User talk:Daniel Carrero/2017

Hello. Have you seen character info boxes on mobile version? They look pretty bad. How can we improve it? --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I was not aware of that, but now I see that it does look pretty bad. Maybe I can check the styles later. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Daniel, I saw that you'd added a request for ざわ. This is not a Japanese term. It could be construed as an abstract etymon, such as in ざわめく (zawameku) or ざわざわ (zawazawa), but it's not a term itself. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 07:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oh, ok then. I removed my request. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

There are a lot of Latin & Greek letters and numbers in the Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols. I tried to add to 0 but it looks too long. Is there a way to compact those? --Octahedron80 (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think that list should be much, much smaller, perhaps just one comma-separated line — if we should have it at all — not a big skyscraper stack of boxes. What user is really going to look up 0 in a dictionary to find typographical variants? Equinox ◑ 15:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

For these cases, I was planning to edit the template to make it work like this in the future: {{character info/new|!|❕|❗|❢}} (with multiple characters in the same template), with the typographical variants listed in a more compact way or hidden by default. This was not implemented yet. I support listing all the variants in the same entry, but I agree that it is taking too much space right now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just supported your initiative. Thanks for your idea. I do not know the internal guidelines of wiktionary, so I guess it is a processed that you have been told to cast a ballot about; may I ask whether you found relunctance to it? I am interested in Arabic and Mandarin lexicographic/philological studies, so the more extensive the amount of info. entries show, and the more systematized, the better. Count on me for future proposals. --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Backinstadiums: Hello. You're welcome. I see you voted at Wiktionary:Votes/2017-02/Glyph origin. Actually, unfortunately your can't vote yet because your account must have at least 50 edits in total to the main and some other namespaces before the vote starts. See Wiktionary:Voting policy for the rules. (Thanks for the vote anyway, although I will have to scratch it.)

Voting "support" in the vote that I myself created is fine, basically everyone does it (if you are asking about this).

Once you have 50 edits, feel free to support, oppose or abstain any votes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Daniel Carrero O.k. I still do not know why a ballot is necessary. I've shared some wishes on the beer parlor and so far people have agreed to try to implement them. --Backinstadiums (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Maybe we don't actually need a vote to use "Glyph origin" in entries, but if the vote passes, we'll be able to add it in the policy Wiktionary:Entry layout. I believe sometimes it's nice to create votes for things that are already accepted by the community but need to be added in policies. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I copied the Family Guy cite to "date with destiny", and I think that's sufficient; "I have a..." seems an SoP entry, like "I have a bitter pill to swallow" or "I have a row to hoe". Would you agree? Equinox ◑ 07:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me, thanks. I redirected I have a date with destiny to date with destiny now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Would it be possible to take, for example, a spreadsheet with Chinese terms + part of speech + English translation, and have them added to Wiktionary by bulk? I've long wanted to do this, but never knew if it would be feasible. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have once or twice used a desktop-based tool to do this (for minerals, organic compounds, zoology "-id" words). Equinox ◑ 10:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

You'd need a bot to do this but it wouldn't be very hard. Benwing2 (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

As a means of explanation: my plan is to stick with my existing bookmarklets that insert External links heading until someone runs a bot to make the switch. The reason for this is that I think the site should be consistent, External links is not wrong, and a switch is to be best made by an automaton. Once External links headings are largely gone, that would be a good time for me to update my bookmarklets and other code. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Dan Polansky: Alright. For the record, the number or "Further reading" has been naturally rising these days (399 entries have that heading now; I had also checked the same thing a few weeks ago, and the number of entries with that heading was less than 10; and 101,092 entries have the "External links" section). Personally, I would recommend typing "Further reading" in new entries, if nothing else to join the "bandwagon" of other people (not just me) who have been doing just that, but I don't mind if you choose not to do it, and keep adding some new entries with "External links". I agree with you, replacing that section in all entries is a job for bots.

As you know, aside from that, a lot of instances of "References" too will need to be changed to "Further reading". This is important and bots can't do it, so the people who will do it manually may think it's a good idea to write "Further reading" and be done with it. I guess they have the option of alternatively writing "External links" and waiting for a bot to change all instances of this section, but maybe not everyone will want to do it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Will {{rfd}} get the same treatment? —suzukaze (t・c) 02:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sure, if it's OK with everybody. Apparently {{rfd}} was only populating "attention" categories if you use a language code other than that of English, which is strange. I removed that functionality now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

It seems {{rfc}} does something similar. —suzukaze (t・c) 22:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't like this, but it seems entries using the "topic=" parameter in a lot of templates end up in both Category:Entries needing topical attention and Wiktionary:Entries needing topical attention (last updated in 2014).

I would rather suggest deleting the whole thing, because basically every entry needing attention can be part of a topic, so that list is deeply redundant. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

May I ask why you deleted this page? I have found it very useful. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

As a result of this vote it was renamed to Category:Requests for translations into Finnish. DTLHS (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

If I understand the vote correctly, another name was proposed:

Category:Requests for review of Sanskrit translations Category:Requests for review of translations by language Category:Translations to be checked (Sanskrit)

"Requests for translations" is for requests for new translations and "Translation to be checked" was for requests for checking existing translations. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I also wonder why both of them have disappeared from Category:Finnish_entry_maintenance. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please check Category:Finnish entry maintenance again. The Finnish request categories are being moved to Category:Requests concerning Finnish entries, a subcategory of the former category, though the work isn't 100% done yet. See the discussion at the end of Wiktionary:Votes/2017-03/Request categories 2. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

All right, looks good now. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

If you open the developer tools in Firefox (you can probably Google how to do that), then you can debug the CSS parameters of the column templates. The change you made shouldn't affect anything since that was only a template transclusion that supplies all three parameters at once. Anyway, from the developer console you should be able to see whether the parameters are actually showing up, and whether Firefox is simply ignoring them. Which version of Firefox do you have anyway? --WikiTiki89 21:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for making you (re-)revert that change, then. I have Firefox 53.0 (20170413192749) on Windows 7. The problem I have is with User:Daniel Carrero/term cleanup. That page uses {{col-top|5}} to generate five columns, and it was working before, but now it's showing 10 columns for some reason. According to Firefox's "Inspect Element", the affected div contains style="column-count: 5; -moz-column-count: 5; -webkit-column-count: 5;", so I'd think it should work. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why was this category deleted? How does one now find the pages that are marked "rfdef"? Kiwima (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

In English, for example, see Category:Requests for definitions in English entries.

The request categories are being renamed into accurate names with correct grammar as a result of Wiktionary:Votes/2017-03/Request categories 2. ("entries needing definition" was an inaccurate name — these are requests for definitions, not entries needing definitions)

In the discussion above #Category:Translations to be checked (Finnish), someone else asked basically the same question about the deleted/moved categories. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oh, ok. I fixed the broken link from the Community portal, but it might be a good idea to put in a redirect to catch any other broken links.... Kiwima (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing that link. I fixed a few other redlinks, and now Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Entries needing definition by language is empty (I mean, there are no pages linking to that category anymore). In the vote, one of the participants suggested creating redirects, but apparently we don't do redirects for categories. I can't speak for everyone, but I support the idea of just creating the new categories without leaving any redirects. Some of the old category names are outright wrong/misleading, so not only the links should point to the correct categories, the linked text should not use these category names. Fixing a few redlinks seems to be a relatively quick task, and keeping a whole set of hundreds or thousands of old category names can potentially encourage more people to use the old category names, including those with conflicting naming systems -- for example, I'd like all explicit "requests" to be request categories, and maybe the templates with missing parameters can populate "missing" categories eventually, as was mentioned in the vote. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Can you please undelete Wiktionary:Votes/header? Its revision history is important as a history of description, correct or incorrect, of previous practice. It can still be redirected after it is restored, but the history should IMHO be accessible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sure.  Done. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

You probably should've asked one of Chinese (Min Nan) editors before you changed the category name. The pronunciations not necessarily invalid, but mostly lacking dialectal information. @Wyang, Suzukaze-c, Mar vin kaiser, any ideas for a better name for the category? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung, Suzukaze-c: (I was going to ask this in Suzukaze's talk page, but then reverted and replied here.)

What about Category:Chinese terms with Min Nan pronunciations needing to be sorted by location? The current name does not explain very well what it's all about. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Suzukaze had said: "'Invalid' is wrong; the problem is that the pronunciations need to be sorted by location". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's not the only reason that they need attention. Some of them just have one pronunciation but may be phonologically incompatible with a particular region. Others may need to be split by sense (i.e. pronunciation 1, pronunciation 2 scenario). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I still like the name "Category: Min Nan terms needing pronunciation attention". Wyang (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think that explaining it fully in the category name gets inevitably verbose and long. —suzukaze (t・c) 07:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the old name is short yet more accurately describes the issue with those entries, either 1.) pronunciations not yet sorted by location, or 2.) pronunciation provided not used in all locations. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Not exactly elegant, but it works and it's better than the replacement. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just so you know, comma usage differs between languages. I have often seen you use commas incorrectly by English standards, so you may want to read up on this before you go around trying to correct policies. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

In reference to the sentence "After that come other languages in alphabetical order", this is an interesting case of the normal comma rules. If the sentence were "After that(,) other languages come in alphabetical order", the comma could be used to separate the topicalized prepositional phrase from the subject of the sentence. When a verb intercedes between a topicalized non-subject phrase and a subject phrase, the comma is not used. So:

• "Never have I seen such sights"
• "Thither lies destruction"
• "After that come other languages in alphabetical order"

I hope that clarifies somewhat. —JohnC5 19:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sure, thanks for letting me know. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

You might want to start a vote about commas... --unsigned comment by Wonderfool

This rule has broad community support across numerous deletion discussions. I was asked to address it, and have done so. I would suggest restoring it. bd2412 T 12:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Substantial changes to CFI require a vote, no matter how well supported or uncontroversial. Furthermore, Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2017-05/Numbers, numerals, and ordinals contains reservations that were in part addressed but some of which remain. Using the proper process, apart from being formally proper, has substantive advantanges, indeed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

The exact wording also needed editing, as shown in the vote talk page. Even if a new rule is uncontroversial, the exact wording may not be. (We should not mention "The community consensus is" in CFI anywhere.) Finally, if the addition really reflects well existing consensus, the vote should be able to confirm that. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

If you want to empty out the old categories, fine. Put them in the new category. Don't just remove them altogether. —CodeCat 01:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I believe all the "nouns needing accents" are already in "terms needing accents" of each language. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

They were placed in "nouns needing inflection" for a reason. —CodeCat 01:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Readding them in the old deleted categories doesn't help. The "nouns needing accents" doesn't contain any request for inflections. But I guess I can add a "See also: requests for inflections" at the description, since they are related despite not being subsets of each other. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure you already know what I'm talking about, but I'll be more specific: Category:Russian terms needing attention was renamed to Category:Requests for inflections in Russian noun entries per vote, (the new name is arguable because it's not part of the explicit list of categories renamed) but I didn't create the latter because of what I'm going to say. The requests categories are for requests only, not for entries with parameters missing. I'm sure Category:Russian noun inflections needing accents is a helpful category, but it's for missing parameters, so it doesn't go into the "requests" category. Category:Requests for inflections in Russian noun entries was going to be empty, so I didn't create it. But I did leave Category:Russian noun inflections needing accents inside Category:Russian terms needing accents as it already was. This applies to multiple languages whose categories I'm editing. I'm open to discussing and changing the ideas as people think it's better, but you can't act like you reverted those edits for an obvious reason. I don't want to edit war with you. To repeat, I can link between these categories in the description. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've been thinking about this. I guess I'll leave the "needing inflection" categories with templates that are missing parameters. This is different from actual requests categories. I don't like the "needing inflection" name, but there are too many languages affected, so it can be discussed later. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Category:Portuguese redlinks is nice. Category:Spanish redlinks would be nicer. --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

 Done. It's being filled now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

You are legendary. --Celui qui crée débauches de football anglais (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

:) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Legendary, or mythical? ;p Please check ⸘ ‽: your code has no clue how to handle that sequence, as this rather entertaining specimen of template abuse demonstrated before I got rid of it (you need to unhide the quotes and hover over the punctuation marks to really appreciate it). Chuck Entz (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: OK, I edited Module:redlink category and made this module error disappear: "attempt to index local 'link_object' (a nil value)".

But I believe I found a weird bug in {{l}} concerning these punctuation entries, which seems to be what was causing problems in the redlink module in the first place. I had to edit ⸘ ‽ and change the links from {{l|es|¿ ?}} and {{l|es|¡ !}} to {{l|es|:¿ ?}} and {{l|es|:¡ !}}. Apparently the colon is needed, otherwise both links point to ⸘ ‽ itself by mistake. If you use plain links, the colon is not needed: ] and ] work equally well as ] and ].

Itahisa had the same problem: the quotations shouldn't have all that "bizarre link overkill" as you said, but FWIW the links to punctuation entries would have worked if they had colons as shown above. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Obviously, I'll have to ask about Category:English redlinks? That would generate loads of work for other bored users/bots. --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

• •  Done. But now I created this too: Wiktionary:Grease pit/2017/May#Maybe remove a few "redlinks" categories to avoid module errors. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

You and user Erutuon have taken turns in editing this page today. As a result it displays nothing. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

The category has been renamed. Please check this: Category:Requests concerning Finnish.

Related discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/May#Category:Requests for attention in Proto-Indo-European entries.

Sorry for the trouble, I don't like to re-rename categories again so quickly. I did it because of the discussion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ok. I hope the discussion settles at some point. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I hope so too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why should this diff be necessary? It looks like any rfc in a template with text in the first parameter is going to require |lang=, even for templates that aren't language-specific. Please think things through before you tinker with a basic template like this. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: You don't have to use "lang". I updated the documentation of {{rfc}} now. When rfc/rfd/rfv only has a single unnamed parameter, I think it's a good idea for it to be the language code. That way, {{rfc|en}}, {{rfc|it}} or {{rfc|fr}} all work as intended. In templates, you can even type {{rfc}} without any language code. But the reason is always the parameter 2: {{rfc|en|insert reason}}. (the parameter "lang" exists for backwards compatibility, but I believe I removed it in all pages that use {{rfc}}) In templates, you can type {{rfc||insert reason}} (langcode is optional). I realize this means we can't use {{rfc|insert reason}} (in param 1) as before, or else how will the template recognize when it's not actually a language code? Sometimes people use "sop" as the reason in rfd, which is obviously intended as "sum of parts" but is also the code for Songe language. I fixed {{lv-part}}now (diff). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

You never actually started this vote, and it's far past its deadline. What happened to it? PseudoSkull (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

There are a few votes that I never started. (search for "unstarted" at WT:VTIME, I believe the list is 100% complete) Technically, the yellow "premature" box says that anyone can start the vote at any time, but I can't guarantee others would vote support. That vote probably needs to be discussed further, because I just announced it in the middle of Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/December#WT:EL new votes instead of properly dedicating a single discussion to it.

Do you think that vote is generally good to go or would you change a lot of things in it?

One problem is: The vote still mentions {{etyl}} which is an old deprecated template, so I would edit that part.

Also I can't promise anything in the long run, but I've been editing WT:EL based on plans that I created years ago, and I've been thinking that the right place to explain in detail the difference between "Etymology" and "Etymology 1" and their subsections is at WT:EL#List of headings instead of WT:EL#Etymology. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Fiquei sabendo que os interwikis passaram a ser automáticos por aqui. Gostaria de saber se esse mecanismo será implantado na versão em português do projeto, porque atualmente estou tendo de olhar os históricos antigos de entradas aqui para poder copiar os interwikis ao criar suas respectivas versões no Wikcionário PT. Tribuno da Plebe (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Tribuno da Plebe: Olá, os interwikis no Wikcionário em português já estão funcionando também. Por exemplo, pt:pasta (ou qualquer outra página) tem interwikis automáticos. Eles já estão utilizando bots para apagar os interwikis antigos de cada página. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Can you please remove Wiktionary:Word of the day/Archive/2011/December from Category:Pages using deprecated templates? I cannot edit the page. It uses {{context}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK!  Done. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

There are more empty cats here if you care. Hey.--Dixtosa (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Alright. I think I deleted all the empty categories in your link. Now there are 2,122 to be deleted at Category:Empty categories. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Turns out you cared, Thank you :D. Can you not delete them all automagically? Dixtosa (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. I don't know how to do it that way. I just opened all the empty categories from your link in separate tabs and did this: Alt+Shift+D in all tabs, then Enter in all tabs. (Ctrl+Tab = go to next tab). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

In case anyone stumbles across this section empty cats should not be deleted automatically I just realized it contains <language name> entry maintenance categories that should exist in any case.--Dixtosa (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I would support deleting empty categories like Category:Alangan entry maintenance. I would support recreating them later if/when they are needed. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

If you delete empty maintenance categories, whenever a new page is added to them the category redlink will show up on the page even though it should be hidden. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Could the deleted text be moved to the new category? (also, the same thing for Category:Japanese terms needing attention, if there was anything there, and Category:Min Nan_terms_needing_attention) Thanks! —suzukaze (t・c) 23:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Suzukaze-c: I did not do exactly what you said, but what do you think about this?

I restored these three categories you mentioned with their old descriptions, and I found some issues worth discussing.

In the vote that caused request categories to be moved (Wiktionary:Votes/2017-03/Request categories 2), some people supported this notion: categories with "requests" in their name are for actual requests added manually. The description of these 3 specific "attention" categories basically says that they deal with templates with missing/invalid parameters, where the entries get automatically categorized and therefore a "request" never existed. If that's true, then I believe Category:Chinese terms needing attention, Category:Japanese terms needing attention and Category:Min Nan terms needing attention are completely out of the jurisdiction of that vote and should keep their old names until or unless we think of something better.

But in practice, when some templates automatically find problems like these, the entries may have been traditionally categorized in more specific categories, other than the simple "needing attention" ones. The "needing attention" categories were often a place to store subcategories for various detected problems, but I believe that's the job description of "entry maintenance" too. That's why I moved all subcategories like this, to avoid duplication:

• I moved all subcategories from Category:Chinese terms needing attention to Category:Chinese entry maintenance, if any.
• I moved all subcategories from Category:Japanese terms needing attention to Category:Japanese entry maintenance, if any.
• I moved all subcategories from Category:Min Nan terms needing attention to Category:Min Nan entry maintenance, if any.

This is a notable case:

• Entries using {{zh-noun}} and {{zh-verb}} with obsolete parameters do get categorized directly in Category:Chinese terms needing attention (currently empty).

If you use {{attention|zh}}, {{attention|ja}} or {{attention|nan}}, naturally this will categorize the entries in Category:Requests for attention concerning Chinese, Category:Requests for attention concerning Japanese or Category:Requests for attention concerning Min Nan. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

So, I should create new individual categories as subcategories of Category:Requests for attention concerning Chinese instead? —suzukaze (t・c) 07:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

If you are talking about problems automatically detected by templates (including but not limited to missing or invalid parameters), then please create new individual subcategories at Category:Chinese entry maintenance (not at Category:Requests for attention concerning Chinese). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to ask more questions. Let me know if there's any problem too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think I've fixed instances of code using the old categories (except for one template that I've nominated for deletion). The old categories can be re-deleted now. —suzukaze (t・c) 03:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I deleted the old categories. Let me know if I can help further with the categories. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Why this? The page is now completely uncategorized, which makes it hard to find it.

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

In that edit, I un-categorized one vote: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-08/Wiktionary:About sign languages. The whole purpose of the vote is demonstrating that Wiktionary:About sign languages has consensus to be a policy. The policy page itself links to the vote. We don't usually place votes in content categories. Category:All sign languages is for sign language categories like Category:American Sign Language. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

How often does this category update itself? I see in the recent additions -list five articles that contain no Finnish redlinks: trust, blood eagle, brain trust, aivotrusti, ajatuspaja. --Hekaheka (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Hekaheka: I don't know. But I did a "hard purge" on all the entries listed there, and did the same in the category page itself. That seems to have fixed it for now. All entries that contain no Finnish redlinks were removed from the "recent additions". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I just fixed two entries with Finnish redlinks: coat hanger and female ejaculation. "Female ejaculation" disappeared from the list but "coat hanger" didn't. Interesting. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

When I edited the translations section of "coat hanger" in addition to creating the missing page (vaatepuu), "coat hanger" disappeared as well. It seems that the software does not recognize the changes that take place outside the listed entry i.e. it does not recognize that someone creates a new entry that turns a red link blue. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed you created the entry leave someone hanging a year ago and the definition you added was a pretty extreme case of being overspecific. I just wanted to caution you that this is an easy mistake to make as a non-native speaker who has heard an expression in a very limited number of contexts. Please be more careful. --WikiTiki89 20:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I understand. I apologize for that. I'll be more careful in the future. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to create a vote to replace codes like en: with names like English: in topical categories. This would be parallel to the current vote, so that if the current one fails the other, smaller proposal might still have a chance. What do you think? —Rua (mew) 10:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's alright with me, please the create the vote when you have the time. It would be nice to add this as a specific rule in your vote, something like: "If Wiktionary:Votes/2017-07/Rename categories passes, this vote is void." (unless you have any reason to object that) Just to repeat what you already know, I would most likely vote "Support, I prefer having names written as normal English like 'Category:English terms relating to dogs', but this is better than nothing.' --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please don't create the vote until after the current vote is closed. --WikiTiki89 18:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why? —Rua (mew) 18:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Because it's silly to have to votes going on at the same time for the same topic. Especially if one becomes irrelevant if the other one passes. --WikiTiki89 18:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

It has happened before, and there was no issue. —Rua (mew) 18:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Rua. This is comparable to:

• Wiktionary:Votes/2017-06/borrowing, borrowed
• Wiktionary:Votes/2017-07/Rename the Wikisaurus namespace
• Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-06/CFI leading sentence
• etc.

That is, votes with two or more mutually exclusive options. (Except what Rua proposes would result in two separate vote pages instead of one.) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's a completely different thing, because they're part of the same vote. --WikiTiki89 19:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Then again, I'm OK with the idea of waiting for the current vote to end before creating the second vote. (even though I would be OK with having both votes at the same time too) I guess I would probably wait as Wikitiki89 asked. Especially in this case, if the current vote passes it seems we won't need the second vote. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oh no, we already have two conflicting votes started by two different users who obviously haven't communicated with each other. Keep the two-letter codes. DonnanZ (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Leaving aside the issue of waiting or not waiting (which I replied above), keeping the codes would be a bad idea. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you've recently changed the main label for Internet slang into Internet. This is categorizing things into Category:<language-code>:Internet instead of Category:<language> internet slang. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge reverted part of my "internet slang"-related module edits, and I reverted the rest now. I believe the status quo is restored, let me know if I can help further.

Disclaimer: I don't think the status quo is a good thing, the "internet" / "internet slang" categories have been messy for years, but at least the mess we're familiar with should be restored now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Alright, thanks! My understanding of the difference between the two categories is that Internet has to do with words related to the Internet (e.g. online, blog, wiki), while Internet slang is slang used on the Internet (e.g. pwn, lol). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's basically everyone's understanding. While many entries need to be recategorised, merging the categories without consensus was inappropriate. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

That distinction is nice, yes, but I dispute the statement "That's basically everyone's understanding." Any evidence?

The problem with that distinction is that while known to some people, it's not obvious. Too often, people type the wrong text, "{{lb|en|internet}}", with the intent of labelling internet slang (e.g. pwn, lol) and the entry looks overall correct; the only problem is that Category:en:Internet gets messy.

People who added {{lb|en|internet}} this way in 2017 include: @Lingo Bingo Dingo (diff), @Equinox (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff), @Chessrat (diff), @Gamren (diff).

Older examples (2012-2016) include: @-sche (diff, diff), @Thryduulf (diff), @SemperBlotto (diff - converting from the correct "internet slang" to "internet|slang" in 2016), @Widsith (diff), Leasnam (diff) Nhjoavi (diff), M0rphzone (diff, diff, diff), Cloudcuckoolander (diff, diff, diff), Lexicografía (diff) and yourself, @Metaknowledge (diff, diff)

Special mentions:

• diff by @Yahya Abdal-Aziz it is categorized in Category:en:Internet because it uses {{lb|en|online}}, which is an alias to {{lb|en|internet}}.
• this entry is older than the others listed above; it is categorized in Category:en:Internet because it uses {{lb|en|Usenet}}, which is an alias to {{lb|en|internet}} too.

While other examples older than 2012 exist, I'm not listing them here at the moment. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the view that xx:Internet is for words pertaining to Internet and that "Internet slang" is for words used on the Internet, see this edit: diff. I've edited for the lulz.__Gamren (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I agree with that view too. I mean, it's the best thing we have at the moment even though it's not an obvious distinction and it's easy to get messy, as stated above. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think my intention with FSVO was to indicate that it is slang most commonly used on the Internet, its certainly not an internet technology or culture word so categorising it as "internet slang" rather than "internet, slang" is correct as there is a distinction. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've now corrected FSVO per my above comment. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Daniel Carrero diff to kthnxbai actually uses {{lb|en|slang|online}} rather than just {{lb|en|online}}. Do you mean that it should instead use {{lb|en|Internet slang}}? If so, please correct it. yoyo (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sure, you are correct to say that the entry uses {{lb|en|slang|online}}, but each label is categorized separately and therefore the entry is wrongly categorized in Category:en:Internet all the same. There's no consensus that replacing "internet" by "internet slang" in all the incorrectly categorized entries would be a good idea either -- as pointed out below, it seems "internet slang" is not an accurate label for all the words used on the internet. I decided I am probably not going to change "internet" to "internet slang" because of that, and also because I would dislike the end result anyway. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

There is a problem in that we apparently don't have a gloss for terms used only on the Internet that are not slang, nor technical networking terms. Something like the "text messaging" gloss. Equinox ◑ 16:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Right. Slang might be defined as "language confined to a social group", and more specifically "language confined to the practitioners of a particular profession or discipline". What we call "Internet slang" is a register unique to a medium, like literary and poetic are. I don't really have a better suggestion, except of course something like "used on the Internet" or "in Internetian discourse".__Gamren (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I would support moving Category:English internet slang to Category:English terms used on the internet or Category:English internet speak or other option if it's more accurate. I would also suggest moving Category:en:Internet to Category:English terms relating to the internet as I dislike categories that have language codes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Comment: If you were to move Category:en:Internet to Category:English terms relating to the internet, then all of the categories that have language codes would have to move as well. This would need much more discussion. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

This has been discussed a lot. This is the subject of an ongoing vote: Wiktionary:Votes/2017-07/Rename categories. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see. I wasn't aware of this vote. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Comment: We need to distinguish "slang", "jargon" and "register". @Gamren gives the phrase "language confined to the practitioners of a particular profession or discipline" as a definition for "slang", whereas it's a pretty accurate definition of "jargon" instead, which is well defined as "language confined to a social group". The term "register" in sociolinguistics has some overlap with "slang", because its use is conditioned on social context. But I doubt that there's yet a distinct (linguistic) "code" for the medium "online" (which, BTW, is wider than just the "Internet", since it includes private (comms) networks as well as the WWW); terms such as "for the lulz" are very much confined to some social groups that form strict subsets of all "online" users; but terms such as "BTW" which probably arose online can also be used in a written letter or postcard, so it's not medium-specific. For there to be either a distinct register (or code) pertaining to the Internet (or online), I think we'd need evidence of usages which typically arise there and nowhere else, and possibly are also necessary there. yoyo (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

• To clarify, I did intend to put alt-light in Category:en:Internet, not Category:English internet slang. It looks like it's mostly an internet phenomenon. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for clarifying. Still, I'd like to make a couple of comments:

  1. Maybe the definition could be improved, because I believe that the context label alone doesn't make it clear that it looks like it's mostly an internet phenomenon. I suppose we could add "mostly on the internet" in the actual sense like this: "A nebulous grouping of people and ideologies, mostly on the internet ..."
  2. OK, I believe you that it looks like alt-light is mostly an internet phenomenon. Aside from that, is the word "alt-light" used mostly on the internet? If the answer is yes, the entry should be in both Category:en:Internet and Category:English internet slang (or Category:English internet speech or whatever if the categories get renamed).

  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Okay, I've added it to the definition, though it will probably erode away in subsequent edits. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you, I believe this was an improvement. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for bothering you again, but you are the last one who edited the Finnish redlinks page. Would you be able to check why tipotiessään and many other similar entries are listed under "Finnish redlinks/l" although the l-template is not even used in the entry? --Hekaheka (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I found the reason myself and fixed it. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Hekaheka: Cool. Let me know if you need help with the redlink categories in the future. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Daniel, the template {{quote}} seems to add a "Category:X terms with quotations", but the category is a redlink for every language, including English (Category:English terms with quotations). I added the term {{poscatboiler|nv|terms with quotations}} to Category:Navajo terms with quotations, but it is marked as an invalid label. I don't know how to fix it. —Stephen ^(Talk) 06:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Stephen G. Brown: I believe I could fix it. The "terms with quotations" categories should be working fine now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Daniel. —Stephen ^(Talk) 09:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I posted two proposals regarding topical categories in WT:RFM that I think you'd be interested in. —Rua (mew) 13:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Rua: Thanks, I'm interested. I placed my support in both RFMs now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

There's a third, though. —Rua (mew) 20:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Rua: Oh, that's right. Now I placed my support there too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm not able to place the entries in the following categories into their new categories with "of":

• Category:pt:Municipalities in Bahia, Brazil‎
• Category:pt:Municipalities in Maranhão, Brazil‎
• Category:pt:Municipalities in Minas Gerais, Brazil
• Category:en:Municipalities in Paraná, Brazil
• Category:pt:Municipalities in Paraná, Brazil
• Category:pt:Municipalities in Paraíba, Brazil
• Category:pt:Municipalities in Pará, Brazil
• Category:pt:Municipalities in Pernambuco, Brazil
• Category:pt:Municipalities in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
• Category:pt:Municipalities in Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil
• Category:en:Municipalities in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
• Category:it:Municipalities in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
• Category:pt:Municipalities in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
• Category:es:Municipalities in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
• Category:en:Municipalities in Santa Catarina, Brazil
• Category:pt:Municipalities in Santa Catarina, Brazil
• Category:pt:Municipalities in São Paulo, Brazil

The problem seems to be with Module:place, but I'm not sure where. Can you see if you can empty out these categories and then rename them? —Rua (mew) 13:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Rua: It seems I fixed it, but please revert if there's any problem. For example, Alcobaça is now in Category:pt:Municipalities of Bahia, Brazil, I think that's what you wanted. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thank you! —Rua (mew) 21:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. :) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Could you please move Wiktionary:Wikisaurus to Wiktionary:Thesaurus, leaving a redirect? It would be a natural follow-up on the switch to Thesaurus namespace. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Dan Polansky: OK, done. See my move history. A total of 22 pages were moved, counting subpages of the old "Wiktionary:Wikisaurus" and their talk pages. Let me know if there's any problem with the page moves. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Excellent. Another step would be the renaming of Wikisaurus categories starting with Category:Wikisaurus and following with its subcategories such as Category:Wikisaurus:Animals‎, if you would be so inclined. Again, leaving a redirect would be preferable, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Apparently we don't do redirects for categories. Apart from that, OK, I can do it.

I assume the correct format you want is this: from Category:Wikisaurus:Food and drink to Category:Thesaurus:Food and drink. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Format: That's my assumption as well. The renaming of the namespace grants change from Wikisaurus to Thesaurus, but no other changes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Dan Polansky: Alright, it seems it's all done. Let me know if I missed anything. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. A further follow-up is changing Wikisaurus: to Thesaurus: in the mainspace. I already started doing that via DPMaid and AWB, but I would be happy to leave the job to you since you seem to like running a bot. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

It seems you already finished that part. Nice. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. The work with {{bor}} is well underway, thanks to @Rua; should we wait for it to be over before taking care of the other etymology templates, or strike while the iron is hot and make a vote right now?

I think the clearest cases would be {{cal}}, {{semantic loan}} and {{transliteration}}, which are functionally identical to {{bor}}; thus the default text should certainly be removed. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Barytonesis: Sorry for not replying sooner. I agree that we should edit the templates you mentioned need to do the same thing we are doing with {{bor}}.

To answer your question, I'm leaning toward waiting for the work on {{bor}} to be over before changing the other templates. It could be just me, but I'm thinking maybe it's better to have one huge task at a time. But I'm OK either way, and wouldn't really mind if the vote for other templates were created anyway. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Você, que é muito mais especialista em gíria online do que eu, já viu isso? Com base no pouco de evidência que eu consegui encontrar, parece ser mais algo usado por portugueses do que por brasileiros, e raríssimo - se você também não conseguir encontrar muito, acho que vou mandar pro RFV. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: Mandar pro RFV é uma boa ideia. Que eu me lembre, nunca vi o "k" com esse significado antes. (já vi bastante "q", como em "q aconteceu?", temos esse verbete disponível em q#Portuguese) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply