User talk:EncycloPetey/Archive 4

ok 16@r 10:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hullo there. Dvortygirl directed me this way regarding recording an audio pronunciation of this word. I'm an Irish speaker, so I can certainly give it a go. I can try and have it uploaded by tomorrow, if it's not too urgent. (Also, it won't agree with the IPA completely, but the way I pronounce it comes from a fluent speaker, so hopefully it will do.) - Leftmostcat 05:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link to the template. I'm still feeling my way around in here. Cheers, -- Visviva 05:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

for the flashy welcome and reminding me i'm not logged in. Goshzilla 06:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, sorry. also for typo Mallerd 17:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I didn't know. I'll use the other thing then. I do think that a dictionary entry should always have its transcription though. zigzig20s 08:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since the definition is in English, I thought the transcription should reflect that too. Maybe we should add the word to each language section, with its transcription. For instance, it is pronounced differently in English and in French...I think this is one of the things that a dictionary should clear out.zigzig20s 08:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Transcription means phonological transcription...Since we were talking about that, I thought it was pretty obvious...Sorry. Also, I disagree about the 'sin' thing - I still believe that a good dictionary should have its transcripion in all languages.As I said, since it varies from one language to another, people may want to look it up - so it would be good if it was there.zigzig20s 07:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that. The misplacing of the stresses before the vowels instead of at the beginning of the syllable was just a case of brainfade...don't know what I was thinking! But I do have one related question: I get very confused by the table below the edit box because it doesn't have all the symbols on the Wiktionary:English pronunciation key page, but at the same time it contains other symbols (presumably for non-English sounds) which look quite similar (hence my misuse of ɑ).

What would be very useful (but might be impracticable due to size) would be to show all the IPA symbols including those which are in the normal character set. Another option would be notes (not sure how to do them) on the en pronunc page saying which of the characters are "special" and which aren't. You probably recognise them without much difficulty but they aren't all obvious to me (sometimes being no more differences between them than there are between equivalent letters in different typefaces). --Enginear 18:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think you're right about it being impractical. There are simply too many extra letters. It might be worth adding in all the vowels, however, since I think that's where people are most likely to have confusion. --EncycloPetey 18:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why you reverted my changes in the? I did a more dense/simplified version of the Greek cases and added better alignment. Az 15:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Two points: (1) The Greek listings should not be formatted differently from all the other languages. There should be a single formatting for the entire section. (2) Modern and Ancient Greek are treated as separate languages on the Wikimedia sites, and so should have separate listings. --EncycloPetey 01:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You write, "current community consensus is that grammatical use of an English word as a noun receieves a noun header and section for the entry." I don't see what you base this claim on. If there were such a consensus, there would be noun entries for almost every adjective in English, and this is demonstrably not the case. By the reasoning above, not only would you need a noun meaning for most adjectives, you'd need an adjective meaning for most nouns because nouns can typically function as attributive modifiers (e.g., faculty office). Again, obviously it is the rare noun that has such an heading and section, indicating that community consensus is not as you purport it to be.

The idea that an adjective can be "used as a noun" counfounds the lexical class and the function of the word. It's not being used "as a noun". It is functioning as the head of a noun phrase. There's a difference which can be demonstrated through grammatial analysis.

• Nouns typically take a variety of determiners; undead (and other "substantives") accepts only the.
• Nouns can be modified by adjectives; "substantives" can't.
• Nouns can typically have plural inflections; "substantives" can't.
• Nouns cannot be modified by adverbs; "substantives" can.
• Nouns cannot be graded; "substantives" typically can.

Undead and the others are not nouns by consensus and they aren't nouns by grammatical analysis. They simply aren't nouns and, as such, don't deserve a noun header or section.--BrettR 17:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your analysis BrettR. At this point in time, EncycloPetey is correct about the community consensus on this topic. The "POS" headings represent the main eight parts of speech, and a very few other headings. So "used as a noun" typically merits a noun heading. Please move this conversation to the beer parlour (restated for clarity, depersonalized) as it is of general interest. I'm not sure offhand what the best correction for the situation is. --Connel MacKenzie 19:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

To clarify, the community consensus mentioned is about what entries should become like, not what they are like at present. It is a relatively new decision, and as practical problems occur and are discussed (this is not the only problem from it currently being discussed) there is a possibility that the consensus will change. --Enginear 21:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just saw your little quote on the soul entry in requests for verification, and I thought it quite pithy and enjoyable. That is all. Cerealkiller13 02:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

To be honest, I must admit (to my shame) that I have never read the book, although, as an odd coincidence, my roommate ordered two movie versions from Netflix which will be arriving tomorrow. I'll have to acquire the literary version at some point, and I'll definitely take you up on your suggested version. Thanks for the tip. Cerealkiller13 02:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You write, "Why not edit some of those pages yourself? The Determiner header is considered acceptable by the community; it just hasn't been widely used because no one who beleieves in it has gotten around to making those changes." Or maybe it's because Connel MacKenzie reverts them. I tried to put in some headers, but I got slapped back and when I argued it, he responded, "Since when does Wiktionary use that as a POS heading?" So, if you can get him to lay off the reverts, I'd be happy to do the edits. There are only about 50 of them.--BrettR 17:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but I still do not know what entries you are talking about! Did I mess up, big time, somewhere? --Connel MacKenzie 21:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are you talking about User:Connel MacKenzie/todo2#Words 501-600? WTH? I don't see any edits I've even made to those entries that affect the "Determiner" heading. What did I do, where? --Connel MacKenzie 21:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I tried to include a determiner heading in little, but didn't do it well from a layout point of view. Connel MacKenzie reverted the page. I tried to find out how I ought to arrange things to include a determiner and Connel came back with the quote above. I tried to explain how determiners were different from adjectives by pointing out a relevant Wikipedia page but Connel replied that "this is NOT Wikipedia". Since then, I haven't bothered because I don't see the point in getting all my edits wiped out by an admin. EncycloPetey says there's community support. Connel says there isn't. Who knows?--BrettR 22:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

There are a lot of overlapping issues here. One is that I was completely out to lunch when I reverted Brett's edit. Another is that we actually have discouraged "===Determiner===" in the past, as not being one of the "big eight" parts of speech (in English - other languages have used it quite a bit.) Another is that no policy ever solidified around that practice. --Connel MacKenzie 04:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's precisely why I've encouraged BrettR to spearhead a discussion in the BP. I've considered the idea myself, but didn't rate it a personal priority given the other work I needed to do. However, I can contribute my thoughts and opinions if someone else will get the ball rolling. --EncycloPetey 04:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Could you please explain me the reason for your last revision of shin?
Fonzo 22:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

We do not include references within translation tables. That section is solely for translations, gender, and (when necessary) a transcription into Latin letters. A reference may be placed on the Italian entry. --EncycloPetey 03:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the explanation. I hope next time you or other admins revert one of my edits you let me know that, just for me not to repeat again my mistakes. In fact it was just a case that I looked back to "shin", because normally I don't check what has become of my edits. If I didn't find up your reversion I would have continued to include references in my translations.

Fonzo 17:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Roger...the thing is I am going through my phonetics book because I have an exam soon, I am revising through Wiktionary as it makes it less boring. Anyway, that book has a lot of words that I don't say and that I don't necessarily know how to pronounce.I tried to leave a message on the talk page for 'penuche', but I mean I can't do that for every word hmm. Maybe I'll write them down on a piece of paper and then add them to the category you mentioned when you said I should.And maybe I should try to delete from the list some words I added but I know the pronunciation for? At the end of the day, I wouldn't mind writing the phonological transcriptions myself, only apparently what I learnt at undergraduate level is not correct - see talk on the 'bed' sound. zigzig20s 09:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Would this show up anywhere on my user page or only to those who know the link? By the way, I am still miffed (not at you, but at my lecturers) for teaching me something that's not proper phonological transcription apparently... zigzig20s 17:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please use {{inuse}} when you are about to archive! I'd like to reply to Dmh... --Connel MacKenzie 03:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I've never attempted any archiving of this magnitude before and ran into difficulties. --EncycloPetey 03:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks for the pause. Proceed.  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 03:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well...take a look at the problem I encountered. It's described in the Grease Pit. I can't archive without solving the problem. --EncycloPetey 03:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You have responded in two places before I had a chance to revert the sumbission that I misplaced! Thank you. Will pick up at the proper help page. BM

We actually have a word 'salise' for 1/60th of a second (come to think of it that table is missing century and millenium too and perhaps 'fortnight' and such). I haven't yet checked if the tr wikipedia has the English entries. Do we have a bot that picks up the translation sections and does the right thing w/o an interwiki tag? I noticed that the Turkish words exist in the translations section of the English entries, but there are no links to the native wiktionary (we have a translation template in the TR version that links to the native wiktionary, I dunno if it is local).

Actually on the next page the word doesn't have a capital letter. zigzig20s 13:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I suppose I ought to update the English wiktionary with Turkish words at some point also, but yes 'salise' is with the dotted i. The old Turkish wiktionary had this wrong, I just fixed it. Looked into why it was wrong too. People on the net are blaming some Casio super calculator chronograph thingie so maybe the Japanese called 10ms a 'salise' in their zeal to appeal to Turks? Who knows. Anyway.

I haven't looked at the debate on the interwiki links on EN wiktionary. The Turkish template makes the link a tiny superscript like in tr:Wiki:sene. I think it may make it easier on the users, especially if they can make sense of more than one language and actually bother go check things. --tr:User:Bm

The quotation from Gargantua and Pantagruel actually dates to 1564, as it was indicated before your edits. It's even possible that the phrase was translated (and borrowed into English) from that same book. Perhaps by Shakespeare himself, too. Unfortunately, I can't find the original French text of Rabelais' book, to have this guess confirmed. Anyway, I think that the date of quotation should be not 1694, but 1564. Dart evader 13:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I did not change that date when I edited; look back at the version on 5 Dec. The date given for the translation before my edit was 1694, which agrees with the dates of 1663-1718 given on Wikipedia for the birth and death of the translator w:Pierre Antoine Motteux. Your date of 1564 is impossible, since the translator hadn't yet been born. If there was an English translation made in the 16th century, then I am unaware of it and so is Wikisource. While they have a different translation (first four books only), theirs also dates from the 17th century. --EncycloPetey 00:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Or did you mean the date of the French original? That was an error on my part and has been corrected. --EncycloPetey 00:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, of course I meant the date of the original French book. OK. Dart evader 02:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Thanks for your comment on my talk-page.

What scheme do we use here for transcribing Hebrew?

Ruakh 13:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Unrelated — I think it would be a good idea to define Hebrew roots separately (so e.g. שטח would have the sections "Root", "Noun", "Verb", and again "Verb", with "Root" having a definition along the lines of "Words formed from this root typically pertain to area, to spreading out, or to flatness"), but that seems like the kind of thing that should be discussed before I just go ahead and start adding such sections. Where could I start such a discussion? Thanks again, Ruakh 13:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Will do, thanks again! :-) Ruakh 19:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not much progress, I'm afraid... My current project (adding the Korean names of all Korean vertebrate species) doesn't really mesh with concordancing work. Only a few hundred more of those to go, though... :-) Then I'll be back on the wagon.

I should mention, if I didn't before, that my primary interest in concordancing is more or less perpendicular to yours; that is, creating concordances which trace specific words across multiple works and genres. See User:Visviva/free. It has occurred to me that it might be possible to do some clever things with transcluded subpages that would allow work done on one kind of concordance to be used in the other. Of course, for that we still need some actual concordances to work with...

If you think you might have a use for Template:Kwic, please feel free to fiddle around with it. At present the formatting is embarrassingly bad. It seems design is not my strong suit. Cheers, -- Visviva 17:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, was looking for the English translation for that metal thing you see on doors that's used to knock with, but even though door hardware vendors call it a 'door knocker' neither the wiktionary nor the other online dictionaries seem to have it. While I am reluctant to invent English expressions for the sake of completeness in the Turkish wiktionary, I think this expression might fit the inclusion guidelines. Or it is entirely possible that I am confused, in that case what would you call something like this? Cheers. tr:User:Bm

Maybe it's the doorknob you're looking for. Az 10:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's simply called a knocker in English. --EncycloPetey 16:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Would you be interested in developing a "Quality article" policy/project with me?

Im interested in the idea, and would like to see what could get done.

Bearingbreaker92 03:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps I'll set up something, just a rough estimate of what would happen. Give it a tag as its a "think tank. I'll bet that the community would open up to it more if they could see it in action.

Thanks anyways. Bearingbreaker92 03:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done. I like the fold-down presentation too (and I'll go look at why referencing the numbered meanings was found to be unworkable, since the tr one is using the numbered scheme still). I'll add the Turkish-to-English pages too, prolly, at some point, maybe in this lifetime, or something. tr:User:Bm

Hey, sorry to bug you, but would you mind doing the inflection and stuff for this word. As of yet, I don't have access to a print Strong's, and all of the online ones that I can find either don't have accentuation (and so I can't distinguish between Ἰούδας and Ἰουδάς or they have Ἰούδας (probably rewriting their Greek based on Nestle-Aland). My Bauer lexicon treats Ἰουδά as a minor variant not worth discussing and doesn't even mention Ἰουδάς, so I can't really do it. Just in case you didn't know, the reason why Strong's has a different version than Nestle-Aland is that it's going off the KJV, which used bad manuscripts (textus receptus). Ἰουδάς must have been definitively determined by modern literary criticism to be an incorrect variant. If you already knew this, I apologize for my didactism, please don't take offense at it. If you're wondering how to format the entry, you could take a look at Ἡλί, it may give you some direction (I've been having loads of fun because of Dubaduba's reliance on KJV with his Greek entries). I just hope to God that we don't get any "KJV only" riff-raff in here, or doing Greek is going to become political. *sigh* Anywho, if there's anything I can do to assist, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks again. Cerealkiller13 21:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, if you feel like looking at the Greek proper noun section in general, and perhaps offer some criticism, I'd greatly appreciate it. The Template:grc-pnoun is hopefully in a rather finalized form, but I'd like to get any changes out of the way now. I really want to avoid realizing that there's a better way to do Greek words after I get the total Ancient Greek vocabulary up to 2000 or something. Cerealkiller13 21:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ἰουδάς has been fixed. I got a copy of Textus Receptus and it wasn't in there, and the LXX doesn't have accentuation on proper nouns, so it would seem that you were right and it is just a typo on Strong's part. Also, if you would take a look at the Biblical Greek section of AAG, I would appreciate it. It's kind of odd, writing rules which basically amount to scolding myself. Cerealkiller13 00:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello EncycloPetey, I believe that a usage note should be added to the definition of anarchist on the grounds that their is very little indication of just how loose the word "terrorism" is. If readers are led to believe that anarchists are terrorists i believe it could cause serious problems. Now, as you know, i don't normally give any regard to anyone when making an edit but all my attempts at making a usage note have failed, please help me in anyway you can in the creation of a usage note because in all honesty my first instinct was to delete the defintion as a social slur, this of coarse failed, please assist, Randy6767 23:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Listen is done. Please give a look to see if I correctely used that new {{t|it|word}} template. "Stare in ascolto per sentire" (we don't have any shorter translation for "listen for") looks horrible that way.. --Barmar 08:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have replied unto you on my talk page. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Having given this a tiny bit more thought, I believe it would be better to tag a month's worth of WOTDs with {{was wotd}} at the beginning of the month. That is, at the same time you create the monthly archive that they each point to. Were you going to pick up this task? --Connel MacKenzie 01:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not if there's a bot that can do it. I assume you mean that January would be archived and "was-WOTD'ed" at the beginning of February. --EncycloPetey 02:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, I meant once February 28th is entered into the queue, the WOTD/archive/2007/February should be subst'd and that page then fed to TextPad, the macro run to invert the entries into individual python calls, then run all at once. All in all, not much faster than doing them manually as you go along. So, in a week or two from now, when March is done, the March 2007 entries should all get tagged (e.g. so people stop resubmitting callipygous.) --Connel MacKenzie 02:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

>>Forgive my ignorance, but do past participles typically function as adjectives in Dutch? If so, then I would link this category under Category:Dutch adjectives as well. --EncycloPetey 19:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC) <<Reply

In both English and Dutch, a past participle's word form can act as an adjective. However, in a given sentence, the given word functions either as a verb (past participle) or as an adjective, but not both, so the past participle category should not be subcategorized under the adjective category. On the other other hand, it should often happen that the same entry will belong both to the past participle category and to the adjective category. As an example, the English word "broken" is both a past participle ("I have broken the radio") and an adjective ("The radio is broken"), though the broken article categorizes the past participle (wrongly, in my opinion) as an adjective, and the article is listed neither in the English adjectives nor in the English past participles category, though (in my opinion) it should be in both. A better example is the article drenched.

A similar situation occurs with present participles in English, which can also function as nouns, in which case they are called gerunds. An example is the article running. In Dutch the present participle is supposedly formed by appending -d to the infinitive, however, I often find that the gerund is in practice formed by the infinitive itself, or by preceding the infinitive with the article "het", whereas the present participle is formed by preceding the infinitive with the phrase "aan het", which must be in turn preceded by a conjugation of the verb zijn. Example (which I found using search engine): "Eten is goed, niet geweldig maar goed." — "Eating is good; not terrific, but good." In this case the infinitive form of the verb is clearly functioning not a verb but as a verbal noun, i.e. gerund. Another example: "Mijn hobby’s zijn tekenen fietsen buitenspelen en rennen." — "My hobbies are drawing, biking, playing outside, and running." These hobbies are nouns (gerunds), though they have same form as infinitive verbs. Now, past and present participles must always (in sentences) be accompanied by preceding auxiliary verbs, whereas verbal adjectives and gerunds don't. Whereas "fietsen" and "rennen" may both take "zijn" as auxiliary, "spelen" and "tekenen" cannot: these only take "hebben" as auxiliary, so this way one can be sure that in the sentence "Mijn hobby’s zijn tekenen fietsen buitenspelen en rennen", "tekenen" and "buitenspelen" must be functioning as gerunds, not as verb forms. Also, if "zijn" were the auxiliary of "fietsen" and "rennen", it would have to be conjugated instead of being in the infinitive, so one can be sure that these four words are acting as nouns even though they have the same form as infinitive verbs.

The forms of the present participles in English can also function as adjectives, for example see the article growing. Examples of "growing" functioning as... verb form (present participle): "I am growing", adjective: "The growing problem must be tackled", noun: "Growing up is part of life". This does not imply that the category English present participles should be subcategorized under category English adjectives, it just means that, on an individual basis, each article about an English present participle might also end up categorized as an English adjective.

Coming to think of it, I notice that, in practice, the so-called present participles in Dutch, formed by appending -d to infinitives, actually function only as adjectives, not as verb forms. For example, the verb joggen has present participle joggend. The logosconjugator website only has the German conjugation of "joggen", but I find it to be quite similar to Dutch conjugations, and notice that the present participle of "joggen" in German is "joggend", the same as in Dutch, and if you look at all the conjugations of "joggen", shown in that page, you find that whereas the past participle "gejoggt" is used often, in a lot of conjugated forms of "joggen", always accompanied, of course, by auxiliaries: notice that "joggend" never shows up in any conjugation, and these are, in the page, as far as I know, all the conjugated forms of "joggen" (in German). So German turns out to be like Dutch, in that the present participles are not actually used as verb forms (i.e. as parts of conjugated forms of verbs) but are only actually used as adjectives. All this implies that I should, say, get rid of the joggend#Verb_form section by merging its contents into the joggend#Adjective section of joggend. If all this is true, then it also implies that the category Dutch present participles should be subcategorized under Category:Dutch adjectives and should be removed as subcategory of Category:Dutch verb forms. Needless to say this is rather surprising: in English the present participle is an essential part of the continuous conjugations, for example see the conjugation of the English word "jog". In Dutch, this verbal use of "jogging" would be translated as "aan het joggen", not as "joggend".

So I will have to find a decent Dutch grammar book and consult it to, hopefully, find out for sure what the deal really is with these "present participles", to verify that my suspicions are true; but there is no hurry, because Category:Dutch present participles does not exist yet, and the reason for this would be that its use is so less frequent than in English... —AugPi 21:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, LISTEN is an acronym according to "LISTEN." in Acronyms, Initialisms, and Abbreviations Dictionary, 37th ed.. Ed. Bohdan Romaniuk. Vol. 3. 37th ed. Detroit: Gale, 2006. 4 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Thomson Gale. Jefferson County Public Library. <http://0-find.galegroup.com.sable.jefferson.lib.co.us:80/gvrl/infomark.do?&contentSet=EBKS&type=retrieve&tabID=T001&prodId=GVRL&docId=CX2590325894&source=gale&userGroupName=lsc_remote&version=1.0>. You also reverted all of my other edits. What about those?--Eternamente 01:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please read the information I provided for you. An entry for the acronym LISTEN should not be on the page for the spelling listen. They are different spellings and should be on separate pages. --EncycloPetey 01:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ahh. I understand now. By the way, on Wikipedia, they look down on automatic reversions of edits that aren't vandalism. I understand that this isn't Wikipedia, and all I'm saying is that it makes the other editor look like an idiot or a vandal in the history, which obviously isn't true in 99.9% of the cases.--Eternamente 01:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Howdy... We were wondering if you might like to come see us in IRC for a bit. There are several of us on at the moment. --Dvortygirl 05:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

While I'd love to, I don't have my computer set up for that. I;d have to find a usable chat client first. I use a Mac and Safari at home, so the options recommended (eg ChatZilla) aren't feasible. --EncycloPetey 05:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you've been invited to IRC. To get there, click the little IRC link to the right of . (That signs you in to irc://irc.freenode.net/wiktionary with your Wiktionary username.) At this point, it is still an experimental proof of concept. It uses Javascript to call a CGI-IRC page, which loads a Java client in a new window of your browser. If demand increases I'll put it on toolserver properly. Hope to see you there soon. --Connel MacKenzie 00:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You can try refreshing the WT:PREFS page, or even User:Connel MacKenzie/custom.js if that doesn't have a new checkbox at the very bottom of the "sysops-only" section. --Connel MacKenzie 01:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

He Petey, begrijp je dit? If not I shall talk English, thanks for welcome message :D where are you from that you have elementary Dutch knowledge? de groeten thuis! adios amigos! Mallerd 19:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Haha well I thank you, do you think it's hard? many people say so because of the hard g sound and talking too fast :P I think languages are fun too, I have 3 Russian friends who want to live here in Holland now, but they probably have to go back to Russia. I think I will study Russian and then move to Moscow. You know to check out 'the eastside'! Mallerd 19:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

What were you thinking here? Robert Ullmann 21:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please help me test out my rss feed.

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~cmackenzie/wotd-rss.php

--Connel MacKenzie 22:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Of note, is that it breaks (right now) if the WOTD has a space in the title.  :-(   --Connel MacKenzie 22:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm getting a "Not Found" --EncycloPetey 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Link fixed above. ("Tools", not "toolserver".) --Connel MacKenzie 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be working. --EncycloPetey 22:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

We'll know in an hour and 20 minutes, eh? --Connel MacKenzie 22:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

No problem. You know, there needs to be an easy way to query Wiktionary for entries that, for example, link to listen and belong in the category Vietnamese verbs. CatScan doesn't have a Whatlinkshere feature yet... – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 23:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here's the rant on IPA and phonemic transcriptions that I threatened you with in the Beer Parlour.... :-)

You seem to be confusing the starry-eyed ideals that the International Phonetic Association started with in the 19th century with the system that the IPA has actually become, in both theory and practice. The IPA doesn't "cover all the sounds in all the languages" by stipulating the only acceptable symbol to use in every conceivable situation. It offers a reasonably standardized set of resources that a skilled analyst can use to represent speech at a number of different levels of generalization or abstraction. Part of the required skill lies in deciding the appropriate level of generalization for the task at hand.

The IPA guidelines don't morally obligate everyone to record the nittiest-grittiest level of detail possible. It's not only legitimate to make phonemic transcriptions in IPA -- that's probably its most common use. When doing phonemic transcriptions, it strikes me as totally misguided to abandon IPA for some system cobbled together from 19th century dictionaries and Gideon Bibles simply to emphasize that the transcription is phonemic rather than being at some other level of generalization. That's precisely what slashes were invented for. (And if we're not going to do the kind of transcriptions that slashes are supposed to be used for, we'd better fire up a replace.py bot and get rid of the slashes.)

On the other hand, the IPA guidelines do explicitly foresee and countenance a degree of flexibility in how the symbols are used (not quite as explicitly in the latest version as in earlier versions, but still). So other dictionaries do not (mis)use a "bastardized" version of IPA. They've made principled decisions on how to apply the resources of the IPA, in full conformity with the intent and the principles of the IPA. (Well, most of them have.) Some of their principled choices may make me cringe, but it's not because they've violated the rules.

The question for us is: What level of generalization should our IPA transcriptions be? Answering "low-level phonetic" to that question is the real way where madness lies. One article will end up with one transcription applicable to California and parts of Oregon, another transcription for Alabama, another for northern Indiana (but not southern Indiana, which will still be missing), and several more for different areas of Texas, different areas around Boston, different parts of upstate New York, and a different transcription for every ten blocks of Philadelphia -- and that's just counting the US. The next article over will have transcriptions for a completely non-overlapping set of regions, since it's been a different set of editors who've worked on that page. Half of those transcriptions will contain outright mistakes because the transcribers didn't really understand IPA. Most of those mistakes will remain forever, since nobody will have the expertise to tell the difference between a mistake and a correct transcription of an accent they're not familiar with. The resulting mess will be useless to users, except as an exercise for strengthening the pinky finger as they hit the page-down key five times to get to where the coherent information is.

Anyway, the short version of all this is: IPA and AHD aren't radically different tools for doing radically different jobs. When each is used properly, IPA can be a finely honed tool for doing phonemic transcriptions (and much else), and AHD is pretty much restricted to being a kludgy tool for doing sorta, kinda, mostly acceptable phonemic transcriptions (of a pretty big subset of North American dialects, at least). We absolutely need phonemic (not phonetic) transcriptions in IPA. We don't need them in AHD, but if others are willing to add AHD as a courtesy to users who are familiar with Websterish systems, I'll think warm thoughts about them.

Anyway (and it's really the last "anyway" this time), it's exactly this tendency I have to get worked up and rattle on and on about my area of specialization that has led me to avoid almost every discussion on Wiktionary about transcription. I actually like most of what you've been doing with the mess of pronunciation pages. It's a hell of an improvement over what it used to be.

-- Keffy 06:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with this comment. I think the best solution is to use a transcription scheme like that used in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, which is an IPA transcription scheme that represents all dialects acceptably (for the most part). —Ruakh_TALK 08:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Cambridge has redefined the use of /e/ for the purposes of their dictionary." Sure, but isn't that part & parcel of doing a (broad) phonemic transcription? You write "their usage ... differs from conventional use of IPA." Of this I'm not convinced. I've written a fuller reply here. P.S. Yes, I s'pose I did get a bit carried away with some of those appendices. Jimp 17:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hold on: only unusual languages are supposed to be wikilinked!

These templates are primarily for subst:'ing into translation tables. The common languages don't get linked! (I.e. at least those with their own wikts, plus any others that are ordinarily recognizable. Robert Ullmann 07:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just rolled back the 5 or so because it was easier, and I figured you were off for the night or whatever; you can edit from your last version; yes they probably should be categorized, although it has never seemed very important. Robert Ullmann 03:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

even though I thought I've had e-mail contact with you at some point. <shrug> Would you like a gmail invite? The spam filter is pretty good (beter by far, than anything else I've seen.) --Connel MacKenzie 02:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is there a cost? I've got one account that I use somewhat regularly, but for a specific set of mail that is high volume. I did try at one point to activate my e-mail access here, and thought it was working, but apparently not. --EncycloPetey 02:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

No cost. But I do have to have an e-mail address to send the "invite" to. --Connel MacKenzie 03:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please try fiddling with your Special:Preferences. (Checkbox on middle of page, on 1st tab.) --Connel MacKenzie 03:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, done. --EncycloPetey 16:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

So, you wanna discuss that rollback? You just broke a lot of links, right? --Connel MacKenzie 05:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I know of no links broken. Any links that did get broken were bad links that should never have existed. You had added to the Archive a set of ACTIVE pages, which by definition should NOT be in the archive. --EncycloPetey 05:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was talking about this incorrect rollback. --Connel MacKenzie 05:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, so was I. --EncycloPetey 05:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry then, I have no clue why you think showing the current month is inappropriate. --Connel MacKenzie 04:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's not the problem. The problem is that the template you're using links to the Recycled previous month and the recycled next month, neither of which is archive material. Those links are also much showier than the archive links, which will only serve to confuse people about the difference between the archive and the active month pages. --EncycloPetey 04:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

A quick question for you.

Suppose I made up a "frame" of the proposed "Good Articles" project, and gave everyone an idea of what would go on. Then from there changes could be made and the project would be started.

Do you think that would be a good idea to get the community to maybe catch onto this idea?

Bearingbreaker92 01:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching that. Bearingbreaker92 01:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

...of mine. Was I supposed to restore your non-copyvio version, or do you not care, either? --Connel MacKenzie 05:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't care. I had given Pandora's Box a 15 minute block after continuing to create badly formatted entries after I provided information. If they were copyvio on top of everything else, then they can stay deleted. --EncycloPetey 05:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for drawing mine attention unto the WT:VOTE in progress. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 06:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks from me too on the heads-up about the vote.

Reading over some of your past posts I see a recurring theme that phonemic transcriptions try to be applicable across several accents/dialects. (Easy to see why: with good symbol choices, being applicable across dialects is often a convenient side-effect, though it's not the goal.) You seem be using the term "phoneme" more for what Daniel Jones called a "diaphone", and "phonetic" to mean anything more detailed than that, which is applicable to just one dialect. If I'm finally reading you correctly, then we probably agree completely on what the substance of our IPA transcriptions should be and our only disagreement is on the terminology. -- Keffy 17:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads-up on the AHD vote.

One question, though: why is option 0 mutually exclusive with the other options? It seems that someone might like (for example) the names "AHD" and "EPR" but not the others; why make them choose one, when people who don't like "AHD" don't have to?

—Ruakh_TALK 22:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I wish we'd had Keffy's clarification earlier, as we might have proposed versions with "IDR" or "TDR" (inter- or trans-dialectic representation) instead of "PR". Ah, well. —Ruakh_TALK 22:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

In any event, IDR has too many computer related meanings (including "internet domain registry") and TDR is a major global health branch of WHO. So don't feel too bad that we didn't include them as options. --EncycloPetey 01:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, I didn't mean just "IDR" or "TDR" any more than just "PR"; I meant "EIDR", "WTDR", etc. And you haven't answered my question as to why the "AHD" option is mutually exclusive with the others. Is there a WT:VOTE-wide policy against voting for both no-change and a specific change? —Ruakh_TALK 04:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure that voting policies have ever been fully laid out for Wiktionary. Previous "support" votes like this one have not had Oppose votes, but they're showing up anyway.

These clearly counter the indications. The "oppose" should be struck, leaving them as comments only. DAVilla 22:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I modelled this vote on previous ones, and see this as a dichotomy between "change" or "no change". The various options are simply a way of expressing the preferred form of the change. It just doesn't make sense to me that someone will vote to "not change" and then select a "change" option. --EncycloPetey 04:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I agree with the dichotomy; there are a number of possible names, one of which happens to be the name we're currently using. Now, when it comes to implementing the result of the vote, I'll agree that there's a dichotomy; but in voting, someone might be O.K. with keeping the current name, but also O.K. with one or more of the alternatives (but not others), and I don't see why they should be prevented from voting in a way that accurately reflects exactly which alternatives they're O.K. with. (As for "oppose" votes, I don't think people are expecting their "oppose" votes to be counted as negative votes, or anything; they just want to register their opposition, and perhaps give reasons, in the hopes of swaying those who vote after them.) —Ruakh_TALK 08:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thought you'd enjoy seeing this. Atelaes 01:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

re: harden, I got distracted after deleting the redirect, thanks for taking care of the entry :) --Versageek 02:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have replied to you on my talk page. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 18:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

And again. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have posted a proposal, as suggested, here. Please contribute your opinion. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 22:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the correction:)--Carl Daniels 18:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for joining us. I guess it wasn't working quite right at the very end, but I hope we'll see you there again sometime. --Dvortygirl 04:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Once I figure out what I (or my computer) keeps doing to lock me out; and how to rejoin when the IRC thinks I'm still active. --EncycloPetey 04:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your quick work to correct me concerning alternate/alternative spellings.  :-) You saved me a lot of face :-) Incidentally, I had a question. Why do some pages whose definition is merely "Alternate spelling of blah", also have an "alternate spellings" section? It looked redundant to me, that's why I deleted the "alternate spelling" section on some pages where the sole definition was a reference to that alternate spelling.  :-) Just curious, hope you will enlighten me! *grin*

I'm a little unclear on the exact formatting I'm supposed to be using for etymologies and translations. Would you take a look at what I did to alms and see if I'm doing everything right? I figure if anyone knows the format on this, you would. Thanks. Atelaes 03:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

we don't have particularly stringent formatting guidelines for etymology. I've seen (and use) a variety of formats myself. I did make a few changes, which you can compare in the edit history. Note that the {{AGr.}} template adds in the derivation category automatically. --EncycloPetey 03:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Now I added the necessary links to my translations. Liso 18:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Petey,

I think you are mixing up language templates such as {{oc}} with etymology templates such as {{L.}} (again?). In the etymology templates, the link is to the Wikipedia article, but in language templates, we just link to our entry. Maybe this should be discussed again, I would prefer linking to our entry in the etymology templates also. Anyway, I understand that you are undoing my changes, but please undo them correctly, i.e. look in the history of those templates to see what I mean. henne 13:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, according to Wiktionary:Index to templates/languages they should link to the 'pedia. But I concur, we want links to our article; that should always link to 'pedia. But I also think we shouldn't do this in the templates at all, they are far too useful as references to the language names (e.g. in {{t}}). The idea was to get translations table entries to link the languages not in top-40 when people subst the templates, but this is far better done as bot-work. Robert Ullmann 13:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree about the language templates. I figured that out after I'd done a couple that way. It would be bad to have the WP link inserted into the Translations tables; I usually play around with ideas before making a major switch in case there are issues I hadn't considered. If the few templates I set that way haven't been switched back already, I'll take care of that this evening. For the most part, the templates I edited link to our entries or (for the WT:TOP40, they don't link at all). --EncycloPetey 21:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC) I fixed the link.henne 14:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good. I seem to be not the only one who wants to get rid of the links. Should this become a wider discussion? henne 14:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why use 'quotation' instead of 'citation'? I thought citation was a better, more accurate term...zigzig20s 18:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks a ton for your diligent work, and for always correcting things :-) Don't worry about the speech headers, you have full permission to edit any entry I create, as much as you like. It is fun to see an entry I create slowly evolve, giving me a glimpse into the minds of great linguists like yourself! In future you can feel free to just change what I do, and I'll see it on watchlist, there's no need to write in my user talk page. Thanks a bunch, and keep up your good work!!

Insert non-formatted text hereThanks for the hello. I found Criteria for inclusion to be of interest. for my contributions so far, check out my user page. Thanks again. Cec 18:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

{{ar:welcome}} --68.39.174.238 01:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello EncycloPetey, I noticed your edits to some categories which I added (as sub-categories}} to the category:io:Parts of speech, category:na:Parts of speech where you removed the offending links. I do agree with you that they were messy the way I'd added them but I did this because I was replacing for example category:io:Pronouns with category:Ido pronouns and copied across the link to category:io:Parts of speech. Since we are replacing the categories such as category:io:Pronouns with category:Ido pronouns do we need to keep the category category:io:Parts of speech if it is just going to be orphaned?--Williamsayers79 14:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm new here and I'd like to ask you a question, how do we start a wikitionary in a certain language? I've requested one here , but is it the good place ? Agurzil 23:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for the help, I'll try to translate what you've asked very soon, Agurzil 18:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm quite happy to have orders put on my talk page. Also, I have Wiktionary:Requested articles:Ancient Greek on my watchlist, so I should see anything you put there (although my watchlist is rather big, and I do occasionally miss things). If you'd prefer a different format (or if there's come category or page or something you think I should be watching), feel free to let me know. Atelaes 05:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

As it turns out, I put in a request at the Wiktionary:Requested articles:Persian page earlier today, and have taken a page out of their book. What d'ya think? Atelaes 05:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Both requests have been fulfilled. Your rho was indeed correct. I just added the duals to this adjective declension template (as I've been doing to a number of nominal declension templates), but it now seems a bit larger than it should be. I'm hesitant to stack them on top of each other, however. Any thoughts? I'm currently on IRC if you have quick and easy access to it and would prefer to continue this conversation there. Talk pages are fine too, though. Atelaes 06:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - I wanted to make things easier for anyone wanting to enter Greek words. The only problem is to keep on keeping on, until its finished (too many documents seem to never have been finished - I still have some articles on Wikipedia to finish - but I'm trying to finish this first!)

Was it you who picked up my Beer Parlour item about a picture being worth a 1000 words? Lead balloons come to mind! While finding/creating Greek illustrative examples, that previous foray came to mind. It was thinking of creating a Category called (say) "Greek exemplars" - for a restricted number of _short_ Entries illustrating the ideal layout. What do you think? I think that it should spread to English!

When I made my "1000 word" comment - I was trying to findout how to layout an etymology, I couldn't find what I wanted - when all I needed was 3 good examples to look at and copy.
—Saltmarsh 12:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've just thought of a better way to handle this than with a category (which has less control over what gets included), and to make it positively multilingual. I'll try to set up my idea in the next couple of days, so if you don't see a comment on your talk page by Saturday morning, send me a reminder. --EncycloPetey 19:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK - I did look at Wiktionary:Entry layout explained/POS headers perhaps some of these should be moved from in use to deprecated. Some Greek pronouns (eg αυτός = him and that ) are both personal and demonstrative with slightly different inflections. The heading seemed a useful differentiator.
—Saltmarsh 06:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is there any guidance? Would:

===Pronoun===
====Personal====
inflection line
# def
=====Inflection=====
====Demonstrative====
inflection line
# def
=====Inflection=====

Be ok? (PS you asked me to remind you about exemplars) cheers — Saltmarsh 08:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

See αυτό (demonstr. inflection to follow) —Saltmarsh 09:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

thanks Saltmarsh 06:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I must read around this subject a bit more, I have just come across the discussion (Beer parlour) a couple weeks ago about Determiner headers - that was a POS which I have known about and ignored! —Saltmarsh 08:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Petey. Thanks for the welcome. I've editted on Wikipedia before, so I know how to edit. I won't be in Wikitionary much, but thanks for the links anyway,. --OneILove 07:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Could you help with the etymology (more than one?) of the word round. It was part of the WT:COW, but no one added the etymology. My dictionaries are vague about the relationships between the adjective, noun, and verb forms, and whether they had separate roots in ME. and French. --EncycloPetey 19:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, yeah I suppose I have been pretty quiet for a while. (That's real life for you...) I've had a look at round, yes it's a bit complicated but essentially everything developed from the adjective so I've tried to make that clear. I also added an adverb sense (which could probably be expanded) as well as another (etymologically unrelated) verb. Widsith 19:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wrote this to the two IP-users who revised what I wrote:

The 11^th edition of the COED lists /ˈvæ.kjuˌʌm̩̩/ as the only legitimate pronunciation of vacuum. Until you can provide a citation for the correctness of the disputed mispronunciation, I’m afraid that I’m going to revert you.

Could you provide a citation for the correctness of the disputed mispronunciation? There’s no logic to pronouncing vacuum as /ˈvæ.kjuːm̩̩/, hence the common vacume misspelling. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 01:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Incidentally, OED2+ uses a "ə" rather than a "ʌ". The pronunciations I hear in London (correct or otherwise) never use a "ʌ". --Enginear 13:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

/ʌ/ is certainly incorrect. That is the vowel in "cut", and so /ˈvæ.kjuˌʌm̩̩/ does not represent the English pronunciation (nor even the Latin one, which has /ʊ/ in that position, I think). The appropriate vowel is /ə/ (the first vowel in "about").

Why is there a dot under the m? Does that represent /m/ in a final position as opposed to initial or medial /m/? We don't make that distinction in Wiktionary.

I've corrected vacuum. — Paul G 12:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please do not ask him to add tatar translations. If he even knows tatar language than he doesn't know correct spelling of it.

Do something with him please! All his contributions must be revised, I've tired to do it :( --Jaroslavleff 17:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the vote on AHD, you might be interested in this discussion I have started in the Beer parlour. — Paul G 12:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Where did I go .... thanks for the "welcome" but I have been a member for 3 months and I did have over 1000 edits .... can you revert please

OOPs I see! This wikitionary ... sorry

I did the entry for dönüş in English wiktionary.--62.244.243.18 07:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

...to Wiktionary:Votes/2007-03/BD2412bot. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have a policy question, for which Charles' Wain provides a background case. Big Dipper, Charles' Wain, Plough and Wain refer to same thing, i.e. the seven brightest stars of Ursa Major. Currently they all have slightly different definitions and their own Translations -sections. I thought it might be a good idea to concentrate the translations under one of the headings, because it would make the maintenance slightly more manageable. Then I picked Big Dipper for that purpose, and made a link to it from the Translations sections of Plough and Charles' Wain (an entry for Wain does not exist yet). I see that you reverted that operation. A similar situation may arise with words that have several alternative spellings. I have seen that in many cases one of the words serves as a "base" and the others merely make a reference to it. The question is, which method should be preferred? Or is there a way to choose between them case by case? Hekaheka 10:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

When the words are alternative spellings, policy depends on whether or not there is an accepted spelling that is universally preferred. If so, then we concentrate all translations under the preferred spelling. In some cases, the spelling varies regionally; for instance, there may be a US spelling color and a UK spelling of colour. In these cases, we maintain full and separate entries. But when the words are completely separate spellings, we do not do soft redirects like that; each entry should be regarded as its own separate entry with full translations. They are very close synonyms, but still different words. --EncycloPetey 21:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your tip. Tim Q. Wells 03:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your corrections to my changes in my two entries.  As a first time user, I do appreciate them.  I've found the developers' instructions in Wikipedia/Wiktionary pretty well scattered around and difficult to find, so I appreciate any help I can get.

My two entries here in Wiktionary are related to an article I'm developing for insertion in Wikipedia.  When that article is completed, vetted and inserted, my intentions is to put links in my "tip wage credit" insertion here.

I had wanted to put an automatic redirect from tip credit to tip wage credit (the proper legal phrase), but so far I haven't come across the Wiki markup tag(s) to make it happen.  To be perfectly honest, I'm not at all happy with the conventional Wiktionary format in my "tip credit" entry's correction, but it's certainly better than nothing at this point in time.  Any suggestions for improving that entry will be very much appreciated.

If you're at all interested in looking at the working draft of my Wikipedia article, it's on my user page, User:K. Kellogg-Smith. Any helpful comments there on the discussion page will certainly be appreciated.  And by the way, can you tell me who I should contact to get all my draft edits deleted from my "contributions" page over there??

Thanks again, K.Kellogg-Smith

To be honest, I don't know if I am able to expand that a whole lot. My sense is it's a little known word. Only one of my three lexicons has it, and all it has is "pleasure struck" with one cite, from Cercidas, who appears to be a rather minor poet. The only thing that I can think to do is to go to the library and see if I can't track down a copy of his work in Ancient Greek, and include the quote. But, to be honest, I wouldn't know where to start looking for something like that. I suppose I got a little desperate with this challenge (there aren't very many words that start with eta). Do you have any thoughts on how I should proceed? Atelaes 19:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I found it in my older Liddell under an alternate form ἡδονοπλήξ, which gives a bit more. I'll admit that the article is still not terribly clear, but I guess I'm not quite sure how to proceed. Atelaes 19:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I had considered putting it in dative plural, thereby adding a couple extra adjectives, as well as a couple extra letters to each adjective (as the adjectives would of course have to match the nominal), but the stipulation that each word needed a decent Wiktionary entry made the whole business problematic. Either I had to make a dative plural soft redirect for each entry (which would be sort of weird, as none of the other inflections would have their pages), or I had to write full inflection pages for each entry, which would add a whole lot of tedious work to an already laborious task. So, the decision was to stick with nominative singular. If you are unsatisfied with ἡδονόπληκτος, I'd be happy to switch it to something more appropriate (read shorter), as you are the big man in charge of this whole operation. But, I think the question is still worth considering, of what we should do with poorly understood words. For example, I was considering the issue of Linear A. It would be sort of sweet to have some Linear A words on Wiktionary, although very few of them even have theoretical definitions as of yet, much less anything concrete or substantial. I figured I'd throw this question to you first because I think your opinion is probably somewhere in the middleground of general Wiktionary opinion. There are many contributors who would dismiss such nonsense straight off, and there are some who would run clamouring to it, without any thought of its practical merits. Ummm.....so I guess I'll stop writing this and go wipe the shit off my nose. What do you think? Atelaes 22:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to see such words included, but haven't formed an opinion on how to handle them. It could be a matter of creating an entry that emphasizes spelling and known inscriptions, without providing much of a definition. Such entries in Linear A might get a category tag that identifies them as "Linear A words lacking definitions", and the category page would then have a note explaining why there are so many Linear A words without definitions. Of course, there may be a better solution out there, but that's what occurs to me off-hand. --EncycloPetey 22:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

If we wanted to get really exotic (and thus really fun), we could include the ideographic characters from the Phaistos Disc. As I understand it, no one has a freakin clue about those. Oddly enough, I somehow have a full complement of fonts for those characters. Go figure. For those I don't think we could include anything past "character from Phaistos Disc". That might be going a bit far, however. :) Atelaes 22:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip. Never again shall I go language-less! Ben 04:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Be Bold!

That is a general-purpose javascript, that really ought to be moved out of my userspace (a long time ago!) Since I am too busy right now, and you are the one maintaining the semi-official list, why don't you take a shot at editing the languages section of that? Please?

--Connel MacKenzie 05:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK. I just wasn't sure whether to edit it, since it was in your userspace. If you do end up moving it, please let me know where it ends up. Personally, I haven't been bold enough yet to try running any scripts (or had a sufficient block of time to learn to do such on Wiktionary). --EncycloPetey 16:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, that's why it is linked from WT:PREFS! --Connel MacKenzie 13:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I didn't realize it worked that way. It seems odd that the linking which the template does to an unlinked paramater wouldn't count. Sorry about that. Atelaes 01:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

A few questions about that. Do interwiki links count? For example, if burdensome was not linked on ἀβαρής, and it had no etymology, would it count as an entry? Atelaes 01:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please remember not to ever specify image size or position when including images. --Connel MacKenzie 13:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Huh? When / where was that ever stated? Also, you've moved the {{wikipedia}} link out of the ==English== section. That becomes a problem when a page has more than one language (or POS) on it, and might then require more than one link to WP. I've never seen (or heard) a policy on the placement of that template either. Are there reasons I don't know of your your repositioning of it? --EncycloPetey 14:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not so sure this is nonsense. Gets a fair number of Google Books hits, at least as some sort of colloquial or dialectic speech. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The creator of the page listed it as a verb and gave the example: Please go acrosst the street now. I suspect that some of the Google hits are typos or scanos. If there is valid use, then that could be used to start the article afresh. --EncycloPetey 17:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'll put some thought (and research) into it later. :-) bd2412 T 17:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Greetings! Since you participated in the discussion at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Use of ® and ™ in entries, I thought you might want to cast a vote at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-02/Trademark designations. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I found three recent deletions of yours that were just bizarre. From Project Gutenberg "top 100 undefined" lists, there were three entries that wouldn't normally merit attention. But even if these three weren't exceptions to the rule, there is no rule. The vote for possessives never happened, right? --Connel MacKenzie 05:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not an official vote, no. But there did seem to be a strong community consensus not to include possessive forms constructed with an apostrophe plus "s". Are you calling for a vote? --EncycloPetey 17:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Um, Dutch is nl/nld. (as you know) What were you thinking? Robert Ullmann 14:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

ISO 693-2 uses dut for Dutch. Is this system not in use anywhere? --EncycloPetey 17:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, we use -1 or -3. It's a bit complicated: IS639-2 specifies, for some languages, two different codes: the B code and the T code. The B code is there for compatibility with some previous systems; if we were to use -2 we would use the T code. Dutch is one of these languages, B code dut and T code nld. Since all of the T codes are in -3, it is easier to just ignore all this and use -3 now. (The 23 B codes in -2 are now permanently reserved as not assigned.) Robert Ullmann 09:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please do NOT delete entries from RfV. Such deletions may be construed as vandalism. --EncycloPetey 00:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hmm...I was clearing out the rfvfailed entries in accordance with the guidelines given on the RFV page; in particular I was clearing the ones for which no verification had been provided and which had been deleted but which had nevertheless left to languish on the page for several months beyond the specified time limit. I apologise for not clarifying that in each of the edit summaries, and if that seemed like vandalism. How is one supposed to go about removing such deleted rfvfailed words? -- Beobach972 00:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The prodedure has never been made fully clear to me, but I do know that discussions are archived. For those that pass, the archiving procedure is clearly explained at the toip of the RfV page, but I've no idea where failed entries have their discussions archived. Connel might know. --EncycloPetey 04:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please don't pull out a badge just because someone's trying to do constructive work. Admins are not the only ones who can do cleanup. This is not a vandal, this is a contributor who needs guidance on the procedure. There is absolutely nothing that was done that would be considered so severely. In fact deleting failed entries, as was clearly commented, is half of the the procedure. As you suspected, the text should also be copied over to an archive page according to the month it was listed. But if you had asked as much then you wouldn't have had to revert the change. DAVilla 17:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm going to hold my hands up now and admit that I'm a bit of chancer when it comes to code here on wiki! The template {{personal}} does not seem to work , it puts bizzare categories on the pages it is added too. Please see yow. Do you know how we can fix this?--Williamsayers79 18:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I believe that the problem is that the {{personal}} template is not formatted to function within the {{context}}. I don't have the knowledge to fix this, but DAVilla at one point said he would help. See if she can tweak this. The only potential problem I forsee is that the language needs to be given by name rather than by ISO code for POS categories like this one. --EncycloPetey 18:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK then, I'll remove the offending parts of the template because we can't have dodgy category links all over! We can fix the template back later to take the correct parameter stuff.--Williamsayers79 19:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey! What was that block for? I only just found out I got blocked - what policy did I change without authorisation? --Keene 15:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

For what it's worth, EncycloPetey, I think this block of yours was entirely unnecessary. Keene's edits to ELE were not unreasonable. A message on his talk page after the revert would have been enough. - dcljr 21:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for fixing up picaroon. I'm not sure where you got the IPA pronunciation from (it is a pretty obscure word), but it sounds right to me. I hope my username doesn't engender suspicions of conflict of interest. ;) Picaroon 21:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just now you reversed a change I made because it was based on the American Heritage Dictionary. Are we supposed to contribute by definig words as we understand them or according to the general consensus?

Hey, I've started on Ancient Greek numbers and pronouns. I realize that the formatting for both of these types of words are somewhat up in the air. However, would you grace me with your opinion on these, and let me know if you would do anything differently, were you doing them yourself? I've formatted all the pronouns (although I intend to add a few more while I'm at it) and I've formatted the numbers up to eight (ὀκτώ). I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks. Atelaes 23:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

What do you think of Category:Ancient Greek numbers? Obviously it's just a start, the Ancient Greeks were capable of counting higher than two :-). I'm trying to decide whether ordinals and adverbs should be classified as adjectives and adverbs or numbers. Any thoughts on that? I'm sort of leaning towards the former. Atelaes 22:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

So you're going to allow a "proper noun" definition to stay, with no support from a reliable source for verification for said definition? I thought the whle point of this was not to make up definitions for words. Next you'll be telling me carburetor is an adjective. MSJapan 15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

What on earth are you on about? All I did on that entry was move the Quoatations header from level-3 to level-4 where it should be. If you have an issue about the definition, bring it up in the Tea Room. I had nothing to do with writing the definitions. Your error was in deleting the only definition given for the word. I restored said definition because you had offered nothing better. --EncycloPetey 17:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

He actually coins the term in the Atlantic article (not the NYT, sorry.) So would etymology be proper? Also, how do i get rid of the plural 'neurodiversitys', as the word is a singleton, it can't be plural ... CeilingCrash 23:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Forgive me for changing plurale tantum to uncountable, as I didn't realize plurale tantum was a standard thing we do. In light of your kind correction, I took the liberty of modifying ELE to make the plurale tantum thing official. Keep up the good work :-) Language Lover 04:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I note the discussion at Wiktionary:Grease pit#Bot replacement needed about the conflict between 3-letter case templates and language codes - and that Greek seems to be a major offender. I cannot spend much time here at present and have not kept up with where the talk went. Please let me know if there is anything I should be doing. cheers —Saltmarsh 11:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I will stop it. Tim Q. Wells 04:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

So, what's the syntax? After I saw the more legible font a couple of days ago, I tried Template:ARchar. Not working for me. I'm editing on a university network with no font display handicaps. Thanks. 146.244.137.158 07:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea what you're talking about. You'll have to provide more context for your question. Are you asking about {{ARchar}}? If so, I have added explanatory text to the talk page for that template, as well as to Wiktionary:About Arabic. --EncycloPetey 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Results are due. Will you be doing the Christmas one (or is it more bother than it is worth)? SemperBlotto 17:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I could, if you like, but don't have any ideas for the next contest yet. --EncycloPetey 17:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I added references to reniform because references are good? It doesn't exactly matter if they aren't the place you found the information. Atropos 19:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

They actually prove the word is real. While a quotation is certainly a better reference, there's absolutely nothing wrong with citing a dictionary, which is done in this example. The fact that it isn't where you learned the word is completely irrelevant. Atropos 20:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you bring it up with whoever decided that dictionaries were appropriate places to reference the definition words then. These references to not detract from the article whatsoever, but if you have a better reference, please do add it. I would be much more concerned about any user adding words from his or her own personal experience than about a reference to a dictionary. Atropos 21:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, would you let me know when you get May's list up and runnning? I'm going to try and get in the habit of adding at least a minor etymology to each of them (that may or may not actually happen in the long run). If you're thinking about thanking me, don't. I'm just showing off. If you're not, then what the hell? Ingrate. Atelaes 04:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Being an ex-theology major, I just happen to have the Nestle-Aland, LXX, Vulgate, Hebrew OT, and an exhaustive concordance within easy reach. I'd be happy to work on those. I've already done Abraham. I'll try and do some of the others. Atelaes 05:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I wouldn't worry about that, even if you can cope. Atelaes 05:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, were you going to manually add the {{was wotd}}s this month? Or day by day, at least? --Connel MacKenzie 06:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I could, if you like. --EncycloPetey 06:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that would help. --Connel MacKenzie 02:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be missing a bunch of names from Genesis 5. :-) Atelaes 06:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message. I know two words for "to listen", one is "to hear" and the other is "to listen". I don't know whether I should put them under "definitions to be checked" or just directly in with the other definitions. Pistachio 18:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the welcome :) I'm an established user on the English Wikipedia - thought it was about time to branch out to more of the projects. Yes... I saw that there are vastly more American recordings than there are (RP) British: therefore I decided to fill in the gaps, starting with several words which are commonly pronounced differently on different sides of the pond. Glad you appreciate it :) Eurosong 23:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The definition is concise, even if it's difficult to understand. An understandable definition would require a chapter in a textbook (and usually does). --EncycloPetey 17:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, well looking at the Wikipedia page it seems to me that one definition could be "a factor of multiplication representing the extent to which a vector is deformed in a given transformation". I'm no expert though. I'm looking at the OED now, which defines it as "One of those special values of a parameter in an equation for which the equation has a solution", which also seems a bit less opaque than what we have. I have a maths A-level so if I can't understand it I don't have much hope for a casual user (if any casual user would look this kind of thing up..!) Widsith 14:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia page is using a particualr application of eigenvalues to define it. It would be like defining apple as "a product of vegetation representing the seed-carrying vessel in a reproductive event." It's an understandable definition, but it tells you more about the perceived purpose of the apple than what it is. It's too specific because eigenvalues turn up in situations other than vector products. The OED definition is appallingly vague, but I suppose something like it could be used as a supplementary gloss to our current definition. --EncycloPetey 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, but our definition seems to be using a particular application of eigenvalues as well, that of linear algebra. Further down the 'Pedia page we have "The eigenvalue of a non-zero eigenvector is the scale factor by which it has been multiplied" which also seems a good working def. Your apple comparison is not very convincing I'm afraid! You obviously understand this better than me, but surely you can see that we need some definition that allows non-mathematicians to grasp the concept? Widsith 08:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, because that definition requires that you have a non-zero eigenvector. The concept spans several areas of mathematics because a vector is actually a form of matrix. A vector is simply a matrix with just one row (or column), so the matrix definition is actually broader than the vector-based definition. Any definition based on vector deformation will therefore be more restrictive because it eliminates the broader picture. The difficulty lies in creating a concise definition that is (1) accurate, and (2) accessible. The concept of eigenvalue is one that even I as a mathematician have had trouble with. It took me more than a week to comprehend what was going on when I first learned this word, and I had already had two courses in matrix algebra and differential calculus at the time. I hate to say it, but I haven't yet come across a good way to define the term eigenvalue so that it could be easily understood. We have have to just stick with a complicated efinition for now and refer readers to the WP article for deeper understanding. --EncycloPetey 22:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you say so. I'll copy this discussion to the talk page. Widsith 07:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

You requested verification of "Contemptable person" as a meaning of "Pig-dog". I gave this link. Barbara Shack 17:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

• You don't frighten us, Fundy pig-dogs!

Which is a quote from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, yes. But the entry needs three, durably archived, independent quotations to meet CFI. --EncycloPetey 19:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

A cook, I was asked to put this word in wiktionary by a friend of mine who is also a cook.

I know, I expected as much, it was just easier to put the word in and shut her up I'll try to make sure it doesn't happen again. I do appreciate your actually bringing it to my attention rather than just deleting it without thinking twice about it, show some respect I guess. Randy6767 17:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, then…tell how I do add a new entry from a site like that. Simply deleting and leaving a curt message is not exactly user-friendly: do you do that with everybody? TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 08:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why did you change "Fa:colours" to the American "Fa:colors"? Pistachio 01:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Because the English root category is Category:Colors. All topical categories in other languages must match the root category for cross-linking with the {{nav}} template. If the spellings don't match, the cross-linking won't work.

Also notice that you must use fa: and not Fa: since ISO codes are never capitalized. --EncycloPetey 01:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot for defining permastone!!!!!!!  :) I wanted to know what it meant for a long time. You even gave it an etymology and everything. We are all forever in your debt, please keep enhancing Wiktionary forever!! :D

So, I added this (it's still missing some of its monomers, but I'll add those soon). Would you be willing to take a look and see what you think? I'm sort of confused about which part of speech it should go under. I largely copied the bring owls to Athens page, as my LSJ simply notes it and gives the definition as bring coals to Newcastle. Any critiques you could offer would be appreciated. Thanks. Atelaes 00:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think that's a fine idea. Atelaes 02:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I suppose another of example would be Son of Man, although I can't imagine this will come up terribly often. Atelaes 11:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Aren't words/phrases in the news given special dispensation? Shouldn't it at least last for a month on WT:RFV? --Connel MacKenzie 01:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not according to CFI. --EncycloPetey 01:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

What WT:CFI are you reading? "General rule

A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means. This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and idiomatic."

The same CFI goes on to talk about appearance in refereed works, well-known works or clearly widespread use, each of which apply.

The last time something like this was entered, it remained as an entry. Attempts to delete it cause it to reappear quickly. If it really shouldn't be here, then listing it on RFD or RFV gives a nice quiet corner for it to linger while it is still a raw topic, deferring the deletion until after the clamor has settled down.

All that said, I agree our CFI probably shouldn't encourage this sort of entry, but it does. --Connel MacKenzie 01:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

But it clearly fails the "attested" criterion. The last time I can recall something like this being entered was bravitude, which quickly and quietly went away. The entry belongs on Wikiquote, not here. --EncycloPetey 01:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

It clearly does not fail the "attested" criterion. But whatever. It's your name on the deletion log, not mine, this time. --Connel MacKenzie 02:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The attestation criterion requires three independent uses spanning a year. --EncycloPetey 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, shouldn't we instead have an entry on "today, we are all X", since the expression is used to generally express the sympathy for victims of a localized event? A quick Google search shows numerous heads of state and so forth saying "Today, we are all Americans" (after 9/11); "Today, we are all Spanish" (following the Madrid bombings), and "Today, we are all Britons" (after various events). bd2412 T 02:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

If three independent citations can be found spanning at least a year, then it sounds good to me. --EncycloPetey 02:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, after #3, very, very, very clearly is the word "or". --Connel MacKenzie 02:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Given that I had never noticed it before, I'd say that it's not so clear. Is the list intended to be "any of the four", or "the first two plus either of the latter two"? If it's "any of these four", then the introductory text should read:

• "Attested" means verified through at least one of the following:

In any case, the phrase I deleted does not meet any of these criteria as far as I can see. --EncycloPetey 02:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is a word that has existed in English for many years and one for which you easily find several references on google books, in English, within a few pages.

I know it's not a common word and it's obviously not one with which you are familiar but wouldn't it be a good idea to use the correct procedure and perform a request for verification rather than just arrogantly deleting it (without even editing the explanation field to explain why you've done so).

It's this sort of high handed attitude by the clique of people with special privileges that make it not worthwhile to spend time here adding the occasional word.

A pity. 87.113.16.10 11:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I thought I'd look into this. In this spelling, it is a common Italian (I think), Latin, and possibly Spanish word (my Italian & Spanish are hopeless, so I'm not certain). In English, OED2+ has it as a rare 17th C spelling of paraphernalia in the original (now obsolete) sense to do with married women's property rights (relevant prior to 1872 only). B.g.c. has about 10-20 English cites in the modern senses, compared with 6460 hits for paraphernalia. So it is a somewhat rare misspelling which could not comply with our present WT:CFI and summary deletion was appropriate. --Enginear 12:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, so there was a good reason to do something (although I would have thought an entry saying it was a mis/unusual-spelling would have been more appropriate), but surely it would have been a courtesy to say why it was being deleted?

Also, since there are more than three durably archived instances of its use why does it not satisfy the CFI in its own right? 87.112.90.218 14:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Because it is an extremely rare non-standard spelling (or misspelling). Our policies for misspellings / rare spellings are still under re-evaluation, but in general the community consensus is aginst having them listed as separate pages. On the face of it, with no cited support or quotations, your entry was a misspelling for paraphernalia (a word with which I am familiar), so it was deleted. If there had been at least one citation showing from context that this was a valid entry, there would have been cause for review. Without such citations, it looks like one of the numerous typos that are submitted (and deleted) each day. If you can express a general opinion about how to deal with such rare and archaic spellings, then please provide comment in the Beer Parlour because (as I noted) our policy in these matters is in a bit of flux right now and not fully settled. --EncycloPetey 15:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok. I just saw the "parts of speech" category in the English categories so I thought that the same could be also in the Finnish. But, whatever. -- Frous 00:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yup, too tired and too rushed. ;D -- Frous 01:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I intend only to be using templates created locally; if I'm including a template (for use) from elsehwere, I'll track it down shortly. (Just trying to get the template doc page stuff from wikipedia to work, but I'm probably too sleepy right now.) ArielGlenn 12:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I could not find anything on here relating to Wiktionary's policy on profane words. My Costa Rican friend enlightened me with a whole variety of words today, but they dont seem to be on here.

If you could inform me on this policy i would appreciate it.

Bearingbreaker92 23:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I noticed most definitions don't have a reference. Wikiup, the one you removed has a close etymological reference to the term wiki.

No, it doesn't. The word wickiup comes from an Algonquin language on eastern North America. The word wikiwiki comes from Hawaiian, a Polynesian language spoken in the western Pacific Ocean. There is no connection. --EncycloPetey 03:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand what your saying. What I mean is, I'm not seeing the link or in this case I don't see the reference. Yes! We agree that Alquonquin is from eastern North America. In fact according to the National Archives Canada, and what I've learnt through grade school, Algonquin is a native tribe from my home town here in Ottawa. But I don't see the link or any references with the work wickiup. In fact the definition I have found places the word at the opposite end of North America. The word wickiup, according to Encarta (as now referenced in the article), is a "Native N American hut: a hut made by Native North Americans of the southwestern United States by covering a framework of arched poles with mats of bark, grass, or branches." We are missing an important resource to explain why, according you, it is related to Algonquin. Southwestern United States, last I check, was closer to Hawaii. And the word according to Encarta derives from Mid-19th century. < Fox wikiyapi... that sound a lot like wikiwikie no? --CyclePat 03:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I left a reply on my user talk. Thank you. --CyclePat 05:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Would you be willing to check this word out, specifically the etymology? I can't find an Ancient Greek word which fits the Romanization, and don't have access to a working Lewis & Short or anything comparable. Thanks. Atelaes 05:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, shouldn't arcturus be at Arcturus? Or am I missing something? Atelaes 05:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

And while I'm shelling out all kinds of unpaid work for you to do, would you mind checking the etymology on corona? None of my sources confirm that it comes from Greek. Thanks. Atelaes 21:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

....and mulus? Atelaes 03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Excellent, thank you for all your help. The origin of aclys is ἀγκύλος. Now, if I was any sort of expert on the language I would have instantly remembered that an /n/ preceding a ........huh, I was going to say any /n/ preceding a palatal is always a γ, but, as I do some more research, I find that all of my "palatals" (γ, κ, χ) are actually velars (See ). How odd. In any case, thank you for everything. Atelaes 07:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please ,see ar:January. This is real page.--OsamaK 03:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, Thanks anyway --OsamaK 03:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reminder. Every so often I remember, but most of the time I forget. Would it be possible to set up something where, if I can't figure out the PAI1S from the infinitive, I can just put the infinitive and tag it for Latin help? I have some Latin books, and so I think that I'll generally be able to figure it out (and I can double-check some verbs in my very meager Latin dictionaries), but there will undoubtedly be some that I won't be able to figure out. Atelaes 04:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Parrot" is added to the translations, it is quite a sweet word: "tooti". I will try and find out its etymology. Pistachio 04:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Same here. The alpha diacritic you were looking for is a breve. We don't have those in the toolbox, but we don't include them when noting a word in a non-Ancient Greek entry anyway. To be honest, none of the Ancient Greek entries have the vowel-length diacritics yet (the templates haven't even been configured to allow them :-)). Atelaes 06:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good call. There was a disagreement between my LSJ's on what sort of accentuation the word carried, and I ended up switching it. I apparently remembered to switch the template accentuation, but not the accentuation of the template's parameter. And if you should ever again see an Ancient Greek entry with more than one accent, it's wrong and someone needs to be informed. Atelaes 16:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

May I ask if you've had any time do consider how many Latins we might eventually have on Wiktionary? I've seen Latin, Classical Latin, Middle Latin, Late Latin, Vulgar Latin, and perhaps more that I can't remember. And then, after that, how many Latins we should be distinguishing between in etymologies. Also, would you be willing to take a look at what I did to ridere and rideo? Thanks. Atelaes 21:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes. In general, Latin = Classical Latin; there is no need for the modifier. I haven't formed a decided opinion upon distinguishing the others because I'm not well versed in the differences (though I've dealt with documents in Medieval Latin and known of Late (Modern) Latin from my botanical studies). I'll take a look at those entries, but may be very busy off-line for the next few days. --EncycloPetey 22:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I sort of figured this would be a question that would take some pondering. For the immediate future, do you prefer "Late Latin" or "Vulgar Latin"? Out of curiousity and rapt anticipation, should we expect to see the new and improved Super About Latin page this summer? Atelaes 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I prefer the term "Late Latin", since "Vulgar Latin" is much more likely to be misunderstood, for multiple reasons. (1) Vulgar has a distinctly different standard meaning in English. (2) The were Vulgar Latin terms in use even during the period of Classical Latin. For example, equus is the "Classical" educated word for "horse", but caballus is the "Vulgar" common word for "horse". It is the "Vulgar" word from which we get Spanish caballo, French cheval, etc. But it is the snooty equus from which we get technical terms like equine.

The plan is to greatly expand the Wiktionary:About Latin this summer, but I don't know that it will reach "super" status in the few weeks I have off. I do have other projects that compete for my summer time, such as an onomastics and heraldry convention in Los Angeles in June. Here on Wiktionary, I also want to get the ISO code project completed and make a decent start on some grammar Appendix pages (particularly for English pronouns). Then there are those Wikipedia articles I've been meaning to write, the images I need to scan for Commons, and the texts I'm entering for Wikisource. ...and that's just the "geeky" stuff I'm wanting to do. --EncycloPetey 02:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for explaining.Barbara Shack 15:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

... and thanks for the comments, I'll keep them in mind. Unorthografair 22:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Man, I keep getting in trouble with that entry. Sorry. I guess I assumed that since the OED (which was the only dictionary which even had the medieval mortality bag sense) didn't even know the pronunciation, I figured that more likely than not, someone had carelessly inserted it there, thinking only of the pronunciation of the plant. Looking through the history, I see that a bot inserted that quasi-pronunciation. I'm now wondering how a bot knew that....... In any case, if you say that that particular pronunciation applies to both, I'll take your word for it. In return for my screw-up, would you do me a favour (I know that doesn't make any sense, rewarding people for making stupid mistakes, but run with me on this), would you be willing to do the pronunciation on libel? I can't read standard dictionary oo-ah pronunciation, and I'm wondering if perhaps the OED only has the UK pronunciation, and well, I have ten bucks riding on the pronunciation of this word. Thanks. Atelaes 02:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done. The pronunciation is the same in both the US and UK for this one. If you're willing to make a small investment, there is a paperback edition of the Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary, which distinguishes the UK and US pronunciations for an enormous number of words, including many proper nouns and other words often hard to find. It does give everything in IPA, and I have found mistakes in it, but it's the best source for verifying pronunciations I've seen anywhere. I got the 15th edition second-hand for $10. I think I've seen it for $16 new. --EncycloPetey 02:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The next time my finances bob above zero I might just pick that up. And thanks for the pronunciation, even if I am out ten bucks. I suppose a guy who spent most of his life pronouncing awry as /ˈɑʊri/ should not make bets on the pronunciation of words. Atelaes 02:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, could I ask how you did that? My first instinct is to check the box which says "Delete this page to make room for the move?", but I'm worried that that would delete the whole history in the process (as deletes normally do). Help me out? Atelaes 18:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The process I eventually figured out:

1. Delete the entry at the target location.
2. Move the misplaced entry to the tagret location.
3. Delete the moved entry (and its redirect).
4. Restore the target location entry, which brings back and merges all prior history.
5. Edit the back to restore information from the first deleted page.

It's not a pretty process, but it works. --EncycloPetey 19:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

How funny. I opened up the editing window to leave a comment about this when I got the little orange box telling me I had a new message. Take a look at my comment and see what you think. Atelaes 06:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding pistolero. I note that you entered it as Spanish word, which, of course, it is. But it's also been fully appropriated into English and should count as an English word too. I'm still pretty new here. How do we handle this sort of thing in an entry? Respectfully -- WikiPedant 15:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've done the two senses I'd heard before. I've never heard the second noun sense (though it makes sense), so am not sure how to translate it. Specifically, I can't decide whether a literal translation (which anyone would probably understand, but probably wouldn't come naturally to anyone), or a translation along the lines of "a person who mimics like a parrot", would be preferable, or maybe both. Do you have any thoughts on the subject? —Ruakh_TALK 23:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Would you be willing to take a look at User talk:Atelaes#Importance of oldest attested records?? My impression was that this was a cognate, and not a descendant, but as I have stated before, my knowledge of Latin is quite lacking. Thanks. Atelaes 23:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are those forms no longer being included on inflection templates? Medellia 02:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

There seems to have been one... {{la-decl-3rd-COM}} Medellia 04:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's clunky though. Why enter three parameters? Are there cases where the vowel length changes between the nominative and other forms? --EncycloPetey 04:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think not... I'm trying to figure out if -COM could meaning anything else, but nothing comes to mind. The one you just made is better; may as well think about deleting the old one. Medellia 04:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove the line? I find the information very useful.zigzig20s 17:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I find the act/scene thing confusing. I think it's a safe bet that some people will be flummoxed by it.zigzig20s 18:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I really think that to type 'act' and 'scene' would make it a lot easier to understand. I don't suppose everyone looking a word up is a Wikisource pro...zigzig20s 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey Pete, can you please tell me the difference between пойдём & пошёл? Thanks Mallerd 23:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

They're both forms of пойти. One is past perfective; the other is future perfective. --EncycloPetey 19:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello EncycloPetey -- A few days ago, you reversed my change to the ordering of the parts of speech in the entry for White Russian. I'm not at all certain what rule to follow for determining the correct order when a term falls under multiple parts of speech and have raised this for discussion at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#Parts of speech in an entry - order of sequence?. If you care to comment on this question, I'd be grateful for your input. Respectfully -- WikiPedant 04:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm curious: what prompted this string of deletions? Many of the Latin terms are viable entries! Medellia 21:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

They're taken verbatim from a copyrighted work. The discussion about how to handle this happened on the IRC, so you wouldn't have seen it. --EncycloPetey 21:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh dear! I'll go through and add as much information as I can using L&S. Sorry if I sounded at all accusatory. Medellia 21:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not at all; you were concerned. However, since the formatting for most is all wrong, and the content is copyrighted, the solution in such a case is usually to delete the fledgling entry and start again from scratch. --EncycloPetey 21:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi EncycloPetey, I was wondering about being an admin. Do you think I'd have a chance of getting voted into your esteemed club? I'm finding things to delete all the time, and maybe it would be quicker and better for me to delete them without listing them on WT:RFD. I've only been here for 3 months, but I reckon I've understood the policies and what we allow in here. Should I apply now or wait for someone else to nominate me? --Keene 22:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are quite correct. However, the OED describes these creatures as "gastropod molluscs" and there are 578 Google book hits for the phrase. I shall leave it as it is though. Cheers. SemperBlotto 16:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

A mollusc can be "a member of the phylum Mollusca" - this definition would include then both. SemperBlotto 16:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

At the time the OED was originally written, polyplacophorans were classified within the Gastropoda. They have been elevated to a separate class in the last 50 years because they have a multipart shell, lack torsion of the body during development, and a variety of more technical reasons. Phylogenetic studies support their classification outside the Gastropoda. (phylogenetics was my area of specialization during my graduate work and one of my supervisors was a malacologist) The OED definition is no longer correct. --EncycloPetey 17:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please do not create redirects from capitalized to uncapitalized pages. This is against community policy. --EncycloPetey 00:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, I won't. But could you give a link to where it states that this is against community policy? I actually find it very helpful, and I would like to know the reason. Thanks, Shai 00:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see. Thank you for the explanation. Shai 11:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip. I'll keep that in mind. Atelaes 04:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to request a new term (anything else) for Wiktionary:Word of the day/June 17. The term there bears far too much similarity to the oft-vandalized entry. --Connel MacKenzie 00:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Connel, you do know the word I believe you are referring to is unrelated, I take it? This reminds me too much of the "niggardly" controversy from a while back, in which an employee using that word was taken to task by his employer, who ignorantly believed it was related to the N-word). — Paul G 08:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I've replied about WOtD at Wiktionary_talk:Word_of_the_day#Please_proof-read_entries! — Paul G 08:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just reposting:

User:JoeyDeep is adding Montenegrin words (Special:Contributions/JoeyDeep), but isn’t that simply Serbian? —Stephen 18:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

See w:Montenegrin language. This is a tricky issue given the recent independence of Montenegro. My own sources (limited) call Montenegrin an ijekavian dialect of the Serbo-Croat group, while Serbian is ekavian. If correct, that would mean that there are more similarities to standard Croatian and Bosnian than to Serbian. --EncycloPetey 19:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're right Stephen. Montenegrin is actually Serbian. EncycloPetey, Ijekavian is not a dialect, but rather a sub-dialect of the Shtokavian dialect of the Serbo-Croatian language. Montenegrin uses the Ijekavian form, the same that Bosnian uses, with minor differences. While Bosnian is recognized by the Bosnian constitution as a language in its own right and by some foreign states, Montenegrin is not. It is rather recognized as Serbian. EncycloPetey, Serbian itself is not strictly Ekavian. Ekavian only refers to Serbian as spoken and taught in Serbia proper, not Serbian in Bosnia or in Montenegro. No, being Ijekavian does not make Montenegrin necessarily closer to "Bosnian" or "Croatian" than to Serbian. The so-called new languages (Bosnian and Croatian) are considered as separate languages on the basis, albeit a political one - but that's a different story -, that they use different vocabulary. Montenegrin speech, on the other hand, uses most of the vocabulary the Ekavian Serbian does. True, some terms are different due to region or area and some very minor differences in speech. --Dijan 22:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Would you plase take a look at the "Hindi" section of the entry for terai? It needs a bit of cleanup, and probably a different alphabet for the spelling. --EncycloPetey 21:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The appropriate Hindustani spelling is तराई / ترائی (tarāī). --Dijan 22:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Will do - give me 24h —Saltmarsh 05:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

el:parrot is OK, will look at other items tomorrow —Saltmarsh 05:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm guessing your recent rollback at Wiktionary:Tea room was accidental, but before reverting it, I wanted to make sure there wasn't something I was missing? Thanks in advance. —Ruakh_TALK 06:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that was accidental. --EncycloPetey 13:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I'm sorry. Last time you wrote a message on my page about my contribution to beat and I checked your changes to it, I didn't notice that you left ] in the template ( {{third-person singular of| ]} } ), so I understood that they are not added there. So should I do it like this: "contraindicated ... {{past of| ]}}"? :) -- Frous 22:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't find the Latin plural of alma mater, after much searching on the web, found almae matres, added it to the plural page, you changed it back. Feedback?

I'm wary of listing English terms as Descendants of a Latin word (as I see you did with caseus > caseifaction). Descendants are etymological - well, descendants of a word as it ‘becomes’ a different language. As I'm sure you know, it's very important in etymology to distinguish such words from borrowings. The classic case is the two Spanish words palabra and parabola, both from Latin parabola but one borrowed and one a natural descendant. So I really think Latin =Descendants= should be limited to the Romance languages, whereas other terms should go under =See also= or maybe =Related terms=. Widsith 11:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

They couldn't go under =Related terms=, since that header is only for words in the same language as the entry. See also is typically used for same language words that have a related concept, but are not etymologically or morphologically related, and which can't be classified as a synonym or antonym. Descendants is really the logical location for such words.

I don't see that it's as important for us to distinguish between descendants that evolve within a language from those that are borrowed wholsale. Borrowings change too, especially in terms of inflections. That said, English is the one language where I really feel we should include descendants that have "jumped" the boundaries of language families. This is the English wiktionary, and it is very useful for users to be able to relate English words using those roots. --EncycloPetey 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

They couldn't go under =Related terms=, since that header is only for words in the same language as the entry. See also is typically used for same language words that have a related concept, but are not etymologically or morphologically related, and which can't be classified as a synonym or antonym. Descendants is really the logical location for such words.

I don't see that it's as important for us to distinguish between descendants that evolve within a language from those that are borrowed wholsale. Borrowings change too, especially in terms of inflections. That said, English is the one language where I really feel we should include descendants that have "jumped" the boundaries of language families. This is the English wiktionary, and it is very useful for users to be able to relate English words using those roots. --EncycloPetey 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with EncycloPetey on this one. Regardless of whether a word arrives in a language via normal language evolution or via borrowing, it still traces its descent back to the etymon, and should thus be listed as a descendent. However, what we could do to make the distinction clear is add a qualifier that could possibly look something like this (I can't think of proper terminology here, but I imagine my idea is conveyed nonetheless):

• palabra (Linear descendant)
• parabola (Borrowed from Latin)

Atelaes 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Believe me, it is important to make the distinction. Etymological dictionaries do not even include borrowings, because they are extremely confusing when you're tryiong to make comparisons between the way a word has evolved in different languages. But as long as some kind of distinction is made that would be fine. I suggest just something simpler like:

• palabra
• parabola (borrowing)

...or maybe putting borrowings in brackets? Widsith 14:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, this is getting to be a policy discussion. We ought to start a page for Wiktionary:Descendants and copy a note to the Beer Parlour regarding the discussion. --EncycloPetey 15:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Widsith, I think your version is distinctly superior to mine, and I could quite happily live with that. And yes EncycloPetey, it might be good to take this discussion somewhere more public. However, concerning Wiktionary:Descendants and all pages similar to it, perhaps we should create links to them on WT:ELE, so that they're not so hidden. I didn't know about Wiktionary:Etymology until rather recently. Atelaes 19:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

parrot in Ewe is ako. It is the same in Twi, another Ghanaian language.--Natsubee 03:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

He says he was simply trying to recind his deletion request/rfv.

Do the instructions atop RFV mention that you can't do that? Perhaps that could be clarified (that you cannot stop an RFV once started, unless there is consensus it is clearly in widespread use. Maybe?

--Connel MacKenzie 05:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am more likely to have problems when differentiating between definitions when seeking a translation. It seemed to me initially that definitions #1 and #2 were identical, but on rethinking that maybe #2 was used to describe a "manly woman" and #1 a "manly man". I understand virile to include very sexually active and my Collins and Webster - therefore inappropraite for describing a woman?

Incidentally Wiktionary seems to ignore thtis aspect of virility! —Saltmarsh 05:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK! Since masculine would never be used in a Biology class I have moved that def to posn #2.

I feel that there is no reason to treat the imperatives section any differently from the rest of the verb. I think that if people are interested, they will look up the conjugation, otherwise it just takes up space and lessens the readability of the article. I have moved them to the end of the template though. Feel free to edit the template yourself if you want to change things, you seem to have spent more time around here than I have.

The inflection lines at the moment are both ugly to look at and ugly to use. They take up far more space than is warranted, a simple line of text can contain all the information, and a simple line of text is much easier to maintain. By using this template, wiktionary is harder to edit, and less comfortable to read.

Reading what I have written, I come across as a bit of a minimalist, I think that from wiktionary it should be trivial to extract the essential information, such as definitions, and merely easy to find the less important information such as inflections.

Conrad.Irwin 08:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is a case like Mizar, but not set up on purpose. My observation is that we do want these to be templated, but we aren't going to find them unless they turn up in (e.g.) Category:Astronomy as well as the sub-cat. In particular, it makes it possible for some kind of automation to find all entries that are in a topic cat and in a sub-cat (to any level), which may be worthy of attention. Robert Ullmann 08:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Note that {{star}} and {{constellation}} both still put entries in both cat and sub-cat; and there is no {{planet}} ... Robert Ullmann 08:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I laughed out loud at your deflating of US self-righteousness over Tinky Winky in RFD. Thank you for that. I've yet to hear of a two-year-old who "decides" to become gay because he saw a fluffy creature on television carrying a purple handbag. Any such child would of course be of enormous medical interest for their extreme precocity. — Paul G 10:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

EP, I am really rather pissed that you took no time at all with this. You clearly didn't: you said "It puts Translations and Inflection in an order, but no article will ever have both (only non-English has Inflection; only English has Translations)."

But it says: "(note that the ordering of Translations and Conjugation etc. is moot, they never occur in the same entry):" so you could not possibly have read the proposal for more than the few seconds it took to bash it out-of-hand.

Yes, I know what heteronyms are; I didn't know why you would want such a section? I see now that you are talking about your Pronunciation # structure; how could that possibly be in the scope of a vote that is just clarifying a few headers and levels?

You are better than this, why the smash-mouth tactic? Robert Ullmann 19:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry if you feel offended, but honestly I have been following the discussions and have been giving this issue a lot of thought for many months now. there is enough in the proposal that I don;t agree with that I can't support it wholesale. If you wanted support, you should have discussed those ideas before starting the vote. I really do think you've come at this from the wrong direction. You would havedone better to set forth the full proposal for discussion before starting the vote, rather than springing it on the community in the vote page. There are three or four serious votes rolled into this one, and several smaller ones besides. --EncycloPetey 19:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

EP, you entered your oppose vote in less than 120 seconds, and a couple of minutes before I had linked it on WT:BP. Which means you picked it up in RC, you didn't even know whether I was finished editing it, and took essentially no time at all to read it. I understand you've spent months on this; so have I. If you put up a vote on something of equal significance, I would at least think about it for a while. Robert Ullmann 19:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

So, short of turning back time, what exactly are you asking me to do? My opinion of the proposal is given, and the fact that I've continued to respond to posts and discuss specific issues shows that I've given this thought and didn't simply spin off a negative vote. There are parts of the proposal that are good, but there are parts I simply won't approve because I disagree with them. --EncycloPetey 20:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Specifically: how would you separate the parts? I've a pretty good idea, but I want to see your list. One thing to think about is that it there are (say) 10 different parts, there are 1024 different outcomes, some having less than the desired consistancy. That's the value of writing an overall proposal, as is usually done in legislatures. (who then create messes anyway ... ;-)

And then, for the specific part "preferred order of L4 headers", what would you like to see? (In this case I think whatever you come up with will get accepted w/o trouble, but things are sometimes rather surprising around here ...)

In any case I expect the result will then be further modified by proposals and votes on Descendants and Pronunciation, eh? Robert Ullmann 14:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, here are the few votes I see. In addition to what I write below, there are a few other items that may need to be dealt with, such as the specifics of the Descendants and Pronunciation, as you noted, but those can be left out and considered separately. In addition to these is the issue of "Alternative forms" as a header, which (if approved) would obviously be an alternative to "Alternative spellings" so its placement need not be considered yet. Likewise "Homophones" as a header has an obvious location, and so would not affect the structural considerations we are currently concerned with. I am focussing the items below on overall structure issues and am trying to avoid any consideration of new header content.

1. Headers preceding the POS header and their structure: Ideally, we should have a policy that spells out the overall structure of the initial portion of the article, and that addresses cases where there is more than one etymology and/or more than one pronunciation. There is more than one view on Wiktionary about the relative importance of Etymology, so there is a possibility of contention here. Personally, I would prefer to always see Pronunciation come first, since this would solve the inversion/replication problem, but the community standard has been to put Etymology first and I could live with the status quo. Assuming we keep Etymology first, I would want an explicit policy along the lines of:

   • "In most cases, headers preceding and including the POS header (or equivalent) should be placed at L3 and ordered in the sequence (1) Alternative spellings (2) Etymology (3) Pronunciation (4) POS (refer to separate list of acceptable POS headers). Exceptions to this sequence may result from the existence of heteronyms or multiple etymologies, in which case there may be more than one Etymology and/or Pronunciation section. Whenever there are multiple etymologies, the Pronunciation section should precede the Etymology sections. Each Etymology section should be numbered as Etymology 1, Etymology 2, etc. at L3 following the Pronunciation section. Each POS header should be placed at L4 under the appropriate Etymology section. If there are multiple pronunciations for an entry, and these pronunciations are specific to certain etymologies or parts of speech, the Pronunciation section should be split and each numbered as Pronunciation 1, Pronunciation 2, etc. In this case, the various etymology sections will again be numbered and will be nested at L4 beneath the appropriate Pronunciation section, and any POS headers nested at L5 accordingly."

   It would be useful to have examples to demonstrate this, since the text alone may be confusing. I have a few otherwise simple articles in mind that could demonstrate the proposed structurings. A sample outline could be created for the purposes of the ELE, but I think it would help more to see an actual example instead of just the theory.

2. Derived terms, Related terms, Descendants: I think we need a separate vote to determine the placement of these headers, as this will likely be the most contentious issue involved. Personally, I would like to see these always placed following the POS and at L3, however I am not averse to allowing them to reside at L4 when there is a single POS section on a page. I won't go into any rationale here, since there is already much active discussion elsewhere. In short, I would want these to default to L3 as the first sections following all POS sections (and their subsections), but would allow for more specific placement at L4 as situations warrant. This vote might need considerable more discussion, or it might not. You, Connel, and I seem to have been the most active (only?) participants in the discussion thus far for this issue. In any case, I prefer the sequence I've given above regardless of where we eventually place them. I put Derived terms first because they have the closest connection to the current entry; I put Descendants last because this section links to other languages (the other two link to the same language).
3. POS subheaders sequence: The list of headers looks fine to me, though I would phrase the "other -nyms" as: "Other allowable -nyms" so that we don't have to vote on which ones we're allowing just yet. I would also change the order you've given to the following:

   • Usage notes
   • Inflection (or Conjugation for verbs, or Declension for nouns) - only present in non-English entries
   • Quotations
   • Synonyms
   • Antonyms
   • Other allowable -nyms
   • (Derived terms)
   • (Related terms)
   • (Descendants)
   • Translations - only present in English entries

   The key difference here from your list is the placement of the Inflection section. Since this is the English Wiktionary, users looking up foreign terms are likely to be unfamiliar with the inflection and need it. This information should therefore come as early as possible. It should definitely come before lists of any synonyms, antonyms, etc. since these are separate words. Information pertaining directly to the entry itself should precede links to other entries.

   I would really like to make the sequence above a fixed one, with a statement that reasons for deviation from this sequence should be explained on the entry's discussion page. However, I am not fixed on that idea. To me, only Usage notes seems likely to ever need to be placed out of this standard order. And, as I said above, I'd rather that Derived (etc.) not be placed here at all, but if we decide to place them here, then I've indicated where I would want them to go in the list above. This particular point of placement could also lead to some debate. I know that Connel strictly wants Translations to be last in the sequence above, and I'm fine with that. However, there's a part of me that would prefer Derived (etc.) to follow Translations, since these sections are about other words.

   I also think the issue of TTBC needs to be handled separately from this vote. Yes, it's currently in use and is usually given its own section header underneath Translations, when it appears, but I kind of like the idea being floated around of simply making TTBC the last collapsible section of translations, without having a special section header. This bit seems a minor point to me, though.

4. Level 3 headers following the POS and their subsections: Some of these may raise eyebrows. I didn't know some of these headers were in use until you began keeping a list of Valid/Invalid headers. Thus, there may be discussion about inclusion of some of these headers, and this particular vote might need to be delayed for those discussions to happen. However, the listed order you gave looks fine to me and I personally have no argument against any of the headers you listed. Note: If Related terms (etc.) is at L3, I would place them ahead of any of the rest of this list. The vote in this case would simply be to approve the list of headers as official and adopt the proposed order.

--EncycloPetey 20:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! That is a bit more explanation than I expected, but very useful. I will noodle for a while ... Robert Ullmann 13:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Question (I have others too ;-): If there can be pronunciation sections, with nested etys, then POS and L4 headers, you've prevented the use of any L5 headers (such as TTBC)? They would be at L7... I do think that structuring is way too much. If there are different pronuncations, they can just appear under the ety, disambiguated by POS as we do already when needed. Occaisionally, there would need to be repeats, but to add all this structure for that very rare case seems way too much. Robert Ullmann 16:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

As we do already where? Can you give an example? Also, that is one reason (but not the only one) why I dislike having TTBC as a nested header. In any case, when there are multiple etymologies and multiple pronunciations it makes far more sense to me to sort first by pronunciation. No one encountering a new term will know the etymology to go looking under, but someone hearing a new term can look under the correct pronunciation. --EncycloPetey 15:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Houston, we have a problem.

The only ones I've found that corroborates this (so far) is "Worthless Word For The Day" (and mirrors) and phrontistery.

This seems to be a Latin word that means "to gird one's loins" perhaps. (That is, I'm not sure the English translation is quite right, anyhow.) It might also be an Italian word, but it certainly doesn't seem to be English.

I don't see any other dictionary carrying this term, and it looks like it will fail WT:CFI/WT:RFV.

It probably isn't a good idea to have our WOTD RFV'd, is it? Can you slip in a replacement word for 6/21/2007 and tag this RFV?

--Connel MacKenzie 04:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, never mind...checking inflected forms turned up some cites...enough for our CFI, anyhow. Thank you Atelaes! --Connel MacKenzie 11:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I always check ahead of time. This one is in the OED with a citation. It's extremely rare, so I'm also glad Atelaes found more recent citations. --EncycloPetey 00:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding June 30th: was that entry really WOTD for June 30th 2006? --Connel MacKenzie 09:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I hadn't decided which word to use for 30 June at the time. I've since selected hortative, but haven't uploaded it yet. I'm in the process of getting the selections for July together and will do them all in one fell swoop. --EncycloPetey 01:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wonderful. Thank you! --Connel MacKenzie 23:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have a question about listing proper names. Let's take Oulu as an example. It has a Finnish and a Swedish name, and it is normally called Oulu in English texts. It is currently listed as an English as well as a Finnish proper name and the names in other languages are under the English entry. Is this correct or should there be only a Finnish entry with translations under it? Hekaheka 12:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's a very good question with no clear answer. We don't have a good way to deal with the oddities of names crossing cultures and languages. Because of the enormous problems, I've tended to stay away from editing entries for personal names, despite the fact that the history and etymology of names is a very deep interest of mine. For geographic names, the issue becomes even more difficult. Some people want to leave out names of places from Wiktionary, others want to include them all, so there isn't a clear policy on place names either. In this particular case, I wouldn't include an English entry without three citations of use in an English context. --EncycloPetey 22:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You have been very helpful in the BP and TR. So I would like to say thankyou. There is one outstanding item I raised and you made an apparently acceptable suggestion. An appendix for make and do collocations. Is an appendix something I can set up, or is it admin priviledge only? Algrif 17:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Anyone can start an Appendix. It's just the same as any other content page, only with fewer existing guidelines for format. --EncycloPetey 21:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've set up MakeDoTakeHave I tried to link shopping to the appendix, but I don't see how this is done. (If it's done?) Can U help, please? Algrif 16:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

You link to another namespace like this: Appendix:MakeDoTakeHave. I'm not sure about the page name, though. It looks odd to me all run together like that. --EncycloPetey 16:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yes I just noticed I put the link in incorrectly and corrected it on the page for shopping. And then came here to correct it here too!! What would you suggest for the name? I was going round in circles about that also. Algrif 16:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. If I'd had a suggestion I would have made it. :) Why not aanounce the page in the Beer Parlour and ask for suggestions? --EncycloPetey 16:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Point well taken :) - West Indian was a subsidiary entry - most of the rest were prepared off-line. —Saltmarsh 05:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I took note of your comment earlier, and you said that words definitions should be discussed at the tea room.

What if I made a page specificially for Spanish words on the Spanish translation page.

I think it would be alot easier to monitor if it was there, as I dont usually check out whats going on in the Tea Room, as I am not interested in anything other than spanish.

Bearingbreaker92 15:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

But, what Spanish has that other languages don't, is an organized page or "Project".

But then again, I suppose it is still a small group of people.

Bearingbreaker92 16:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion links to the root forms are very useful as spanish words (especially verbs) have a huge number of conjugated forms. Therefore the policy guidelines of the spanish wiktionary even refuses entries for non-root forms (unless they have a different meaning than the root form). However i could think of adding an additional column "root forms" to the frequency lists, in which case a link to the exact form could be kept and the problem of multiple root forms could be overcome. Do you think this would be OK? Matthias Buchmeier 10:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Remind me to take a look at the migration to commons you are doing. I'm pretty sure the consensus has been to just blast images that have questionable licensing, rather than trying to get them onto commons (since there were so few.) If suitable replacements from commons can be found, we should probably stick to them, instead. I know Dvortygirl was doing this for a while, but outside events has shifted her focus from that task. --Connel MacKenzie 18:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, but I haven't successfully migrated anything yet. (!) I've therefore tended to deal only with those images that have clear license problems by blasting them and using similar images from Commons in their place. Those that might be OK, I've left alone for now. --EncycloPetey 18:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for putting that right so quickly. I've added a comment in the right talk page about the inclusion of the meaning very. Your comments would be appreciated, as always. Algrif 21:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Heh, you've cleaned up after me three times in the last hour or so, sorry about that :) Thanks!

(don't know why I put the wrong pronunciation first in lambaste) Cynewulf 03:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove the Wikipedia link? -Eep² 05:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Because the wikipedia page was about a person named Astar. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the given definition. --EncycloPetey 05:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have since changed the link to the disambiguation page. Please reply on the page where the discussion was originated. -Eep² 06:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please read your sources. The citations you found for "mule" and a "star" are Old English transliterations of Persian words. They are not English. --EncycloPetey 06:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Er, so what? Transliterations should still be included (but referenced as Persian in origin, obviously). Again, please reply here, where the discussion originated. Fragmented discussions are annoying to follow. -Eep² 06:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

That would mean a change in policy, since Persian is not written in Latin letters. To date, we only allow Persian words written in Persian script. --EncycloPetey 07:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

What, translations aren't included on Wiktionary? I've seen them in other articles... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 07:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Look carefully at what I said above; I never once used the word "translation". Please look up the words translation and transliteration; these words do not mean the same thing. While we do include translations of English words in translation tables, we do not have articles under the transliteration. So we do translate horse into Greek as ίππος; and we explain on the page for ίππος that it means horse. However, we do not have a page called íppos, which would be a transliteration of ίππος. --EncycloPetey 18:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's wierd. íppos should redirect to ίππος, and hippos should be mentioned on hippo and have a link to ίππος. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 21:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why would ίππος be mentioned on the page for hippo? It means "horse", not "hippopotamous"; it doesn't figure in the etymology; and the two words aren't even pronounced the same. In any cae, we don't use redirects here, and we've already decided not to include entries for transliterations. Unles you can provide some arguments that haven't previously been considered, such a proposal has little chance of overturning current practice. --EncycloPetey 21:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Where is the official policy/guideline on not using transliterations? ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 10:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Many standrad practices on Wiktionary have no policy page, and this is one of those community-consensus issues whose policy document reached the draft stage and then people got busy. The last draft is at Wiktionary:Transliteration. However, the policies stated in WT:CFI apply. To be adequately documented under CFI, a word must have three durably archived citations. --EncycloPetey 19:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, it's me. When you moved the Thai symbols at Wiktionary:Alphabetical order to Appendix:Thai script you omitted the information on lexical order, which is precisely the kind of information that I'm trying to build. Looking at the Thai alphabet gives absolutely no indication that the following is the correct alphabetical order of these words:

กร กรอบ กระ กล กับ เกรง สง ส่ง สงวน สงสัย สงัด

The details in sorting Thia words are probably much more pronounced than the subtleties in English or even some of the other Roman script-based languages that consider certain letter pairs as ligatures. But I'm sure that you agree that there are simply too many special cases even in English to classify the problem as trivial.

I appreciate that there's a much larger resource already available on Wiktionary, and the information I'm trying to build should definitely be incorporated with what we already have, but I would prefer to put that off to the future if there's no way to do so now that preserves the much richer detail that we will need to have available in order to respect other languages. DAVilla 21:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, you've added it again. How does this fit into the greater scheme? DAVilla 21:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

No idea, but we are assembling a list of scripts for various languages. The information is at least useful for developers working to design searches or for users who can't get the Edittools to display properly. I was merely sorting the information from where someone had added it earlier. --EncycloPetey 21:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I'm not sure if I've shown this to you before, but I am in the process of categorizing non-English words in the Transwiki: namespace, so people that know the languages can go right there and find things they can help with, instead of dealing directly with the mess that is transwiki. This should help solve part of the problem that I seem to be the only person spending much time in that namespace. Thanks to Atelaes, ArielGlenn, and Ruakh, we've already gotten some good Greek and Hebrew articles out of them, so maybe you could try to whittle down the entries in Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Dmcdevit/TWLatin. Thanks. :-) Dmcdevit·t 01:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Maybe, but I've notice that many of them are specifically legal terms, which is one area where I know very little about the subtleties of definitions. --EncycloPetey 01:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cheers - I had just noted the syntax - and I shall desist from using the 2-letter codes :) —Saltmarsh 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not really sure how all this works, to please, just bear with me. In responce to your earlier comment to me (I wasn't logged on when I made the change, this time I am) I figured since they were all variations of spelling for the same name that it made sense to direct them to one entry instead of leaving them blank or copying the whole thing out again. I didn't realize this was prohibited, I just figured it would be the most efficient way of doing things. Name etymologies is a bit of a hobby of mine (I have about 10 different baby/character naming books) and Gwenhwyvar is a favourite of mine (which actually is another variation on spelling). So, ya, I was just trying to be helpful, as it make most sense to cross reference the variations rather than giving each their own page, but you have some other method of doing it go ahead, not all of us have time to sit around creating large compositories of information anyway. --Ethereal fire 16:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do you think you could reformat your response to my entry about Category:Government? I believe with everything you have copied from the discussion on my talk page it becomes too much information that is not about the Category:Governmenet issue. I propose you open a second thread for the more general reflections you make. __meco 20:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's too entangled an issue for that. Even changing one small category really means changing all such categories on Wiktionary. All our categories exist potentially in a form for each and every language we include. We have over 300 languages, so there are a potential 300 "Government" categories to worry about. All the other categories are affected by the change of just one. Limiting the discussion to just "Government" isn't realistic in this case. We have to think about its overall placement in the hierarchy, and right now the social sciences are a mess. Selecting a place to put Government in a hopelessly tangled hierarchy only means it might have to be changed again later. --EncycloPetey 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am off for a few days - and will work through them on my return —Saltmarsh 05:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have dealt with ελληνικά/Ελληνικά differently and more informatively —Saltmarsh 05:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know about the next batch of WotD. I'll look them over when I get a moment.

Please do remind me as each new lot come in as I won't remember to look at them otherwise.

Done. No typos found, but a few tweaks made (such as putting subjects of transitive verbs in brackets so that they do not appear to be intransitive). — Paul G 09:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

How does my pronunciation for intercrural look now? I've split the RP and US versions.

BTW, since Atelaes seems to have vanished (at least for a time), I'll alert you to the fact that the July WOTD entries have been selected and many of them have Etymology sections that could use expert help. --EncycloPetey 22:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me, well, as long as you don't mind the /r/s.... I will definitely have a look at the WOTDs. Widsith 22:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this: "For lengthy pages (and we want all our articles to grow to full size), the box makes the link much easier to find" made me curious, so I'll ask. Have you noticed the new interProject sidebar links? Try going to any page with a {{wikipedia}} box and look at the sidebar where the interlanguage links go. You'll see "In other projects" and links to the articles; this is generated by something I put in the wikipedia box. The idea is that in long articles like fish, we can use something like {{projectlinks}}, and the links are just as prominent as the box (being always at the top of the sidebar) without the box's shortcomings. Dmcdevit·t 03:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I had noticed them, but no, they're not as prominent. Most users will expect links in that position to take them to the equivalent page on a Wiktionary project in another language. So, most users probably never notice them. I, even knowing about them, forget that they're there and never make use of them. Also, I have seen plenty of such Wikipeida box pages that did not show the sidebar link; see gable for example. --EncycloPetey 03:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, they say the project names, so I don't think anyone will click them expecting a Wiktionary. As for prominence, I'm sure they are not as the boxes, which are too prominent, ugly, and break formatting. I should have said I think they are prominent enough. If you think they aren't prominent enough, then there is a problem, because, that means all of the interlanguage links are just as not prominent. Hm. Dmcdevit·t 04:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The interlanguage links only become prominent once there are about six or seven of them. At that point they form a noticeable block of "different-looking" text. They're also something I don't even think to look for unless I'm trying to get more information about a word and want to see in the French have an entry or if it exists as an entry in the native language of the word. --EncycloPetey 05:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply