User talk:DCDuring/2016

As an administrator, I was wondering if you could help resolve the situation occurring with Purplebackpack89's personal attacks in response to my comments on Requests for Verification/conservative. This all began when he seemed to suggest that the definition should discuss the histories of the Republican and Democratic parties, in a manner that implied that Republican ideology was "regressive" on racial, social, and religious issues. My comment was that it would be inappropriate to include what were essentially personal opinions in Wiktionary entries. Unfortunately, since that time he's unwilling to let it rest and has taken to a number of rude and insulting jabs, including carrying on his argument in the edit summaries of RfV, which is certainly against Wiktionary policy. I've asked him to stop twice, and it's still going on. These are some of his comments:

• "Maybe get your facts straight? Also, I changed it, so why are you still talking?"
• "And I'm not even sure you really know what the word "regressive" means."
• "you have yet to actually edit Conservative Democrat, you've merely griped about it in this RfV."
• "TLDR, except, regrettably, I actually read it."
• "I'm not even sure you've actually read them. It should have been blatantly obvious to you..."
• "I'm also not sure you've actually read everything I said above..."
• "you're still far too hung up on a gut reaction to the word "regressive"...like that time you were hung up on a gut reaction to disableds...or to house...or to fabulous."
• "And don't try to lecture me about when events happened in American history, young man...I have a bachelor's degree in American history with a minor in politics."

And these edit summaries occur in the page history, all directed at me:

• "re:Aculeius' blueberry claim"
• "I don't know why P Aculeius is making so much fuss over this. Frankly, his comments belie how little he knows about the project"
• "oh, descriptive words are off-limits now? Try writing definitions without any descriptive words. You'll find it's quite difficult"
• "dude, read the actual definitions for conservative and Conservative Democrat"
• "too hung up on a gut reaction"
• "collapse P's meandering"

Enough sarcasm, condescension, and insults to fill several weeks, IMO. I'm quite certain that personal attacks are not permitted; insulting and belittling other people's intelligence, education, reading skills, or contributions in general merely because you disagree with them seems to contravene Wiktionary policy; as does using edit summaries to do the same. Since I can't make him stop, is there any chance that you can? P Aculeius (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why don't you take this to User talk:Purplebackpack89? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Because asking him to stop only seems to result in more of the same. And try as I might over the last two days, I couldn't find any page or policy suggesting how to deal with repeated incivility and personal attacks, other than a suggestion to ignore them. Contacting an administrator who seems active and who might be familiar with the page and discussion seemed like the most obvious way of obtaining help. P Aculeius (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've had to thicken my skin over the years. In any event, your reputation among those familiar with PB89 is unlikely to suffer. Even to a newbie his mostly fact-free assertions and insults are fairly transparent. Keep up the good work. DCDuring TALK 17:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

If, in your job, a co-worker is continuously being impolite to you, what do you do first? Do you first talk to him or to your boss? Or do you talk to the security guy and ask whether the security guy could prevent the colleague from entering the building for a day? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I asked him to stop, several times, and did my utmost to respond only to the original point under discussion, not to subsidiary topics that I had never addressed or intended to address. I tried not to personalize what I said, or throw insults at him, but merely tried, again and again, to explain the original comment that was being described as naïve foolishness from someone who had no idea what he was talking about (I mean me, not him; I'm describing his assertions, not making one of my own). Talking to someone as an equal only works when that person is willing to treat you as one, and when they repeatedly indicate that they don't have to listen to you because they're your superior, then yes, talking to the "boss" is the best option. I didn't ask anyone to block or be blocked. I didn't request a punishment. I just asked if an admin could step in before it got really ugly, although IMO carrying on an argument through edit summaries is already pretty getting pretty ugly, since rude remarks in edit summaries are difficult to remove, and can't be modified by the offending party. And while I won't reject kindly-offered advice even if it isn't what I might have hoped to hear, it's good to know that I'm not the only one who feels the need to shout, "fetchez la vache!" when Mr. Backpack talks. P Aculeius (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

In some parts of the USofA we have another option: open carry. DCDuring TALK 17:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Piss off, PB. You've got a lot of gall jumping in on this. It's enough to make me rethink my advice to PA. In your case folks "threw stuff" at you because you deserved it: you rarely responded rationally to anything anyone said and routinely resorted to ad hominem attacks, dragging down the tenor of virtually every discussion you "participated" in.

Please refrain from posting on any user page of mine. I will simply roll your "contributions" back. DCDuring TALK 19:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey Dennis. As the Translingual spcies guy, could you please add some Translingual stuff to Nicolaus? Seems to me like another bunch of boring insects to me...--Stubborn Pen (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Insects are my least fun group. DCDuring TALK 12:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Next time, please tell me why the group is worth my time. DCDuring TALK 12:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

The group is nothing special, just that Nicolaus had other meanings. Thanks, anyway. --Stubborn Pen (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I see. I guess I do that too to reduce confusion in advance, even when the risk of it occurring is very low. DCDuring TALK 23:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Hey, the next request is for a translingual entry for Godiva. These nudibranches are all really pretty, and are one day going to brainwash all humankind. That is why it's worth your time making it... -WF
•  Done

Hey DC, can you update your template for taxonomic stuff to include the language code in {{rfi}}? If you are not using a template feel free to ignore this. - TheDaveRoss

This was labelled English (and simultaneously a noun and a proper noun, which is how I noticed it). I tried to fix it up using Tyrannosaurus rex as a model; let me know if I got any of the templates wrong. :) - -sche (discuss) 22:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

What you did was correct and useful. Thanks.

If you have the chance, add templates for the sister projects WP, Species, and Commons. I put {{pedia}}, {{specieslite}}, and {{comcatlite}} under an External links header, which leaves makes for a more compact entry when an image is added (as I did for this). Clicking on them will sometimes reveal a better or additional vernacular name (black jay), some interesting fact (Tasmania), or that the family name in the template does not match what the sister projects have (All three projects show that Cractidae is now the subfamily Cractinae, Artamidae is the family). For me this is second nature now, so it doesn't even seem time-consuming, but it is for others.

As I check new additions to the taxonomic categories for genera and species, I tend to catch any "errors" and use the opportunity to add some content to the entry, as I did. This entry will not get the full treatment (more external links, add out of sequence a template {{Artamidae Hypernyms}} to Strepera) because I'm betting that it is not "important". DCDuring TALK 23:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the informative explanation. Nice catch that Cractidae is no longer current. (I wonder where our entry Strepera got Cractidae from. Maybe it was only recently changed; on Google Books, it's still used even into the 2000s.) Yes, I doubt this bird is important. - -sche (discuss) 03:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Cractidae is not at all far-fetched. One of the best avian taxonomy sources was formerly called Aves - Taxonomy in Flux. They report the Artamidae placement but clearly show that it is both recent (yes, post 2004-8) and subject to change. This kind of relentless and active change is occurring at many places, from trunk to twig, on the tree of life. DCDuring TALK 03:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Taxonomy is notoriously fuzzy, to start with, but the change from morphology-based to molecular-based to various types of DNA-based taxonomy has accelerated all of this to the point where there are multiple layers of revolutions in a matter of decades, each overturning everything in a given area of taxonomy, only to be overturned again. Field guides, floras and popular descriptive works tend to fossilize the taxonomic state of the art as of their compilation, and they're all out there being used by people who have no idea that anything has changed. I never wonder about how people come up with outdated taxonomy- I marvel that anyone is up to date at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

You may be amused by this parody from YouTube. Tun off the sound so the unedited and unrelated German doesn't interfere with enjoying the body language and the dubbing. DCDuring TALK 04:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Cractidae turns out to be an uncommon variation of Cracticidae. - -sche (discuss) 04:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Mistakes like the one I made above, dropping -ic-, occur in the literature for certain types of names with repeated syllables in the spelling. I'd imagine that authors never hear some of these terms spoken. Further I'd guess errors occurs most for authors who are not familiar with the genus from which the higher rank taxon is derived (like me!) or who are not familiar with the pattern of relationship between nominatives and stems in Latin and Greek. They may figure that a pattern like that of Accipiter ⇒ Accipitridae is followed. DCDuring TALK 13:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have edited User:DCDuring/Symbolia. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Since you do a lot of the work on taxonomy I thought you might be in the best position to answer this: are links to Wikipedia and Wikispecies like interwiki links? Meaning, should I remove the link if the target page does not exist? I have run into a couple and I wasn't sure whether the common practice was to leave the links or remove them in such cases. Thanks. - TheDaveRoss 14:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

For any links to sister projects, I try to find the best content they have to offer. If all else fails, I search for the term on the sister project. Sometimes a project has nothing to offer in which case I remove the link.

For taxonomic names at either WP or Species there is a third option: go up the hypernyms until you find a page that exists. Often that page will have a redlink to the entry you started from. This usually works at Wikispecies, the exception being homonyms which need to be disambiguated, which isn't that hard. For Wikipedia: sometimes there is a substantive entry at the taxonomic name, sometimes at the vernacular name. Usually there are redirects between them. Going up the hypernyms requires guessing which hypernym might have a WP article, or at least a redirect. WP and Species sometimes have different hypernyms. Finally, Commons mirrors WPs hypernyms and has very useful content. The best access to taxa is through category pages, which is why there is {{comcatlite}}.

I know that's more than you wanted to know, but it means our taxonomic content is fuller and easier to update as WP fills in articles. DCDuring TALK 16:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Used other than as an idiom. It's a single word isn't it? Anyway, can you cite any unidiomatic use? I think if nominate to rfv it would fail but I was hoping that won't be needed. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

It is used to mean a hole for pots in several stove patents and perhaps in other objects, as well as the ground. I thought the usage example was clear enough. I wonder whether someone refers to the location of their stash as a pot-hole. DCDuring TALK 13:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think it is also used to refer to holes the size or shape of a pot, to holes that serve as pots, privy holes, and exceptions to marijuana laws, none of them common and few with three citations. That is, it seems that the combination is productive. Even if there were more than three instances on a single type of use, it would hardly justify a definition. DCDuring TALK 14:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

FYI, in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/References, you voted twice. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean? --Dixtosa (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I didn't understand the documentation and really don't understand why the month and year can't be read automagically. DCDuring TALK 20:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The template can read the current month and year, but it cannot not know what month and year the discussion was actually started. In other words, it would only be able to link to the correct page for no more than a month. --WikiTiki89 20:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

So there's no way to use subst? Scribunto is also crippled? You guys have all the technical talent. Why such a lame "solution" to a minimal problem? DCDuring TALK 22:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

It could be changed to use a subst. Just like {{subst:wgping|es}} substs to the same template with filled in parameters: {{wgping|es|u1=Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|u2=Metaknowledge}}. --WikiTiki89 17:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

FYI, I agree with you that the substitution principle in relation to definitions is a good thing. Considerable effort should be taken to make definitions substitutable. The principle should probably be relaxed here and there where other considerations prevail, but in general, it is a useful guiding principle.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

It is so simple that it is usable. It is almost always something that can be agreed upon by multiple native speakers and probably and usually by advanced speakers of a language. I really don't understand why it has been opposed. DCDuring TALK 11:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean with this edit that the cruciform symbol is part of the accepted orthography of the word?— Pingku^dimmi 07:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

There's no way that whether a taxon is extinct can be considered lexical information. I say we shouldn't include that; plus, only neontological literature does that anyway. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

For clarification, I was only questioning the usage in the inflection line. In the case of genera, this part of the entry is italicised to indicate common typography, so there is precedence for a similar interpretation.— Pingku^dimmi 09:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes it is, optionally, part of the typography, just like the italics and the capitalization. OTOH I wouldn't want it to mess up sorting, which is expected to not include such a symbol. DCDuring TALK 16:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. In the last day or two I tried to notify you about a couple of pages I wandered by that included Latin taxonomy. The way I did it was with a {{ping}} template inside a {{attention}} template. I have no idea if this is a trick that works though. Let me know if you got the notifications and I might keep using this technique. If you did not I'll try to find which pages they were and I'll let you know. Cheers. — hippietrail (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

It didn't work. You could next try putting {{ping}} on the Talk page for the entry. Sometimes the forces of negativity and limitation don't, or forget to, disable capabilities outside of the namespace dreamt of in their philosophies. DCDuring TALK 10:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

It only works if a link is actually created. The attention template does not actually wiki-render the text within it. --WikiTiki89 15:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Aha thanks. Won't try that trick again then (-: — hippietrail (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

FYI: Help:When do pings get sent? and mw:Manual:Echo. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

The correct way to do this is with the {{taxlink}} template. It creates a link to Wikispecies if there's no entry on Wiktionary for the taxonomic name, and populates missing-taxonomic-names categories that DCD monitors. Aside from the name and taxonomic rank parameters, you should also include |noshow=1 to keep the entry out of a category that tags {{taxlink}} usage by those who haven't had the template explained to them. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

That would be a little easier for me, but I don't mind the very modest extra effort required for the {{ping}} approach. If someone is not a regular contributor of vernacular or taxonomic names of organisms, I am loathe to add yet another template to the list they need to keep track of. If they do use {{taxlink}}, they can take some comfort that I avoid changing the template parameters, because {{taxlink}} seems to be used rarely or episodically by any one user.

I had always hoped that folks would add vernacular names from relatively exotic languages and provide the association with the local species or genera. DCDuring TALK 21:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is apparently an order of trees- but it seems to be used only by Polish authors. Do you know if there is a more common equivalent? DTLHS (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Not everything in Latin is a taxonomic name. It seems to be an ecological term for a plant association that includes Molinia caerulea- a type of grassland, in other words. Perhaps it's equivalent to one of the Purple moor grass and rush pastures. Although it seems most used by Poles, here is an example of English usage. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Chuck. It seems to be in use among some schools of ecologists in Europe. I found journal article that characterizes it and others as "syntaxonomic orders" within the Molinio-Arrhenatherata class. I had come across some similar names ending in -etum in some works by Francophone ecologists. Taxonomic species would seem to be meronyms of syntaxonomic names, AFAICT. I have enough trouble with the taxa on the tree of life without having to contend with "syntaxa". DCDuring TALK 20:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

This has a redlink to a taxonomic term. Since you create these a lot, I thought I'd let you know. —CodeCat 18:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. If you put a taxonomic name within {{taxlink}} I will find it in due course. Although {{taxlink|Lycalopex culpeo|species}} is the canonical form, you can leave {{{2}}} blank or type "unknown" to indicate that the rank of the name is unknown to you. That's probably faster than leaving a message on my talk page, though it is yet another thing to remember. DCDuring TALK 18:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just a note (no criticism intended), re this edit. In entries, I often like to balance LHS (text) with RHS (images and boxes). It's merely aesthetics of course, and dependent on the screen you are using (and whether, like me, you always show quotations)... On the other hand, boxes aren't terribly pretty. — Pingku^dimmi 08:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. I seek the same kind of balance, but I use RHS Table of Contents, so the lines taken by the ToC and the image are almost an exact match to the lines taken up by the text. I've never understood why we haven't made rhs ToC the default. I don't remember any specific arguments against it. DCDuring TALK 10:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps because the implementation is a bit messy. By rights, the ToC should be completely above the first language group, but it seems things didn't quite work as planned. With LHS, it does display as expected, fully above the first level 2. (Thus it doesn't affect the balance within English, say.) With RHS, the ToC is balanced on the left only by the level 2 header (the name of the language), so it intrudes into the top language group. — Pingku^dimmi 12:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Since the intrusion is on the right-hand side, which tends to be relatively empty, the effect is for more of the first L2 to be on the initial screen, without as much paging down required to see content. This works very well for English and Translingual and it would probably work well for any L2 that was first on the entry. I don't see any disadvantage for other languages, for which the ToC is as accessible on the right side as on the left. DCDuring TALK 15:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

With LHS ToC, there is white space on the right until the first L2. The RHS ToC fills this otherwise white space at the cost of intruding into the first L2, pushing down any RHS elements that might be there. The latter is not in itself a bad thing, but it does mean that you can't predict (specify) exactly how the screen is going to look. If RHS elements dominate in the first L2, intrusion might cascade into the second L2. Conceivably (I've never seen it happen), an image might become separated from its L2. (In practice, the RHS isn't used enough for that to happen.)

To be fair, I see this as a design issue, and not a very high-priority one. It indicates limiting use of RHS elements, which aren't much used anyhow. Or at least they aren't now... — Pingku^dimmi 02:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello DC -- True indeed, there is a distinction to be made between motion and momentum. I'm not sure there's any way to directly image momentum in itself. But the moving GIF of a train does suggest momentum. Anyhow, it seems Sam has now adjusted the caption of that GIF in a manner that may help keep the entry "on track". -- · (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I understand MW is working on a haptic interface that should address this. DCDuring TALK 03:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello DC -- Alrightee, then. Bound to be impactful. ;-) · (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

The link you just added isn't a working link. I was going to fix it but I can't tell what's wrong. Please check it again. Equinox ◑ 01:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

A good rendering of the link leads to the contribution being blocked by a spam filter. How about Hypertextprotocol://bit.ly/_leme DCDuring TALK 01:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

"bit.ly" links suck because you can't tell where they go. It might be malware, or (in 2 years, when the teenage owners of bit.ly give up on it, not having made enough dotcom money) we will have no idea what it pointed to. Please add a link to the real destination, not a faddy shortcut site. Equinox ◑ 01:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

 Done as best I can. See WT:NEWS

Cf. Dictionary.com's etymology. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'd be down with that, though I'd usually prefer single words in Latin or Greek, The derivations of the etyma I'd leave at entries for the etyma. DCDuring TALK 13:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think the difference boils down to whether the name is from a sooty color or a soot-like mass of spores.Here's the original description if it helps (I don't have time to translate the Latin this morning, so I'm not sure). Chuck Entz (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring: I don't think your etymology is correct. For a Latinisation like aethalium, you'd need a Greek etymon of the form *αἰθαλιον (aithalion); αἰθᾰλίων (aithălíōn) would be Latinised *aethaliōn. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

If you really believe that taxonomists follow the rules like that. There is an abundance of instances of mistakes (eg, gender) and what you would call non-standard derivations in taxonomic Latin. I'd venture that Late, Medieval, Scientific, Legal, and even Ecclesiastical Latin have derivations that violate such rules. DCDuring TALK 14:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, fine, but I find it easier to believe a derivation that isn't erroneous over one that is. As such, I am inclined to believe Dictionary.com's etymology. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

You are probably right. The name is fairly old. It was formally published in a German journal in 1809. The standard of classical language knowledge among taxonomic authors and editors was probably fairly high. DCDuring TALK 17:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

See Aethalium. DCDuring TALK 14:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your quotation is illuminating; however, αἰθᾰλίων (aithălíōn) refers to toasted cicadae, whereas αἴθᾰλος (aíthălos) can mean both soot and (more-or-less) soot-coloured (like αἰθαλόεις (aithalóeis)), and has the advantage of making the derivation entirely regular. I hope you're happy with my solution. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

-ium (“biological structure???”). Not a definition we have. How do we support it? DCDuring TALK 20:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

See the entry taken from the Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition of the Collins English Dictionary at Dictionary.com. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

May as well add it to the -ium entry. DCDuring TALK 22:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Other than aethalium only ] links to ] and fits the definition. DCDuring TALK 23:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think we can probably find many in fungal anatomy. DCDuring TALK 23:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, see -ium#Derived terms. DCDuring TALK 23:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Great work! Thanks for that. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

What does ver= do? SemperBlotto (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I use it to record the date (YYMMDD) on which I have verified the existence of the name, ie, corrected misspellings, etc. As I do this I try to find out whether the taxon is current or has been superseded. I check against databases. The taxonomic names used in citations are, of course, usually right, but they can be misspelled and more often are older synonyms. Entries from foreign languages are often made from older, copyright-free dictionaries and books and often use obsolete (or misspelled) taxonomic names.

I should document it, but I hardly expect others to do the verification. DCDuring TALK 15:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

You seem to have added the parameter i= to lots of templates, but there is no such parameter. Now that some of them have been Luafied, they're showing errors. What did you intend this parameter to do? —CodeCat 19:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Was it meant to italicize the link? --WikiTiki89 19:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. See Template talk:projectlink/Wikipedia#Optional italics. DCDuring TALK 21:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

That was never implemented, though. Also, what you did here seems to work too: adenium. So there doesn't seem to be a need for this parameter. —CodeCat 21:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why wasn't it? What I did on ] is a waste of keystrokes. The keystroke problem is much worse for subgeneric taxonomic names. Cut-and-paste saves keystrokes, but breaks up workflow. In addition, retroactively inserting the text within italics into the pipe, cannot be done efficiently, whereas inserting "|i=1" can be. DCDuring TALK 21:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@CodeCat: Could you implement the |i= parameter into the Luacised projectlink templates, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Done. —CodeCat 16:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@CodeCat: Thank you! :-D  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wait, I thought CodeCat did it in delayed response to my prior request. So, thanks @CodeCat: DCDuring TALK 17:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have become disengaged.

I don't believe in the practices followed as they have changed.

This is not a dictionary I would rely on.

UtherPendrogn (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Obviously the first is no longer true. Indeed it was never very true.

There are plenty of things I disagree with, many of them related to specific persons.

I would not and do not rely on this dictionary because many entries that I come across are poor and we have no processes no improve quality. DCDuring TALK 17:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Right! I have a lot of qualms with the site and users as well. UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why do you insist on keeping a request that can't be filled? It was hard enough to find a dictionary with galago, and there is no mention, even in the more compendious older dictionaries, of any terms for specific kinds of galagos, let alone species that don't even live where Chichewa is spoken. This is nothing more than an annoyance to someone like me who's actually working on fulfilling requests. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Because simply deleting implicit requests to show progress on meeting them is, well, sleazy. Some requests are wildly implausible. This one is not, being from a neighboring region. If you want to see some real laffers among fulfilled "requests" and unrequested inventions, take a look at Navaho. DCDuring TALK 21:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

If we added a translation, it would fail RFV. Chichewa just isn't rich in these kinds of words. That's why the request should be removed, not for your idea of what sleaziness is (although if I understand you correctly on Navajo, I agree on that count). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think CFI-compliance should be a measure for whether we include any kind of link to a word. A red link means fairly explicitly "we want an entry here", which is of course not true if the term doesn't meet CFI. I'm not saying whether this term does or doesn't meet it, but it should be the main factor in deciding if a translation request can ever be fulfilled. —CodeCat 21:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

How would we know? What valid, objective process do we have to make such a determination? What is the big problem with having a few more redlinks on a list? I thought WMF is trying to increase participation from Africa. These requests are just one means of providing target activity for a native speaker or student of such a language. DCDuring TALK 22:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Heh, that's a BS excuse and you know it. This isn't a good "target activity" because the word would have to be made up. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

How do you know? Been doing a lot of traveling? You sure are good at being arrogant. DCDuring TALK 02:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Most of these people have holier-than-thou complexes higher than the Burj Khalifa. UtherPendrogn (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

DCDuring has earned the right to insult me in earnest by at least demonstrating true competence in lexicography. You have a long way to go before you can insult me without merely causing me to laugh. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I didn't think I was insulting you. After all, I'm pretty good at being arrogant myself. I was wondering whether you had some special insight into the range of application of east African languages. DCDuring TALK 11:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's not entirely unreasonable to hope for the possibility that a native Chichewa speaker who happens to know the name of this animal in his native language will see the request and fulfill it. We can't judge the potential of fulfilling a request by the availability of dictionaries. --WikiTiki89 14:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is in re: your reversion of my deletion. I did ask to be informed if I acted improperly, and I don't mind being reverted. That has certainly happened before, and will happen again, doubtless. I do appreciate your explanation, as I have often been reverted with no explanation whatsoever, and I don't intend to pursue this further, as I don't believe it merits the time or effort. I have no problem with vulgarity in a dictionary, or lewdness, certainly. I also understand the principle of erring on the side of caution. I DO, however, have a problem with pointless, disruptive lewdness or vulgarity. All that said, I think someone is pulling Wiktionary's leg. Having fun at the expense of those of you who are working very hard to create and develop something of value. Thank you for what you do. I have contributed very little to Wiktionary, and don't even visit very often. I just think it's a shame when someone makes sport of a serious wiki, and I think this is an example. I guess it comes with the territory. My hope is that they get bored and move on to troll somewhere else.

(I think you should seriously consider archiving some more material from this page. I came to it in "mobile" view, and had to back out to change to "desktop" view, in order to navigate. No disrespect intended, just a suggestion.) Ragityman (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wow! I'm so glad you reverted me. I just took a cursory look at your USER PAGE. I really like an informative user page, as I am here to learn as much as to build. I'll bet you didn't attend Indiana State. Ragityman (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes it needs archiving. Thanks for the comments etc. You ought to come by and contribute - additively. DCDuring TALK 11:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Can you deal with this idiot? DonnanZ (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Nice job insulting me, hero. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

What's this about? DCDuring TALK 00:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

In the meantime I had found out how to properly implement what was once called {{only-in}} with a somewhat different format. It is very much like what Pedrianaplant had done. I guess it's the singer not the song here. Sorry, Pedrianaplant. DCDuring TALK 00:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was merely trying to alert you about what was happening, but I was followed. DonnanZ (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. What Pedrianaplant had done was better than what I'd done, though not yet in our canonical form for such entries. The display resulting from our canonical form stinks though, obscuring the substantive link, in this case to Wikipedia. DCDuring TALK 03:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

That user doesn't deserve any credit, the reference to Wikipedia was removed. I reverted the edits twice, then it was put up for speedy deletion. With hindsight I should have reverted that too. But reverting edits can be like waving a red rag at a bull. Anyway... DonnanZ (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Believe it or not, but what I did is exactly what the page contains right now. Down to the source, 1:1 identical. If you don't believe it, ask an admin, he will confirm it. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I stand corrected. Thanks. DCDuring TALK 15:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's not how I saw it, but I'm not going to argue any further. DonnanZ (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Clearly, that must not be how you saw it. But the edit history shows that Pedrianaplant's 16:34 and 17:30 versions were identical to my version, which is the current one. DCDuring TALK 17:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Way back in 2007 you added this example usage of down.

So, things got you down? / Is Rodney Dangerfield giving you no respect? / Well, bunky, cheer up!

The styling makes me think it might be a lyric, but I can't find it to add a date. The quote is all over the web, but mainly in English-learning sites that presumably got it from Wiktionary. Was it original to you? If it is from a song or poem, do you happen to remember the source? Thanks for your time, Cnilep (talk) 07:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The exact words may be original to me. But the line is in the style of "The Old Philosopher", Eddie Lawrence. For a few minutes of him from You Tube, try this. DCDuring TALK 13:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks muchly! Cnilep (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Most of these seem to be reference templates. Do you think those could be placed in a separate Category:Taxonomy reference templates? —CodeCat 23:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

They are already in Category:Translingual reference templates. DCDuring TALK 10:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is related to Wiktionary:Grease pit/2016/November#Category:en:Philanthropy, but also a bit off-topic: would you support removing all templates and modules from all categories, and using only "manual" categorization? (Personally, I like the templates, and dislike the messy untended category tree, but I'd like to know if you think that the existence of templates and modules are part of the problem in some way) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I just don't think that the categorization system is transparent or documented. It looks very much as if we don't want the wrong kind of people to create categories, which may be true and possibly desirable, but we still need a way to ease the creation of categories both inside and outside the current hierarchical structures. To do this it is not enough to document templates and modules. I also don't think that the error messages are much help. The error message at Category:en:Philanthropy (at present: "The automatically-generated contents of this category has errors. / The label given to the {{topic cat}} template is not valid. You may have mistyped it, or it simply has not been created yet. To add a new label, please consult the documentation of the template.") doesn't really cover the situation that category is in. It would have to say something like: "Beg for help from your betters at the Grease Pit."

I created my own, admittedly baroque, system for taxonomic names, because I needed categories that did not fit the existing structure, trying to hook it into the existing system where I could.

Also I've also created categories for English grammatical groupings that sometimes don't fit a pure hierarchy, many of them small. Some have been deleted even though they could have been populated. They might have been useful for achieving a consistency in the entries involved. DCDuring TALK 02:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I have been doing a bit of dusting in some of WT's less-visited nooks today, and came across a clam. The definitions on the page are obviously from a hundred years ago, so lots of taxonomic stuff is rubbish. I tidied it up a bit, but I never feel comfortable with taxonomic entries, so thought I'd ask you to double-check. --Derrib9 (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. This particular are is apparently not resolved taxonomically even now and is confusing to me. That is why I have been discouraged in trying to update the taxonomomic entries associated with this. I will take another run at it. DCDuring TALK 19:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi DCDuring, I would like to be added to this list. By using the AWB I am going to add Kurdish prons to the entries (by using ku-IPA-template) For example. Thanks in advance --George^Animal. 20:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

In this edit, you added to up to speed the example sentence "Is Mary up to speed on the situation in KL." This has me wondering what KL means. Cilantrohead (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

• We should have it: KL (“Kuala Lumpur”). DCDuring TALK 04:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply