User talk:Bequw/archive2009

Just thought I'd let you know about this if you hadn't seen it- Robert Ullmann scans a Spanish news website for words not currently in Wiktionary. Unfortunately that's about 400 every day, way more than I have time to add. So if you want to work on it that would be great. Thanks. Nadando 17:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

A "Spanish noun forms" category doesn't make much sense, considering that besides in the case of masculine and feminine forms, the only actual Spanish noun form is the plural. "Spanish plural nouns" should've been enough, but illogical translingual conformity seems to be the wiktionary way of the future. — opiaterein — 01:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! It doesn't look like this place is very active recently (not seeing too many different users here). Anyways, I just wanted to drop by and say hi. Cheers, Razorflame 22:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

May I suggest that you add a templated message to the talk page of each of these macrolanguage templates explaining why its name is constructed differently from other ISO templates. --EncycloPetey 19:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you want a note saying that these templates can be called with different arguments to get their desired wiki link, category, and display text? If so, would that help as no one calls them directly (only {{etyl}} does)? Or do you mean that these language codes often create wikilinks with the text "... languages" added to the family name instead of just "... language"? Or do you want some text noting how people can create their own (the unmade ISO 639-5 codes)? Or you mean something else? Oh good, haven't made a statement yet. Cheers, --Bequw → ¢ • τ 19:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Any and all of this. As a regular editor who knows that "Template:etyl:..." have been deprecated recently, I was at first confused by your move of the Tupi template. Then, I remember the macrolanguage conversations and figured out that this was a macrolanguage use. At a minimum, I'd like there to be a message explaining to editors that this pattern of template naming isn't used for languages, but for macrolangauge, language families, and other über-groupings that would not have language categories. --EncycloPetey 19:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll try and make it more informative. There was info at Category:ISO 639-5 templates, but I wanted to wait until I had heard back from Ivan about converting before I made notes at the BP and updated the etyl docs which I have just done. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Since I don't have the energy to undertake this venture right now, I thought I'd throw it past you in case you did. Both User talk:Robert Ullmann/L2/invalid and User:Robert Ullmann/Trans languages/uncoded (sort by notes, and look for "no code") have a bunch of languages, many of which probably merit a place on the list. Clearly you have numerous other things on your plate right now, but I thought I'd at least make sure you were aware. Cheers. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wow, those are some rare ones. I've put them in the big list. Some notes:

• seems to work for Middle Chinese as the wiki time frame matches the Linguist List page (linked from the ISO site).
• Singlish. Haven't we been viewing this as regional English? should we continue?

--Bequw → ¢ • τ 09:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

To be honest, I have this inscrutable fear of east Asian languages, and stay well enough away from them, so I have no idea what to say about ltc. Singlish is an interesting case. Differentiating between closely related languages and distantly related dialects is a tricky thing. Our best bet is probably (as in most other cases) defer to SIL. If SIL's got a code for a type of English (it has a few, I've noticed), then we give it L2 and everything else status. If not, then we don't. I guess since Singlish had a 'pedia article and a number of entries, I decided not to reformat them as English with a Singlish contag, but that's probably what should be done. Also, you may find interesting, as it removes one entry from the list. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 10:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

After speaking with someone vaguely familiar with historical Chinese, I don't think we can use for all the "Middle Chinese" entries. We'll have to let an expert look at them. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 04:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, why you are replacing "Common Turkic" with "Proto-Slavic"? These languages have nothing in common. --Jyril 08:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oops, I got one of my rules wrong for converting to {{proto}}. Thanks for letting me know, I'll correct them. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 08:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, but is it /ˈbikjuː/, /biˈkjuː/, or /bikˈjuː/? --EncycloPetey 06:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

:) The former, but I did have to think awhile. Pronunciations are too hard for me. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 07:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have now scanned all the entries on User:SemperBlotto/possible vanity pages and deleted the obvious ones. I have added a {{vanitypage}} template to some that show a small amount of real use - I will recheck these later. You might like to recreate the page at some time in the future - if so, could you reduce then number of edits from 100 to about 20. If you could also ignore links to -pedia that would be great (but don't go to any trouble). Cheers SemperBlotto 22:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I was wondering whether you could update the docs to reflect the changes introduced here. If there's no documentation, the code doesn't exist. --Ivan Štambuk 10:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

You mean like this documentation update? It wasn't much text, so I understand if the change didn't jump out at you. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 17:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was referring to dis/cat/pedia parameters which appear to be undocumented. --Ivan Štambuk 18:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Aah, yes. I'm put some notes at Category:ISO 639-5 templates as Template:etyl didn't seem the right place. Feel free to improve. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 01:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

1. Please take a bit more care about this.
2. In case of Scottish Gaelic prepositions' Derived terms you needn't bother at all, as I'm going to gradually change the format of each to the one used eg at thar. --Duncan 19:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks.--Bequw → ¢ • τ 19:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please undo all your changes. They create an unsolveable problem in some browsers. When the text is wide (as it often in for Latin verbs, for example), and the screen is too narrow for the included text, the right-hand portion of the conjugation table is permanenetly hidden, with no way of revealing the hidden content. --EncycloPetey 19:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

That is obviously not desirable. But, from what I can tell, this behavior is independent of my changes. The two widest Latin tables I found are circumvenio and submurmuro, but after you reverted my edits to those templates ({{la-conj-4th}} and {{la-conj-1st}}) I still get the behavior you describe on those pages (using IE 7, Chrome, and Firefox). Did reverting my changes fix anything for you? If so, for what browser? If 'style=clear:both' fixes this display problem for older browsers, we'd still have to fix it for newer browsers. Maybe we should ask in the BP following up on where I asked about removing these attributes to being with. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The problem only monifests when there is a R-side object that drops down into the same line as the box (which was the point of the change). I have run tests, and can produce this result in Safari on a Mac and IE in MS 2003. Reverting your changes reduces the likelihood of this happening, as it permits the box to expand to the full width of the browser screen, instead of just using the space to the left of a R-hand object. --EncycloPetey 20:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, it seems like the general problem is (and correct me if I'm misrepresenting your concern) that the navframe isn't scrollable so content is often hidden when the usable width is narrow. This is more likely to happen when the navframe shares the page width with right-side elements (ie the navframe doesn't have the 'clear' style) but happens also just when the browser window is narrow. Hidden information is more problematic than "not playing nice" with right-hand side elements, but they both should be fixable so i'll ask in the GP if anyone has a better solution. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 21:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That does summarize the problem as I understand it as well. --EncycloPetey 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I restored the Transwiki:PICNIC you had deleted for being a "bad entry title", then moved it in to PICNIC overwriting your efforts to create PICNIC by cut and paste method. When you're using Transwikis and moving them to main pages, please use the Move command at the top of the page which will preserve the pages history and prior authors, a condition of using other people's works. Please see Transwiki move procedures if not sure. Thanks Goldenrowley 06:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I don't do much Transwiki work. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 08:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I've made an abbreviated version of this proposal at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/Context labels in ELE v2. Please have a look. —Michael Z. 2009-05-17 18:06 z

That definition is from my high school Spanish notes, which means that there were three opportunities for transcription errors. RAE doesn't support that definition so it was most likely my mistake, go ahead and strike it. The notes are all in storage now but they aren't more reliable than the RAE, that is for sure :) - DaveRoss 20:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your change of June 5 apparently messed up the handling of "#" and the ordering of senses after occurrences of quote-book and quote news. I reverted the change. I hope you can figure out the problem. DCDuring TALK 09:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reverting. I'll try and fix it up. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 18:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 19:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Done.--Brett 01:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

"zls" is the ISO 693-5 code for South Slavic languages. Montenegrin is one of them. See this link. --Daniel. 04:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I am just trying to be consistent and yielding to constant demands to use "Mandarin", not "Chinese" for entries. The translations have *Chinese: *: Mandarin (nested). All or any other Chinese dialect should have its own entry. Anatoli 22:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip, I'll fix the others I made.

This is a bit out of my league, I guess, but why would you consider it not translingual? There are quite a number of languages written in the Burmese script. It looks as if this character is not used in Shan, but it seems that it does occur in Mon (e.g. here) and probably some of the others. -- Visviva 17:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're right, I reverted my edit. I misinterpreted that wiki page. Thanks for checking. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Greek/Translingual clean ups that you have been doing are being tagged as rfc-structure for the Greek section. I've cleaned up the first two and will clean up the three now tagged. If you could manage the Greek while you were at it henceforth, I'd be much obliged. (level, infl, derived terms for thousand term) And thanks for all the character cleanup work. Are you saving the Latin characters for last? DCDuring TALK 19:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, yeah I missed some ='s. I think I got the others, but I'll keep checking Category:Translingual words needing attention and Category:Greek words needing attention in case AF is still munching away. Haven't thought about Latin much yet, but eventually. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Take a look at A or a. In any event, I'd make sure I had consensus on those. You'll have lots of credibility if the other stuff goes well (in the sense of not getting too many folks seriously upset). I'm happy that characters and symbols are on the way toward greater appropriate consistency. If contributors venture to innovate, at least they will be starting from a higher base. DCDuring TALK 22:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just had a quick space-saving thought. Currently, the upper- and lowercase versions of each letter are shown as images on both the upper- and lowercase entries. Would just showing the one corresponding to the page title be a contentious move. Additionally most letters don't have a completely different form when italicized ('a' does though) so we could just show the normal version and no the italics version (we don't show bold versions either). --Bequw → ¢ • τ 19:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The size an image specified as thumb is controlled by each individual's preferences, I think, so reducing content isn't enough. I don't know what one can specify besides "thumb" as a parameter in Image/File (demi-thumb?). IOW, what else has to be done to get the space benefit?

Variations on A seems more analogous to the top-of-the-entry {{also}}. Why is the complete alphabet at the top of the Translingual section vs in See also? Why is there a separate etymology section for each abbreviation? I have the feeling that these entries have been improved by folks who don't often work on other types on entries and haven't been following all our (undocumented) practices (reasons I'm happy you are working on them now). DCDuring TALK 00:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I saw you are cleaning up letters. Good job! One change I'd make in your cleanup, though, is to avoid removing the image for the ancestral form of the Latin letter (i.e. the shape of the ancestor when the Latin letter was born from it). To me, the evolution of the form of the letter is part of the letter's "etymology" (in the extended sense of "etymology" used here). Does that make sense? —Rod (A. Smith) 22:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I thought about this. Showing a single ancestral image seemed inconsistent. We could show none of them (just have ancestral images on the ancestral entries which we link to) or all of them (something like w:A#History). Is the latter what you want? While very nice, I only hesitated going with that choice because it's a big leap from our current layout. I'll refrain from moving them, but am still not sure what do with them. They don't go in the gallery with the other letter styles (these are different letters). But if we put all the ancestral images in the etymology then I think we'd want something like a collapsible box? What do you think? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 01:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

In etymology sections for words, we consistently show the most immediate etymon. Some entries also include ancestors from earlier, but only the immediate ancestor is consistently included. Why not do the same for forms of letters? Just the immediate prior form fits fine in the etymology section. Or is it a layout problem you're trying to avoid? —Rod (A. Smith) 06:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

While many pages only show the immediate etymological ancestor, this is due to lack of time/will/knowledge. The consensus is that the full etymology be give (at least on lemma forms). Whatever policy is determined on showing letter images, it should be congruous with the fact that we attempt to show "full" etymologies. In that sense I feel either they all should try to be shown, or none should be. True, even if the policy is to attempt to show them all, most letter entries would have one or two. But inevitably one entry section is going to have >4 images and it is this layout problem (so much before the definitions) that I think should be considered when thinking about the policy. If we come up with a consensus to put longer parts of etymologies into collapsible boxes, then this would also be a fine way to deal with a plethora of images in an etymology section, and then I'd have no problem with us attempting to show all ancestral letter images. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Example: 馬 - Amazing etymology, but it shouldn't take up so much space before the definitions. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 02:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see what you mean. I don't mind the extra space, but I support efforts to bring the main definition "above the fold". How about a collapsible etymology section? —Rod (A. Smith) 18:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would support that. I didn't do it because WT:ETY said there's no consensus yet. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 19:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I could use help finishing the Spanish references from the Transwiki process page for year 2007, if you have time. My goal is to finish the 2007 Transwiki's by Dec 31st. No pressure though. Only if you want to help. Goldenrowley 19:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, take them away! There were so many errors in those documents that I just stopped working on them. I'll try and give you hand once I finish my current project of making all inflection templates non-right-aligned.

Hi there. Please remember that you don't have a bot flag, so I would recommend that you keep the number of edits that you make per minute down to under 5, because your edits are making it very hard for other editors to know what other editors are doing. Please restrict the number of edits that you make down to 3-5 a minute. Thanks, Razorflame 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sure. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 01:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help and cooperation! Razorflame 01:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see you've been removing id=toc from declension tables, but, although shouldn't really be there, it serves the purpose of creating the table style, and should therefore be replaced with a fitting id or with a consistent style code of its own, because now all the tables are missing their borders and really don't look good. – Krun 00:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'd put a new one back in, but don't have any idea myself of what. Do you have an idea for a good substitute? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 13:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest using class="bordered-table" or similar (note that class="inflection-table" is already in use to ake red-links black). It certainly should never have been an id. This would require putting .bordered-table { border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; } into MediaWiki:Common.css. The other approach that might work is to use class="prettytable" though it inserts grey backgrounds on headings as well as borders (or simply class=toc but that is again overloading. Conrad.Irwin 13:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll use the class="prettytable" (not adding anything to MediaWiki:Common.css), unless there's an objection. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 18:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Seems good to me. – Krun 10:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you empty this please, as you can do it faster than I can. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually just add {{philately}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Emptied. Not all of them had restricted context for the definitions, so the pages are a mix of explicit cats and {{philately}}.--Bequw → ¢ • τ 14:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

As I just pointed out on WT:RFDO, that needs to be {{zhx-mid}} instead. — Carolina wren discussió 02:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Agreed (just thought I'd note that here as well). --Bequw → ¢ • τ 14:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand. For languages that have an Index already listed (like Latin), what is the benefit of having a link to the Category? --EncycloPetey 06:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's for consistency for the end-user, since we don't have indexes for all languages (and some of them are more todo lists than actual indexes). --Bequw → ¢ • τ 06:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

We could fit the on the same line however, maybe by editting {{langcat}}. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 18:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. What do you think this verb is? Is it a transitive or intransitive verb? Thanks for the help in advance, Razorflame 16:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Mainly transitive. It might be used intransitively, but a quick searched didn't reveal any such quotes. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 16:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Thank you! Razorflame 16:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Any idea what to do with this declension table? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

It should be Templatized. Hopefully this one is a regular pattern. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 21:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I could do it, but I've steered clear of adjective and verb forms because it's more complicated. I may as well start template for it, as you say. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Unrelated note, {{fr-infl-adj}} needs replacing/removing whenever possible. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yep, I've been working on that and {{fr-infl-noun}} off-and-on for a bit. Thanks.

HI there. That entry that I made and entered hyphenation for, I botched it (I made it like two months ago when I didn't know how to work hyphenations. If you really feel like it shouldn't be on the entry, feel free to remove it. If not, feel free to discuss it as you wish. Cheers, Razorflame 03:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please delete all the pages that I have marked for deletion. Thanks, Razorflame 23:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Done, except for your user talk page. Is there a reason you want it deleted instead of just emptied (and possibly archived)? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 23:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Archived. Can you delete the rest of the pages I marked for deletion? Thanks, Razorflame 23:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Done. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 23:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I now I bid this project farewell. Razorflame 23:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I hope this is only temporary. I know your interactions with Opiaterein were frustrating, and that at times he acted too harshly (with too many emotions on both sides). If you do decide to return, know that there are still many ways to make productive edits that don't involve constant conflict. Enthusiasm coupled with the ability to correct one's mistakes is always welcome here. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 23:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmmmm. He was pretty active and didn't do anything bad that I noticed. Sorry to see him go. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

See this explanation, sorry about that. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

NP. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 14:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is probably what you're looking for, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

In addition, yes. I'm still changing the old-named ones to use {{topic cat}} so that they categorize correctly (under "All topics"). Thanks.

Any ideas what is needed for the rest? Conrad.Irwin 00:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking of working on those with two senses (and then working by letter), looking at the history to find if the second was added after some translations were already set for the original sense. Do you know of a tool to find the oldest revision that has a certain bit of text on the page? That would help. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 00:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you know which PoS the TTBCs should go from this edit? I ask because the TTBCs shouldn't be under a separate section, but another Translations section. Thanks. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 05:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Oh, really? Well in that case maybe a new level-3 header at the bottom. Ƿidsiþ 07:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I think you should split up that 628 kilobyte page you just made. I would say split it up into several 150 kilobyte pages. Razorflame 00:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Done. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please add any context labels that you think belong here. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Added some. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Used on two pages and categorizes in Category:Import/export. Could this be renamed and cleaned up, instead of deleted? Oh, I'm gonna send you a little email later. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm, I've got no good ideas at the moment. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi.

Short answer: I don't know.

Go ahead and create the script templates if they will help readers read the entries; that is, if the text is not readable or looks wrong in some web browser, if appropriate fonts are available, and if specifying the fonts will improve readability. I'd be glad to help with this, but I'm only glancing at Wiktionary rarely these days. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2009-12-09 16:28 z

Not sure if they would help. I'll keep an eye on them. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Since MediaWiki does not apply normalization to XML entities, maybe the character normalized could be included for display that way. I'm not sure how to do this best. -- Prince Kassad 20:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Made an attempt. Adds only a bit though since the canonically equivalent forms really do look alike. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've set it up on a test run again, see the same reports page. Much easier to have the automation checking links ... Robert Ullmann 14:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

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