₁). - -sche (discuss) 02:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Seriously? I did not make any changes to the WOTD nomination board. You must have got the wrong person! =) Exodus (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry I didn't realize that the SPAM definition was cited on the citations page. Also it should be noted that the 2008 citation I added was printed in 2012 but states that at the time the scientist worked for the USDA in 2008 is when they coined the terms pink slime and soylent pink, which is why I attribute the citation to 2008.Lucifer (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Re the SPAM sense, no problem; I myself have been known to fail to realize that things are cited on the citations page — it's the downside of having citations in two places. Re the 'pink slime' sense: if it was coined in 2008, there's a chance we can find citations of it that meet CFI; we'll see. - -sche (discuss) 01:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, but I should have been looking for it, I keep getting yelled and told I miss things like that too often, but at least it gets caught quickly. Well my point is that the first one from the top basically states that the term was coined way before 2012, because its attributed to an employee that was working at the USDA inventing the term during when he worked there which was years ago, so I think it's borderline but it should be enough, but I am sure if we dig we can find some others, maybe on usenet.Lucifer (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for all the feedback and contributions to the limited language proposal. It looks like extinct languages will be dropped. In that case, I think I want to do what you said and add a line, but group endangered and that "other" category together. I'm not sure whether to make a separate section below (like I said) or refer to another page (which you suggested). What do you think? For reference, I've solicited languages from other users and created a list at User:BenjaminBarrett12/scratch2. The line on African languages is horrible and might have to be removed. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I see "lect" is on your coalmine list. The word "lect" is commonly used in dialectology, so I'm curious what the issue is with it. Should I find some more citations for it? --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh, no, my list of COALMINE entries is here (linked-to by the word "COALMINE"); the list on the next line is just a list of words I find interesting. I do have a list of doubtful words slightly further up on my page, which I intend to RFV if I can't soon find citations of them: calamity (meaning 'instance of awkwardness'), stocking#Verb, Crozetts, huck and fist (meaning 'fisting'). You're welcome to welcome to comment or cite them if you're familiar with any of them. - -sche (discuss) 01:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ah, LOL. I thought that was odd. I don't see many coalmine words, but I'll keep those and the others in mind :) --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you know people who can edit protected templates? I would like to continue there, and when you can tell me an admin for that, I can ask him. Thanx, -- sarang♥사랑 08:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you may now re-protect {{Han char}} if you think it necessary. I am ready with all repairs of failing parameters of that template. But still a lot is to do, may be I'll ask you for other templates. Thank you, -- sarang♥사랑 10:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for welcoming me! I'm a long-time user, first-time contributor. I have a recording booth and I can read IPA, so I plan to contribute a ton of recordings. So far, I've just been grabbing random words from the requests page... is there a better way of selecting which words to record first? Should I start with WotD? Also, is there a tool or script that can automate the process a bit? -- Gabriel Sjöberg (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Does Wiktionary use fair use media? see File:Far Side 1982-05-28 - Thagomizer.png. koavf (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

When appropriate, yes, we do. There's no other way we could fully record that citation. - -sche (discuss) 20:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just a heads up that I sent you an e-mail about the LDL proposal. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the kind response. I think the proposal is safe, but I would hate to find out after the proposal goes to vote that I needed to add detail X and then have to start over again. So I'm going to e-mail the copyright people and delay the vote until I hear back, which actually may not be any delay at all.

Other than this, I think the vote is ready to go. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for fixing those citations for corradiate. I am duly embarrassed and will work harder to check my work! --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I moved the discussion for "Inuit" back to that talk page, but also saw that you answered my question about RFUndeletion above that and updated their page to clarify. Thanks! LlywelynII (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I only today noticed WT:Requests for cleanup#Template:my-roman. Please take a look at the template now and let me know if you're content with the changes. Thanks! —Angr 16:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

On the Wiktionary:Votes/2012-06/Well_Documented_Languages, does changing "inappropriate" back to "appropriate" work for you? MK has suggested me making that change, wiping the vote page clean and restarting right away. --BB12 (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

That'll work, and given that the only three people to have voted so far (you, me and Metaknowledge) are on board with the change, you couldn't probably change the vote wording without wiping the votes. - -sche (discuss) 19:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the responses. My intention is that the sources have to be listed when the entry is created, not in response to an RFV, but I have no problem in letting the general Wiktionary community interpret that part. I'll make the changes and wipe the slate except for MK's and my vote in a few hours. (I don't want to add your vote because it's currently opposed.) --BB12 (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Count me in. With that change, I'd support the proposal. -- Liliana • 21:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! The proposal has now been changed and reset. --BB12 (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for starting that page! I've now expanded it significantly, and hope to have converted it into a thorough guide to Latvian entries (well, at least for nouns, since it's what I'm mostly working on now... Adjectives and verbs will come in due time.) I'd be grateful for any comments! --Pereru (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hullo. Did you forget to put lang=fr in the context tags ? --Æ&Œ (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ah! I did. Thanks for catching it. :) - -sche (discuss) 23:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just sorry. I was young, ignorant, and often careless. I never meant for anybody to fix problems that I made. --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Apology accepted. Building a wiki is a lot of work, and most people here have gotten a little careless or lazy at some time or another — I see people revert misplaced translations rather than fix them, recently an admin accidentally broke a major template, and I've deleted a couple entries recently which failed RFV only because neither I nor anyone else had the time, energy, and interest to dig up citations. (From that, I know that digging up citations is especially hard work.)

Building a wiki means having people with different interests, too, and I do think it's good that we have contributors like you who are interested in adding old ligature spellings. You and Doremitzwr both sometimes made such spellings the main entries, which I think was not optimal (to use the phrase the US President is currently in the news for), but I've been using AutoWikiBrowser to find such entries, and the number of such entries seems to be small compared to the number of ligature entries which are appropriately entered as alt forms. I've found that some terms like caricæ apparently are only attested in ligature form, and so were rightly placed. And only rarely have I found terms which seem unattested (those are the few I've brought to RFV).

I think DCDuring would just prefer that contributors do things he sees as more productive (and I figured he was, as he has now said, confusing you with Doremitzwr), but—people do what interests them. - -sche (discuss) 03:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Look at this shit. --Æ&Œ (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for finding those! I've evaluated them in the RFV discussion so as not to fragment that discussion across several places. - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

חופשי ‎ = "Secular"/"non-religious" is hard to find in any dictionaries (at least the ones I've looked at), but seems to be quite prevalent in Israeli political terminology. It's discussed at the English Wikipedia "Hatikvah" article under "Religious objections to Hatikvah", and this Google search turns up plenty of leads... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter whether it's in dictionaries, and English-language sources are categorically irrelevant; what matters is — can we find examples of its use in Hebrew sources? For example, right now I'm looking through google:"חופשיים" site:ynet.co.il inurl:articles, and I'm not seeing any examples of this use. (That's just one example search; there are many others you might try, e.g. google:"חופשי" ‎ "חילוני" site:haaretz.co.il inurl:news, etc., etc.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I removed the sense because it was listed on WT:RFV (the place where dubious things go to be verified) for a month, and even though we have several Hebrew-speaking contributors, one of whom has just given you some helpful tips above (Ruakh) and another of whom tagged the sense {{rfv}} in the first place (Yair), no-one could find in examples of the sense in newspapers or books. If you can find some, we can re-add it. - -sche (discuss) 18:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Shouldn't we have an actual entry for (deprecated template usage) Plautdietsch before we start adding words from the language? SemperBlotto (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Good point. I'll create it. - -sche (discuss) 22:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and as a self-appointed expert, you might be the right person to clean up Mennonite Low German. Thanks! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Although I find it appropriate that our coverage of the messy ... mess ... which is Low German is messy, I'm slowly cleaning up both. I've trimmed Mennonite Low German. - -sche (discuss) 05:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks (although we appear to still have translations under the 'See also' header). Yes, I've often noted the irony in our coverage and how reflective it is of a language. In Yiddish, entries like אַנאַרכיסט (anarkhist, “anarchist”) and ציעניסט (tsienist, “Zionist”) existed long before basic entries like וואַסער (vaser, “water”). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Do you mind if I just dump Germanic stuff here for now? *twai tigiwiz needs a lot of cleanup. Thanks! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hell, same with *newuntēhundan, *ahtōutēhundan, and *sebuntēhundan. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. As I was adding a new thread to Wiktionary talk:Main Page I noticed that you had protected the page and so thought you would be a good person to ask. Does Wiktionary have any equivalent of w:Template:Edit protected? If not, how should one best alert other editors that they have proposed a change to a (semi-)protected page? Thanks! It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 22:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi! In general, you should comment at the Information Desk, or on the talkpage of an administrator. You could also comment in one of the other discussion rooms (WT:TR if you'd specifically like to edit a dictionary entry, though those are rarely protected, or WT:GP if your edit is particularly technical); they're all watchlisted by all the same people, so it'll be addressed in the same amount of time. The Main Page is, of course, also watched by lots of people, so a comment on its talk page will be noticed as quickly as a comment in one of the discussion rooms. :) - -sche (discuss) 23:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why'd you zap those? Got tired of seeing the same old words on your page, or wanted to make room for something? Equinox ◑ 00:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I figured I'd tidy up my userspace, and make room for new words. Who knows, I might add those back; there's no limit on space. - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

	Hello, -sche. You have new messages at M0rphzone's talk page.
	You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{talkback}} template.

- M0rphzone (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Low German mess continues. Here's a short list of Low German L2 problems that I've marked as a job for you. Danke! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Äu weh! Danke für den Hinweis, thanks for pointing me to those... those are some creatively nonstandard headers, not just the usual misspellings or products of language renames. - -sche (discuss) 16:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, one of them was a typo by me... oops lol. - -sche (discuss) 16:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Lol, that's what copypaste is for. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I use stuff like =={{subst:pro}}== a lot because it's quicker and avoids the possibility of a typo. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yeah! Clear out that bastard. I am perpetually alarmed by the length of the Request for pages. Thanks. Equinox ◑ 23:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree with what Equinox said. (For some reason, all Wikimedia stuff has been relatively slow to access for the past few days here. It's making the big discussion pages quite painful.) Equinox ◑ 01:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I know; it's odd...even small entries are slow sometimes, but other times, big pages load as quickly as ever. Maybe those expensive templates Ruakh warned everyone about are finally breaking things? Heh. Well, I'm about to pull WT:RFV back down under 200k bytes. - -sche (discuss) 02:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I just thought I'd let you know that your use of the German term inspired me to add an entry for its English calque. :-)  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh, neat! I've just added another related term, overseeable. Now we can translate the German entry a bit more specifically than just "clear". :) - -sche (discuss) 21:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please forgive me for raining on this parade, but is it good lexicographic/educational practice to use in a definiens words like overseeable that don't occur in a large modern corpus like COCA ? DCDuring TALK 23:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, I've removed oversightly from the definition, because it (as Raif found) has a specialized definition. "Overseeable" (in quotation marks) has 666 Books hits — 393 if you make a typo like I did initially and open with a single quotation mark; I don't understand why that causes 273 hits to disappear — so it's not totally unused. It's used alongside a more detailed explication, and it's hyperlinked, so people can click to see its definition. It is also, I would argue, the English word which most closely translates the German word. There should be (and is) a definiens using smaller/more common words, too; it would be unhelpful if "overseeable" were the only definition... but I think it is good to have it as part of the definition/translate. - -sche (discuss) 01:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

"allotriophagy" is even rarer than "overseeable", but were I to create "Allotriophagie", I would need to use the English word to translate/define the German word. - -sche (discuss) 01:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

When I search for "oversightly" in quotes at bgc I get no hits. "Overseeable" is not as bad, but it is sufficiently uncommon that it seem to have retained three meanings, "that can be supervised, supervisable", "that can be seen or commanded from higher locations", "that can be overlooked, missed, or ignored". Note that "supervise" and "overlook" (verb) are terms constructed in parallel but for which a single possible sense has won out over the others in contemporary usage. "Overlook" (noun) also has only one sense, "a scenic viewpoint". The related term "oversight" retains two meanings "omission" and "supervision".

I have long noted that many very uncommon and obsolete English words and senses are used to gloss non-English words. I think this runs the risk of encouraging stilted translations into English and English writings by non-native speakers of English. DCDuring TALK 04:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

As for our definition of oversightly, I suspect that two out of three are by non-native speakers of English and are calques, as the Cunningham cite clearly is. DCDuring TALK 04:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I believe we accept (and mark) attested calques, and oversightly is marked, so it's OK as far as I can tell.

You have a good point about stilted translations. I've read that the DPRK's English-language press releases are sometimes stilted because they rely on (the only available) older translation dictionaries. On the other hand, I am loath to intentionally exclude such content. Having "overseeable" in "übersichtlich" is as helpful to someone comparing old German and English texts as it is unhelpful to sometime translating a German text into English now. Would it be a solution to use {{qualifier}} tags in the definition? Then ] would be "easily looked over and understood; clear; (dated or uncommon) overseeable", and ] would be "color (US), color (UK)". The obvious problem with that is that it implies to the uninitiated that "overseeable" is a different, dated meaning of "übersichtlich". - -sche (discuss) 07:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

You must have meant "colour (UK)". I don't know whether that particular one is worth doing, but I see what you mean.

The obsolete-dictionary problem is one I have seen in entries we have right here! Though in some cases an obsolete or archaic term is valuable, the most important thing is a translation in current English that can be understood by as many users as possible.

What you suggest would seem to work when one knows the answer. But often I don't, though I see a problem with the English. I wonder whether we should have a category and a marker template (({{stilted|lang=}}?) for translations or definitions. Or would it be better to use existing templates like {{attention|lang}} or {{rfc-def|lang=}}? Is there one specifically for usage example and quotation translations?

We might also benefit from having a list or category of words that have only obsolete senses and/or only obsolete or archaic senses. We could use an offline process to identify non-English sections that use such words and mark them. But clearly there are many cases where a word being used in a translation is being used in a sense which is obsolete or archaic though the word has other senses. For those manual marking is required. DCDuring TALK 16:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yes, "color (UK)" was a typo. I think having a separate template like {{stilted}} that categorized the same as {{attention}} would be preferable to only {{attention}}: Whatlinkshere would show us what used it specifically, and the usual category would show people who like the usual category to contain all problematic entries. We could search Wiktionary on- or off-line for dated words like "overseeable", but the problem you note about senses remains. I'm not yet happy with the appearance of "easily looked over and understood; clear; (dated or uncommon) overseeable", though.

It may amuse you to note that I debated the marking of stilted de→en translations with editors on de.Wikt. In one case, I argued that translating "der Ministerpräsident ] seine Äußerung, man müsse die Mauer wieder aufbauen" as "the prime minister ] his statement that the wall should be rebuilt" rather than "] his statement" sounded entirely too philosophical and/or outdated... but "relativize" was in dictionaries, so others insisted it stay. - -sche (discuss) 20:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, FWIW, I think (deprecated template usage) relativized in that context would be misunderstood; it's a bad translation. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've got to say, you're doing an incredible job with that page. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I'm trying to clear it out before the world ends. (I make fun of the doomsayers. This does inspire me, however, to improve our baktun entry. Some sources say that word was invented by Europeans.) :P The bottom of the "oldest tagged RFVs" list is from October now, so...progress. - -sche (discuss) 21:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Wow. Congratulations and thanks. DCDuring TALK 01:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Word. It's especially incredible how long you've kept up with it; I've never seen an RFVican with your sticktoitiveness! —Ruakh_TALK 01:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Further congratulations and thanks. DCDuring TALK 13:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. Now, once all the entries left over from last year are taken care of, we just have to stop letting things sit on the page indefinitely, and it won't balloon to such proportions again. :)

• Kudos for processing RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the corrections on the citations page. You said, "technically they're all supposed to be bulleted and unspaced, like Citations:parrot." This seems to be an unwritten rule as I do not see that at Wiktionary:Citations#Formatting. Is it okay to update that page to reflect this rule? BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 08:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Certainly! I suppose the drafter of that page intended the example entries (Citations:trade and Citations:parrot) to show the format, but it is a better idea to explain the format on the page, rather than expecting users to intuit it. - -sche (discuss) 23:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you also for the tip on italics as not very good for attestation and other comments and help. I always appreciate the thoughtful advice. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure I agree with not utilizing the jurisdictional 12 weeks that I had. To better define it maybe adding a US context tag would make sense. Also, I don't know what the correct way on definitions is, but I was always taught to not define a word with a form of that same word. Doesn't this sentence seem weird to you? "The definition of abortion is an induced abortion." That is why I tried to pull the word or forms of it out of the definition. Now the 12 week thing, isn't a point worth arguing. I am not trying to politicize the definition, just utilizing my reference books, common sense, and throwing in a bit of my knowledge. Also, is the double "##" not accepted at all on this site? I saw someone else using it in a similar situation, and it looked and felt right. Speednat (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

re "12 weeks": Even in the US, a woman who aborts a fetus after 14 weeks is said to have had an abortion. It happens that some US jurisdictions have tried to ban abortion after 12 weeks, but that only means that abortion is only legal in the first 12 weeks, not that "the surgical or medicinal procedure that terminates a pregnancy by removing the fetus" ceases to be abortion after 12 weeks. We don't give jurisdiction-specific definitions anyway, because they are so numerous. Compare "mayor" or "defamation": what constitutes "defamation", or what power and responsibility a "mayor" has, varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but we only give the general definitions.

re "induced abortion": Wiktionary (like most dictionaries) tries to avoid duplication of content. One sense of "abortion" is exactly "induced abortion", so we simply direct users to click on "induced abortion" for that definition. If we gave the full definition in both entries ("abortion" and "induced abortion"), we'd have to keep them in sync, lest they fall out of sync and imply there was some difference in meaning.

re "##": Subsenses are used when appropriate, but in this case, I think it's easier to interpret the dated "miscarriage" sense and the "induced abortion" sense as separate senses. Listing "induced abortion" as a subsense of a dated sense could wrongly imply that the "induced abortion" sense itself was dated. Of course, this is a possibility with regard to subsenses; what do you think of it? - -sche (discuss) 07:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

re 12 weeks: It makes sense to not jurisdictionalize things, now that you have brought out the finer points.

re induced abortion: I guess it isn't as bad as I let on, as it is being defined as an induced abortion which can be clicked for a better explanation. Also I hadn't realized the ease in keeping thinks sync'ed up by what you have stated. It makes better sense once it was explained to me. Finally on the subsenses, I think that the subsense you used makes it look and read well. Thanks for explaining a few points to me. Speednat (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hullo. You were correct that this term is used in the French tongue, but it does exist in English : 1, 2, 3. I also added an English citation in the entry to enforce this. I am not blaming you (since we all know that Google whips stolen orphans from Ukraine to develop their scanners, among other products), but I just thought that you should know. Ciao. --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I like what you have done with your changes to my edits, and am currently discussing such with Ruakh.

I like what you did with the "see the "Hurry-furry" merger", but I would prefer if you marked the "merry, Mary, marry" merger pages with "see the "merry, Mary, marry" merger" instead of slight POV-ish "most dialects", "New England" and such. Tharthan (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Also, you missed "burrow‎", "flurry" and a few other pages, I believe. Tharthan (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, I put "see the hurry-fury merger" because I wasn't absolutely sure which was the merged pronunciation and which was the unmerged. I've currently asked for help sorting that out in the Tea Room. Where I could tell which accent had which pronunciation, I indicated that, because it helps our readers to know which pronunciation is used in which region. (Check out ], which lists 10 English accents.) "Most accents" could be POVish — I suppose slightly less brief wording would be "outside New England" or similar. As for "burrow" etc: thanks; I'm getting to them. :) - -sche (discuss) 19:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

No problem. And the pronunciation I gave was the unmerged.

In the unmerged pronunciation: "hurry" is /ˈhʌɹi/ "furry" is /fɝ.ɹi/

I hope that helps.

EDIT: I forgot the tilde, sorry. Tharthan (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think I know an easier way of describing the vowels of the "hurry, furry" merger.

Though both spelt with "-urry", "furry" is derived from "fur", thus justifying the "ɝ"; which is also found in "hurt", "blur", "sure", etc. It is essentially the "er" of "derp."

Hurry, flurry, scurry etc. the other hand, all have a distinctive /ʌ/; the sound of the "u" in "dumb."

Does that help? Tharthan (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

You've got it; the changes you made to the hurry page are 100% correct. Tharthan (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Great. :) And thank you for adding the audio! - -sche (discuss) 20:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

No problem. =D

Now all that needs to be done is to apply that to flurry, scurry, furrow, borough, etc.

Thanks again. Tharthan (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I noted this on Ruakh's channel, but (for the "merry, Mary, marry" merger):

UNMERGED (FOUND IN NEW ENGLAND. ALSO OCCURS IN NEARLY ALL OTHER ENGLISH SPEAKING COUNTRIES; ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, NORTHERN IRELAND, AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, ETC.):

MERRY- /mɛri/ MARY- /mɛəri/ MARRY- /mærri/

PARTIAL MERGER (FOUND IN PARTS OF NEW YORK; POSSIBLY SOME MIDWESTERN AREAS?):

MERRY- /mɛri/ MARY- /mɛəri/ MARRY- /mɛəri/

FULL MERGER (QUITE WIDESPREAD OUTSIDE OF NEW ENGLAND):

MERRY- /mɛəri/ MARY- /mɛəri/ MARRY- /mɛəri/

And if you could reword the stuff on the "merry, Mary, marry" articles just a tad, that would be great.

Tharthan (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I saw you added louver to the See also section at love. ?? I don't get it. Leasnam (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

It was a reference to a TV show, in which a character read the definition of love (but messed up and actually read the definition of louver). I'll undo the addition. (I would have undone it after a day or two anyway.) This does make me wonder if ] and ] should link to each other, though... - -sche (discuss) 04:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Category:!Kung nouns - if this is a "bad" title, what is "not bad"? Maro 23:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Category:ǃKung nouns, which uses the Unicode click character rather than the ersatz exclamation mark. Note that a bot (or I) will move the entries shortly. See Wiktionary:RFM#Click_characters_in_language_names_and_2x_.21Kung. Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 23:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I didn't know that this is not an exclamation mark. But they look the same, don't they? So why unicode needs another character for this? I wonder more why English uses in ENGLISH name of the language a character that is not a letter and is unpronouncable for an English speaker? Why not just "Kung"? The more sick, I think is ǃXóõ. Why is this called to be an English word? How to pronounce it? The pronunciation given in ǃXóõ is not English... Maro 23:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's definitely confusing that the two characters look the same. I should have left a link to the click-title in my deletion summary when I deleted the exclamation-mark-title; I'm sorry. As for the English names of the language: "Kung" is also attested as a name for ǃKung, but as Angr commented at WT:RFM, "ǃKung" is more common. I agree that most English-speakers wouldn't know how to pronounce the "ǃ", but most English-speakers don't write about "ǃKung" (or "Kung") at all, so the literature — since it's written mainly by specialists — tends to take the foreign spelling into English wholesale, and hence "ǃKung" is more common as the name of the language than "Kung". "ǃXóõ" is in a similar position, although I have proposed (at WT:RFM#Template:nmn) renaming it to the 'less foreign' and more pronounceable "Taa". - -sche (discuss) 00:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have started placing the reference section at the end of all languages as I ran across a situation with multiple references. So, it made better sense to place it at the end initially, instead of waiting for a possible similar situation to occur. Let me know what you think. Speednat (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

By "sitation with multiple references", do you mean an entry where there were <ref>-tags in multiple language sections? You can still add the <references/> tag to the right language section in those cases — the software can handle it (see, for example, ], where there are references at the very end of both the English and Mbabaram sections), and that way the references are always in the language section they're relevant to. :) - -sche (discuss) 19:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I swear, on the "situation" that I was referring to (I am trying to find it), it didn't do that, but dog disproves that, so thanks. Also I notice on Abbe condenser, on the pronunciation, you worked the entire entry, I was under the impression that on entries with multple words, we only neede to specify the details of the "main" or "in-question" word. Hence, the missing condensor. I am trying to locate, why I thought that. Regardless, if you could help clarify/verify the need for that. I don't like not finishing an entry that I have been working on, and I even dislike more, having my hard work "undone" due to it being redundant or unnecessary. Let me know Speednat (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, Wiktionary's software is odd sometimes, so it's entirely possible you found a page where multiple <references/>s didn't work at first. Another oddity is that if someone creates a new page with a link to itself in it, which happens for example if they create an entry for a word with a plural form that's identical to its singular form, the plural will often show up as a redlink, even though the page exists because it was just created. No-one is quite sure why that happens. A null-edit (click "history" and then change the bit of the URL that reads "&action=history" to "&action=purge") or the passing of a few days usually makes such oddities resolve themselves.

To the best of my knowledge, when we give pronunciations, we give the pronunciation of the entire term. A lot of print dictionaries will only give the pronunciation of the "in-question" parts, as you say: they go for brevity because they have a limited amount of space (lest they be too large to carry). Wiktionary goes for clarity, because space is practically unlimited. (Check out Appendix:Unsupported titles/Protein/pronunciation if you want to see the most extreme pronunciation we have... but save whatever you're doing first, in case the massive size of that page crashes your browser.) - -sche (discuss) 01:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if I should feel picked on by your following all my edits, but if I am learning I guess it doesn't matter. Do we not use the {{borrowed}} or {{borrowing}} templates anymore. In hindsight, I think the borrowing template would have been better, but you used neither, and that "seems" wrong. Speednat (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Try not to feel picked on... Wiktionary is just a lot more rigid than Wikipedia when it comes to formatting, and Wiktionary gets a smaller volume of edits, too, so I (and other editors) tend to 'bring entries up to speed' as I see them, rather than letting there be a backlog of unchecked diffs like Wikipedia and the German Wiktionary have. {{borrowed}} is a {{qualifier}}-like tag that's placed after words in certain circumstances, like lists of descendants (as in ]). I was actually unaware of the existence of {{borrowing}} until you mentioned it just now, but it seems to be perfect for use in etymologies. :) - -sche (discuss) 01:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just changed abattoir using borrowing template. take a look, let me know Speednat (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

It looks good! :) - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am getting frustrated with the amount of negativity produced by Dan Polansky. I have crossed paths with him a couple of times and he seems to be getting personal with his attacks. I am not sure what to do. Obviously, I am trying to avoid any nasty confrontation and edit war, but I don't like being accused of copyright violations due to an odd "technical" definition that I have trouble rewording, so I enter the definition as a near-quote, WITH reference. I onlu do this on those technical ones that I have one example to work off of. Second, he is now going after my etymology entries, like those need to be originally created by us editors as well. Either Abbetdin comes from certain Hebrew words or it doesn't and either those words translate to certain English words or they don't. I understand the need for vigilance on the copyright front as that may cause system wide issues, which is why, I have restarted my editting order from A and am eliminating all of the quotes of entries that I can, of which the vast majority were there long before I started editting here. Please advise, and I apoligize for my rant, but you seem to be even-tempered and are an admin, and I respect your work and opinions thus far. Speednat (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, DP made a nasty little snipe against me today, too, on my user page. When I pointed out that I had already called for the word in question to be deleted (I had created it), he made an incoherent follow-up that seemed to be an explanation or perhaps an apology. Then he placed a different entry I had created on RfV, which is strange because lots of Google Books citations are readily available. --BB12 (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

don't get me started. DCDuring TALK 00:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, Dan snaps at people sometimes... he may just be having a bad day/week. It happens... one of our admins(!) snapped and deleted the Main Page not long ago. (Actually, snapping and deleting the Main Page seems to be an admin tradition haha...although mostly it's just one admin.) I would just let things go through the usual channels: if someone sends a word to RFV, there are plenty of people (myself included) who'll try to cite it (or in the case of Abbetdin/Abbethdin, move it to a more attested spelling). And if the two of you find yourselves in an edit war, let other users/admins intercede. - -sche (discuss) 00:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the perspective! --BB12 (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your involvement btw; however, in my reference Abderian and Abderite have two different and mutually exclusive definitions.

Abderian or abderian meaning having the qualities of Abdera, ie an item is Abderian, or that is an abderian person, whereas-

Abderite or abderite meaning from Abdera, ie. The Abderites attacked our village, or.. he was an abderite. Well that last one doesn't actually work out the way I thought it would in my head, but I think you get my point. You added under Abderian the definition, "An inhabitant or native of Abdera." Which I think is a definition for only Abderite. All this is of course moot, if while looking around google.book or wherever you look, you found more information that necessitates this new sense being added in. Thanks for your time and ear. Let me know. Speednat (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there are a number of books that use Abderian(s) to mean inhabitant(s) of Abdera, e.g.

• 1872, Stephen Smith, Doctor in Medicine: and Other Papers on Professional Subjects:

  "He regrets that his lines had not fallen in the pleasant places of the past — among the intelligent Abderians of whom it is said, when Hippocrates came to their city to cure Democritus of his madness, not only the men, but also the women and children went forth to meet him."

I'll look into Abderite.

Sometimes, dictionaries have terms or senses that are not actually attested (like Abbetdin, it seems, the "breath" sense that used to be in ] until we discovered it wasn't attested); we put those in Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. Conversely, sometimes dictionaries don't have terms and senses that can nevertheless be found in books. - -sche (discuss) 01:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've responded you on my talk page. One thing I don't know about - if <k p t> is followed, but not preceeded by a sibilant within the same morpheme, is it aspirated? Because I don't know how to transcribe it. The recording of wirksam on Forvo has a weakly or perhaps not at all aspirated <k>. But then... in "wirksam" it's not within the same morpheme (wirk-sam). Or am I wrong? I've always sucked at linguistic terminology. The guy from Forvo that recorded it is from near Leipzig, and I don't know about these dialects losing the aspiration... how is it then? You're a native interested in phonetics so... you ought to know! :P --89.79.88.109 02:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

That's an interesting question! I wrote a more detailed reply (and might still post it), but I think I should defer for the most part to the linguist Dr. Karl-Heinz Best. You can ask him on his talk page on de.Wikt, or I'll ask him when I get a chance.

Briefly, though, my feeling is that /k/ should be weakly aspirated in "wirksam", because the /z/ is separated from it across a syllabic and morphemic boundary... but the switch from voicelessness to voicing makes the sequence /k.z/ hard enough for many people that even the Duden's audio of wirksam and aufmerksam actually sound to me almost like /ɡ.z/ and /k.s/ (?), respectively. Because even phonetic transcriptions which note instances of strong aspiration can omit weak aspiration, my instinct would be to omit the . - -sche (discuss) 12:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

"no-one has commented proposing that they don't meet CFI" — isn't that why they were put up for RFV though, to request citations that pass the BRAND rules? Equinox ◑ 00:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

The term itself is in clear widespread use, so any debate must (I presume) be over whether that common use passes BRAND or not. While in the first RFV Liliana thought there was "no chance" it did, and you seemed to also think it didn't, Purplebackpack thought it did, Mglovesfun thought it did, and Anatoli thought it did. Thus, a majority of voters thought it met the relevant CFI.

After the first RFV petered out, WT:BRAND changed, yet thereafter, no one — in the five months it sat at WT:RFV for its second RFV — made the slightest suggestion that it did not meet the new BRAND. Hence my comment "no-one has commented proposing that they don't meet CFI, so they're staying".

I would be sympathetic to a RFD of Amtrak and Citibank, if you open one (thought I expect a RFD of McDonald's itself would fail). - -sche (discuss) 00:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Would you be able to give a translation too? —CodeCat 10:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I started to translate it when I added it, but I wasn't certain of the translation of fjǫld or frœða.

It's also worth noting that I used the Codex Regius version; the Hauksbók has (with spelling normalised):

Fram sé ek lengr, — For I see far ,

fjǫld kann ek segja, — can I say,

The traditional translations are unhelpful when it comes to this verse: Thorpe doesn't even have it (that I can find); Bellows seems to be translating the R version, but changes the third person to the first:

Much do I know,

and more can see

Of the fate of the gods,

the mighty in fight.

Mundal and Wellendorf translate R:

She knows much of wisdom, / I see further ahead / to the strong victorious gods' / ragnarǫk.

and H:

I see further ahead / I can say much / to the strong victorious gods' / ragnarǫk.

Translating fjǫld "much" and frœða "knowledge" seems to be standard, so I've gone with that.

- -sche (discuss) 19:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Fjǫld is properly a noun, and Gerhard Köbler gives it as: fjǫl-d, an., st. F. (ō): nhd. Menge

For frœða there is: frœð-a, an., sw. V. (1): nhd. klug machen.

So I would translate that sentence as something along the lines of she knows how to give knowledge/wisdom to many, or in the Codex Regius I can say a multitude. —CodeCat 20:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I saw the verb frœða in Köbler, but oddly overlooked fjǫld, though I see it now (perception filter?!). I just checked Cleasby-Vigfússon; they have have fjǫl as "a deal" and "much", and that's also how I would interpret Köbler's gloss (as "amount" rather than "multitude"). Since a number of other translations have "much" rather than "to many", I think we should stick with "much", but I have changed the translation to treat frœða as a verb rather than a noun. - -sche (discuss) 20:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

The verb frœða is a class 1 weak verb derived from the adjective fróðr (“wise”). Verbs of this type have the general meaning "to make (adjective)", and that implies this verb means "to make wise". The most straightforward interpretation is then that fjǫld is the direct object of this verb, so that fjǫld frœða would mean literally "to make many/a multitude wise". The word fjǫld itself is presumably derived from a Germanic pre-form *felu-Lua error in Module:links at line 223: The specified language Proto-Germanic is unattested, while the given term does not begin with '*' to indicate that it is reconstructed., and has the same suffix as the many English words in -th such as length, width, etc. That makes it clearly a noun. —CodeCat 21:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've switched to the Hauksbók version of the Norse as its grammar is easier to translate; I think this bypasses/obviates the issue. - -sche (discuss) 22:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Sorry but I just feel like reverting your edits. The translations had glosses when you started adding your {{ttbc}}'s. Many translators won't come back. You know some of these languages. Why, why?! Even if you doubt some translations, why cast doubts on ALL of them? I don't think your "conversion" was justified. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

EncycloPetey cast doubt (rightly, IMO) over all of the translations years ago, by putting the {{rfc}} tag over the translations section and listed the entry at Wiktionary:Requests_for_cleanup#ghost. He did this because many were added by IPs and were quite suspect (e.g. obscure languages probably copied from some other site's listing of terms with no regard to accuracy). However, the RFC listing went unresolved, because no single person had the fluency in every language that would be necessary to check all of the translations at once. My edit, which converted the RFC into individual TTBCs, allows each translation to be checked individually, on its own time, until all have been checked. This way, it can eventually be determined which are valid and which are not. In the meantime, all of the translations are still in the entry, unmoved: I did not remove any information from the entry (except when I combined the Serbo-Croatian translations), and I barely altered the way the page looks: the only visible difference is that the language names now display highlighted in green. - -sche (discuss) 05:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

OK. I guess I have some work to do on this one. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if I was harsh yesterday. You're trying to do the right thing. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's OK.

I've been checking as many of the translations as I can, and I see you've been checking a lot of them, too; I hope others will pitch in. I've already noticed and removed a few that were inaccurate (such as Old High German tiufal, which is actually "devil, demon" more than "spirit of a dead person"). - -sche (discuss) 01:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi -sche,

I'm contacting you about the advice you gave me in the Tea Room concerning Torvalu4 and his/her edits to Romanian entries. I've commenced the tedious process of going through the list of terms edited by him/her and I've begun to undo changes where it has been necessary. I've spent a considerable amount of time checking up etymologic information attributed to the terms and I've changed the etymologies so that they respect the NPOV guidelines of the Wiktionary project. Needless to say, I was more than frustrated when I discovered that he/she – again – expunged my edits early this morning. I will keep undoing his/her edits, but what's the point if he/she persists to exclude any other theory but the Albanian one? Please tell me what to do. Best regatds, --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is a difficult issue, because it seems like you and Torvalu are the only one(s) here who speak Romanian, and I'm hesitant to block a prolific contributor for edits in a language I don't speak. Having said that, I believe that the consensus reached in the Tea Room was that Torvalu is acting inappropriately by removing the non-Albanian theories, so I have issued a short block. If Torvalu continues to edit-war, longer blocks can be issued. (Another possibility is to protect the articles, but because this only involves one user, blocking that user seems more appropriate.) Keep me informed if he or she resumes edit-warring after the block expires, - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I understand the precarious situation and your hesitation to block users whose contributions to some degree are useful. However, I doubt that Torvalu4 has a substantial knowledge of the Romanian language. I've actually questioned his/her proficiency in the Tea Room discussion, without receiving an answer or denial – fact being that he/she doesn't use a Babel-template in their user page letting us know what their specialties are. He/she has made erroneous statements (e.g. "g" in lega, frig and înghiți showing a development – phonetically inaccurate), wrong translations (for chilblain, păducel was listed as the Romanian equivalent – I have changed it now) and ignorance to linguistic development of the language (statements issuing that a certain phenomenon is isolated when it in fact occurs in several well-known examples, e.g. "v < b" confusion in Latin to Romanian, present in words like bătrân, boace, bășică etc.). I really hate speculating, but I just don't see how somebody who "claims" to know a language can make such inaccurate statements. In conclusion, I will monitor words which have provoked this dispute and I'll go through the list of Romanian words edited by Torvalu4 and make sure that they respect NPOV. If you have any questions or if you oppose any of my changes – since I'm not entirely acquainted with Wiktionary's guidelines and formats – please let me know! Best regards, --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to reopen this discussion, but I just had to ask. Torvalu4 has started editing again, only this time Spanish and Basque terms. I'm just wondering if the changes done to e.g. bruja are ok, since they pretty much resemble the changes he/she did to Romanian terms. I'm not contesting the information added to the etymology, but was it necessary to remove the "origin unknown" part since linguist still to this day discuss the origin of the term? Thanks, --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. There are, fortunately, a lot of Spanish-speakers (and, relevantly, one or two Old Irish-knowers) on Wiktionary, so I'll bring this to everyone's attention in the Tea Room and it should be possible to get a lot of input. - -sche (discuss) 19:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have created a template and a request category for items like gullywasher, which can reasonably be resolved only by consulting the Dictionary of American Regional English, whose fifth volume is now available in print. I should be able to consult it from time to time. Please add the template to any English entries that have such disputes so I work on those first. I intend to review all US terms that currently have regional distribution claims. At present those would be the ones in subcategories of Category:American English, perhaps 400. There must really be more entries and thousands more potential entries. DCDuring TALK 00:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree that the Dictionary of American Regional English is the only reference work which can resolve terms' regional distribution; I've just added a number of other references and citations to gullywasher. I will add that template to terms which disputed regional usage, though. - -sche (discuss) 00:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's the most definitive. I expect that the other sources rely on the volumes of it that were available at the time of their writing. The project is reaching an advanced stage of completeness: The fifth volume (through Z) has been published this year. A catch-up supplement volume is expected shortly, followed by some electronic publication.

What sources do you use? I consult Mencken, not for the scholarship, but the writing. DCDuring TALK 01:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I see that you reformed the headers at b3, which already confirmed to the standard currently set out at Wiktionary:About Egyptian. That standard is still in draft phase, so I was wondering whether you might want to offer some criticism of the policy as a whole - so that it can be brought more into line with wiktionary users' expectations (If so, you'll probably want to skip past the bits on hieroglyphs). Your changes were to divide each sub entry into its own etymology, and to shift the alternative forms out of the POS. With regards to the first change, I'm not sure whether enough is known about Egyptian etymology to do that - but I'm sure we can fudge it. With regards to the second, I'm less ambivalent, as on the one hand, Egyptian varient spellings tend to be specific to particular parts of speech (i.e. if there is an etymologically linked noun and verb, they'll still probably be written differently in hieroglyphs), while on the other, I want to have the standard hieroglyphs appear first, because otherwise they come awfully late in the entry (Since, unlike in normal entries, they aren't in the title space). Furius (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know about WT:AEGY; I've replied there. :) - -sche (discuss) 17:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your rapid response! I will reply there, also. Furius (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, -sche,

Could you explain why you expect Dutch in a Hanseatic colony? --129.125.102.126 20:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Considering your edit, do you think that komputa must be reconstructed as a pre-1885 word because it is found in Tok Pisin, Bislama and Pijin? --129.125.102.126 00:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Computers were not known in the Pacific in 1885. In contrast, petrol and benzene were. - -sche (discuss) 02:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Bensin isn't benzene. Depending on where you're from, it might be petrol, but that makes your "either German or English" somewhat shaky (benzene#English mentions that the 1st known mention of (deprecated template usage) benzene (earlier (deprecated template usage) benzine) is from 1872). --129.125.102.126 21:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Could you please answer, or at least drop the pseudonym? --129.125.102.126 03:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I thought we already went through this, at User talk:Metaknowledge#bensin. At this point, I honestly don't care what you do the etymology, but I think the most honest approach would be to admit that creole etymologies tend to be pretty unclear when not self-evident. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, I think that "ultimately from German" is better for "pretty unclear" than an anachronistic choice excluding one of the languages which was used at that time at that place. --129.125.102.126 21:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what you mean by your reference to pseudonyms. As for the etymology: the reference I supplied, which considers it to have derived from German or English, is the only one I can find. Are you advancing a different theory? If so, do you have any reference to support your theory? As for the meaning of "benzene", take a look at Crowley's comments, which I posted to Talk:bensin: he explains how the English word shifted in meaning such that benzene is no longer petrol (but was at the time it might have been borrowed). - -sche (discuss) 04:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

About my "reference to pseudonyms": you reverted another edits by me while ignoring my comments here. I'm quite sure you didn't intend to bully me, but several pseudonyms reverting my edits, and tag teaming at talk pages, is intimidating. You obviously are a serious editor, why do you feel the need to hide behind a pseudonym? --129.125.102.126 21:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

"-sche" isn't a pseudonym, it's a user name. It's quite normal on wiki sites to only use one's user name- I use my real name as my user name, but that's my own, idiosyncratic choice. Your remarks about pseudonyms might be taken more seriously if they were coming from someone other than an anonymous IP. Given the lack of non-verbal cues in written communication, reading ulterior motives into people's actions- or lack thereof- is a good way to get over-stressed about nothing.

Also characteristic of wikis is the tendency for people to participate in conversations they're interested in, regardless of who's talk page it's on- "tag teaming" implies some kind of coordination behind the scenes- there is none. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am, most of all, opposing the theory that the Hanseatic cities would only be speaking High German during the late 19th century. For that I offer the different theory that they (at least: also) spoke Low German. Perhaps I can even find sources, but stuff like "bears shit in the wood" and "the Pope is catholic" usually doesn't get explicit mentions. --129.125.102.126 21:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

For the etymology of bensin (as "pidgin English" for petrol) I also have a different theory: cognates of bensin were (and are) used in many languages for somewhat related chemical fluids. The invention of the w:Otto engine made many of those words to (also or mostly) mean "Otto engine fuel", my theory is that bensin#Indonesian, bensin#Norwegian, and bensin#Tok_Pisin are cognate words, but originally didn't mean "petrol"/"gasoline", simply because there wasn't a suitable engine when the words entered those languages. I don't have sources for that either, but I'm quite sure I can find old enough uses of bensin, benzine, бензин, benzina, benzene, Benzin, benzin &c. --129.125.102.126 21:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I should apologize for answering so slowly. Your "according to..." is a superb solution, IMHO. --129.125.102.126 21:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad that resolves this, then. I also apologise for answering slowly. - -sche (discuss) 22:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Noah is not only a Biblical character. He is also an Iqan (Baha'i scripture) character and Quran character. Pass a Method (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

We could always create categories like Category:en:Quranic characters in addition to Category:en:Biblical characters.

As for the template itself, you might like to comment here. Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 18:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I noticed some of my inline citations have been deleted and am wondering why. Inline citations are a very accurate and precise way to point out specific pieces of information that was garnered from other sources. It does nothing to detract, only enhance it. I don't want to go change something back, if there is a valid reason, only if it was a mistake. Speednat (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Any chance we could keep this all on your talk page as I think you're talking about me, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

It actually was meant about -sche, as he and I were discussing this before you got involved, and this post was also before your involvement. Not trying an end-run, I just had this conversation already in progress before ours. Since you are watching this page now, I thought I had a ? unanswered back on my page about this subject-- inline citations. As always, thanks for guiding me to the Wiktionary way. Speednat (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Not a question but an implied question.

So, what's the German translation, if not Laban? Labné must the dryer variety, so this must be a more correct translation, what's the gender of Labné? I heard from an Arabic speaker who was reading out vocabulary list complaining that لبن (lában) is used incorrectly to mean milk, in his opinion it was yoghurt but this must be regional and both Laban and Labné may be coming from different variants of Arabic. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

There isn't one, as far as I can tell. "Das Labneh" is used on the web, but it doesn't meet CFI; indeed, it only gets 11 Google hits. Wikipedia uses "Labné", but that term seems to be just as rare (though the fact that it's also a common French word makes it hard to search for). It's so rare that I can't be sure of its gender... I would guess neuter, but really I'd never heard of food product before today. There doesn't seem to be a German word for it yet; "das Labneh" seems to be as close as it gets. - -sche (discuss) 05:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It's a rare or exotic product, so there may not be enough Google hits but it seems like a valid translation (transliteration), nevertheless. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, -sche, I hope you're doing well. :) I just wanted to stop by and say thank you for retaining the citations pages I'd created, post RFVs. It's most helpful for future research and compilation purposes. I really appreciate it! Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I know you've been learning some Perl, for XML-dump analysis and such . . . do you feel up to running a bot yet?

I'm not prepared to distribute my bot code publically (e.g., to GPL it), but I've sent it in the past to a few different editors for their own bot runs (Equinox mass-uploading mineral entries, msh210 mass-delinkifying the lemma-form argument of {{es-verb form of}}, etc.), and if you like, I can send it to you as well, so you can perform tasks like the one you describe at Wiktionary:Grease pit/2012/October#Bot task: replace deprecated IPA characters.

—Ruakh_TALK 02:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

My Perl (and Javascript) knowledge is still sadly minimal, but it couldn't hurt to look at your code. If I could adapt it to change instances of foo to bar, I'd be able to do most of the cleanup tasks I find myself asking others to bot (like: update the deprecated IPA characters, orphan Template:ctlig per RFDO).

Perhaps what I should (also) do is download AWB. Wikipedia has a process for requesting approval to use AWB; do you know what I need to do to use it here on Wiktionary? - -sche (discuss) 02:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Flood flag? DCDuring TALK 12:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've flagged myself during most of the things I've done. - -sche (discuss) 17:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

It didn't cover about a dozen items over the last 4 hours, but the problems was mostly 12 hours ago or so. DCDuring TALK 21:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, oddly, at least one edit went through without the flag just 1 minute after I set the flag. I apologise if I've clogged anyone's watchlist. - -sche (discuss) 22:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Argh. Flooded. Maybe 50? DCDuring TALK 09:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Maybe it would be better to set up a bot account for these edits? —Ruakh_TALK 13:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ok. I am curious why setting the flood flag only intermittently works, though. I see it, too: even though I was flood-flagged during the edits, they still show up in my own watchlist even when I blend out bot edits. Actually, that makes me wonder if (and why) having a bot-flagged account would be any different... - -sche (discuss) 22:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe in barnstars, but I do believe in thank-yous, so — thank you. Your work is appreciated. :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 02:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

• You are a true Stakhanovite. I am virtually always happy with your judgment. I don't have such good judgment myself, so even when I am not happy with a decision, I have the feeling you might be right. DCDuring TALK 02:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you two. It is nice to know that my work is not unnoticed. I decided after I wrote that that what I really deserved was a wikibreak... and yet here I am again. Hmm... I think I may need to import Wikipedia's break enforcement js ;) lol. (Nah.) - -sche (discuss) 22:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I had a different idea for these. Instead of having one subpage for each type of template we want to protect, we list them all together and split the pages by first letter. So 'e' would have {{en}}, {{en/script}}, {{en/family}}, {{langprefix/en}} etc. all together. This would hopefully keep the pages from getting too big and slow. —CodeCat 00:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a great idea! I split the pages the way I did only because I found that to be the easiest way of setting the system up, and I didn't realise the pages would need to be modified very much. If you want to organise things more neatly, I'm all for it. :) - -sche (discuss) 00:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Both links in my edit summary don't use saksanheisi as a genus from the family Viburnum, but for the family Sambucus. Both Viburnum and Sambucus are Adoxaceae.

Http://runeberg.org/pieni/4/0054.html (lemma selja) "redirect"s to saksanheisi, but it is somewhat dated.

What are your sources? --129.125.102.126 02:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to butt in on someone else's talk page, but it does look to me like saksanheisi is indeed a term for elderberry (genus- not family- Sambucus). While heisi may mean Viburnum, that's no guarantee that saksanheisi is going to mean the same. One thing I've learned from decades of following common names around the languages of the world is that one should never expect them to make sense in such an SOP-ish way (though they do, often enough). Finnish Wikipedia uses seljat for Sambucus, but also has a page of synonyms (w:fi:Luettelo kasvien synonyyminimistä#S) that lists saksanheisi as a synonym for it. That still doesn't mean that it's common enough to have as the only translation for elder, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your change because I checked the relative frequency of saksanheisi and selja on Google and Google Books and found saksanheisi seemed less common than selja, I noticed that your IP was from the Netherlands, and I misinterpreted your edit summary to mean you were adding it because it was the name of a tree in one city's coat of arms. I wasn't reverting your change because I had evidence that saksanheisi was wrong, beyond the Googling that implied it was viburnum, but because I figured someone adding an apparently less-common might-be-synonym of a word in a language not spoken where they lived, possibly based on a specific use (in a coat of arms) rather than general use, was more likely wrong that right. Wiktionary's terrible patroller-to-edit ratio means that many an edit can only be given that sort of eyeball treatment—but I don't condone that and I do apologise to you. I hadn't noticed you were the same person who had commented on Tok Pisin and Srebrenica. Since there isn't consensus on whether to include synonyms in translations tables, and your Runeberg reference checks out, I've undid my revert. - -sche (discuss) 05:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck_Entz & @-sche: To be honest, I did add saksanheisi because the shrub is in the coat of arms (CoA) of a certain city/town/village. That said, I did spend some time to find two different (but I can't vouch for them to be totally independent) reliable sources. I did the same research for the animal in the CoA, only to see that saksanhirvi was there already.

Obviously, the Finns didn't choose their words as saksan* because a far-away village chose a CoA. Choosing the animal and plant based on Finnish words isn't as unlikely as it may seem. Heldern is around 10 miles from Vjenne, which traded extensively with Санкт-Петербург, which was close to Suomen suuriruhtinaskunta. The etymology of saksan (Saxon instead of German) might have helped. --129.125.102.126 10:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

@-sche: There's no need to apologise: you correctly spotted an edit which needs discussion. --129.125.102.126 10:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll read up on that, at first glance I'm thinking "is that like synonyms?" so I'd better make sure I understand what is included under that label.

I definitely had a more inclusive idea of what 'related' means. Presumably etymological ancestors go under the 'etymology' section and etymological descendants go under the 'derived terms' section, so would 'related terms' be for sibling/cousin type words descended from common ancestors?

So for some stuff, if it doesn't fit under coordinate, a generic 'see also' is good?

Also do you know if we could possibly add a link to template:rfv on both the template:fact and template:unreferenced see also sections? Both are locked so I can't but I think they would be very useful. It is difficult for me to remember this initialism so being able to see it clearly when visiting the more memorable word-based templates would be helpful. Etym (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Many gay newspapers use marriage equality instead of gay marriage or same-sex marriage. , . I think those cites have a gay marriage context. Do you mind if i revert you? Pass a Method (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

In the first of those links, it seems to me that "Minnesota group to push for marriage equality" still means "Minnesota group to push for (legal) acceptance of gay marriage alongside straight marriage", which isn't synonymous with "gay marriage", though it's semantically related. Compare "Obama tries to give up smoking" and "Obama tries to give up cigarettes"—they're semantically related, but not synonymous.

Complicating matters, "gay marriage" is, I know, often used semi-figuratively—a headline like "Minnesota group to push for gay marriage" usually means that the group is pushing for the legalisation of gay marriage, not that they're literally pushing for gay couples to take the plunge and get married. I'm going to ask in the Tea Room for broader input on whether it should be noted in the entry.

The second link is very cool; its use of "marriage equality" does seem to be figurative for "gay marriage, the union of two people of the same sex". It's still possible to interpret "Australia’s laws banning marriage equality" as banning "acceptance of both gay and straight unions", but it's odd—does anyone speak of apartheid-era South Africa as "banning racial equality" rather than "discriminating against blacks"? I've tentatively undone my edits and added a sense to ], since I assume that usage is attested...but I await others' feedback in the Tea Room on whether we're correctly interpreting the usage. - -sche (discuss) 06:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

See Wiktionary:Tea_room#gay_marriage.2C_marriage_equality. - -sche (discuss) 06:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hallo -sche!
Vielen Dank für die formale Überarbeitung des oben genannten Eintrags. Ich bin mit den hiesigen Regeln einfach noch nicht sehr vertraut. Lieben Gruß dir, Caligari ^Ɔɐ^ƀïиϠ_Ⴕ 16:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Kein problem. Vielen Dank für deine Arbeit, und frohes neues Jahr! :) - -sche (discuss) 04:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

The language is called Asu but the code for it is asa. That could be confusing... I wonder why they didn't make a bit of effort at ISO to make sure that all languages with 3 letter names would have codes identical to their names. —CodeCat 19:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've wondered that myself. They did give a few languages homographic codes, like Aja and Adi, and sometimes codes are based on different names, like {{ado}}, which we and they call "Abu" but which is distinguished from several other "Abu"s as "Adjora". But other times, it looks the task of assigning unique codes to several thousand different things got the better of them... "Ali" is {{aiy}} because {{ali}} is "Amaimon", which doesn't even have an "l" in its name! - -sche (discuss) 21:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

PS I may request to rename "Asu" soon, as it may be more commonly, unambiguously and autonymically called "Chasu". - -sche (discuss) 21:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply