Hi DCDuring--
I'm not sure how a definition of law as a scientific term of art, as opposed to the way it's frequently used colloquially, is redundant - would you mind explaining please? Thanks. Milkunderwood 02:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
In reverting me you have restored the vandalism. I cannot believe you intended to do that, it is surely not acceptable to have this nonsense on display while discussion takes place. Sorry for deleting the RFV template, I had come to this through the RFC discussion and had not realised the vandalism had independently been identified at RFV at the stage I made the edit, but you still wished to continue with the RFV. I thought the vandalism was the only issue. SpinningSpark 09:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I seem to recall Tom as the name of some part of the ship in Peter Pan (the original novel). My recollection is that it was a gun, but it may have been a bell. (Or ball. :-)
)—msh210℠ (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
FYI, Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#CFI and company names. I am notifying you as a likely supporter of exclusion of almost all company names from Wiktionary, so that you can start arguing your case as early as possible. --Dan Polansky 12:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Could we attest those meanings? Nice source for leads, BTW. I always wondered what jolt meant in:
-- DCDuring TALK 09:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
OK. Well. let's see... You deleted my changes to this term (tributary load) and explained that this is not an encyclopedia... Well… OK. I see your point. I realized that you and someone else have removed my changes and I could not understand why. Then I realized that you have sent a reason in my TALK (never use the "TALK" before) Now I see your point (but do not agree with completely). In that case, can you create an article on Wikipedia for this term? For some reason (and I am sure it has nothing to do with this term) my account have been blocked with, apparently, thousands of other accounts because one abusive user is working within our IP range. This is the first time that I use Wiki in this way. I have used it (Wikipedia and Wiktionary) to find words and terms but never created an account to edit anything in it. This particular term needs a lot more information and I was compelled to create an account today. To my surprise, right after I edited the term (tributary load) I found out that my account was blocked because my IP address fall within a range that have been blocked for abuse. Not a good feeling for someone who decide to contribute for the first time in my life. So, again, since I can’t do it, could you create that article in Wikipedia for this term, please? You can use the files in my account (diagrams) that I created for this. Thank you. Jgnpress Jgnpress 18:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
You don't have to SHILL for me or anything else in that line. Thank you. I don't need your help. It wasn't for me anyway. Thank you for being so understanding and willing to help. You were fast to eliminate my editing of the term (which was a good addition to whoever wanted to understand the term correctly). And I see your point here: a dictionary has to be concise. OK, I get it. Therefore I was suggesting that, since I cannot do it because my IP range have been blocked until (I think) March, you could do a contribution to the world of Wikimedia. That was all. But that is OK. Your answer here only shows the kind of person you are. I will wait until they unblock this range of IPs and try to do it myself. Or better yet, maybe I'll just get away from this world of Wikimedia fanatics. Again, this is the first time that I tried to contribute to anything in Wikimedia, created an account for the first time just for this purpose… but the way you have treated me... well, sucks. I have never used Wikimedia a lot. I have read some articles on Wikipedia and really thought that I was in Wikipedia when I was editing the term and that it was all the same. I still do not know exactly how all of this work and do not know all the rules and regulations here. I was just happy to contribute to something that I know very well (engineering). That is why it took me by surprise to see you editing my addition to the term. It was ONLY after I realized that I was in Wiktionary instead of Wikipedia and that there are many Wiki... subjects, if you will, that I understood the difference. My fault. I was really expecting a friendlier and understanding approached from contributors like you, especially after I have explained what happened. But a harsh: I don’t shill for someone else? (This has nothing to do with me; it was an addition to the empowerment of the Wikimedia). -- BTW: Why did you suggest that I try in another language? Where that came from? The term: Tributary Load is in English, isn’t it? What made you think that I could contribute to that term under another language? How good could it be in another language? I don’t use another language, I don't even know how to say that in any other language. I live and work in the US and English is my language. I sense some form of discrimination here. Don't be fooled by my name... — This comment was unsigned.
Hi, I noticed you tried to fix my page tocalo. I know I left that page rather sloppy, this was mainly because of the strange formatting issues. When creating new Asturian templates and categories, I tend to just adapt the Spanish, Galician, Catalan, French, Italian etc. counterpart, but occasionally this ends up leaving a mess. Basically, with tocalo, it is a kind of compound verb form, I guess - the equivalent of tocarlo in Spanish (in Asturian, they leave out the r in these compound forms, also for reflexives - Asturian tocase = Spanish tocarse.) Anyway, I don't know how to tidy up the tocalo page. It was a kind of experiment - I'm making a lot of experiments with Asturian things, you see, and mostly they work out OK! --Cova (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the formatting help, at entry, tough titties. -- Cirt (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Taxonomy is a very complicated system, so incorporating it here gets complicated.
For one thing, the rules vary depending on taxonomic level. Generic names are always nominative singular, but gender is important. Specific epithets are either nominative singular adjectives modifying and agreeing in gender with the generic name (though the gender rule is often ignored), genitive singular or plural nouns acting as adjectives, or nominative singular or plural nouns "in apposition" modifying the generic name.
Everything above genus is derived from the generic name by taking its genitive, removing the ending, then adding an ending specific to the taxonomic level (botany and zoology use different sets of names, and botany allows some older names to be "grandfathered in" as alternate forms). In zoology, at least, the rules don't cover anything above family (and its derivatives, such as superfamily), though they tend to follow common practices for a particular field.
That means that genus (with its associated levels), species (with its associated levels) and higher levels such as order, have etymologies, while family-level names can only be described as "from ".
Of course, the etymology really boils down to "coined by from...". In fact, a truly accurate etymology often requires tracking down the original publication of the taxon and seeing what the original author says.
Taxonomic names aren't really Latin, they're a hodgepodge of words from various languages (most often Greek and Latin), those not already Latin being converted into Latin form according to various rules and common practices, then inflected by a very limited subset of Latin grammar. For example, a specific epithet named after a person starts by latinizing the name, then adding a genitive ending treated as if the name is a stem in the 1st declension for females and 2nd declension for males, with some disagreement as to whether there should be an extra "i" in front of the ending: something named for a Mr. Smith would be smithii or smithi, for Mrs. or Miss Smith would be smithae (I'm not sure about smithiae), and multiple Smiths would be smithorum or smithae. Derivative endings such as -ana are often used to avoid conflict with existing taxonomic names. I don't see how "johntuckeri", for instance, could be considered Latin, since it went directly from English to a botanical name- it was never used in an actual Latin sentence.
As for the template: different taxonomic levels are different. At genus level, it's helpful to know the gender, though that's not always easy to find out. I suppose the genitive or the genitive stem might be useful so that derived family-level names can be recognized (for example, Sphing- for Sphinx).
At species level, those which are morphologically adjectives would benefit from alternate forms for the different genders, since they agree in gender with the generic name. The change in ending can make it hard to recognize a specific epithet when the species is moved to a different genus. This doesn't apply to nouns, which don't agree with the generic name. The genitive forms agree with the referent, so alternate gender and number forms could also be of use, though this could get confusing.
As for formatting: the only taxa italicized are those that are listed in a (modified) binomial name, such as genus, subgenus, etc. and species, subspecies, variety, etc.
Author citation is another can of worms, since botany and zoology use different rules, and parentheses are important.
Any of the above have to be carefully weighed as to whether they're helpful enough in practice to outweigh the cost in clutter and confusion.
Personally, I would favor interwiki links to wikispecies rather than having our own interlingual entries. Very few of us at wiktionary understand the difference between taxonomic names and Latin, and equally few know many of the rules regarding taxonomic names. I've had trouble deciding what to do with translation requests in the Latin section where they obviously want the translation for scientific names, since It's not always obvious whether to create a Latin or a translingual entry. Besides, many are named after people or places that wouldn't meet CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's the off-topic material from WT:RFV for you: Mglovesfun (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Could someone check whether the audio file is for the noun or verb senses? — Paul G (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Is the audio file for the noun or the verb? — Paul G (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Which part(s) of speech is the audio file for? — Paul G (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)