Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word User talk:LlywelynII/2. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word User talk:LlywelynII/2, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say User talk:LlywelynII/2 in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word User talk:LlywelynII/2 you have here. The definition of the word User talk:LlywelynII/2 will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofUser talk:LlywelynII/2, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Look at my entries: I am including pinyin for the most part. The numbered pinyin entries look just awful and I completely agree: I ended up making those because I was copying the format at another page which uses template:cmn-alt-pinyin. If that's completely depreciated and you're concerned about this, you can use the incoming links there to remove it; then get it nixed from the project. You can copy my vote in support of its removal to the appropriate page.
I disagree strongly about disallowing glosses (it's particularly unhelpful on lists with many characters) but, if it's a set policy, I'll follow it until we get a better one to replace it.
This isn't a native-Chinese dictionary and I'm not ever going to add rs values. Feel free to follow behind and include them if they're actually necessary, or give me a template I can add to the page so they're flagged as needing rs details.LlywelynII (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
The rs value is a pain but you may consider using {{cmn new}}, Wyang (talk • contribs) has created. E.g. {{subst:cmn new/a|p1=máng|p2=mù|n|]}}. I find it very useful (you may need to edit it after creation). Occasionally it gives some erroneous alternative characters and can't generate correct IPA for erhua words. As I said, you can always look up rs in the entries. For "盲目" the rs value is "目03", which you can find in "盲".
Pinyin vote - Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Pinyin entries. Believe me, it wasn't an easy one and we want to encourage users to rely on Hanzi entries, not pinyin. It's very easy to slide into using pinyin to write Chinese user examples, etymologies, etc.
Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
Atitarev
No need to create 的 -de adjectives. Entries like 盲目的 can be deleted on sight but I have nominated for deletion for the moment.
Please note my changes to 盲目#Mandarin. It was badly formatted. Need pinyin and rs values (you can get it from the first character entry for each word). You might want to review your entries.
I understand about the 的 policy, even though I (obviously) disagree and (specifically) added that entry because it is in fact a somewhat different meaning from the base word and had its own entry at www.nciku.com. It's just a hard call re: translating Chinese usage.
I disagree about 盲目的. This is how Chinese grammar and parts of speech work. To make "a blind person", you use "blindness" + "的". You're welcome to make your point at Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#盲目的. I have no idea about your Chinese knowledge without Babel but IMHO, you may need some guidance regarding policies, standards and conventions. --Anatoli(обсудить/вклад)00:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
A blind person would be "blindness" + "人". 盲目的 needs a separate entry explicitly because it has shades of meaning that "盲目" by itself does not. A little knowledge, danger, and all that. — LlywelynII00:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think you can expand the "盲目" like this or something, if you really think 的 changes the original meaning (not part of speech):
Or add a usage note header. Even 男的 is redundant. All the senses could be covered by 男, if done properly. I don't find 盲目的 in Nciku or Pleco, it's not in CEDICT either. --Anatoli(обсудить/вклад)01:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
If everyone wants to go that way, peachy. As long as the information isn't lost or (unless pleco is right) conflated with 盲目. (Missing 盲目的 at nciku, frankly, you just weren't looking; pleco seems to conflate the "ignorant", "senseless" meaning with 盲目, which nciku doesn't.)
For whatever it's worth, I disagree very strongly that the noun sense at 男的 is redundant or that removing it would be a service to the wikt's users. (But, then, you know that's why we're having this conversation. =) ) — LlywelynII07:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Re: "just weren't looking". What you gave me is not a definition but a search result in example sentences or translations from English. This is a definition.
Allow me to weight in. Firstly, why do you think its sense is different from 盲目 (which itself can be used as an adjective to mean, ignorant/blind)? Secondly, 盲目 + 人 makes no sense. The Chinese term for a blind individual is 盲人. senseless has multiple meanings in English. I have no idea which one it's supposed to mean in 盲目的. It simply means ignorant/lack of prior knowledge. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C01:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the feedback.
First question: Because it was listed separately in the dictionary I was examining. If 盲目 has that sense, which pleco seems to support, obviously the whole problem goes away and 盲目的 is just another standard adj that doesn't require any separate treatment. Go let the guys over at the removal discussion know that, if you haven't already. (The rest of your comment seems to caution against that, though: 盲目's main sense is blind as in eyes; if the adjective's main sense is blind as in reasoning, it may still need a separate treatment or careful usage notes.)
As for 盲目 + 人, you just misread what I wrote and what I was replying to. Of course it's 盲人.
Nciku gives the meaning "meaningless (senseless)", which in English is more capricious than "ignorant", particularly when used of natural or inhuman forces. If pleco is right and mangmu has that meaning on its own, though, its sources might be off. Again, I'm just going by my dictionary on this one and defer to the native speakers. — LlywelynII07:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think it's just the way it's defined on various dictionaries. Meaningless would not be a good translation in my opinion. If you have a look at the examples on this page , you will see that all of them imply a lack of planning and/or information before taking action. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C04:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
CFI and Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
#: ] '''Support'''; posted after vote closure date. --~~~~
#: ] '''Oppose'''; posted after vote closure date. --~~~~
The vote end date is a necessary evil, IMHO, to make votes closable. Getting a better picture of support and opposition by editors who did not notice the vote at the time it was running is worthwhile, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
A, I restored the votes I'd previously made, as asked.
B, yep. My understanding of reading the debate there is that this policy is a duplicate of others elsewhere and so the vote is over an issue of phrasing (do we repeat it, how do we say it). My personal thought is that as a matter of style, we should say this, say it clearly, and say it tersely. If we need to be verbose (keeping the 2nd graf), which is not my choice, there should be examples.
Especially if it's just an issue of phrasing, though, I'm not really invested in it enough that I need to vote against something everyone else seems to want or to build a consensus around changing the examples being given, which admittedly aren't the best. — LlywelynII23:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Having a hanzi box in a Mandarin entry is compulsory. I am in the process of fixing your previous entries. If you want to know its usage, take a look at 近体诗 and 近體詩. The same template can also be used for entries that are the same in both trad and simp Chinese - you simply have to include one param instead of two. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C21:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the help!
I don't know if you really care but, for future reference, it's probably a good idea if learn to say "please" and don't throw around words like "compulsory". There doesn't seem to be an entry on "draw more flies with honey" but no one is being paid to be here and some contributors are less thick-skinned than I am. — LlywelynII11:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Follow-up: I won't remember or type the overly long one you're using above but I've created a more sensible redirect at {{zhbox}} and will aim to remember to use it. If you're involved with template creation, remember that you're trying to convince people to use them so it's probably good SOP to have shorthand redirects for sensible but over-long templates like yours above or {{pinyin reading of}}. Simplicity and easy of use are important.
I've also noticed a quite a bunch of templates (like the one you just gave me) with no docs or explanation at all. Obviously, not your job if you're not involved, but if you are making or enforcing their use it might help to fill them in little by little. — LlywelynII15:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Most of the Welsh entries I added were from the edition of the laws of Hywel Dda (in Welsh and English) that I transcribed for Wikisource. I can't speak to that specific entry, but that text certainly had plenty of dotted Ys. — LlywelynII20:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Okay. I'm skeptical that y and ẏ were ever considered separate letters in Welsh, but better safe than sorry. Are you the same person as User:Llywelyn2000 at Welsh Wikisource and Welsh Wikipedia? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Please remember that the {{etyl}} template always takes the language code of the language section the etymology is in as the second parameter, except in cases such as cognates that aren't in the chain of derivation for the term- and those should have "-" as the second parameter to avoid categorization. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Babel
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion
In diff, you added a massive amount of material, including quotations. Are these quotations from OED? Note that the selection of quotations that OED made is subject to copyright; to my understanding, copying a significant amount of dictionary quotations from OED to Wiktionary constitutes a copyright infringement. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Your understanding would be quite wrong, particularly inasmuch as (to the best of my recollection) I have never lifted the OED quotes wholesale but just use the earliest attestations and major writers (Shakespeare, Joyce) or interesting ones and they certainly have no claim on them. I also typically reformat and rephrase the definitions and shift the cite to our house style and give fuller info (they usually abbreviate titles, for instance).
Now, that said, if you can replace one Shakespearean quote with another one (especially a better one; they're not infallible); if you want to touch up the formatting (it took me the longest time to realize that they give the chapters of books and acts of plays in lower case roman numerals); or if you want to move the earliest attestations to citation pages, have at it.
Is it correct that each of the quotations that you have added is from the OED? (OED does have copyright in the selection of their quotations.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
It is neither correct that each and every quotation is from the OED nor that the OED has copyright over quotations which happen to be included among their lists. They would have a copyright claim over an entry which included wholesale content from newer editions. It is further not the case whatsoever that the OED has any copyright whatsoever over any content from their first edition, which was published in the 1800s. Chill, pseudolawyerman. — LlywelynII16:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
So you think that by omitting some of their quotations for each entry, you can copy the rest of their quotations, doing that systematically, sense after sense, entry after entry? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
For the 19th century edition? Absolutely. For subsequent editions, your phrasing betrays your bias. The OED cannot claim that their use of quotes ("quarks for muster mark") precludes other's ability to include them; we are more than free to use some of those they include, as well as others. If you have concerns over overuse, point it out case by case and (in almost every case) the solution will be to improve the quotes with other/better ones, not remove entries' quotes without replacement. — LlywelynII16:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
To be clear: do you think that by omitting some of the modern copyrighted OED's quotations for each entry, you can copy the rest of their quotations, doing that systematically, sense after sense, entry after entry? This seems to be a yes-no question. So can you give a clear yes or no, even if followed by an explanation? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Can I give a clear answer? I already have. You're welcome to address it, with particular reference to particular entries you believe constitute offending overuse of the modern editions. — LlywelynII16:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
You have not. You have intentionally avoided stating a clear yes or no, here as below in this thread. I think it likely you are engaging in copyright violation. I am afraid someone will have to clear your mess later. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
I am sorry your reading comprehension has so failed you (as, apparently, has your ability to provide any specifics whatsoever), but (again) no I am not engaged in copyright violation (particularly of the edition that is completely out of copyright) and yes the solution is for editors to continue to further emend the quotations with better and alternate ones in addition to those sampled by the OED. No, the solution is never to blank content, except in actual cases of wholesale copyright violation. — LlywelynII16:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Is the correct that the sequence order of the definitions and their subsensing that you have placed to Wiktionary is identical to that used by the OED? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Identical and subject to copyright infringement? No.
Not pulled out of my ass and not improved by your grotesque blanking of content? Yes. — LlywelynII 16:00, July 2014 (UTC)
Your answers are not very clear. I am not asking about whether the definitions are identical. I am asking whether the sequential order is identical. Furthermore, I am asking whether the resulting tree structure for subsensing is identical to that used by the OED. Again, not whether the wording is identical, but whether the resulting structure is identical. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
My answers were perfectly clear. You're also welcome to go get your own copy and examine both the differences and similarities. — LlywelynII16:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
The root of radish
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
In an excessively long series of edits in radish, you have removed the sense "The pungent root of this plant, usually eaten raw in salads etc". You did so without a RFD or RFV. As per “radish”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., the sense is at oxforddictionaries.com, Collins, and AHD; it is the introduction of the sense in MWO, although MWO does combine the plant sense and the root sense. Generally, definitions in Wiktionary distinguish plants from their roots and fruits. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
While (in general) the collaborative effort is part of what makes this dictionary work well, the level of obsession you're currently displaying and the utter wrong-headedness of your various edits (abusing my talk page, deleting perfectly valid quotes, claiming consensus while violating and ignoring it, &c.) can only make me question both your sanity and helpfulness here.
I'll put that redundant aspect of the definition through the process, but stop with the vendetta and get on making this place better. There's plenty of work for four hands, without you using yours to just cover yourself in dirt. — LlywelynII00:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
So again, please readd the sense to radish that you have removed without a due process, which would probably be RFD. The sense is "The pungent root of this plant, usually eaten raw in salads etc". --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
It's redundant and (if improvement or procedure were your actual concern) would have taken you less time to fix than you've expended bitching here. You are right to note that there would have been a better policy to follow, though, so when you finish reädding the redundant (but attested) sense and I finish both other things I'm doing and cleaning up your various messes around the dictionary, I'll start it through the process rather than deleting it again. — LlywelynII10:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi! I see you using using {{sense}} and {{context}} in "Alternative forms" sections. I realize it can be confusing at first that there are a number of templates which all basically put text in parentheses and italics, and you are not the first person to get them mixed up. However, they do have distinct purposes — and as a result they have distinct features, they categorize differently, and they can be styled differently using CSS — so I wanted to give a run-down of how they're designed to be used. (For more, you can take a look at each template's documentation.)
{{sense}} is used in polysemous words' "Synonyms", "Antonyms", and other "-onyms" sections (and sometimes also in "Usage notes"), at the start of a line, to indicate which sense the synonyms (or usage notes, etc) apply to. For example, ].
{{context}} and {{label}} are used at the start of sense (definition) lines to indicate what context(s) a term or sense is restricted to. If Module:labels/data tells them to, they also add the entries they're used on to various categories. (Notice how the use of {{context}}here to mark the alt form as dated caused Mainz itself to be put into the "dated terms" category.)
{{a}} (for "accent") is used only in "Pronunciation" sections; it precedes a pronunciation to indicate which accent(s) it is found in.
{{qualifier}} is the most broadly-useful of the various templates. It indicates what context something other than a definition is found in. It's what you want to use in "Alternative forms" sections; it can also be found in other sections, including "-onyms" sections if a particular synonym (of a particular sense) is restricted to a certain context, as is the case with "chap" in ]. It most often comes after whatever it's qualifying, but it can also be found in front of things, particularly if there's a list of them and it's easier to put one instance of {{qualifier}} at the front of the list rather than repeat it after each list item.
This is not a Greek letter. It's a letter used in scholarly discussions about Ancient Greek to represent a sound presumed to have been present during the prehistory of Ancient Greek. What's more, "Greek" isn't a valid input to any of our templates to designate a script: all of our script codes except "polytonic" are 4 characters in length. That's why it produced a module error. Please use preview before saving, so you can avoid such errors- or at least look at your edits and fix them immediately. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
If you opt to use bizarre coding such as "Latn" instead of "Latin" or "Grk" instead of "Greek", that's on you. You're welcome to follow behind and clean up the errors or (better) provide links to the list of codes from the error itself or (best) redirect proper names of scripts to your preferred encoding.
Further, it is a Greek letter, albeit a nonstandard one. Cf., inter alia, ELOT 743 on the conversion of Greek script to Latin. Please research topics before being so pompous and rude and wrong, particularly on volunteer projects. — LlywelynII07:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
This is a very interesting question. It seems to me, according at least to this, that ϳ is indeed an archaic character used in Greek linguistics (along with Ϝ,ϝ,Ϲ,ϲ), but was not supported in ELOT 743 or forward. If there is another ELOT 743 source that supports it (as there well may be), that would also be interesting to know. I'm not sure, though, whether it can be properly claimed as part of the Greek alphabet. While the digamma (ϝ) and the lunate sigma (ϲ) have been used in properly in the Ancient Greek alphabet at one time or another, the Yot appears to be a metalanguage character used in the reconstruction of the pronunciation of AG terms and never in its actual writing system. As "the need for it arises in linguistic commentary on texts", I am inclined to characterize it in a similar vein as an IPA character or a proto-language character like h₁. I agree that it merits inclusion on Wiktionary, and I heartily thank you for adding it, but as it pertains to a meta-linguistic phonetic reconstruction of a dead language, I do not think it qualifies as polytonic character.
As for your other comments to Chuck, I'm not sure they are entirely fair. I, myself, am frequently irked at having to look up strange script codes for different languages, but I believe they are standardized, and it is in no way Chuck's fault that they are odd, nor could he change them without doing massive damage to preëxisting templates and pages. This is in no way "on ."
Again, I'd like to thank you for contributing to what you correctly identify as a volunteer project. I hope you continue fruitfully adding for many years. It does, however, startle me that you do not strive to write accurate and fully-functional entries from the get go. I do not want someone to have to come after me and correct my mistakes (though I relish it and try to figure out what I did wrong), and it baffles me that you feel fine leaving a modular error visible on a page that you've edited. I may be a bit OCD at times, previewing and re-previewing pages to see that they are just right, but what we leave behind is a reference work for all the world, and I know if I leave something like a broken module on the page, a normal user might see that modular error and wonder whether some crucial piece of information has been lost to him or her. I know that this holds true for many other editors on Wiktionary, which is why some seem so frustrated when they come to point out ways in which we can better our entry writing. But please don't hold it against them—they are certainly trying to help at a core level, whether it seems like it or not. I don't mean to seem admonishing, but I too have sometimes gotten flustered after getting comments, so I understand from where you are coming. —JohnC5(Talk | contribs)09:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
a) For what it's worth, that's a lousy source and he even includes a disclaimer that his work should not be used for sourcing any Wiki project. Here's the actual ELOT document which includes "giot" as an "archaic character" on page 5. (It isn't necessary polytonic and—despite being Greece's authority on such issues—they're not even necessarily right about it being a letter, but I'd imagine it has made appearances in vernacular Greek writing after Big Yannis's memoirs. No source for that, though.)
b) Absolutely. Just as they're absolutely as fair as his tone and remarks towards me. (No, two wrongs don't make a "right", but there are very sound evolutionary reasons that responding to wrongs with punitive action is the proper response... and should be expected when insulting people from a position of ignorance on the internet.)
c) You can go through my edit history here and there is plenty of care and concern with formatting. I formatted the etymologies correctly on the related entries and didn't just list the new definition under the wrong one. We're here in the first place because I took the time to visit another letter entry so I could use similar coding. If you leave a link to the list of scripts here, I'll probably use it next time. That said, I don't feel terrible at not trying to navigate meta-level search guesses for esoteric script names when "Greek" doesn't work as a script name for Greek script: "Latn" instead of "Latin" and not even a link or redirect? That's not on him (or you), but that's something that should be fixed on the system level and not by sniping at individual editors when they throw up their hands. As is, I included the entry and even with the error message it was an improvement. It's not glorious but, for what it's worth, the system worked: there was an error message. You guys obviously saw it. You fixed it. At some point, one of you will remember to link the script list for me. And there's a new and well-formatted entry we can all be happy with.
Now, that said, sorry for the trouble and the time out of your morning to write to me. ; ) You're right that I may take exception to Mr Entz's tone but do still appreciate that he is here volunteering his time to help this project. — LlywelynII17:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for that better ELOT link. I'm not the best at searching for resources in Greek and this is a very useful and cool one. I certainly agree that if I felt more comfortable doing so, I would add every conceivable error message to every template. Lua is a land into which I have not seen fit to venture—it's not really why I started editing here :). —JohnC5(Talk | contribs)21:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
This entry came out of my improvements to Wikipedia's Romanization of Greek article, so there may be a few other new and helpful ones there. I've been able to compare eki.ee to some of the source materials and he makes small errors with those so I'd prefer to have an original source for ISO and BGN/PCGN '62 but still haven't found one (and not interested in paying the ISO e50 or whatever to look it over.) There's a link to the original UN system now, though, which is what Google Translate seems to be using and also the Greek government's official automated transliterator for ELOT compliance in passports &c.
I apologize for the rude tone of my original post. It was late at night in my time zone, and I was annoyed at finding an entry left with a module error by someone who's been around long enough to know better. The merits of this edit aside, as a general practice you should either a) click Preview before clicking Save to see whether there are any problems, or b) look at the entry after you click Save. Not looking at your edits is like driving with your eyes closed- however well you may know where you're going, things can change without warning, and catastrophe ensues. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks adding the useful info re: Greek typography. It is more usual now to use {{pedialite}} at the end of an entry under External links, rather than the "wikibox" at the top. There was discussion about this some time ago (although I don't have a reference) - either because of the introduction of "language tabs" or due to the increasing number of boxes appearing at the top. — Saltmarshαπάντηση06:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
You're quite welcome.
{{pedialite}} links are terrible and add my vote against them whenever you find that discussion. The Wikipedia links are far too important to the entries (and the pedialite formatting too ugly) to relegate to the gutters of entries. They belong beside the etymologies where they've always been. If there are too many needless boxes cluttering the space, that's a very good reason to stop making or permitting them. (Zhbox, for instance, is entirely needless and was better dealt with using the old Chinese definition header.)
Which is not at all to say that the template itself couldn't be improved: there should be some easy way to create foreign-language boxes that link both the English and foreign articles. Similarly not to say I won't abide by a binding policy: but certainly I don't support the one you're proposing. — LlywelynII09:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
I don't disagree with much of what you say, and I'm not arguing "binding policy" - but I feel it is impolite to make large changes to many pages, undoing a lot of work - just because you think that there's a better way of doing it. You think that {{pedialite}} is terrible - obviously some other people don't! When the original editor is obviously still editing, why not discuss it with them/me? We might actually agree.
Sorry, I got busy with something else but will eventually get back to it. If you have anything pressing or if there's voting going on, lemme know. — LlywelynII12:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Howdy! I was curious what your source for this diff is. I'd like to expand upon your addition with some examples but can't think of any. Could you provide some more information? Sorry to bother! :) —JohnC5(Talk | contribs)07:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well... you got me. I know it's extant and it's on my mind because it's obviously what's happening with the title of the Ravennatis Anonymi Cosmographia, but I was being lazy and just including it as part of my work at Ravennatis without finding a secondary source. It's always a little hard to search for roots. Now that I'm looking, I'm not sure that it's exactly a variant of -atus; this source derives it from -as and -is nouns ("of "), although it seems like it might be a parallel development. (The adjectives just seem to be that, not genitive nouns.)
Oh, as far as specific examples: there's Ravennatis in the name of that book, although I've seen Ravennatus show up as people's epithets; the source above gives the example Ardeatis (of, from, concerning Ardea). I'd imagine there could be other minor examples with placenames ending with -a, but it's pretty infrequent. I can't find examples of Spartatis being anything other than the plural ablative, e.g. — LlywelynII08:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
(Edit conflict)This is a list of all Latin lemmas in Lewis & Short that end in -atis. Most of these seem to be direct borrowings from Ancient Greek or adjectives formed from nominal roots that already ended in -at- (e.g. gratis)- nothing to support an adjectival ending corresponding to -atus (unless I missed something). Chuck Entz (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Seem to have. It lists the Ardeatis ("Ardean") already given above, as well as Limnatis (a demonym for Limnae) and a few other 'unavailables'. It seems to be arguing for the format that it's a Latinization of Greek -ήτης &c., which is certainly possible; while rare, it doesn't make it non-existant, any more than English -ate should redirect to or be completely deleted in favor of Latin -atus. — LlywelynII09:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for the delay in response. I shall divide the provided examples into categories:
Given this information, I think I am prepared to say that -ātis is not a form of the Latin -ātus. It is a common transliteration of the Greek feminine demonymic and professional suffix -ᾶτις or -ῆτις. The only outlier is bucconiātis, but it is in Pliny, so it is most likely an obscure Greek term or a misreading.
As for the argument about removing -ate as a transliteration of -ātus, the distinction lies in that -ate is productive in English for creating Latinate adjectives in verbs. If -atis/-ātis could be shown to be productive in Latin, I would love to add it as a lemma, but, at this point, there is no evidence of that.
Certainly it's useful to collect placenames somewhere in some fashion and clearly your edits—which seem to have simply removed information and contributed nothing—were unhelpful rather than the opposite. If there is some other format we should be using, let me know. Otherwise, I'll just consider that your personal feelings on what London's entries should look like are wrong and go on doing my part to improve the project. — LlywelynII10:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
The purpose of my post was to inform you of an existing common practice. If you continue with edits like diff, I will have to bring your editing to a wider audience, and probably check in Beer parlour that my understanding of the common practice and consensus is correct. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
I don't mind a "wider audience". If there's some other, better, accepted way to mark geographical information, lemme know. If the existing standard is completely ignoring placenames and not aggregating that information anywhere, that's bad and we should work out something better. In any case, removing information is never the way to go. — LlywelynII11:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Removing inappropriate labels is the way to go, as per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/Context labels in ELE v2. We do not intend to mark for the reader using a label that the sense is for the geographic entity; nor do we intend to mark for the reader using a label that the first sense of dog belongs to "zoology" or that the first sense of river belongs to "geography". By doing so, we are in keeping with usual lexicographical practice as for labels applied to definitions. The above vote shows we had a discussion on this, and that this common practice that you see across the English Wiktionary is in part a result of conscious deliberation made explicit in the vote, especially in the discussion directly in the vote. If you want to change this common practice and the decision made in the vote, you should first seek consensus in Beer parlour. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
I see your anxiety about marking dog with (zoology) is still with you after 6 years but again, respectfully, 6½ people outvoting 2½ back then remains no reason whatsoever to unhelpfully remove information. If you're in this situation again, don't bother pointing out the minimally impressive vote but just point to the policy concerning the context notes: they should only be used where the definition is somehow restricted in its sense. Geographical places are not really jargon in any meaningful sense and there's no limitation on their use (as with pej.), so that information should be formatted as a category.
Seeing that points us both in the right direction. If I want some easy way to categorize something, I can script something on my own but shouldn't use the inline displayed context labels to do so. You, meanwhile, should not delete helpful information but instead (as I should) reformat it as a category, whether Category:zh:Geography or Category:zh:Placenames or whathaveyou. Cheers. — LlywelynII12:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
No, you're not, but since you seem to pride yourself at never letting the feelings of others keep you from saying what you think should be said, I don't think anyone cares.
As to topic discussed: context labels should be used for context, and topical categories should be added by hand. I find the HotCat gadget very useful for doing that. Even so, given the tendency of paper dictionaries to use something like a context label for topical use, and given the widespread misuse of the context templates for topical categorization even by very good editors, I don't consider it worth the effort to lecture anyone over it. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
When you make Chinese entries, could you make sure you add PoS in |cat=, please? I noticed that some multi-character terms in Category:zh-pron usage missing POS are your edits. You need to use {{zh-noun}}, etc. as well. If you use {{zh-new}} for new entries, this will be created for you (but you need to check if you pass n,adj, v parameters and check if generated pinyin is correct). --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)04:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Probably not, but will try to remember. If it's a major concern, script a bot. I'm already putting the parts of speech when I do the headings below and that should be simple enough to automate. Also may run into trouble if that template doesn't support that things have more than one part of speech.
You can do two parts of speech, e.g. ...|n|BLAH|v|to BLAH-BLAH... Once you get used to it, it will become second nature. Traditional should be done first. Override pinyin with |p1=, |p2=, etc. Occasionally, you get things you need to fix manually after saving. User:Wyang can answer your more complex requests or conversion issues, if they happen. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)08:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Related terms
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Pretty sure the reason there's no link here is because that's, like, your opinion, man. Wiktionary:Related terms directs precisely to semantic relationships. You can follow behind me and make the pages less helpful if you like, but "See also" isn't appropriate and "Related terms" seems more helpful than "Coordinate terms".
If there is a consensus or guideline you can point to, kindly do that. My own opinion is that it's rather asinine (as a policy: nothing on you) to misuse that header to provide cognates. "Derived terms" have their own section and etymologically proximate terms belong as a "cf" in the etymology section, not anywhere in the main listing. — LlywelynII12:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
WT:ELE#Related terms. Nothing new- it's been this way all along. By the way, cognates are terms in different languages which are descended from a common ancestor, and thus have nothing to do with this. As for Derived terms: not all related terms are directly derived from a given term. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Ah, so it's just cognates within the same language. I don't really see how that belongs there instead of in the etym section but, if it's sop, that's how it is. Thank you for your time and link. If Mr Polansky isn't leaving anytime soon, you might want to discuss with him how to be less rude and more helpful when discussing house rules with editors. I'm fine with ignoring him (naturally, pending a better attitude or at least helpful links to the policies he's trying to enforce) but he seems rather active and you're probably going to lose more than a few editors. (Fwiw, his edit here seems helpful. Did you still want to delete that page?) — LlywelynII12:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Babel 2
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Do not add translation sections to non-English entries (diff). If a term can be translated with a single word, that should be the entire definition. Long glosses are appropriate for English entries. DTLHS (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Assuming that is policy (which I doubt), it's insane. Where glosses are necessary, they should be included. ἥρως is translated "hero" but the sphere of their meanings is vastly different; Mittel and English aren't actually equivalent, even though they're used as rough approximations in translation. Glosses are not only appropriate but required. We're here to help people, not misinform or mislead them, and still less to intentionally misinform them by removing others' work.
As for including translation sections or links in foreign entries, it's easier to believe that that's a policy, but it's still wrongheaded. (As with the example here: Mittel isn't English but the translations at English are the ones used as rough approximations for it. Your removal of that information from Mittel was in no way, shape, or form helpful and you failed to create any link to the information in your edit. I'm sure you're acting in good faith but was an unhelpful edit and points to a bad policy.) — LlywelynII22:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the policy link, though there isn't an English entry that works as a storage for that. The translation "wood" for both words can go at wood; ditto tree. The point I was making was that it's precisely the wood-radical function that is equivalent. (A correlation strong enough that the Britannica entry on Chinese made an entire section on cuneiform to illustrate it. — LlywelynII13:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
If you don't think Ξ should be transliterated as ks, please bring that up in the BP a community forum (I see it's been raised in the GP) so the community can decide whether or not to change it. Removing {{term}} to circumvent the transliteration the community has decided on is not acceptable. - -sche(discuss)22:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Breaking the {{term}} template so that manual transcription doesn't work is not acceptable. I did draw it to people's attention to that point and to the transcription problem, as well as correcting it. You're welcome to join the discussion so the correction happens faster. In the meantime, we're here to improve the entries, not go around making ourselves feel more important by citing policy. — LlywelynII01:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It may be a monstrosity, but it has enough usage in Google Books to meet CFI. It seems to be mostly used in the Chinese government's English-language publications, and by scientists (Anyone who does research in the area is going to be careful about their wording- Chinese bureaucrats are very touchy about anything to do with Tibet). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Removing ISBNs
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I don't think this is a great idea because Google may very well change its link addresses, or (for legal reasons, as with Google News in Spain) be forced to remove the material altogether. Google has a track record of creating and then deleting things (Wave, Buzz, Labs). ISBNs will help us find it again if it does move. Equinox◑15:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
I do. It's needless—Books isn't going anywhere; when access to volumes' texts is removed, the ISBNs are kept on the info page; and the author, date, and title permit easy searching—and it's an utter eyesore. There's a minor argument for keeping it in a template that maintains the info in a hidden comment but, since most people won't see it, it's hardly very useful. — LlywelynII15:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Wikisaurus:bathroom
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for your expansion of Wikisaurus:bathroom. I would like to ask if you could try to reduce the number of subsequent edits seen in revision history. This can be done e.g. by (a) slowing down and using preview function often, and (b) editing the wiki text in a plain text file off-wiki, and expanding it so long until you are satisfied. Is not mandatory, but makes it easier to browse revision histories. Thank you for considering this proposal. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
With regard to your reformatting of the lists, it made it much more unhelpful and difficult to read. While I agree that it's good to have uniformity, the version you used is so much worse I can't help but think it needs to change.
If you have a policy to show me, kindly do so and I'll fix it. (And recommend a change in policy, but that doesn't change it overnight obviously.) If not, I'll probably keep restoring the more helpful and attractive format I already had. — LlywelynII23:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
I did check that. I made sure to remove it. You're well-meaning, but you didn't check the talk page. Kindly do so. It might be a valid sense, but there doesn't seem to be easily-discovered justification that it is. — LlywelynII11:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
The nation? Which one? I suppose it is interesting that "ladies' rooms" started in as a now-Japanese-sounding no-men-allowed railway waiting area. I certainly don't see how it would be a good idea to go back to the old "commons" but I suppose if people get truly militant about permitting self-announced "women" to go where they please corporations will probably use it as an excuse to save on space and, in retrospect, separate toilets will look like a Victorian hold-over.
If you were really curious, though, a) our toilets were a mess, with half-assed and partially-expanded or misdone synonym and translation lists strewn everywhere and even some entries completely misplaced (little "girl's" room etc.); b) it's one of the more important areas where people need to be able to look something up and know it beforehand without asking around too much (the origin of "loo" particularly seems to draw a lot of attention); c) it's one of the rare areas where we can actually provide better coverage than the OED or Urban Dictionary. In any case, the important bit is (a). Men's room might deserve a separate translation section from toilet (the room) but bathroom, lavatory, and loo certainly don't. When you see messes like that, if there's no distinguishing feature, do try to take the time to merge the sections and place redirects when you can. — LlywelynII05:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Just a few reminders on the format of Chinese entries
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I just wanted to remind you of a few practices concerning Chinese entries:
For {{zh-pron}}, we generally want to have a line for each parameter, mainly for bots. Also, the part of speech needs to go in the cat= parameter.
The definitions don't have to be like those in English; they should just be as short as possible since they are just glosses. (This applies to entries other than English.)
{{context}} is deprecated, so use {{lb}} instead. (This applies to entries other than English.)
Use {{zh-l}} for links to Chinese entries. It generates simplified forms (and pinyin if the entry exists) automatically.
With pages using {{zh-see}}, you don't need the POS headers.
Good on you for giving a reason for the otherwise needless spacing in the {{zh-pron}} template. I'll try to remember about the |cat bit, even though it's largely irrelevant/unhelpful for Chinese entries. Proper nouns are what they are but the verbs, nouns, adjs, etc. morph into one another a good deal and POS is entirely irrelevant to a pronunciation template. If you're part of the conversations there, add my support to the lobby calling for that needless makework to be removed. — LlywelynII03:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
The reason for POS in the pronunciation template is for categorization. Since there's only Chinese section for all the topolects, there needs to be some way to know the topolects the word is used in. Having a pronunciation for a certain topolect indicates that the word is used in that topolect, so it can be categorized into the POS categories accordingly. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }03:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Again, thank you for your time and effort not only to improve the dictionary but to help its other users... but, in other words, it's only *needful* in entries where some dialect other than Mandarin is being mentioned. The policy on including it should be emended to reflect that. Needless makework should be avoided, not required, and all the moreso for volunteer projects. — LlywelynII11:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your appreciation. Maybe I wasn't very clear above, but even if a word is only used in Mandarin, you still need to put the POS in {{zh-pron}}. {{zh-noun}} and the like do not categorize at all; all the POS categorization is done by {{zh-pron}}, and it currently has no way of knowing which POSs are used unless we specifically tell it which ones. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }14:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Etymologies
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
One more thing: for etymologies, when using {{etyl}}, please put the second parameter, which is the destination language. {{term}} is also deprecated, so used {{m}} instead. There's also {{der|destination|source|term}}, which uses less code to accomplish the same as {{etyl|source|destination}}{{m|source|term}}. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }01:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Well, that was f*cking stupid but thank you very much for pointing out the depreciation and, obnoxious as it is, I will try to keep it in mind going forward. All the same, I'm not going to add needless verbiage to templates that appropriately parse blank fields as "English" and the idea we should have to type needless fields is a good reason to avoid most of the newer templates in the first place. — LlywelynII03:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to ask for your opinion on formatting
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Well, since you asked, my opinion is that it's horrible. We should never lead with the Chinese characters in the English Wiktionary. As an alternative to the formatting I was using, you could use a tilde instead of giving the namespace again:
Morrison's dictionary used something similar to a paragraph mark, which I suppose must have been traditional in Chinese dictionaries for the purpose. I'm not sure what the character is, but something like:
My own feeling was that restating the term was the least confusing alternative for English users and was best, which is why I used it. In any case, the Chinese should stay parenthetical. If you think the sense Hangzhou Bay never appears as "Hangzhou", just move that entire entry to 杭州湾 and link it as a #Derived term. But, e.g., 上海市 generally omits the qualifier, as do many mountain names. — LlywelynII08:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough. I'm partial to the tilde (which has been used at 綠帽子), especially as makes the "山脉" stand out more distinctively. I feel like the other two options are a bit too obscure (in comparison to the tilde, which Chinese dictionaries do use). I do understand that we don't want entries like "杭州湾" and "上海市" and that words like 山 are often left out. Does this mean that we shall use the tilde form inline in the definition line? —suzukaze (t・c) 23:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Chinese months as proper nouns
Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
I know month names are usually considered as proper nouns in English, but I feel like they aren't necessarily considered so in Chinese. For example, the MOE Min Nan Dictionary doesn't capitalize 正月. What do you think? — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }01:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
I feel that Chinese in general are simply not very good/interested in capitalization, even less so in dialects. Month names are proper nouns. — LlywelynII15:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Also, in current practice, we generally do not split pronunciation sections for Chinese just for distinguishing capitalization in certain romanization schemes. I'm not sure if you should be changing this practice without consensus. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }01:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'm sure I should be splitting the senses pending policy to the contrary. They don't go together and it removes pertinent information to just bunch the capitalizations together and not split the senses. Even worse is the mess in some of the templates where it is impossible to capitalize terms at all. — LlywelynII15:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
A handful of the schemes in the template are devoted to transcription, just like the IPA (a system which also couldn't give a rat's ass about whether a month is a proper noun or not). —suzukaze (t・c) 18:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Please use "m" instead of "term"
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Greetings. I noticed that you used {{term}} without a language code in congy and congius recently.
I would like to make a request for you: please use {{m}} instead of {{term}}. For example, please use {{m|en|doghouse}} instead of {{term|doghouse}}. The "en" is the language code. If you don't have the language code, you can use "und", like this: {{m|und|doghouse}}, but please use the language code where possible.
My reasons are:
Per this vote, {{term}} was deprecated as of January 2016.
When you use {{m}} with a language code, the link points to the correct language section. I'm told that this also makes screen readers recognize the term correctly, while they would be tagged as English otherwise. The correct language code also lets people to use CSS to format how they view text of a certain language, if they want.
The citation does match the language. The word being used is in Spanish. Absolutely, we should only use native-language or English-language cites (not Chinese sentences for German entries), but this is English. — LlywelynII04:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Then you should probably edit Spanish entries at http://es.wiktionary.org. Here, most of our users read in English and English glosses are more valuable, not less. That said, nuances of grammar should certainly be done in the native language, where English explanations would be needlessly verbose. — LlywelynII04:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Then you should probably provide a translation. If the language doesn't match it's not a citation. I've moved them to references sections. DTLHS (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
You have it backwards. It's the English Wiktionary. If it's in a foreign language, it needs a translation.
You're more than welcome to add Spanish uses of these words if you like... or even correct misinformation if the English sources were somehow wrong. Do kindly stop creating needless makework and malformatted entries you have nothing to do with. It's an unpleasant pain in the ass to those of us actually working on improving the project. — LlywelynII05:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
1. there is no such thing as 3RR; 2. feel free to make a thread in the beer parlor if you want to confirm that you are wrong. DTLHS (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi LlywelynII,
I was just curious where you got the "lush" sense for the 卯 character article. None of the main sources I use have that as a definition (CC-CEDICT, CantoDict, zdic.net, Kangxi, etc.). Cheers! Bumm13 (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
Having more than one {{zh-pron}} under the pronunciation section in Chinese entries (e.g. 阿媽, 中心區) seems a bit weird. The current practice of most editors is to just have the version without any capitalization, but that has its flaws in not representing the capitalization when it is needed. @Wyang, Suzukaze-c, Atitarev, Tooironic, are there better ways to do this? — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }01:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
I agree. It's unnecessary duplication of information. A capitalisation alt-form function would be much more sightly. (I don't really care about transcriptions tbh - I think we are spending way too much unwarranted time on inefficiently maintaining these.) Wyang (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
I agree too, no need to split. The capitalisation of pinyin still needs to be documented in the "About" page (also what makes proper nouns vs common nouns) and for proper nouns alt. capitalised forms could be displayed as both "āmā" and "Āmā" if warranted with a single IPA. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)01:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
In my opinion, we should remove all capitalisation for pinyin entries. Chinese dictionaries published by Chinese don't (e.g. 中國 is zhōngguó in both the 现代汉语规范词典 and the 國語辭典), so I don't see why we have to. I don't see what is gained by having pinyin capitalised, especially considering we already have the Proper noun header. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Pinyin is capitalized for proper names. There's enough Chinglish in the world without enforcing it out of laziness/misunderstanding. If it's really so terribly hard to wrap your head around, we can restore it to its proper position as the default romanization in the entry itself. It's not a pronunciation at all. — LlywelynII15:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
I do agree that we should keep capitalization for proper nouns since it's part of Pinyin rules, though we need to be careful about what we mean by "proper noun". What I don't get is why you always bring up Chinglish. What does capitalization have to do with Chinglish? Pinyin is not English and does not need to conform to English norms. And what do you mean by "restore it to its proper position as the default romanization"? — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }18:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Pinyin is phonetic but it is not a pronunciation. It is a romanization with capitalization rules which we should not ignore because our Cantonese editors (as seen in Suze's misuse of Module:yue-pron to create new formatting policy) and the Chinese themselves have problems with when and how to apply them.
I bring up Chinglish because it is a word and Chingstern isn't: the problem, as you well know, is one the Chinese encounter when treating their language like a European one with a Latin alphabet with upper and lower-case letters. That occurs (the exhaustively vast majority of the time) in English contexts, given that it—and not French or Spanish—is the current international language and a current subject of their education system and Gaokao. I know you—unlike Suze—are well meaning and interested in applying pinyin's own rules, which generally mirror English and not French or German w/r/t capitalization. Given that you knew all that already, I can only assume you're asking me to treat it less pejoratively but it's a problem of laziness and inattention that deserves to be described pejoratively: when pinyin is broken up by character rather than word and written without capitalization, it's not following its own rules and (however common it is among Chinese just using it to teach their children how to read) we shouldn't adopt it any more than we should write our English entries usin vern-ah-kyooler suthern English with aye-dialekt spellins. All lower-case character-by-character pinyin transcription is precisely as lazy and misinformed and it's bizarre that anyone should have to explain that to our managing editors.
As far as restoring it to its position as a default romanization, I understand that's more contentious and politically fraught but China, Taiwan, and Singapore have all formally adopted the Hanyu Pinyin system and, mho, we should move it out of the "Pronunciation" section and use it as a direct gloss of the Chinese characters in the entries themselves. For example, right now we have:
木蘭
PRONUNCIATION
Mandarin
(Pinyin): mùlán
(Zhuyin): ㄇㄨˋ ㄌㄢˊ
Cantonese (Jyutping): muk6 laan4
Min Nan (POJ): bo̍k-lân
Mandarin
(Pinyin): Mùlán
NOUN
木蘭
magnolia
PROPER NOUN
木蘭
Mulan (character in a famous Chinese story)
but, given that pinyin is a romanization and the default romanization of every Chinese-speaking government on the planet, we should be treating it the same as Romanji or our Greek transcriptions (which similarly actually varied from era to era and place to place but which almost everyone standardizes in almost all contexts):
木蘭
PRONUNCIATION
Mandarin
(Zhuyin): ㄇㄨˋ ㄌㄢˊ
(IPA):
Cantonese (Jyutping): muk6 laan4
Min Nan (POJ): bo̍k-lân
NOUN
木蘭 (mùlán)
magnolia
PROPER NOUN
木蘭 (Mùlán)
Mulan (character in a famous Chinese story)
We already usually treat Chinese that way. The entry includes the Derived Term 木蘭花／木兰花 (mùlánhuā) whose gloss doesn't bother to explain that the romanization is pinyin (because it's the universal default at this point) and whose gloss doesn't mention the alternate pronunciations (because they're available at the entry and not the default). This formatting would also make the Cantonese mistreatment look like less of an eyesore: if it's only a pronunciation guide and not a romanization, it's fine that they don't use the capitalization the LSHK (inconsistently) does.
That said, I understand there are political reasons not to adopt that format (even though it's already our default everywhere except the entries). My main concern is to avoid a fiat from on high enforcing Chinglishy misuse of pinyin the same way the template was coded to prohibit capitalization of Cantonese. It's fine with me if we just fix the zh-pron template to allow it to read
There is nothing nonopaque about that documentation, but I take your point that the code only needs to be corrected to realize that coders will add a space after the comma which should be trivial given that it already recognizes multiple romanizations when they omit the space. — LlywelynII15:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Assuming you aren't just sockpuppets
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
A concerted campaign of harrassment and vandalism of an editor's talk page by numerous editors is far more off-putting than a single unpleasant one. I'll probably stay just because I care about the project, but you're going to drive off other new editors acting like this and you should be ashamed of yourselves. — LlywelynII23:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
As usual, you're way off. What you call vandalism may or may not be justified, but it's not vandalism. There's no evidence whatsoever of sockpuppetry, and the only coordination I see in this exchange is some people people giving their opinions, when asked, and others sticking up for fellow editors- nothing concerted about it. For my part, I had to respond to the nastiness and unfairness of your edit comments, which were directed at editors who regularly contribute far more to our Chinese and Japanese coverage- and to the encouragement of other editors- than anything you could ever do.
As for "harassment", It started as a simple request for you change your editing practices, which you responded to with criticism on a marginally-related topic. Not long after that, you responded to an argument made by way of a straightforward statement of opinion with a bunch of loaded words directed toward belittling the person who made the argument and pretty much the whole Chinese Wiktionary community. Suzukaze-c reacted to that provocation with a post that may have been rude and confrontational, but understandable given the tone of your previous comment.
Your response, though, was worse, and quite typical: you love to criticize others, but you simply can't handle criticism directed at you. If anything, your response has only served to show that the post had a legitimate point- that you have no respect for anyone else, nor for their contributions. You may go along for a while and play nice, but at the slightest provocation- imagined or otherwise- you're back to savaging anyone or anything you disagree with.
I'm less worried about people being intimidated by the actions taken here, then about letting your nastiness and wild accusations directed at other contributors go unanswered. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Obviously, or you wouldn't have "stuck up" for your fellow editor by repeatedly vandalizing my talk page in the first place. (No, it wasn't vandalism or harrassment—however unpleasant and off-topic—until it was restoring content removed by a talk page's own user. That was, however, precisely what you three did and, yes, it's indefensible and you shouldn't to it to other users, however much you currently happen to like Suze more than me.)
You're welcome to vent your displeasure elsewhere and that's fine; you're welcome to post helpful and substantive suggestions about the project here; but yes I'll remove further drama from my own talk page and you three should learn to respect that even from editors you happen to dislike. — LlywelynII02:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Formatting of glosses in zh-forms
Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Is there any particular reason why you insist on using links, line breaks and {{nowrap}} for the glosses in {{zh-forms}}? The formatting looks very cluttered and not that much different from the automatic glosses. If you find it is absolutely necessary for the glosses to be in that format, it could be automated if we change the data modules for single character glosses, which currently do not have links and use semicolons instead of line breaks. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }04:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
It's much clearer and less cluttered in display. It's a hypertext dictionary and of course you should include links. What it looks like in code is completely irrelevant. It'd be great if you could automate better formatting than what you're using now, although it sounds like you disagree anyway. In any case, I only override the glosses when they're wrong or throwing in irrelevant senses, so improved automated forms are a separate issue. — LlywelynII00:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I'm fine with the links, but I'm not sure if we need to use line breaks and {{nowrap}} when semicolons should suffice. I'm thinking of trying to improve the automatic glosses by adding the feature of choosing which glosses to display. Take 丁亥, which has these automatic glosses for the individual characters:
丁: “4th heavenly stem; man; people; little cube; a Chinese surname”
I think it is a good suggestion. If we do this, a small link in the top right to the gloss data page would be handy. Something similar could be done for multisyllabic words too. Wyang (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Line breaks are much clearer to the actual reader. A mess of semicolon text is much less helpful and there's no reason to leave it at that. — LlywelynII13:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I would beg to differ. If a gloss is too long, it would force the box to be unnecessarily wide. Also, without semicolons, it is possible for readers to read the glosses as one phrase instead of separate phrases. The formatting you're using is drastically different from all the other regular editors here, which should not happen. Unless you have arguments that can convince other editors to follow your formatting, I will be removing any unnecessary superfluousness from the entries you have edited. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }02:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hebrew units of measure
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Where are you getting these values for Hebrew units of measure? I'm not sure they were even accurate enough for it to be worth giving any kind of conversion to modern units. --WikiTiki8916:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Oh right. But still, I don't know how historically accurate they are, or how accurately they even ever were used in practice. I think the amounts aren't lexically significant anyway. We should probably give the physical reference to the size, like "length of a forearm" or "size of a large basket", but there is no need for overprecision. Also, I'm mainly concerned with the Hebrew entries, not the English entries. --WikiTiki8918:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
It's Oxford and of course they're lexically significant. It's lexically meaningless to give "ancient measure" with no modern value where it's known which is why I included an authoritative up-to-date source. These were not just "forearms" or "pots": they were in fact standardized units within a certain degree of precision (hence "about").
If you have other and up-to-date and authoritative sources to the contrary, we can talk about adding a range of values, but don't remove well-sourced and pertinent information where other people have gone to the trouble to find it for our readers. — LlywelynII03:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
That said, thanks for making me look at this again. In English sources, omer and homer are all mixed up but I just found the right original form of "homer" at Strong's so I'll fix that at the Hebrew entry. — LlywelynII03:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hebrew Ayin ע and the use of ʿ
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As you are the original and primary contributor for the Baʿal page, I thought it would be appropriate and respectful to message you rather than make autonomous corrections to your work without first checking to see if there was an underlying reasoning to what you wrote. I am referring specifically to your assertion that Baʿal is an "alternative spelling of Baal, preserving its glottal stop." I am not a native Hebrew speaker, but I would contest that the use of ʿ in Baʿal is in fact an attempt to preserve pharyngealisation rather than a glottal stop.
While it is true that some dialects of Modern Hebrew pronounce the letter ע as a glottal stop , it was historically pronounced as either a voiced pharyngeal fricative (like Arabic ʿayin) or something close to it. In Arabic transcriptions, ʿ is used to denote the pharyngealisation caused by ʿayin, while a simple ' is used for a glottal stop, and in my experience this is also the practise with Hebrew notations that employ both marks. Thus, for dialects that would pronounce ע as a glottal stop, or even the many in which the ע is now silent, it would be accurate to transcribe it as Ba'al. Whereas if one were to make the specific distinction of transcribing the Hebrew as Baʿal, this should be taken as a preservation of the pharyngealisation that is present in the historical pronunciation of ע and which typifies Mizrahi dialects of Modern Hebrew.
I would thus suggest that an appropriate correction be made at your convenience, in the interest of accuracy, or I could do it myself at some future date if you are unable. Of course, if you had some prevailing rationale for according the ʿ to a glottal stop, then by all means leave the page should be left as it is.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've corrected a bunch of entries you created. They did not follow the principle that non-lemma forms should not duplicate information that is given on the lemma. This includes definitions and genders. —CodeCat22:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Could I ask you to stop using {{etyl}}, which has been deprecated in favour of {{der}}? Also, please put {{attention}} on your Ancient Greek entries, because you're leaving rather many errors. Thank you.--Barytonesis (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
You can, but the page for {{der}} looks like a mess and I don't see any obvious improvements. Is there some actual effect it has that makes it an improvement? E.g., directly borrowed terms, I suppose I really should be using {{bor}} because it shunts things into a different category automatically and we'd obviously like to keep that consistent across entries. If {{der}} is simply someone's recoding of {{etyl}}, there's no real point.
As for the formatting, I was following that used by other sites or the links here but I'll certainly defer to you. If {{attention}} makes it easier for you to help give everything a second look, I'll certainly do what I can. Thanks for your time and improvements. =) — LlywelynII07:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
I think {{etyl}} is now only used as a backend to the other etymology templates. Also, the idea is to have the same condensed markup for all etymology templates, i.e. {{name of the template|target language code|source language code|term}} for consistency; as you can see, that's not how {{etyl}} behaves. But if you want more details you'll be better off asking someone like User:Rua. Anyhow, virtually everyone is moving towards {{der}} now, so keeping using {{etyl}} will just needlessly confuse things and lengthen the process. And yes, it would be better to use {{bor}} or {{inh}} when appropriate.
Thank you for your time writing, but you seem to have misunderstood what was going on.
The lead section to that vote explicitly describes that References continue to exist and should be used for information that supports the entry. The further reading section is for things in addition to that. Which, yknow, is what those section names obviously mean, regardless of four-person (and therefore rather unbinding) process votes. — LlywelynII02:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
They do not need to be split into two different etymologies. The second sense is a reanalysis of the first sense influenced by 盆 (basin). Also, if the entire term is phonetically borrowed, please use gloss=- and do not suppress links to individual characters by using type=. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }16:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
If you feel that the term is not a borrowing from the Sanskrit, adjust the etymology, ideally with a source justifying your personal opinion. If it's borrowed from Sanskrit, the {{zh-forms}} should reflect that. — LlywelynII16:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
If it's a borrowing from Sanskrit, that's what it is. The choice of characters to fit the sense is not a reason to pretend it's not a phonetic transcription, and is just something to address in the etymology. — LlywelynII16:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, I just wanted to point out a few things about Chinese place names (and entries in general):
A 地級市 should not be called a "prefecture", which is used to translate 州; they should be called prefecture-level cities. The only administrative divisions actually called prefectures in modern China are autonomous prefectures (自治州).
AFAICT, the geography label should only be used for words specific to geography as a field of study. Place names generally do not need this label.
It seems like you've put a sense for the seat of government for many places. Are you sure that all of them are used to refer to the seat of government? Does it merit a separate sense?
I would recommend you use {{place}}, which gives a good format for the definition line and adds categories.
I would also recommend you use {{zh-div}} for the administrative division's name.
Chinese entries generally use {{zh-wp}} instead of {{wikipedia}} to allow linking to Chinese Wikipedia and other Wikipedias.
I do. Is there anything to "talk about"? Aren't you the one responsible for removing even the functionality for capitalization from Cantonese romanizations?
You're just going to ignore my reasons, revert the formatting to whatever you felt like in the first place, and there's not much I can do to change that since you're more active here and I don't really feel like babysitting all of the entries or learning coding to protect them from you, even when your formatting leads to eyesores like entries starting with series of parentheses. I'll just set them up the way they should be in the first place, and you can convert the {{lb}} templates to whatever category (Category:zh:Towns, Category:zh:Counties of China, etc.) you feel is the most appropriate substitute. I'm happy enough there's something here for the people coming from Wikipedia. The categories themselves are too haphazardly organized for me to keep track of (or, more honestly, to bother starting still more fights over their proper organization, categorization, etc.), but you're obviously on top of this and don't want the entries to go into a general "sense" category. — LlywelynII01:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I really, really hate to say this, but your self-righteous attitude and lack of self-awareness is astounding. "Whatever you felt like", "protect them from you", "eyesores", "I'll just set them up the way they should be in the first place"...
The problem is that you've come to Rome, spurned half of what the Romans do, cherry-picked the customs you like, and covered your ears when they suggest that you kindly stop.
I could say that your formatting is an eyesore. I could decide to protect Wiktionary's entries from you. I could set up your entries the way I think "they should be in the first place".
Your own formatting style is consistent, which is not necessarily bad, but it consistently doesn't meet the community standard agreed on by nearly everyone else, which approaches unimpressive, and you refuse to meet community standard, instead following your own standard which you staunchly believe is the One True Path, (Because everyone else is clearly wrong, even though they're the ones who set everything up) which IMHO is fairly inappropriate, considering how Wiktionary is a community wiki.
You don't hate to say it. You've been like this from the beginning. There's not a huge amount of discussion, with strong and broad community consensus; there's maybe twelve guys who do the coding and patrol entries and support one another on 'policy' decisions. I don't spurn "half of what the Romans do"; you guys do a generally good job, make a few mistakes, and have very little interest in outside opinions. I make good entries, improve the project, and you browbeat me for it. Almost none of this is about entries themselves or their content; it's about the formatting, bookkeeping, this-or-that template end of things. And a lot of that is needless template churn, like (to use your {{bor}} example above) completely deleting the etyl template because some of the coders would rather no one at all be forced to type etyl and m. (There may be more persuasive arguments, but that's all that was easily findable from etyl's own page.) It's a pain, sure, but I'll just keep on with what I'm doing, fix the actual mistakes, and you guys can either be kind and persuasive like Mr Leung is aiming to do or you can keep on being rude and demeaning and get it back from the rest of us. — LlywelynII04:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I don't want this to become like previous discussions. I know I can't force you to change your preferences, but Wiktionary is much stricter than Wikipedia in terms of entry formatting; this is to ensure that entries are consistent. That said, formatting can change if it's causing too much problem. I'm not satisfied with the series of parentheses either, now that you brought it up, but putting {{zh-div}} inside the definition doesn't seem right either.
Now about geography and such labels in {{lb}}, I've brought it up in the Beer Parlour to see what other editors think. We'll have to follow community consensus on that. If you strongly believe that these labels should be there, you can express your opinions there.
Now, something more important is the use of "prefecture" for 地級市. I've seen you do it here and on Wikipedia, and I've been changing them to "city". "Prefecture" is not the same as "prefecture-level city". I don't we should not be using outdated/unofficial verbiage and stick to the official name, which would be 市 in Chinese, translating to "city" in English. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }02:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Well, first of all, I am sorry for my tone earlier. I had obviously confused you with Suzukaze.
To respond to your points on their merits: (a) I don't appreciate Suzukaze's attitude and was just taking the approach that I can metatag entries as having geographic information and leave it for you guys to sort out which categories things belong to. It's an improvement over not making a note of that and not eventually getting things sorted into their appropriate place. If people are going to stop browbeating the non-insiders and it isn't going to be a huge pain to deal with the categories (e.g., getting more abuse from Suzu or admins deleting categories for historical Chinese prefectures and other things that would need to be created as we go if we're not using a "Chinese geographic terms" catchall category), of course I don't mind formatting the entries that way. There should just be some system for collecting these terms as geographic names in the Chinese language, which is all that I was noting in the first place.
(b) There is no English equivalent for 地級市, prefecture does not only mean 州, and saying a county is a part of a city makes absolutely no sense in the English language. You're simply wrong about usage on this, possibly owing to translation issues. Google Scholar has 26 entries for "Ordos Prefecture" to one for "Ordos Prefecture-level City". Sure, you can describe it as a prefecture-level city but that's going to apply to discussions of it by itself or of the status of the local government. The administrative area is prefecture-level and can be, should be, and is glossed as a prefecture. (c) Dear G-d, please don't make me have to follow you around on Wikipedia to maintain the pages there; take that discussion to w:WPCHINA, w:WP:MOS-ZH, or something if you really feel that strongly about it. It really is just a concession that has to be made to the language differences; XYZ should absolutely be listed as a prefecture-level city on its own page but it's still simply better writing (and not incorrect or peculiar in the least) to describe ABC being "a county in XYZ Prefecture" (linking to the article discussing its exact status) instead of having to say that "ABC is a county in China that is under the administration of the prefecture-level city of XYZ". — LlywelynII04:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Side note: I know I'm not wrong about informal usage or what flows better or is clearer to lay readers but, if I am mistaken and there is already a formal guideline about this over at Wiki, my apologies and just point it out to me. — LlywelynII04:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sure, but then you're talking about apples and oranges. google scholar:Ordos has even more, doubtless, but almost all of the results won't be talking about the prefecture or even the city. We want to specify that we're talking about the prefecture level and the entire prefectural area, not just the built-up central bit. And there's nothing wrong or abnormal about doing so. Again, if there's a Wiki specific policy to the contrary, do let me know, and even run it by Zanhe and some of the other China hands over there if you want to make it a policy but afaik that just isn't the case at the moment. — LlywelynII10:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Unblock
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:
Overzealousness on the part of User:DTLHS. The block is for removing a RFV notice on a page created with an existing citation and OED citation. The initial RFV was in good faith, asking for a citation that wasn't in Middle English. (I tend to include the earliest OED cites to establish the earliest attestation of entries.) Further modern cites are available at the already provided OED entry but, ok, not everyone has access. Further cites are available online but, ok, I was the guy creating the new page. I took the time to add a modern English citation...
and DTLHS readded the RFV without comment... and again... and again... So, yeah, edit warring, but not on my end.
There's already an existing formatted and linked OED cite, a modern cite, and the earliest attestation. With all due respect, the RFV can't possibly be in good faith and I shouldn't need to sit in the penalty box for DTLHS's refusal to explain whatever lingering problem s/he might possibly have with the entry. Thanks for you time and sorry for the bother. — LlywelynII17:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Huh, well, for what it's worth, apparently getting notice of the block and coming over here to talk to you guys ended up eating the entire entry on reperition I'd formatted. Soo... I'm pretty disgusted and will just leave anyway for the next day in any case. If I'm the only one DTLHS has issues with, obviously that's on me; if there's some actual problem with the OED re: this entry, someone just explain it on its talk page; but do keep this in mind for later w/r/t DTLHS. Newer editors would certainly be even more frustrated than I am at the moment. — LlywelynII17:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Like it or not, we have a process, and you decided all on your own that the process wasn't necessary and you wouldn't allow an admin to reinstate it. If you get served with a summons to appear in court, do you rip it up and chase away the process server because you think you've already resolved the issue? Do you change a light bulb by holding it in place and letting the entire world revolve around you? One of those was a joke.... Chuck Entz (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Well, you can bold admin but there is nothing on his talk page or the edit log to let others know that. Similarly, the "process" is to provide References for Verification, which the entry already had in spades. I did address the original, stated issue and took it to the talk page and made notes in my edit summary, none of which DTLHS did. Again, s/he's an admin and you're obviously circling the wagons but the "edit warring" here was entirely from the other direction. If it's just my abrasive personality, that's on me but do kindly keep an eye on treatment like this, because it's certainly not conducive to having people take time or effort to contribute. — LlywelynII12:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure if you've mistaken what RFV entails. Just for clarification, it does not mean adding a reference to the entry, but adding appropriate quotations for attestation. Please see WT:RFVE if you're not familiar with the process. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }18:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Aside from the OED entry, which (again) was part of the original creation of the entry, I added the appropriate quotation at the beginning of this mess. The OED and two citations together make three and it was already marked as rare and obsolete, so this never really had a leg to stand on. — LlywelynII03:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
