User talk:DCDuring/2019

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Persoonia_terminalis&diff=0&oldid=49471371 As I recall, I had formatted this in a way that was non-standard for species names here so thanks for smoothing it out for me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

No worries. The most important thing is to wrap any taxonomic name in {{taxlink}} (which need not have all of its parameters. I closely monitor maintenance categories for this template and also occasionally search for oddness in taxonomic entries. DCDuring (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Can you please tell me the meaning of "ver=190411" you added in the taxlink. Thanks.Angelucci (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I try to check the spelling of all taxonomic names, at least those using {{taxlink}}. It is easy to make mistakes. I also check whether the name is the accepted current one. Ver means "verified"; the 6 numbers are YYMMDD. DCDuring (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have two Chichewa words, insa and gwape, which seem to refer to duikers, but I can't figure out if they're synonyms or (as is more likely) refer to different species. My informants are of little help, and one actually glossed insa as "deer", which I knew was zoologically problematic but went into my notes anyway. Your googling skills would be much appreciated. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC) From w:List of mammals of Malawi:Reply

• Genus: Cephalophus

  blue duiker, Cephalophus monticola LR/lc

  red forest duiker, Cephalophus natalensis LR/cd

• Genus: Sylvicapra

  common duiker, Sylvicapra grimmia LR/lc

The species are notably different in color, so distinct vernacular names are quite possible. Are either of the nouns used with color words? There are also a few other species of antelopes in Malawi. The starting hypothesis should be that the words are for duikers. I'll look into this late tomorrow or Tuesday. DCDuring (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Mtenje describes gwape as "reddish in colour, about the size of a good dog, with very small straight horns" (which sounds like a red forest duiker to me), but insa gets no detailed description. This source uses the name "Manganja" and claims insa refers in fact to the oribi. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 14:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, the commons distribution map doesn't show much area in Malawi currently occupied by oribis. DCDuring (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Confusingly, the very helpful Appendix 4 of this paper gives gwape as S. grimmia, which I would have to say conflicts with Mtenje's description quoted above. Chichewa is not a taxonomically exact language, so I begin to wonder if these are not errors, but reflect real disagreement about which duikers have which names. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't think any normal language is particularly taxonomic, except perhaps locally. My own model is that a given regional group of speakers of a language share a 'type' that anchors the range of organisms that a given name can usually refer to.

IMO, the description of a typical gwape given by Mtenje could fit S. grimmia just as well as it fits C. natalensis, based on the images at Sylvicapra grimmia on Wikimedia Commons.Wikimedia Commons . The red of C. natalensis is redder than that of S. grimmia, but I wonder how often even a hunter would see them or their hides next to each other. DCDuring (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

So what´s so great about ELEXIS? --I learned some phrases (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

It might be free or, at least, cheap for those in EU countries. Their website explains what they offer. I doubt it will that great for English. DCDuring (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Do you see any value in adding information such as the following:

• interrogative who is a pronoun but not a pro-form
• relative who is both a pronoun and a pro-form
• noun one can be a pro-form but isn't a pronoun
• today is always a deictic marker
• Monday is sometimes deictic marker
• all is a universal determiner
• few is a negative determiner

If you see any value in this kind of thing, is there a format the immediately strikes you as practical and useful? --Brett (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nice to hear from you.

We don't use any of the terms in entries very much because we don't have high expectations for the level of terminological sophistication of our hoped-for population of normal users. Perhaps we should beef up our grammatical-term entries, as a couple of people have mentioned over the last year.

Starting places would be appendices linked to initially from the entries for pro-form, deixis (or deictic marker?), determiner (universal determiner and negative determiner) and subsequently to the terms that are always, often, or occasionally members of the class. For some of the larger word subclasses, categories might be good, but many normal users never get that far down the page. Linking to grammatical appendices from usage notes give more prominence if we have something to say that is useful to normal users. Categories may be helpful for contributors working to achieve some higher degree of consistency in how we present grammatical matter to normal users.

I've been spending a lot of time on taxonomic-name entries, and less time on grammatical matters, including the entries for adverbs, determiners, etc. User:-sche is good on these things when s/he has the time. Newish User:Mihia may be interested as well.

We have repeated discussions of the duplication of content between the Determiner PoS section and the Pronoun and Adjective PoS sections in our determiner entries. I don't see how we can eliminate the duplication as long as many users are not familiar with the term determiner. I am sensitive to this because I had virtually no awareness of the term Determiner when I started editing here in 2007. Perhaps working on the entries for determiners, including adding usage notes, and adding linked appendices would be useful in educating both contributors and normal users. DCDuring (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! some good thoughts here. I'll try to think about them.--Brett (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The research should be inside some "spiritual" books aswell, I will not name any, but please do be carefull of what you write in rage because of some inspiration I had.

I am very resourcefull and am watching this webpage with as many IP adresses as I wish to have just for the sheer love for what I actually do know.

Take care kind sir... ThankYouForContributingToEutheismEvenThoughItIsNotCorrect (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. The extent of research to be done on this topic is to find sources using the word, and to provide a definition reflecting how it is used in those sources. bd2412 T 23:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Jeez, I might been seen as dumb, but you left me with more doubts than anyhow else.

• Nearly three times as common as or nearly three times more common than?
• What is the second different definition of difference?

Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 14:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

1. Either one will do.

2a. "Def. 2": We have a difference in our native languages.

2b. "Def. 1": One difference your language has from mine is its inflection of nouns.

HTH. DCDuring (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey TaxonMan. I found the only living species you haven't made an entry for yet - treehunter. BTW, they are beautiful birds, which should be included in the entry. Also, they don't hunt trees, which should also be included. I'm going for a definition "beautiful non-tree-hunting bird which was discovered and then probably went extinct." --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

As there are certainly more than 10 million species, we have a ways to go. It looks like the treehunters are three genera in family Furnariidae, tribe Philydorini: (Cichlocolaptes – cryptic treehunter and pale-browed treehunter, Heliobletus – sharp-billed treehunter, Thripadectes – treehunters (7 species). Presumably they hunt in trees. DCDuring (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I know you're just making small talk, but you have no idea... While DCD does lots and lots of new entries all the time, the task is pretty intimidating: Category:Entries using missing taxonomic name (species) currently has 17,512 entries. Many are repeats- different names for the same species- but we keep finding entries that don't use the {{taxlink}} template, so they don't show up there yet, and we have a few people cranking out entries assembly-line fashion. I'm sure he feels at times like Lucy in the classic "I Love Lucy" candy factory sketch... Chuck Entz (talk)

The good days are when someone seems to take an interest. Please don't discourage Gib. DCDuring (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Also, the grammar on wild goat looks a bit off - a species or goat believed ancestral to and including the domestic goat. --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's not grammar; but modern taxonomic semantics is not the same as the semantics of older taxonomy. All domesticated species have wild ancestors. If they can still interbreed, they are often viewed as the same species. The 'domestic goat' is really just the domesticated goat as familiar to Linnaeus, ie, as domesticated in Europe. DCDuring (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Fay Freak marked that page for deletion. It is your page. Do you agree? Equinox ◑ 02:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi DCDuring. Thanks for your comments on this thus far. I was wondering why after you removed the dubious info about the term being an ethnic slur from the page, as well as after saying "This is ridiculous. We do not have to label something as a slur based on the events of the past 24 hours. There is nothing wrong with revisiting this in a year or 5 years.", you have added it back even though the quotes still do not use it as such, albeit with a "(Can we verify(+) this sense?)"? Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Our best standard practice for entries that have a defective definition that has been RfVed is to add a definition that is supportable by citations and leave the challenged one untouched. I have added what seems to me to be a supportable non-ethnic definition. I believe that two of the cites previously shown for the challenged definition unambiguously show non-ethnic use and moved those to the non-ethnic definition. The two other cites are ambiguous, showing use of the term, but with the meaning not clear. I believe further that all the cites that appear only on the citations page also unambiguously support the non-ethnic definition. Some others may view the cites as offering unambiguous support for the ethnic-slur definition, though I don't see how they can, at least not based on the citations alone. DCDuring (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I found this article interesting: Washington Post says that Edward Falco, the author of 2012 novel The Family Corleone, "said he agreed with Cuomo that “Fredo” was directed as an ethnic slur, not just meaning someone weak and incompetent but a weak and incompetent Italian. It sounds close to “guido,” he said, a more prominent insult toward Italian Americans, though he said Cuomo went “overboard” comparing it to the n-word." This is still just the opinion of one man, it is not in books or dictionaries. Do with it what you will. Perhaps over time it will be listed as an ethnic slur, but it will take some time before it is added into things like dictionaries to make it concrete and not just opinions. Of course there are others that say it is not a slur, so at this point it is still just a bunch of opinions. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have yet to see a single cite, even in non-print sources, of a use of Fredo as an ethnic slur. I have not heard it so used either - and I have heard plenty of ethnic and other slurs during my decades in New York. DCDuring (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just wondering what the rationale is for removing line breaks in citations of verse. (Aabull2016 (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC))Reply

Give users a break by reducing the need to scroll down. Also, poetry and lyrics are often not the best cites to unambiguously illustrate meaning, so the extended amount of screen real estate taken up by the short-line layout draws user attention to the wrong kind of cites.

I am a firm believer in the importance of reducing the amount of vertical screen space taken up by Wiktionary entries. That's why I wish we defaulted to right-hand-side display of the table of contents. That's why I replace the 3+-line project boxes (like {{wikipedia}} for Wikipedia) with templates like 1+-line {{pedia}} under Further reading or References headers at the bottom of a language section and {{rfe}} with {{rfelite}} in the etymology section. DCDuring (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your response. I respectfully disagree. While verse is not always ideal for illustrative citations (and I'm careful to weigh up the usefulness of the citations I add), in many cases it is very good or the best available. In my experience, crowding lines together and separating them with slashes is actually much harder on the eye than presenting verse properly on separate lines. (Aabull2016 (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC))Reply

Hi DCDuring - umm, I thought you wanted me to add taxlinks, but now you've gone an removed one I added. Pourquoi? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I remove them if they are "redundant", meaning we have the taxonomic entry. Each use of {{taxlink}} is, in principle, supposed to be temporary. It exists to indicate a "vote" for the creation of the taxonomic name entry. We have only about 15,500 taxonomic-name entries. There are millions of taxonomic names (including invalid and obsolete names) and millions of unidentified species. {{taxlink}} is just there to help prioritize. I don't mind any error-free taxonomic entry, eg, entered by someone who has an interest in, say, birds, liverworts, flora and fauna of the Middle East, huntsman spiders, felids, species with noveboracensis as apecific epithet, digraphs, disease organisms, endangered species, or bizarre taxonomic or vernacular (pink meanie) names. But I want to make sure that we have taxonomic name entries for the most "popular" taxa.

Each month I do a dump run and tally the "votes" (instances of taxlink) for taxonomic names. (See User:DCDuring/MissingTaxa). I then add the most "popular". There have been as many as 20 "votes" for a given taxon. I add entries for some of the most "popular", but rarely get beyond the top 20. I then remove the instances of {{taxlink}} for those names, which I have made redundant by creating the corresponding entry. HTH. DCDuring (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I do wonder if this is the best strategy. Firstly it's a bit annoying to have to use Preview to check that a taxlink will render properly, and not require a simple link to an existing entry instead, and secondly we lose some semantic info when we turn a taxlink into a simple generic link. Equinox ◑ 22:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The redundant-template categories appear among the hidden categories, so you don't have to use Preview, but I take your point.

The test for the existence of an entry in a template is relatively expense or seemed so when the template was designed. It isn't so bad for a handful of taxlinks, but we have pages with scores of taxlinks and more. Could we bypass the test with a switch, eg, by having it in a template that wasn't called if a switch was manually set? Or could we have another template that differed by only one character (or a few) that duplicated the functionality of {{taxlink}}, except for the entry-existence test? DCDuring (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, don't know... taxlink before verification, taxlinked afterwards? Probably not very clear. Equinox ◑ 16:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Or extaxlink.

There is some loss of information, but it is info that might matter to at most a small number of contributors: those processing the XML dumps or using the new categories created by the new template. Would anyone really use a category like Category:Entries using a taxonomic name with a Wiktionary entry (species)? Wouldn't it have to be Category:English entries using a taxonomic name with a Wiktionary entry (species)? How useful is such a category? DCDuring (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

A further nag (though we can't beat ourselves up too much about things that a bot can fix: it is better to spend time on the "human" work): I just saw you replace a taxlink with '']'', but that's of course not strictly correct because you're linking to a Translingual entry as English. Really it needs to be ((l|mul...)) or what not. (While I have become very picky about using ((m... vs. ((l... depending on whether it's a mention or a use, I still tie myself in knots when it comes to layering the italicisation rules of taxonomy on top of that.) Yowza. Equinox ◑ 20:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Not if it's in a definition. Nothing in a definition is supposed to need {{l}}. Since taxonomic names are translingual, they are understandable as English. And the number of taxonomic names that could be confused with German nouns is small. Since a link without {{l}} goes to the top of the page, it necessarily goes to the Translingual L2s. I often forget in other uses. One shouldn't use {{m}} to achieve italicization of taxonomic genus and species names. Taxonomic-name italicization is intended to provide a contrast to the surround text. Sometime we have taxonomic names with no surrounding text as in {{sense}}, {{trans-top}} etc. In etymologies the question might arise as to whether the contrast is supposed to be with the surrounding text or the other mentioned terms. DCDuring (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I would not "use m to achieve italicization of taxonomic genus and species names" because that italicisation is done for different reasons, and is liable to change if we change our CSS/stylesheet. (Therefore what I've usually done is to use "l" and put explicit double-apostrophe italics around it. Which feels like shit but works.) I have to admit I have come to see Translingual as a strange "language that nobody speaks" (like Latin, lol) and I didn't consider your idea that it's okay in English. Equinox ◑ 22:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's the goal: to have them replaced by a bluelink. You should congratulate yourself every time you see that on having helped improve our coverage of taxonomic names. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

We have so few (15,660 taxa entries and 63,000 other distinct taxa in {{taxlink}}) and will always have very few compared to the vast numbers that have been identified, let alone those to come. And a significant number of out taxa are synonyms or are obsolete, archaic etc. I am amazed at how many common, photogenic and economically important plant, mammal, bird, and fish species don't have entries. DCDuring (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

 Done

Me too. God it was tedious. I got my revenge by saying "this was very long and tedious" in the response box on the final page. I could have just not done it but my angry hateful opinions are important. Equinox ◑ 21:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I told them that I was afraid to express or even give hints of my opinions: I felt unsafe. Also that they lied about how long it would take. DCDuring (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Don't say that you feel unsafe! They will take that as a reason to say "50% of users felt unsafe therefore we are going to introduce new rules where you have to use everyone's pronouns"! Equinox ◑ 22:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I did say it was because of the treatment of Fram (or whatever his name was). DCDuring (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

In case you are curious, see Talk:prairie chicken for some thoughts about this missing term. Equinox ◑ 01:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I've cleaned up all the request templates so that the ones that take any sort of language parameter (which is the large majority of them) always take it in 1=. This includes {{rfdatek}}, {{rfquotek}} and {{rfc}} among others. Hopefully this makes your life easier as you don't have to keep track of which templates have optional vs. mandatory lang params and whether it goes into lang= or 1= ... there are now only two major types, those that don't take a lang parameter at all (which is only a minority and primarily includes less-common templates) and those that take a mandatory lang parameter in 1= (all the rest). See Wiktionary:Templates with current language parameter for more details. Benwing2 (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

This appendix I have recently created appears to cross paths with some of your own work in the same area. I wonder if you might find some time to glance over my appendix (not the one in my belly, please ;) ) and maybe cross reference or link or, well, whatever you think appropriate. One minor concern is the overlap with your Appendix:English verbs with base form identical to past participle. Any comments would, as always, be appreciated. -- ALGRIF talk 20:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't know who this guy was who hijacked my account ten years ago to add this appendix. I wonder where he got the data. I would just try to make use of that guy's data, if it is indeed correct. DCDuring (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

By which I mean, I don't have the slightest recollection of adding the appendix. DCDuring (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why do you mention the Tai Le script on Wiktionary:Lü transliteration? Is it just a mistake for the Tai Tham script? The latter is still in use and has Tai Lü entries on Wiktionary. --RichardW57 (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Correct me if I'm wrong. I created that page because it was one of the many pages "wanted" by inflection templates. If more knowledgable people such as yourself had troubled to create the wanted pages or eliminated the wanting in the templates/modules, I wouldn't have needed to display my ignorance. DCDuring (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I asked because I didn't want to miscorrect you if you were right. The wanting of these templates was a well kept secret until recently, and creating useful pages of this type is not always easy. I've been spending a long weekend putting together a transliteration page for Northern Thai; a good transliteration scheme is frequently not something one can easily pull out of Wikipedia. In the case of Tai Lü, it's not inconceivable that there might be some Tai Lü who actually write in the Tai Le script. More to the point, there are features of New Tai Lue script that aren't hinted at in the Wikipedia article. --RichardW57 (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I will expand the page on the basis that the Tai Le script is not used for Tai Lü. --RichardW57 (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ah yes, the cunningly concealed, encrypted Special:SpecialPages. Grasshopper, you have earned your own decrypted access to Special:WantedPages. Henceforth you will find that alt-shift-q gives you the access you seek and more. DCDuring (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Why'd you revert? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

mahleb is the more common form (after subtracting the names Mahleb and Mahlab from the counts). I've made it the main entry. DCDuring (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Makes sense. I finished up the job for you. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

So tell me have you ever had a giant barnacle?Ndołkah (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

No. I appreciated your entries for Chilean/Argentinian local flora and fauna. The giant barnacle was particularly striking. DCDuring (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi DCD. Would you like to go catch a movie with me sometime? --ReloadtheMatrix (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

JK. I was wondering if you had an online list from which to find all the entries with crappily-formatted quotations to change like in this edition. If so, I'll add it to my To-do List --ReloadtheMatrix (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

There are thousands of them. I use regexes to find some.

I've got a very fruitful regex I'm mining right now, but I've also discovered a few other things that need work:

1. Pages that use Template:RQ:Malory Le Morte Darthur followed by some roman numeral, need for the roman numerals to be placed inside the template.
2. We need to apply the appropriate templates for the numerous Bible citations. We should have the right edition of the Bible (usually KJV, but sometimes Tyndale etc), the right book, and chapter and verse.

If you work on enough of these you will discover recurring problems on which you can apply your reqex skills. Help:Cirrus Search has useful info for almost any level of skill you might have. HTH.

A larger project is to confirm the correctness of the citations by using Google books/news/scholar searches and simultaneously formatting with {{quote-book}}, {{quote-journal}}, etc. The existing templates could be expanded to link to such searches. Most will be correct, but the many taken from older dictionaries contain unacknowledged ellipses. DCDuring (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

• And the movie? --ReloadtheMatrix (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

  What part of the world? DCDuring (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

  I am in Reading, UK. --ReloadtheMatrix (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

  If you pay my transportation.... DCDuring (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • Nah, I don't like you that much. --ReloadtheMatrix (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Reading, lol. Can't decide if you posted this to bait me or if it's actually true, since I've heard your pronouncing accent and it's definitely Home Counties. Films suck though. Equinox ◑ 03:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

  It was bait, Mr. Equinox. Like a bluegill it got you. --Yesyesandmaybe (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Asking "is this bait" is not taking bait. You are a blinkard and a fopdoodle, sir. Equinox ◑ 12:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

• It´s pretty fun, this game. You tag rfdatek, and I add dates. I'm currently working on Shakespeare. At the moment there are 727 entries in Category:Requests for date/Shakespeare and 193 in Category:Requests for date/William Shakespeare. It is good to see the numbers go up and down, it is like a therapy of sorts for me, you know. Naturally, the work will never be complete, and the number of entries in the category will never get whittled down to 0. All part of the work on a Wiktionarian. --Yesyesandmaybe (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Yesyesandmaybe: if you apply our Shakespeare quotation templates (such as {{RQ:Shakespeare Lear Q1}} and {{RQ:Shakespeare Lear}}, the dates are already indicated in the templates. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

My regex has identified about 4,000 more entries that have author names and quotes, without dates and usually also without titles of the works containing the quote. Entries average nearly two opportunities for {{rfdatek}}, so there are quite a few more to go. For many of them it would be nice to have links to wikisource or Google Books for full context. It should be possible to modify templates like {{quote-book}} to use full-text search to get the full context on demand from the various online corpora. That would speed up the process.

Links to WP articles where available for authors and works should be standard. Links to Wikisource for works and authors should be replaced by WP links, with wikisource links as chapter or page links. The WP articles often have authorship and publication dates and other information about editions that can be lexicographically relevant.

I am concerned about the searchability and legibility of citations that have use "vv" and "f" to represent "w" and "s", respectively. Also, the complete bibliographic detail for some works coded in entries or in templates would probably better be in an appendix or, eventually, appendices to avoid burying the lexicographically relevant text passage beneath lengthy bibliographic detail of interest only to antiquarian literary scholars. DCDuring (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

And another thing: IMO translators should be shown before original authors and the prominent, emboldened date of the citation should be the date of the translation because it is the translator that selects the English words used, which is the reason for the citations being there to begin with, not to glorify the author of the original work nor to make a display or pretense of our polylingual erudition.

• Category:Requests for date/William Shakespeare is now empty. I feel satisfied. --AcpoKrane (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

  @AcpoKrane Perhaps the 410 members of Category:Requests for date/Shakespeare will whet your appetite for more. DCDuring (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Already licking my lips --AcpoKrane (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply