User talk:Kc kennylau/2015

Hi, did you burn out, Kenny? :) There's a vote waiting for your support too. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Some verbs need their irregular conjugation updated.

• Prōdeō should have an (extra?) 3rd pres act ind of prōdīnunt
• Serviō should possess
  • Imperf act ind in both serviēbam, serviēbās, ..., and servībam, servībās, ...
  • Fut act ind in both serviam, serviēs, ..., and servībō, servībis, ...
  • Perfect stems in servīv- (normal) and serviī, servīstī, servīt, ... (syncopated)
• Saeviō similarly should possess
  • Imperf act ind in both saeviēbam, saeviēbās, ..., and saevībam, saevībās, ...
  • Fut act ind in both saeviam, saeviēs, ..., and saevībō, saevībis, ...
  • Perfect stems in only saeviī, saevīstī, saevīt, ... (syncopated)

This according to the OLD 2nd Edition. Hope this is not too much work. Also, @CodeCat, in case you want in on this. —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 22:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 Could you please provide some sources/references? --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Most of them are a mix of L&S and the OLD 2nd edition (which I can't send send links to, however):

• prodeo here, though OLD provides the macron over the -īnunt
• servio here and here. These and the OLD provide the altered imperfect and future, and I am assuming that any perfect stem in -iī represents a syncopated stem and not merely servi- + the normal perfect morphology. This source claims that both servio and saevio are *-oyo- stems, which could explain this disfavor of the -īv- stems.
• saevio here and here. My same logic applies for the perfect stem in this case too. This page gets the perfect active indicative correct by my estimation, but goes of the rails on the other perfect forms.
• memini should probably be added to the irregular inflections as opposed to just having an ad hoc table as it does now.

I'm still trying to find sources for this -iī question. §202 of this book explains the phenomenon generally and we have a discussion going on here.

I'm sorry for just dumping all this info on you, but I do appreciate the help. —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 11:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 I am aware that both "i"s in "servii" are short. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oops, my mistake. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much, though, when I was talking about the perfect stem, I (sadly) meant all forms using the perfect stem. So:

• saevieram → saevīram, ...
• saevierō → saevīrō, ...
• saevierim → saevīrim, ...
• saeviissem → saevīssem, ...

This is one reason I'm interested in adding in the syncopated morphology backend generally so that all of these forms don't need to be added manually. :/ —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 11:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again for everything. Unfortunately, this diff won't work (the template requires a perfect and supine stem, but memini has no supine).

Also, the changes you made to module:la-verb should merely should categorize perfects ending in -s- and -x- together (because are both etymologically -s-) under Latin third conjugation verbs with perfect in -s-‎ (though this should also be done for the second and fourth conjugations). Then all the remaining forms should be dumped under irregular.

Sorry to keep pestering. —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 00:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 Well, I was not available after I did that change. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kenny. Could you give me the flood flag for about an hour. I'm planning on adding (without a bot, BTW) lots of Spanish adjective forms and noun forms. Regards --Type56op9 (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Type56op9 Done. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. All done for now. --Type56op9 (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You can un-flood me again if you like. --Type56op9 (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Type56op9 I had already un-flooded you. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi again Kenny. You're a dab hand at modules, right? Can you have a look at my request at Template talk:es-adj, please. It's supposed to find missing Spanish plural adjectives. The code may be wrong, so could you check it will work? --Type56op9 (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, that fix didn't work. All the entries that I looked at in Category:Missing Spanish plural adjectives have entries for the plurals. Any ideas? --Type56op9 (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Type56op9 Done. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot. One more thing though: could you add something very similar, but to find missing Spanish feminine plural adjectives. And perhaps it would be more useful to categorise all of them under something like Category:Missing Spanish adjective forms instead of plural, feminine and feminine plural. --Type56op9 (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Type56op9 Of course, that would be wonderfool! --kc_kennylau (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Type56op9 Done, it's so wonderfool now! --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kenny. Please note that your bot seems to be adding duplicate verb forms where the non-gloss definitions are generated by different grammatical tags (e.g., pass vs. pasv for passive or imp vs. impr for imperative). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym I ran this bot overnight. I'm glad that this is the only mistake. (And if you're asking, yes I'll fix it.) --kc_kennylau (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's not the only one, but -sche already cleaned up the rest. —CodeCat 00:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@CodeCat How come I can't see that in his user contribution? --kc_kennylau (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC) --kc_kennylau (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

They were deleted, so they would be in the deletion log. —CodeCat 00:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure the Latin entries I cleaned up recently were from Kennybot? The only batch of Latin entries I recall cleaning up recently were these, which Doebee created. - -sche (discuss) 03:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

There were some entries with pagenames starting with "1=" that I found because they had module errors. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Re this, adficier is indeed Latin; see the citation of Arnobius of Sicca I added to Citations:adficier. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym What's the rule of this? --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand what you mean. The OLD (1st ed., page 78/3, s.v. “afficiō”) has “Forms: ⁓icier (inf. pass.) CIL 11.1129.” and Gaffiot (page 35/3, s.v. “adfĭcio”) has “↣ infinitif présent pass. adficier Arnob. 2, 77.” I take from that that ad-, afficier is the present passive infinitive form of ad-, afficiō. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym I mean what are the rules of having -ier for pres pasv inf --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't look like there is one. I looked up all the other verbs ending in -ficiō, but AFAICT not one of them has a corresponding present passive infinitive form in -ficier (although efficiō has effierī). I think it's just an irregular form. Allowing parameters like |pres_pasv_inf= and |pres_pasv_inf2= to specify irregular forms would be the best way to handle exceptional cases like this, in my opinion. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hello again, kc_kennylau. Would you be willing and able to add these irregular-form parameters please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kenny, thanks for the Template:es-adj changes. All looking good, you know. Just wondering if perhaps you might want to do a similar thing with Template:es-noun, which would categorise all those nouns that have a red link for the feminine, e.g. if f= is defined but a red link. --Type56op9 (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Type56op9 Done in a wonderfool manner. Now you can use your bot to purge. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's not a bot. But thanks. --Type56op9 (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can you check out Template talk:gl-adj too. Also, if you ever feel like doing other useful things, Template:fr-noun, Template:fr-adj, Template:it-noun, Template:it-adj (and hundreds of others, I guess) could benefit from the extra code to generate all kinds of missing-entry categories. --Type56op9 (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again for all your kind work. One more thing I'm trying yo fix is with Template:ast-adj, which has a parameter something like Masculine plural equals feminine plural. I'm trying to add this as a optional parameter, so things like the green link at xenital can be found, but which doesn't show up in mpl and fpl are different. Any idea? --Type56op9 (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Type56op9 xenital uses a different template. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh yeah, I didn't notice that initially. It should probably be incorporated into Template:ast-adj, IMHO. I tried to do the categorising green link thing with that, but it didn't quite work. Neither did my attempts at Template:ast-adj when there are no parameters (e.g. for docenu). --Type56op9 (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Type56op9 You just copied the same code without investigating the mechanics of the template. It does not use pagename. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, after ten years here I still suck at templates. I'll see if I can ask someone else to fix it. Cheers, anyway. --Type56op9 (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, {{IPA}} no longer puts a space after the colon; is that because of your recent edits to IPA modules? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Angr I think not so. --kc_kennylau (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

What is that "/" before the link to category for? --Z 21:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well I'm too lazy to explain everything, you can just delete it. --kc_kennylau (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Check out Category:Missing Welsh plurals, which was generated by fiddling with Template:cy-noun. I can't be sure that I haven't broken anything... --Type56op9 (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Type56op9 Thanks. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm tempted to blindly add all the plurals, but as I don't know Welsh, I'll resist. --Type56op9 (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Type56op9 Well, then you can check before adding it. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Lol, no thanks. I know nothing about Welsh, so it would be a huge waste of everyone's time! --Type56op9 (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Welsh has all kinds of interactions between sounds in neighboring words, so you can get easily get into real trouble if you don't know the language. Then there are there are nouns like adar, dillad, and selsig where singular and plural don't really apply. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Well, the mutation has no exception. (Refer to Module:cy-mut that I created) --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is a major problem (see Category:Pages with module errors and ignore any Catalan entries). Please fix it. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Never mind. I reverted to before all the recent edits. It seems to be clearing now. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

A lot of these words don't seem to meet CFI at all. In some cases there aren't even three Google Web hits! I've deleted the least likely, and sent a few others to RFV. Equinox ◑ 16:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox Well, well. Clearly some has more than 3 google web hits. --kc_kennylau (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Web sites like Tumblr do not meet WT:CFI. Learn the rules before you create entries. Equinox ◑ 02:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox Where on this whole earth is that stated in CFI? --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox Maybe I'm too impulsive. Sorry, I won't do that again. --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Heya Kenny,

I noticed a bit ago that katakana in headword templates weren't being handled correctly. Have a look at 鬼虎魚 for one example. Instead of the headline saying "katakana オニオコゼ" as expected and desired, we get "alternative reading オニオコゼ" instead. Explicitly adding the kata= parameter name still yields the same "alternative reading オニオコゼ" result.

I think there might be a logic error in this recent edit of yours to the module. Could you take a look?

As a side issue, what is the use case for having alternative readings right in the headword template? Japanese entries should generally never have multiple readings on one headline. With few exceptions, each separate reading has its own etymology, derivation, pronunciation and pitch accents, and even meanings and usage, and all of that should (ideally) be split out and clearly indicated under a separate ===Etmology=== heading. For an extreme example of a single spelling (i.e. headword) with several readings, all with different derivations and uses, have a look at 柄.

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr Fixed. 竜馬 is such an example where the four readings have the same etymology. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the fix.  :)

Re: 竜馬, all four have the same ultimate source (Chinese), but each of the four readings has different etymological details. Moreover, the りょう- variants appear to be less common in reference to shogi, the fast horse sense is specific to certain readings and necessitates the addition of another reading (ryōba), and the missing surname sense is also specific to a certain reading. The full breadth of information belonging to this headword cannot be clearly given if all readings are munged into one listing. I'll have a go at clarifying and expanding the entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you added trcheck= to ברית (bris). Does this do anything (yet)? --WikiTiki89 22:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Never mind, I got it. --WikiTiki89 20:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you modify the templates {{de-conj-weak-eln}} and {{de-conj-weak-ern}} so that they include the feature where the entry gets listed in to the category for German verbs having red links in their conjugation tables, like {{de-conj-weak}}? I would like to thank you in advance as a kind of "down payment." (I'm also partly of German ancestry on, I think, my mother's side.) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Stephen G. Brown How about you too? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Lo Ximiendo I believe that you are capable of copying the technique from de-conj-weak and pasting it to de-conj-weak-eln and -ern. Maybe I shall check it after you try it. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I do not understand what you mean, Lo Ximiendo. You want {{de-conj-weak-eln}} and {{de-conj-weak-ern}} to automatically set what category? What’s this about red links? I looked at some of the verbs using {{de-conj-weak}}, but did not find any red links, so I have no idea what happens if there is a red link. —Stephen ^(Talk) 23:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I applied what Kennylau applied on de-conj-weak (look up the template's edit history) to de-conj-weak-eln, and I think it needs some sort of improvement. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

P.S. The category is Category:German verbs having red links in their conjugation table, Stephen G. Brown. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Lo Ximiendo What sort of improvement is needed? --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't know, but could you experiment some more or not, and check the results with entries kräuseln and zetteln? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Negative for kraeuseln, positive for zetteln. Purging all transclusion of -eln by bot. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Now our second stop is the conjugation template for the -ern verbs? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just like last time, please try it by yourself first. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I copied what you applied to the -eln conjugation template, pasted it to the -ern conjugation template, and modified it. Now it's your turn, so compare entries lagern and meistern. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Done. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Danke für dein Beiträge. :8D --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Keine Ursache. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I wish the template {{de-plural noun}} could place entries into Category:German pluralia tantum. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Lo Ximiendo: Easily done. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Could you please have a look at Module_talk:la-verb (Future infinitive of deponents)? Leen 94.212.253.98 17:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

And now that you have, could you please look at Category:Pages with module errors? Your edit has some unpleasant side-effects. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Should be fixed. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is, thank you. Please check that category more often when you're making chages to modules. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz I apologize. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Why is this German word in Category:German nouns having red links in their declension table? SemperBlotto (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto Because the wrong template is used which includes a null plural form. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Cheers. There are quite a few others in the same cat. I'll have a go at them soonish. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Could you have a look at the entries remaining in that category please (and also the verb besprechen (modified by an unknown user) if you have time). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Could you generate a Category to catch "plural of|...|lang=" where the ... does not exist? (if you have nothing better to do some time) SemperBlotto (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto Please suggest a name. :-) --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what's best. Perhaps "(English) Plurals with a red link for singular" - that's similar to others of the same type. p.s. I don't know how many there will be, but I know that Equinox creates them if he can't define the singular noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto: Created. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'll keep a watch on it. It seems to have a few false positives in it - e.g. curve. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto: It is not a false positive. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps my eyes aren't working properly. Which singular is missing in that particular case? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto: In the Romanian section. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes - I saw it just after I posted. Thanks again. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

No problem! :-) --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've found some false positives that were there because the user had coded "plural of]" - I just removed the square brackets. But why is gesiþas showing up? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto: This is a false positive because the parameter is "ġesīþ" and the existing page is gesiþ. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The category has been populated overnight and has well over 3,000 entries. I have bot-corrected the Spanish entries that were using square brackets inappropriately and have started work on the true positives. I am ignoring the false positives. Cheers. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Glad to hear that! --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto: Fixed a cause for the false positives (I was too lazy xd) --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think it is {{head}} removing macrons and the like. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Now down to a more manageable 877 entries. I don't understand ?s - it says "plural of ?", but the ? actually links directly to ?s. Strange. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto: I'll debug later, but I know that the problem comes from Module:links because {{l|en|?}} gives the same result. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto: I've found the cause. It's in Module:languages#makeEntryLink. It removed these characters:؟?!;՛՜ ՞ ՟？！।॥။၊་། --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have more or less finished "a". activadora remains - is it because "plural of" is being used in an adjective? SemperBlotto (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto It is because the language parameter is missing. --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The current method in which {{a}} is implemented is terrible. I was hoping I could make a module by myself to replace it but something is alluding me. The code is at Module:a, the data at Module:a/data, and module invocation at User:JohnC5/Sandbox2. Could you figure out what I'm doing wrong? Also, I'm sure there is a better way to check if no args were passed than the method I am currently using. —JohnC5 00:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5: There is a very useful tool when you're making modules. It's error(data.m). How to use it is that, when there is some variable that you want to know what it is, just put it inside the error(), then preview it on the page which invokes the module, in this case it is User:JohnC5/Sandbox2, then you can have the information you want, and it is easy to debug.

In this case, I put the error() inside the for loop and got no output. So, I suspect that the for loop is not even executing. So, I checked the boundaries of the for loop. Therefore, I inserted error(#args) and got Lua error in Module:debug at line 160: 0
(zero). I don't know why (#args) is not working, but I still used another method, another type of for loop, which you can see.

Also, in Module:a/data, you returned the m. Therefore, when you require() it, you're actually requiring the m, while giving it a name which is data. This is why data.m does not exist.

Add oil in Lua! --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yep, this all makes sense. I was just being a dummy. Would you check out everything now? I intend to replace the current template relatively soon then call for the deletion of its backup templates, if you think it prudent. —JohnC5 09:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5: I don't think there's any problem, but you might want to double-check it on WT:SB or even in main articles (Just use the template in your sandbox). --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi kc_kennylau. Could you explain why you deleted this template, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 08:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: I would like to centralize all the templates... --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Which is a desirable thing to do, of course. But have you preserved its function? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 08:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: cænulentus --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You refer to the |type=ae parameter, yes? That's a good solution; thank you. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 08:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi kc_kennylau. When you contracted the declension tables in utervīs, you made a mistake. Compare the earlier presentation; the nominative and vocative masculine singular forms should always be utervīs, not *utrusvīs or *utrevīs. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: it seems to have been fixed. @Kc kennylau: could you also add is, ille, hic, quis, and quī so I can add all those similar words (reduplicated pronouns, -dam, -dem, -cumque/-cunque, -vīs, -que, -quam, -nam, -libet, -piam). I know they are not adjectives, but they are currently quite disparately handled. —JohnC5 05:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@kc_kennylau: Thanks for fixing it. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 06:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

What's your source for the second sense and usage example? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: actually that is a figurative non-idiomatic usage, so it is my bad not tagging that. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reason you left this with a module error? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz I expected that someone with more knowledge on Mandarin would fix this, but nobody has done. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's because such people don't look at Category:Pages with module errors unless they've done something that they think might result in entries showing up there. This requires not just knowledge of Mandarin, but knowledge of how the modules handle it. Offhand, I can only think of @Wyang, who seems to be too busy in real life. Maybe @Atitarev? Chuck Entz (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau, Chuck Entz Entries, shouldn't be left in such a state. Editors should only add what they can with confidence. We have Tea room to discuss individual entries - additional senses and readings, usages can be discussed there. I don't know if there is evidence for these senses and readings. I've taken them out for now. Alternative readings can be added with a comma. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 14:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Apparently my ping didn't work. Could you take a gander at this? —JohnC5 01:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5: Sir, I cannot find any error. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5: Except that in the Latinate template, one entry corresponds to three forms in the acceleration. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Could you possibly fix the error? Also, once I implement this, I might ask that your bot go through and convert everything to the new format. This should be a fairly simple conversion. —JohnC5 13:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5: Could you please give me an example of a Latinate declension? --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The only examples I've seen are the transclusions of {{de-decl-noun-unc-av}}. —JohnC5 13:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear kc_kennylau, Some months ago you participated in the multilingual wikisource in the scope of the neapolitan collection of texts. We are now accumulating a lot of texts and I am making a bit of pressure for the opening of the project. While doing this, I launched a wikiproject in order to have fun proofreading while getting neapolitan as the biggest language in the oldwikisource interface.

Maybe you are interested in helping us to get gold statistics, the project is here :D s:mul:Wikiproject:L'oro_di_nap_(lotteria). As you were used in your period proofreading, if you are in, just register into the challenge (just in my mind to attribute you the merit) and proofread freely in neapolitan, or the language you like the most -that's also fun ^^ thanks thanks!!!--C.R. (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kenny, as someone who has touched Template:Han_char I wonder if you might know the answer to this. Have the IDS strings for Han characters been taken from some source and added to Wiktionary automatically? Or have they all been added manually? If they have been taken from some source, do you know what that source is? Thanks. Heycam (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Heycam: Well, I add it manually, but I don't know if there's another source used by others. --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@kc_kennylau: OK, thanks. I've since found https://github.com/cjkvi/cjkvi-ids/ which might not be the source of the IDS sequences here but is the kind of thing I was looking for. Heycam (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

䶌 and 垔

Please fix them. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just as a heads up, awhile ago I wrote a complete conjugation model for Old French. It's in Module:fro-verb and supports all sorts of features, including a very concise and flexible way of describing irregular verbs through template calls to the module, and it's well-documented. You might find it useful in writing your Modern French module. Benwing2 (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Thank you. I've actually adopted another form of calling, which can be seen on WT:SB. If you think my form is not better than your form, please tell me and I will switch to your form. --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

My preference is generally to have you specify the full stem as a single argument and have the ending auto-detected, although that's a problem with celer vs. appeler. But what I'm referring to above in describing irregular verbs can be seen e.g. in Template:fro-conj-faire. It may look a little cryptic at first but it encodes all the irregularities in that verb in a very concise way, without having to insert all the information on all the irregular verbs into the module itself. Benwing2 (talk) 09:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Thank you, I see what you mean. I'll modify my extract function accordingly. --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: You can refer to the sandbox. How is it? --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me! That was fast. In my code I made it possible to specify a whole set of forms in one argument, e.g. |pres=faz,fai/fais/fait/faimes,faisons/faites/font, which says that the 1sg is faz or fai, the 2sg is fais, the 3sg is fait, etc. This probably isn't necessary for Modern French, which is more standardized and less irregular than Old French, so putting them as separate params is probably fine. Benwing2 (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Further simplified. Took out two unnecessary parameters (the forms are often interdependent). --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Looks good. Keep up the good work! You might want to add the ability to specify a prefix to add to all forms if you haven't done this already, to support verbs like refaire and contrefaire etc. Benwing2 (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Reduced the number of parameters again. Verbs are not so irregular after all. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Sir, if there is any prefix, it would be added to the template, not to the module. The module already supports prefixes if I enter it as a model. I enter everything in the module as a model, e.g. "er". The same mechanism would be used for "irregular" verbs. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. Benwing2 (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Hasta el verbo "avoir" necesitaba 15 parAAmetros ("faire" usaba 10). --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Bueno, mira Template:fro-conj-avoir, debe ser mas de 15 formas, pero eso es porque el idioma no estaba estandarizado y se podia decir qu'il aie o qu'il aiet o qu'il ait ("que el tenga") etc. Benwing2 (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: QuEE es el "t" en "il aṭ"? AdemAAs, estaba "eüsse" prononciado /eyse/? --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

El "t" in "il aṭ" se pronunciaba /θ/ y viene del -t de Latín. Y "eüsse" debería ser prononciado mas o menos /ǝˈysǝ/, si. Benwing2 (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Es /ǝy/ posible? --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Si, pero creo que es probablemente /ǝˈy/ porque el /ǝ/ desapareció y ahora se pronuncia /ys/. Benwing2 (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Le "u" fut-il prononcé /u/ et transformé à /y/ après? --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, "u" was /u/ in Latin but became /y/ early in French; this also happened to Occitan. 12:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Are there other examples of /ǝ/ appearing in such a position? --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

There are cases like seü "known" > modern su and meüre "blackberry" > modern mûre and eäge "age" > aage > modern âge. Benwing2 (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: De donde obtienes los ejemplos? --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ He estudiado mucho la linguística histórica de los idiomas romances. No recuerdo de donde viene estes ejemplos, puede ser "The Romance Languages" por Martin Harris y Nigel Vincent. 12:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Benwing2: "The verb aller has a unique and highly irregular conjugation" I used 10 parameters for it. Less than "avoir". --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Modified the stem feature to provide a prefix feature. Also highly simplified usage. boire only used 7 parameters. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kenny. What you are doing with this module is very clever. It just gives me one small problem - I have to figure out what conjugation the verb would have had by the old method so I can run my bot using the correct set of conjugated forms. (I have just done parachever and it seems OK). Cheers SemperBlotto (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

p.s. I suppose I could rewrite the logic of my bot to use the logic in the module - but we don't get many new French verbs these days (parachever was just missing the unusual forms).

A function could be written to output a JSON representation of the forms and your bot could use that. DTLHS (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto: I'm sorry that you have to rewrite your bot to fit the logic of my module. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto, Benwing2: Completely parameterless. Refer to assaillir's call: {{fr-conj-auto}}. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Again, it is very clever! When you're finished with this fr-verb project, could you please ping me? --A230rjfowe (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@A230rjfowe: Sure, and if you want, please do help me by reporting errors directly to my talk page. Thanks a million. --kc_kennylau (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@A230rjfowe: I'm not sure what you want to do, but I think it's partially finished. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC) --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I need help creating a new template, {{la-decl-3rd-polis}}; the way the Latin declensional templates are set up now, it looks like I can only do this by modifying the module to add a new type, and I don't know how to Lua. Would you be able to create this to the following specs? It should be singular only with locative and the endings should be nom: -polis; gen: -polis, dat: -polī, acc: -polim or -polin, abl: -polī, loc: -polī, and also have the ability to add -poleos and -polios for the genitive if attested (but if they are specified to be added, they should have a footnote leading to a note that says they were only used postclassically). Thank you! @I'm so meta even this acronym —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: I apologize for the inconvenience. --kc_kennylau (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: I note that metropolis uses Template:la-decl-3rd-I-navis? --kc_kennylau (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Template:la-decl-3rd-polis --kc_kennylau (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Two issues remain: the vocative and locative are flipped, and the description should just say "Third declension with locative". Also, there's no ability to add a footnote that some of the forms are only attested postclassically (which might be useful for -polin version of the accusative in some words; that could just be written under the template in prose but since it should be true for all of them, it might be better to have the template generate the footnote itself. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Since the footnote is not true for all -polis nouns, I sort of did not want to include it there. --kc_kennylau (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay, that makes sense. Finding actual use of the vocative has proven to be impossible so far, but I consulted some older grammars that claim that the vocative can be either -polis or -polī. Also, the locative still needs to be fixed to -polī. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Oops, sorry, I ignored that. --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Looks great! Thank you so much! I have some others issues with the module that perhaps you could also help with. Currently, I can't find a way for entries like Naucratis or Aenēas to show multiple possibilities for the accusative singular in the table, and there are other cases of words from Greek that have many variant inflected forms. Is there a way that these could be added? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: My module only deals with 3rd declension. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Also, I wasn't in charge of Naucratis either. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what your second comment means. Anyway, this is just a general featural issue, I'm not sure where and how it could be fixed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Naucratis did not use my module. I've edited it to show you how to do it. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I see, thank you. It's chiefly a third declension problem (as are most problems with nouns in Latin), but it's a pity that other declensions aren't supported. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

What your source for this? The TLFi links it back to 1440 while the Godefroy has the same 1440 citation as its first one. The Anglo-Norman On-Line Hub has a hit for stratagem so if stratageme isn't attested until Middle French, I suggest we simply move the Old French the to the attested spelling. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Renard Migrant I just followed the etymology on stratagem. I'll move the content accordingly. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Our cutoff date between Old French and Middle French is different to the OED (and probably some other dictionaries) which sometimes causes confusion. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey Kenny. I'm sorry for the bunch of requests I'm about to give you, but I think that you will be able to help me. You may have noticed that I have been tinkering around with module:la-noun, module:la-adj, and module:la-headword recently to try to try to upgrade them as much as possible (mostly so that I can destroy as many of the unnecessary Latin declension templates as possible). I have now come to some problems that I can't solve myself.

1. I would like to remove the -loc templates, but they are very full, and it would be tedious to move them by hand. If you could use your bot, I would love if you could move all the members of {{la-decl-2nd-loc}}, {{la-decl-2nd-N-loc}}, and {{la-decl-1st-loc}} to {{la-decl-2nd}}, {{la-decl-2nd-N}}, and {{la-decl-1st}} respectively. This just involves removing the -loc segment of the template name and adding a |loc=1 parameter.
2. I also started adding the irregular nouns to module:la-noun with the hope of using the {{la-decl-irreg}} template, only to realize that it was taken by the irregular adjectives. I've always been worried about a namespace overlap between the adjectives and nouns both using la-decl as opposed to la-decl and la-adecl like AG does. Could we possibly move all the adjective templates (and entries) over to la-adecl so we can use la-decl-irreg for nouns and la-adecl-irreg for adjectives?
3. The noun and proper noun headwords are now fully implemented, but still have that pesky second parameter. Could we go through and remove it like we did with the adjectives?

All of these are bot requests, and I know they are all somewhat different, but it would greatly speed up forward progress. If this is too much work though, just say so. —JohnC5 04:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 Actually, instead of using Python, I actually use AWB to do it. I'll do it, but if you want you can try. --kc_kennylau (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

What's AWB? I promise I know things about Wiktionary... —JohnC5 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 WT:AWB and every edit that my bot does link to it as well. --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 http://i.imgur.com/7jh14rB.png --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

This looks quite cool. I've been somewhat reticent to get into automation thus far. How do I get registered as an AutoWikiBrowser-user. I see the Wikipedia registration page but how do I go about it on WT? —JohnC5 05:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 Go to WT:AWB (I just changed the redirect) and add your name to the appropriate place. --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I guess I can just add myself... weird. —JohnC5 05:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is amazing. Thanks for telling me about this. Is there a way to set it to auto-watch every edited page? —JohnC5 06:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5: http://i.imgur.com/pBUI4CK.png --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I could do that and then watch all the Latin noun entries. I may consider that. Do you know why the flood flag didn't seem to be working? I hate to torment Metaknowledge with all these banal changes. —JohnC5 07:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5: Sorry I have no idea why. --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if Kennybot has done anything like this in other entries, but if it has, please undo it and make sure the mistake doesn't happen again. Thank you. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Mr. Granger: Thank you. I tried but I could not find any way to trace back. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Mr. Granger: ...except tracing my bot's contribution one by one (using a RegEx searcher) and manual fixing them, which I have done. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kenny. I'm not sure if this works properly for the verb autodissoudre. It looks different from dissoudre. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto Thank you for bringing this to my attention. As this template is not finished, I would like users to be careful on the conjugation and report to here in case of any inconsistencies or errors. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto It looks perfect to my eyes. Please point out the error. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

No, I can't see any difference in the conjugated forms either. But the one for dissoudre says "This is a defective verb, only conjugated in certain tenses." - maybe that is just not true. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto: I still added the preterite forms in because of . --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

The conjugation on French Wiktionary seems to have all the forms as well. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kenny. See surprotéger - should look like protéger. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Usually, no parameters are required, unless:

1. The verb is conjugated in the same manner as appeler (il appelle, nous appelons) or lever (il lève, nous levons).

   In this case, use {{fr-conj-auto|appe|ler}} and {{fr-conj-auto|l|ever}}." From the documentation of {{fr-conj-auto}}. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I confused. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Well done. It looks fine now. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Hi again Kenny. It doesn't work for -re verbs. See appendre (I have included both new and old templates for comparison). SemperBlotto (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Scusa, è aggiustato. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

  • Well done. Looks good now. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kenny. fr-conj-auto doesn't like this verb (because of the dots) and fr-conj-ir works fine except for not being able to override the infinitive. Do you think there is anything worth doing - I don't know how common this type of verb is. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto Secondo il Wikizionario francese, tutte le forme di verbo "amuïr" tengono la dieresi. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh yes! I have deleted bad verb forms and added the correct ones. I have left a note in the conjugation section of the verb for now. There do seem to be other verbs of this kind - I'll consider adding a template (old type). SemperBlotto (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto Aggiunsi la forma "-ïr". --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well done. Other similar verbs include amuïr, ouïr, entr'ouïr, haïr, rehaïr, entrehaïr, entre-haïr, déshaïr, reouïr, entrouïr. I'll get round to them someday. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto Come trovasti questi verbi? --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I looked on French Wiktionary - for verbs that used the same conjugation template. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto Penso che la tabella su la Wikizionario di Francese di la coniugazione del verbo "ouïr" è errato: deve essere "j'ois". --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't be surprised. Feel free to fix it! SemperBlotto (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kenny. Can you figure out why atome-gramme is in Category:French nouns with missing plurals but, as an example, atlantosaure isn't? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto Because one was fed a parameter and one was not? --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I realised that after I asked you. Do you think we should fix something in order to make it consistent? SemperBlotto (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto Si voglia. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kenny. Another strangeness with fr-conj-auto. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto Le mie scuse. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Module:fr-pron isn't working correctly with certain combinations of vowel letters after consonant clusters within the same syllable; see the conjugation table at bruire and call {{fr-IPA}} on crois and groin for examples (but note how calling the same template on loin, ruiner, and pourvoir works just fine). Can you please try to fix it? I don't even know where to begin to look, and I have a feeling that fixing it would be beyond my ability anyway. Esszet (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Esszet:Fixed--kc_kennylau (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Reply