User talk:J3133

Hey, nice to see you made an account after we talked on discord, welcome. I'll include the standard "welcome" message below, it has some useful links and stuff if you want to read more about how Wiktionary works. But you can always ask me stuff on discord, I check it every day or at least every couple of days. Or you can ask on my user talk page which I check fairly often, here: User talk:Mnemosientje. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

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.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is all right to devote time to creating missing inflected forms, but I suppose there is a much better use of your time than adding unattested forms, such as sketeyi and simetresi. Google Books is often a useful place to check before publishing. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

mi rekomendas al vi aldoni babel al via uzantpaĝo.--So9q (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I really don't want to get into an edit war with you over these two words, but your "noun 2" construction is completely nonstandard. Kiwima (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Kiwima (I was planning to post in your talk page); I have seen those headers ("Noun 2") before but if they are nonstandard then you can remove the "2" (instead of rolling back everything); that is how other words which are both a plural and a plurale tantum are (i.e., with two headings; for example, Garinagu), because the word needs the categories for both nouns and lemmas, and noun forms and non-lemmas. J3133 (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Might be an obsolete form of malapert, or an error for that. Equinox ◑ 11:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Derived terms should (I think) go below the correct part of speech. So e.g. "black-and-white" comes from the adjective, not the verb. I think you just broke that. Equinox ◑ 20:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Because the derived terms are for all parts of speech it should not be below a part of speech (see also black). J3133 (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't completely agree. The derivatives should be under the correct part of speech, but till now they were indiscriminately dumped in the same derived terms section, which was incomprehensibly shoved under the noun section, so either someone should go to the trouble of dividing them by the part of speech they derive from or they should go in a part-of-speech-neutral position. — Eru·tuon 21:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

See Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup#black, white. J3133 (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I see: I think I oversimplified this and ideally we should split them by part of speech. OK. Thanks for listening. Equinox ◑ 20:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hallo, I was surprised by this edit, where you removed spaces from around a dash. Is that based on some policy or your personal preference? In either case I find it less appealing than the previous version. PJTraill (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@PJTraill The previous character was a hyphen-minus (-). I changed it to an em dash (“—”). Because Wiktionary’s style guide does not mention anything about the use of dashes I looked at the English Wikipedia’s Manual of Style. I do not have a strong opinion regarding the kind of dash used: change it if you want to. If following the English Wikipedia’s Manual of Style then an alternative to the unspaced em dash is a spaced en dash (“ – ”). J3133 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the explanation, I did notice there seemed to be a hyphen in the old version, and I think a dash is an improvement; I have followed your suggestion and used a spaced en dash (and removed a rather lost looking full stop). PJTraill (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Kinda weird that you're going around and adding {{unsigned}} to super old talk pages, but if you're going to do that, maybe just add it to the end of the line, and not on a new line. Also, definitely don't change timecodes of old signatures. --{{victar|talk}} 06:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Victar I was already writing on your talk page but I will post my reply here:

1. “For some reason”? I am adding unsigned templates for the same reason the unsigned template was made for—to sign unsigned comments.
2. “not on a new line” I would like to see where this “rule” you mention is specifically written.

J3133 (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey, if you want to add {{unsigned}} to 17-year-old talk pages, be my guest, but it's certainly very odd behavior. Adding them in a new line after single line comments though, that's breaking with standard practice. I don't even know why you would do that. --{{victar|talk}} 07:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Victar The talk pages of Wiktionary are a mess with many unsigned comments and I decided to fix that. “Adding them in a new line after single line comments though,  ” I do not add them in a new line after single line comments but if I did then it must have been a mistake (or I considered that the lines of the comments were confusing). For multiple line comments, I add them in a new line because when multiple users write after the same-indented comment it is confusing where the comments of the users end and where the other comments start, especially if the comments are unsigned then it looks like the comments were written by one user unless you look at the history of the talk page and find out that is not true. J3133 (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I changed the time from EDT to UTC because UTC is the standard of Wiktionary and because all other comments are in UTC you would have to convert the time if you wanted to know when it was posted, which is unnecessarily complicated. J3133 (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Great, I think we're on the same page then regarding new lines, with that edit being a fluke. I get where you're coming from with the timezone discrepancy. --{{victar|talk}} 22:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

There is no consensus for having curly quotes in policies, not even 60% support. Therefore, I reverted them in Wiktionary:Style guide and asked for their revertion in CFI. Some votes: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-12/curly quotes in WT:ELE, Wiktionary:Votes/2013-02/Typographic vs ASCII punctuation in policies. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

You seem very Miracle-jestery, I must say. Happy useful contributing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Instead of creating multiple sections on my talk page with sarcastic comments you could explain who is this “Miracle jester”. I hope you enjoy your “useful contributing” which consists of reverting my changes. J3133 (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Happy useful contributing" was meant in earnest rather than being sarcastic, but it would not necessarily sound so: my mistake in communication. Since, if you are Miracle jester (an if), there is a good chance we will see a lot of good contribution from you. Maybe you are not Miracle jester; we will see. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Dan Polansky: I don't know what or who this "Miracle jester" is either. There's no user by that name and no search results. Are you accusing J3133 of being yet another historical Wiktionary vandal, or something else? — Eru·tuon 19:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Miracle jester was a word play on Wonderfool. And you explained elsewhere that he is probably not. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I see. Well, J3133 is not likely to get this coded reference (and apparently neither am I), and so you were just coming across as making some accusation and refusing to explain what it is. — Eru·tuon 20:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Seems like I chose an unfortunate communication strategy in dealing with a potential Wonderfool user. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why on earth you think this editor is Wonderfool, I don't know. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I was upset by what J3133 was doing (with no edit summaries, no tracing, nothing) and causing someone else to do by sending them an off-wiki message, and I acted in a way that seems rather suboptimal, to put it mildly. I picked some misleading clues while making almost no double check. I should not make these kinds of posts when I am upset; alternatively, I should almost never make posts about Wonderfool. I have not done it for a long time; I'll think it over. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

The standard evolution of a Wiktionarian is: anonymous IP, new user, user, autopatrolled user, established user, suspected Wonderfool sockpuppet, user nominated for adminship by Wonderfool, user nominated by someone else, admin, bureaucrat, checkuser, king. I see you're on step 6 already. Fancy a promotion to step 7? --CasiObsoleto (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Seriously, we need you as an admin. --Kriss Barnes (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Would support. Equinox ◑ 07:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Skipping step 7, go straight to step 8 Yellow is the colour (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

The page was deleted. You should read its talk page before starting an edit war. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev: It being deleted before does not make it an exception to all other {{no entry}} pages (including deleted ones), which have a heading. J3133 (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I see you've been adding Brahmi non-digit numbers to the {{mul-numberchart}} family. I'm assuming that at some point soon you will be adding the numbers composed of Brahmi digits. Have you though about how you will do this? There is an issue looming that you are probably blissfully unaware of.

Number symbols come in two main flavours - mere numbers, which include most Roman numerals, and decimal digits, which have may be strung together to form other numbers. Thus, when 6 says that VI is an alternative form of it, that is not entirely true; '66' is a number, but 'VIVI' is not. So far the meaning of 'digit' may only have been documented for 0, 1 and the N'Ko digits. I have been thinking of supplying an argument to the likes of {{mul-numberchart/6}} to say 'only show decimal digits', 'only show what are not decimal digits', and with the default action of showing everything. I want to keep the addition of new number systems as easy as possible. I'm hoping the fiddly coding can be kept to {{mul-numberchart}}. This is where Brahmi comes in. As far as Unicode is concerned, U+11052 BRAHMI NUMBER ONE to U+1105A BRAHMI NUMBER NINE are just numbers, but U+11066 BRAHMI DIGIT ZERO to U+1106F BRAHMI DIGIT NINE are decimal digits. These two types of number should not be supplied to {{mul-numberchart}} in the same argument, as they will have to be split when the upgrade to separate digits from non-digits occur. --RichardW57 (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Counting rods are another pain. Rods of the same orientation should not occur next to one another, so as digits the two orientations are not alternative forms of one another - see the Wikipedia entry for counting rods. --RichardW57 (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Handling sexagesimal digits might be fun when you implement them, though we have the additional fun facts of:

• Akkadian decimal cuneiform (e.g. 𒐑 for 60)
• No standardisation on the Unicode formatting of a long number
• Cuneiform sexagesimal digit zero. I don't know whether it would be used for 60

Have fun! --RichardW57 (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@RichardW57: I do not understand; are any of the numbers I added wrong because “there is an issue” with them and they “should not be supplied” to the template? J3133 (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Also, what do you mean by “nd” and “no”? J3133 (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

There is a problem with the existing use of the templates. Look at how it is used in the entry for 1. The page claims that Α΄ and α΄ are alternative forms of the symbol 1. That is very wrong - the symbol 1 does not just represent the number 1; depending on its position in a sequence of digits, it can represent 10, 100, and so on. This not true of Α΄ and α΄. As alternative forms for 1, one should only list characters that function as decimal digits. I'm intending to generalise {{mul-numberchart}} to be able to list only decimal digits if so desired.

Now when you added Brahmi numbers, for each value, you only list one of the two possibilities. For the value two, there are two characters: 𑁓, which you have listed, and 𑁨, which you have not. Only the latter is a digit. For example, there are two ways of writing 20 in the Brahmi script: 𑁜, which you have listed, and 𑁨𑁦, which you have not. The obvious way of fixing this omission for the value 2 is use |brah=], ]. If you do that, when I add the selection of digits, that will have to be split into two parts, e.g. as |brah=]|brah_dig=], so that I can display only the appropriate character as equivalent to the digit 2.

I've added |brah2= for Brahmi numbers using place notation. See 0 and 1 for application and, currently, the N'Ko number for 1, for non-splitting. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Nd and No are Unicode general character codes. Nd means 'Number, decimal' while No means 'Number, other'. The code Nd is used for decimal digits. --RichardW57 (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi J3133, I just wanted to let you know that I have started a discussion at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2020/August#tlb_template. This, that and the other (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Nice to see that you are familiar with Lua; I'm afraid I have no idea how to use it! — SGconlaw (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can you pls add an explanation to this revert https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=census&diff=60427755&oldid=60427740? Best regards --Pmt (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Pmt: They are not descendants. J3133 (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey, @J3133. Just tag an administrator in your next undo. That dude who's editing your page is weird. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 20:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for screwing up your edit on pre-depression. I need to be more patient when I’m reading. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 17:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm not familiar enough with Wiktionary policy to understand what the issue is. The RFV in question appears to be just one guy from Zurich in 2012 saying he's never heard the usage before, which is hardly surprising because he lives in Zurich, and no one agreed or disagreed with him. How much evidence now needs to be provided to prove it's a very normal common use in Australia? Do I just need two more news articles? Mclay1 (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Mclay1: When a sense fails RFV (the amount of people participating is irrelevant), (I quote the summary of entries deleted for failing RFV) “do not re-enter without valid quotations”, linking to the criteria for inclusion, where it is written that for (English) attestation three citations is the minimum for inclusion, which must be durably archived, independent, etc. (see Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion § Attestation). J3133 (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey- what were you asking me about Homo sapiens? I didn't understand what you wrote. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative: See the linked discussion (a user thinks the declension table should be removed and I posted for others’ opinions on this). J3133 (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi J3133 - perhaps I was doing it for a reason :) After doing it more than once you could have asked!!

When pages are viewed with tabbed languages the box appears outside the tabbed text area so that the entry detail is squished into the left hand half of the screen - ie the screen consists of:

LH menu items —|— Tabs —|— Entry details —|— character box

In the ratio 1:1:2:2

What would be your solution - assuming the tabbed page is necessary — Saltmarsh. 11:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I do not have a solution, however, the consensus is long-standing, thus not to be modified without a discussion, regardless of reasons or not. J3133 (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

To apply your phrase, “before doing it more than once you could have discussed”. J3133 (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nonetheless, after your change the page became cluttered, with four character infoboxes (two identical) in succession, thus I would not support this kludge, as evidently the readers that use tabbed languages were specifically considered, others disregarded. J3133 (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for all the copyediting and helpful improvements. On this edit, as well as this one earlier: I wanted to put the Proper noun in some conspicuous place so that the reader is properly informed about the connection between the proper and the common noun usage (which in Latin is sometimes indistinguishable, given the lack of capitalisation). Based on my complaints here, I think adding a declension table for it has no real utility, but makes the page look worse; I would think that even if this wasn't an alternative form, where the table surely needs to be reserved for the main form. Speaking of which, these complaints still remain unaddressed even though everybody seems to recognise the problem. What do you think? Brutal Russian (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Brutal Russian: I moved the sections because the derived terms and the declension with the plural forms included belong to the common noun, not the proper noun. J3133 (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Apparently, AWB has some defaults that are set for Wikipedia standards rather than Wiktionary. I have turned these off. bd2412 T 07:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, J3133. You noted in your edit summary at cassiosome, "Twitter does not count". I guess this means that usage on Twitter (and presumably other social media?) is not acceptable for attestation of a word. I don't see this explained at WT:ATTEST, and wonder if I'm looking in the wrong place. I realize that Twitter is not durably archived, but the quotation I added was durably archived at Internet Archive. If I am looking in the wrong place, I would be grateful for a pointer. Thanks for your time, and happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Cnilep: There was a discussion here; the consensus was adding a link to the Wayback Machine does not make it durably archived (thus it failed). J3133 (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I added cites when I recreated these. I'm not going to speedy them. Do you take issue with the quotes I provided?__Gamren (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Gamren: Equinox wrote “I've heard glowie (only) among 4chan types. Good luck with the CFI!” yet your cites are from 4chan. J3133 (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Gamren: DTLHS deleted glownigger. J3133 (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and? Other than Wikimedia sites, we have no policy of not using specific sites, as long as they're considered durably archived.__Gamren (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

You are right, it makes more sense for that note to be under Etymology 3.

The entry is so bloated as it is that I thought that your edit was doing something else.

My apologies. Tharthan (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Tharthan: The note was not moved when Etymology 3 was created for the verb (Special:Diff/50078952). J3133 (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey, you do great work!----Orgullomoore (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Attested in Medieval Latin (also see References). Brutal Russian (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this edit Special:Diff/62571628: I think the best approach is not to list vowel lengths in alternative forms because many of them are Late/Medieval/obscure Latin, and therefore the lengths are often difficult or impossible to establish, other times entirely inapplicable, for example when o/v, e/i, ae/e spell the same vowel regardless of original length (see deorsum). Many of these forms' pages aren't even worth creating. For this reason I have been relegating the lengths to the individual pages (when they exist). Brutal Russian (talk) 06:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Brutal Russian: Entries of attested words should be created regardless of their “worth” (we do not have notability guidelines). J3133 (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Fine, then it's simply that I don't create them because I hate creating pages. But do you agree that the lengths are best left out of the Alternative forms section? To further illustrate: the short vowel /i/ merges with the long /ē/ in most Late Latin varieties with loss of phonemic length, but both remain distinct from the long /ī/. Therefore a word like rēte can be spelled as rite, with a long vowel that is not , which we spell ī. Similarly with aetās spelled etas, with a long open vowel which contrasts with the vowel that we spell as ē. Brutal Russian (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, sorry, I neglected to check whether someone had created it while I was putting it off; no, don't delete, I'll make them aliases. Brutal Russian (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I was copying from the Norse word. I was trying to fix the link on sleuthhound, which at the moment points to the main entry for sloth, a totally unrelated word. 24.228.0.221 01:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I am aware you were copying, which is why the entry was wrong. J3133 (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Would you prefer I retarget the link in sleuthhound, or create a new entry from scratch? RedPanda25 (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@RedPanda25: The link already is targeted to “sloth § Middle English”. The Middle English entry has not been created (as many currently are not), thus it defaults to the top of the page (not (the top of the) the English entry, as it would if it linked to it). If you can create a correct entry then I do not see why I would oppose. J3133 (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I thought I'd messed up my edit; I didn't realise you'd undone part of my edit.

The word is given in dictionary as having two stems, one with short vowel and on with long vowel, with no hint iof any difference in meaning. I've found a compound exhibiting the long vowel (about to be cited under the alphabetic Lao script entry). It therefore seemed appropriate to combine the two words as one, with a combined inflection table and both forms being listed in all scripts under the 'alternative forms' header. Do you have objections to this approach? --RichardW57 (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@RichardW57: No objections, it was a mistake. J3133 (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, where exactly is the "illyr. > lat." part in Pokorny? I can't find it. I've found this instead which mention brisa coming from Messapian or Venetic, not Illyrian: Lat. ferveō, -ēre, fervō, -ĕre ‘sieden, wallen’ (über fermentum s. bher-2); dēfrū̆tum ‘eingekochter Most, Mostsaft’ (: thrak. βρῦτος, βρῦτον, βροῦτος ‘eine Art Gerstenbier’; aus thrak. *brūti̯ā (gr. βρύτια), stammt illyr. brīsa ‘Weintrester’, urverw. alb. bërsí ds., woraus serb. bersa, bȋrsa, bîrza Schimmel auf dem Wein; lat. brīsa aus dem Venet. oder Messap.). Herakliu (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is a citation. J3133 (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've seen it, but Pokorny mentions something different in the source you wrote. Maybe it's Uwe Friedrich Schmidt you are referring to? Herakliu (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Someone (you, perhaps: although, if it was you, why would you not add Messapic or Venetic?) removed the origin, only leaving a cognate. I tried to find a citation for the Illyrian claim and added one instead of having nothing. J3133 (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Indeed you are right, I didn't have your source in hand. Actually it's Krahe and Neroznak that derive brisa from Illyrian, meanwhile Pokorny derives it from Venetic or Messapic. Both can be added. Cheers. Herakliu (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok I've found your source, it's actually Krahe and Neroznak that derives brisa from Illyrian, not Pokorny. Herakliu (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@J3233: Many thanks for correcting my careless oversight and mistake. Andrew

Hello, recently, on the Beer parlour, you added an 'unsigned' template after one of my responses because I forgot to add my signature; is it now okay if I update that comment with my own signature, or does it have to stay like that? Sorry for my inexperience, and thanks. Kiril kovachev (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

You can replace it with “Kiril kovachev (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)”. It is your choice: some users update the signature, others leave the “unsigned” template. J3133 (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm hoping to get some clarity around the "sorry" etymology. It feels a bit misleading to say that "sorry" is equivalent to combining the suffix -y and the Modern English word sore. That is neither how the word is parsed by Modern English speakers, nor is it how the word was formed in Modern English. The word may have been historically equivalent to "sore -y", but that equivalence does not exist in Modern English. Wouldn't it be better to indicate the equivalence by using a template with the appropriate historical language tag, like sor +‎ -y or sore +‎ -y (both spellings seem to be used for the Middle English word)? (Also note the template on the Middle English sory page.) Thanks for helping to clarify this! Jonathanbratt (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the equivalence, as English is not equivalent to Middle English. J3133 (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

That makes a lot more sense now--thanks! Jonathanbratt (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jonathanbratt: Also if it had remained |nocat=1 would have been needed to not add “Category:Middle English words suffixed with -y”, as that is the entry for the (Modern) English word. J3133 (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ah, good point! Jonathanbratt (talk) 03:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

• I do not find any instance of Spanish sene in dictionaries, or in the RAE's diachronic corpus (CORDE). The latter gives exmaples such as dia sene (the sixth day?) and hojas de sene (??), neither of which seems like 'old' or 'old age'. I have no idea where IP user 201.194.89.140 got it from...
• Old French sené does show up, but the Middle French dictionary on CNRTL gives the etymology of its root as SINNO- citing the FEW, related to PG *sinnaz and German Sinn, not Latin senex. Here's the FEW entry, where it is derived from Old French sen...
• The Old French descendant would have to come from something like sen(em)- + -ātus, if from senex, which is an odd formation in light of the lack of cognate formations. This merely nudges me in favour of the FEW etymology though.
• I'm also having trouble finding information about Portuguese sene... but I don't have access to resources to check much
• Checking the history, I see they were added by IP users, which both raises my suspicion and doesn't give me much hope they'll respond to inquiries... not that I tried to ask them
• The terms are not listed in the REW (which however lists descendants in Sardinian, Aromanian, Old Italian and Abbruzzese), which I find pretty suspicious, considering they're major Romance languages

This is why I proceeded to delete those descendant terms. I'm more than willing to let the Portuguese sene stand in particular, and maybe the Old French one, but I would love some better defence of the existence of the (Old?) Spanish term...--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 18:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you initiated the speedy deletion of wees bereid. As a motto it is printed on antique literature from the scout organizations in Holland (I can prove this with pictures). I was not given notice of the nomination to delete. Had I been given notice I would have voted keep and I would have explained the reasons. The delete reasons given were pretty insignificant -- that it came from me, and that something else I had added was speedily deleted. Goldenrowley (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

It was not a speedy deletion but a RFD discussion; i.e., we voted to delete the English Scout Motto and also the Dutch Scout Motto; you can create a request for undeletion at WT:RFD as telling me you do not like the outcome is fruitless. J3133 (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for being negligent re the RfV. Don't know how I didn't see it! Prahlad balaji (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I see you made an edit to "prior" that split the English section into two etymologies; one retained the adjective and adverb usages, and the other the noun usages. I'm curious about your reasons for this, since they both trace back to the same Latin etymon.

I would particularly like to know because of the latter two noun senses (law enforcement and statistics). These seem (to me) like they're clearly noun uses of the adjective, quite distinct from the other senses (ecclesiastical and civil titles). As such, they should go with Etymology 1... but before I make any such edit I want to more clearly understand the purpose and historical record underlying the split! -- Perey (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Perey: The noun is inherited from Old English; the adjective is a Modern English borrowing from Latin. Compare the Online Etymology Dictionary and the Merriam–Webster Online Dictionary (which also has two etymologies). J3133 (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The former notes the law enforcement sense is short for prior arrest, by 1990; I have moved the senses you mentioned to etymology 1. J3133 (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ahh, I see. Thanks, it makes sense now—and you've made exactly the change I was pondering, so there's nothing left for me to do! Thanks again. -- Perey (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I recall there was another quotation template that needed fixing. Which one was it again? (I need to have a better way of tracking these.) — SGconlaw (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Sgconlaw: {{RQ:Holinshed Chronicles}} perhaps? J3133 (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I do not think that the Norman forms chînq, chinq, chin can derive from Middle French cinq /sĩːk/. Coming ultimately from Vulgar Latin *cinque (as all Romance forms do), the Norman forms show the evolution, before front vowels, of /k/ > /tʃ/ > /ʃ/, not the central or 'Francien' evolution /k/ > /ts/ > /s/. The Norman development, shared also with Picard, reflects an ancient isogloss present already in the early stages of Old French. Nicodene (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Nicodene: We state that the Norman language is a descendant of Middle French; is that wrong? J3133 (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's incorrect, yes, and for more reasons than just this. The main Wikipedia pages for French and Norman present the more accurate picture- with French placed under Middle French, and Norman directly under Oïl. Wiktionary has, it seems, multiple issues with its Romance language classifications, considering that it also claims Old Catalan as a descendant of Old Occitan (its contemporary), which no scholarly source agrees with. Nicodene (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Nicodene Re hui: I added it as there is an entry; should there be a RFV, as you claim it did not exist in Modern French? J3133 (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The last author that the FEW entry cites for hui by itself (that is, not as part of a compound) is des Périers, who wrote in the early sixteenth century. Hence my assigning the last phase of the word to Middle French. If a later attestation exists—say, on the eve of, or during, the seventeenth century—then that would change things.

You can start an RFV- perhaps someone will come along who knows of the right places to look. Nicodene (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The end of the FEW entry hints at the continuation of the term in legal jargon, but what it refers to are a number of fixed expressions containing the combination d'hui (the TLFi provides some examples), rather than the simple form hui.

That is a situation that I would describe like so:

• Middle French hui
  • ⇒ French d'hui (in fixed expressions), aujourd'hui

Nicodene (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for nomming this for deletion. I omitted the "s" due to a typo in a preview link from WP, and somehow propagated the error and didn't catch it before I published. I think deletion is appropriate. Apologies. HLHJ (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Helloo J3133, there are many reasons for why it would be beneficial for you to be an admin. Would you accept my nomination? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 08:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Fytcha: Yes, I would. J3133 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please accept the nomination here. After that, I will start the vote. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey man. I understand, you thought it was hasty of me to "Middle English"-ize this entry. But I think it is very problematic in several ways, as it stands. Namely:

• Entry has got NO glosses at all saying it's obsolete or weird or nonstandard. A learner using Wiktionary could see that and think that this is an everyday word to use in chat with friends, or at work. Let's at least gloss "obsolete".
• Sense 2 has a mysterious gloss "noman's", and an example sentence that nobody ever would use, and nobody (noman?) ever used. And if it's "noman's" then why isn't it at "noman's"? (I'm making trouble for myself...)

Please don't be Leasnam on me. Do you want to tidy it up before I take this to the shitshop? Thanks. Equinox ◑ 12:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox: I have added the label “obsolete” (although the alternative forms, no man and no-man, which link to this entry, are not completely obsolete); I have also moved the second sense to noman's, added the label as well and removed the example. J3133 (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Perfect. Equinox ◑ 20:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Don't you see it's creating an error in the etymology? Maybe don't blindly undo. Vininn126 (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations! Chuck Entz (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, TAKASUGI Shinji is Former administrador. Can you remove User from list of administrators? Thank you! AlPaD (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Done. J3133 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hiya - the duplicate was down to the fact that the ditto mark entry should be merged with ″. This is because the Unicode consortium state that the "double prime" symbol should be used when writing the ditto in the Latin script, and that 〃 should only be used when writing in an East Asian script. This isn't just pedantry, either - 〃 has East Asian character behaviour and will have unexpected behaviour outside of that context (such as being too wide or displaying in an East Asian style depending on user's system etc). I added the second character info box in preparation for this, but I got sidetracked before actually doing the merger because it needs to be done properly, and I never got round to it. My bad. Theknightwho (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi - it doesn't seem appropriate to have a Latin declension table under a Translingual section at Homo sapiens, because that doesn't apply translingually. It seems like a clear case of where a separate Latin section would make sense. I notice that this has already proven controversial before, so what is the reasoning for having it that way? I don't see this approach being taken on other taxonomic entries.

I also don't think it makes sense to give the Classical Latin pronunciation, given the term wasn't coined till about 1,500 years after that stopped being spoken. Theknightwho (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho: The declension table was discussed was Wiktionary:Tea room/2021/February § Homo sapiens and Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2021/February § Translingual. I will ping @Fay Freak who stated “ a spectacular fail of realizing this close connection of translingual and Latin. The translingual is an ideal entity, therefore we want macrons and inflection tables ” and “3. “A translingual term may present diacritics, inflection tables, and similar grammatical information particular to an individual language if the term is manifestly closely connected to it.” (then it is also no undue hardship to not have Latin entries for certain words because the translingual term can have all the macrons and inflections)”. There are quotations that decline it (“hominum sapientium”, “hominis sapientis”, “homini sapienti” in English and “Hominis sapientis” in Latin); I do not see it much differently than providing the plural, which is also cited (see Citations:Homo sapiens; compare Homo sapiens sapiens (with quotations using “hominis sapientis sapientis” in Czech and “hominum sapientium sapientium” in Latin in a German book; the plural Homines sapientes sapientes has quotations in many languages). I did not add the Latin pronunciations. J3133 (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

It’s simply incorrect to give a Latin declension table translingually, because languages outside of Latin do not inflect the term that way. Yes, there is a plural form that happens to be the same as the nominative plural in Latin (and is derived from it) but it is factually incorrect to give the full Latin declension table translingually, because English does not use any of the other inflections for the other cases listed. It is simply the plural, and we can list it as such.

I note that the other user back in Feb 2021 pointed this out, and it was completely ignored, but it explains exactly why a table like this makes absolutely no sense. If you want the table, then we should have a Latin L2, which is easily attestable. Theknightwho (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho: I pointed out that there are quotations inflecting it in English. J3133 (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The 1974 cite incorrectly uses the genitive plural instead of the correct accusative, the 2007 cite uses the genitive singular instead of the correct ablative plural, and the 2017 cite uses the dative singular instead of the ablative plural. They’re all wrong! Theknightwho (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

In any event, they’re isolated pretentions by a few twunts who want to sound clever. They’re not genuine English inflections (and that’s to say nothing of the fact it still doesn’t justify it translingually anyway). Theknightwho (talk)

@Theknightwho: The declensions were removed by Ultimateria yesterday. J3133 (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Taxonomic Latin is a strange beast. It started out as ordinary New Latin which was used in running Latin text with all the expected inflections (Though I doubt there has been or ever will be occasion to use the vocative- who talks to scientific abstractions?). As scientific discourse transitioned to the vernacular, it became an atrophied copy of Latin and Greek. For that reason, a declension table for a binomal like Homo sapiens is indeed quite misleading. Still, pretty much anything nominal or adjectival in Latin can be used in taxonomic names- even participles and fossilized phrases (cf. Impatiens noli-tangere). Taxonomic names in the genus group have gender, and those in the species group also have number as well as nominative and genitive cases. Specific epithets are typically adjectives agreeing in gender and number with the generic names they modify, but they can also be nouns in apposition, including genitives. One interesting group of the latter are in names of parasitical organisms, which are often the taxonomic names of the host organisms in the genitive. The names of higher taxa are normally formed by adding the rank endings to the genitive stem of a generic name. This causes confusion because some taxonomists aren't well versed in things like stem consonants and Grassman's law.

The upshot of all this is that it can be helpful to know the gender of generic names, and how they decline in the nominative and genitive in both singular and plural. For specific epithets, it can also be helpful to know how they decline in all three genders. That means limited declension tables for generic names and adjectival specific epithets are a good idea. For one thing it helps readers understand why higher taxa based on generic names that end in -thrix seem to always have variation between forms with -thric- or -thrich- and -trich- Chuck Entz (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Thanks for this thoughtful and insightful response. I do think we probably need a better way of handling taxonomic names, as you're correct that it's useful to know how they decline, and we should acknowledge their Latin (or maybe Latin-esque) nature, but I'm not really sure how we should go about it. Theknightwho (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

That was fast. Thank you for doing that. 216.234.200.179 20:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

J3133, your revision that I reverted has nothing to do with any module errors. You changed {{inh|la|itc-ola}} to {{der|la|itc-ola}} which is incorrect. -- Gowanw (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Gowanw: There was a module error, stating that Old Latin (itc-ola) is an etymology-only language and not an ancestor of Latin (la): it was fixed by @Benwing2 (who likely saw the page at Category:Pages with module errors) here about two hours after I wrote that edit summary telling you that there is an error. J3133 (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Great but Benwing had the correct solution. --Gowanw (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

If I knew this correct solution (i.e., ancestral_to_parent) I would have done it. J3133 (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's fine, but instead of putting forth a bad edit for the sake of removing the error, you could have informed someone with more knowledge. Anyway, water under the bridge. --Gowanw (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for dealing with the vandal but I have some friendly advice for you. It's not a huge deal in this case since they only made 3 entries, but when someone uses {{vandal}} it generates a "nuke" link that will let you mass delete all the entries they created. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to correct the misspellings and errors that a few users added to any page, or everyone will revert the disruptives by blocked users or vandalism inserted by all vandals. 176.88.80.117 09:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Nothing is misspelled; “-ability” nouns are formed from corresponding adjectives in “-able”. I am not sure what “no reversion is allowed without errors” means or the “disruptives” and “vandalism” which do not exist there, as some of those “-ability” etymologies you reverted were added by me. J3133 (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

and I removed the word "possibility" since that word does not end with "ability". 176.88.80.117 09:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Not sure how this works. I wanted to include the name of the hymn at degener but it broke Zumbacool (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Zumbacool: The chapter is automatically added if the page number is specified; you can now also manually specify the chapter. J3133 (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete and create-lock this shit please. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Done. J3133 (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have no clue why you made this revert – the edit summary is totally uninformative – so how am I supposed to form a judgement as to whether this rollback is in error?  --Lambiam 20:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see you rereverted.  --Lambiam 20:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam: The edit summary (“this rollback is in error”) which you call “uninformative” is automatically added, not mine. I did not mean to revert your edits (which is why I reverted myself immediately). J3133 (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Latin word referred to some gourd, but there was apparently no gourd native to Italy. They could be found in northern Africa and the Middle East. I don't know whether they were grown in the central and western Mediterranean 2,000 years ago, but it doesn't seem impossible. The plants of genus Cucurbita are native to the New World and got the genus name from the Latin by reason of similar appearance and/or function. The cite about early American agriculture would probably be about the genus. The other cites are likely about gourds in general, ie, possibly the family Cucurbitaceae. We could use another cite suggestive of the family as a whole or, better, the Old-World gourds. DCDuring (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring: I meant whether the definition “Alternative form of cucurbit” is correct—not whether the statements in the quotations are correct. J3133 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

The same ambiguity applies to cucurbit. Also, there are no cites show that suggest usage for the "receptacle" sense, so a real definition would seem needed. DCDuring (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring: I have added the gloss “plant”, so that it would not seem to apply to the receptacle sense. J3133 (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for cleaning up my typos. Been trying to catch them myself. If you see a page with a ton under the definition lines and you have a spare moment (unless you're in a certain groove), feel free to put them in a box. Cheers, Vininn126 (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why do you think having the North American pronunciation would actually be helpful? North Americans barely have any reason to talk about UK cities, besides the big ones. — This unsigned comment was added by 178.120.68.63 (talk) at 10:57, 27 August 2022‎ (UTC).Reply

As an English non-native speaker who wants to pronounce UK cities the right way, the audio doesn't help me at all.

We aim to have all pronunciations, whether that may be American or British. J3133 (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

But Brits will make fun of me if I mispronounce the name of their city. Better to have nothing than only the US pronunciation. — This unsigned comment was added by 178.120.3.50 (talk) at 10:11, 29 August 2022‎ (UTC).Reply

I have added a request for UK audio: again, we do not remove other pronunciations. J3133 (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

UK audio has been added. J3133 (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just thought I'd reiterate some advice I saw somewhere here before: if you're blocking an IPv6 address apparently it's best to issue a range block. I'm not sure but from what I recall it seems like one person's IPv6 address could change frequently within a smallish range...the language I recall being used was something like that blocking a single IPv6 address "doesn't really do anything". The syntax that is supposed to be used is to append "/64" to the end of the IP you want to block. Here, I actually found the documentation page here if you are interested in learning more. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you deleted farmer's daughter on August 8, with the reason "Mass deletion of pages added by 173.197.250.253". However, the page passed a request for undeletion a month prior. Was this a mistake? Ioaxxere (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

What you don't see is the large amount of deliberately bad content this has IP created. Usually the definition is about something unrelated like listening to some rock group they like to go on and on about, or some lame political or topical wisecrack. In the case of farmer's daughter, it hadn't been undeleted, so they were able to create it new with nothing but a vague allusion to Joe Biden and their own state of Indiana. Trust me- there was nothing you or anyone but another vandal would want in a dictionary entry. We don't like to go into details about the content in such cases, because it gives the vandal a trophy they can show their friends.

Mass deletions are generally without prejudice to the individual entries, because it's all about the vandal. Creating a new entry by the same name doesn't require the same level of consensus as one deleted through rfv or rfd, and restoring the non-vandalism part of an original entry that was deleted for cause is no different from deleting any other such entry that wasn't part of a mass delete- if you have the consensus, it gets undeleted (minus the vandalism). Chuck Entz (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please make sure to read the documentation before you change the code. They're a minefield, anyway: WF is the one who uses them more than anyone else, but almost never reads the documentation and just guesses what the parameters are- nine times out of ten, incorrectly. Add to that @Sgconlaw's continuous program of upgrading and standardizing the templates, and you have a situation where these show up in CAT:E and CAT:PFE all the time.

Cleaning up the entries so the templates are used correctly is going to be an epic task, if anyone ever decides to do it. The best I can do is revert the most obvious screwups that cause errors so WF knows something is wrong, and fix most of the others. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thanks Chuck for the corrections. I'm probably gonna stop using RQ templates... Flackofnubs (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Flackofnubs: you do lots of useful stuff like adding quotations, identifying incomplete quotations, and recording pronunciations. Thanks for that. But it would be better if you did those things in a way that didn’t create more work for other editors to clean up. Just saying. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think you made a mistake here, surely the plural should be "Settlers of Catan" right? Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Acolyte of Ice: Yes, thanks for telling me—I forgot to add the plural parameter. J3133 (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

If it interests you, most adjectives in Category:en:Heraldry are postmodifiers. :) (The spelling clymant possibly shouldn't be in the category, though, if the category is already on the lemma spelling climant: people seem to prefer not to categorize mere alternative spellings, of which heraldry has a lot.) - -sche (discuss) 06:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey- Thanks for your recent corrections! I don't know if you're interested, but I'd like to ask: is the ʻ apostrophe the correct apostrophe for diff? I ask because there is no 'English' header on Wiktionary's page for the ʻ apostrophe. Would I take this to the Team Room? Thanks. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative: It could also be ‘, because they look the same. J3133 (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Here are a few alternative (archaic?) spellings which might be of interest to you:

• common-place for commonplace
• house-wife for housewife

PUC – 15:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for creating/quoting those. And here's another one: used-book store or used book store for used bookstore. PUC – 23:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hiya - just so you're aware (as I know you spend time dealing with things like this):

• "X terms spelled with Y" is now automatic for Translingual.
• {{DEFAULTSORT:}} for the page is now done by the headword template. This mainly affects maintenance categories.
• {{unsupportedpage}} is now obsolete, as its job is now done by the headword template.
• I think {{unsupported}} is now obsolete, as everything it does should have been incorporated into normal link templates, but there may be some edge-cases that still require it for now.

Theknightwho (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho: Category:Translingual terms spelled with Πdoes not seem to be automatic. J3133 (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@J3133 Automatic categorisation excludes the character itself (which is not new), which I think makes sense: a character isn't spelled with itself. As it's handled by the headword, I was thinking of making it part of speech based, so that it still catches one-letter terms (e.g. the English indefinite article a). Theknightwho (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho: I was not referring to the character itself; e.g., removing the manual “]” from Chœropsis does not result in the category being added automatically. J3133 (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@J3133 It seems to be because {{taxoninfl}} doesn't use {{head}}, which it definitey should be. Have a look at | (vertical line) to see how much stuff I've been able to take out of the wikitext now that it's handled automatically.

In the meantime, I'll convert {{taxoninfl}}. Theknightwho (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@J3133 All done: see Chœropsis. Theknightwho (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho: Before I edited Category:Translingual terms spelled with underscore to include “|char=_”, the description was “Translingual terms spelled with underscore” and the title was “Category:Translingual terms spelled with underscore” (note the italics). Perhaps the “char” can be included automatically? J3133 (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@J3133 I'll have a look. I think it would be a good idea to have a fixed/standardised way of handling these characters, so these things can always be automatically generated. In most instances, it's possible to work out whether the title is disallowed, which means we might be able to do with (most of) the data module for unsupported titles altogether. That also has the advantage of meaning redlinks to bad titles work properly.

I've aleady done this for titles which clash with interwiki prefixes, which was necessary due to the massive number of inflectional forms that happen in Finnish (see n:s as just one example).

The only difficulty is when a user wants to link to a space character, as we don't want {{l|mul| }} to behave differently to {{l|mul|}}, but it shouldn't be too hard to come up with something. Theknightwho (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho: I also think, e.g., Category:English terms spelled with À, Category:English terms spelled with È, etc. should be subcategories of Category:English terms spelled with ◌̀. J3133 (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho: ◌̊ is in “Category:Translingual lemmas̊”. J3133 (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho: Only three entries remain in Category:Translingual terms spelled with underscore; the rest seem to have disappeared. snake_case is not in Category:English terms spelled with underscore any more either; the headword is also displayed with a space instead of an underscore. J3133 (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho: Why has Category:English terms spelled with – become empty? J3133 (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Never seen that before!

Looks like a specifically English use of the acute. But also, it looks like it's only ever on e, so should we move it to é, or does it occur elsewhere? kwami (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Seems like an optional diacritic, so even if it does only appear with e, I think you're right and we should record it as a use of the diacritic, not of the letter <é>. So I left it there but also added additional uses of the acute in English (also grave and diaeresis). kwami (talk) 04:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami: I wondered whether it would also be used for oo but apparently (e.g., “Gréeke bookes”) it is not. It should be noted that it is placed over the first e, not the second (repeated) one. J3133 (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

It looks like ⟨ée⟩ is simply a digraph for the long 'e' sound. Not used for ea, which was presumably still pronounced distinctly at the time. I wonder if it's an influence of French ée, which is (was) a common enough word ending. kwami (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami: Where would we place the digraph—at ée? J3133 (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

We could. Cf. ch, which has an entry as a digraph in Czech (but not for English!). But we don't have entries for ee or ea, and would need to add additional etymologies to do so. I suppose we should do all that. If you take a look at List of Latin-script digraphs, which I've put some work into, there aren't all that many digraphs even cross-linguistically, and many of them are actually contextual sequences, not true digraphs (e.g. pn in English) and so should not have entries here. But still, a fair-sized project to take on, esp. when we need to add additional etymology sections for some of them (probably most of the vowel digraphs). kwami (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Maybe we should seek guidance before taking on such a potentially large project. Module:headword/data supports 'letters' and 'ligatures' but not multigraphs. I don't know if 'ch' actually counts as a 'letter' in Czech, but it doesn't in English. If ppl add 'digraph' or 'multigraph' to the list of possible headings, then it will be clear that this kind of entry is sanctioned -- not that I really expect anyone to object, given that some of these articles have been around for a while, and that no-one has objected to me adding more for non-English multigraphs. kwami (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

See the quotes under oclus, marmur, ziniperus, and so on. All of them have gained an unwanted final ']' with your edit. Nicodene (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Nicodene: Did you see the link I provided? J3133 (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

So it adds an initial bracket also, on a different line. Looks strange honestly, considering as well the brackets already there around 'say or write'. But alright. Nicodene (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Nicodene: This is the part I was referring to (Template:quote-book/documentation § Parameters):

Use "brackets=on" to surround a quotation with brackets. This indicates that the quotation either contains a mere mention of a term (for example, "some people find the word manoeuvre hard to spell") rather than an actual use of it (for example, "we need to manoeuvre carefully to avoid causing upset"), or does not provide an actual instance of a term but provides information about related terms.

E.g., “mergus non mergulus” is not talking about waterfowl, but mentioning Latin words. J3133 (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Right, I see the practical use for it. I'm not contesting it (now). Nicodene (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if you're multiple people or making automated edits or what, but in the off chance the last 31 hours of editing have been the work of a single person... how long have you been awake? Take care of yourself. Love, Ioaxxere (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you are seeing something different than I am, but the diff between my edit and yours appears to be that one shows "Insta or Insta'" as seems to be intended by the rest of the header template, and the other only shows "Insta". Are you sure that we don't want to show both? - TheDaveRoss 21:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@TheDaveRoss: If “Insta or Insta'” was intended, then the |head= parameter would never have been added there to prevent it. J3133 (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

So "Insta'" is not a valid spelling? In that case shouldn't the various inflections of that spelling also be removed? - TheDaveRoss 22:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@TheDaveRoss: The forms “Insta'ing” and “Insta'ed” are valid, and that is why “Insta'<>” was added. We have Airbnb'ed—that does not mean “ Airbnb' ” exists. ' separates the suffix, like -, thus “Insta-” also does not exist. J3133 (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

As there is no reasonable way to search for such terms, I guess I'll just take you at your word. I assume that "Insta'" is also used, if significantly less frequently. Airbnb isn't really a comparable example, since there is no abbreviation happening there, it is merely a case of horrifying grammatical miscalculation. - TheDaveRoss 12:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@TheDaveRoss: Even if “Insta'” was used, it would be placed at Insta', not Insta. Also pinging @Einstein2, who added the |head= that we are discussing. J3133 (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

You're getting too good at recognizing WF's accounts. Before 1755 (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, as the translingual Burmese script letters used to contain pronunciations, I thought users and other editors should know that no pronunciation is given by policy, rather than being missing simply because we haven't yet got round to it. --RichardW57m (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@RichardW57m: “Deliberately not telling” seemed that we are deliberately hiding this information from readers. J3133 (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, yes we are likely to be making an effort to hide it, as I did in this case, in accordance with the sentiments expressed in Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2023/July#Pronunciation Labelling in Translingual Items. --RichardW57m (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is also bullet point 3 in the "acceptable" reasons for a redirect. - TheDaveRoss 14:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@TheDaveRoss: Hyphenation forms are excluded from this point by being listed as an unacceptable use above. J3133 (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Eh, I think a redirect is better in this case. - TheDaveRoss 17:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

There were only 3 entries in Category:Pages with ParserFunction errors before your edit to this template. Now there are 7. Please check your code. Perhaps not coincidentally, none of them have |page= or |pageref= parameters. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: I added {{#if:{{{page|}}}{{{pageref|}}}{{{3|}}}. J3133 (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea if it's working the way it's supposed to, but at least that got rid of the ParserFunction errors. Thank you! Chuck Entz (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, J3133. I think you will find that "Quiet quitting during COVID-19" was published online on August 8, 2023, but is part of what is nominally the December issue of Humanities & Social Sciences. Whether published_month refers to actual or nominal publication is, I suppose, an arbitrary question for Wiktionary. Cheers, Cnilep (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

why not change the definition to reflect this, then? ChecksMix (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Which part of it needs to be changed? We define bikini bottom as “the bottom half of a bikini”. J3133 (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I found ML and MJ in french sources, since they'd work just as well as french (or probably any romance language). ME might only be English, apart from other sources using English abbreviations. I'd have to search for the french etc. equivalents, don't have the internet access right now. kwami (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wow, this page needs a clear-out into an archive like I had to do with mine. It took me ages to get round to it.
I'm puzzled by your decision. Yes, -year-old has gone, I was the only one who voted to keep it. I had forgotten what happened to it, but I thought that my addition would be acceptable. After all, the combining form is, I think, more common than year-old on its own. What else can I say? DonnanZ (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Donnanz: This is not “my decision”; after an RfD, it cannot be re-added without an undeletion discussion. J3133 (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not thinking of undeletion of that entry, what I added was intended to be a workaround. DonnanZ (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Donnanz: It is essentially the same entry without the combining hyphen. J3133 (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

So we are denying the combining form exists (35-year-old etc.), apart from a reference to it in the etymology. DonnanZ (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Donnanz: I added the etymology, but I think the usage note is more relevant. Again, per our policy, an undeletion discussion is required. J3133 (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

An undeletion request would probably get nowhere, judging by the overwhelming delete vote. However, now there is nowhere where quotes can be added, adding them to the bare year-old isn't ideal. DonnanZ (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved to Talk:Blackademic.

Season's Greetings! Cheers! Shir-El too (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I was going over Special:LongPages and noticed a number of entries that didn't immediately make sense for being so large, like governoress, propagandum, adventureress and the largest example being New Yorkian, and looking at the actual entries, realized that they each had dozens of fully cited quotations just for a single sense. I would recommend perhaps going over these and other examples of such "overcitations" you might be better aware of, and trimming them down to 3-5 examples for a given sense, though given the effort already given in making them(they are pretty well cited), perhaps moving the excess into the Citation namespace Akaibu (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

While I agree with the suggestion that the on-entry citations should be pared down to 3 to 5 good cites and the rest should be on the Citations page, I want to say that I disagree with the spirit of your comment, especially the concept that a word can be "overcited" or that the mere effort justifies keeping the "extra cites". If there were bona fide "extra" cites, I think they should be deleted. But Wiktionary:Quotations tells us that citations are not there merely for the utilitarian purpose of satisfying the childish "three cites or it didn't happen" rule of WT:ATTEST. A serious dictionary enterprise is gonna have WAY MORE THAN THREE in my humble opinion. The "three" rule is to give people a basic standard. Citations beyond three is about telling us context, range, register, etc as described on Wiktionary:Quotations. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe that having more citations is better, and does no harm as they are hidden. For example, the OED does not restrict itself to 3–5 examples. J3133 (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Akaibu: the OED has 97 quotations for village, sense C.1 (→DOI). So as long as @J3133 doesn't go past that, we should be okay. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I generally oppose links like that and think they're only permissible in square brackets to show the editorial change. (Yes, that Italian citation also has brackets in the original, but that is an ambiguity that cannot be avoided.) However, I shall not revert your reversion. 0DF (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wrote that before checking your actual edit. I have no objection to the link in the Morelli citation. 0DF (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@0DF: This seems inconsistent, as “Iul. Rufinianus” is not linked in the text, and would be a “change”. Also, note that the headword at schema logu, the entry itself, is nonstandard, as it seems to be the only Latin entry that adds the declension categories manually. Each inflection does not have to be attested in order to be listed under the “Declension” heading, as evidenced by the entries in Category:Latin hapax legomena. J3133 (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but in the case of linking "Iul. Rufinianus", there are brackets there to show that an editorial change has been made. Granted, the source also has brackets, but that sort of ambiguity is unavoidable (when a source contains brackets, I tend to include an editorial comment like <!-- brackets sic in source --> when I cite it). As for declension, I have no problem adding tables for unattested forms when we can be relatively confident how a word would decline (as I've done for Buchenaviānus), but I don't think we can be confident about the declension of schēma logū, on account of the variability of the declension of schēma. The Morelli citation only further confounds the matter: schēma can have the ablative plural forms schēmasi, schēmasin, schēmatibus, and schēmīs, but Morelli's schēmatīs is none of those. My guess is that Morelli's Latin isn't up to scratch, so he erroneously derived the ablative plural schēmatīs from the nominative plural schēmata as if the nominative singular were *schēmaton or *schēmatum. 0DF (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi J! I'm curious about your reversion on 'cumber. What are you trying to communicate by putting the location and website between square brackets? I'm not against that formatting, but I'm concerned that while it works today, putting an opening bracket in one parameter of the template and a closing bracket in another parameter is just inviting unexpected problems if anyone makes changes to the template. Is there another way to convey whatever the same information? Is there something lacking in the template formatting that should be changed? Cheers! JeffDoozan (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@JeffDoozan: Square brackets indicate that something is not present in the work, whether the author, the publisher, the year of publication, etc., and seems to be standard in at least our Words of the Day: coenobium also uses “”. J3133 (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @Sgconlaw - it looks like you added the bracketed location/publisher to coenobium in this diff. This just feels really hacky to me. Is it necessary? Is it trying to say that the location and publisher isn't included in the original work? This feels like something that 1) maybe isn't needed or 2) should be done through a documented template parameter. JeffDoozan (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@JeffDoozan: I assume you're referring to the 2019 quotation. Yes, it was because the work (or at least what portion of it which can be viewed through Google Books) does not provide full imprint information, and the work is also not listed in the OCLC website. However, Google Books indicated that the work was self-published using Lulu. Unfortunately, it appears that the work has been taken off Google Books entirely as the URL is returning an error. I suppose I could have enclosed the place of publication and publisher in brackets separately, but that would have resulted in ": " whereas "" looked tidier. I believe this is also the standard bibliographic practice, at least in print. Are additional parameters really needed? — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that more parameters is probably the last thing the quote templates need, but adding punctuation to two separate parameters is even worse because 1) it's wrong: "" is not the publisher 2) it will break if the template format changes. Should everything published to lulu.com include brackets? Looking at this search, I see some templates that include brackets around the individual fields and, even though it looks less tidy, it seems like a better system because it doesn't require any template changes, won't break on changes, and lets editors flag as many or as few fields as needed without having to assume that they will always be placed side by side and in the same order. Thoughts? JeffDoozan (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@JeffDoozan: I think it might be stretching it to say that ","framed":false,"label":"Reply","flags":,"classes":}'>Reply

@Sgconlaw: Okay, sounds good. I'll handle the conversion of the existing entries and moving forward we'll bracket the non-present values individually. If it ends up being really objectionably untidy, a motivated individual (not me!) could modify the template to detect adjacent bracketed entries and adjust the formatting as needed. JeffDoozan (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Could you please add gay district|gay enclave|gay ghetto|gay neighborhood|gay neighbourhood|gay quarter|gay village to the Derived terms of gay? And Jew City|Jew-Tongo|Jew-ish|patrilineal Jew|self-hating Jew to Jew? And 45,X|hepatitis X|X-ALD to X somewhere? All pages are admin-protected Denazz (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done. J3133 (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ooh, one more protected page. Hebrew character|Neo-Hebrew|Hebrew calendar to Hebrew. And then all of these, please Denazz (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's a bad example. it doesn't illustrate any colloquial or formal use of the pronoun, and we don't add links to quotes anyway. it's great that you tracked it down, but that kind of info belongs on WP or Wikiquote, not WK. kwami (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is a quotation for the pronoun me, not “info” for Wikipedia. Many quotations have links; see bête noire, a recent Word of the Day. J3133 (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

But what does it illustrate? The quotations are supposed to illustrate the lemma, not the other way round.

If this is an example of a particular usage, you could add that usage as an additional definition and move the quote there. But AFAIK it isn't: it's a fixed expression. "me tarzan, you jane" might be worth a WK entry itself, and could be listed under derived forms. kwami (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It actually looks identical on all my devices. Different browsers must be rendering the formatting differently. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Can you add brand X to the Derived terms? I still can't access P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me that every entry under ‘-esse (wife)’ is really just an example of -esse (female). I don't see the basis for separation. Nicodene (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Nicodene: This was by analogy with the -ess categories. J3133 (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see. It's a bit odd and I would've simply handled it by adding a note under -esse. But alright. Nicodene (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

By the way, to make it easier to add 1st editions in the future, I have started designing quotation templates in such a way that if only a later edition or version is currently available, it will be necessary to designate it using a parameter like |edition=2nd or |year=1628, otherwise the template will default to the non-existent 1st edition without any link to the actual text. That way, if the 1st edition does become available later on (as they seem to have at the Internet Archive), it won't be necessary to do a major rewrite of the template or to replace all current uses. You may want to do the same. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It shouldn't be rfd, it even has an article in ja.wikipedia. It also has results in Google images. 178.120.0.250 13:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is a request for deletion, not verification (whether it exists). The template states, “Do not remove the {{rfd}} until the debate has finished.” J3133 (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

So what do I do? That request is three years old. 178.120.0.250 14:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The RfD process is described at the top of the page. J3133 (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greetings J3133,

Any idea what the word "time-night" means or even if it means anything? Are you able to come up with any cites on your end?

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=time-night&action=edit&editintro=MediaWiki:nec-editintro

It was originally inputted under the "derived terms" section many moons ago, but I haven't been able to receive a response from the contributor.

Thank you kindly. newfiles (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why you consider "Of or pertaining to a substantive." to be a sensible definition of "substantive"? What next? "Sensible: Of or pertaining to sensible"? "Definition: Of or pertaining to a definition".

If you want an example of usage, see Holtzman & James quote at https://en.m.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Neoplasticism#Terminology

Please explain. --JMF (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@JMF: I reverted your edit because you changed the adjective to a noun, as I wrote in my edit summary. The noun section is below, hence you added a duplicate sense under the wrong section. J3133 (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Details! Details! <blush> I guess it is not the practice here to write "Of or pertaining to a substantive ." Would someone who is not an EFL speaker recognise that it is the definite article that identifies it as a noun?

Philosophy aside, is it ok to add my definition to the noun entry? (because the current definition is somewhat more of an etymology). And add the Holtzman & James quote? --JMF (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@JMF: Our definitions do sometimes reference other senses to reduce duplication; e.g., nuzzle, which will be the Word of the Day on 6 June, has the noun as “An act of nuzzling (all verb senses).” The word “substantive” in this definition (“Of or pertaining to a substantive”, which is the same as substantival, hence a synonym) can be linked to the Noun section. Of course, you are free to improve the definition(s) and add quotations. J3133 (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done. A review might be wise, please, especially to verify that I have correctly shown the second grammatical meaning as I couldn't easily find a similar duality within a class. --JMF (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

If the 1st edition of {{RQ:Falkner Moonfleet}} is available at Google Books but not in full, and it is likely to be in the public domain (for instance, in this case Falkner died in 1932, 92 years ago which is longer than 70 years after the year of his death), you can try e-mailing Google Books at [email protected] and request for the work to be made available in full. I've done this on multiple occasions and they generally respond positively after a few days. (I then back up a copy of the work on to the Internet Archive since it's better to have it in two places rather than one.) Have you tried this before? — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, I have not; however, it seems odd that it would not be available in full unless someone makes a request. J3133 (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think they just have too much material and they don't have staff dedicated to going through all of it to determine its copyright status. I just succeeded in requesting for the 1934 version of Moonfleet to be made available in full, and I put a copy on the Internet Archive. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sgconlaw: I sent an e-mail and the Google Books Team has started the review process to determine the correct legal status. J3133 (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

— Sgconlaw (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greetings J3133,

Thank you for digging up the quote from 1972. I had a feeling this expression goes many decades back. May I ask how you located it that quickly? And what resource did you use? newfiles (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mynewfiles: I used Newspapers.com, which is available for free through the Wikipedia Library (“can be accessed by any registered editor whose account is six months old and has 500 edits”). There, I put "beauty is in the eye of the beer holder" (in quotation marks) as the search keyword and sorted by oldest. J3133 (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you kindly for the helpful information. newfiles (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mynewfiles: Note that despite “Wikipedia” in the name, this requirement applies to any editor “in any project supported by the Wikimedia Foundation” (hence I assume you should have access to it in July). The Wikipedia Library is available here (link directly to Newspapers.com). J3133 (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you again. newfiles (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

<<money is not a verb>> - that's correct, but the inherited "agent" suffix -er is used for nouns and verbs (compare fowler). See Etymology_1, sense 3. The MED says that Middle English moneyour, monyere is both from monei(e) + -er and partially from Old French monneiere, so the suffix is both agent and occupational. I don't know how the template can handle this, as it appears to default to the last assignment for the id2 argument. Leasnam (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps I'm not seeing this correctly, as I am thinking of Etymology rather than Category. A Tag of "Occupation" can be either Etymology 1 or Etymology 4, so I will undo what I've done at moneyer, and also change fowler to also use occupation. Leasnam (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Due to an associated verb to fowl, I will not change this. I'm being slooooow today. Sorry for dragging you through my mental fog :] Leasnam (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Leasnam: The sense that you linked to is “{{senseid|en|agent noun}} (added to verbs) A person or thing that does an action indicated by the root verb; used to form an agent noun”, hence incorrect. The one I linked to is “{{senseid|en|occupation}} (added to nouns, chiefly denoting occupations) A person whose occupation is the root noun; (more broadly, occasionally with adjectives) a person characterized by the root”. J3133 (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yep, I realise. I've opened a discussion regarding in Tea Room. Leasnam (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greetings J3133,

I tried to access the Wikipedia Library but unfortunately was not granted access since my account is barely six months old. Would you be so kind as to search and/or retrieve the following citation for me please?

"Lionel R. Harris is my boyfriend. Lewis shot my Boo and it was not self-defense." ------ >>> from the Washington Post (1988)

This quote is in reference to etymology 2 (A close acquaintance or significant other). It is supposedly the first known citation of the slang term.

Thank you kindly. newfiles (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mynewfiles: I am aware that your account is five months old, as it was created on 2 January 2024, hence I wrote “you should have access to it in July”. I see that the OED has this quotation, but unfortunately I could not find it. J3133 (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for checking. I wonder how the OED was able to get a hold of it. newfiles (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mynewfiles: I found it at ProQuest, another Wikipedia Library resource, instead (text only), and added the quotation to the entry. J3133 (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you kindly. newfiles (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greetings J3133,

Could you plz check on your end (Wikipedia Library/newspapers.com) if any cites come up for this phrase prior to 1982?

Thank you kindly. newfiles (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mynewfiles: The earliest I found is from 12 December 1982 in The Record. J3133 (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you kindly. Would you be so kind as to add it to Citations:my karma ran over your dogma? mynewfiles (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mynewfiles: Done. J3133 (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you kindly!! mynewfiles (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Meaning "would". It seems to pair with any pronoun: we'ld, you'ld, etc. I don't seem to have the energy to create them tonight, but this seems like the kind of term you'd be interested in. Ioaxxere (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ioaxxere: I have created 'ld but I am not sure whether we need separate entries for every pronoun. J3133 (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greetings J3133,

I created the plural form for this entry, but it links back to the letter "f." What is the secret to linking it back to f#$k? mynewfiles (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mynewfiles: I added ⟨\⟩ before ⟨#⟩. J3133 (talk) 09:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much for the great tip! mynewfiles (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the unfamiliarity with protocol at Wiktionary, I just wandered in from enwiki, a little surprised at the redirect.

Can you recommend a better phrasing for this entry to reflect that it's a speculative name for something that hasn't happened yet? Or does it not matter, that a few sources also calling it Generation Superhypercube would be enough to additionally document that with a matter-of-fact definition of The generation following Generation Alpha...? Belbury (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Belbury: The term is already used in future studies (such as the first quotation by futurists Amy Webb and Andrew Hessel); i.e., the concept of this generation may be speculative (based on guessing that it will exist), but the term itself cannot be as it exists regardless. Perhaps the label “(futurology)” would be suitable? J3133 (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Belbury it hasn't happened yet, but people can still talk about it. If they do, we have an entry for it that reflects the usage. If they don't, the thing to do is to tag it with {{rfv|en}}- but our Criteria for inclusion only require three examples of usage in the right kind of sources. Also "to be born" is a pretty strong implication that it hasn't happened yet. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the explanations, that all seems reasonable, I suppose I was just coming in with an encyclopedia mindset. Belbury (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, interesting perspective; but to my mind, generally speaking, there’s nothing wrong or right about how the components of the headword are linked as long as the derivation of the word is shown in its etymology. And in this case the linking isn’t even technically incorrect because the prefix half- is itself derived from half (affixes aren’t any different from their parent word except in being a special lexicographical category for productive lexemes used in word derivations): thus the head basically indicates the presence of the two terms on either side of the hyphen. There’s no rule or guideline to my knowledge that says the etymology of the word has to reflect in the head. This is possibly just your own preference, but how about keeping the terms unlinked in light of the etymology? Inqilābī 17:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Inqilābī: The module (Module:en-headword) was made to link prefixes in the headword; you claim that this is “just own preference” but it might be vice versa (yours). J3133 (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@J3133: It would be good if you could sort out a few more etymologies that have been edited by those who have not used etymological logic adequately; and this also applies to a few source dictionaries like the Online Etymological Dictionary that has strayed logically from the Oxford multi volume dictionary that is about the most reliable of all that I have seen. If you were to read through the paragraph headed 'Etymologies that discredit Wiktionary ...' in Surjection's talk page, you would see four etymologies that are glaringly wrong and need to be corrected by someone with etymologicla logic like yourself! This became apparent from your last edit of blossom. Andrew H. Gray 19:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Greetings J3133,

Are you able to check on your end (newspapers.com) if there are any cites of this word prior to 1980? I still don't have to access to the resource that you mentioned a few weeks ago.

Thank you kindly. mynewfiles (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mynewfiles: There are results from the 19th century (1869, 1880, 1887, 1891, 1892); I have added the earliest one. J3133 (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for the contribution. mynewfiles (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

J3133,

Can you check on your end and see if this word has any cites prior to 1946?

Thank you kindly. mynewfiles (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mynewfiles: I have created free-dumb and added quotations. J3133 (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for your contribution. I'm quite surprised that the word "freedumb" goes way back to the nineteenth century. mynewfiles (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greetings J3133,

Thank you for correcting my errors. Are you able to locate any other cites for this term on your end that are not from conspiracy theory websites and such? From what I understand, this dictionary disallows such cites. It is a rather uncommon term, but for the sake of edification, I would like to include it in Wiktionary for posterity. mynewfiles (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mynewfiles: No, I could not find anything. J3133 (talk) 07:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for checking. mynewfiles (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greetings J3133,

Any idea what the word "time-night" means or even if it means anything? Are you able to come up with any cites on your end?

It was originally inputted under the "derived terms" section many moons ago by user Paul G, but when I inquired he told me has no memory of where or how he obtained it.

Thank you kindly. mynewfiles (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greetings J3133,

Are you able to obtain additional information on a citation that I'm seeking for this word?

Here is the original quote:

"I met him during the summer vacation and liked him from the get go."

It appears in a publication (a periodical, I assume) called the "Afro-American" in 1960. Are you able to dig this up on your end? mynewfiles (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mynewfiles: I have added the quotation to from the get-go. J3133 (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

since i see youre up, i wanted to point out this user, almost certainly the same person as whom you just blocked, and perhaps a roaming IP: user:Jonhrics1014. all the best, —Soap— 05:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

maybe also https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Special:Contributions/136.158.33.54 —Soap— 05:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Soap: I have blocked Jonhrics1014 infinitely, and the IP for 3 days (as it might be not the same person). J3133 (talk) 06:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are you experiencing issues with the Internet Archive? For days now I have been having problems accessing works. Often I will get a server error, or the page loads but the viewer doesn't—the page is stuck at "Loading viewer" and the rotating throbber. I tried e-mailing IA about a week ago but haven't received any response. I tried different browsers but it didn't make a difference. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sgconlaw: Sometimes search results do not load but this usually does not last long; I have not noticed any major issues. J3133 (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm, OK, thanks. It’s really a problem for me, and very frustrating. I guess it’s the server(s) operating for my part of the world. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

J3133,

Are you able to dig up any newspaper cites on your end for this rare word? mynewfiles (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mynewfiles: There are no results on Newspapers.com. J3133 (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you kindly for checking. mynewfiles (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

J3133,

Are you able to dig up the newspaper cite for this word that appeared in https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/The_Post-Standard in 1989?

This is ostensibly how it appears:

"So there's someone bothering you, really getting on your case... If it's a girl, you might call her a ho or ho bag.., such as ‘God my teacher's being such a ho bag’." mynewfiles (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mynewfiles: The article with this text is from the wire service Scripps Howard News Service, published in multiple newspapers; I have added a version from The Daily Nonpareil (Scrantonian Tribune version). Also, I think you have access to Newspapers.com now. J3133 (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you kindly for your assistance and the information. mynewfiles (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greetings J3133,

Hope you're doing well. Are you able to dig up any cites/quotes or uses of this term in a figurative sense? OED indicates "also figurative": https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=line+drawing&tl=true.

I'm almost certain the term is a deverbal form of the idiom draw the line. Any thoughts on this? mynewfiles (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I expanded on this a bit. At first I added header and caption for the option of adding space above and below the image (a problem with the old shekel), but soon found the caption useful for descriptive text. I'm thinking we should probably add a dividing line between the img and any caption text, as happens in module:character info, but IMO we'd still want the option of adding space without such a line. Currently, the only instances with extra space are the old shekel, rainbow flag and transgender flag, so it would be straightforward to treat them as exceptions. kwami (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greetings J3133,

How do I correctly encode the plural form so that it reads without the unnecessary "meeting of the mindlesses"? Its plural form is attested, though rare. mynewfiles (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mynewfiles: I have removed |-|+, which you added after the plural form. J3133 (talk)

thakn you for mixing my mistakes. I appreciate it a lot. Juwan (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. What's the sense that is called "horizontal bar"? We should probably add it. kwami (talk) 08:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami: I was referring to sense 3 of horizontal bar (“(typography) The dash symbol (―) (used to introduce quoted text)”), not the symbol. J3133 (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I found an instance from 1924 in the English translation of a Spanish booklet on telegraphy. I'd thought maybe it was just another Unicode name. kwami (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. This doesn't display as wide as {character info}, and perhaps as a consequence it clips on the left side, including (on my browser and my settings) the left side of the character being displayed (the electronic character, not the img). Easy enough to adjust the width of the outer box, but I figured I shouldn't mess with it since I don't know why it is the way it is. Could you take a look? kwami (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami: I have changed the width to 25em and the font-size to 100% to match {{character info}}. J3133 (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! That looks perfect on my system. kwami (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved to Talk:limonata.

Greetings J3133,

How do I convert the header template so it reads "usually plural, singular form fighting word"?

fighting word does occur in literature, although it's pretty rare. mynewfiles (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mynewfiles: {{en-noun|p|sg=fighting word}}. J3133 (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you kindly. I will save it to my document of Wiki templates. mynewfiles (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply