2020

Can we delete this? The page title looks wrong: it's not part of your userspace. Equinox ◑ 22:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wrong as rain. Deleted. Thanks. DCDuring (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind adding an edit description for your edits like when you updated mountain ? If I see a mention of 'rfdatek' in the description, then it will likely satisfy my curiosity enough to not have to look at it. -Mike (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Extra keystrokes are a bit hard on my arthritic right thumb, but I will do it when I remember until the habit is established. DCDuring (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I see in this edit that brackets for Langley's Rhetoric dictionary shouldn't be included? When are they needed? Should they be defaulted to off, if the definitional rhymes are considered a use rather than a mention? grendel|khan 15:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fair question. It looked like a use to me. It wasn't in the form of a definition. Others may differ. To get more opinions try taking it to {{tea room}}. DCDuring (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

You listed "Gypsophila tubulosa" as the current name for "Diploglottis australis". This is nonsense, but it's a very easy mistake to make: Wikispecies doesn't have an entry for "Diploglottis"- it's a redlink on the species:Sapindaceae page- so it also doesn't have an entry for "Diploglottis australis". When you search for Diploglottis australis, it very helpfully gives you the results for species:Dichoglottis australis, instead, which redirects to species:Gypsophila tubulosa. Wikipedia, on the other hand, has no entry for "Dichoglottis", let alone w:Dichoglottis australis (though w:Gypsophila has a redlink for G. australis). When you search for Dichoglottis australis it very helpfully gives you the results for w:Diploglottis australis instead. In other words, the misdirections cancel each other out, giving the seamless illusion of the two wikis having different names for the same taxon.

As far as I can tell, however, "Gypsophila tubulosa" is the valid name for an annual herb related to baby's breath, while either "Diploglottis australis" or "Diploglottis cunninghamii" (Australian Plant Name Index vs. TROPICOS and The Plant List) is the valid name for a tree that gets over a 100 feet tall with a trunk 2 1/2 feet thick.

I'm not sure how best to fix this, since {{taxlink}} doesn't link to anything useful- but at least we have to keep users from ending up at species:Gypsophila tubulosa. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching the error. I often wonder how many careless errors I make. I've been a bit lazy about checking taxonomic names on non-Translingual entries. As my eyesight gets worse, the visual similarity of different names can fool me as it did on this one.

Usually I don't care much whether {{taxlink}} doesn't have a target at Wikispecies, because I view the more important function as counting uses of the taxonomic name for purposes of prioritizing taxonomic name entries. I have been relying on the failed search to help users get something useful if Wikispecies doesn't have an entry. It would have worked for this if Wikispecies at least had an entry for Diploglottis, especially one with a species listing.

I have removed the nonsense name. I may add D. cunninghamii as a synonym as WP says many use that name. DCDuring (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Kent Dominic: I don't care about chronology and authorship. My remark was aimed at what I thought a weakness in the 5th definition that you were apparently advocating. DCDuring (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@DCDuring: I couldn't care less about authorship, either. As for chronology, sorry I don't recall what remark you made about that 5th definition. At any rate, it was my bad for making a half-baked edit which, IMHO, should have been subsequently (a) edited by someone to fix its initial weakness, or (b) deleted along with the entirety of definition #5 rather than being reverted to its original infirmity. If you're the one who made that initial reversion under a different user name, shame on you for complicating things! (LOL) In fact, it's not a matter of my being too lazy to do a thorough edit in the first place. I simply wanted to defer to the (non)sense that was already there in case the definition resonated more with others than with me. That's in keeping with my tendency not to delete stuff.

Again, my only issue concerned transivity, neither ergativity re. express nor the semantics re. importance/importance. The ensuing discussion about the acceptability of "important a lot" or "importance a lot" leads down a linguistic rabbit hole for cross-lingual considerations. I resisted the urge to argue how "very important" or "utmost importance" challenges the silly assertion that "Importance is not a neutral term: unmodified, it usually implies a high degree of importance." The whole discourse along those lines was ancillary to my sole interest relating to transivity. I hope the entire episode is water under the bridge since no one has restored definition #5. Yet. If whoever wrote definition #5 feels possessed by pride in authorship to restore it, I surely will die in an apoplectic fit of laughter.--Kent Dominic (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I notice you've split out two subdefinitions here, but "division" and "phylum" are considered the same rank in botany; those terms are 100% interchangeable. So the two subdefinitions are akin the saying "France is a country in Eurasia" and "France is a nation in Europe". There is no functional nor practical difference in the definition, the difference is in the phraseology. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, though division is the equivalent specific to botany, with "phylum" being allowed as a synonym. I'm sure the "Ruggiero, et al" source uses "phylum" for consistency in naming of ranks between kingdoms. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I was aware that they are at least approximately equivalent. The uses of division on Wiktionary often marks a different circumscription and/or placement. I was relying on the different terminology to draw attention to those differences.

Because higher taxonomic names often have little lexical meaning apart from circumscription and placement and both of these are subject to frequent adjustment and occasional drastic revision, our entries for such taxa will tend to be behind the curve. That's a reason for our taxonomic entries to have as links to as many of the better-staffed, likely-to-be-durable taxonomic databases as possible.

What, if anything, should be done to preserve the older placements and circumscriptions? Just link to the Wikispecies pages that show the variety of schemes for higher taxonomic ranks where such pages exist?

If we decide to keep it simple, then the consensus scheme of Ruggiero et al., which has been accepted by a few databases and may be updated soon, is probably our best bet, though there are areas where other databases depart from its scheme. Also, we use APG in the areas they cover. DCDuring (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Ruggiero classification has some drawbacks, but it's the best general classification I've seen. It will cause problems with certain groups of fossil seed plants. But again, the two definitions have no difference. The only real difference in our current definitions is that one identifies the kingdom to which the group belongs, and the other identifies the superphylum, but in fact both classifications put Marchantiophyta into kingdom Plantae. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I haven't tried to apply Ruggiero to fossil-only taxa. I will probably never work on such taxa. I am also reluctant to spend time on the numerous clades which only exist because of the need to fit fossils into schemes such as that of Ruggiero et al..

I can accept any changes to ] that respect the Ruggiero placement and circumsciption. I wouldn't mind the conversion of any use of division above the level of order (There is lots of use below that level for insects.) to phylum or other taxonomic rank. But there are some definitions that are based on definitions, mostly superseded or disused, in Century 1911 which use division, for which I am not now willing to spend the time to reconcile with modern schemes. DCDuring (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

But this instance is not such a case. This is a situation where you've added two subdefinitions that say the same thing in different words. I see no rationale for splitting the subdefinitions. Splitting definitions like this would create similar issues across the whole range of biota. (Def 1. Dogs are canids, Def 2. Dogs are a group of mammals, Def 3. Dogs are a group of vertebrates, Def. 4 Dogs are a group of animals) How many such subdefinitions are actually needed? Without justification, I will re-merge the subdefinitions you split.

Where I think you are setting yourself up for issues is that you are not simply identifying the rank and definition of the taxon, but you also are incorporating information about its placement within a specific classification system. The placement of a taxon has no bearing on its definition; if I move a book from one shelf to another it merely changes the location of the book, not its contents, appearance, nor any of its essential details. On Wikidata, descriptions of taxa are limited to statement such as "a class of plants" or "an order of animals", without specifying the parent group as part of the definitions. Parent relationships are not inherent to a taxon, and are subject to all manner of changes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Definitions are written in terms of words. DCDuring (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've made the merge, since I cannot tell whether you are understanding my argument at all. Please see my proposed revision. Also Metaknowledge is harassing me again, this time on my talk page. Your attention would be appreciated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Also, is Wiktionary concerned at all with the acceptability of name under the Code? I ask because Hepaticophyta is one of those names that's been used extensively in the literature, but a 2008 paper (by the creator of the "name") concluded that it is a nomen invalidum because the genus upon which it is based is illegitimate. This fact could be added as a Usage note, but doing so (potentially for every such name) may go beyond the utility of Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I haven't been willing to remove any definition, even a mere wording difference, out of process.

I don't think that we can keep up with the code. It would be nice to note the status of various names, but I think we do well to just follow usage. DCDuring (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Even the definitions you added? This was a pair of sub-definitions you inserted. I have not removed them, simply combined them because they say the same thing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I didn't add any definition involving division. I split an existing definition using division into a sense and a subsense. I added the subsense definition using phylum. DCDuring (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You changed a taxlink at 庭藤 from I. decora to an internal to Indigofera tinctoria. Unless I miss my guess, though, niwa-fuji is I. decora. See GRIN. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Right you are. Thanks. DCDuring (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

This is my usual source for botanical names of romanized Japanese terms. Of course, the taxonomy is a half century out of date, but you can use the usual taxonomic databases to track down the current names. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

This time it was just my careless reading of the entry. DCDuring (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey DCD. After an epic week Wiktionary-wise, I feel burned out. Literally, my eyes and head and wrist all hurt after working so hard. Please, if you see me around hit me with your admin block hammer. Thanks--Vitoscots (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I look forward to it. DCDuring (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

This rollback is an error: both links redirect to Armenian cucumber anyway and thus are useless. Ain92 (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Among the functions of the templates {{vern}} and {{taxlink}} is to enable the creation of lists and counts of missing Wiktionary entries, such as User:DCDuring/vern and User:DCDuring/MissingTaxa. Inspecting the code for the templates would demonstrate that the templates also place the entry in categories.

The taxonomic names lists is relatively current. If you'd like, I could do a run to update the vernacular names list. DCDuring (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Ain92 I updated the vernacular names list. DCDuring (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

• I don't see any changes in the article itself, but I checked the discussion of the template and the issue seems to be quite complicated and probably above my competences, so I won't insist. Ain92 (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

  @Ain92 I didn't make any changes in the entry ("article"). I updated a list that depends on the large number of template transclusions. The list of missing vernacular names is located at User:DCDuring/vern. DCDuring (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please stop reverting my edits to this page.

Linking to Wiktionary entries for surnames turns most of the links red. Wikipedia contains more information on the people linked to, and in some cases, a particular surname may only rhyme for the particular person linked to.

If you disagree with this approach, please raise it for discussion in the Beer parlour. Thanks. — Paul G (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why didn't you bring it up before you started. Our convention is to leave redlinks to indicate missing entries. DCDuring (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Paul G: Red links are an intrinsic part of the wiki model: if you see 'em, create the entry (which might optionally link to Wikipedia). If the link isn't an everyday surname but some specific trademark, brand, or performer name (like, say, Ke$ha) then we probably shouldn't have it at all, per policy. Equinox ◑ 22:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Also, we are already having a BP discussion in which you have failed to participate. DCDuring (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing it out to me: I was unaware of it. I have replied there now. — Paul G (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yep, it that's time again to give myself a wikibreak. Please could you do the honours? --Nueva normalidad (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your reply on SB talk page. However, I still feel that flowers as a plural only noun should be in the plural name-space. As a plural only, the singular form is not the right place really, is it? Thanks. -- ALGRIF talk 12:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think it's enough, but I don't object to double-posting. I wouldn't want someone who stripped the 's' to not find it at ]. To avoid divergent entries we might want to have a {{senseid}} anchor at the relevant definition linked to from the other. Some other (mostly older) dictionaries have the various "flowers of" terms as run-ins for each material: benzoin, antimony, arsenic, sulfur/sulphur, tin, and zinc. Since that list of materials is probably not complete, it would be necessary to have definitions at the flower/flowers pair anyway. Are we sure that the singular is extremely rare relative to the plural? DCDuring (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

The singular 'flower of' seems to be somewhere between 10% and 30% as common as the plural. It seems to have been used uncountably, as was the plural form. DCDuring (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the info. I hate to impose, but I'm not too sure how to use the {{senseid}} anchor. Could you possibly oblige? If so, most grateful then I will be (Yoda-speak). -- ALGRIF talk 19:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm cleaning up some taxonomy messes at the moment. It's worth learning {{senseid}}. The documentation isn't awful. DCDuring (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think your recent edits represent an improvement vis-a-vis some that I made not long ago. I've returned a bit of the favor. Have a look. Cheers! --Kent Dominic (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Still recovering from power outages. Perhaps tomorrow. DCDuring (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just to alert you, in this edit you added a new line that has a label "of a user of a service" but not an actual definition. Regards, Mihia (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. DCDuring (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi DCDuring - I don't agree this is a preposition, even though some online dictionaries analyse it that way. I suppose it can be substituted with "by" and the overall meaning is not very different, but that doesn't mean it is a preposition. I don't know if you know the Jimmy Buffet song "Come Monday", but that's a good example of a case where the intended meaning is very much verbal: it means "when Monday _arrives_" not "by Monday". I myself have always understood it as a subjunctive verb, like other modern-day subjunctive uses fossilised to a certain degree. I suppose we could leave the preposition def but I would also like to add a verbal def and cross-reference them. What do you think? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't doubt that the origins of this usage of come are from the verb. I also wonder when one decides that a conversion of a word to a different word class has taken place. A number of prepositions have deverbal origins, such as my namesake and the other prepositions ending in ing. More similar to come is the preposition save. The key usage fact that makes me hesitant to insist that it is a pure preposition is that it partially inflects: one can find both come and came used with the same semantics, except for the tense difference. But number doesn't change come to comes (*comes Monday, ?come Mondays). I don't know whether there are other etymologically related prepositions that reflect a tense difference. I am pretty sure that there are no deverbal ones that do so. I think I would prefer to see more about this in an etymology section at come#Preposition and came#Preposition, but we don't usually have PoS-specific etymology sections (just as sense evolution generally is left as an exercise for the reader). It doesn't really have to do with usage, because thinking of come as a verb or a preposition makes no difference in how words are arranged around it.

What would a 'verbal' definition look like? DCDuring (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Webs3 has a verbal def: "to come to pass: take place — used in the subjunctive with inverted subject and verb to express the particular time or occasion." Also, OED1 sees it as a verb, def 35: "Come, the present conj., is used with a future date following as subject 'come Easter'; i.e. let Easter come, when Easter shall come". The reason why it is not "comes Monday" is because it is in the subjunctive mood and therefore omits the -s. Of course, you are right that prepositions can begin life as verbs (regarding, during, are good examples - but they are continuous ones, so not exactly analogous to 'come' that we are discussing). However, I think that not all examples of this use of "come" can be seen as prepositional - for example, "Shanahan is a reactionary little toad who will be up against the wall come the revolution". The usage note says that it can be used in the past, but I wonder if that is the same sense exactly. I found this example (? maybe it is an example of what the usage note author as thinking of) "Came six-thirty and we were put out on to the cold street." I think this is just a playful/poetic reversal of subject and verb. But if this is an example of the same sense, then surely it is a verb, otherwise we would be saying that English now has an inflected preposition! - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Sonofcawdrey: and @DCDuring: In my book, it's less productive to parse a word according to a supposed part of speech than to identify it according to the lexical context in which the word occurs. So, "Come Monday" is a preposition as DCDuring explained; "come hell or high water" is a preposition for similar reasons; "Come All Ye Faithful" is a transitive verb in the imperative mood. As far as I can tell, the prepositional etymology of come is verbal but the usage is archaic in a way that differs from, e.g., "come one, come all," which is a transitive use in the imperative mood. Whether an archaic preposition derives from a verbal or deverbal basis might be interesting but isn't particularly relevant to its use in a fossil phrase, IMHO. However, for trivia's sake, the prepositional senses of come and save (and also except) indeed have verbal etymologies, as DCDuring hinted. Moreover, during also has a verbal origin, from the Proto-Indo-European root, deru-, which morphed into the Old French verb endurer in the 12th century, to the English endure in the mid-13th century, and then to during in the late 13th century. I can't rightly tell whether the earliest use of during was then considered a preposition or a so-called present participle of endure, but I'm nearly certain that any such distinction was immaterial to its usage at the time of its emergence. Kinda like how most people (not including me) consider "regarding" or "considering" to be prepositional parts of speech nowadays. (In fact, I deign to use the terms, present participle and parts of speech in my own lexicon; I prefer continuative participle and lexical category to avoid the anomalies and non sequiturs associated with the traditional terms.) --Kent Dominic (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I commented on the Tea Room saying I've never heard of "hard word" in the context you cited. But English has many native speakers who have all heard of different usages. "Hard word" in the sense you cited is meaning 6b in OED, "outrageous demand". Do you have the OED? You could put an entry in Wikipedia if you wanted to - it is a dictionary anyone can edit. You can email me at djwebb1969 AT gmail.com and I will send you an OED image. 81.141.8.61 10:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

What do you reckon 'bout nominating User:Lingo Bingo Dingo for sysophood? Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Sgconlaw. As the go-to guys in matters legal and templative, I have to ask you both. Do we have a template like Template:quote-case or Template:quote-legal? I feel we can do more with the bonesy quote at short notice. Returning2stadia (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I rarely use legal citations and am not very good at template matters, especially since modules are usually involved. DCDuring (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Not sure we need to proliferate the number of quotation templates. Just use {{quote-book}}, in my view. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

What word fits the pattern? ... of flats / stumbling ... / ... party / this is a request for another Wonderfool ... because it's been a month already since the last one. La más guay (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply