User talk:Connel MacKenzie/archive-2007-7

back to http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Special:Prefixindex/User_talk:Connel_MacKenzie/archive

Uncountable, surely. gumpths? Surely not ... Robert Ullmann 00:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There (obviously) were too many for me to review closely this time around. Many thanks to the dozen (or so) people keeping an eye out. This one is fixed. --Connel MacKenzie 02:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Now that my house-guests have left, I'll be restarting the rest (after Transwikis finish.) --Connel MacKenzie 02:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The entry palaeoichthyological was labelled a "Noun" (I've fixed that), but as a result, the CheatBot created palaeoichthyologicaler and palaeoichthyologicalest. As if that weren't weird enough, it labelled them as plurals of the original. Even though the root page had an {{en-adj}} template. --EncycloPetey 01:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh no...the syntax changed from {{en-adj|-|-}} to {{en-adj|-}} and I didn't notice! I will fix that bug. Did you notice any others in the log file User:TheCheatBot/2007-06-28? --Connel MacKenzie 02:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your edit to skoler touches on this little discussion. __meco 21:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, man, I really can't understand you. Of course I read the talk page. The only POV thing around here is the fact that you have it in for me. Wanna see a bona fide POV edit? . Well, let's do some math.

Lemma. The spelling summarize is not peculiar to the United States.

Proof.

1. b.g.c lists lots of British use, according to... um... Connel MacKenzie... that's you, I guess. . The original comment on Talk:summarise is not completely clear; it seems to refer to the use of the letter z in British English in general. Anyway, its author must not be a British authority on the English language, since s/he hails from Chicago, Illinois. The guy who tagged summarize "American" ain't British, either.
2. Not only is the suffix -ize acceptable in the UK, but it has always been lemmatized by Oxford, Chambers, and Collins dictionaries (basically all dictionaries). And, apparently, you know this very well. This clearly applies to all of the -ize/-ise words, including summarize/summarise. A publisher cannot choose to use -ise in summarise and, say, -ize in generalize. Note that, in the past, some British publishers would use -ize when the stem was transparent and -ise otherwise (realise, organise); in summari?e, however, the stem is transparent. The Oxford English Dictionary spells it summarize , just like any other word in the ise/ize set.
3. The suffix -ize, usual in the United States and Canada, is still widely used in other English-speaking countries too, according to the preface to the Concise Oxford Dictionary (a British authority).
4. The British National Corpus contains a lot of instances of summarize and inflected forms thereof, although summarise prevails, as you might expect.

Therefore, the spelling summarize, although more common in the U.S. (where it's *the* only spelling), is also used in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Ergo, the spelling summarize cannot be labeled US. Quod erat demonstrandum. ■

Theorem. My revision was correct.

Proof. Exercise. ■

Corollary. I'm gonna revert your reversion and you ain't gonna roll it back agin.

Note, however, that my reasoning is based on the following assumption:

The notation

Alternative spellings

summarize (US)

means

"summarize is a variant spelling that can only be found in the U.S."

because this is what such a notation means in regular dictionaries. Clearly, if my assumption is wrong, and that notation is supposed to mean something else, like

"summarize is a variant spelling that is used in the U.S."

then my reasoning is wrong too, and we are arguing at cross-purposes once again. JackLumber 18:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I do not understand how you make the jump to "only be found in the U.S." from a simple indicator like US. The tag means that it is chiefly the US variant. In this case, yes, it is a direct result of the Noah Webster spelling reform. The fact that others now recognize and use it seems irrelevant, to simply identifying the difference. On the other hand, it does seem harmful to remove that notation.

That aside, the ise/ize differences have always been marked (inconsistently) as such. For you to assign a new interpretation to those tags would require consensus building (in a WT:BP discussion) at the very absolute minimum. If consensus was not immediately forthcoming, you could start a WT:VOTE for clarification. But in the meantime, simply removing useful information is not a very good approach. --Connel MacKenzie 06:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, it's not a result of Webster's reform. You said, "The fact that others now recognize and use it seems irrelevant..." WTF?! ize has always (*ALWAYS*) been used in England. Many think that Webster changed -ise to -ize, but this is false. The ending -ize is in fact the older form; it used to be more common than -ise in the UK, and it's still used by the TLS and various publishers, notably OUP. Thomas Nashe, the guy who started using the suffix on a regular basis, spelled it -ize. Webster did reject -ise, but back then -ize was more common even in England. Since it's the 4th of July: The Declaration of Independence uses -ize, not -ise. Noah Webster was 18 back then. The -ise spelling, in fact, entered English through French, and only fairly recently has it become dominant in Britain, possibly 1) as a conscious reaction to the American practice and 2) because of Francophilia, which is responsible for several spelling changes in 19th century Britain, e.g. programme, omelette, neurone, even the chequered flag, which has black and white checks on it. In the British National Corpus, the ise/ize ratio is about 3:2.

Anyway, Webster's reform predates the word summarize.

As for the "jump" regarding the regional tag: Connel, have you ever analyzed a real dictionary? In a real dictionary, a label such as Brit. means that the labeled term is not found in the U.S., and a label like US means that the labeled term is not found in the UK. For example:

encyclopaedia chiefly Brit var of encyclopedia

This means that the spelling encyclopaedia is not normally found in the U.S., but it *doesn't* mean that encyclopaedia is the primary spelling in the U.K. In fact, encyclopedia appears to be more common than encyclopaedia even in the UK.

On the other hand, summarize is used in both the US (where it's the only spelling) and the UK. Therefore, British dictionaries list summarize without regional tags. It's NOT like colour and color. It's *quite different*.

Bottom line: This notation (or at least your interpretation of it) is confusing and misleading, because it deviates from standard lexicographic practice; however, this notation is by no means consistent across Wiktionary, and your weak, inconsistent arguments are a symptom of the problem. (See also .) Apparently, the US-tagging of -ize variant spellings was carried out by User:Frous alone, with no consensus whatsoever; why don't you ask him what his intention was?

I think we need an appendix with an in-depth treatment of systematic spelling differences, possibly modeled after w:American and British English spelling differences. The relevant wiktionary entries (color, colour, centre, center, summarize, realise, leukaemia, etc.) will reference this appendix through links. This approach would be similar to that of Webster's Third, which has a lengthy "spelling" section in its "Explanatory notes." Furthermore, spelling differences should be distinguished from lexical differences; we need separate categories, for example "US spelling," "UK spelling" (or "Commonwealth," whatever, but not "Commnowealth English," which doesn't make much sense) for words like color and colour, respectively; and categories like "North America," "US," "Canada," "UK," "Scotland," "Australia," "Ireland," etc. for regional differences in vocabulary (gasoline, petrol, lift, elevator, resumé...). From a linguistic standpoint, this distinction is essential; it's exactly like "alternate spellings" vs. "synonyms." If you think this can be useful, we can take it to the beer parlor. JackLumber 20:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the explanations. I can see now, why we don't agree. The reflexive navigation links that I was thinking of, indicate that reflexive region identifiers are also needed. As you've said, this isn't always the case. However, there are plenty of ambiguities you've touched on so far. One is that both {{context|chiefly British}} and {{context|mainly British}} are used on en.wiktionary, in addition to the region identifiers in the various "Spellings" sections. I maintain that the identifiers (the "what kind of an alternate spelling is it") are more useful than their removal. Just because a British dictionary lists both "summarise" and "summarize" as valid spellings, does not imply that a multilingual international dictionary should follow suit.

While I still find your tone off-putting, I'm not exactly the one to talk. Still, when you restate this for WT:BP, you will find the community much more receptive if you simply leave out personal references. I shall follow your lead there, in that regard.

With regard to definition tagging with {{context|chiefly British}} or {{context|US}}, en.wiktionary (I agree) is very inconsistent. No one to date has taken on the enormous task of plowing through the three or four thousand differences methodically.

I do think an Appendix:Regional spelling differences entry is long overdue. Likewise Appendix:Regional vocabulary differences. Either of those alone would make a fine WT:BP conversation. I do think that hammering out the specific meaning of "(US)" in the various sections would make for separate (probably heated) WT:BP discussion. At the mere mention of color/colour, fireworks usually start. So avoid that particular example if you can.

On another note, do you have a list of all the regions that speak English? Wikipedia lists 71 countries, but that misses many significant distinctions, such as New England, New York City (all dialects), Southern, Texan, Hawaiian, AAVE or Midwest-neutral. Would your proposed appendix finally open an outlet for itemizing those differences? So far, we have been sorely deficient in even acknowledging most of them.

As consensus solidifies, I think we will see what combination works best. There can be

1. {{see}} (or {{synch}}) links at the top,
2. ===Alternative spellings=== sections,
3. inflection line region identifiers (e.g. {{US}} or {{UK}},)
4. definition line region identifiers (e.g. {{US}} or {{UK}},)
5. ===See also=== links to Appendix:Regional differences or
6. ===Usage notes=== sections.

Determining what combination of all those is palatable, appropriate and acceptable to all, will not be easy, nor overnight.

--Connel MacKenzie 21:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

An Appendix:Regional vocabulary differences would be a long-term project---provided that such a project is feasible at all. On Wikipedia, we are currently trying to find a convenient way to organize the differences in lexicon between standard English English and standard American English, but it's hard to agree on a solution, and it would take a lot of work anyway. If we were to include all of the lexical differences in World English, well, I'd probably give up. Yes, you mentioned the main U.S. dialects, but regional differences within the UK, for example, are even greater. Much greater. Not to mention all the peculiarities of second-language varieties of English; for example, for many West African speakers it's common to say epistle for "letter." Indian English features a lot of usages that would sound quaint to British and American speakers alike.

See w:List of dialects of the English language and w:Template:English dialects; note, however, that much of that information is w:WP:OR and fails w:WP:V...

On the other hand, an Appendix:Regional spelling differences would be much easier to implement. Because you basically have only US spellings and UK spellings, and the differences affect relatively few words after all. While lexical regionalisms are many and come from all over the world, the spelling situation is much simpler: we have 1) an American spelling system and 2) a British spelling system, which is followed more or less to the letter by the rest of the Anglosphere, with the exception of Canada, whose spelling system is somewhere between British and American. Yes, determining the right combination for the entries ain't gonna be easy, but once we have done that, the rest of the work can be done in a couple days time. To begin with, a Category:US spelling and a Category:UK spelling would automatically generate two lists of spellings that are characteristic of the two ortographies; the categorization would be triggered by appropriate templates:

color (US spelling)

1. ...

---

grey (mainly UK spelling)

or something. Each of these entries will have a link to Appendix:Regional spelling differences, where the matter will be treated in detail. Of course the entry layout is to be determined, and it's gonna take a lengthy discussion, since we have to modify WT:ELE. JackLumber 23:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. Have you noticed User:Connel MacKenzie/US vs. UK yet? After making the effort to generate that list after each XML dump, I really haven't done much with it, yet.
2. I strongly recommend you not try to change ELE at the same time you discuss this. Appendix entries have *no* set formatting guidelines. But anyhow, trying to inflict formatting conventions can be done after there is agreement about what the content should be.
3. {sigh} Yes, just the spelling alone is easier. But don't forget Australia - as blended in spelling as Canada, it seems.

--Connel MacKenzie 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good. Some differences are however subtler than they appear, e.g. instal vs. install; instal is a minority option even in Britain. Don't worry, I ain't gonna change ELE. I said, "we" as in "the community," not "we" as in pluralis majestatis. Australian spelling is actually pretty much like British spelling, with a few minor exceptions, e.g. program and licorice are used alongside programme and liquorice (note that the American versions of these two words are in fact the original forms, and this helps explain why they are still current down under). The -ise endings are almost universal in Australia (even more common there than in the UK). The -or endings (as in Australian Labor Party) did enjoy some use in the past, and are still used by some people in Victoria. Almost all of the Aussies I met on Wikipedia reject American spellings with hatred and disdain; the most extreme case was this guy who "bagged" American English as "English for idiots" and then created a page titled Britain is better than America. As far as vocabulary and usage are concerned, however, a significant number of Americanisms are used (but those Aussies will never admit it). The primary reference point for AustrE usage remains English English, though. (This is particularly noticeable in the Australian accent, whose main features can all be traced back to various Southern England dialects.) </offtopic> JackLumber 00:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think a very great portion of those ~700 matches are much more complex, than cursory inspection would suggest. (Minus the obvious ~100 errors.) That's partly why I never really did much with it.

I know you didn't mean to change ELE on your own; I maintain that trying to get the ELE changes conflated with the content clarifications will kill the discussion(s).

Please, for my tenuous sanity, call it "British English" not "English English."

My second-hand knowledge of the AU inconsistencies comes from Hippietrail and other IRC AUians. OTOH, yes, several of the Aussies here tend to be...(words fail me here)...

--Connel MacKenzie 00:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

English English is English as spoken in England---and this term alone includes a lot of different accents.

British English also includes Scottish English, Welsh English, and Northern Ireland English; there are some differences between EngEng and ScotEng at the levels of grammar, usage, and vocabulary---some Scotticisms are also Americanisms, such as pinkie for "little finger", carry-out (EngEng: takeaway), and the construction the car needs washed (Southwestern PA). But the differences in pronunciation are huge. South African English, New Zealand English, and Australian English closely resemble English as spoken in England---much, much more than Scottish English does. JackLumber 00:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well then, "England's English" might be better (ugh!)

Are there other patterns I should check in US vs. UK? Is gray/grey stand-alone, or the pattern ay/ey? Is it worth checking ass/arse (and derived terms?) --Connel MacKenzie 17:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Grey/gray is stand-alone, and the regionalization is fairly recent. The main systematic differences are:

1. -or/-our, (cf. also mo(u)ld, mo(u)lt, mo(u)stache, ba(u)lk; derivatives: favo(u)rite, humo(u)rless; but humorist, odorous in both US and UK)
2. -er/-re (but theatre has some US currency),
3. -ize/-ise (see above),
4. -yze/-yse (analy?e, cataly?e; note that yze is invalid in the UK; cf. cozy/cosy)
5. -ce/-se (licen?e)
6. -se/-ce (practi?e)
7. single L/double L (trave(l)ing, woo(l)len, jewel(le)ry)
8. double L/single L (skil(l)ful),
9. -ction/-xion (obsolescent)
10. -g/-gue (very fuzzy)
11. dropping of silent E (abridg(e)ment, ag(e)ing, lik(e)able, stor(e)y, phon(e)y, ax(e); but these have actually different backgrounds: judgment was used in the KJV; story was lemmatized by the original OED; phony is an Americanism that acquired an extra e upon crossing the pond; axe and ageing are the result of British three-letter-rule paranoia.)
12. different spellings for the /k/ sound (cheque/check, chequer/checker, licorice/liquorice)
13. ...

The r in arse has centuries of history behind it; ass was a dialectal corruption first used in C19 British nautical slang that became standard in the U.S. several decades later, for obscure reasons. This and other differences are just one-time things, each of which has its own story: chamomile/camomile, carburator/carburettor, aluminum/aluminium, tire/tyre, rabbet/rebate, etc. JackLumber 19:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. I think it is time to start a new section here.
2. What do you think the best way to list US/UK counterparts is? For a while, it looked like using {{synch}} was going to be workable (perhaps it still is.)
3. Do you have a list of the one-offs?

--Connel MacKenzie 19:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

• OK, I've added all those conditions to ^wikiusuk and I'm re-running it now. I expanded some of the criteria to grab LOT of false-positives - I'll refine the criteria when it is done. --Connel MacKenzie 21:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Do remember not to leave corrections or comments there, as it is regenerated with each XML dump. --Connel MacKenzie 21:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The list of synchronized entries generated by the synch template won't tell us which is which---British or American. Likewise, the upcoming categories Category:US spelling and Category:UK spelling are not supposed to _compare_ the two orthographies. I personally have never been a big fan of two-column lists; such lists tend to oversimplify things and mislead the reader. However, this is not going to be much of a problem, if we write up some exhaustive explanatory notes to be kept in a separate appendix, which will be linked to by the entries in Category:US spelling and Category:UK spelling. For the one-offs try (and feel free to edit!) w:American and British English spelling differences; and by the way, I think our appendix should be an adaptation of that Wikipedia article. And one-off is a bloody Briticism. JackLumber 21:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

A British-ism with significant US currency, then.  :-) I've heard and used one-off long before Wiktionary, so I can't blame the UK exposure I've had here. --Connel MacKenzie 21:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

In general, categories complement appendices. Since each pair gets grouped together in the category (with whichever is alphabetically first, when the second parameter is used,) I don't think the "which is which" is a significant problem. But yes, the appendices are still needed, no matter what happens with the category. --Connel MacKenzie 21:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

A handy Briticism tends to be naturalized if American English lacks an equally handy alternative. Examples from the past are blackout, smog, early on, and (my favorite one) miniskirt. JackLumber 22:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, a firehose and a firehouse are two different things :-D But fount vs. font is correct. In computing, however, it's font in England too. JackLumber 22:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Right, right. The generated list is a feeder for a manually reviewed effort. There were a few anomalies in the original list, as well. FWIW, I don't recall hearing 'font' (meaning 'fount' - a fountain for birds or something) ever. --Connel MacKenzie 22:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's just font#Noun_2. Sense 1 is font in the U.S. and (traditionally) fount in the UK; sense 2 is font in both. JackLumber 22:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm. I guess so. The pronunciation is so different between fount and font, I forgot about a baptismal font. AFAIK, you can't just say font in GenAm to refer a baptismal font. And still, I have never heard font#Noun_1 spoken as anything except "fount" (with its completely different pronunciation.) Hmmm. --Connel MacKenzie 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I'm regenerating another list. You might want to copy this off somewhere (you user space?) if you find any of these revisions helpful. --Connel MacKenzie 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Do you think it would help to mark the various 'pedia pages with {{Copy to Wiktionary}}? That might make it easier to move them into the Appendix: namespace, to give you something to start from. --Connel MacKenzie 00:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

w:American and British spelling differences, and perhaps w:American and British English pronunciation differences. The main article w:American and British English differences is not that bad, but is pretty incomplete; the pages on vocabulary are unsightly and need to be completely rewritten. JackLumber 18:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

By the way, take a look at skillet. A casual reader may think that there's a British/American divide of the lift/elevator kind---frying pan (UK) vs. skillet (US), but it just ain't true---in the U.S., frying pan is actually more common than skillet, which is mostly Midland/Southern. JackLumber 18:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm. So your complaint is that it is tagged with {{US}}, even though it is a common US term, it is just less common than 'frying pan.' I've noticed in the last ten years or so, people sometimes calling elevators "lifts" here. Well, what do you suggest as a better was of tagging them? I think the tags work, but need a ===Usage notes=== link to the appendix. In the case of 'skillet', it might be useful to have usage notes right there (or make the distinction within the definition?)

I wonder if cooking schools make technical distinctions between skillets and frying pans. (Offhand, I think they do.) My cooking skills are mostly non-existent. --Connel MacKenzie 19:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, they probably do. No, my complaint is that frying pan is labeled UK; a reader may think that frying pan is a British term, when in fact it's also used in the U.S. IMO, such a synonym should have no tag at all. JackLumber 19:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

That, I do not understand. Didn't you just say the term skillet is not used in the UK? --Connel MacKenzie 19:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's the same ol' "confusing notation" thing.

skillet (US) ...yada yada...

Synonyms: frying pan (UK)

means

(1) "skillet is an American term; a Briton will use frying pan; no information is given about the currency of frying pan in the U.S."

to you,

but many a reader would interpret it as

(2) "skillet is an American term; the British equivalent is frying pan; frying pan is a British term -> it's not used in the U.S."

because this is what that notation normally means in dictionaries, where a layout such as

skillet (US) ...yada yada...

Synonyms: frying pan

means "skillet is an American term; frying pan is a synonym, and it's used in both UK and US."

JackLumber 20:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ugh, I hadn't noticed the synonym was improperly tagged. I thought you were saying the "US" tag on the definition line was wrong. --Connel MacKenzie 22:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I searched the big fat Oxford, Collins, and Chambers dictionaries for undefeatable. None of them list it. But Webster's New World College Dictionary does, as well as most American thesauri. This is not a UK vs. US issue.

This is a Connel MacKenzie vs. Rest of the World issue. The other contributors involved in that discussion were friendly and open-minded, yet you perceived their attitude as a personal attack and insulted them with unwarranted anger, countering their arguments with inflammatory nonsense. Nobody (except an anon, but who cares?) harassed you, or put you through the wringer, etc. This is actually something you are very good at.

If unabridged dictionaries are useless garbage, then what the heck is wiktionary?

You believe in this project, and you've put a lot of effort into it for years. But there's still a long ways to go, so I suggest that you reconsider your attitude (toward the community, the language, the other dialects of your language, and most of all toward yourself) or it ain't never gonna work.

There was a movie called "Undefeatable." That aside, this word sounds somewhat awkward to me.

Good luck, Connel.

JackLumber 23:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2007/April#nonstandard & illiterate was not the only part of that series of attacks - there was corresponding crap in WT:RFV, WT:RFD and WT:RFC at the same time...taken as a whole, yes, absolutely slander. Much like your flippant "Connel vs. rest" comment. Yes, the "Connel English" comment was sarcasm...what did you take it for? --Connel MacKenzie 06:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have rewritten and restarted the vote, having attempted to reword the proposal to address the issues that people have raised. You may want to reread the proposal and reconsider your vote. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Connel, I was wondering why you have been changing spellings in entries to the US variants? As an example petroleum, the spellings that you changed were fine and did not need to be changed to US. i thought that the consensus was to leave spellings alone i.e. if it said colour and summarise on an article it would be left alone and not changed to color and summarize unless there was a mix of spelling variant (US and UK for example) and the change was made for consistency. I'm just concious that people may think your trying to change all the definition texts in articles to US spellings, that would cause way too much hassle.--Williamsayers79 15:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, the main culprit seems to have been the FF2 upgrade that I did recently; the international dictionaries didn't load automatically. For petroleum, it is the US term, isn't it? In UK, that is called 'petrol,' so offhand, I didn't think the UK spelling of 'color' was appropriate. The spelling "occuring" though, is only an error for "occurring" no matter what region you are in. The spelling 'summarize' is the correct spelling in US and UK, however, and is supposed to be used throughout, rather than the spelling alternate that is only valid in some regions? That wasn't a change I made though, so I'm not sure why you brought that up.

Let me reassure you that I am not making blind "US-only" spelling reforms. If I were to do that, I'd use a bot - but please rest assured that I am not that foolish. When I do notice regional spelling differences, I usually let them be. When I am clearing typos, I simply look for terms that are underlined in red.

--Connel MacKenzie 16:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Gaah! Petroleum is called petroleum in the UK! Petrol is British for gasoline! JackLumber 18:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

On a completely different note, you've seen this, right? Dvortygirl has an audio of it floating around somewhere. --Connel MacKenzie 19:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's fine Connel, I only brought up the whole summarise/summarize thing as another example. I can see now your intentions are good. I've also updated my FF and it gave me the option of one dictionary so that got set to British, it now highlights the so called US spelling variants as misspellings so I've had to be very careful myself when sprucing up entries. Regards --Williamsayers79 19:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK. Since it is the topic of the month, I'll try to redouble my caution. --Connel MacKenzie 19:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I’ve finally replied to you here. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 06:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've started a policy vote at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-07/Brand names of products. Since you participated in the Beer Parlor discussion, you may wish to vote on the proposal. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is currently an active vote at ] regarding whether regular possessive forms of modern English nouns should have their own entries or not. As part of this it has been suggested that the {{en-noun}} template might be modified to show the possessive forms in the inflection line of modern English noun entries (irrespective of the outcome of the vote). Your comments and/or votes are welcome until the end of the vote on 5th August 2007. You are receiving this note as you have edited template:en-noun and/or template talk:en-noun Thryduulf 17:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

This was just posted in the Beer Parlour. Another person asking about the feed. --EncycloPetey 23:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Recently there has been quite a few e-mails to OTRS suggesting that we get an e-mail version of the Word of the Day (most recently Ticket#: 2007070210010067 and Ticket#: 2007070510014165). I myself think this is a wonderful idea. We could just add it to the Daily Article mailing list. It already posts the Quote of the Day from Wikiquote in addition to the Article of the Day from Wikipedia, so it only makes sense to include the Wiktionary Word of the Day in it. Please reply with feedback. :) Cbrown1023 23:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why you think this is OK. Is your assumption that you can't be prosecuted in England? What you are doing can undermine (destroy/eliminate) all of en.wiktionary, even if that assumption is valid. --Connel MacKenzie 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, what's the problem exactly? Widsith 09:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:Tea room#OED update. Their list of words has intrinsic value (to them, to IP lawyers and courts.) A court can view a "new additions" list as particularly more valuable than an ordinary list of term.

More to the point, the OED's criteria for inclusion is not the same as ours. Touting the list as you did, implicitly suggests that we should have those entries, which is demonstrably false. Not only does it make the eventual legal case rock-solid (blatant, if infrequent, copyright violation) it also makes more work for us, as sysops, who have to chase down and delete invalid OED-isms.

Furthermore, the OED remains useless for American English. It is so full of obscure British English, it rarely can accurately define day-to-day American English terms (although even I must admit, they seem to finally be trying.) We are trying to become a dictionary of international English, not trying to become a copy of the OED.

At some point, the OED will press its case in court. When that happens, one of two things will happen:

1. en.wiktionary.org will be shutdown, or
2. WMF will be allowed to remove all definitions that match 90% of their words, to any OED definition.

Even cursory association with anything the OED does is a Bad Thing. By being diligent in avoiding blatant situations in the first place, the eventual court case may be found to be invalid (my hope,) or, worst case, significantly delayed.

So, please don't post your "OED updates" here. Obviously, I can't stop you from using those lists personally, yourself (short of de-sysopping and perma-blocking!) You are a solid contributor; I very much appreciate what you do here - please do not taint your excellence with needless complications. Being in the UK, you probably don't personally have any fear of US court actions. But for en.wiktionary.org's sake, please keep it to yourself.

--Connel MacKenzie 18:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I personally have nothing against you. We'd always argue at cross-purposes because we'd always misunderstand each other; we had different priorities and different point of views, we focused on different things, and we both are stubborn and unwilling to compromise. But now that we have gotten to know each other, I have zero problem with you.

But I do have a problem with people like Robert Ullmann, who blocked me for no reason and without explanation (barring a sarcastic remark) as I was simply trying to correct a gross mistake. (See w:User talk:JackLumber). His behavior was simply unacceptable. That's exactly the kind of attitude that keeps people away from this project. What am I supposed to do? JackLumber 23:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You were not blocked for "no reason"; you were blocked for removing information and POV pushing, and revert warring. Your behavior entirely justified the SECOND warning and block. The next time I will leave to someone else. Your subsequent edit(s) are much better. Robert Ullmann 18:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your response. Obviously, I'm not pleased by seeing that sort of critique, but I do understand your exasperation. The Wiktionary project has evolved quite differently than 'pedia. I think your expectations might be a little off - the copious warning system in place on Wikipedia has never done well, here. I have found Robert to be much more cordial than I'd like to be (on occasion.)

Anyhow, back on your side of the fence; did you tag those Wikipedia articles for transwiki yet? I was going to start the evening's run in a few minutes... --Connel MacKenzie 23:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not yet, I've been doing some housekeeping lately---citations, minor additions, and the like. By the way, the entry for skillet is clearer now. But I read somewhere that skillet has also a British meaning, possibly archaic or dialectal... (yes, it has to be something they use in the kitchen.) JackLumber 23:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, I guess I'll hold off on tonight's transwiki for three or four hours, then. --Connel MacKenzie 00:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thinking it over, maybe the transwiki is not a viable option; the Wikipedia article w:American and British English spelling differences should rather be suitably modified, expanded, and split up into subsections---this is kind of what I'm thinking of right now... JackLumber 18:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

On another note, take a look at leap#Usage notes sometime. Looks pretty silly to me. --Connel MacKenzie 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that wording is a little indecisive. Leap belongs to a small group of verbs dealt with here with reasonable accuracy. This is pretty much a morphology thing (not a spelling thing); there's a note at Appendix:Irregular verbs:English. JackLumber 19:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

• The importance of widening this discussion (i.e. on WT:BP) is increasing. You have made some really good progress on solidifying a workable approach. I think it is time to get other's opinions. --Connel MacKenzie 15:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I guess so. Check out my userpage for the latest updates. JackLumber 19:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Connel,

I hope you will find that the cites I've provided in Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#concert T-shirt support keeping the term. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You didn't say why you nominated this for RFD. Did you mean for sum of parts? I put it on RFV because though I don't think it's much of a word, it has been used (see any of the Star Wars novels). Sum of parts sounds like possible grounds though. RJFJR 18:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I put the reason on the RFD page itself, where it usually goes. See WT:CFI#Independence. --Connel MacKenzie 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that. I'm OK with the wikipedia deletion procedure but I can't seem to get the hang of wiktionary's. RJFJR 18:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

No worries. The two are wildly different animals. I reinstated the RFd but left your rfv alone - that might help, I suppose. --Connel MacKenzie 21:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Pleas be more careful to use Wiktionary-style capitalization for nouns, especially when they can be upper or lowercase. Please do not use {{en-proper noun}} for nouns, instead pass the first parameter as a "-" to mark items uncountable, to {{en-noun}}.

That is an interesting resource you are referencing. I don't know what the legal limit is for direct references like that, but I suppose you will continue, so we'd best find out. I imagine we'll be OK if it is only a small percentage of the entries that dictionary has. (Simply using their list of words without permission, of course, would not be OK.)

--Connel MacKenzie 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Connel - Thanks for the welcome and the kind note. No worries, I am not reproducing a large part of the words listed in the dictionary of poker. Instead I am copying entries from wikipedia:List of slang names for poker hands, double checking them against that reference source to avoid copying vanity, etc. My apologies about capitalization and the like, I'm still getting my feet wet. I'm still a bit unclear about when names for starting hands in Texas hold 'em constitute proper nouns or not. Perhaps you could offer some guidance on this issue. --Kzollman 15:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for (mostly) allaying my fears about the collection of terms. About proper nouns: if they really are proper nouns, please use the heading ===Proper noun=== instead of ===Noun===. Since most of the terms refer to a type of hand or type of situation, I would have to assume they are nouns, not proper nouns. Most of what you've done looks good though, so keep it up. --Connel MacKenzie 18:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

In the UK, bottled tomato ketchup is more often than not called tomato sauce. We also use the phrase for the pasta sauce. Confusing, isn't it. SemperBlotto 10:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Confusing and strange.  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 07:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Did you mean quasi-? Or is this yet another US/UK misunderstanding? (aw shucks!) SemperBlotto 21:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was surprised we didn't have it, so I did googlesearch it to make sure it meets CFI. There was a very high noise-to-signal ratio though, so I didn't find three before entering it. (But I did find some.) I don't know that I've ever spelled it "correctly" myself. On the other hand, dictionary.com agrees with you that quazi- is merely a misspelling of quasi-. Etymologically (according to m-w law) it can only be "quasi-". I suppose that would account for why cites are hard to come by. Should you delete it, or should I (with the deletion comment "Misspelling of quasi-"?) --Connel MacKenzie 22:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy to live with it as "misspelling of" SemperBlotto 07:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is really too bad we'll never know how many people see the deletion messages, and decide not to recreate items, because they see the "Misspelling of ..." deletion messages. that is, even if I put a Javascript widget in to count the number of times such a page is displayed, I cannot make the Javascript read the users' minds. --Connel MacKenzie 07:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I meant for the other thing to be helpful - sorry if I misunderstood why it was deleted. I agree it is sum-of-parts. --Connel MacKenzie 22:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was probably overhasty in deleting, rather than RFD/RFVing (I never know which to use). SemperBlotto 07:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

<shrug> My rule-of-thumb: RFD is for "do we accept entries for this type of advertising/link-farming/ratings-skewing?", while RFV is for "this doesn't appear in Websters, dict.com nor OED." I'm not sure what DAVilla's take on it all is, though. --Connel MacKenzie 07:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering if, although the actor is (was?) a proper noun, the poker hand should be a noun.

Showing my age, I can remember him (in fuzzy black and white) in "Highway Patrol" - he kept saying ten four on the police radio. Should we have an entry for that (and any similar)? SemperBlotto 15:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Ah, we already have 10-4 - so forget that suggestion. SemperBlotto 15:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Right, if anything, 10-4 can have an etymology pointer to w:Broderick Crawford, but the entry itself shouldn't define the term as meaning a particular actor. I also was confused about noun/proper noun on that one. I think you are right, it probably should be just "noun." --Connel MacKenzie 15:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

And yes, I distinctly remember those b&w tv shows too. --Connel MacKenzie 15:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Thanks for putting me straight. Going back over some of my older contributions, tidying up, I see I've also put in the inflected entries in some places. E.g. cuts out cutting out. How do I remove these correctly, please? Algrif 11:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

While I'm thinking about it. Caould you just check cut it out and correct as necessary, please? Many thx. Algrif 12:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've edited cut out and cut it out. If you want, you can tag cuts out and cutting out with RFD, but since those entries are harmless in and of themselves, they are not likely to be deleted. They just shouldn't be linked explicitly from cut out. There should be no implication that they are needed, for the sake of filling red-links of cut out. Clear as mud? --Connel MacKenzie 17:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Its as I guessed, but it is as well to make sure. :-) Algrif 18:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

So you wouldn't put cut it out as an interjection then? Which was also on my mind.

Whoops. I was just editing the formatting of the entry; yes it is certainly also an interjection. --Connel MacKenzie 18:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with your marking travelator as "uncommon". It is less common than "moving walkway", but with 168 b.g.c hits (+34 for "travellator") and nearly 7,500 (+185) groups hits it can hardly be described as "uncommon". It might be a regional difference (I've not looked), in which case a (chiefly UK) label might be more apropriate. Thryduulf 17:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, it is used (in the UK)? Ah, that would explain the term. Thanks for checking. --Connel MacKenzie 17:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad I didn't mark it as "rare" or "jocular." --Connel MacKenzie 17:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good job - this stuff is very useful.

Just a point about the pronunciation: when a stress mark comes between two syllables, the dot used to separate the syllables is not used, as it is redundant. — Paul G 16:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I particularly like the concept of using "*" for sub-senses. Finally, a tenable compromise. --Connel MacKenzie 17:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please do not put literal translations back into English ("rolling carpet") in translation sections. This material belongs in the foreign-language entry. — Paul G 16:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please do not remove literal (word-for-word) translations. This was the subject of a long discussion. While the requirement for them never passed, they are certainly not prohibited (and in a case like that, are very meaningful!) --Connel MacKenzie 16:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hiya Connel, I notice you're changing the format of a lot of the citations so that the date is followed by a comma instead of a colon. I just wondered if this has been discussed anywhere because I have to say I think it looks really weird. Did it come out of a discussion somewhere? It doesn't seem to gel with what's at Wiktionary:Quotations (which admittedly is not followed religiously). Widsith 16:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ugh, yes, that was an old conversation. The ":" syntax causes a Javascript conflict for auto-formatting translation sections, so it was simpler to correct the quotations to the original format for them, and leave the translation auto-correction turned on.

FWIW, to me the colon syntax looks really weird after a date. I'll try to dig through the archives when I finish this batch of 100 corrections. --Connel MacKenzie 16:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me for intervening, but WT:QUOTE recommends exactly a comma after a date. Honestly, I don't like the quotation layout recommended there, myself. The good old "author and title after the quote" style looked much better, IMO. Dart evader 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It does, but according to that convention the date is followed by the author or title or something: that's fine. But when the date is followed by the actual quote, I think it's kind of strange. I have to say I agree with you that the recommended style isn't an improvement on the old way we did it. Widsith 16:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Well, perhaps this should move to WT:GP since it is a technical formatting issue, more-so than an aesthetic one. Whatever the agreed upon format changes become, the technical "similarity" of the translation format needs to be considered. I don't have infinite time to perfect the Javascript. --Connel MacKenzie 17:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is already a Category:Translations to be checked (Ancient Greek). --EncycloPetey 03:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Quite messed up, I agree. The one you say already exists, (that is, the correct one) I just restored. Since they will be perpetually mis-entered, it makes sense to have both xref each other. And both have more than one entry at the moment. --Connel MacKenzie 03:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

What's so wrong about userboxes? They may not be conventional here, but a brief glance through the policies and guidelines around here doesn't show anything which prohibits userboxes, or entitles users to remove them. I have reverted your edits to my userpage, and, if you intend to remove my userbox again, would appreciate being shown the policy or guideline which prohibits userboxes. I may be new here, so I appreciate I haven't seen every policy page, but if you are going to revert me again, please quote the policy. Eric the Gnome 14:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Funny that you claim to be a Wikipedian, yet have no corresponding user account there. You've been blocked for a day for re-adding the userbox nonsense. While many policies have been formalized, the obscure items like this are not. User box templates have been discussed in the past, with only Babel templates being permitted. Have a nice day. --Connel MacKenzie 14:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dammit Connel, that was overkill (again). Yes, I agree, his userbox was stupid and pointless, and I concur that Wiktionary user pages shouldn’t be allowed to get cluttered up with userboxes like Wikipedia user pages often are. Nevertheless, the right thing to have done would be to have explained that a lot of the Wiktionary modus operandi depends upon common practice (and, unlike Wikipedia, not just upon explicit policies). Once you had explained that, you should have had the courtesy to link to the past discussion on user box templates. This is especially true considering how polite he was in disagreeing with you (he gave you his reasons before reverting you). As for your usual assumption of bad faith that he is lying about being a Wikipedian — he explicitly states thereinafter that he is “not editing here under Wikipedia user name”; did you ask him under which name he edits on Wikipedia? It’s one thing not to take any shit from anonymous vandals, but this is an editor using a named account, making contributions in obvious good faith. You cannot expect newbies to instantly grasp all the arcane nuances of editting here straight away. Have some compassion for the love of God. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

For the record (and for User:Doremítzwr above), following a discussion by e-mail, I am now unblocked. In answer to the other query above, I confirm that I am the same user as Walton One on English Wikipedia, as well as Spanish Wikipedia and the Meta-Wiki. See here for confirmation of this. Eric the Gnome 15:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

For the record, this was an over-reaction on my part, for which I am sorry. We should formalize the practice of allowing Babel templates, and make it clear to newcomers that others userboxes should stay on Wikipedia. --Connel MacKenzie 15:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wholeheartedly agree. Shall one of us propose this in the Beer Parlour? {By the way, I’m logging off a public computer now, so I won’t be making contributions on Wiktionary for at least a few hours.) † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was going to later, but if you beat me to it, I won't mind. --Connel MacKenzie 16:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have to admit that I don't blame you for being suspicious when I said I was a Wikipedian - I know it's extremely unusual (and somewhat sneaky) to edit different wiki sites under different usernames. I'm not really sure why I tried it, other than as an experiment. I've requested renaming here to correspond with my Wikipedia username, for the sake of complete transparency. Eric the Gnome 16:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It isn't a US/UK thing. It is that the past of bleed is always bled if it refers to blood, but legitimately bleeded when it is one of the technical senses of bleed. Sort of like the past of hang is hung, but if of a person, hanged. Robert Ullmann 09:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking of "bleeding." --Connel MacKenzie 09:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

dziękuję --Joystick.pl 21:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I have just seen that you deleted the alternative spelling instil for the word instill. I thought that the US spelling is that with double l, the UK spelling being instil. Please have a look here and here. Not being a native speaker of English and interested a bit in such details I would appreciate a reply from you. --Flyax 10:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow! I had no idea; it looked like a sarcastic typo (the double/don't double rule is usually opposite that.) --Connel MacKenzie 19:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

When you get to the "Demonstratives", I'd recommend leaving the "bad" headers in for now. If we vote to allow Determiner as a POS, that's where most of these will end up. It will be hard to find all of these later if they're shoved into adjective, Pronoun, or something else. --EncycloPetey 19:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the heads-up. Don't we already allow "Determiner" as a heading? Shouldn't I just swap them to that, or is there much more to it, that I'll be happier not to get drowned by? --Connel MacKenzie 19:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's difficult to say. The header Determiner is in use, but isn't "official". There's a vote being drafted to make it official, though, and it looks likely to pass. The problem with using it outside English is that it isn't always clear whether it is the correct choice. There are subcategories of Determiner, such as Article and Numeral that have their own separate headers. And not all words that look like English determiners are actually used that way in other languages. We're generally safe with European languages, but I wouldn't hazard to guess when it comes to Asian or African languages. --EncycloPetey 19:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

So the proposal to use more unfamiliar jargon looks likely? Good thing this is the English Wiktionary, where an English speaker has no hope of deciphering our word descriptions. *sigh* I'll just remove that section from the todo list for now. --Connel MacKenzie 19:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Now wait just a cotton-pickin' minute. There is no "Demonstratives" in the cleanup list (did you already clear them?) There are however, "demonstrative adjectives" which obviously should be under the general heading "adjectives." Was this what you were alerting me about? --Connel MacKenzie 19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I meant all the various "demonstrative Xs" taken together as a group. In most cases, the reason these have the tag is that they are demonstratives, which means that they can function similar to the way that an adjecitve, noun, or pronoun would. Demonstratives are inherently problematic to classify as a traditional part of speech, which is one reason why Determiner has gained ground as a recognized POS among linguists. --EncycloPetey 20:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oi! So this is another CGEL theory that hasn't passed the test of time? --Connel MacKenzie 20:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, it predates the CGEL by many years. The Oxford Companion to the English Language dates its use to the 1930s. --EncycloPetey 20:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

As an accepted, widespread acknowledged POS that style guides everywhere recognize, and teach in schools? Or as just a word? --Connel MacKenzie 20:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, except for the "teach in schools" part, but consider that "Article" and "Numeral" are not taught as POS in grade schools. (As an educator I can tell you the American educational curriculum is always a few decades behind.) However, "determiner" appears in most of the language books I have that treat grammar, including the college-level textbooks I have (they keep up better than grade schools do). I've just looked in a half dozen of my linguistics and language texts (Meaning and Grammar by Gennaro Chierchia; the Oxford Comanion to the English Language; Language: its Structure and Use by Finegan; and the seminal work Descriptive Linguistics written by Winfred Lehmann in 1972), and it's there in all of them as a distinct POS. --EncycloPetey 20:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

So a typical native English speaker with average or above average education will (like me) never have heard these terms before, outside of Wiktionary. Great. Lovely. Just peachy. Beautiful. Stupendous. Magnificent. --Connel MacKenzie 20:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

But it is a closed set of terms that is easy to grasp the understanding of quickly: articles, demonstratives, and numerals (including indefinite numerals like "some" and "each"). That's basically it. --EncycloPetey 20:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, again, for the heads-up. Since I don't share your optimism about that passing, I think I shall proceed with heading normalizing as per the current WT:ELE. Would you like me to add any particular cleanup tag when I do so, so that you can find them easily later, if your vote passes? Or will {{context}} suffice? --Connel MacKenzie 20:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

A {{context|demonstrative}} could work, I suppose. --EncycloPetey 21:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Can you provide the WT:BP (etc) links please? --Connel MacKenzie 20:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

  You can find everything linked from the collapsed not-quite-ready vote on WT:VOTE. The discussion is linked there. --EncycloPetey 20:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Dude, a link to Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-06/Addition of headers to ELE would have been more polite. (I've commented on that talk page.) --Connel MacKenzie 20:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note. I'll definitely wait to see what people say before dealing with the case-folding issue, but I think that that the accent normalization issue is pretty cut and dry. I'm sticking to Ancient Greek and Spanish for the time being and in both of those cases, I'm familiar with how print dictionaries deal with the sorting issue (i.e. the way I'm doing it). I just can't imagine that anyone will end up saying that sticking with the unintuitive Unicode ordering of "á" after "z" would be good for users of Wiktionary, so I'm being bold. As for the upper/lower case issue, I'm going to hold off there since there could possibly be a reason for splitting upper and lower case that I haven't thought of yet.

FWIW, the Unicode standards actually have accent normalization rules for dealing with just this sort of case, they just aren't taken into account in the sorting done by MediaWiki. Mike Dillon 22:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply