User talk:Dan Polansky/2008

Are you interested in being an admin? If so, I'd be happy to nominate you. Did you know that you've logged more than 11000 edits since you joined a year ago? --EncycloPetey 20:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the offer. At this point, I am uninterested in being an admin though. Maybe I can get back to you later, if I change my mind? I know that I am quite active here, trying to build up the Czech part. --Daniel Polansky 06:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sure. --EncycloPetey 02:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Seconded. DAVilla 18:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your trust. I still do not want to become an admin. --Dan Polansky 18:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Daniel, I saw your edit for scale on 10:11, 5 October 2007, adding a meaning of measuring something at "Etymology 1." However, I think, the meaning should be added at "Etymology 3" that already exists. I commented out your edit but I need your check. If you agree my suggestion, please move Czech translation to "Etymology 3." Thank you, --Eveningmist 03:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Eveningmist, you are right; I have made a mistake. I have moved the Czech translation to "Etymology 3". --Daniel Polansky 06:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

How do you say stock cube in Czech? --Keene 14:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

My first guess would be that "masox", "bujón" or "kostka masoxu". I would have to make a longer research to have a reliable translation though. --Daniel Polansky 14:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is there a Czech translation for this? (Meaning "Machine of many pulleys"). There is a Czech book which discusses it on GoogleBooks but I'm not sure if it contains an actual word for it. Harris Morgan 17:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC).Reply

No idea. --Daniel Polansky 17:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks anyway. Harris Morgan 17:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC).Reply

Hi. I've sent you an email. Please read it. --Keene 10:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted this category to used {{etymcatboiler}} again. I know that you changed it to use {{nav}} , however I you feel that {{etymcatboiler}} could be improved to be a little more like {{nav}} but still retain its Etymology specific material then please edit it or at least raise the use of these templates in Etymology categories as a topic for wider discussion. I spent a lot of time setting up these templates and tidying up the Etymology category structure and would like to maintain this consistency as much as possible. Regards, --Williamsayers79 22:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I am sorry about reverting the template. I have noticed that the category of Etymology is different from other Czech categories by being listed at Category:Czech language, so I have acted on the false assumption that the replacement with {{nav}} was preferable. Maybe you would want to consider changing the {{etymcatboiler}} so that the resulting category is not listed in the main language category, in the case of Czech, in Category:Czech language? --Daniel Polansky 02:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

But as a category about Czech words, it should be listed in Category:Czech language. It is the lead category for Czech words that have etymologies from other languages. --EncycloPetey 04:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I mean, compare to Category:cs:Algebra and all the other categories within Category:cs:*Topics. Among all these categories, only Category:cs:*Topics is listed in Category:Czech language. This is why I thought that Category:cs:Etymology might better too be within Category:cs:*Topics instead of within Category:Czech language. What I can imagine is that you do not want to assign Category:cs:Etymology into Category:cs:*Topics, because it is not a topic category, unlike the one for algebra. Then I wonder how the category for the topic of Etymology is going to be called. --Daniel Polansky 06:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think that Category:xx:Etymology is one of those exceptions as many people would like to see it in the base language category. I while back we decided that non-POS categories would get the Category:xx:Topic format which ruffled some feathers when it came to categories such as Slang, Pejoratives etc.--Williamsayers79 12:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Thanks for the explanation. --Daniel Polansky 12:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is it plurale tantum in Czech? User:Beren moved this from (deprecated template usage) brana, and (deprecated template usage) harrow still has singular form as translation (and so do some other Czech sources on the Web I checked, but some list only plural form). I've added Czech entry to brana, which might be wrong, so could you please check it out? Thanks. --Ivan Štambuk 21:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

My big Czech dictionary gives only the genitive form (deprecated template usage) brány (it is NOT called plural there, but is marked G = genitive); the singular (deprecated template usage) brána is only given with the definition of "door, portal". --EncycloPetey 21:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Brány" is both the nominative and accussative plural of brána, meanining gate.

Also, Google verifies that brány is a translation for harrow.

I do not know the word brana; it only reminds me of domobrana, which vagualy refers to a group of soldiers.

Czech Wikipedia has the article cs:W:brány, describing W:harrow.

--Daniel Polansky 10:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Google refuted that brana is a Czech translation for harrow. It seems to be a Macedonian translation for harrow though.--Daniel Polansky 11:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

barna would have been natural descendant of (deprecated template usage)  Proto-Slavic *borna in Czech, by liquid metathesis *or>*ra that operated in South Slavic and Czecho-Slovak (in East Slavic it have *oro). It was not plurale tantum originally, so it must have been a secondary development. Derksen's "Slavic inherited lexicon" gives only plural forms of (deprecated template usage) brány for "harrow" in Czech and Slovak, some other ones, like Trubačev's translation of Max Vasmer's etymological dictionary of Russian, list singular forms as well. This could mean that either 1) singular form is archaic, lost long time ago 2) Vasmer/Trubačev invented it by means of backformation. I found already some obscure words listed there that was only able to verify in as much obscure 19th century dictionaries, and some were even invented..so this doesn't surprise me. Anyway, thank you very much both! --Ivan Štambuk 16:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

brána is derived from bránit (defend) as per Jiří Rejzek, Cesky etymologicky slovnik, Leda, Prague, 2001 ; and so is zbraň (weapon). Personally, I fail to see the link with harrow --Diligent 17:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Daniel. Are (deprecated template usage) ačkoliv and (deprecated template usage) ačkoli just variations of a single word? Rod (A. Smith) 00:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have to admit that I do not know what "variations of a single word" means exactly.

The meaning of the two words ačkoliv and ačkoli is the same.

There is also the word ač, with the same meaning, appearing at the beginning of both words. It is used at slightly different occasions though.

--Daniel Polansky 10:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK. They seem so similar, I thought maybe one was a regional version of the other, or maybe one is used before words with hard consonants, or something like that. I guess they're just similar sounding synonyms. Anyway, I added (deprecated template usage) ačkoli. Thanks, Daniel. Rod (A. Smith) 03:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think the Czech noun definition needs a gloss to tell which of the two English meanings it has? Robert Ullmann 15:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Provided. --Daniel Polansky 15:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Daniel, I've been busy making a bot recently, the aim of it is to quickly add many verb forms for various languages (currently I've set it up to do French, Catalan and Czech verbs). I don't know enough Czech to know if there are any more verb forms to add - are verbs only conjugated for the present tense, or for other tenses or moods? I'm told some are conjugated for negatives. Anyway, could you look at my bot's Czech contributions to check they're OK, and if there's anything to add to the Czech conjugation templates could you either fill them out or tell me a good link or a good book maybe available in libraries (preferably in English, but I'll try to decipher a Czech page/book if it's better) which has the full conjugation. Thanks in advance. --Keene 09:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Keene,

1. Should not the {{cs-verb-form}} template better be called {{cs-verb form}}? Compare to the name of {{en-proper noun}}, having no dash between "proper" and "noun".
2. All the entries that I can see at Category:Czech_verb_forms are correct forms, but at least one specification of the form is incorrect. Specifically, doufají is plural instead of singular.

--Daniel Polansky

As regards your search for a good book and an advice on the Czech grammar in English, I can't help without too much effort on my side.

Also, I have no interest in Czech conjugation, and will try to reduce my work in that area to minimum, restricting my focus to cleaning up things already created by someone else.

To find out about Czech conjugation, see W:Czech verbs. Wikipedia has also other articles on Czech grammar. --Daniel Polansky 10:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

see comments Robert Ullmann 11:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary! We notice that you're making changes anonymously. While this is perfectly all right, we'd like to encourage you to take the time to create an account and sign in to it when editing - it's free and easy. A number of good reasons to do so are listed at Wiktionary:Why create an account?.

Please note that we are not Wikipedia. If you have edited there, it won't be very difficult for you to find your way here, but there are a number of differences. For example, Wiktionary is case-sensitive: Kind (German) is not the same as kind (English, Danish, Dutch etc.) Also note that Wiktionary never uses parenthetic disambiguation, so where Wikipedia might have separate articles on Mercury (planet), Mercury (element), and Mercury (mythology), Wiktionary will only have one entry on Mercury which addresses proper noun uses, and an entry on mercury which addresses regular noun uses.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Wiktionary Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to start a page
• Sandbox (our test area)
• Community Portal
• Formatting guidelines
• Criteria for inclusion
• FAQ

Questionable entries will be listed for verification, and, if they fail that process, will be deleted. Also, keep in mind our copyright policies: don't copy material from copyrighted sources here. Such additions will be deleted on sight. Submissions from IP addresses unfortunately are looked at more closely, so please take a minute to create an account. (Remember to enable "cookies"!)

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question in the appropriate discussion room or ask me on my Talk page.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! --Connel MacKenzie 19:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I assume that this is a mistake, as this message seems to be aimed at anonymous IPs. --Daniel Polansky 09:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

It was not a mistake. It was a plea that I follow WT:ELE.

But I do follow WT:ELE. It was a mistake indeed. As follows from User_talk:Connel_MacKenzie#Welcome_message_at_my_talk_page.

Hi, could you have a look at the updated Czech policy page. I have tried to conform it to the actual policy, yours in fact = ). I have also copied some of the relevant parts from your user page but not from your discussion page. I hope it will be helpful for having more consistency in the entries. ThomasWasHere 11:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have answered your request for review at Wiktionary talk:About Czech‎. The review is very superficial though; I have not enough time to perform a more thorough review now.

Hi there. Could we have English language explanations as well as mathematical definitions please? (You could probably copy/paste from Wikipedia with a little pruning). Cheers. SemperBlotto 16:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm going through Wiktionary:Categorizing and there were a few Czech words which were uncategorized. Most of them were fairly straight-forward, but I found bych a bit confusing. As best as I could tell, it's some form of být, but I couldn't tell for sure and it's not listed in the inflection tables of být. Would you be willing to look at if for me? Also, globalizace, while clearly a noun, is rather screwy. Would you have time to clean it up a bit? Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have fixed globalization.

AFAIK bych - an auxiliary verb - is correctly translated as would, in the singular first person. I do not know whether bych is indeed a form of být; cs:být suggests it is. --Daniel Polansky 08:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have categorized bych as a verb; an alternative categorization is verb form. Which one it should be I do not see; unlike another modal verb muset - must, bych has no obvious infinitive except for být, which however is not a modal verb. An aside: The form muset is an infinitive one. --Daniel Polansky 08:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, as someone who doesn't really work with Czech, I'm not sure what to tell you. Every language seems to have its own little quirks. Now that it's classified as Czech, it's your problem, not mine. :) However, if I were forced to make a decision, I would probably just follow the precedent of the Czech Wiktionary. In any case, thanks very much for your help with this. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 16:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

An anon posted the following to the Beer parlour. As best I can tell, it's Czech, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to translate it for me (if it actually is Czech). I have reverted their edits, as it does no good (as most of our editors can't read Czech). However, if it is a legitimate posting, I'll repost it with your translation. The text reads as follows:

MOje nejoblíbenějši věc je postel.Na posteli se mi spí dobře.Ráno vždycky postel ustelu na večír rozestelu.Na posteli mám mnoho plišáku, a malých polštářku na kterých spím.Postel je velká a docela široká.Vedle postele mám stůl do kterého si dávám učení.Na druhé straně je topení, a vedle topení je stůl s počítačem.V posteli strávím dlouhý čas, vždycky ráno.Hned nad posteli mám dvě okna.

Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is indeed Czech. But the text has bearing neither on the topics in the Beer parlour nor on Wiktionary. It says that the poster is fond of his bed, that he likes sleeping in it, what kind of furniture there is around the bed, and the like :). --Daniel Polansky 13:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I sort of wondered if it might be something like that. Thanks. :) -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 16:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Daniel Polansky -- You must be psychic. Last night I added dry socket to my handwritten list of terms to check to see if they're in WT. Today I went in only to find that you beat me to it by a couple hours. I'm going to have to start getting up earlier. (I had dry socket some years ago. Man, does it hurt!) -- WikiPedant 22:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

:). Luckily enough, I do not happen to have a dry socket, just a tooth extraction. --Daniel Polansky 06:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

All registered users are eligible to vote on most matters, AFAICT. You are particularly welcome as a careful, regular contributor. DCDuring TALK 18:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

An anon defined Jana as a Czech male name. Can this be true? (It's faster to ask you than put it in RfC.) Also I don't understand your definition of Sibyla. Is it a sibyl, or the given name Sibyl? By the way, you are the only contributor who has added given names in his mother tongue, in a systematic way. I wish everybody would follow your example. --Makaokalani 14:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure this one is uncountable? See here ... seems like the plural of it is quite widespread. --EivindJ 10:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oops. You're right. --Daniel Polansky 10:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good, thanks for fixing it :) --EivindJ 10:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Very good image (;-). Doesn't need replacing IMHO. btw: please don't use 150px (or whatever), just thumb, that way readers get their preferences default (mine is 180). Robert Ullmann 18:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see, thanks. When in doubt, I am trying to be cautious, not having the sensitivity of a native speaker.

Regarding the pixel width: Okay, I didn't know there was a user setting. But I see a problem with pages like figure, where the unrestrained images would go way past the text. Do you have an idea how to deal with this issue? Or don't think it an issue? --Daniel Polansky 18:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's been some discussion about whether we want to use "gallery" tags in some cases (see ring for an example), with no particular resolution. But in general, with all layout, not just images, keep in mind that making it look good on your browser/screen may be exactly wrong on another; these things have to be done somewhere in the rendering (for example the user-preferred size). Some screens are as much as 4 times as wide as others. Robert Ullmann 18:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Correct, I have completely forgotten about the various rendering devices. Thanks for the explanation. The galleries seem like a solution, just that a new section heading ====Gallery==== or ====Images==== would suit them, IMHO.--Daniel Polansky 18:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you have removed epistemology—the branch of philosophy dealing with the study of knowledge; theory of knowledge—from See also section of philosophy of science—the study of the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science. Could you maybe explain to me how these two terms differ and the rationale behind your removal of the see also section?

I have cross-linked them using See also header, previously erroneously using Related terms header, for I am still confused about the distinction between the two, and feel them to be semantically close enought to warrant See also, which does not require all that much from their semantic relationship. --Daniel Polansky 08:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have now noticed your explanation in your reply to my previous post to your talk page, in which you say that epistemology is in use in many branches of philosophy, not particulary in the philosophy of science. I do not quite follow, mostly because I don't quite understand the definitions of epistelogy and philosophy of science. The definition of epistemology just repeats what it says in the word: knowledge-ology. Knowledge management and information science too study some aspect of knowledge, but surely some other aspects. So AFAICS the definitions of epistemology and of philosophy of science are both in need of futher differentia or of examples; major questions that these branches are asking could serve as points on which to anchor the meaning.

Another point is whether epistemology and philosophy of science get confused by people. They get confused by me, but does not tell about English speakers in general, unless we are willing to infer from one instance ;). But if these two get confused, they should IMHO better cross reference each other. --Daniel Polansky 08:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Daniel -- You ask complex questions. Give me a couple of days to come up with a worthy answer. -- WikiPedant 17:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dan -- Well, I've put off responding to your questions because philosophy seldom permits short answers and I already give long philosophy lectures at work. In fact, I guess I sort of come to Wiktionary to get away from all of that. But I'll try to answer briefly and on point.

1. Concerning your last question, I don't think that English speakers have any special tendency to confuse epistemology and philosophy of science, but, on the other hand, in my experience at one time or another North American university students are capable of becoming confused about pretty much anything.

2. Concerning your earlier question, yes epistemology does indeed basically mean "knowledge-ology" (the philosophical study of knowledge). And philosophy of science is basically "science-ology" (the philosophical study of science). Epistemology is arguably the most universal of all areas of philosophy, since knowledge is required for every kind of human inquiry and achievement. Philosophy of science, on the other hand, is a specific area of philosophy. Since the epistemological turn, mainstream Western philosophy has pretty much regarded epistemology as the single most fundamental area of philosophy. Philosophy of science, on the other hand, is not fundamental; it is a subordinate area of philosophical study, like philosophy of religion, philosophy of mathematics, or philosophy of art. Yes, science involves knowledge, but so does everything else. To include a "See also: epistemology" notation in a definition of philosophy of science is sort of like saying "See also: physics" in a definition of NASCAR racing, or backstroke, or bowling. (Anything that involves motion relies on principles of physics, but it would be silly to suggest that the definition of physics meaningfully illuminates the definitions of everything involving motion.) BTW, the opposite is also true: it would also be quite unhelpful to say "See also:Bowling, NASCAR racing, and Backstroke" in a definition of physics.

3. Concerning your suggestion that the definitions of epistemology and philosophy of science are in need of further differentia and examples, I have my doubts. A dictionary cannot be an encyclopedia--not even, alas, in the case of philosophical terms which are notoriously difficult to explain or define in a nutshell. The more one writes trying to explain a philosophical concept, the more doors one opens into controversies, schools of thought, and points of view (as the evolution of the Wikipedia entries on philosophical topics has sometimes illustrated), and this is a slippery slope which a dictionary cannot accommodate.

Well, Dan, I've said as much as I think I can (and probably more than I wanted to say). I hope this helps at least a bit. But now I'm heading back to mainspace, which is where I greatly prefer to be. Regards -- WikiPedant 05:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello WikiPedant, thank you for your extensive answer. I will refrain from cross-referencing the mentioned terms, unless I get support from other knowledgable people. Thanks again. --Dan Polansky 06:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dan -- Following up our earlier conversation, I think the new additions you made to the defn are very helpful and suitable for a dictionary (fleshing out the defn without waxing encyclopedic). Good job. I did remove the "See also" section containing philosophy of science. Your expansion of the defn makes it all the clearer that that this cross-reference is not especially appropriate. -- WikiPedant 19:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello WikiPedant, no problem with your removing of See also. I have accepted your view that philosophy of knowledge and philosophy of science are no more related than, say, the philosophy of knowledge and the philosophy of art, as explained by you at User_talk:WikiPedant#Epistemology_and_philosophy_of_science. --Dan Polansky 21:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dan -- Following up the discussion on Goldenrowley's talk page, you are, of course, correct about the countability here and the plural form. In retrospect, I guess I failed to consider countability when I created this entry because I regarded the article "a" as part of the established expression. -- WikiPedant 07:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I noticed this entry yesterday. Isn't it a poor choice for a Wikisaurus name, since the word has so many different, and even opposite meanings? As a verb, it can mean to produce letters mechanically. As a noun, it can mean either "a class of similar objects" or "a single ideal object". --EncycloPetey 19:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's correct; the word has many meanings. I had a look at "class", and it too seemed overcrowded with meaning. In any case, the synonyms are entered under a definition, not under a word, so semantically, everything should be safe.

In Roget 1911, the word cluster is under "class", as I have just learned.

As I am thinking about, I am starting to understand. "type" has (a) opposite meanings, and it has (b) verb senses in addition. Class too has many meanings, but only one verb meaning, and the noun meanings do not confuse an individual and a class. The word "category" has currently only two meanings.

Which word do you recommend? --Dan Polansky 19:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I recommend "class", since it has fewer primary meanings in wide use, and the primarily understood meanings all pertaing to a grouping. A second possibility is "category", but I'm not sure it has quite the desired meaning for a general page. --EncycloPetey 19:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Moved to "class". --Dan Polansky 19:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dan,

I managed to pop in for a second to see how you were doing. I'm beginning to agree with you about the usability of wikisaurus. The one thing I tried to instill in wikisaurus is the one thing that is missing from every thesaurus I've seen so far. That is the ability to move easily and directly from one wikisaurus word to another. It's darn frustrating to not have wikisaurus up and running, so I've come to join in again.

You mentioned you were having trouble with the header? When I went to look, I saw what you meant. Here is the link ] We can make it any size we want. But I really like the clean lines of the header as you have it. We don't have to have a logo at all. The header is enough different from the wiktionary header that it works to identify wikisaurus as a different kind of page.

Have you come across the flaw in ws_sense yet? There was a reason I abandoned it and unfortunately they tell me it is a feature, not a bug so it won't be fixed any time soon. sense is in direct opposition to the toc sequence. One screws with the other.

I've noticed the word "wikisaurus" next to some words. What is that about? Amina (sack36) 20:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any flaw in {{ws sense}}; I use it everywhere right now, including Template:ws link. It is just that the heading markup has to stay out of the template; the template only features prefix, be it "In the sense of ", "Sense: " or "As in ". The template "ws sense" makes it possible to postpone the decision about the best prefix, and update the prefix once for all the Wikisaurus articles.

"sense is in direct opposition to the toc sequence." I don't understand. For instance, the entry Template:ws link looks just fine, to me anyway.

The word "Wikisaurus" next to some words is a link to the Wikisaurus entry of the word, created by DAVilla, as you can see from the history of {{ws}}. Thus, every word is linked mainly to Wiktionary, but also to Wikisaurus if a Wikisaurus entry exists.

--Dan Polansky 21:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh no! Please don't tell me we're back to that! After all the work I did on getting the wiktionary definition actually part of the popup? After fighting tooth and nail to get the word to link to wikisaurus! This is the exact shortcoming on every single thesaurus on the internet! It's the reason I came back to wikisaurus was to promote the one sane, logical way of structuring the thesaurus!

By linking things the way you have, you have made it virtually impossible for anyone to find words outside the bounds of the mind that created that page! I'm not saying we aren't darn brilliant, but we all have our biases. I have found 20 senses of a word and thinking I've gotten most of them have gone to check other sites only to find I'd barely gotten a third of them! We all have blinders! We have no way of predicting the thought process of another individual. Tying the definitions in in two different ways and not having any tie-in the other way is short sighted and is going to bite us in the butt! Amina (sack36) 02:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are at least two points of contention that you address: (a) the definitions in hovering over the words, and (b) whether the words should link to Wikitionary.

Regarding (a), just try writing {{ws|word|definition}}, and you'll see that the definition is there in the tooltip when you hover over the word with the mouse. The template {{comment-link}} is definitely not the way to go. The template ws can be adjusted to match the consensus in the community editing Wikisaurus. For an example of what I mean, check Wikisaurus:dispute. That you do not see the definitions in most of the entries is only because I did not bother to enter them. If you have so much time on your hands, feel free to do it.

Regarding (b), I am convinced the words should link to Wiktionary and to Wikisaurus, which is what they currently do. I am not alone in this view; it was DAVilla who changed the ws template to let it link to Wiktionary again. Wikisaurus is a part of Wiktionary, and by being so, it needs to integrate with it well. Let me reemphasize the "and to Wikisaurus" part.

Also, it is a matter of minutes to let the Wikisaurus entries link only to Wikisaurus entries again; it is only a matter of changing the {{ws}} template. There is no need to "fight tooth and nail". After there is a clear consensus that the words should link to Wikisaurus, we edit the {{ws}}, and all the entries using the {{ws}} template get updated. So when editing the entries, the template ws should be used everywhere.

Another reason why the entries do not link to Wikisaurus is that people here want to built a cluster thesaurus, not an all-word thesaurus. By cluster thesaurus I mean such one that does not have an entry for each word, only for word clusters. See also Template talk:ws.

There is also the See also section that links to related clusters; such clusters whose words do not fall under the definition of the cluster but that are semantically close enough to be relevant.

--Dan Polansky 09:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The ws template that has the definition tool tips is the one that I created, Dan. The comment-link was left over from a previous iteration of the project. The fact that you haven't had time to get to the definitions is fully appreciated by me. I had the same difficulty doing the same thing.

The "cluster thesaurus" is exactly what I was talking about above. It limits a person's ability to look in the direction they wish to, forcing them to remain within the cluster or hop only to the clusters that have been provided for in the wiktionary. Who defines relevance? Can you see a situation where the "relevant" words may not be relevant to a seeker? I have heard quite well that they wish to go to a cluster thesaurus, but as yet I have heard no reason (logical or not) for doing so. It is painfully obvious that a clear consensus cannot be reached until such time as a reason for putting such constraints on the thesaurus is explained.

I beg your pardon for over reacting as I did. It is hard to see so much of my work reversed. I must ask, though, why are you bothering to put definitions into the tool tip at all? With a click they get that information.

you mentioned

the template only features prefix, be it "In the sense of ", "Sense: " or "As in ". The template "ws sense" makes it possible to postpone the decision about the best prefix, and update the prefix once for all the Wikisaurus articles.

Why is there a problem with using a prefix that fits the situation? Not everything needs to be cookie-cutter. 131.191.59.15 22:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, wasn't logged in. Amina (sack36) 22:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's about reasons. Many people around the world find cluster thesauri appealing, as the further updates and development of Roget thesaurus shows. The community here at Wiktionary clearly prefers a cluster thesaurus, whether they have articulated reasons or not. I, for one, am interested in finding words that are actually synonymous or close to synonymous, which, say, Moby Thesaurus II does not do for me. And once I have this requirement of actual synonymy, which you have called constraint, I can save me a lot of work by creating only clusters. Also, the clusters show me something that a dictionary and an all-words thesaurus does not do: what major distinct senses there are.

As regards the prefix template, it makes it possible to postpone seeking consensus. As I have tried to explain.

If you can convince other people here that we should go for an all-words thesaurus, I won't stay in the way.

Putting the definitions in the ws template and thus in the tooltip has some benefits. (a) Tooltip is quicker than clicking to another page, and it prevents making your attention dirty from exposition to the other page. (b) When the group of ws, ws begin and ws end templates gets extended to allow a user preference that turns these lists into tables, then the definitions will appear directly, next to the words, which provides for a helpful and quick overview. (c) What is actually being synonymous is a sense of the word, not the word itself. So listing the def with the word makes it clear in which sense the word is synonymous, or being considered as such by the creator of the Wikisaurus entry.

--Dan Polansky 06:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The current set-up tries not to take sides on this issue. It links to both Wiktionary and Wikisaurus. It does not make any determination on whether a cluster or each word should have its own thesaurus entry. If the page exists, it links to it. Yes, there's some bias in leaving out the red links, but if Wikisaurus becomes more populated, it's half an aesthetic issue that leads directly to discussing this more fundamental issue.

Although I agree with Dan about the layout of the thesaurus, I agree with Amina that it shouldn't be necessary to search for a word. At minimum, the word in Wikisaurus should redirect to the closest existing synonym. If at present the template does not work well in these cases, it is a technical issue. DAVilla 17:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Having non-cluster words in Wikisaurus redirect or link to cluster entries in Wikisaurus seems like a good idea to me. I mentioned linking instead of redirecting because there are often more clusters for one word. --Dan Polansky 14:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can't say as I understand what you're saying here, Dan. How can more than one word be represented on one page? I got it that you want clusters, but what that means to me is that you ignore the synonyms that would be inclusive to the subordinate words in a cluster and focus only on the primary word. You're not going to try to put all the synonyms for all the synonyms on the page too, are you?

Also, I have suggested an alternative that would allow for both solutions to exist simultaneously. You can read about it in the Beer Parlor.Amina (sack36) 06:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Amina, I am afraid there is a misunderstanding. I will try to put what I way saying differently and in detail: A word that is not the name of a cluster, that is to say, it has no major Wikisaurus page for itself, that is, has no primary entry in the Wikisaurus, can have a secondary entry, and in that secondary entry, the word can be linked to all those clusters, to all those primary entries, in which it appears. To clarify the terminology used here using an example: the word "stingy" is now a primary one in Wikisaurus, as it has its own entry. The word "miserly" is a secondary one in Wikisaurus, as it does not have its own entry and is represented at the "stingy" entry. From what I understood, DAVilla was proposing that there should be a Wikisaurus entry even for "miserly", in spite of its being secondary, and that the Wikisaurus entry for "miserly" should redirect to Wikisaurus:stingy. And what I added was that, in general, a secondary word can be listed at more primary entries, so the entry of the secondary word in Wikisaurus would actually have to link to its primary entries rather than redirect to them.

Please, could provide a specific link to the discussion in Beer Parlor that you are referring to? There have been several discussions on Wikisaurus in Beer Parlour, and I have no way of knowing which one you mean. --Dan Polansky 07:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I tried to format Wikisaurus:amulet to match Wikisaurus:insane which Help:Creating a Wikisaurus entry list as a good example. If the preferred format has cahgned then those two pages probably need to be updated to show it. Thank you for fixing up amulet. RJFJR 12:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand the usage notes that you have added. Could you explain or reword? DCDuring TALK 15:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

By an "attribute" I mean an adjective that is commonly applied to the noun attributively. This usage of "attribute" seems to match the second definition of attribute. If you know of a better substitue for "attribute", I am eager to learn about it. I did not know any better word and this one seemed to fit, per its second definition. A considerably long list of attributes can be found in the knowledge entry. --Dan Polansky 15:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

As I understand it, the adjectives on the list are intended to be examples of adjectives that are used with, say, knowledge. An interesting idea. Because it is such departure from normal dictionary practice, I expect that many users would not know what the intent of such a usage note might be and might not know that "attributes:" means "following are selected adjectives that are used with the headword". I don't think that you can find a single word that will make people understand that kind of usage note. At the very least you need to explain fully in a linked appendix what this novel class of usage notes is intended to accomplish and how the standard wording of the usage note should be interpreted. At some point, the wording needs to stand on its own, as this does not. I do not have any particular suggestion for rewording the notes.

Answering the following questions might help:

1. Are they the modifiers most frequently used with the headword?
2. Are they particularly apt?
3. Do they collectively cover the entire waterfront of possible modifiers?
4. Do all of their synonyms and antonyms work with the headword?
5. Do they work equally well with all senses? DCDuring TALK 16:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

What you're saying sounds about right. As regards your questions, the listed words are (1), frequently used; not (2), but I am not sure whether I understand "particularly apt"; as I have conceived it not (3), as that would get too long; not (4); not (5). The modifiers should be statistically significant for the headword, meaning that adding "big" and "small" to all kinds of headwords would be quite unuseful, even if they had high rates. Put differently, they should disclose some information that was unobvious, or at least unobvious to non-native speakers.

I just wondered how this idea is going to be received, so I started adding these lists, without a full-blown concept of how to format and maintain them.

I had this idea in my mind long time ago. And I must have seen it in some online dictionary recently too, just that I do not know in which one.

From your answer, I would estimate that you might prefer the word "modifier" to the word "attribute", isn't it?--Dan Polansky 16:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

An addition: the term "attribute" seems better, as it refers to words (per current definition), whereas "modifier" refers to words, phrases and clauses. --Dan Polansky 08:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The fact that I had to guess at what you might have meant by "Attributes:" should suggest that it does not communicate. You need to put some adjectives on the word so users know the relationship between the words on the list and the headword. Because they are in fact only words, I would think that saying they were "Adjectives often used with :" or "Adverbs often used with " would be vastly superior. I am not at all sure of the utility of this for users, but theat doesn't seem to be a serious concern to most other contributors so there is little reason to trouble yourself about that concern. DCDuring TALK 08:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Understood; the point is that "Attributes:" does not communicate, and that a longer wording that does communicate is preferable. So I will stay with your proposal—"Adjectives often used with :", until I get another complaint. Do you think I should better put the text into a template, such as "common adjectives"? That would enable a flexible change of the wording, and a more confident robotic removal, should the community decide this kind of content is unwanted.

And do you think I should better put this into Beer Parlour? --Dan Polansky 08:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I was working on verb declensions and using a template as in övmek. But I can't add interrogative and negative forms. How can I divide the tense columns to three? I mean, 3 (Interrogative, Affirmative, Negative) for each tenses as Simple Present, Simple Past... Can you help me? Thanks in advance.. Sinek 13:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would above all recommend that you use templates for formatting of conjugation information, which is not what I can see at övmek. I mean such templates as you can find at Category:Turkish declension templates.

Although, Category:Turkish declension templates contains several non-template entries. You should better remove all the non-template entries from that category. --Dan Polansky 13:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oops, sorry. I said template but I use a table. I can't add a few more columns to the table, that what I'm in difficulty. Anyway, thank you very much for warning me about Turkish declension templates' category, I removed the non-template entries from there. Best wishes~, Sinek 13:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. The {{subpages}} template will dynamically list all your subpages - then you don't need to keep updating that section. Cheers. SemperBlotto 13:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cool. Thanks :). --Dan Polansky 13:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

is iterative or frequentative the word you are looking for ? --Diligent 14:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I guess so. Thanks for the tip. --Dan Polansky 14:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think that I fucked-up the page in fr.witkionary, saying perfective is vest, could you tell me what is the correct perfective form of it ? thx! --Diligent 14:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The word vézt that you probably meant has no single perfective. Some of the perfectives derived from it, including "dovézt", can be found here at vézt. There are also perfectives resulting from prefixing of "vozit", such as "povozit". AFAIK there is no such as thing as the perfective of vozit. --Dan Polansky 14:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I makes sense... I'll correct it.

PS: I left this message on cs.wikislovnik, just in case you want to help me with it :-)

Tvoril jsem fr:Catégorie:Mot tchèque sans voyelle kategorii ceskych slov beze samohlasek ve fr.wikislovniku. Pokud by nekdo chtel tady tvorit jehi ekvivalent a ji "krmit" slovama, zarucuji, ze tvorena hesla se budou hned objevit na fr:wikislovniku.

I don't think I would start this category over there in the Czech Wiktionary, but it is interesting enough for the English Wiktionary. Just that I do not know the name for the category. It could be "Czech words without vowels" or "Czech consonant-only words". A model name for the category would help. As I am a non-native, I feel inconfident about the best name for the category. --Dan Polansky 14:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Tak jako ty, I'm not a native speaker but there is a very nice and precise english adjective: vowelless which is perfect for the name of the category "Vowelless Czech words".

The adjective "vowelless" sounds odd to me, though I don't know why. I have now noticed there is W:Words without vowels, suggesting that the term "without vowels" could be okay. What remains to be determined is the one or more supercategories for Category:Czech words without vowels. One of the supercategories could be Category:Czech language --Dan Polansky 15:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done. Thank you for your help. --Diligent 11:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

dear Dan,

Can you check the conjugaison table (I just developped a new template) of fr:tisknout?

compared to the template used for tisknout, i am adding a few forms:

• the colloquial past tisknuls
• the conditional
• the imperative

I would be grateful to you if you can validate my template.

--Diligent 16:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Diligent, the issues that I have found: (a) tiskněme, (b) tiskněte. Further, I would think that both forms "tiskl" and "tisknul" are always possible, but no guarantee on that one. Also, "neutre" is missing in some of the cells. --Dan Polansky 17:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

thank you! I hesitated for tisknul (actually it was the first version of the model because I learnt Czech 'on the street' and this is how people speak), it definitely exists as colloquial form of the past participle. I might extend the model or make a note.

"Tisknul se k odpolední moderátorce Radce" ; found on the web - as example.

for the neutral forms - i considered that with ja / ty / my / vy, it is absurd to put a neutral form since when someone is involved (a person) it cannot be neutrum

if you find in your mind a possible counterexample, let me know. Could you say, for example addressing to zvíře: Ty zvíře, tisklo jsi na mne (or whatever)?

for our information, i found this: de:tisknout (Konjugation) with full neutral forms... But still, it is bizarre to show tisklo jsem.

--Diligent 05:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

if minout is perfective, it shouldn't have a future tense, right? can you check declension table? --Diligent 07:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Minout is indeed perfective. The declensionconjugation of "minout" starts with the forms "já minu", "ty mineš", "on mine", all future forms. The conjugation table is wrong, as you suggested. The used template is {{cs-conj-mi-nout}}. User:ThomasWasHere is interested in Czech conjugation tables more than I am, so what about talking to him? --Dan Polansky 07:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

thx. i did leave him a message but i wanted to check with a native Czech speaker. I am struggling to create proper conjugaison tables (as you see from our last conversation) and try to avoid making a mess. --Diligent 07:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. "the only one of its kind" looks like a definition of a noun to me. SemperBlotto 17:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oops, you're right. Hope it's okay now. --Dan Polansky 17:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

hello, this is a pronoun and an adjective. I'm not good enough to correct the page itself. FYI, I've put examples on the french page fr:žádný to make it clear. --Diligent 08:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I can't make out the difference between eg {{infl|cs|noun|head=] ]|g=m}} and {{cs-noun|sg=] ]|g=m}} . I'm positive there is one, otherwise you wouldn't care to make these changes, but I simply don't see what it is. Obviously it makes no difference on the page itself; is it something to do with categorization? I noticed that the "head" template is marked as nominated for deletion, but that happened in December '07 and since then it's freely discussed on its talk page as if it wasn't thus marked, so that can't be the reason; and trying to find out whether the "sg" page wouldn't enlighten me I was directed instead to some African language named Sango, which made me fairly flabbergasted. I'd start using the "sg" template myself of course if I saw the point, but I wouldn't like doing so only to find out that in other cases the "head" template is the appropriate one and thus again somebody'd have to clean up after me. --Duncan MacCall 18:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is currently no difference in effect between {{cs-noun}} and {{infl}} AFAIK. It is just that cs-noun is the template specific for Czech, whereas infl is generic, and I find it preferable to use the template specific to Czech, to enable future enhancements. For instance, {{cs-noun}} can be extended with a parameter for animate and inanimate in the future. Notice that head= and sg= are parameters of templates, not template names. The template {{cs-noun}} is modeled after {{en-noun}}. --Dan Polansky 19:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see; thanks for a speedy answer. I tried to change "withdrawal symptoms" (my first coming across this:) like that just to find via Preview what happens and a "plural" symptomss was generated, so I guess that's why with English words the "infl template/head parameter" may sometimes be preferable. --Duncan MacCall 19:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Do we need both of these Czech verb conjugation templates? AFAIK, all -ovat verbs are conjugated identically. Also, I have checked carefully for mistakes, but please tell me if you find any mistakes. --Ro-manB 18:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I do not know. The template {{cs-conj-ovat}} was created in August 2005. The template {{cs-conj-kup-ovat}} was created in April 2008 by ThomasWasHere, together with a couple of other conjugation templates, based on his new template scheme. The scheme is the following, quoting from Category:Czech conjugation templates:

Conjugation templates are of this form: {{cs-conj-s}} and {{cs-conj-b-s}} with s the suffix of the verb and b the beginning of the verb when it is necessary to differentiate two identical suffixes like with {{cs-conj-pros-it}} and {{cs-conj-čist-it}}.

The first parameter is the prefix of the verb.

Example: {{cs-conj-děl-at|umír}} for the verb umírat.

The second parameter is the letter 'p' for perfective case and only with templates of form {{cs-conj-b-s}}.

Example: {{cs-conj-um-řít|um|p}} for the verb umřít.

--Dan Polansky 20:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

May I ask you to quickly confirm that all forms generated by this template actually make sense? I don't know Czech but I can't imagine that all verbs (intransitive ones, in particular) admit passive forms, such as passive participles. This question is not entirely academic because, as it seems, the conjugation tables are supposed to serve as a basis for bot-generated entries. -- Gauss 19:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for asking this question, Gauss. My new bot account uses the informations at Template:cs-conj-ovat to generate automatic entries. I'm not so knowledgeable about passive participles, and I would appreciate the confirmation of their universal existence, or if they're not used for intransitivity. --Romanb 19:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Passive participles (and the like) were a major headache when designing the conjugation templates for Polish. A solution was found eventually. -- Gauss 20:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I do not know the explicit rules of the Czech conjugation well enough to tell whether certain verb forms can be formed from all verbs or whether there are exceptions and quircks. I would have to get myself a handbook, and get myself acquainted with all the peculiarities that can possibly hinder a correct fully automatic process. IMHO the burden of proof is with Romanb to demonstrate that he knows what he is doing. From what I can see on the surface, I do not like the mentioned template in its current revision. --Dan Polansky 08:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've now had a look at the produce of the Romanbot for the term "pracovat". Passives participle such as "pracovány" and "pracováno" indeed look suspect, and archaic to say the least. You can say google:"bylo pracováno" but google:"pracovalo se" sounds much more native. --Dan Polansky 08:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please see Category talk:Czech conjugation templates for a discussion about taking the best of other Wiktionary templates and not doing redirections that just hide previous work. A lot of choices and tests should be done before to replace old templates. --Thomas was here ☺ 11:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just a heads-up that the {{F.}} style of etymology templates are deprecated in favour of the {{etyl|fr}} style. Currently Auto-Format will change the former to the latter, but eventually the old style templates will be deleted (some already have). See Wiktionary:Etymology/language templates (WT:ETY/TEMP) for a list of codes and conversions. Thryduulf 14:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I actually know that, and was simplifying myself the entry, relying on Auto-Format to fix what I have entered. Once the old templates are deleted, I will see it in the preview and be forced to use {{etyl}}. I hope this approach is okay; if there is some serious issue with it, I will stick with {{etyl}} immediately, which requires much more typing and recalling. --Dan Polansky 16:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

No issue, I was just making sure you are aware. You may want to comment at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Replace all etymon templates with proto and etyl though. Thryduulf 20:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

A couple things on Greek etymologies: First, nearly every word in English derived from Greek is from Ancient Greek (grc), and not from Greek (Modern Greek, el). In my experience, etymological dictionaries use Greek and Modern Greek where we use Ancient Greek and Greek. So, if you could use {{AGr.}} or {{etyl|grc}} it would be appreciated, as I have been undertaking the rather daunting task of switching these when appropriate. Additionally, when a Greek word ends in a sigma (as nearly all nominatives do), the sigma becomes ς, not σ. If you're ever uncertain about the orthography, feel free to add an {{rfscript|Greek}} and someone can double check it for you. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the hint. So I'll assume that whenever The Century Dictionary 1911 says "Gr." or "Greek", and not explicitly "Modern Greek", I should write {{etyl|grc}} or {{AGr.}}. So far I have indeed written {{Gr.}} whenever Century 1911 wrote "Gr.".

I hope I got the sigma at the end of words mostly right so far.

 

It would be nice to have these hints on Greek etymologies at Wiktionary:Etymology, say under a section "Considerations by the language of origin" > "Greek" (and "Latin" if there are some Latin specifics.) I am unsure about the section headings, though. When I was searching for specific information on English etymologies stemming from Greek, I was searching for "Greek" heading.

I am also unsure about the other language shortcuts from Century 1911, such as "L.", "LL." and "ML.". So far, I have been rendering them directly using the corresponding deprecated templates bearing the same name, relying on AutoFormat to replace these with {{etyl}}. --Dan Polansky 06:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The various periods of Latin have no ISO codes, so the templates {{ML.}}, {{LL.}}, {{VL.}}, etc. aren't yet deprecated. They can still be used because, for the time being at least, we have no better option. --EncycloPetey 16:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

It was originally a redirect to transliterate (a long time ago) and then changed to read "Warrior" by some IP-anon, thus deleted.

A real entry is good. Robert Ullmann 13:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please check the title; this page is for Latin nouns with English derivatives. --EncycloPetey 17:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also, please remember that the present active infinitive of Latin verbs is not the main entry form for that verb. --EncycloPetey 17:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, right you are. Now I see that there is also Appendix:Latin verbs (A to K) and Appendix:Latin_verbs_(L_to_Z). --Dan Polansky 17:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Per Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#compare apples and oranges we merged that entry into apples and oranges. Would it makes sense to move the entry you made to hrušky s jablky? Thanks. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 18:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

IMHO the entry "srovnávat hrušky s jablky" should better not be moved. The candidate alterantives "hrušky s jablky" and "hrušky a jablka" sound odd to me, unlike "srovnávat hrušky s jablky". For the sake of translation to Czech, "compare apples and oranges" was a perfect entry. I do not see big benefits of the merger; we have non-redirect pages for alternative spellings and alternative forms, so using redirects for variants of phrases seems odd to me. If I were to decide, I would leave the pages unmerged, and link them using See also section. --Dan Polansky 19:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

In English, idiomatic phrases are often constructed w/o the "to compare", (e.g. "You're trying to equate apples and oranges"), so the idiomatic part is just the "apples and oranges", nothing more. (I sort of agree with you about the redirect, though.) But if in Czech the phrase is always constructed with "srovnávat" then the Czech entry shouldn't be touched. Thanks. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Let's get some numbers:

• google:"apples and oranges" -- 952,000
• google:"comparing apples and oranges" -- 148,000
• google:"compare apples and oranges" -- 39,200
• google:"equating apples and oranges" -- 278
• google:"equate apples and oranges" -- 128
• google:"equate apples to oranges" -- 222

I see that "apples and oranges" is the main term. But it also seems that "to compare" is the verb of choice to be joined with "apples and oranges", so having a dedicated entry for that one in Wiktionary would make sense, to me anyway. But I suppose I am also biased by the Czech choice of "srovnávat", which translates as "to compare". --Dan Polansky 21:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dan! I have just created a template for adjectival declesion of Czech pronouns. However I am beginner in template creation so soon I found there is a problem with the template I could not solve. Hope you are advanced in both editing entries and templates. Could you see the template and modify it, please? I have created it to edit jenž entry to cover up all grammatical genders and appoach to Czech version of jenž entry. --Nautil 16:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am advanced in adding new Czech words, and avoiding work on templates, declensions, and conjugations, because IMHO the former is currently more important. If you explain what specific problem you would like to get solved with the template you have just created, I can have a look at it, though. --Dan Polansky 16:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, the problem was in table syntax and it was fixed a while ago by Conrad.Irwin. I understand your opinion and thank you for your goodwill. Nautil 16:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

You wrote:- Hello Richard, could you please create an alternate version of the logo , with dark blue background instead of the red one, and with no gradient? I think it could boost the overall appearance of Wikisaurus, providing less conspicious contrast between the two hues--the red and the light blue. Green background could do too, as the hue of green and the hue of the chosen light blue are close to each other. Thanks for considering my request. --Dan Polansky 13:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really active in Wiktionary any more. Anyone could quickly do a clour change for the Wikisaurus logo. I think the one that is there took me about 5 mins on PowerPoint!--Richardb 08:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

All right; thanks for writing. --Dan Polansky 08:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply