Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word User talk:Maro. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word User talk:Maro, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say User talk:Maro in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word User talk:Maro you have here. The definition of the word User talk:Maro will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofUser talk:Maro, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Hi there, judging by how quick off the mark you are, I guess you're used to wikis. If you plan to stay here you should probably glance through Entry layout explained, our format guidelines, and our Criteria for inclusion. If you need more help, you wil probably find it in the Community portal. Otherwise, feel free to use my talk page. See you around. Conrad.Irwin20:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. You might consider adding a {{Babel}} box to your user page.Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Happy New Year! When you have a moment, could you please add Polish translations to the entry for hinder? Do watch out for edit conflicts, though, since I'm asking several folks for help with this. --EncycloPetey20:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Kashubian, Slavic etc.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm very happy to see somebody else contributing to obscure Slavic languages ^_^. Seriously, as the only regular Polish contributor here, you might be interested in Appendix:List of Proto-Slavic nouns and other lists occupying the same category. I thought of adding a Kashubian column to those lists, but since there was nobody around interested in it, and English resources on Kashubian are really thin on the Web, I've decided to let go of the idea. However, if you're interested in populating those, feel free to add it, or let me know and I'll make space for it. There's plenty of Polish entries in there that are empty and need checking anyway.. You can copy/paste Proto-Slavic/PIE forms in etymologies of Polish entries if you like, most of those I've double-checked. You just need to use lang=pl for the parameter of {{proto}}. Cheers! --Ivan Štambuk21:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
reflexive verbs
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Like bać się - reflexive particle should generally be omitted, and the reflexive sense should be indicated with context label {{reflexive}} (just like we have {{transitive}} and {{intransitive}} for transitivity, {{pf}} and {{impf}} for (im)perfectiveness etc., and when you think about it, "reflexivity" is just special case of transitivity). I presume that in Polish (like in other Slavic languages), there are verbs that have both usual and reflexive meanings, and that there are reflexive-only verbs. For the latter ones, I've practiced moving {{reflexive}} directly into the headword line, so that it isn't redundantly repeated in the meanings list. *bojati sę is just like that - it was already reflexive in Proto-Slavic! --Ivan Štambuk14:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi! I left a comment on the talk page about splitting the list due to technical difficulties. Since the suggested copy/paste method would ruin edit history, and you are one of the significant contributors to it, I'd like to ask you for feedback on the suggestion. --Ivan Štambuk11:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
pornograf
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
There should be as few different layout templates. That has recently been a hot topic in the Wiktionary:Grease pit, quote:
Any given language with complex cases should have:
a small number of layout templates, one for each table design
a reasonable number of templates for regular declensions/conjugations, that use the layout templates
one or several templates with a (largish) number of parameters for irregular inflections, that use the layout templates
in some cases templates for specific verbs (where there a just a few irregularities) are useful
Under no circumstances whatever should the table syntax be in individual entries. It becomes utterly impossible to maintain. (Suppose you want to change the colour scheme? Suppose you want to change the name of a particular case to point to a glossary entry instead of main namespace; or to a page for that case for that language? Or any of a dozen other things that should be consistent? If someone has subst'd or pasted the table syntax into a bunch of entries to make changes, you are screwed.) Robert Ullmann17:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Polish is doing rather well with respect to that guideline. But there is absolutely no objective reason why adjectives should be yellow and ordinal numbers purple. They follow exactly the same declension pattern. So the place to change is {{pl-decl-adj}}, not {{pl-decl-ordinal-1-5}}. Feel free to change that to your favourite layout, for example that of the ordinal numbers. -- Gauss16:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey! Could you check the pronunciation of wiedzieć and powiedzieć?
I was looking at it, and it says /ˈvjɛd͡ʐɛt͡ɕ/. But everywhere else
the IPA transcription of dzi is /d͡ʑ/, not /d͡ʐ/. Doesn't
the letter i imply the palatalization of dz?
Oh, and what about the first syllable, wie?
Shouldn't it be /wʲe/, instead of /wje/? Or
there really is a semivowel in the pronunciation
(instead of just a palatalization of w)?
There are two theories about pronunciation of palatalized labial consonatns. One is called "wymowa asynchroniczna" (sorry I don't know equivalent in English, translation of this is "asynchronous pronunciation") and "wymowa synchroniczna".
In book which I use (Phonetics and phonology of modern Polish language), they say that most of Polish language speakers realize asynchronous pronunciation, with palatal approximant after the labial consonant. But I think both can be consider as correct. Maro19:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't see anywhere on this page "rɛ̃ka" but there is "rɛŋka". Look at the 4th paragraph: "Before all stops and affricates, nasal vowels are pronounced as an oral vowel + nasal consonant...". Maro18:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
OK, thanks. I hadn't known before that the sound was affected by the type of following consonant. That does explain some of the vowel spelling oddities I've seen in medieval Polish documents, though. --EncycloPetey18:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I believe it is a bad idea to use these, like you started a few weeks ago. (1) Hardly any dictionary uses them. I suppose there is at least one dictionary which does, otherwise you wouldn't do it. (2) It is neither used nor explained on the page linked for explanation. (3) It is displayed badly in several browsers (similar to s␣ or even s?). (4) It does not convey additional information because every written 's' corresponds to a 's̪' in Polish, except of course if it's entirely different, as 'ʂ' or 'ɕ'. We're getting here into subtle distinctions between phones and phonemes. (5) s̪ makes the IPA look more unfamiliar and possibly alienating to our readers, and suggests that Polish pronunciation is even more complicated than it is in fact, in particular already for fairly simple words. -- Gauss21:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
(1) Yes. But English Wiktionary could be first. (3) Affricates (i.e. letters with a tie bar) are also badly displayed in some fonts (primarily in the Arial Unicode MS, one of the most popular fonts with IPA symbols), but we use them. (4) Yes, every written 's' corresponds to a voiceless dental fricative, but there are two "n", "t" and "d" - dental and alveolar in Polish phonology.
If we're going to use these, then there needs to be a page on Polish phonology here that explains the symbols we use for Polish. I'm not fond of the tie-bars either, but I can understand the problems in West Slavic languages of communicating the different sounds. I suggest that you start a Wiktionary:About Polish/Pronunciation with everything laid out. That would provide a focus for discussion. --EncycloPetey22:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Being nonstandard is never a good idea for someone (like us) who wants to be understood and read. If you insist on continuing on that path then there is no way around the proposal of EncycloPetey. -- Gauss00:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The problem is that Old Polish does not have an ISO code (yet), so the question is whether to assign it our own pseudo-code (to be used with templates such as {{term}}, {{t}}, {{etyl}} etc.), or to simply treat as as ==Polish==, but with special context label e.g. (Old Polish) for categorisation.
How much different is Old Polish from modern literary language in terms of phonology and inflection? Does it merit being treated separately, or just as a sub-project of ==Polish== ? --Ivan Štambuk09:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think it merits being treated separately. For example, for ręka I had to create a separate entry for Old Polish to show the dual forms. I coudn't do that at ==Polish== section.
For words that can be found in Polish dictionaries I can just mark as {{archaic}} under ==Polish==. So for example you can find kłobuk in dictionary (but with different meaning), but you won't find czędo or owien.
I don't think we need an ISO code for it. There are only few OP words so we can link manually (eg. ] instead of {{term|word|lang=xxx}}). Maro13:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
The reason is simple. Some templates should be changed after some YEARS to make the wiktionary particular elements look similar in colours and styles and the template I changed looks completely different from the rest of wiktionary, doesn't it?? --Kasjanek2109:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Dla każdego języka są przecież różne szablony. Nie mamy żadnego standardu jak powinien wyglądać szablon deklinacyjny/koniugacyjny, każdy język ma inny. Choć niektóre są podobne. Ten szablon też robiłem na podstawie innego, już istniejącego. Nie twierdzę że szablony się nie powinny zmieniać ale myślę że takie zmiany powinny być poprzedzone chociaż jakąś dyskusją. Jednemu się podoba taki kolor, a drugiemu inny, i co zrobić? Maro17:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Maybe you are right, but the discussion does not mean reversing other user's working changes. Each language has its individual template; some templates are similar -- you're right again. But there is a rule, that the more templates, styles, colours you use in ANY document, the less professional and clear the document looks and thus it is more difficult to navigate through it and to use it, in general. The template which is in use currently is, again, completely different in style from the whole remaining page layout at Wiktionary and other Wiki projects. Therefore, the templates should be gradually brought to a uniform look. --Kasjanek2117:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Unnecessary redirects
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Maro. How are you locating these unnecessary redirects? It might be possible to delete them in a single batch. Equinox◑21:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Before you nominate a redirect for deletion, please be certain that all links to that page have been corrected, if the link is incorrect. --EncycloPetey21:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
There are quite a few I've noticed. The most recent I can remember is Pays, but they are being deleted. That makes them harder to track down. --EncycloPetey21:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, I corrected links immediately after marking {{delete}}. Actually there was one link, because the "Pays" in Pays de Galles shouldn't link to pays, should it? It's a French word. But what about "Reb" in Johnny Reb? Should it link to reb? Maro21:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
So, what is the everyday word for "universe"? You've marked it with a context tag, which suggests restricted use to only astronomic situations. It might be worth linking the other word in a See also section. --EncycloPetey23:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Everyday word for "Universe" is also "wszechświat". If the context tag is wrong, I will remove it. Maro23:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Jolanta (i Madga)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Maro! Could you please add the Polish translations for words and expressions in connection with poker? I found an incorrect one here, and many are missing. I think all except kolor. Thanks in advance. Ferike33316:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Which words and expressions do you mean? Please put a template {{trreq|Polish}} on that page you want see Polish translation.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello again. Sorry to bug you again. I have requested Conrad.Irwin to have Index:Polish created. He asked here about the order of the alphabet, please could you give him an answer, as I will probably make some mistakes with this - I'm not 100% with the Polish alphabet yet. I believe, that some letters aren't appearing at the beginning of words, and some have digraphs or something. --Volants13:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Cześć, chcę powiedzieć że słowo "jaworzniański" nie istnieje. Stosuje się TYLKO i wyłącznie formę "jaworznicki" dla określenia przymiotnika od Jaworzna. !!!
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
If you's like, I could help with name creation for some of the most common (traditional) Polish names, but only if you'd be willing to add the declension tables and/or pronunciation. --EncycloPetey18:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
My interest is in Medieval and early Renaissance names, especially Polish and Hungarian. There will be some overlap in the list of names, but there are also some Polish names that have become less common or disappeared since then. I ask for your help because I know a number of people who would love to be able to look up the pronunciations of these names. I can make a guess at the IPA, but I've almost never been around native speakers, and so can't always get the stress and IPA correct for Polish. If you'd be willing to help me, I could make a list for you as I go, so that you can visit the pages and add pronunciation whenever you have time. Note: I'll be stepping away from my computer soon, and may not be back for a few hours. --EncycloPetey18:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
I am going to end adding names from this short list today, but if you have other than those, feel free to create entries and I could help you with pronunciations. Maro19:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've started a list at User:EncycloPetey/Names (pl). Some of these exist, and just need the IPA. Others do not exist (yet). Please note that I own a copy of the Słownik Staropolskich Nazw Obobowych, so I can add medieval citations for early spellings of Polish names. I can often add the earliest known citation in Polish, but some of the SSNO's citations are from Latin. I will also try to work with Ivan to get proper etymologies for all the entries that are created as a result of this collaboration. I'd like to see this grow into a model for how personal name elements ought to be done on Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey05:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Do you know of any good online sources for lists of Polish words that also list their English counterparts (and is reliable)? I need resources for Polish for another website I belong to, so if you could help me, that would be great! Thanks, Razorflame18:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
No, sorry, I don't. I don't use online dictionaries at all. You can search google for something like "słownik polsko-angielski" or "słownik angielsko-polski" but I can't recommend any and I don't know if there are good ones. Maro18:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Caesc Maro. Please can you tell me, czy comparative and superlatives in Polish all have regular declensions. I added declension to drozszy, taken from lepszy, and I think it is OK. I will add declension to other comparative and superlative forms, if they all have regular declension. pa pa. Thanks --Volants13:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Please note the enhancements I have made to the entry for dwa. If I have made errors, please correct them. You might also wish to make similar enhancements to other Polish numeral entries, as I have been doing for the Latin numerals from ūnus(“I”) to decem(“X”). I consider the low-value numerals to be core vocabulary, and am trying to enhamce the Latin entries until they are among the best entries on any Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey20:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I know that Polish cardinal numbers are in very bad condition :). I am going to get to work on them soon (next week?). Some are still missing and all of them lack declensions (I must create a separate template first). Maro22:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I think it may make sense to keep attributive-use translations whether or not there is an adjective section. Perhaps the adjective translations should be merged into the noun translation sections and appropriately marked. I strongly suspect that for many languages the adjectives required to cover the attributive use of nouns in English are not provided routinely because the Noun heading seems to not give explicit warrant to do so. I will open a discussion at WT:BP on how to encourage the provision of such adjective translations. DCDuringTALK18:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Why not? It seems as if they need to be merged into the individual translation sections for the noun. Where else would they go until someone knowledgeable did the work. Deleting the work seems destructive of the effort that went into the translations. DCDuringTALK18:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
So how should have I checked the Polish translation? "The translations below need to be inserted into the appropriate translation tables" There wasn't appropriate translation table, so I removed the translation. If you think there should be a translation table for an adjective, please revert. Maro19:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
There is always a presumption that, if a translation table is omitted for a sense, an editor who sees the need for a translation should insert the table required. We don't normally add translation tables without adding some translations or at least translation requests. DCDuringTALK19:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Please could you expand this etymology out (hopefully you clicked on this link where it shows Mglovesfun (talk • contribs) expressed that it does not come from socialis). There is obviously something missing from the etymology and currently it reads like it comes directly from socialis, which is apparently incorrect. Caladon08:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There is the vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Deprecating less-than symbol in etymologies, which would benefit from your participation, even if only in the role of an abstainer. Right now, the results of the vote do not quite mirror the results of the poll that has preceded the vote. There is a chance that the vote will not pass. The vote, which I thought would be a mere formality, has turned out to be a real issue. You have taken part on the poll that preceded the vote, which is why I have sent you this notification. --Dan Polansky08:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Audio files
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Maro, I see that you are another Polish-language user. Recently I've been looking at introducing more Polish verb forms into Wiktionary, as I believe they would be worthy additions here. I've made a few lists which I've housed at User:Pofficer, and there are probably a handful of mistakes as I haven't thoroughly checked all of them. If you spot any glaring mistakes in there, let me know and I can correct them. Eventually, I'd like to create articles for all the Polish verb forms, and then work on noun and adjective forms too, but this is a long-term project which might never be realized due to the large scope. --P.officer23:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
It looks OK for me. Of course I didn't check all of the words in all lists, but I trust they're correct :). Feel free to ask if you have any other questions later. Maro20:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This only shows for the singular. That's not right surely? How about for things like "the fifth dogs" or "the ninth apples"? --Pofficer17:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
My mistake. There are plural forms, but only "non virile" (niemęskoosobowe) and they are used mainly with pluralia tantum nouns. Maro17:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hello Maro. I would like to nominate you for adminship. You've been here for almost 4 years now and seem polite and level-headed. If you accept the nomination I'll start a vote for sysophood. --Rockpilot21:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Category:Czech terms needing attention says This category lists Czech terms that have incorrect formatting, are missing parameters from templates, or are missing other information. A word appearing here does not necessarily mean there is anything wrong with the entry, only that it may be improved.Maro19:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
By that token, each entry that misses at least one class of information would be put an attention tag on it. These classes of information include pronunciation, etymology, synonyms, antonyms, related terms, translations, anagrams, etc. As a result, we could tag almost all Wiktionary entries. So again, I think it a poor idea. However, I admit that the category description is misleading; it can be found at Template:attentioncat. Going by category descriptions can be tricky; it is better to think about the meaningfulness of what one is doing. --Dan Polansky07:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Your edit of this template messed up the categorization of some 30 Han character entries, I think. Perhaps some right curly brackets are misplaced. DCDuringTALK15:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. "Messing up" happens. Only 30 or so made the uncategorized list I was working from. I messed up my marking the first 6 on that list with {{attention}} before realizing the pattern. DCDuringTALK14:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
That is unclear why is it plurale tantum. Singular form doesn't exist. Not only in Polish it's plurale tantum. See Czech dveře, Slovak dvere, Ukrainian двері. There is another plurale tantum for "door, gate" in Polish: wrota and also in other Slavic languages: врата. Maybe there is a relation to wrota? Some gates (portals, doors) have two parts, left and right, so this would explain why врата/wrota has no singular form.
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Noticed this got deleted, was curious what content was on the page. I have seen some usages that imply this may be a synonym for alicorn or unipeg or pegacorn. A citation I've seen is here:
Alicorn the Unicorn's Horn. Some modern authors claim that the Alicorn is a term for the species of flying unicorns from the Latin words ala meaning "wing" and cornu meaning "horn," however, the ancient writers used the word to denote the actual horn of the Unicorn which purports to have magical healing powers when the tip is dipped into a body of water. In this respect the term alicorn may find it's roots in the Latin words alima meaning "of the sea" or alere meaning "to nourish" or even alius meaning "other source or knowledge" and, of course, cornu. (See: Cerapter, Unicorn).
Cerapter the Winged Unicorn. The Greek name for a flying unicorn (Latin: Alicorn) combining the Greek words ceros meaning "horn" and pteros meaning "wing." (See: Alicorn, Unipeg).
Unipeg, a Flying Unicorn. Also called a "pegacorn." This is a coined word some have used to give genesis to a species of flying unicorns combining the Greek name of Pegasus and the Latin word Unicorn. Generally it is not appropriate to compound Greek & Latin words together, but if it becomes accepted into the general language it is adopted, no matter the form. Conventionally it is more appropriate to call a winged unicorn a Cerapter (Greek) or an Alicorn (Latin). (See: Alicorn, Cerapter).
Not sure what the date is for it though. Will go look for some other sources. Do you know how many sources we'd need before it'd deserve a page? Y12J (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Feel free to create this page with a proper defintion. The page I deleted had a random string without any sense. Maro20:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Namespace checks
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'm sorry to be so abrupt as to simply revert your edits, but please, could we just wait on this? For starters, the new version shouldn't have spots for all the principle parts. That's the whole point. Second, as you've got it set up, it states the present twice, which just looks silly. I appreciate your efforts in this, but we're simply not ready for that step yet. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί12:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
bxr is in common use in Wiktionary, whereas bua is not. This page has many illogical information. "Only the macrolanguage Buryat is treated as individual language." and "Only the macrolanguage Persian is treated as individual language." - but we have Category:Tajik language. Another: "Both Serbo-Croatian and its subdivisions are treated as individual languages." - we don't have Category:Bosnian language though Bosnian is an individual language... Maro18:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Most of the uses of {{bxr}} are due to copying from Wikipedia, which uses the bxr code. However Wikipedia has never been a reason to keep codes, we don't have {{zh-classical}} either. -- Liliana•18:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
I won't change my vote to "Keep". I'm not a sympathizer of such categories, but I think it's better to have few categories with ~50 entries than 50 categories with one entry. Maro21:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
The same as chyba. Polish dictionaries classifies it as a particle. The definition is something like "It expresses doubt as to the veracity of what someone says". Maro16:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Russian dictionaries classify якобы(jákoby) as a particle also, but we still classify it as an adverb because it functions exactly like an adverb. I think we usually reserve "particle" for words that don't seem to fit into any part of speech. --WikiTiki8916:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Maybe in English it functions like an adverb, because English doesn't have particles like Polish has. In Polish adverbs and particles are different parts of speech. "Jakoby" doesn't mean "allegedly", this is only the nearest English word. Particles in Polish don't have their own meanings (like adverbs have), they only modify the sentence (or word), usually emphasize. Maro16:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it's the same in Russian. Now that you mention it, I'm starting to agree with you. But that would mean we would have to change the way we handle parts of speech in Slavic languages. --WikiTiki8917:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
It's even quicker to use accelerated translations via the translation tool, no edit summary required and all the formatting is added automatically. ] {{m}} is not quicker than + an {{t+|pl|translation}}. I'm joining the request :). {{t}} is standard.
Do use the {{t}} template for each translation. This will create a link to that word in this Wiktionary and a small link to the Wiktionary for that language. References for the translation should be on that other page rather than in the translation list. If you think {{t}} is too complex, simply enclose the translation in square brackets.
Linking to the Polish Wiktionary is important, IMHO, and it makes all translations for each gloss look aligned and professional. I don't think {{t}} for Polish is too complex, as you don't have to worry about transliteration or script formatting and you still need to add gender info in curly brackets. With the tool, you just need to tick masc. fem. or neuter boxes. Besides, many editors, including me, spend their time fixing translations to use {{t}}. Polish, German and some other languages stand out as not using {{t}}. --Anatoli(обсудить/вклад)00:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Just wanna point out: it's even quicker not to add any translation at all, but it is not better. Quicker is not always better and leaving work behind for other people that you could have easily done yourself is definitely not better. --WikiTiki8900:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
1) I think {t} is too complex, so I simply enclose the translation in square brackets. That's one of the reasons.
2) Second. This ] IS quicker than {{t|pl|translation}}.
3) If there are other sections/languages for this word, for example short words with Latin letters, I usually use {t}.
4) The only differences between these two are: it links to a Polish section (so if there is only one language section in a page, it doesn't matter if it links or not), it adds link to a Polish Wiktionary, which are in most cases dead. I don't think the link to other wiktionary is so important to an English speaker. So if there is no other section, or even the link is red, and link to other wiktionary is red, it doesn't really matter whether one uses {t} or not.
5) Tbot and his friends like to add {t} templates. Maro02:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong. You shouldn't be opening the edit window at all, because the translations window allows you to type in pl in one box, the translation in the next box, and click a checkbox for gender. Tbot (which by the way doesn't exist any more) and its replacement bot do not add {t) templates. Humans do. You are basically wasting other humans' time because you do not think correct linking is important enough. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds14:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
No. Sorry, I was very busy in January and didn't have even a minute for Wiktionary. Sorry for not answering the message above - when I read it I was too tired to write a sentence xD. Maro02:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. This is a message to inform you that the options in this vote were modified after you cast your vote, and it is now possible to oppose a certain favicon. Your input is welcome in my honest attempts to have this vote best convey the community's wishes and, of course, to avoid allegations of holding a fraudulent vote. Thanks —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds02:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Cześć. Rosyjskie słowo "шпаргалка" chyba pochodzi z polskiego "szpargał". Czy to słowo istnieje? Co to znaczy - "papierka"? Czy warto utworzyć artykuł? (Proszę poprawić i wybaczyć moje błędy).
Привет. Русское слово "шпаргалка" кажется происходит от польского "szpargał". Существует ли это слово? Что это значит - "бумажка"? Стоит ли создать статью? (Прошу исправить и извинить мои ошибки).
--Anatoli(обсудить/вклад)06:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it exists. You can create an entry if you want, but I don't know if there is an English æquivalent; it means "scrap of paper" but not only paper, it can also mean "unnecessary thing" (left somewhere). Mainly used in plural (szpargały).
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
I wonder why you're reverting some good edits of Lo Ximiendo. You also seem to dislike declension (e.g. {{pl-decl-noun-masc-inani}}) and other templates, like {{l}}. I've checked a couple of declension templates, which seems to produce the same result but more efficiently? Why is that? --Anatoli(обсудить/вклад)00:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, maybe because, as you noticed, such edit changes nothing. Everything is almost the same, the result is the same. If so, why did SHE changes it? It's illogical for me.
BUT! It actually changes. The forms generated automatically are not visible by the search engine, unfortunately. Forms entered manually, using {pl-decl-noun} are visible.
I do use automatic templates for new entries, if it's possible, to save the time, but I don't change these declensions entered manually before creating the templates. This helps people who are looking for some forms included in the declension table (eg. "biurami"), but without its own entry. Maro21:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
