User talk:Hitsuji777

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Rodrigo5260 (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

CC: @Ioaxxere, @Theknightwho: Hi @Hitsuji777, welcome to Wiktionary! I've noticed that you've added several instances of {{etymon}} to various entries, and while the work is appreciated, I'd please make sure to read the documentation listed at the template page. Please do not add etymology trees to languages other than English for the time being. I'd also make sure to check your work before adding trees, I've noticed at entries like lapis lazuli, you added a tree that displayed that Classical Persian is derived from Persian, which clearly is not the case. Please verify before displaying trees like that. Also, at entries like 海豹, you displayed that the Japanese term is a blend of Old Japanese terms, which is wrong on two fronts: it's not a blend but a compound, and a blend would require that the source terms be from Japanese, not Old Japanese. I noticed a similar thing with the Chinese terms as well. This is part of why we explicitly state that etymology trees should only be added after consensus within that editing community. Please take the time to review the guidelines for the future, thank you. AG202 (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@AG202: Why was I pinged here? I have no means of stopping them. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ioaxxere: I forgot to mention it, but there was an ID issue that they were running into, but I'm not well-versed in how etymon IDs work. AG202 (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Thanks for letting me know, I don't want to unknowingly wreak havoc. Sorry, if I've been wrongly using templates, documentation can get pretty sparse and labyrinthine here; plus I'm just overall very excited to collaborate. I'll make sure to look at the small print even closer from now on, haha. As for the lapis lazuli entry, am I allowed to add it back? Persian → Classic Persian is an easy 3-character fix. Hitsuji777 (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Different languages family have different formatting styles and guidelines. For instance, Proto-Germanic descendant trees are sorted in a specific order, per WT:AGEM, and not alphabetical, as you reordered them here. Also, please to not (re-)templatize entries were that is not the consensus of the community, i.e. switching out "Equivalent with" with {{surf}}. Thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 21:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, thank you for letting me know about my mistakes. As most languages I edited have no guidelines when it comes to ordering descendants, I simply assumed the same order would be used for all pages. Your reverting back is appreciated, although I'm sure that a few etymology trees have been broken by all the reverting. Hitsuji777 (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

For now I fixed all the {{etymon}} templates that ford linked to, but I also noticed that on some pages you replaced {{topN}} and {{bottomN}} templates with other simpler column templates. Would you mind explaining why you did and if said templates are not OK to use? Hitsuji777 (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Because {{topN}} -- as opposed to {{top3}} -- is collapsed, but more to my original point, please be mindful of the formatting used on existing pages. --{{victar|talk}} 22:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I will try my best to and I will definitely keep in mind your words when it comes to Proto-Germanic, thanks. Hitsuji777 (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 22:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

1. As for the descendants sections—is there any particular guideline that disallows them from being collapsible? I can't find any "consensus" confirming it and {{topN}} seems to have been created explicitly for the purpose of descendants sections.
2. And, on the other side, why did you edit all instances of {{inh+}} in my edits to {{inh}}? I thought the usage of these two was ultimately arbitrary and up to the editor.

Hitsuji777 (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you look at other Proto-(West-)Germanic entries, you'll notice that we don't use {{topN}}, {{inh+}}, and {{surf}}, but instead prefer {{top3}}, "from", "equivalent to", reflecting the established formatting consensus for these entries. I understand the documentation isn't always explicit, but when working with language families that have well-established conventions, it's best to follow existing patterns unless there's broader agreement for change. I'd recommend raising any proposed formatting changes in the Beer Parlour first, to ensure they're in line with community expectations. Thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 23:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your suggestions, I probably will suggest for usage of {{topN}} to be expanded upon. One last question though: on Latin *traginare, what encouraged you to undo my edit? The comment box is empty and WT:About Latin has no guidelines on descendant ordering. Thank you again for your time, I understand this might be very annoying to explain, lol. Hitsuji777 (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

As with Proto-Germanic, Latin descendant trees are preferably sorted by subfamily, see Latin aqua for an example. I believe User:Nicodene created a page outlining the subfamilies, but I can't seem to find it. It might be worth reaching out to him directly for clarification. --{{victar|talk}} 00:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't recall writing a page. There was a discussion on the matter once, but it fizzled out. The recently-published Manual of classification and typology of the Romance languages would probably be a good source from which to adopt a scheme, if someone can access it. Nicodene (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The convention of sorting Latin descendants predates you, but I know you renamed some of the families, and I thought you recalled you creating an example tree, but I guess I'm mis remembering. It would be good to add one to WT:ALA, nonetheless. --{{victar|talk}} 02:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The convention of sorting Latin descendants by subfamily predates you joining the project, but I recall that you renamed some of the family names. Either way, it would be good to add one to WT:ALA. --{{victar|talk}} 02:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply