Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word User talk:Jberkel/2015. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word User talk:Jberkel/2015, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say User talk:Jberkel/2015 in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word User talk:Jberkel/2015 you have here. The definition of the word User talk:Jberkel/2015 will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofUser talk:Jberkel/2015, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
The following discussion has been moved from the page User talk:Jberkel.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
This page shows conversations on my talkpage from late 2014-2015.
Portuguese conjugation module
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
It shouldn't be too difficult, would need to write a regular expression to handle it, if i understand it correctly it's in the form {{link preto|pi{{{1}}}ob|vo}}, so you would need to extract pi+(stem?)+ob+vo (suffix?) Jberkel (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
I think that "link preto" is a Portuguese template. Besides, the possible template {{vo-conj}} could be written in Lua through a module. I also think {{vo-decl-noun}} should be converted to Lua. Don't worry, don't hurry, perhaps? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
I started off with Module:UnitTests but found it quite limiting and it looks like it's been cobbled together in 5 minutes. Module:ScribuntoUnit is better written and documented. And If we want to get more people to write unit tests we need better tools. The XUnit approach and assert method naming in ScribuntoUnit is pretty much standard (assertEquals(...) vs. equals(...)). And there isn't even the most basic assertTrue in Module:UnitTests, or at least I couldn't find it. – Jberkel (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
self:equals("description",notnot(condition),true) — though personally, I think if you need to test boolean conditions, your test is badly designed in the first place. I understand and care nothing about the XUnit talk. For all I can see, Module:ScribuntoUnit is the same thing as Module:UnitTests but with differently named methods. — Keφr15:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Well that's certainly not the most readable assertion. assertTrue just happens to be the most basic building block to create tests (e.g. assertTrue(x > 10)), so I don't agree with your point about bad design. Module:UnitTests is messy and has badly named methods. And method names do matter, they increase the readability and help to express the intent of the test. preprocess_equals_preprocess_many(prefix1, suffix1, prefix2, suffix2, cases, options) just doesn't mean anything and is bad API design. I also like that Module:ScribuntoUnit already has some useful built-in assertions so they don't have to be reimplemented in every test. I don't see the problem of using different test frameworks, having tests should be the first priority, not which lib they use. – Jberkel (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
When you have a failing test case, you probably want to know how it fails: how the output differs from what was expected. If all you pass to the testing framework is a single boolean value, you cannot get that. Discouraging that is a feature.
As I see, nobody is using preprocess_equals_preprocess_many (or preprocess_equals_many for that matter) anyway, it can be just removed. — Keφr18:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
You're right, it's good to know why tests fail, and that's why the whole group of assertXXX() methods are so useful. To follow the example, you could have a assertGreater(x,10) which would automatically fail with "expected X to be greater than 10". Alternatively you can pass a message to assertTrue() which will get printed when the test fails: assertTrue(x>10,"x should be greater than 10"). Or another option, use one assertion per test and name the test so that it is immediately clear what failed: functiontestXShouldBeGreaterThan10()assertTrue(x>10)end – Jberkel (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Consolidation of alternative forms
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry, was wondering about this when I did the edit, thanks for letting me know, guess I should have asked first. But now I understand why there are so many entries with mixed spellings cross-referencing each other. Jberkel (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
You have recently tagged a few Spanish words, such as velociraptores, and said they do not exist. This is patently untrue; you can look at google books:"los velociraptores" and see that such words do exist. The policy I've linked to above explains how we determine what content is appropriate for Wiktionary. Please do not tag any more such entries unless they actually are in contravention of what we allow. Thank you —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds21:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I tagged them because the plural form linked to a entry which did not exist, so it looked like a bot created these without verification. I see that the singular form now got created. So if not RFV, what's the right tag for these kind of cases? Cleanup? Jberkel (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
There is no tag; if the singular form doesn't exist, you should create it. (Also, even if a bot creates something, you shouldn't assume it is in error, and you can easily see that it wasn't a bot, but a person, that made these entries.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds00:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
How can you easily see it was a person, and not a script? Maybe not a bot, but it could have been semi-automated. The user who created these entries is currently blocked (because of disruptive edits). Just speculating here, but a script would create the plural form and then fail (or just skip) the creation of the main entry since it already exists (for another language). A "human" would very likely create the main form first, and then the plurals. Anyway that's all speculation, but maybe it will help you understand why I was suspicious in the first place. – Jberkel (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
OK, it makes sense that you wouldn't know Wonderfool or how he made the entry. But the point was that no matter who makes an entry, we judge it by the CFI, as linked to above, and not by whether anyone thinks it's real or how it was made. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds05:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
You've got mail
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
First of all, examples should be short. Your contribution is ungrammatical and inappropriate. The sense your are describing is negative ("to stink"), so "like" does not fit well in the same sentence. Jberkel (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
