User talk:Linshee/Archive1

When creating categories, and the same category exists for other languages, please use a template such as {{auto cat}} to fill it with content. Don't place categories in it manually. —Rua (mew) 21:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Alright, thanks. Didn't know that. Gormflaith (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello! If I may ask, where are you getting the Kalasha IPA from? —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 02:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I copied it from French wiki, which I assume is from the source listed there. Should the IPA be withheld until a more reliable source is found? –Gormflaith (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all the nominations! If you're worried about flooding the noms page, do it selectively: I only feature a language once per month, so it'll take me quite a long time before I run out of Czech entries. Most other languages, especially minority and underdocumented languages, are always welcome and I can't usually find enough of them to feature. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the advice! – Gormflaith (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

The attention to detail is savage. Somewhere I've got a list of the entirety (as far as we could remember) of all the words that my sister and myself made up in our childhood. This wouldn't even give me a chance to practise IPA so I guess we won't publish that. But seeing someone else's equivalent is really fun. Equinox ◑ 21:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! We just got a dog so a lot of words from my childhood are resurfacing. I wanted to document it, so I just put it here. – Gormflaith (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Remember to use the code gsw for Alemmanic German entries. DTLHS (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

My bad. Thanks for pointing it out. – Gormflaith (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I changed the entry baum and a few others from cim to gsw. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I saw you corrected my embarrassing misspelling of Alemannic as well. I corrected the rest. I'm being more careful now! If you see a mistake over a bunch of entries, please let me know and I'll take care of it. I don't want others to have to clean up my silly mistakes. – Gormflaith (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I saw you mention twig in the ety scriptorium. I have a weird fascination with numbers, so I was hoping you could give me a thought or two, on the off chance that it plays a role for Bill.

So, gamma is supposed to be from giml, a kind of stick, and the small gamma looks kind of like a twig, similar to the letter y. Incidentally, gamma is the second consonant in the alphabet. Further, german "zwei" was once written "cwei", and the letter c is derived from gamma.

On the other hand, "Zweig" and "twig" have retained a resemblance to "zwei" and "two". Indeed, "*dwigʰa" is derived from "*dwóh₁".

By the way, the resemblence between gamma and ypsilon seems to be no coincidence. At least, in my local German dialect a voiced velar fricative is used for g, and could be written y. Apparently Ɣ reflects the same manner.

So, I am a little confused that twig (understand) is not related to twig (branch) and try to consolidate the two, which is rather hopeless, but I'm always skeptic about etymologies. The explanation at tuig is mostly red and the one at dobeir is hard to follow. Ultimately, the reasons to go on, which I see, are that "do" should be really hard to analyze on account of its shortness and the productivity of its different possible meanings on the one hand -- at least "towards", "two" and "do" -- and on the other, the apparent discontinuity between "do beir" ("to give") and "tuic" ("to understand"). A loose link between "two" and "give" is ger. "abzweigen" -- literally "to branch-off", colloquially "to take a part", "to channel, fork off"; Cf. *deh₃- (“to give”) versus *deh₂- (“to share, divide”).

There is not even a translation for irish at two or twig (yet; Maybe once I feel comfortable editing). I did look for a phonetically close Irish word for twig and found one for "perch" - "verb of bird INTRANSITIVE téigh ar fara" (the TOC mentions a noun, too, but I don't see it), which in turn is homophone to téigh ("to go", "warm", ...?). "To part" still means "to leave, go" in English.

So these figures of speech are not exactly unknown to the Irish (although, I didn't check for chronological correctness). I'm basically suggesting that twig and English could have had a major influence on Old Irish, but I don't know how. I hardly even understand your posts. I'm just thinking, perhaps the shift to /#w/ came from English via twig. What do you think?

If I had posted this in the scriptorium it would only be deleted and I concede that none of this is fit for inclusion. I hope you will find it at least interesting. And I hope too that it is not distracting from your coursework. Rhyminreason (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you haven't been adding gender for Bavarian nouns. Do you not have that in your resources? Also, it looks like a {{bar-noun}} needs to be made — should that have gender, genitive, plural like {{de-noun}} or gender, plural like {{mhn-noun}}? Also pinging @-sche —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, there weren't any genders. I found them in an appendix comparing Germanic languages in Italy at the end of a Cimbrian-language resource. Regarding the template, one similar to {{mhn-noun}} would probably be better because according to Bavarian and German Wikipedia, genitive is only used in fossilized phrases. – Gormflaith (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I made one that you can use based on the Mòcheno template, but I didn't like how that one throws a fit if you don't provide it with a plural, so I took that feature out. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• A couple unrelated notes: see my recent edits for how to specify gender with {{head}}. Also, as regards taxonomic names, it's best only to add them when helpful (and only italicise genus or genus+species names). In many cases, dated sources will give taxonomic names that are obsolete, and thus serve only to confuse more if the English gloss is good enough. Thanks for all the new entries! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Will do. Thanks for all the help; it's hard to keep track of all the templates and such. – Gormflaith (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

No worries, and feel free to ask for help if you need it. Speaking of templates, {{delete}} is the one to use if you make a typo and need a page deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you're adding Bura entries without marking the tones. This is problematic, as it requires that somebody else will have to add them in down the line, and it may be a long time until anyone notices. Can you please add them to all your entries? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Looking more closely at the UCLA Phonetics Lab Archive, I see that for some reason they didn't bother to mark tone for the terms they used to document various phonemes. That's one of the problems you can run into when it's a language you're unfamiliar with and a resource that wasn't intended ever to be used for lexicography. It makes me think that maybe this isn't such a good idea. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Yeah, I didn't even notice that Bura was tonal before you messaged me. I'm going to add {{rfp|bwr|tones missing}} to the entries that I've made tomorrow (It's almost midnight). Regarding the database, it seems a shame to not use, because there's tons of data on less documented languages on there, and it's a free internet-based CC source. But I see your point, and will refrain from rapidly dumping entries into Wiktionary from languages I know nothing about, and stick to West Germanic languages from now on. Thanks for calling me out; I definitely would've kept on blindly trusting the database. – Gormflaith (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've studied Hausa, so I knew more or less what to expect when I saw it. Bura is pretty poorly documented, although we should be able to do an acceptable job of cleaning up those entries by using this and this, although neither would be a very suitable source for Wiktionary, considering that the former is from old missionary linguistics and lacks a lot of phonological detail, and the latter is not peer-reviewed and may have mistakes. I'll see if I can go through and do that tonight.

As for data on less documented languages... there's a great deal of it out there, and a great deal of work to be done here in many of them, including West Germanic ones. If you set up your email address, I can send you some PDFs you might enjoy. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Update: I've now finished fixing all the Bura entries as best I could. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Thank you so much for the help. And I'd love to take a look at some; I've just set up my email. – Gormflaith (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Be very careful with StarLing! It's quite an unreliable resource, and Starostin is widely regarded as a crank. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Goodness. Thanks. I haven't used anything from it. – Gormflaith (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed you're changing a lot of {{etyl}} templates to {{der}}. By doing this, the etyl cleanup categories become depopulated even though {{der}} should only be used if a word is not borrowed nor inherited; basically, the change makes it look like the word is "derived" even though a more specific template is still necessary. Please use {{bor}} or {{inh}} (unless it is actually "derived"), or if you aren't familiar with the language just leave {{etyl}}. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 18:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Alright. I thought getting rid of the etyl categories was top priority, and then categorization as bor or inh would come later. I'll stick to bor and inh from now on. Thanks – Gormflaith (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is an important thing to do, but just switching to der just sets us up for more work later. Best to get it done in one go. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 17:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Gormflaith, I appreciate that you're trying to help, but please don't make changes en masse to languages you don't work in, nor are familiar with, unless you first speak to people who are on the project. Case in point with the Taíno entries, which were intentionally at Taíno, not Taino. --Victar (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Victar Okay. Sorry. desctree and * to indicate reconstruction weren't working because tnq is for Taino, not Taíno, so I thought it must have been a mistake. If I may ask, why is it Taíno not Taino? – Gormflaith (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Taíno is pronounced /ta'ino/, not /tai'no/, and the í helps illustrate that. tnq still needs to be updated though. --Victar (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

...by default it leaves a redirect behind. We probably don't usually want those (especially if the move was to correct an error in the page title). Consider unticking the "Leave a redirect behind" box. Thanks! Equinox ◑ 14:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Okay thank you! I thought it was standard to leave one; I'll consider whether I should or not in the future. – Gormflaith (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox, I believe you need to be an admin for the option. --Victar (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

D'oh. Ah well, an alternative is to put the speedy-delete tag on the unwanted page after the move. Equinox ◑ 14:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Gormflaith, if you want to include alternatives beside {{desctree}}, what you need to do is add {{alter}} to the pages you're linking to. The alternatives will be automatically added to the descendants tree. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thank you. Will do – Gormflaith (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Cheers. --Victar (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Remember that inherited terms should come before borrowed terms. For example, see diff. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 20:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I thought it was just alphabetical. Thanks; I'll fix whatever isn't in that order Gormflaith (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Yeah, it is alphabetical, but inherited terms take precedence. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 23:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

"what was your Wiktionary name before this name". but I suppose the history checks out. You are a multitalented busy bee. I wonder how long we will have you before the Unicode Foundation or somebody swoops in. Equinox ◑ 00:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Means a lot coming from you. And I plan to stay on here for a while. I still have 40 pages to wade through in that dang Alemannic book, and then after that who knows... There's so many languages I'm interested in. – Gormflaith (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wow, 2676 entries created already? I usually make like 500 a month... —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 22:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@AryamanA: I'm not taking very many credits this semester so I have way too much free time... And a lot of them are from like a week when I rapidly made a bunch of mediocre entries from a mediocre source (see above convo about Bura), but I've since stuck to just West Germanic languages. – Gormflaith (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your new entries look pretty great, so thanks for the edits! —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 01:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Did you really intend to remove the gml descendant section in this edit? By doing so, you triggered a module error in both the entries that transcluded it via {{desctree}}. If you did mean to remove it, feel free to revert my restoration- but first fix jagōn so it's not trying to transclude something that isn't there. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: No, I definitely didn't mean to delete it. I think there was some type of edit conflict going on; I'll be more careful in the future. Thanks for restoring it! – Gormflaith (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey. I'm going to guess that within 2 months someone will have nominated you for adminship. I have my bets on who it's gonna be, too, but I prefer to keep that card close to my chest. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks... You're on @AryamanA's WF list. Don't think I can be an admin before I've figured that whole mystery out. Also I have like zero knowledge of Lua, have been here for less than a year, and will be computer-less over the summer – Gormflaith (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

(It's not really mine anymore. Many others, including WF himself, have made far larger additions. FWIW, I became an admin after two years including a four month hiatus over the summer, and I only just learned Lua.) —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 22:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• OK, so I wasn't quite accurate with the guess. Anyway, I'll nominate you myself for adminship. It seems you figured out the "whole mystery" of WF, too. Lol. I'll start a vote for you if you like. I haven't started an admin vote in while, so it'll be fun. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Harmonicaplayer: We barely ever interact, and are off in different corners of Wiktionary (Romance vs. Germanic). Why do you think I'd be a good admin? And no offense but I don't think it'd be a good move get nominated by someone who's been blocked like dozens of times. – Julia ☺ ☆ ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 20:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Hundreds of times, actually. I might nom you anyway. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Harmonicaplayer: The computer-less-ness mentioned above starts this Wednesday, so I'll have to pass anyways. – Julia ☺ ☆ ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 23:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

You'd be surprised how many of our current admins were nominated by WF- mostly because other people didn't get around to it before he did. He does sweep up the occasional slow-moving farm animal or piece of lint along the way, but if people think someone's a good candidate, they'll take advantage of the opportunity and vote for them. There's no minimum experience requirement- if you're willing to work, able to learn things and have the right attitude, you can pick up the rest soon enough. I became an admin after a couple of months here, and I'm not unique in that respect (I was nominated by SemperBlotto, though). Chuck Entz (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: A couple months? Wow, I thought a year was the unofficial minimum. I'm still going to wait until after my break to be nominated by an admin who'll write a better nomination. Which might increase my chances of not getting obliterated by 's. – Julia ☺ ☆ ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 01:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

No hurry. You shouldn't put yourself forward until you feel ready. When you are, there's a lot of work to be done, and we need all the help we can get. It takes a certain temperament to keep from taking it all too personally: you have to be merciless on vandals and irresponsible people, but you also have to be sensitive to those who feel like their edits are their children, and you're the one with the ax... Still, it can be satisfying. I'm not an expert at anything, but I know just enough to understand the people who are. I help them communicate with each other, and I fight vandalism as well as cleaning up boring technical problems, so they can concentrate more on the areas they know best. I feel like I'm making a difference for the better. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

You're certainly making a great difference, Chuck. You have lots of admirers around here. BTW, I found your comment about the farm animals and the lint funny - no idea which particular farm animal you're referring to, though. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

You linked gheg albanian "kep" (a noun, and an alternative form of gheg "kepë") with a verb "kep"/"qep". They have total different meanings, are not realted and not connected to eachother. Please reverse. Thanks. IMIPER (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@IMIPER: I didn't add them, I just added the {{alter}} template. I'm a bit confused; you listed kep as an alternate form at kepë. Tosk kep (“to hew”) and Gheg kep (“onion”) are homonyms, which doesn't mean that they're connected. We link to words that don't exist on the project yet all the time. – Gormflaith (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Could you please stop editing albanian words? You are totally confused because you don't speak albanian. Non-albanophon ppl editing albanian words: THIS is causing confusion.
• I worte that the alternative form "kep" (ONION) is from "kepë" (ONION). Both are GHEG forms (northern dialect and also OLD-Albanian). You deleted the "(Gheg)" and now it's liked to the VERB "kep".
• Also the f. should be next to "kepa" and NOT "kepë". Why? Bc "kepë"/"kep" are INDEFINITE FORMS (english: "onion"). "Kep" is the DEFINITE form and FEMININE. IMIPER (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Gheg-Albanian kep / Tosk-Albanian qep = " onion" (engl.), " Zwiebel" (german), "ceap"

(romanian),  ceba (catalan), " cebolla" (spanish), " cipolla" (italian), " cebola" (galician/portuguese). IMIPER (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@IMIPER: You're right, I don't speak Albanian. But I do know how Wiktionary works and have a good grasp of basic linguistics. I edit Albanian entries to make them conform to Wiktionary and linguistic standards. I did not delete the "Gheg". It's literally right there under "Alternative forms". And kep does not link to the verb, but to a Gheg entry that doesn't exist yet (feel free to add it). If you want to change how Albanian entries are formatted here, you can suggest it in the Beer parlour. And while you're at it, please read Wiktionary's Entry layout page to learn how to properly format entries. – Gormflaith (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• 1st: 》I did not delete the "Gheg".《 -

Yes, you did!! Look it up if you don't beleive me! And you did it again! May I ask how old you are? 10?

• 2nd: I'm joining wiktionary since: 1 day. Don't worry, I'll learn it step by step. However, looking at all the messages that others left: you're not that professional tho. "Basic" isn't enough. My "albanian skillz" aren't basic. They are superb. You could just ask instead of wild restructuring without knowing the difference between Gheg kep / Tosk kep (later confessing to be confused).

@IMIPER: Sorry if I was a little blunt; you are a new user and I was new not that long ago. There's a ton of stuff to get used to and it's kinda overwhelming at first (to me it was at least). But I looked through the edit histories and I honestly do not see where I deleted "Gheg". If you have proof you can show me the diff. I promise I'm not adding any content to your entries that isn't just standard formatting stuff (besides maybe the declension table at qepë). And I do know that there's a difference between the "kep"s–I said it in my very first reply to you ("Tosk Albanian kep (“to hew”) and Gheg Albanian kep (“onion”) are homonyms, which doesn't mean that they're connected."). As for my "basic skills", I meant that I'm a linguistics major who just finished her freshman year of college, and has a long way to go before a PhD. Not that I have read some fun articles about how wacky language is. – Gormflaith (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I'm not here to "battle" ppl with PhD's and what not (anyway, congratulations).
• I wish I could send Screenshots (it would spare me a lot back and forth). However, it was:

》===Alternative forms=== ▪* 'kep' (Gheg)☆ ( — final -ë drops like in many Tosk dialects), qepë (Tosk)

• qepë — Tosk《

(☆this is what I'm talking about. It's less confusing for ppl who don't speak albanian, imo)

• the declension table is fine, but not correct. TOSK, Nominative: qep/ë or qép/ë (singular, indefinite forms, "onion")., qepa or qépa (singular, definite forms, feminine, like english "the onion"). Plural: -ë(t). The root is "qep", respectively "qép". Actually, no albanian says "qepat" - not when they refer to onions.

@IMIPER: Alright, I see what you mean. I deleted the "Gheg" because I converted the entire entry so it was in "Gheg Albanian" rather than just "Albanian"; it's implied that kep is Gheg because it's on a Gheg entry. Can you look through Category:Albanian declension-table templates and add the correct one to qepë? (also I'm 19 I don't have a PhD lol :-) though someday I wish) – Gormflaith (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your edits on Bambara words. Please note that the Bambara orthography does not: (1) use IPA ɡ but rather the ordinary g, hence ɡɔmɛ should be gɔmɛ (thanks for moving from gòmè, which is an old transcription); (2) place the "eng," ŋ, in initial position for prenasalized consonants, i.e., ng not ŋg, hence ŋɡɔnɔ should be ngɔnɔ. Bambara, like a number of African languages, incorporates selected characters in IPA into its orthography, but definitely not all. In Bambara they are: ɛ and ɔ (since it has a 7 vowel system); and ŋ (appears only before vowels) and ɲ.--A12n (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@A12n: Thanks. I made most of the ones with incorrect spellings a while ago when I wasn't very experienced or careful with this project. I'll move whatever's misspelled. And it doesn't use diacritics right? – Gormflaith (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

The issue of diacritics to mark tones (2 only in Bambara) has several approaches, basically include them or not. In fr.wiktionary.org, Bambara tones are not marked, which follows some dictionaries (including at least one published in Mali for use by teachers & others working with the language, and the Lexique bambara-français-anglais online) and most popular usage in print. I've followed that practice in editing there, and would recommend it here. In the prestige dictionaries & some others, one or both tones are marked. However, the practice does not seem to be standardized, with some opting just to mark only low tones (so unmarked are high), some vice versa, and some marking both. In fr.wiktionary.org, I've put tone markings where available in pronunciation. My thought (tho this has not been discussed or settled on as a policy) is to continue not to mark tones of the headwords, but to mark them in pronunciation (so one headword might have different tones for different entries), and to leave for later the possibility for adding tone-marked "variant spellings." The latter might facilitate marking equivalences with the N'Ko transcription, in which tone marking is integral (there is not yet any significant number of N'Ko entries in en.wiktionary.org or fr.wiktionary.org). The bm.wiktionary.org was zotzed some time ago, unfortunately.--A12n (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@A12n: This makes sense if it's not completely standardized. I think we should follow a system at least on here though... from what little I know about Bambara I think tones in the headword, not the title and have optional diacritics like Latin, Luganda, Russian etc. Like

entry_name = {
		from = GRAVE, ACUTE},
		to   = {}}

But those who are more experienced in African languages should make the decision :-) – Gormflaith (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I believe @Metaknowledge has worked with Bambara and may have something to say about this. My own opinion is that treating it like macrons in Latin might be a good idea, especially if there are words that are spelled the same but the tone is different. I would also say that having competing systems of marking tones where unmarked syllables signify the exact opposite in one system as opposed to the other is a good argument for requiring both to be marked. That way we don't have to guess which system contributors are using, and we'll also know when they're not following our system. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I haven't ever studied Bambara, but thanks for the ping anyway, because I am very interested in working with editors to improve our coverage of African languages. I strongly support marking tones on the headword line (not the page title) and stripping diacritics as Gormflaith suggests, and this solution has worked really well for a wide range of African languages from multiple families. As A12n notes, there is an extra advantage here, in that we can automate N'Ko transcriptions in the future. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thx. One could also treat the tone-present & tone-absent versions as spelling variants. That's how it seems to me as a non-native speaker & observer. IOW, the Wiktionary shows what is used (what one will encounter in text) and variants. Tones are sometimes added in otherwise tone-absent text where a word could be misread and change the meaning. I find it of interest that the effort on fr.wikipedia.org, which involved Malians, decided not to mark tones (though I don't know the reasoning), and that printed text in the language typically doesn't have tone markings (but as mentioned, also see the advantage of adding toned variants to the entries). In any event, some input from experts on Bambara should be elicited. For some other tonal African languages, notably Yoruba, tone marking appears to be standard, and you commonly see it in texts. Should this discussion be moved?--A12n (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thinking of them as spelling variants is fine conceptually, but would make lexicography far more difficult. The work at fr.wiktionary was not really conceived with learners in mind as far as I can tell, and there are major problems in how they handle many African languages there. We can and should do better. Yoruba is a good example of a language where tones are marked in the page title, but as we aim to have page titles match actual usage, that is obviously untenable for Bambara, hence my support of marking them in the headword just like Hausa, Kanuri, and most Bantu languages. As for moving this discussion, that's at Gormflaith's discretion. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge, A12n: You guys can move this to the Beer parlour or wherever if you'd like. I don't really have anything to contribute to the discussion any more, and I think input from others on this issue would be beneficial. – Gormflaith (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thx @Gormflaith, Metaknowledge:. Will follow the lead if someone else moves the discussion (not as familiar with the choices & protocols - e.g., whether this discussion is copied over to the new location for ease in reference). So if I understand, one could have page title one way - tone unmarked - and headword(s) the same or another (or both?) - tone un/marked? Am looking at how Arabic entries are handled (diacritics serving totally different functions there of course, but titles are generally without vowel marks). Noting Yoruba & Lingala for instance have tone marks in titles, which seems to make sense; and that Hausa does not, which also makes sense (there not being a standard system for tone marking in its Boko orthography). N'Ko correspondence of Bambara terms (which by implication would also be a consideration for other Manding varieties) was mentioned; Ajami for a number of languages including Manding & Hausa might also be a consideration.--A12n (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Quick additional note with apologies to User talk:Julia for staying on this space. Wanted to mention (1) a monolingual Bambara dictionary without tone marks at all (Kassim Koné, 1995, Bamabankan Daɲegafe, Mother Tongue Editions, 233 pp.); and (2) I'll try to dig out official documentation wrt Bambara orthography (was recently dealing with a question re Fula in Mali, and there should be more than one ref. available). Can move this whenever, or else I'll copy to a user page under A12n.--A12n (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey Gormflaith, could I ask that you please not use bold in |head= of reference templates? If that was the desired format, it would be hardcoded in. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Victar: If you're talking about *bʰértis, JohnC5 did that before I even made an account :-/ Gormflaith (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Cool, thanks for clarifying. --Victar (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

i wanna have the dog. do you sometimes grab his little tail and he goes YIPP!!! like a soldier betrayed, but then looks around and "oh it's just you". then you get into this whole situation Equinox ◑ 03:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

How did you even find that video? And not on purpose, lol. He's a bit whiny though. And a troublemaker; he likes to run to the neighbors' yard to play in their bushes :) – Julia (talk) ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 03:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Equinox ◑ 05:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

😍😍 what a cutie – Julia (talk) ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 05:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

lol, tried sending you a 3 MB file. I have a suspicion I'm already shadow-banned on YouTube so let me know if nothing turns up in 24 hours. Equinox ◑ 03:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Good morning, there! :D I anonymously edited those entries, in the latest hour before creating the present account. I saw you were the last editor so I wanted to ask you if they seem fine now. I guess I should have posted elsewhere, but whatever. ^^ Plus I wonder whether schon's 4. english translations, apart of "admittedly", match the meaning. Couldn't something like "I guess" be added? Thank you. ^^ Fairieberries (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

(FYI, the best place to discuss certain words is the Tea room)
Hello! Your edits are fine, but I did change them a bit just to match a couple conventions (like using {{q}}). Also: regarding schon, I do think "I guess" is a good translation in some contexts, but generally the glosses should be the same part of speech :) If you have any more questions the Information desk is a good place to ask. Welcome to Wiktionary! – Julia (talk) ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 15:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hiya, I see this great photo is your own work, but you must have downloaded onto Commons first. How easy is that to do? I already have a photo gallery on my user page, but I would like to add my own. DonnanZ (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Donnanz: It's super easy. Just have the .jpg file on your computer, go to Commons and click "Upload file" on the left, and it'll walk you through. :-) Julia (talk) ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 17:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ah, OK. I will have to sort out an image or two and pluck up the courage. And take a few more photos I want to include. Anyway, thanks a lot. DonnanZ (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

No problem! – Julia (talk) ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 18:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think I'm catching on, done one, you can see it at cutting. This is a whole new ball game. DonnanZ (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just noticed this…is that 1911 dictionary really still viable? I am just surprised that the -n really reappears in this infinitive when it clearly doesn't in general use in Urnerdeutsch, as even I can hear (there are also enough examples around online, like the verbs listed in this paper). It's also not a form given in the Schweizerisches Idiotikon. But in any case, I think Alemannic verbs should always be lemmatised under the -e form since that's how 99% of the dialects use them. Ƿidsiþ 05:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Widsith: The pronunciations given (which aren't in IPA) do not have /n/ at the end. The author spoke Zürichdeutsch himself, which definitely doesn't have the /n/ either. This book has valuable information for vocabulary, pronunciation, and etymology, but the orthography is a bit sketchy. Apparently the author was trying to make the spellings as close to "common Alemannic" as possible, whatever that means. I can move them all today. – Julia ☺ ☆ ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 12:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, so he spells it with a "silent" N! It's kind of like what the Idiotikon does, although they use a superscript letter to show that it's a "historical" thing that isn't pronounced. But nowadays when people write Swiss German, they always just write infinitive endings as -e or -ä (depending on the local dialect form). Ƿidsiþ 16:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Widsith: The author has two spellings: An Urseren form in the text, and a changed form in the Wörterverzeichnis. Wiktionary entries created from the source, use a spelling based on the Wörterverzeichnis although (sometimes) pages of the regular text and not of the Wörterverzeichnis are given as source (cp. diff). In case of this word, the Wörterverzeichnis (p. 112) has "müessen 88", the regular text p. 85 (inside paragraph 88) has "mıæs(s)ə müssen" with some inflected forms and p. 88 (inside of examples) has " mıæssən " with translation "mußte" (cp. diff). I don't know, if all the inflected forms could be typed correctly as the author uses an altered u (similar as to ɔ being an altered o; the left side of the u-like character is normal, but on the right side, the arm is shortend).
IMHO the spellings in the texts are the more correct forms, especially if labelled {{lb|gsw|Urseren}}, but properly typing them would be difficult. -80.133.107.140 01:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think as with other entries, it will ultimately come back to evidence of actual usage from texts – which, in the case of Swiss German, are unfortunately few in number, especially for a specific local dialect. Ƿidsiþ 06:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I saw that you have this term in your FWOTD holding pen, but it has already been nominated in focus weeks. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Thanks, I didn't see that. — Julia ☺ ☆ ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 16:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Please accept here: Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2018-08/User:Julia_for_admin. Equinox ◑ 21:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox: Done. — Julia ☺ ☆ ^{• formerly Gormflaith •} 22:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for sorting the etymology format here; but am glad that it is not in my power to remove all the P.I.E. absurd analogies. 'Whey' is far more likely to be from the same root as "Wye" river, in connection with 'water'. Kind Regards. Andrew H. Gray 12:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Andrew

@Werdna Yrneh Yarg Yep. Just adding some templates. I don't know about a connection between whey, Wye and water. I don't think they are though, because I'm pretty sure «wh» and «w» words don't usually come from the same root in PIE, because they descend from different sounds (k^w vs w). — Julia ☺ ☆ 18:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Julia Thank you for your message. Sorry, I may have caused confusion: "Wye" and "water" are certainly not connected; but may have had an equivalent meaning, where pre-historic forms are exceedingly dubious as origins. I believe that the dubiousness of a Celtic origin is around the square of that from early Anglo-Saxon; and any pre-Celtic origin dubiousness is to the power of four compared with that of Old English. What you state is true as to the distinctions between "wh" and "w", I believe; but too many etymologists assume that every Old English lexeme has a P.I.E. root. Even those handful of Celtic origin would have come through with different sound changes where, for instance, the "g" usually became "c", not to be confused with many words akin to Celtic, but of Germanic origin, with Germanic cognates, where the equivalent of Celtic "c" or "k" is found as "h" in Germanic. So, any words like cob, bad, toad, {oat, mote, pig, the roots of which may have been borrowed into Brittonic and afterwards into Old English; Andrew H. Gray 11:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Andrew talk} and "ael" (in 'annEAL'), et cetera, of pre-Celtic origin, may have gone through different sound changes again; but the dubiousness of this origin of the latter is exponentially higher than even that of the Celtic! The main point of my edit was simply to outline that the P.I.E. root here is irrelevant, since its meaning is the opposite to that conveyed in whey. Kind Regards. Andrew H. Gray 17:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Andrew talk

Note that the meaning of "citation" for Foreign Word of the Day is specific, specified at the top of WT:FWOTDN. For instance, for well-documented languages a citation must be a durable quotation. So several of the nominations you added for the false cognate focus week were invalidly marked as cited. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Okay, will change. — Julia ☺ ☆ 13:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

What's with replacing the word "cognate with" with "compare"? That's removing information. Korn (talk) 09:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Korn: I just thought it sounded better and figured that it was implied that they're cognates. I think I've only done it on pages/words I've created myself. I can stop though. — Julia ☺ ☆ 15:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

'Compare' tells me there is additional information on another page. That makes me have to look it up, leaving me wondering why the information is not on the original entry in the first place. If the other entry ALSO only says 'compare', I'm really none the wiser what I was supposed to compare about. 'Cognate' is clearcut, no wild-goose chase and can directly link to its own entry, so the reader has the choice to go to an another entry or not depending on what knowledge he lacks and desires. I've always changed 'compare' to 'cognate' whereever I find them, so we're at odds here. Korn (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the links at *farwō and varwe were broken after your edits, I fixed them. Also, please do not move alternative forms from the middle of the entry to the top. Both formats are allowed and I put them there for a reason. —Rua (mew) 19:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Rua: Okay, thanks for fixing them, I didn't know they broke when in a descendants tree. But for the alternative forms, I'll keep them in the middle, but can't I use {{alter}}? — Julia ☺ ☆ 19:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

{{alter}} puts all the terms on one line, with a single list item in front. The normal format for lists is to have one list item per link. It is possible to change how lists display, so that the items appear side by side, using CSS, so there's no need to have a template that does this.

As for the links, the problem is that every template (or template parameter) is assumed to indicate one term. Including multiple terms in one template call has the implication that the entire thing is one single term, and bots and other programs may parse it that way, rather than as separate individual terms. If you look at the HTML source code of the page, you'll notice that the entire thing is wrapped in lang= tags, indicating that the whole piece of text, including the commas separating the items, belong to that language rather than English. This is something that {{alter}} gets right at least, the items are entered as separate arguments, and are correctly separated in the resulting HTML. —Rua (mew) 20:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Have you ever considered entering entries of words from Lake Constance Alemannic?

On the side of my mother, I go all the way back to the Konstanz District of the Grand Duchy of Baden, among other places in Europe. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lo Ximiendo: I haven't, but I definitely want to expand the dialects represented in Wiktionary's Alemannic German. The only Low Alemannic we have is a few dozen Alsatian entries; the vast majority is Highest Alemannic. I haven't chosen the next dialect I want to work on, so Lake Constance seems like a good enough choice if I can find good resources on it. And I think I'll be done with Urnerdeutsch in like the next month. – — Julia ☺ ☆ 00:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I saw you added a template version of the decendants on Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/andijaz. The descendants for Middle Dutch, however, are wrong. As they are linked from ende, they show the first row, which points to the translation for the conjunction "and" instead of the word for "duck". Can this be solved? --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Ooswesthoesbes: The tree I made on *andijaz was using Old Dutch ende (“end”). However, another user who's knowledgeable in Old/Middle Dutch moved the entry to endi, presumably because of a misspelling, and fixed the spelling on *andijaz as well. They made a tree at endi using {{desctree|dum|ende}}. {{desctree}} transcluded the first descendants it found, which happened to be the "and" tree. So, the mistake at the Old Dutch entry was also seen in the Proto-Germanic entry.

tl;dr If an entry has multiple descendants trees, don't use {{desctree}}, just write out the descendants manually, like I did here to fix the issue. — Julia ☺ ☆ 16:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that solves it, thank you! :) --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed you doing this on pöoze. I changed it to separate templates/parameters. You should only include multiple words in the parameter that way if they are actually part of a single term. Otherwise, separate terms should always be in separate templates/parameters. —Rua (mew) 18:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Rua: Ok, I'll do that going forward. Julia ☺ ☆ 18:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Julia I'm interested in western apache as I'm part apache would you help me do the ipa for ndolkah?Ndołkah (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ndołkah: Hello, I replied to your question at the information desk if that helps! I actually don't know much about Western Apache, as I explained over there, so I can't say what the IPA is for sure unfortunately. Julia ☺ ☆ 17:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

We're deprecating this parameter on existing templates, so please don't add it to any new ones. —Rua (mew) 11:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ok thanks Julia ☺ ☆ 12:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'd prefer if you'd undo the changes you're making to these entries' definition lines. It produces a request for a term that we will probably never be able to fill, which is not what requests are for, and it makes a perfectly fine entry look ugly. For very poorly attested languages, we simply define and specify the inflected form we have in the corpus, and don't try to lemmatise elsewhere when that is impossible. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Okay Julia ☺ ☆ 19:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge:  Done Julia ☺ ☆ 19:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Concerning this change to a Proto-Germanic entry, what kind of Rhine Franconian did you mean? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Lo Ximiendo: I actually have no idea why I did that. I’ll fix it. Julia ☺ ☆ 14:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

What was the rationale for removing some of the places from the entry without going through RfV or RfD? DCDuring (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring: I'm trying to fix some place-name categories and I think I just forgot about them because I'm working on "city", "town" and "village" right now. I'll go back and add them and make sure I haven't done it on other entries. Julia ☺ ☆ 01:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Does that meean that you delete content for boroughs, townships, counties, parishes, neighborhoods, SMSAs or other census-designated places? If so, the process needs to accommodate these and any others that we may have. After all, if someone took the trouble to add them, we owe their efforts some measure of respect. I don't think that content contributors believe that our formatting, templating, and categorizing justify content removal for any appreciable amount of time. DCDuring (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring: No, I'm just adding templates to existing entries, without deleting non-city/town/villages. What I meant was that I'm trying to convert e.g. "Towns of X" categories to "Towns of X, USA" to be consistent with other categories. I plan on adding stuff to Module:place/data in order to accommodate other place names and automatically categorize more countries later. What happened with Carrolton was I deleted the content, went to Carrollton, opened up a bunch of tabs, and then entered the place-names by city first, then town, then village, and then other. I think I just forgot to enter the CDPs. Now I'm just organizing the places mostly by population. Anyways, I'm trying to make our geography entries more navigable with the categories and will go back to all of the entries I edited and double check to make sure everything's there. Julia ☺ ☆ 16:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm touchy about out-of-process content removal, even when accidental. Happy editing. DCDuring (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply