User talk:Dan Polansky/2016

You were right about the dialects, I misunderstood the source. Now I corrected it and added Etymology 2 section. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have absolutely no idea how you could write things to the effect that the likes of "dobrej" are specific to Moravia dialects. This is what one gets when one blindly relies on sources to the exclusion of common knowledge.

I changed again "standard" to "official written": colloquial Czech is not "non-standard". "dobrej" is standard colloquial Czech. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Vzhledem k tomu, že také máte hlasovací právo, budu velice rád, pokud ta pravidla podpoříte. Dokonalá jistě nejsou, možná zbytečně podrobná a formalistická, nicméně je to všechno reakce na neutěšenou situaci na cs.wikt, však vy víte. --Auvajs (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

In Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/January#Format of entries in the Reconstruction namespace, you said: "We absolutely should not be moving the normal mainspace to one entry per language, ".

Would you kindly elaborate on that? What were your reasons for that statement?

In Wiktionary:Grease pit/2015/December#Make templates aware of the language heading they're under, that move has been discussed recently. (Though it was in the middle of a separate discussion.) There, it sounded like a good idea IMO. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I hope someone else will do the articulation job when that becomes really relevant, so I will then be able to say, support or oppose per so and so. If that won't happen, I'll need to create a writeup. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Danke Danǃ Mein Beweis: https://www.google.de/search?q=victorie+a+la+pyrrhus&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=LKuSVsPAGcmvsAHUyISQAw /// Es gibt beide Varianten, und ausserdem ro.Wikipedia kann es nicht betrachtet sein, immer als genaue source/qwelle wenn es geht um richtigen Schreibweise.

BAICAN XXX (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Some prefer that most common senses come first, some that the oldest senses and etymologies come first, as per Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2012/December#Positions of obsolete senses, which contains a poll with over 10 participants. A 2007 discussion with almost no participants is Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2007/May#Order of definitions. Keywords: definition order, order of senses, sense order. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Let me find what usage labels are used in Czech dictionaries. I will look at PSJČ and SSJČ, two Czech monolingual dictionaries available online. Some labels are not usage labels, e.g. neskl. for indeclinable.

PSJČ:

• vulg. - e.g. in hovno and srát
• zhrub. - e.g. in klofec
• expr. - e.g. in hňup and volovina
• lid. - e.g. in fouňa and melouch
• ob. - e.g. in volovina and trotl
• hovor. - e.g. in honér
• slang. - e.g. in fuška
• řidč. - e.g. in běl
• zast. - e.g. in dodavek
• pejor. - e.g. in belháč
• dial. - e.g. baračisko
• dět. - e.g. bebíčko
• žert. - e.g. brumbál
• kniž. - e.g. čacký
• fam. - e.g. in fuška
• dův. - e.g. in jelikož

SSJČ:

• vulg. - e.g. in hovno and srát
• zhrub. - e.g. in volovina and trotl
• expr. - e.g. in fouňa, hňup and nešika
• lid. - e.g. in brhel
• ob. - e.g. in fouňa and fuška
• hovor. - e.g. in šik
• slang. - e.g. in lajna and melouch
• hanl. - e.g. in pitomost
• řidč. - e.g. in šik
• zast. - e.g. in adieu
• dět. - e.g. in bacat
• fam. - e.g. in mami
• nář. - e.g. in baně
• mazl. - e.g. in cukrouš
• žert. - e.g. in čírtě
• kniž. - e.g. in bystřice

Expansions:

• vulg.: vulgárně
• zhrub.: zhruběle
• expr.: expresivně
• lid.: lidově
• ob.: obecně, v obecné češtině
• hovor.: hovorově
• slang.: slangově
• hanl.: hanlivě
• pejor.: pejorativně
• řidč.: řidčeji
• zast.: zastarale
• dět.: dětsky
• mazl.: mazlivě
• žert.: žertovně
• kniž.: knižně
• fam.: familiárně
• dův.: důvěrně

Tentative mapping to labels used in the English Wiktionary:

• vulg.: vulgar
• zhrub.: mildly vulgar
• slang.: slang
• lid.: informal or colloquial
• ob.: informal or colloquial
• hovor.: informal or colloquial
• expr.: N/A
• řidč.: rare
• hanl.: pejorative
• pejor.: pejorative
• dial.: dialectal
• nář.: dialectal
• kniž.: literary
• žert.: humorous or jocular
• fam.: could be familiar but that is largely unused; informal or colloquial could do

For links to help pages of English dictionaries covering labels, see #Colloquial vs. informal section.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The use of labels colloquial and informal in the English Wiktionary seems redundant. Let us check other dictionaries.

Label that dictionaries use in their "guy" entry for the meaning of "man; fellow":

• Merriam-Webster: none; also "bloke" has no label; "shit" is labeled "vulgar"; neither "colloquial" nor "informal" is mentioned as a label in their Help - Usage Labels page
• AHD: Informal
• Collins: informal
• Macmillan: informal
• oxforddictionaries.com: informal
• Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary: informal
• Longman: informal
• Random House Unabridged Dictionary: Informal
• Macquarie: I can't access "guy" but I can access "sure" and "dog", both of which have "colloquial" in some of its senses
• Webster 1913: none
• Century 1911: the sense is not there
• English Wiktionary: colloquial; "dude" has also colloquial but "bloke" and "fella" have informal

The definition of "informal" used in Macmillan is that it is "more common in speech than in writing and not used on formal occasions".

Of "colloquial", dictionary.reference.com says in that "Slang, jargon, and idioms are examples of colloquial vocabulary but colloquial " and that "Nowadays, few dictionaries use the label."

Dictionaries and the Authoritarian Tradition by Ronald A. Wells quotes Hench to state that, in 1934, Webster 2 used "colloquial" for many words while Webster 3 dropped the label and explained why in the preface. Webster 3 would be Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1961) edited by Philip Babcock Gove, of which Wikipedia tells us that "Although it was an unprecedented masterwork of scholarship, it was met with considerable criticism for its descriptive (rather than prescriptive) approach", which seems to be referenced to Herbert Charles Morton, The Story of Webster's Third: Philip Gove's Controversial Dictionary and its Critics (1995).

Encyclopedia Britannica section "Kinds of dictionaries" of article "Dictionary" says that "The label colloquial was much misunderstood, and now informal is often used in its place."

The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms, Second Edition, 2013, uses "colloquial" label, e.g. in its entry "easy on the eyes".

Label explanations or mentions for English dictionaries:

• Help - Usage Labels - Merriam-Webster
• How To Use This Site - AHD
• Labels and Abbreviations - Macmillan
• Guide to Symbols and Labels - oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com
• Guide to the Third Edition of the OED - OED

In the above five links to label explanations, the word "colloquial" does not appear at all.

Wiktionary:Abbreviations in Webster, from Webster 1913, defines an abbreviation for colloquial but not informal.

In Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2007/December#Colloquial vs. informal, Circeus says: "Anybody able to define a proper lexicographical difference between those? I doubt it's possible."

Current category sizes for English:

• Category:English colloquialisms: 2,463 pages
• Category:English informal terms: 5,495 pages

--Dan Polansky (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am confused about what dictionary label "slang" is intended to mean. In Merriam-Webster help, slang is defined, approximately, as very informal. The definition is as follows:

The stylistic label slang is used with words or senses that are especially appropriate in contexts of extreme informality, that are usually not limited to a particular region or area of interest, and that are composed typically of shortened or altered forms or extravagant or facetious figures of speech.

That stands in contrast to the definition that slang terms are constrained to particular social groups. The MW's own dictionary entry for "slang" contains two senses, of which the above quotation from the help page fits sense 2: "an informal nonstandard vocabulary composed typically of coinages, arbitrarily changed words, and extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech". Their sense 1 is the one I am used to: "language peculiar to a particular group: as a: argot b: jargon".

oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com has a combination of the two senses from MW, where the restriction to a group is qualified with "sometimes":

slang is very informal language, sometimes restricted to a particular group of people, for example people of the same age or those who have the same interests or do the same job. Examples are dingbat, dosh.

Therefore, since "sometimes" is a severely weakening qualification, the label seems to be defined similarly to MW.

dictionary.reference.com defines slang thus:

Slang is an extremely informal style of language that is vivid, often extravagant and facetious, in its striving for rhetorical effect.

Macmillan help page for labels does not contain "slang".

AHD help page mentions "slang" but does not define it.

For links to dictionary help pages, see #Colloquial vs. informal section above.

Wiktionary Appendix:Glossary#slang deviates from the three quoted dictionaries:

Denotes language that is unique to a particular profession or subject, i.e. jargon. Also refers to the specialized language of a social group, sometimes used to make what is said unintelligible to those who are not members of the group, i.e. cant.

However, it does not necessarily follow that the above definition is used in the actual labelling in the English Wiktionary. The actual labeling was made by a variety of editors many of whom probably did not read the Wiktionary appendix definition of slang and instead used the label as seen in other dictionaries.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

--Auvajs (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the notification of cs:Wikislovník:Pod lípou#Výstražný 24hodinový blok pro uživatelku Lenka64/Dubicko. I have changed the section title here on my talk page to make it shorter. I see your creation of a Beer parlour (Pod lípou) discussion as the right step, given how reluctant the local adminship has been in dealing with disruptive behavior of the user during past several years. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, I totally understand. I just added it because the suffix -um- in Ido is only applied to ~30 words. The suffix doesn't have a set meaning, and we can not place it on any word to create derivatives. ULI, the body that is in charge of Ido, is the only one that can add this suffix to words (see the usage notes I wrote: -um-). I though that I'd start adding all the ~30 words using this suffix, but noticed after I added teleskopumar that this might happen and stopped. I can not find a quotation with the word in use, and judging by the complex meaning of this word, I doubt that we will. - Sincerely Algentem (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Should hold her breath be a hard redirect to hold one's breath? Now it is, created on 11 April 2007‎. A hard redirect seems good enough for the purpose, with no need to create a soft redirect.

The following suggests that the use of redirect is predominant since only few " her " entries appear in the result, a consequence of redirects not counting as separate entries:

cut -f2 enwikt-defs-20120821-en.tsv | grep " her "

The following gives a list of "one's" entries:

cut -f2 enwikt-defs-20120821-en.tsv | grep "one's"

Examples include get one's freak on, have one's wicked way and keep one's mouth shut.

From what I can see, for the one's entries, there are often no entries at all for the his, her, your, etc. forms, not even hard redirects. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Since "one's" is rarely the form actually used in real texts, I thought the whole point of "one's" was to avoid the need for such entries. It is understood that "one's" can become "his, her, their, Peter's, Jane's", etc. Equinox ◑ 10:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sure, the point of the one's entries is to serve as lemmas of sorts, central locations for what would otherwise be needlessly repeated. But the one's entries do a poor service from the findability standpoint, I fear. Do you think it better to actually have no his-etc-entries at all rather than hard redirects? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I question the value of creating all of them as actual redirect-entries. Maybe it would be nice if the search engine could resolve this kind of thing. Equinox ◑ 12:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox: The question is what to do about them once they were created: redirect or delete. I tend to think that the redirects are fine to support findability, and also since the things redirected are often more common than the form redirected to. FYI, there is WT:RFD#lose her cool, from which this question arises. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I consider the category for Leprosy with its 15 items to be too granular; I consider Diseases to be the appropriate granularity. But people disagreed at Category talk:en:Leprosy. Another RFDO concerning granularity concerns Category talk:Dragons and Category talk:Merpeople. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh, thank you: I hadn't thought my colorful signature could annoy other users. I'll try to find an alternative one (by the way, you made me realize those flags were really excessive, so I removed them). -- IvanScroogeNovantotto _{(parla con me)} 15:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@User:IvanScrooge98: Thank you for your change of your signature. Again, other editors may differ from me.

Let me note that, even after your change, "Scrooge" is nearly illegible. I think it advisable to make signatures functional above all. Also, I have some doubt whether it is wise to have Italian flag colors in your signature since non-default signatures are a personal expression, and a country is not so much personal as tribal. And again, I am not an admin and I am not speaking based on policy; I am just speaking my mind based on my taste. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The simple and easy variant does not enable sorting by column which would be very convenient I think. The table could be expanded with new columns (e.g. # of extensions). The table also enables easier styling.

Besides, we and even Wiki show a lot of information using tables. Why do you feel this particular data needs to be simple? --Dixtosa (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is in reference to diff, I guess. I think it's kind of obvious. We don't need to create more columns and complicate things. The non-tabular format has served us well and the introduction of tabular formatting adds more markup with no appreciable value, as far as I can tell. Furthermore, the content from the discussed place is directly copied to Wiktionary:Votes/Timeline and should use the same format. You could want to change Wiktionary:Votes/Timeline to a table, and in fact, some of the oldest records there are in tabular format, but was later discontinued by anyone who probably felt that the tables were not worth the hassle. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

A discussion on inclusion of keywords of computing languages was at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2010/October#colspan.2C_etc. Computing languages include programming languages but also markup languages such as HTML.

Entries for keywords of computing languages that were deleted include colspan (Talk:colspan), bgcolor, cellpadding and cellspacing.

A 2015 deletion is MVC as an opcode (Talk:MVC) - (even though it has citations in English-language sentences. SemperBlotto (talk))

Multiple symbols of APL programming language were RFV failed in 2010, including ⌹, ⌽, ⌿, ⍀, ⍉, ⍋, ⍎, ⍒, ⍕, ⍞, ⍟, ⍪, ⍫, ⍬, ⍲, ⍳, ⍴, ⍷, ⍺. The discussion is at Talk:≡.

Entries for symbol operators such as "." and ".." will have discussions archived at Talk:Unsupported titles/Double period, Talk:Unsupported titles/Full stop and Talk:Unsupported titles/Number sign.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Expanded. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Expanded. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

SemperBlotto post above italicized to make it clearer it is not my text. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Expanded. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I saw a user claim that the distinction between proper nouns and common nouns is arbitrary and unreal, or something of the sort. Therefore, let us have a look at what distinguishes a proper noun from a common noun.

The one thing that does not serve as a good marker of proper nounhood is capitalization since it is the other way around: once a word gets considered to be a proper noun, it starts to get capitalized, and furthermore, there are other reasons to capitalize a word than proper nounhood. Thus, when astronomers started to consider "sun" and "earth" in reference to the particular objects to be proper nouns, they wanted to start to capitalize them, although in common parlance sun is usually not capitalized. Furthermore, "Englishman" and "American" are common nouns rather than proper nouns.

Another thing that does not serve as a good marker of proper nounhood is the singularity of reference: there being only one thing named by the noun. The failure of the marker is especially obvious for common nouns denoting abstract objects such as "redness" or "wordhood". And the marker is not very useful, while it does not really fail, for many proper nouns including "Martin" and "London". Moreover, mass nouns such as "gold" can be argued to refer to a single referent, albeit one scattered (non-contiguous) in space.

Some formulations of tentative criteria for detecting proper nouns are as follows:

• A proper noun is a noun that has as many senses as it has referents. Thus, "cat" is not a proper noun since there is a one-to-many relationship between the sense "domestic animal" and the referents corresponding to that sense, the instances of these domestic animals. By contrast, "London" is a proper noun since "the name of a municipality" is not really a sense, and "Adam" is a proper noun since "male given name" is not really a sense. This can be controversial; some may claim "male given name" really is a sense, and indeed, it does get a sense line in the dictionary.
• As the first approximation, the referents of a proper noun have nothing in common. This needs to be corrected to state that the referents of a proper noun do not have much in common since e.g. the referents of "Martin" do have at least one thing common, their being males. And it can be admitted that they in fact do have one another thing or property in common, namely 'X is called Martin' (thanks to Ruakh for pointing this out in one discussion). I'll leave it at that; the formulation points in the right direction but can be counter-lawyered.
• In order for a thing to be designated by the proper noun, something like "christening" has to take place. Thus, once the word "cat" is established, a thing that no one has before specifically refered to as "cat" can still be recognized as a "cat". By contrast, in order for a male to be called "Martin", someone has to say in the presence of the male, "let us call him Martin" or something of the sort. For common nouns, there is an analogue of christening in the event of connecting the noun to a sense for the first time, but the connection is to a sense rather than to a particular object.
• A proper noun denotes a concrete object as opposed to an abstract object. Thus, "wordhood" is not a proper noun.
• Less clear cases and cases that grammatical traditions of various languages treat differently include names of languages, names of months, and names of species. On languages, I posted User talk:Dan Polansky/2012#Why names of languages are not proper nouns. On months, Czech has names of months in lowercase; the argument could be that in order to recognize a month to be, say, April, nothing like christening has to take place; rather, you only look at where the month fits into a certain periodical scheme of month numbering. For species, one could argue that species are connected to individuals, look like abstract objects and their names should not be considered to be proper nouns. There probably exists some reasoning why species names are considered proper nouns.

A word may be in order on whether verbally expressed detection criteria for proper nounhood are really required in order for Wiktionary to include that distinction. Many things are detected by people without awareness of an express definition or detection criteria. This works fine until a controversy about whether a particular thing belongs under the headword in question arises. For instance, I am unaware of any real difficulty in assigning an object under the head of "human", yet many verbal definitions of "human" seem to give above all an occassion for mirth more than anything else. An overwhelming majority of assignments of nouns under the "proper noun" headword made in Wiktionary are entirely uncontroversial; other assignments are guided by tradition. There does not seem to be any deep and painful difficulty in actually making the assignment.

Further reading includes User:EncycloPetey/English proper nouns and sources referenced from User:EncycloPetey/English proper nouns#References, which includes Mill's A System of Logic. Also relevant is Kripke's Naming and Necessity, which I have read. I may have the idea of gold referring to a single referent from Quine's Word and Object. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

If it's of interest to you, here are some previous discussions:

• whether or not proper nouns exist, mentioning various "tests" that common-noun phrases also meet, like "the dog" in reference to a certain dog,
• whether or not names are proper nouns, in which it is noted that all names can take definite and indefinite articles and pluralize in some circumstances,
• whether the names of books and people are proper nouns,
• whether or not the names of religions are proper nouns,
• and whether the names of languages are proper nouns, in which I note that "Most of the reference works I've found (via Google Books), both those from a hundred years ago and those from last year, conflate properness-vs-commonness with capitalization." I also note (having asked DCDuring about this) that A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language is silent on the matter; however, The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography does say languages are proper nouns. Lmaltier notes that language names (like other things) may be "proper" in one language and not another. (Redux.)

There've been quite a few other discussions but those are among the more recent and longer ones. - -sche (discuss) 21:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

IMO your English is near-native. In fact I wouldn't have guessed you are non-native based on your writing. Surely that deserves at least an en-4? Benwing2 (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I have upgraded my rank to en-4. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I downgraded to en-3 again. It is nice to hear that my writing sounds native; thanks again. But I feel that, in order to be ranked as en-4, I would need to have much better understanding of spoken English and much better knowledge of everyday words: for instance, I know almost no bird names by heart, and I would probably struggle with names of kitchen appliances and other everyday objects. Writing affords the comfort of re-reading and polishing and of taking time to create sentences, which I cannot do in speech. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think we could do with separate Babel numbers for reading, writing and conversation. I would be an it-3, it-2 and it-1 (my conversational Italian is poor as I am slow at mentally translating back and forth). Of course, it would be very awkward to implement. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC) p.s. I don't think that I have ever noticed an error in your English.Reply

The Babel templates are meant to reflect your skills as it concerns this project. Since on Wikrionary we communicate only in writing, only your reading/writing skills are relevant. --WikiTiki89 16:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just to be devil's advocate, some of us also communicate by yelling at the screen— er, I mean, some of us also record audio pronunciations in various languages. Equinox ◑ 19:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

The current (May 2016) logo that uses a textual design showing Wiktionary IPA and a definition was originally created by Brion Vibber in a raster format (File:Wiktionary-logo-en.png) and later vectorized (File:Wiktionary-logo-en.svg).

Logo votes on Meta:

• meta:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-1 - 2006
• meta:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-2 - 2006
• meta:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-3 - 2006
• meta:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4 - 2006 - tiles won with 107 votes vs. 82 votes for calligraphic W vs. 30 votes for Rei-artur logo vs. 15 votes for speech bubbles
• meta:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting - Aug 2009‎-Feb 2010‎ - book won with 556 votes vs. 456 votes for the tiles
  • meta:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting/tally - the page in which round 1 was voted; it was included from revision 1748582 of Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting on Meta. The columns are User, Most supported candidate, Other supported candidates.
  • meta:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/proposals
  • meta:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting/candidates

Logo votes on the English Wiktionary:

• Wiktionary:Votes/2010-02/Accepting the results of the Wiktionary logo vote
• Wiktionary:Votes/2012-12/New favicon
• Wiktionary:Votes/2016-04/New logo
• Wiktionary:Votes/2016-05/New logo 2

Various Beer parlour discussions are collected at Wiktionary:Votes/2016-04/New_logo.

Use of various logos at various Wiktionaries is stated at Meta:Wiktionary/logo as follows:

• Tile design by Smurrayinchester - 133 wikis - 10,622,366 entries
• Textual design by Brion Vibber - 35 wikis - 13,743,576 entries
• Book design by AAEngelman - 3 wikis - 641,780 entries
• Galician coat of arms - 1 wiki - 46,630 entries

--Dan Polansky (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Updated. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ahoj, prosím Tě moc, mohl bys založit toto heslo? (nadhled - go to the balcony?) A po té založit též odpovídající anglické heslo. Dík. --Kusurija (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I did create the entry, but I am not sure it does what you need it to do. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

In Wiktionary:Votes/2015-11/Language-specific rfi categories, you and I discussed category names like "Category:English entries needing images".

If you'd like, please see this discussion: WT:RFM#Category:Translation requests (X) to Category:X translation requests / Category:Translations to be checked (X) to Category:X translations to be checked

There, I suggested renaming all kinds of requests categories to a consistent format. (I also posted, on the Beer parlour, an invitation for more people to participate in the RFM discussion) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

When I click the EL on col·leccionista it should send me to the correct page based on the url but it searches instead for "colâ·leccionista". Any ideas? Ultimateria (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ultimateria: I fixed the link at col·leccionista. The markup is {{R:IEC2|col%b7leccionista|col·leccionista}}. There, I passed the middot directly as %b7 which is in ISO-8859-1 encoding. The default encoding for URLs is UTF-8, a different encoding; the middot that is part of the page title gets encoded as UTF-8 by default and the result is a messup. A similar problem concerns all characters outside of 7-bit ASCII. Ideally, I would teach {{R:IEC2}} template to convert all characters outside of 7-bit ASCII from UTF-8 to ISO-8859-1, but I do not know how, and that would be more of a module thing than a template one, I guess, unless there is some handy built-in doing the trick. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yay for sites using outdated encodings. It should be pretty easy to make a conversion module, since the ISO 8859-1 character set consists exactly of the first 256 characters of Unicode. The ones from 0 to 127 are encoded exactly as in UTF-8, the remaining 128 are different but very easy for a module to do. Would a Module:encodings be helpful here? —CodeCat 21:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead, obviously. We have other reference templates that rely on modules, e,g. {{R:LSJ}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok, it works now. It seems that Scribunto doesn't like it when you return invalid UTF-8 from it (which ISO 8859-1 would be), and returns U+FFFD REPLACEMENT CHARACTER instead. So the module has to produce URL encoded output, which is accepted. —CodeCat 22:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Awesome, thanks! Ultimateria (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

The coding that {{R:LSJ}} uses is a custom encoding rather than anything "official", but I suppose it could be treated as an encoding by this new module. It's confusing that it's sometimes unpredictable though. —CodeCat 22:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I thought that, if there was a section on English, other sections could be created on terms in other languages with the same meaning. - Alumnum (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I responded on your talk page, where this thread started. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do you think this proposal needs a vote, or can it be done without a vote:

• Wiktionary:Grease pit/2016/June#borrowing, borrowed, loan, loanword → bor

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

If you need to ask, then it needs a vote. --WikiTiki89 17:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Works great for me, I plan to create a vote for this at some point in the future. I asked about this to diminish the possibility that after creating the vote, someone would say "But we did not need a vote for this!". Considering that we recently decided by consensus in the BP to replace some instances of etyl by cog without a vote, one could think that the "borrowing → bor" replacement could be done without a vote, too. I prefer via vote, though. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Replacing {{etyl}} + {{m}} with {{cog}} does not change anything on the outside. The displayed text and categories remain unchanged. However, your proposal results in both a change in displayed text and categories. --WikiTiki89 14:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I take all that back. I didn't realize those were all names of templates that already redirect to {{bor}}. I no longer care whether there is a vote, but Dan still might. --WikiTiki89 14:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I prefer a vote. However, since the proposed change matches a recent trend confirmed in multiple votes (term --> m, usex --> ux, label --> lb), it seems less problematic to do this without a vote and only with a Beer parlour discussion, or less ideally, Grease pit discussion.

The discussion should have been in Beer parlour rather than in Grease pit: It is about changing the editor-facing wikitext interface. An example of a pure Grease pit discussion is the one above on my talk page at #An EL problem: the editor-facing wiki markup is outside of scope of the discussion, and it only needs to be figured out how to support a template in a module to make the simple markup work. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

There are Czech words that appear to me to be something like "adjectival diminutives": malinký, maličký, malilinký, droboučký, heboučký, hezoučký, miloučký, tichoučký, hloupoučký and the like. I do not know whether the term "adjectival diminutive" is actually used. One could argue that they are actually augmentatives since the modifier "very" is implied: thus, where malý means small, malinký would mean very small, that is, the direction from big to small is augmented rather than diminished. Some of these are to be seen in Rhymes:Czech/ɪŋkiː, Rhymes:Czech/ɪtʃkiː, Rhymes:Czech/outʃkiː and Rhymes:Czech/ouŋkiː.

Apart from semantics, I feel the above hypothesized diminutives to be diminutives via their morphology: In "maličký", "čk" seems to indicate diminution, like in nouns palice --> palička.

There are what appear to be adjectival augmentatives: velikánský, dlouhatánský, hrozitánský, ukrutánský; see also Rhymes:Czech/aːnskiː.

I am unclear about how to mark up the definition line of the supposed adjectival diminutives or augmentatives. Let us take malinký: it can be marked up as "very small" (aka tiny), like "diminutive of malý", and like "augmentative of malý". It can also be marked up in a combined way: "diminutive of malý: tiny". PSJČ:maličký has "mající nepatrné hmotné rozměry"; SSJČ:maličký has "velmi malý (hmotnými rozměry, počtem n. časovým rozsahem)". PSJČ:hezoučký has "expr. hezký"; SSJČ:hezoučký has "expr. velmi hezký, mile hezký".

Adverbs showing a similar feature: malinko, maličko, tichoučce, hloupoučce.

Relevant link is Zesílení a zdůraznění jako jevy jazykové in Slovo a slovesnost.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

A small expansion.--Dan Polansky (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'd mark them up as something like {{diminutive of|lang=cs|malý}}: very ], ]. This is what I try to do with Russian words in -енький (e.g. миленький, толстенький, слабенький), which are also adjectival diminutives. Benwing2 (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. One issue with the above markup is that {{diminutive of}} categorizes the entries as "diminutive nouns", although this can be fixed by passing "pos=adjectives" to the template. Years ago, the category was just "diminutives" rather than "diminutive nouns" and the template placed the items there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oops, didn't realize that. I'll have to fix the non-noun usages. Would it be helpful to have {{diminutive adjective of}} and {{diminutive adverb of}}, or maybe shorter-named versions? Benwing2 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

BTW, тихонечко is an example that's formatted the way I think it should be. Benwing2 (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Also чистенький. Benwing2 (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

At this point, I tend to prefer a single template with a parameter. But someone should fix {{diminutive of}} to accept singular pos=adjective instead of pos=adjectives and yet produce a category name with plural.

By the way, тихо́нько sounds to me like a diminutive and тихо́нечко like a double diminutive, at least morphologically. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree, although I don't know if тихонько functions as a diminutive synchronically any more. Benwing2 (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I would say that тихонько and тихонечко have deviated a bit in meaning from тихо. Тихо mainly means quietly, while тихонько and тихонечко mainly mean gently and carefully. Тихо has a new diminutive ти́хенько (tíxenʹko). --WikiTiki89 19:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Diminutives can deviate from original meanings, not just adjectives but nouns, etc. They are still diminutive. In case of deviations the senses can be added, e.g. хорошо́ (xorošó, “well”) -> хороше́нько (xorošénʹko, “thoroughly”). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

RFD currently has nominations to be archived at Talk:one hundred and twelve and Talk:one hundred and eleven. This relates to a host of newly created entries by 126.111.39.122 (talk) and 126.122.205.185 (talk).

Another RFD will be archived at Talk:two hundred and twenty-five or Talk:two hundred and twenty-one; further at Talk:two hundred and one.

Category:English cardinal numbers is a relevant category.

one hundred and eight was created in 2007‎.

Some might want to use translation rationale to keep many of these, with the use of languages like German or Hungarian. However, the sort of translation rationale that I support requires that the non-English translations are not closed (solid) compounds.

Talk:105 covers sequences of digits.

Keywords: SOP number words, compound number words, SOP numerals, compound numerals.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Expanded. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Expanded. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Expanede. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Expanded. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

About this vote: Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/Using template l to link to entries

It's not obvious that this does not applies to definitions. (I suppose it doesn't, right?)

May I add the disclaimer: "This does not apply to definitions."? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think "Synonyms, Antonyms, Related terms, Derived terms and similar sections" makes it pretty clear that it does not apply to definitions. --WikiTiki89 15:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Wikitiki, but since I like even excess clarity and since I am usually trying to accomodate raised issues as far as it does not hurt my objectives, I have made an update to address Daniel's concern. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

When you have the time, please check if you agree with all the category changes proposed in Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/Request categories.

I'm interested if there's any objection. The vote is scheduled to start in 2 weeks. The start can be postponed if there's need for further discussion.

I invited people to see the vote in this BP discussion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Dan Polansky. I fully sympathise with your thanks to Metaknowledge for his intervention upon some of my past etymologies in the Entry Pages. I shall thank him myself for blocking my edits for a week - I deserved four weeks! I had wandered from the Wikimedia main rules of editing conspicuous pages. If you want to read the end of my User Page in the next five minutes you cannot help but notice an important Rule that I inadvertently left out! In future I must be regulated by each rule and the one which I have not yet inserted! Andrew H. Gray 09:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Andrew

I would like to work on Wikisaurus for Telugu language. Can you help me in creating the Wikisaurus in Telugu Wiktionary. I need some technical assistance and create the necessary Wiktionary:Wikisaurus/Format and templates there. Thanking you.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Rajasekhar1961: If what you intend to do is setup Wikisaurus at te:, you only need to copy the templates you are interested in and you're done. You'd probably want to import the templates rather than copy them, though. You'll find most of the templates referenced from Wiktionary:Wikisaurus.

If what you are interested in is a Telugu section in the English Wikisaurus, let me know, and I'll figure out how I can help you or what further questions to ask. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much sir. Telugu wiktionary platform is for Telugu to Telugu (medium of communication is Telugu); only Telugu people can use it. I would like it to be Telugu to English (medium of communication is English); wherein English people across the world can use it. This is the main reason, I would to like to work here in English wiktionary. Can you show me how to begin my work here.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Rajasekhar1961: In the English Wiktionary, you can follow the model of WS:gruchot, Polish, WS:příbuzný, Czech or WS:duradouro, Portuguese. You are going to use a Telugu page title, use "Telugu" level-2 heading, and that's about the difference from an English entry. In WS:příbuzný, I placed translations to English as mouseover titles, but that is optional. It should be pretty straightforward. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

If Telugu కుక్క refers to dogs in general, Wikisaurus:కుక్క could be a Telugu page with synonyms and other relations, an analogue of WS:dog. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have created the page. Kindly check for any modifications or corrections and advise me.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Looks perfect; I have no correction to make. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have created some more Telugu pages. How to link these Wikisaurus pages to the corresponding Wiktionary pages. Is there any need to Categorize these Telugu pages under Category:Telugu Wikisaurus similar to those Hindi pages under Category:Hindi Wikisaurus. Please advise.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I updated కుక్క to link to Wikisaurus:కుక్క if that's what you were trying to do.

Category:Hindi Wikisaurus seems to be a creative invention; there is no Category:Polish Wikisaurus or Category:Portuguese Wikisaurus. But it's not wrong. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am not creating that Category of Telugu Wikisaurus for the time being. In the Wikisaurus:పక్షి, I have added different kinds of birds as the hyponyms. Can I enter different kinds of flowers as the hyponyms of Wikisaurus:పుష్పము. Kindly clarify.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you can add different kinds of plants as hyponyms of plant. However, the choice of which hyponyms to add and which to delegate to other hyponym pages themselves is a bit tricky. Obviously, you do not want to put all hyponyms of "animal" to WS:animal, all hyponyms of "plant" to WS:plant, and, for that matter, all hyponyms of "entity" to WS:entity. WS:animal provides something of a sketchy model: it contains some of the broader categories as hyponyms. WS:animal contains not only vertebrate and invertebrate as hyponyms, but also one more level of unfolding the taxonomy hierarchy: fish, amphibian, etc. A biologist could cringe, but this is only a language thesaurus; and even then, if a biologist comes up with a sensible change proposal, we can implement it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I started a little project of filling in the gaps in the foundation for adding external links to monolingual dictionaries. That foundation are above all reference templates that embody selection of good monolingual dictionaries online. The objective is to provide the reader with information that Wiktionary does not have and will not have any time soon, and to support superficial verification of Wiktionary entries.

For an initial stage, I picked the goal of ensuring the following for the top 50 English Wiktionary languages based on Wiktionary statistics:

• The language has at least one reference template that takes the reader to an online monolingual dictionary for that language, ideally to a specific entry for the particular word.
• The reference template is placed into External links section of the entries for that language's words for "dictionary", and "word", and optionally, "water", "sun", "world", "mother", and "father". As a result, if someone wants to know about an online monolingual dictionary for a language, they find out how to say "dictionary" in that language, and find the sought link in that entry.
• The reference template is placed into External links section of a couple of entries at the beginning of alphabet. As a result, if someone wants to know about an online monolingual dictionary for a language, they click Category:Language lemmas and then look at a couple of entries at the beginning of the category.

Once this initial stage is completed, editors who love running bots or doing menial edits can help expand the coverage. However, they should make sure links are added only to entries for which the reference template generates a valid link. Eventually, as many entries should have such an external link as possible. This menial or botted work adds real value for English Wiktionary readers, unlike some other menial edits I have seen.

The degree of completion of the initial stage for top 50 languages (WT:STATS, number of gloss definitions) is as follows:

• I skipped the following non-Latin script languages: Arabic, Armenian, Cantonese, Chinese, Classical Syriac, Georgian, Hebrew, Hindi, Japanese, Macedonian, Mandarin, Old Armenian, Persian, Sanskrit, and Telugu.
• I gave up on the following languages after giving them a half-hearted try: Lithuanian, Manx, Norman, and Scottish Gaelic.
• For some languages, I accepted a translation dictionary instead of a monolingual one: Ancient Greek, Esperanto, Hungarian, Icelandic, Ido, Irish, and Latin.
• For the remaining 24 languages of the top 50, we have at least one reference template to an online monolingual dictionary and an external link using that template from the word that translates as "dictionary", or when that could not be done, from the word that translates as "word". These are Albanian, Catalan, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Korean, Latvian, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Spanish, Swedish, Thai, Turkish, and Vietnamese.

Templates that I created as part of this little project include {{R:PSV}}, {{R:EKSS}}, {{R:bg:RBE}}, {{R:DIO}}, {{R:CIE}}, {{R:WNT}}, {{R:SDTV}}, {{R:DSMG}}, {{R:DDN}}, {{R:Bizonfy HE 1886}}, {{R:KTSK}}, {{R:DAN}}, {{R:ru:BTS}}, {{R:Dyer 1924}}, {{R:Zamenhof 1905}}, {{R:DSC}}, {{R:FGSS}}, {{R:Islex}}, and {{R:HES}}.

Monolingual dictionaries are great added value for English Wiktionary users, notwithstanding the objection that you would have to understand the language to understand the definition. Their definitions can be understood with the help of online translation tools. Their number of definitions can be checked against the number of definitions in our entries, which discloses how vastly incomplete our sense lists are. They show vast amounts of material that the English Wiktionary cannot hope to contain in foreseeable future, including additional senses and quotations of use. They offer verification for those users who prefer canonical sources, and also for those who prefer attestation in use but are ok with a mere dictionary in the absence of attestation evidence in our entries; the overwhelming majority of our entries contain no attestation evidence.

A selection among candidate monolingual dictionaries should be made so that the External links section does not become needlessly long. 1-3 external links seem ok to me.

If not enough monolingual dictionaries are found, online translation dictionaries to English can be linked instead, as an ersatz. Or translation dictionaries can be linked if they appear to add value beyond the monolingual dictionaries linked.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

How come you are announcing this new project on your talk page instead of Beer parlour? --Panda10 (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

It does not seem important enough for Beer parlour. If people notice it and read it, fine; if no one notices, fine as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Dan! Benwing2 (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

BTW where is the full list of links? Benwing2 (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Also, one thing I noticed is that the templates you created don't have the language code in them, whereas e.g. the various Russian reference templates all begin with R:ru:.... Perhaps this should be made consistent one way or the other. Benwing2 (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

From what I have seen, the original practice was to create reference templates without language code, e.g. {{R:LSJ}} was created as {{LSJ}} and {{R:L&S}} seems to have been created as it is today. I like that practice. Some people started to use language code, hence the lack of unity. A related discussion is in BP: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2016/March#R:Derksen 2008 vs. R:sla:Derksen 2008. I oppose the use of language codes as avoidable elements of design that bring almost no added value. In the BP discussion, Martin G. pointed out that the benefit of completion could be achieve with the use of redirects, without the need of entering the prefixes into the wikicode. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Apart from the templates mentioned above, templates created by me much earlier include {{R:PSJC}}, {{R:SSJC}}, {{R:SDK}}, {{R:PWN}}, and {{R:TDK}}. Templates created by someone else that did the job for the project include {{R:LSJ}}, {{R:IEC2}}, {{R:Den Danske Ordbog}}, {{R:TLFi}}, {{R:Duden}}, {{R:ga:Ó Dónaill}}, {{R:L&S}}, {{R:The Nynorsk Dictionary}}, {{R:The Bokmål Dictionary}}, {{R:DEX}}, {{R:sh:HJP}}, {{R:sl:Fran}}, {{R:DRAE 2001}}, {{R:SAOB online}}, and {{R:uk:SUM-11}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Basque added: {{R:EH}}, {{R:EDB}}, {{R:Zehazki}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Dan. Would you like to be nominated to become an administrator? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. While I have rejected similar offers in the past, now I am inclined to accept, although I find it unlikely to make it. Let me please think it over. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK. Please let me know, once you accept or reject the nomination.

I believe I should wait for your decision before creating the admin vote. If you accept the nomination, I'll gladly create the vote. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Daniel Carrero: I accept; let's give it a try. Thank you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

 Done. See Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2016-08/User:Dan Polansky for admin. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Dan: What made you decide finally to accept the nomination? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

@ I.S.M.E.T.A.: For some time, I thought it would be useful for me to have admin rights to help further RFV and RFD processes, i.e. delete failed pages. Also, I could edit templates like {{cs-noun}} or {{ws}}. I am not sure how much I would use the blocking tools; I am somewhat scared of them. As many people know, I am fond of using talk pages as means of behavior regulation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Let me take this off Beer parlour.

I am considering to create a vote as you proposed in Beer parlour. The choices you mentioned are as follows:

• (1) Continue the current situation where Module:links enforces the constraint that a single romanization (which may be a two-part transcription/transliteration romanization, on a language-specific basis) is used for all types of links
• (2) Modify Module:links to allow different romanizations for different types of links (e.g. etym links vs. translation links).

One caveat with the proposal that I see is that, upon the strictest readering, the options are not directly related to anything observable by the user. Even if Module:links is edited in a particular way, an adversary can create new Module:links2 set-up to work differently and place it at the actual places where it matters.

What are the locations impacted by the content of Module:links? Is it {{m}}, {{l}} and {{t}}? Anything else? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I suppose you could write the vote to cover adversial editing like this, although if someone does something like this, they should clearly be blocked. As for where Module:links is used, there are lots of places, e.g. in headwords, in {{inh}}/{{der}}/etc., and generally anywhere where transliterations are shown. Benwing2 (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Thank you. If Wyang disagrees that all locations including {{m}}, {{l}}, headwords, etc. should show the same thing, what are two locations that, for Thai, show a different thing? Like, for Thai, is a different romanization shown for {{l}} and for headwords? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Specifically, he wants to display different romanizations in translations vs. etymologies -- transliterations (in the narrow sense) in etymologies, transcriptions in translation entries. I don't know about the remainder. Benwing2 (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Ben: {{t|}} - กกุท (gà-gùt) shows gà-gùt while {{m}} - กกุท (gà-gùt) gà-gùt, the same thing. For กงการ and กงสี, the templates show no romanization at all. And yet, Module:links seems to have Wyang's version. What is an example of a Thai term and its use in templates such that I am going to see a different romanization depending on template used? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

It may not be implemented yet completely. (In fact, it shouldn't be implemented at all as long as there is a vote in progress.) You might use Tibetan བརྒྱད with strict translit brgyad, transcription gyaew as an example. Benwing2 (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

(outdent, after edit conflict) Looking at Module:links, I do not see how it supports different romanizations in different places. There appears to be single romanization stored at terminfo.tr. What Wyang added, e.g. in diff, is this:

local phonetic_extraction = {
	 = "Module:th"
}

and this:

	elseif phonetic_extraction then
		local m_phonetic = require(phonetic_extraction)
		terminfo.tr = terminfo.tr or m_phonetic.getTranslit(export.remove_links(terminfo.term))

Thus, phonetic_extraction is defined for Thai and Thai only, and, in the second added portion, if phonetic_extraction exists, it is used for terminfo.tr. Thus, it seems that all templates that use Module:links are going to show the same romanization for Thai, as per Wyang's current design. A different story is that a template may call Module:th-translit, which by Wyang's design uses Module:th-pron, whose doc states "Pronunciation/transcription module for Thai".

If Wyang insists that transliteration must never be terminologically confused with pronunciation transcription, why does Wyang let a "translit" module call Module:th-pron, which seems to do pronunciation transcription?

I can't say I understand what Wyang wants. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

To complete the picture, Module:th contains function export.getTranslit.

In fact, it seems that the romanization output of Module:links is the same using Wyang's and CodeCat's solution, the difference being that Wyang calls Module:th directly from Module:links to supply romanization while CodeCat lets Module:links call Module:th-translit, which in its turn CodeCat-calls Module:th to supply input to Module:links. Either way, the input to Module:links ultimately comes from Module:th.

Therefore, I cannot say that I see the differece between CodeCat and Wyang as being about the desired ultimate output to the users, at least as far as I can see from the implementations they've been wheel-warring about. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Ben: I don't know where to go from here. I do not feel I understand what Wyang wants and I do not feel confident enought that a vote proposing to "Modify Module:links to allow different romanizations for different types of links" would solve anything since it is not obvious that either Wyang or CodeCat actually support such a position. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'll take a look at the code more in a little while. Benwing2 (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry not to respond earlier! I've been very busy lately. I'll get to this tonight one way or another. Benwing2 (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wyang did not actually implement his full intentions in the module, which would have been to distinguish different contexts based on which template was called. All he actually did was make Module:links call Module:th directly and explicitly rather than just calling the language's registered transliteration module. The only functional difference is that the actual target pagename is passed along with the alt text, and the intended purpose of that is actually entirely flawed and would generate incorrect transcriptions (actually the whole concept of parsing the target page's wikitext to retrieve the transcription is flawed, I can explain later if you want, but right now I am on vacation and typing on an iPhone). Anyway, all that Wyang actually implemented was removing the "transcription" code from the "transliteration" module, the rest of his plan has not yet been implemented. More importantly, if we draft a vote, it should be about whether we should allow having seperate transliteration schemes depending on the calling template (e.g. whether it is {{t}} or {{m}}), and not about the implementation details. Implementation details should not be voted on. --WikiTiki89 02:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Wikitiki. Dan, it sounds like you should go ahead with the vote. Benwing2 (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I created Wiktionary:Votes/2016-08/Enabling different kinds of romanization in different locations. Please provide feedback there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm not going to start an edit war; that's why I've come here to resolve this peacefully.

Semitic studies is literally just Semitic + studies. You could equally argue that Spanish studies, Castilian studies, or Hispanic studies are all more common than Hispanism, therefore should have an entry. Philmonte101 (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, they should. It's based on the translation target argument: the translations should be in an entry for a common term, not for a term that is rarely used. See also Talk:Indo-European studies, and Talk:Celtic studies. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

These two examples are ridiculous. Everyone should know that, by looking at studies and Celtic, you can find these definitions. Unless they are the start of a non-SOP term (such as fossil word, which would be considered for deletion if it were not the origin of the diminutive fossil), or if they're additions to the phrasebook project, these should all be deleted. Philmonte101 (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

You can try your luck and send e.g. English studies to RFD, ignoring the translation target argument there as much as you do above. But I think we are better off expanding the multilingual dictionary with useful content for our readers with various backgrounds rather than trying to remove useful, accurate and non-redundant material from it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

By a combining form I mean a prefix-like form that is created from a word to make it ready for compounding. Thus, Czech kočkopes is from kočka + pes, but kočka needs to be turned to kočko- before it can be compounded.

A previous related post in User talk:Dan Polansky/2014#Czech combining forms; it has a table showing examples for Polish, Russian, German, Danish and, tentatively, English.

An example of a combining form kept is jedno-; a discussion covering nowo-, samo-, staro-, само- is at Talk:jedno-#Deletion discussion.

Combining forms just deleted via RFD are barne- from barn and kraft- from kraft; tron- from trone is still in RFD (WT:RFD#tron-). I am not sure there is a broad consensus for barne- to be deleted since it is not identical to the base word; kraft- is arguably a zero-combining form or something of the sort, and seems more dispensable.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Concerning your posts "Driving away Speednat" and "Driving away Kephir": I don't know if the people who voted oppose are going to add any new information, but having presumption of innocence in mind, I don't see any case against you. If Speednat was engaging or bordering on copyright violation, and if you said nothing about it and ignored them, presumably another editor would have to step in and ask questions about it, and ask them to stop. So what you said to them looked pretty standard to me.

But in "Certain backgrounds", you agreed that your statement was unfortunate for one reason or another. Wyang remembered your comment and likely opposed the admin vote because of it. Maybe it would be a good idea for you to apologize to Wyang? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

All right: diff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@--Dan Polansky (talk) Greetings: Thank you so much for this instruction; I left out '--' before the four tildes! --Andrew H. Gray 09:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)AndrewReply

Please demonstrate that there is an absence of consensus for Template:usex not being an alias of Template:ux. The RFM discussion already demonstrates that there is a consensus, so it's on you to show otherwise. —CodeCat 22:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

To repeat myself, ux was chosen via a vote, and RFM is low-profile, so the currently running Wiktionary:Votes/2016-08/Making usex the primary name in the wiki markup should show where the consensus is. You and I disagree about whether the original vote was about the template name but the current vote Wiktionary:Votes/2016-08/Making usex the primary name in the wiki markup is going to clarify that in no unequivocal terms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

This does not answer the question of whether Template:usex should redirect to Template:ux or be an entirely separate template. Can you demonstrate that there is no consensus for this redirect? —CodeCat 22:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

If the just referenced vote fails, ux will be used everywhere by a confirmation (we already had a vote but you claim it was not about the name) and there will be no point in making revision histories less legible by redirecting usex to ux. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

If CodeCat insists, we may create a vote on the proposal: "Redirect usex to ux", to see if there's a consensus for this idea. I'm not a huge fan of making an effort to make revision histories legible; Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/January#Poll: Restore deleted high-use templates is a poll related to the idea, that lost failed a while ago. But I see no reason at all to redirect {{usex}} to {{ux}}. We already have a voted and approved short name for the usage example template. The only thing the redirect would do is break revision histories. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sure, but I really don't see the point. I mean, if ux is to prevail, what's the benefit of redirecting usex to it? Since even if you consider legibility of histories only a minor benefit, it is still a benefit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

The vote failed, but the vote has nothing to do with the redirect. The redirect has consensus, per WT:RFM. —CodeCat 18:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The RFM was ambiguous. Furthermore, please explain the benefit of redirecting {{usex}} while keeping {{ux}} the main template name; the downside is known to be less legible page histories. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The vote was for moving Template:ux to Template:usex, while keeping a redirect. The implication, of course, is that both template names work the same way and have the same parameters. Now that your vote has established that some people want Template:ux to be the primary name instead, it necessary follows that the redirect should go in the other direction. However, there is clearly a consensus for both names having the same parameters. —CodeCat 18:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Also note that the vote says that it's specifically about what appears in the wiki markup, which the RFM says nothing about. The RFM is only about the relationship between the templates, how they should operate, and which should redirect to the other. Since the vote never addressed any of that, the RFM still has consensus is therefore still in force. This means that according to proper procedure and consensus, Template:ux should be moved to Template:usex, without any changes to entries being made. —CodeCat 18:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Again, the RFM was ambiguous. The central argument in the RFM was that "usex" is easier to understand but that would only matter if usex were to become the main name in the namespace since otherwise "usage-example" is even easier to understand. I do not see the clear consensus that usex should be a redirect even if it is not to be the main template name. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The argument of the RFM is irrelevant. People vote only on the proposal, not the rationale, and the proposal was clear. The proposal was supported by a consensus majority. The vote doesn't change that, since it's about a different matter. —CodeCat 18:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The RFM proposal was not clear, as I stated in the RFM. Furthermore, what the vote changes is that it makes it clear there is no consensus to make {{usex}} the main name in the mainspace, and that was not clear before. With the result of the vote as the background, the deliberation of pros and cons for the RFM proposal changes, and that is significant to responsible contributors to that discussion.

If need be, I can create a clear vote for the renaming given the result of the vote, but I really do not think that is necessary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

And again, please explain the benefit of redirecting usex while keeping ux the main template name. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The vote no more establishes that Template:ux should be the primary name of the template, than the vote to rename Template:label to Template:lb established that Template:lb should be the primary name. Which is why the template is still located at Template:label. Prior experience shows that there is not a necessary connection between the name people prefer to use (and prefer others to use) in entries, and the actual template name. Furthermore, the main reason people wanted to use Template:ux in the past was that it had better parameters. Now that the two names are equivalent, people are free to use their preferred name. —CodeCat 18:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

(outdent) I obviously was not paying attention. The WT:RFM was for "Template:ux to Template:usex" and therefore did not propose to redirect usex to ux; the RFM proposal said "{{ux}} would remain as a redirect of course". Therefore, diff was a double misrepresentation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think what CodeCat wants to do with {{ux}} vs. {{usex}} is exactly analogous to the situation we currently have with {{lb}} vs. {{label}}, {{m}} vs. {{mention}} and {{l}} vs. {{link}}: The shorter template name is a redirect to the longer one, but the shorter one is the one normally used in wikitext. IMO, given that (a) it's already been agreed to use {{ux}} in wikitext and bot-rename uses of {{usex}}, and (b) a precedent has been established with the redirects of {{m}}, {{l}} and {{lb}}, it shouldn't be very controversial to do what CodeCat wants to do. IMO also, the recent ux/usex vote by Dan that failed with "no consensus" should essentially be ignored because it was completely unclear (and is still unclear to me after rereading the vote description) whether the intent of the vote was to implement CodeCat's idea (ux redirects to usex) or to propose bot-renaming ux back to usex. I get the feeling from reading the vote comments that the voters were equally confused, and some interpreted it one way and some the other. Benwing2 (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The vote says this: Making {{usex}} the primary template name to be used in the wiki markup of entries rather than {{ux}}. This proposal is about template name, that is, "usex" vs. "ux"; it is not about template parameters or syntax.

I do not see anything unclear, but then, I am the author of the wording. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I actually do prefer to use {{usex}} as the name in entries too, and I originally did create the vote as a move towards that. But it seems that people are more divided on which name they want to use personally, so I see no reason to force people to use {{ux}} when they want to use {{usex}}, or the reverse. The RFM accomplishes that too, by making both names aliases. There is clearly a fair bit of opposition to overly short and nondescriptive names, so I think we should not indiscriminately shorten all the names. I wasn't happy with the move to change all {{label}} to {{lb}} either, and actually quit the bot run doing that half way through. —CodeCat 21:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I did not know that, CodeCat. I edited WT:TASK to reflect the reality, then. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Let me note, reading the above, that the vote for label to lb was unequivocally about the name since the template parameters of label and lb were the same. Let me note that the immediately above post by CodeCat seems to confirm the ambiguity of the RFM proposal in "I originally did create the vote as a move towards that". --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're talking about my motives. Those aren't relevant. When there's a move proposal, and people agree with that, then they agree with that. They're not necessarily agreeing with my ultimate intent, and they don't have to. Everyone can have their own reasons for agreeing or disagreeing, what matters is the consensus. —CodeCat 21:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I will remind the reader that the text of the proposal of the RFM is this: "Now that the older {{usex}} has been orphaned for a while, I think its name should again be the primary name for this template. It's much clearer than {{ux}}. {{ux}} would remain as a redirect of course." The reader should judge the things said above in the light of the actual wording of the proposal, especially the phrase "again be the primary name for this template". The teplate ux was never located at usex, so the "primary name" had to refer to the name used in the mainspace, although "had to" involves certain hesitation. This is what made me say again and again that the proposal is ambiguous and un-actionable, and that a sequence of votes signed under such an ambiguous proposal does not constitute consensus for any particular action. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Long ago, there was only {{usex}}. Then, someone wanted a template that had parameters with a more modern and easily usable format, so they created {{ux}}. The name was chosen simply because the desired name, {{usex}}, was already taken. Eventually, we deprecated {{usex}}'s parameter format, and the template with it, so we converted all entries to the new format, which meant using the alternative name, {{ux}}. My proposal was intended to restore things to what they were like originally, to a degree, by moving the one-and-only template to {{usex}} again and eliminating the now-deprecated old template entirely. That had already been the original idea when {{ux}} showed up; it was intended to replace {{usex}} in function but not in name. It was meant to become the new {{usex}}, except that backwards compatibility issues forced the use of an alternative name, just like what happened with {{term/t}} (which later was renamed to {{m}}) vs {{term}}.

I'm still not convinced that more people prefer {{ux}} over {{usex}} in entries. The recent vote does not actually address that either, because it's burdened by status quo and proposes a one-sided move rather than actually asking people about their preference. I'd welcome a vote that asks people for their preference on equal terms (i.e. not in terms of status quo), but I do still think the template's main name should be {{usex}}, and also that people should be free to use the name they prefer. I feel the same way for all other templates with shortcuts: as long as the longer name exists, it should be allowed. —CodeCat 22:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'll grant that, per Wiktionary:Votes/2016-08/Making usex the primary name in the wiki markup, slightly more people seem to prefer ux. But slightly is the keyword; from a measurement theory perspective, the one vote difference between 6 and 5 can be a statistical error. I'd say the vote should have been extended to yield a clearer result. At least one abstainer in that vote says that "I don't care and I would just like consistency and for people to stop moving them back and forth", which corresponds to staying with ux since that stops things from moving. Another thing to consider is that Wiktionary:Votes/2016-06/label → lb was unequivocally about the name and nothing else since lb was just a redirect to label ever since lb was created, which raises the question of why did Wiktionary:Votes/2016-08/Making usex the primary name in the wiki markup turn out differently from Wiktionary:Votes/2016-06/label → lb.

In any case, my conclusion that the RFM proposal was ambiguous remains. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dan, you're not listening. The reason why the new vote turned out differently from the old vote is that many people thought the new vote was for bot-renaming ux -> usex. That's exactly what "Making usex the primary name in the wiki markup" sounds like on first glance. It's clear from comments like "I don't care and I would just like consistency and for people to stop moving them back and forth" that the author of the comment thought the vote was for bot-renaming. Benwing2 (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The vote was for bot-renaming. That much was clear. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: The ux -> usex vote included bot-replacements, indeed. But I don't get what you're saying: if people thought that the vote was for bot-replacement of ux -> usex in the mainspace, that does not explain the difference in the results of the votes since the label --> lb vote was for bot-replacement in the mainspace as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

There are two obvious differences: (a) most importantly, there was a recent vote usex -> ux in the opposite direction; (b) the change ux -> usex was for using a longer name rather than a shorter one, as in label -> lb. Also, I don't for the life of me understand why you even proposed this vote given the recent vote in the opposite direction; seems a really bad idea. Benwing2 (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: I proposed the vote because what the vote proposed was one interpretation of a recent RFM created by CodeCat, a RFM that gained an apparent consensus. The RFM is linked from the vote, and is this RFM. I obviously thought the vote proposal to be a bad idea, but some people differed, hence the 6:5 result, surprising to me. If I did not create the vote, what the vote proposed would quite likely be done via bot based on one interpretation of the ambiguous RFM. Yes, I thought the vote in the opposite direction gave a clear signal but CodeCat claimed the vote was only about template arguments, not template name. In any case, I would hope to see some late votes in Wiktionary:Votes/2016-08/Making usex the primary name in the wiki markup so we get a clearer picture of consensus or its lack. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Here's Wiktionary:Votes/2016-06/label → lb, resulting in 11-5-5 if I count the late oppose. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's also plentifully clear why the label --> lb thing should have been a vote, as it actually was: it produced some vehement opposition on the opposing side, and we need such strong form of evidence that the consensus was really there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I restored {{infl}}, because it was a high-use template from 2006 to 2011, with parameters that are still compatible with {{head}}. This was an attempt to make old entry revisions more legible.

For an example of an affected entry, see this link. It is an old version of the entry "Y", which uses {{infl}} in the American Sign Language, Dutch, and Spanish sections.

• {{infl}} works, but entries using it end up in Category:Pages using deprecated templates. I placed the template itself in Category:Successfully deprecated templates (a subset of Category:Deprecated templates).
• I created a CSS class ".deprecated". When an entry uses a deprecated template, the resulting text becomes dark red (but we can change it to another color or style if you prefer). This was designed to help find deprecated templates in a given entry and fix it quicker.
• I also added a mouseover text (a title text): "Template:infl is deprecated. Use Template:head."
• I don't know how to set up an edit filter, as you suggested in some discussions.

What do you think of this? Would you change something? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm opposed to doing this without careful thought. If this is to be done in this case, an edit filter is definitely required, otherwise people will try to use it in new pages. General attempts to maintain backward compatibility will often lead to huge pain, e.g. when arguments to an existing template are rearranged. Benwing2 (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why would people suddenly start using it when it's not used anywhere? Normally people start using templates when they see them used in other places. Anyway, we can add pages that use them to cleanup categories and ensure that the cleanup categories are always empty. --WikiTiki89 19:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for this. Using Category:Pages using deprecated templates to track new additions of deprecated templates is a fine idea. I agree with WikiTiki that people are unlikely to place the template in the mainspace as long as they do not see it there, and experience should soon confirm or disprove this. I don't think the dark red is required, but if it appeases the opposers, it is fine to have it. It seems to me Category:Pages using deprecated templates should provide all the control that we need, and if someone manages to create an edit filter, even better. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've had enough. "For the record", I see you continuing to point fingers at me for no other reason than the sheer joy of it. I don't think this is fit behavior for an admin, and I think many here can agree, and "for the record", this is your adminship vote, not mine, so pointing fingers at me for stuff is entirely inappropriate. I mean, like I said, what do you think they're going to do? Scratch my vote? The fact is, you have purposefully violated WT:NPA on various occasions, including this one, and I know for a fact you knew you were doing stuff against the rules when you PA'ed myself and many others. If you're trying to focus on me, you shouldn't be. Most of my mistakes came from ignorance of what was right, while your personal attacks were purposefully carried out for the purpose of degrading people and putting others down. I feel that things that are done wrong on purpose are much worse than things that are done wrong by accident. I imagine you'll add to the admin discussion "And 'for the record', PseudoSkull made a comment on my talk page that I didn't like." Well you can do that, but you're wasting everybody's time, even more so your own time.

As for multiple accounts, it's not a crime. Wiktionary's rules say that multiple accounts are allowed, so I don't see what the big deal is anyway. Think of it like this: Let's just say there's a person who has a job at a restaurant. That job didn't work out so they get a new job. That one didn't work out, so they changed jobs again. And again. And again. Until they found the job they were most comfortable with. So do you see anybody complaining at that person like "oh my god, it's so annoying that you don't just stick to one job"? No. Absolutely not. Their job life is their life, and nobody has to deal with it except their employers. A username is literally just a word on a screen that's used in signatures. It doesn't affect the project at all except for the fact that it's seen in page history and signatures, etc. It doesn't define me at all.

As for the time when I put your user page up for deletion. I know that was wrong of me and I will agree with you completely. I'm not going to make any excuses for that behavior, because I know it's wrong now.

You're beating a dead horse, though. You're preaching to the choir. Everybody here already knows that that stuff I did was immature, so no need to point it out. What you're doing to me is no better than what I did to you back then. an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth is a concept I don't agree with, since it doesn't make anything better. I try to respect you, since I don't want to get angry, but when this keeps happening it's really hard not to say something.

I don't expect you to like me. But I at least expect you to respect me as a member of this website and not just some vandal. As for "I know this user" as you said in the discussion, you don't actually know me, nor do I know you. You don't even know the first thing about me. All you know about me is my editing behavior, and some assumptions you've made about me because of that. You've seen almost nothing of my talents; you've only seen (or at least only paid attention to) the mistakes I've made on this particular website.

If you're going to respond to this, at least please answer this question first and foremost. Why do you continuously point fingers at me in a discussion that's about you? What are you getting out of it? What did you hope to get out of pointing out all my wrongdoings? PseudoSkull (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

What follows is an image presence report for a somewhat haphasard selection of Wiktionaries (language mutations). In these Wiktionaries, I want to find entries for very basic words such as cat or dog that contain images. For these basic words, the images are not necessary for a generally competent speaker to understand the word. I also tried to find entries for these basic words that are for foreign languages, for instance a German entry with an image in the Polish dictionary. Where I indicate "not quickly found", that means I spent a rather small effort in finding entries with images and failed, and a more thorough effort could still find such entries.

• Arabic: ar:cat (cat), native not quickly found
• Chinese: not quickly found
• Dutch: foreign not quickly found, nl:hond (dog),
• English: en:Hund (dog), en:dog (dog)
• French: fr:cat#Anglais (cat), fr:chat (cat)
• German: de:cat (cat), de:Katze (cat)
• Greek: foreign not quickly found el:γάτα (cat)
• Italian: foreign not quickly found, it:gatto (cat)
• Japanese: ja:Katze (cat), ja:猫 (cat)
• Korean: ko:cat (cat), ko:개 (dog)
• Polish: pl:Katze (cat), pl:kot (cat)
• Russian: ru:cat (cat), ru:кошка (cat)
• Portuguese: pt:собака (dog), pt:gato (cat)
• Spanish: es:собака (dog), es:gato (cat)
• Swedish: foreign not quickly found, sv:katt (cat)
• Turkish: not quickly found

--Dan Polansky (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Some nicknames of specific people (specific individuals) that we currently include: Becks, Dubya, Dutchman, Gazza, Giggsy, Governator, Hef, Hoff, Petrarch, Sarko (French) Scholesy, and Voltaire (rather a pen name?); also 鳥叔 (PSY - Korean entertainer).

Regulated via WT:NSE.

Some RFDs:

• Talk:Governator - passed 2007 RFD on Arnold Schwarzenegger.
• Talk:Jacko - failed 2008 RFD on Michael Jackson.
• Talk:成龙 - failed 2008 RFD of what was Jackie Chan's Chinese nickname.
• Talk:RPattz - failed 2010 RFD on Robert Pattinson.
• Talk:Crouchy - failed 2012 RFD on Peter Crouch.
• Talk:J-Lo - passed 2015 RFD on J-Lo, K-Stew, Scar-Jo, Sam-Cam, Li-Lo, Le-Le, Ri-Ri, Su-Bo, A-Rod, K-Rod, and R-Pattz.
• Talk:Zizou - in progress

Search incategory:RFD_result nickname in all namespaces. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Later: The pattern could be that if the term is a more generic nickname, the sense for a particular person can be deleted, but if the nickname is only for the particular person, it is kept. Talk:Zizou added. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Years later: We have Woz; Pharma Bro is in RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Per Wiktionary:Entry_layout#List_of_headings, Pronunciation section comes after Etymology section.

Per Wiktionary:Entry_layout#Etymology, Pronunciation section comes after Etymology section even when there are two Etymology sections, and I quote an example from that page:

===Etymology 1===
====Pronunciation====
====Noun====
===Etymology 2===
====Pronunciation====
====Noun====
====Verb====

The above holds true equally well for this revision from 12 February 2012, and for this revision from 6 January 2008.

Votes:

• Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-06/Headers in ELE
• Wiktionary:Votes/2016-02/Multiple pronunciation sections - unclear scope. Does it only pertain to the likes of auraria? If so, it does not pertain to the subject of this thread.

Discussions:

• Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2016/October#Pronunciation and Etymology

--Dan Polansky (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

You said that Wiktionary:Votes/2016-02/Multiple pronunciation sections had unclear scope, but I believe the scope was clear: all the 4 proposals either said "In the case of multiple pronunciations" or "If there are multiple pronunciation sections". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

"In the case of multiple pronunciations" where? In an entry with all its languages? In a language section? In an etymology section? No examples were provided in the vote of what this pertained to, and no wording amendment to ELE was proposed in the vote. And since ELE mandates nesting of pronunciations under multiple etymology sections, a voter could have thought that "multiple pronunciation"s refers to things like "Pronunciation 1" and "Pronunciation 2" within one etymology section. I have to rest my case and stay with the position that the vote had an unclear scope or was ambiguous. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. I understand your point. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dan, I already inserted Babel in my user page of Wikipedia and Wiktionary in Portuguese. Only it already is enough.

Leonard Joseph Raymond (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, since I'm not very experienced here, is this kind of protecting oneself through removing "unpleasant" info OK here? --Auvajs (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

My long-term position has been that such removals are inappropriate but multiple admins disagree. This is one more piece of evidence as to what sort of person user Danny B. is, a person who is having inconvenient posts removed.

Also notable is that, per the diff summary, the request happened via email: "In an e-mail, Danny B. asked nicely to me to have this information removed from my talk page while kept in the history. I think I'll just remove the whole section, then."

In any case, what we see here is not the Anglo-American transparency I am used to. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I published the e-mails between Danny B. and me on my talk page. (Of course, there's no proof that I did not edit them in some way, but these are the actual, unedited e-mails.)

Do you think it was a good idea? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure about the Anglo-American conventions about publishing e-mails. I fear such publishing could be seens as inappropriate or breach of privacy. That is how the e-mail request is supposed to work, I think: the guy asks you to do something but you are not allowed to show his email as evidence. But I am not really sure; better ask someone who knows better, like bd? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think I'll delete that page revision with the e-mails, then. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Next time when the character sends you a long email, I'd recommend you ask him to send it in public on a wiki talk page, and refuse to do anything based on such an email. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's a good idea, thank you. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Of interest: User talk:Dan Polansky/2013#What is a misspelling.

Regulation: WT:CFI#Spellings.

Deleted rare misspellings include derver (English removed), hisown, himand, dolemite, motted, enthousiastic, informacíon, trolly dolly, blackhoe, stylishy, râter, animalike, suthern, increidbly, aqcuire.

Search: incategory:RFD_result_(failed) misspelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Keywords: what is a wiki, wikiness, wikitext.

To me, for something to be a wiki, it has to have the following characteristics:

• Content is stored as plain text ...
• ... using a very simple markup producing rich formatted output ...
• ... that allows hyperlinks between pages ...
• ... with revision history, ...
• ... allowing collaboration of multiple editors.

This is how wikis historically have been. WYSIWYG editing was historically not part of wikis.

Plain text and simple markup are great for comparing revision histories and ad hoc volume scripted processing. Comparing revision histories is important, very important.

A plain-text simple-markup wiki has a plain-text dump using that same markup.

With simple markup, you can store the complete wiki page source locally, make changes through a series of iterations, and use your favorite plain text comparison tool to see what changes you are doing.

By the above standard, the following are not wikis:

• Google Docs is not a wiki because its storage format is not a simple markup. It enables page histories and collaboration.
• OmegaWiki, Wiktionary competition, is not a wiki since comparing revision histories seems hard and pages cannot be edited directly.
• dict.cc, user-contributed multilingual translation dictionary, is also not a wiki.
• Wikidata is not a wiki.
• Atlassian wiki is not a wiki since the time they abandonded simple markup and replaced it with WYSIWYG editing.

Editing simple markup is not prohibitively hard. Mathematicians and scientists use LaTeX plain-text markup, much more complex than wiki markup. What is hard is creating accurate, clear, well scoped and well organized content.

I admit that what is seen as a wiki is not frozen in time and is subject to change. The meaning of the word wiki is already broadening to cover systems that abandon plain-text simple markup. I do not claim to know or own the true timeless meaning of the word wiki. Rather, I present a personal, narrow view of what a wiki is.

Links:

• W:Lightweight markup language
• W:List of document markup languages

--Dan Polansky (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You are one of the people who opposed Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/References and you also created "References are especially encouraged for more obscure words" in the talk page of the same vote.

Partially based on what you said on that vote and its talk page, I created Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/November#Suggestion: Mention on WT:EL the fact that external links ≠ references proposing a new edit in WT:EL. I don't know whether you would agree with what I suggested, but if you are interested, I'd like to know what you think. Thanks in advance. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, "estelik" is not Turkish. There is no at the Turkish. It is spam... --123snake45 (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

All right. I added the estelik entry to WT:RFV. I don't think it is "spam", but let us see whether it is attested per WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I want to telefonlamak, kol çekmek.. words. These never use in the Turkish. Phone/call is aramak/telefon etmek and also sign is imzalamak. "telefonlamak, kol çekmek" aren't truth. --123snake45 (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Also çimerlik have to re-examine. It isn't Turkish, it is Azeri. Citations aren't valid. --123snake45 (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Both terms passed RFV: Talk:telefonlamak and Talk:kol çekmek. You would have to challenge the quotations provided. As for the claim that the quotations are not Turkish but Azeri (Azerbaijani), I can neither confirm nor disprove such a claim. I placed a couple of quotations from Talk:telefonlamak to Google Translate and it auto-recognized them as Turkish; that does not prove much since it could be unreliable, but I have no other easy access to Turkish vs. Azeri; Google Translate does feature Azerbaijani, which I assume to the same thing as Azeri. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Some outstanding policy issues that come to mind:

• ISBN and CFI: I would like to see the mention of ISBN in CFI removed: it is not a criterion for inclusion, and I find ISBNs produce visual noise that is pretty useless for most of our readers.
• Short blocking policy: A vote on short blocking policy ended up in no consensus but at some point yielded 4:2. There is still a chance that people could be convinced that a short and simple blocking policy page would be better.
• Idiomaticity examples: I would like to see some examples of application of idiomaticity criterion in CFI. These would be 1) a non-compound single word such as cat, 2) closed compound such as headache, 3) suffixed word such as blueness, 4) idiomatic open compound such as black hole, 5) a German closed compound.
• Attestation and "which are durably archived by Google": this should go since the rationale for the use of Usenet is in independent archiving by multiple organizations, not in archiving by Google.
• Use vs. mention and clarification immediately behind the term: 'They raised the jib (a small sail forward of the mainsail) in order to get the most out of the light wind,' -- this should go, by my lights. Once there is a definition immediately behind the term, the term is not pressed to convey the meaning to the reader. Support very uncertain.
• Spellings and "Published grammars and style guides can be useful in that regard" -- this should go, IMHO. We should not consult style guides to see which spelling is a "misspelling". Support very uncertain.
• Company names: The whole section should go so that individual editors can consider their own rationales on a per-company-basis, based on Names of specific entities section. This proposal failed a vote, but I still kind of hope it could pass one day.
• Encyclopedic content: "Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. Many places, and some people, are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names." -- This should go, IMHO. The first sentence is redundant to another sentence in the same paragraph that I do no quote. The 2nd sentence does not make any sense: it seems to suggest that it is noteworthy for places that they qualify for inclusion as given names and family names where in fact they qualify for inclusion entirely independently of that.
• Brand names: "The text preceding and surrounding the citation must not identify the product or service to which the brand name applies, whether by stating explicitly or implicitly some feature or use of the product or service from which its type and purpose may be surmised, or some inherent quality that is necessary for an understanding of the author’s intent." -- This should go, IMHO. It places excessive burden on brand name attestation. Support very uncertain.
• Image captions and boldface: I would like to see all boldface removed from image captions. Image captions are not attesting quotations. Boldface used in excess makes poor typography.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Whether inflected forms should be subject to attestation and removal if unattested via WT:RFV is an unresolved disagreement.

Some discussion links, thanks in part to  I.S.M.E.T.A.: Talk:horreo (really about this?), Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2013/November#Hypothetical_inflected_forms, Talk:dulcamini (2015).

My position is that we should subject inflected forms to attestation requirements, and in fact, I do not see anything in WT:CFI to suggest otherwise. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

A few hundreds of English nouns have unattested plurals (Category:English nouns with unattested plurals). In these entries (for example: abiosphere) no plural is shown; instead, the phrase "plural not attested" appears.

If some specific verb conjugations in any language fail RFV, do you think we should remove them from conjugation tables and show "not attested" in place of these nonattested forms? I think that maybe we should do that, because it would be consistent with the English nouns above. (although there would be technical hassles associated with that idea, because apparently many or most conjugated tables fill the conjugations automatically and don't currently allow for hiding some as unattested)

I'm pretty sure I can find some Portuguese conjugated forms that are likely to fail RFV like, say, desfragmentaríeis, desfragmentardes (of verb desfragmentar); these two conjugated forms have zero Google Books results. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

From what I recall, the opposers of RFVing inflected forms made a distinction between an individual form and a segment. Thus, all plural forms would form the plural segment and that segment as a whole could fail RFV. That would apply not only to plural but also to comparatives and superlatives. Excluding unattested English plural forms is a long-standing practice, AFAIK. The opposers had to make some such distinction or else their claim that we (the English Wiktionary) do not RFV individual inflected forms would run counter to verifiable facts about our common practice, as per the exclusion of plurals.

I am open to keeping the hypotheticals (unattested forms) as separate entries and marking them as hypothetical in their entries, as a compromise, rather than removing them altogether. That would involve including them in the inflection tables marked with some sort of superfix (perhaps †) or the like. I feel I am nearly alone in that position, though. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I wish to you and all users of Wiktionary Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Leonard Joseph Raymond (talk) 07:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)Reply