User talk:Mglovesfun/Archives/11

Yes, I have noticed the capitalization involved in Wiktionary... Thank you for your edits to make it lowercase. --ForgottenHistory 22:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Possibly this could be interesting:

http://de.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=H%C3%B6rspiel&action=historysubmit&diff=1507837&oldid=1483054

http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Audio_theatre

http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Audio_theatre

http://dict.leo.org/forum/viewUnsolvedquery.php?idThread=163112&idForum=1&lp=ende&lang=de

http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#radio_drama

--Soenke Rahn 08:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Who is Wonderfool? She/He seems annoying to the website according to others' perspectives. That user can go around as a source of inspiration for a game character. - Lo Ximiendo 17:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

If I didn't know better I'd say you've heard of this person. Perhaps you even know them really well. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved from User talk:71.66.97.228.

You should add a category with these. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's problematic, because for most of the 20th century Vietnamese people have used a Latin writing system called quốc ngữ. The characters are today only generally used for decorative purposes or research. Complicating things is that there are two separate systems: actual Chinese characters (Hán tự), which were used for official recordkeeping, as well as for reading Chinese books, documents, religious texts, etc.; and chữ Nôm, a separate system including thousands of newly concocted characters not used in China, which was used for writing poetry and less official purposes. So the main concerns are: all of the characters used in Vietnam are solely historical, and there were two separate systems of characters used, with the added confusion that the chữ Nôm's inventory of characters contains many of the same characters as the Hán tự. 71.66.97.228 19:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Obsolete words when attestable, in any script, are permitted. If you know what the categories should be, add them! Mglovesfun (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see that there are already lots of Vietnamese character categories here:

Category:Han characters

Category:Vietnamese Han tu

71.66.97.228 19:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Now you're not adding categories or definitions, basically empty headers. Please go back and fix as many of these as you can such as these ones or I'll revert. No category is one thing, no category or definition is another. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much for your helpful comment on my page! Vietnamese is something of a special case, as Hán tự are no longer used in Vietnamese, and the definitions would be the same as those in Chinese, since these characters were formerly used in Vietnam to write official records in Classical Chinese for hundreds of years. Thus, in the case of Hán tự the translingual definition at the top of the entry provides the meaning of the character in Vietnamese, since the characters were actually used to write in Classical Chinese. There are actually no proper categories for these characters as regards the Vietnamese language other than the category "Han characters," which includes all East and Southeast Asian usages. 71.66.97.228 14:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why add them then? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I didn't realize until you pointed it out that, as you say, it would be beneficial to have a category to encompass all Hán tự entries, in addition to the pre-existing "Category:Han characters" category, since not all Han characters were used in Vietnam (some, for example, may have been invented in the last 100 years, after Vietnam abandoned their use). So, independently of the Vietnamese-invented chữ Nôm characters, and those Hán tự that overlap with the chữ Nôm system, I agree with you that we should create a category to use for all Vietnamese Hán tự entries, equivalent to "Category:Japanese kanji" and "Category:Korean hanja." The main problem at this point is that the category someone created a few months ago, "Category:Vietnamese Han tu," is incorrect, because as far as I know there is no English word "Han tu" (without diacritics), as there is for "kanji" and "hanja." So the current category is misspelled. Should I create a new one with the correct spelling and begin to add it to the entries for all Vietnamese Hán tự? Or would having a category title with diacritics in it make it impossible for people to type in? (Actually, a category redirect from Category:Vietnamese Han tu to Category:Vietnamese Hán tự should do the trick, if it's permissible.) Once we get these things ironed out I can begin adding the category to every Han character entry that has a Vietnamese header, or that can be done by bot (which will just need to avoid adding the cat to entries for chữ Nôm-only (Vietnamese-invented) characters. Thank you again for your input and I'm sure we'll get this ironed out shortly. I don't believe you need to ask why I've been adding thousands upon thousands of Vietnamese readings to the Han character entries as the reason should be apparent; it's the reason any of us do what we do here. 71.66.97.228 20:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I can't say for certain, but Category:Vietnamese Han tu looks more English than Category:Vietnamese Hán tự. It would depend on what the English term is. Kanji and hanja are both English terms. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe there is an English word for Hán tự other than "Chinese characters." 71.66.97.228 17:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Whether Vietnamese currently uses Chinese characters or not is fairly irrelevant. If these words having means they should have full definitions. If they're direct equivalents of Latin spellings, I'd use something like {{form of|Hán tự spelling|word|lang=vi}} under a part of speech heading (such as {{infl|vi|noun|sc=Hani}}). Mglovesfun (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's right; in the Han character entries all the languages should have definitions. Because there are 21 thousand of them, many of the entries, especially for little used characters, have only the translingual definition at the top (if that), and very often, though not always, the definitions in the other languages are exactly the same. Definitions in the other languages are added as those who have knowledge of those languages fill them in. The difficulty is that we don't have enough of those people, and sources, particularly for Vietnamese, are scarce. Also complicating things is that I believe some characters can have different usages and meanings between the Han tu and Chu nom systems. 71.66.97.228 18:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I can't quite understand the templates you are proposing we use. Do they have a category attached to them? That was your greatest area of concern regarding the Vietnamese headers in Chinese character entries. 71.66.97.228 18:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well you could also copy the translingual definitions, that what I do a lot of Anglo-Norman/Old French/Middle French (copy from one to the other). And yes, {{infl}} categorizes, so {{infl|vi|verb}} categorizes in Category:Vietnamese verbs. The sc=Hani bit tells the template that it's in Chinese characters, and adjusts the fonts accordingly. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, but which specifically Vietnamese category, then, are you proposing that I add to the Han character entries when adding a Vietnamese header/reading? 71.66.97.228 19:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well for nouns, Vietnamese nouns. For adjectives, Vietnamese adjectives. Need I say more? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Many of the Han characters were never used to speak Vietnamese, however, and none of them are today. And a category "Vietnamese nouns" would not be comparable to "Korean hanja" or "Japanese kanji." I don't think this is a suitable plan of action. 71.66.97.228 20:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Correct; but if you look through Category:Mandarin nouns that are romanized, simplified and traditional words in their. Since we allow obsolete terms, if they are no longer used, it doesn't matter, as long as they have been. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see. That would do for Hán tự that we actually have sources indicating their usage, when they were actually used in Vietnam to write official records and histories (which are very scant). Then which category do you suggest for Vietnamese Hán tự, comparable to Category:Korean hanja or Category:Japanese kanji? 71.66.97.228 20:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not in reply to that question but to a previous point you've made, it would be lovely to have every word in every language, but one user can't do everything. Same as I'm not trying to create an entry for every Old French word with at least one attestation - over a million, I would say. Best we can do is create good entries and hope we inspire/encourage other editors to do the same. Don't worry if not every Vietnamese Han tu is present, just that the ones we have are good, and improving. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've added an English section to Hán tự, citation would be a fine thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I notice that you deleted my entry "çûdra". Would you please explain why? The Academie française lists this as a word. http://nouveau-dictionnaire.la-connaissance.net/definition-nouveau-dictionnaire_mot-cudra_3_c_u_11226.html Seasonal greetings. --Île flottante 15:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not sure why I did that. Restored. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Did you see that Tbot created slikar? -- Bugoslav 23:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

(Was wondering when this would first hit my talk page) there's a consensus to replace Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian by Serbo-Croatian as they are found. This isn't policy per se, in fact it just isn't, but I like to adhere to consensuses whether or not I personally agree with them. Though, my personal opinion is that Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian are the same language. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The consensus was not reached, so you should not be so eager to adhere with some non-existent consensus (that never was). And you know what is the personal opinion of user:Tbot. -- Bugoslav 08:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

None, he's a robot. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I can see the point of changing the template to use language codes, but edits like this that leave out many of the templates doesn't seem very helpful... --Yair rand (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, the things is that there are currently 410 different ttbc categories, two of which are empty, and possibly some that don't have Wiktionary codes. So I'd have to type in by hand all 408 codes to do the whole lot at once. I've discussed it with Prince Kassad (talk • contribs) on IRC who confirms it's 'pretty much impossible' to get the language codes from the language names. So I'm only gonna convert languages with at least 40 (ish) entries in the ttbc categories. Even that represents quite a few, so I'm gonna do it in stages. I don't disagree with what you've said, btw. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Some of them also don't seem to have codes. To do literally every language would take, say, a week, but just sticking to the major languages I could finish tomorrow or Friday. The advantage of using language codes is that languages with several names get standardized and moved all into one category. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Mg!

Due to the recent absence of User:Interwicket (any news from Robert Ulmann BTW?), there is more demand for bots running in the article namespace among Wiktionaries. I already have permission to run my bot here but only in the Category namespace. Do you think at this point my bot could be approved to add interwikis to articles too? The usual concern is whether it will remove links to redirects -- it won't: in the article namespace, I always use the -auto switch, which runs conservatively and does not remove any interwikis even if it considers they are wrong.

Currently, because there is no Interwicket, I have been removing en.wikt from my list of Wiktionaries when running the bot but this is dull to do and it would be much better (and less error-prone) to leave it as it should be and just ask here to run it against articles.

What should I do to have this extra function approved (voted for, actually :)) by the Community? Thank you and best regards, Malafaya 00:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

We now have two interwiki bots. The vote would be at WT:VOTE with pretty much the same procedure as the first vote. So, think about it. And no I don't know when or even if RU will return. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done at WT:VOTE#User:MalafayaBot_for_operation_in_Article_namespace. Thanks, Malafaya 14:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Could/can you please close the vote? I'm not sure whether exactly 2/3 of the votes is Passed or not... Thanks, Malafaya 17:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove the etymology from thingmen? Not often is a word borrowed as a plural, then a singular made from the plural, rather than the other way round. And the words are rare in the singular: if the content is only in one place, I think it should be at thingmen, like scissors versus scissor or Guards versus Guard. - -sche 21:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

It would be pretty rare to list the etymology under the plural and remove it from the singular. Perhaps if it were supported by evidence. A quick Google Book search shows that thingmen is more common by about 3:1, but I don't think 3:1 is enough to justify it. I was thinking more like 20:1. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove the etymology of Bergpredigt? I cleaned up the term that needed attention. - -sche 21:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Whoops, I misread it, it looked you had removed the IPA but in fact you just moved it down. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I believe User:Ddpy (contributions) is likely the same as User:91.104.35.242 (contributions), User:91.106.16.47 (contributions) and User:123abc (contributions) (most blocked for failure to respond to other editors' comments about his/her new Chinese-language entries). Despite suggestions not to do so, s/he is, just as these earlier, blocked users did, creating, in a non-standard way, numerous categories for toned Mandarin pinyin "prefixes" and "suffixes" (which, like the word "shoe," are, in reality, neither), as well as categories for derived toned pinyin terms (in this case, categories are not necessary as we already have "Derived terms" or "Compounds" sections in our entries. If s/he is the same individual, how was s/he able to create a new account if already blocked multiple times? Here they are together. 71.66.97.228 06:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Also compare the Etymology sections at Beijingyin (created by User:123abc) and liánhuā (created by User:Ddpy). 71.66.97.228 07:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Mglovesfun hasn't edited in some five hours. If you think this needs immediate attention, you're probably best off bringing it to ], which all the administrators should have on their respective watchlists.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think he was mainly blocked for creating toneless pinyin entries, which this user isn't doing. Also he has some 'tells' such as such tra, sim and tra&sim instead of traditional, simplified and traditional and simplified. Those are the signs we're looking for. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am fairly certain, after going through the contributions, that they are the same individual. Look again: both editors created both entries and etymologies for hyphenated Mandarin nouns, calling them "prefixes" and "suffixes" when they are neither, something that is very unusual. Is it now okay to return after an infinite block, under a new name, whether or not one stops adding toneless pinyin? Situations such as xié- and -xié (considering "shoe" a prefix or suffix) are really untenable, and the creation of numerous "derived terms" categories when a "Derived terms" section would suffice do not seem productive, at best. 71.66.97.228 06:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

S/he is also adding lots of sum of parts entries such as hóngxié ("red shoes") or xīnxié ("new shoes"). 71.66.97.228 06:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Since I don't speak Mandarin, or edit it, I don't think I can do anything. Why not go to Tooironic or Jamesjiao? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Enjoy it Gloves: or u'll end up alone at the end again. Just like me. Alone in a viscous world. --Downunder 00:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Enjoy it, and stick around providing you still enjoy it here (under some account or another). Don't let me discourage you, life is too short. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

We've got your brand new categories like Category:kw singulatives because of this action. Consequently Category:Singulatives has become almost empty. JackPotte 03:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Easy enough to fix in the template. Nadando 03:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

If it's allowed us to find a broken template, that's a good thing, IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mglovesfun,

I assume you're already watching this, but if not, please take a look.

Thanks in advance,
—Ruakh_TALK 18:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Correct, though I don't have any real input. I'd have to look it up. Widsith or CodeCat may be better choices. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think these switches are only really meant for Latin and similar scripts. It makes no sense attempting to render an exotic script such as Limbu in bold or italic styles. -- Prince Kassad 22:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh I dunno, I like bold as a 'standard' style for all inflection lines. Italics would be another matter, as we know from Cyrillic. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Had a quick go in my sandbox. Firefox displays all four, Internet explorer only displays the two using sc=Limb. The bolded form doesn't look any worse to me than the unbolded one; though a bit like Khmer script, it's a bit small. Wouldn't hurt to make both of them a bit bigger. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Earlier today I stumbled across an Esperanto entry at aniono. After looking around a bit, it now looks like this word is only Ido, correct Esperanto being only anjono. There are also entries at the derived forms anionoj, anionon, and anionojn. I changed the entry at aniono, but as Ido declension is different, these derived forms would then simply be wrong entries. Would you say I run these through RfD or would you rather just delete them? --JorisvS 23:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I merely clicked on the accelerated links (Esperanto has no irregular nouns). Speedy delete is entirely ok with me. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ok I didn't create any of these, which makes me wonder why you're asking me. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just looking for some input. Thought you'd be able to give me that. --JorisvS 12:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'd go for RFV, as only 'ridiculous' things should be speedily deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved from User talk:MglovesfunBot#sv-noun.

If you're going to introduce sv-noun, you have lots of work ahead of you, for no apparent value. I have avoided this template because it seems unnecessary and quite primitive. --LA2 14:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're right in saying that at the moment it's essentially the same as {{infl}}. AFAICT it has only one benefit - it will catch all the nouns without gender, as {{infl|sv|noun}} doesn't categorize in Swedish nouns lacking gender. We will always have the option of adding more parameters to {{sv-noun}}, be it plurals, genitives, whatever. There are similar scenarios with templates like {{fr-adv}} which is essentially identical to {{infl|fr|adverb}}. Ditto {{it-adv}}. Also, these are fully automatic replacements so it's almost no work for me - the time to input the replacements and hit start (about two minutes). MglovesfunBot 14:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The typical Swedish noun has a deflection pattern with 8 positions (genitive x definite x plural) and these are listed under a separate declension heading. There is no point in doubling this information in the inflection line template. I'd say the infl template is good enough, and I use it for all my new entries, whether the 2nd parameter is noun, noun form, proper noun, proper noun form, verb, verb form, adjective, adjective form, adverb, or adverb form. It's fine to have the same template and structure for all classes. I'm considering to remove sv-noun altogether, which would be the opposite of your bot's action. --LA2 14:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Another advantage is that {{infl}} allows m and f while this template doesn't. I only said we 'could' add more parameters. I think this is more analogous to {{fr-verb}} which for most of them time (99% perhaps) it's exactly the same as {{infl|fr|verb}}, except when you specifiy type=defective (modal, auxiliary, etc.) when it displays and categorizes as such. I think {{sv-noun}} has only tiny benefits, but I'll take tiny benefits over 4600 nouns over no benefits at all. Anyway, I've stopped the replacement process as bots aren't supposed to do 'controversial' tasks. If you wanna nominate {{sv-noun}} for deletion, be my guest. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

If there are special needs in special cases, we can use sv-noun for those cases and infl for the rest of the cases. There is no point in using a special template for the vast majority of ordinary cases. There's no chance that infl is going away; we're still going to use it for noun forms, proper nouns, and words of other classes. --LA2 15:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

{{infl}} is so flexible no other template on this wiki can match it. It has 20 optional fields for Christ's sake. So in some cases {{infl}} is much better than (for example in my case) {{fr-noun}} or {{fro-noun}}. On the other hand, I like language-specific templates. So, I've auto replaced {{infl|sv|noun}} and {{infl|sv|noun|g=g}} with {{sv-noun}} in order to add them to Category:Swedish nouns lacking gender. I'd still like to convert the remaining ones, which would take me about two minutes to input and about another two hours for the bot to actually do it. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why is it that you "like" language-specific templates? Aren't they the root of much evil, when I can't understand how to edit entries in a neighboring language just because the template is unfamiliar? The category "Swedish nouns lacking gender" is of questionable use. As a maintenance category, nobody has been attending to it for years, it seems, and the cases of {{infl|sv|noun}} lacking the g= parameter can be identified anyhow. There are still more entries that just put the headword in boldface without using any template at all. I'm fixing such entries every day, even though I haven't been going after them systematically lately. --LA2 04:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I fully agree that standardization is an issue, which is why I edit a lot of these Templates to try and make sure many of the parameters like head= and sort= are common to as many of these templates at all. But {{infl}} by its nature is not suited to individual languages (specific ones). You couldn't possibly dream of replacing {{fr-noun}} or {{es-noun}} with infl, because you'd lose so much valid information. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

(Now at User talk:Mglovesfun) I added an uncountable option, the same one used by {{en-noun}} and others, and added a {{n|c}} option as well. I suppose if we're going down this road, isn't {{infl}} redundant to writing the whole thing out by hand? I don't think that's what you mean, although I could interpret what you've written that way. But I doubt that's what you mean. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your contributions to Tamil letter entries. There are still several that do not yet have entries: Wiktionary:Requested entries (Tamil). 71.66.97.228 23:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Whoever added them (was it you) wrote 1. instead of using a hash (#). That was all that was needed. I don't know any Tamil, I'm working from Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:defn. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, I did not add entries for Tamil letters, because I do not speak Tamil. I added redlinks for the Tamil letters we need entries for at the link I provided above. 71.66.97.228 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

User:Mglovesfun/term-fro - DaveRoss 01:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, will get round to this at some point. First job will be to get red of all the existing words (word with Old French sections). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, seeing as the new dump started about 20 minutes after I finished this, I will rerun it tonight and I will exclude pages which already have an Old French section. Silly of me not to think of that the first time around. - DaveRoss 17:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Run again with the new dump, should exclude terms which already have sections for Old French. - DaveRoss 20:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Moved to User:Mglovesfun/sandbox/Old French, also it seems to have retained the ones that already have Old French. I plan to reformat it a bit, anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do you have an example of one or two which have Old French sections and are still listed? - DaveRoss 17:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes but, to be honest I'd rather you didn't remove them. For some the etymology (or whatever) links to the verb and we only have a noun, or links to a noun and we only have an adjective. I'm not intending this to be a quick process anyway. So far it's allowed me to catch some 'bad entry titles' - in many cases linking to the Modern French, presumably because we already have it. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you are willing to do frm and xno, the format I'd like is the one I've currently used. I chiefly used the find and replace function of Notepad, apart from the alphabetizing, for which I used Excel. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Moved again, to User:Mglovesfun/to do/Old French (not a sandbox). Mglovesfun (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Eu regret situațiile create în scrierea literelor române Ț,ț,Ș,ș. Dar problema nu e generată de mine. Corectele diacritice românești, folosite acum total de Wikipedia (română) sunt cele clasice, tradiționale: Ț ț Ș ș. Desigur, contribuțiile române la Wicționarul englez au fost începute cu literele Ţ ţ Ş ş și eu respect acest vechi contribuții. Eu sânt de acord cu atitudinea voastră în ceea ce privește regula consens-ului! Este clar că fără consens nu există colaborare. Cazul "restricție" nu e intenționat creat. Din nefericire eu nu pot edita (la computerul meu) titl-uri decât cu caracterele (tradiționale) ȚțȘș. Nu am nimic contra, ca să fie făcute corecții în cazurile necesare! Eu, repet din nou, respect regula consensului, nu vreau să afirm (cum am fost acuzat de anumite persoane) un punct personal de vedere, de opinie! Eu nu pretind că sânt mai bun decât alți contribuitori, dar ceea ce fac corect (bine), nu e fair-play să fie în mod nejustificat denigrat. Calitatea Wicționar-ului englez este remarcabilă, și eu vreau să contribui în continuare la el. Deci pe viitor (ca și până acum), nu obiectez nimic dacă voi fi corectat, dar să fie justificat, adică în interesul Wicționarului englez! Bye, bye și numai bine! WernescU.WernescU 06:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Mglovesfun, I saw when I wrote about an unrelated issue. - -sche 07:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

After some research, I found this. It does seem that the Romanian Wikipedia has a community decision to use the comma versions. I'm not sure it's right to talk about "the correct one" rather than "the preferred ones". At least you replied, albeit in Romanian. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the Romanian Wikipedia has decided to use the comma versions. But when I requested help from them to apply the same changes to the Romanian Wiktionary, I received the cold shoulder. Since I'm currently the only active administrator (Klaudiu who is my superior has taken a leave of absence), I've decided to keep the old letters for the following reasons:

(1) All computers in the world can decipher them. That is not the case with the "new" ones, unless you have the latest encoding. I believe that accessibility is more important than bureaucracy. I’ve been considering a massive redirection campaign, but I haven’t taken that step yet.

(2) The Wikipedia administrators haven't involved themselves at all with the Wiktionary project, so I'm pretty much managing everything and having a hard time keeping up with all the tasks. The last thing I would like to do is manually convert these letters; in every article, in every Wiktionary project.

I'm really sorry if this feels like repetition (I think Mglovesfun has already heard all of this, so I'm really sorry mate).

Best Regards,

--Robbie SWE 13:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I left you a question at User talk: Nicoletapedia. Thanks! Dominic·t 04:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/User_talk:Nicoletapedia#Block
• "I sometimes go crazy and act like a jackass." Really now? I hope we can put this nastiness behind us and maybe you might even learn a lesson or two on Wiktionary abuse. Having bipolar is no excuse, I got it too :-P. Btw, I was intensely curious, any relation to Martin Gardner? Nicoleta 13:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
• No relation. You seem to be under the impression I think I was wrong, which I don't. I just bowed to popular pressure as it means I'll have more time to edit Wiktionary rather than defend my actions on WT:BP. Anyway, just read your entries after you hit enter, you'd be amazed on the benefits. Nobody really has time to follow you round and turn your entries into something usable. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Aiii. You can think what you like, but the pressure was because you were wrong :-P. Your actions were completely unjustifiable and an extremely inappropriate and unprofessional abuse of your administrative privileges. Anyways, to prevent you wiki-attacking me again, how do I stop an Afrikaans adjective from displaying inflections? I tried {{af-adj|inv}} since {{nl-adj|inv}} works for invariant Dutch adjectives, but to no avail. These are precisely the sort of odd-language cases I usually give up on and leave without a template :-p.
    • The solution certainly isn't close your eyes, hit enter and hope for the best. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • Well if you want to continue abusing and neglecting your responsibilities as an admin, forget I even asked. A neat and linguistically correct Wiktionary entry is much better than one with a lot of incorrect gobbledegook but "correct" computer syntax. Nicoleta 13:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
        • If I wanted to neglect my responsibilities as an admin, I wouldn't have blocked you. I have nothing against you, I don't know the first thing about you. Just please try and read other peoples' comments. Now get off my talk page so I can edit some entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The issue is, is correct linguistic information more important than formatting? Well, you can have both, for a start. Secondly, practice is generally to remove very badly formatted stuff, hence the automatic deletion summary 'No usable content given'. That is, that even if the word/term is valid, it was in an unacceptable state. Stuff that's just bad gets listed as RFC and not usually deleted. Now here's the bit that you don't know. That we have lots of languages with no regular contributors. We have at bst 100 regular contributors, and a lot more languages than that. The problem is we often have no way of verifying entries when nobody speaks the language, so leaving it means that it may be totally wrong. That has happened, in fact it happens quite a lot example TheCheatBot (talk • contribs) mass-created lots of plurals and many of the wrong ones go for years without being deleted (cf. chivalrys). This also applies to human editors.

So likelihood is if you're editing English, French, Mandarin or Italian you entries won't get speedy deleted as we have editors in those languages to check them. For some languages, we have no editors, so if the formatting is bad *and* the definition is also dubious, it's more likely to get deleted. Voilà. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and don't push your luck; intimidating behaviour/harassment is an automatic block summary. Like you say "Perhaps you should try to get to know people before you haste into any abusive decisions." Hopefully you can take your own advice. Also, the 'other admins' might want to speak for themselves rather than have you talk for them. Read SemperBlotto's message on your talk page, and act on it, please. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

No offense, but last time I checked you're the one who's been harassing me for weeks, and it only took the intervention of the other admins to get you to stop. I do not speak for the other admins, I only reiterated what they told me while you were continuing your behavior. If you took the time to read my response to SemperBlotto's post, and check the Wiktionary page for the entry, you'd see that that was taken care of hours ago. We're welcome to get to know each other, but you're the only person who has taken any actions, all I've done is post my synopsis of what happened and copies of our public wiki-communiques so that other admins can make their own decisions regarding any administrative actions against you. The fact that you tried to delete incriminating information from my talkpage doesn't bode well though. Nicoleta 15:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh be serious, I don't se how 'not replying' can be considered 'harassment'. Also, I (tried to) click on my own talk page to post a reply, saw that section and deleted it. Then undid my own edit saying exactly that. Like I say, can we drop this or what? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, thankfully I'm neither a bot automatically creating words willynilly, nor a jokester or a halfbrain who's making up words to put on Wiktionary. I add words that either I know to be in usage as a speaker or reader, or words I've come across from reputable sources. So no worries ;-). Nicoleta 15:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Btw, I've noticed over time that there are tons of verified words over on our sister project Wikipedia that aren't on here; a lot of the words I find are just transferred over from verified Wikipedia articles. Nicoleta 15:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK, I didn't block you "for a joke", can you please drop the aggressive behaviour? I've told you why I blocked you. You, not unusually, don't agree with me. That's fine, so let's drop it and edit some entries, eh? I assume the reason you wanted to be unblocked wasn't to post on my talk page, but hopefully to edit Wiktionary entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would put Lamb (and Burgess?) in Category:English surnames from Middle English, almost all of which derive from common nouns, what else? The logic is that most surnames of English origin were created during the Middle English period, even when the meaning is transparent. Though some editors argue that Middle English language never existed..."Category:English surnames from English " might have been simpler, only "English male/female given names from English" date from the 19th century, so surname/given name categories would not be counterparts.

Nobody seems to understand the category system I created for surnames(=was forced to create; it was ten times worse before). Maybe I should write a manual? If you want to split "Category:English surnames from Middle English", subcategories "from occupations" and from given names" would make some sense, but I see no future for "common nouns".--Makaokalani 17:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't accept (without further evidence) that this makes no sense. It could be a parent category for "from occupations" as occupations are always common nouns. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

But who would sort all the present surnames into those from common nouns etc? Would you do it? I've never seen that kind of classification in a surname dictionary, but "from given names, nicknames, occupations, place names" is common. --Makaokalani 17:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not really sure that's the point. A lot of the {{surname}} templates don't use the from= parameter, but that's not a reason to delete all the subcategories. Though, I have no particular attachment to the category, I don't mind if it's deleted. But I can't guarantee that nobody will mind. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do you think this might be the same as modern dégorger? SemperBlotto 16:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

That links to disgorge which has three definitions, all of them quite different. I'm talking to a native speaker - modern French, obviously, to try and translate the two citations on desgorger. Btw you don't need to write ] as desgorger isn't a category or a file. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Kinda odd that you should message me just as I'm talking about it with someone else. Still, we think we have it now, that's what counts. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

What more do I want? I want it moved to an English name. Any volunteers? This is the ENGLISH Wiktionary, not Arabic! 79.170.44.156 19:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ah, see WT:CFI line one "all word in all languages". Mglovesfun (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I'm pretty sure that the normal form for these is ---coenosis. See, as an example, w:Biocoenosis. I think that ---coenose or ---cenose are valid alternative forms. SemperBlotto 17:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

My point was really that if you move the page, the other form is only kept as a redirect which is akin to the deletion of a valid entry. In hindsight perhaps I should have just overwritten the redirects with {{alternative form of|phytocoenosis}}. I'll look into it. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Fixed (IMO). Mglovesfun (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Not sure who is able to add searches for variant spellings. You seem to have done something similar.

Are you able to add search in Wiktionary to allow to see both of the following pairs क़/क ख़/ख ग़/ग ज़/ज फ़/फ ड़/ड ढ़/ढ, one with nuqtā and one without it, similar to a/à/á/ȃ, etc.? Unlike other diacritics, this one is not always considered mandatory in Hindi. Also, for words with or without ् (called virama or halant) I have a similar request for Arabic searches. --Anatoli 03:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you don't know how, please advise if you know who can do this job. :) --Anatoli 03:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

When and where have I done this? Perhaps ask TheDaveRoss, he created some pages like this for me. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I saw in some related discussion, that's all. Thanks, I'll ask him. --Anatoli 10:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm... --Yair rand (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Err, indeed. What does 'node count' exceeded even mean? Mglovesfun (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Problem seems to start with {{subst:User:MglovesfunBot/ttbc|Wolof}} which it converted to {{ttbc|}} with no language name. Fixed anyway, I'll have to see if I can find any other errors. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The other three entries in Category:Translations to be checked (Wolof) are errorless. So, a one off? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I did a Google search and found four entries - river, peace, Malay and I love you. Perhaps it's because it relies on a series of subst:s and on larger pages it exceeded some maximum value that I don't yet understand. I've just reverted back to the last good version in all four cases. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the advice, I'm fixing my mistakes now. Haplology

About this edit: Choctaw ulhti and olhti are the same word ( = /oɬtí/) spelled according to different orthographic standards. Is the header "Alternative spellings" just unacceptable? Kmack 04:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

We use alternative forms as it's more general that alternative spellings. So yes, it's unacceptable. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I forgot that. --Amit6 (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Any explanation for this? I am trying to add dated references to articles. Reverting of such an addition back to a 100% unreferenced article seems to be rather dubious practice to me.

I admit my experience is mostly with editing wikipedia, but I am under the naive impression that citing references is also a good thing for dictionary entries. --Dbachmann 11:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The main thing is not to remove all the formatting from the entries. Also WT:ETY advises against overly long etymologies as they make definitions harder to find. In this case the information should be at Lord the more common forms, while LORD should retain its usage notes, albeit they aren't well-written. But this is a wiki. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am familiar with the "fear of long lemmas" prevalent on wiktionary. I think this is historically due to people imagining a "dictionary" as a mere glossary listing meanings. Obviously nothing could be further from the truth. But people who fear for the clean look of pages that actually contain information can always try to insert "click to show" formatting, as I see has become common with quotations.

Since "LORD" is really a typographical variant, not a separate word from lord, I admit calling the discussion of its origin "etymology" is a bit dubious. So, if you insist it should be called "usage notes" I have to ask why you didn't just move my contribution to such a paragraph instead of blanking it? --Dbachmann 11:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

You removed the formatting. Oh and I'd put it at Lord, though it will partially duplicate lord#Etymology, they won't be identical. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I hope you don't mind, I removed your comment in this edit. —Ruakh_TALK 16:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

No I don't mind. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Martin. How are you?

Atelaes and I are discussing the etymology of the English words heptamerous and heptamerede at User talk:Atelaes#heptamerede ← … ← *ἑπταμερηδ-?. Heptamerede derives immediately from the French word heptaméride, eptaméride (“savart”), which measures an interval of pitch one-seventh that of a méride (¹⁄₄₃ of an octave), from which word it derives by prefixation with hepta-, epta-. Those terms have etyma in ἑπτᾰ́ (heptá, “seven”) and -μερής (-merḗs) (-merēs: the combining form of μέρος (méros), meros, “part”) and an unknown element represented by the -ede, -ide ending. Do you know of any element of French or other morphology which could account for the -ide in heptaméride, eptaméride? Even if not, you could really help by creating entries for méride and heptaméride, eptaméride and by contributing to Atelaes's and my discussion in any way you can. Thank you. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Quick answer is no, nudge me in a week if I haven't looked into it. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll do that. Thanks. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here is your requested nudge. Please excuse me for being a day early with it. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

French Wiktionary doesn't have an entry for any of the three, and méride is the only one with an incoming link. The TLFi doesn't have it, so there's a lot of work to be done. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there probably is. Re the Trésor, look on the bright side — at least you don't have red herrings to throw you off! You should find some useful information under w:Joseph Sauveur and w:Savart. Also, n.b. that there are 3,150 b.g.c. hits for méride, 170 for heptaméride, and 209 for eptaméride. Good luck, and thanks in advance for whatever you can manage. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just a comment, but the "element of French or other morphology which could account for the -ide" is in fact just -ide, the French form of -id...a standard adjectival suffix for Greek-ish words. Ƿidsiþ 13:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your input, but I fail to see how that in heptamerede fits with the glosses "that which divides into seven parts" and "a divider into seven parts". Heptamerous accounts for "divided into seven parts", so that only leaves the sense of an agent noun to be accounted for by the -ede element. A couple of elements of that form have already been proposed, but none have fitted the meaning necessary. Still, thanks anyway. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I meant to say "standard noun suffix". The -id means "that which" in your definitions, as in the standard ending borrowed from the inflected -id- of Greek or Latin words whose nominative ends in -is. As in Leonid, pycnide, annelid etc. Ƿidsiþ 14:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is the OED's “-id, suffix²”, sense b (“Astr. Added to the name of a constellation to form the name of a meteor in a shower having its radiant point in that constellation, as Andromedid, Leonid, Lyraid, Perseid; also more widely used (cf. BIELID).”) the one you mean? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's the one, obviously not specifically sense b though, which is just for astronomy. Ƿidsiþ 16:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The main sense is “corresp. to F. -ide, in ns. derived from Latin ns. in -is, -id-em, adopted from Greek ns. in -ις, -ιδ-α. Such are carotid (ad. Gr. pl. καρωτίδ-ες), chrysalid, hydatid, parotid, pyramid (cf. F. pyramide). This formative occurs in certain botanical terms, as amaryllid, epacrid, orchid: etymologically these should denote the plants amaryllis, epacris, and orchis respectively, but they are actually used to denote a member of the order of which these are the typical genera (Amaryllid-eæ, Epacrid-aceæ, Orchid-aceæ).” and sense c is “Used as a terminal element in the names of epic poems, as ÆNEID, HERACLEID, THEBAÏD.” — I assume you mean the main sense, yes? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

If that is the case, wouldn't that mean that the regular form would be *heptamerid? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Or heptameride, as a French borrowing. And that seems readily attestable form Google Books. (Sorry about all this, MG). Ƿidsiþ 20:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm. But that makes me wonder why Adam Smith would use the spelling heptamerede, and why three dictionaries (including the OED) would list the term under that spelling. I'll do some investigating. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Salut Martin,

Alors que je viens de renommer alc'hwez en alc’hwez, je me suis demandé (un peu tard, sorry), quelle était la règle en matière d’apostrophes sur le Wiktionary. Pourrais-tu me renseigner ?

Cdlt, VIGNERON 14:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The other way to the French Wiktionary, so alc’hwez should redirect to alc'hwez. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ok, sorry for the perturbation. Is it possible to launch a bot in order to create all the redirect from ’ to ' ? And what about the interwiki link bots ? (for information, the Breton Wiktionary is going to all typographic apostrophes). Cdlt, VIGNERON 15:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

There has been talking about creating such a bot on WT:GP, but nothing has come of it. Also, Wiktionary bots link to redirects, so that's not going to be a problem provided the Breton Wiktionary doesn't delete all of its redirects. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks.

By the way, what is for the sic balises you put on my message ? Cdlt, VIGNERON 21:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

What a twittish and unhelpful policy. Still, thanks for the heads-up that you were deleting my helpful contributions. - LlywelynII 22:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The point you're missing is that if you type in etre, être is the first result. Or even better, type in etre and don't hit enter, and it suggests être in a drop-down menu. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

How about we have an entry for etre, defined as a non-standard spelling of être? The undiacriticked form is certainly attestable. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Note that, in my browser (Internet Explorer) as well as in many others, there is a search box to the right of the address bar. If one uses Wikipedia as the search provider and enters wikt:etre, it just shows the message that no such entry exists (and that it has in the past been deleted), without mention of être in any form. In that case, Llywelyn II's reasoning applies. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well more or less any French word can be spelt without accents in nonstandard 'Internet' French. However I do think this one is particularly common, and the template does say common misspelling, so I wouldn't oppose it. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Cool. Done. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 09:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Re your revision, isn't the whole point of {{count page}} that it ought not to be applied to {{misspelling of}} entries, since misspellings aren't meant to be part of the entry count? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Depends. I think they should be counted as they are entries. Plus, it doesn't work when there are other links on the page or other entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

But in those other cases, it's a bona fide page to be counted. That was the justification in the past for including otherwise-unnecessary brackets in all "form of" templates except for {{misspelling of}}. Moreover, AutoFormat will add {{count page}} for you, if it is deemed necessary. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Autoformat used to add count page to all entries including misspellings, and Kassadbot does now. The pages are counted so long as they have any ,"framed":false,"label":"Reply","flags":,"classes":}'>Reply

Oh well, never mind. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

There are three interwikis now anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Cool. I've added a Breton entry. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

This happened: —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 19:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hmm I thought I'd found all of these, see #river above. I can re-run the Google search I did, as perhaps has updated its records since. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

A Google search reveals sun is the only one in the main namespace, with Malay, I love you, river and peace which were on the previous list anyway. Search is google:Node-count limit exceeded site:en.wiktionary.org. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Perhaps an FBI agent reporting on them might deliberately not capitalize to mock them but the correct usage is to capitalize. — This unsigned comment was added by Geofferybard (talk • contribs) at 02:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC).Reply

http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=duck_test&action=historysubmit&diff=11894166&oldid=11887607 Geof Bard 03:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just wondering whether you might want to add a note similar (or opposite) to mine for legislative intent purposes.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to be a pain, but BaicanXXX has recently been adding a strain of erroneous translations in Romanian (e.g. cable television < cablată televiziune; grammatically incorrect in the first place and not officially accepted by any authority).

I've been monitoring him due to the fact that he is banned from the Romanian Wiktionary for adding made up words, but frankly it's hard to keep up with him and Wernescu.

Considering that I'm not an administrator and have no authority here, I'm wondering if you can take a look and see if he should receive a warning.

Thank you for your time!

Best Regards,

--Robbie SWE 13:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't disagree, but since I speak no Romanian - I can understand a little bit as it has a lot of Latin vocabularly, and a lot of that via French (Category:ro:French derivations) - I can't really block the guy, but I can try and talk to him. But from past experience, it won't work. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I understand. :-) I wrote him a message this evening because he has recently added yet another absurd entry and moved it to the correct one. I unfortunately believe that he doesn't understand English (or at least very poorly). I suspect that he gets all his translations from Hallo.ro and it could be the reason why a considerable amount of his translations are wrong. I'll try to monitor him, but it's really starting to wear me out. --Robbie SWE 18:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Don't get me wrong, I think the real case is that it's SOP. I'm not in any way trying to ridicule the feeling that it is idiomatic - you see I don't even fall for the obvious temptation of calling anyone an idiot. If for the sake of discussion 99.9% of English speakers adopted it, at some point it would have to be recognized as a new sense of the word.

Buuut - it would still be SOP. And let's face it, do you really want Rick Santorum or Bill O'Reilly creating the English language without a "conservative" resistance?Geof Bard 07:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey MGloves Fun, I noticed you (or someone) undid my translation for Colpetto and I got a message from you saying only "it was not a verb". I am brand new to this but I do know it means more than just "a quickie". I was looking for an translation. In Rosetta Stone they use it in the sentence "Lei gli da un colpetto sulla spalla." The video is of a woman tapping a man on the shoulder. The rough translation of this is "She taps him on his sholder." By looking on line and coming up with the root word is where I got the defintions "to jab, poke or tap." and added it. Whatever it is it is certainly denoting the action "tapping". While it certianly could have been refined directing it to the root word and labeled as the correct part of speach, again I am no expert on this, giving people this definition was better than just reverting it back to the slang definition of "a quickie". with no mention of the other meanings which is what seems to have happened. I figured I wouldn't make perfect the enemy of better. Thanks.

Since I don't speak Italian, I couldn't correct it (or only by guessing) therefore I removed it. I would do the same to any editor in any language unless I felt I could correct it myself without fear of being wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're probably a good person to ask: Greek often has 2 words for the same things (eg λιμένας and λιμάνι meaning harbour) in Greek dictionaries the former is usually labelled "learned". οίνος a learned word for wine (everyday = κρασί) Οίνος might be used on a wine bottle label - you wouldn't ask for a bottle using that word. Learned seems a good term - everyday not such a good term (colloquial wouldn't fill the bill) - do you know of any equivalents in other languages? A category of learned Greek words would follow. cheers —Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 17:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I may have answered this by searching around - I note the category Lexicons which seems to have categories used in other languages Literary although not quite right will probably fit the bill. —Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 11:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes I had considered this as the best option. Obviously if a term is of a neutral register, put nothing (IMO). Mglovesfun (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was interrupted mid-edit and overlooked the part of speech error. IMO it is a pretty sketchy entry and I wouldn't be the least bit offended if someone nominates it for deletion, but I think discussion would be in order. It seems to be it's own kind of part of speech, specifically, a title for political satire. Geof Bard 22:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why did you revert the Finnish term of rawk. Can you explain it to me please? Kodenamezeus 23:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary is case sensitive. What you entered should have been at Rawk. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

You added the link back to hehait, but I'm not sure what kind of rules we have about adding form-of entries for unattested languages. What do you think? —CodeCat 00:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

No idea, I almost automatically add {{proto}} when I see Proto-Germanic *''anything''. And the entry already used proto. Sorry, no opinion. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Your edits to this template and some others, without simultaneously editing a lot of others, have generated inconsistency. (At least, I think that's what did it. If I'm wrongly accusing you, please pardon me and point me in the right direction.) Specifically, Category:he:Etymology (for example) now contains immediate subcats for Arabic, Aramaic, and but very few other individual languages. Not, for example, English. Someone looking alphabetically for English will not notice Indo-European and will come to the conclusion that we don't have a category for Hebrew derivations from English. (Even I, who had previously seen the he:English derivations category, wondered what had happened to it and decided that it must, for whatever, reason, not be categorized in he:Etymology. Only on a second read did I catch the Indo-European subcat.) This major inconsistency means we should IMO ASAP revert to having languages listed directly in Etymology, or finish the job you started. (Personally I prefer the first of those options, as people might not know to look for, for example, Estonian under Finno-Ugric, Amharic under Semitic, or English under specifically West Germanic.) Thoughts?​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Essentially my thought it "yes" definitely one or other and "why not" for the first one. When I first proposed the idea it didn't meet any resistance, when I started implementing it it then got some resistance and I stopped. Also per Prince Kassad there's a technical problem - there's an Iranian language and a group of Iranian languages, both of which would be Category:Iranian derivations. I've never opposed the reversion just nobody's done it yet. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, I know you did English and its families (West Germanic, Germanic, whatever). Do you know of any others done?​—msh210℠ (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think I did all the Indo-European ones and then stopped. Can't be sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Salut ! Je cherchais à mettre une prononciation sur ce mot, mais pour l'anglais je suis une bille, tu voudrais bien le faire ? --ArséniureDeGallium 18:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please write in English if you can. I've tried an IPA for how I would pronounce it; I've also added an IPA for apathy and the one for theism was already there. I think they are all three correct. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Bien sûr que je peux écrire en anglais, couillon de la Lune ! --ArséniureDeGallium 22:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

La lune, isn't it? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete this?

Despite its too-large heading, WT:ELE has this as an L3 heading. AF and its heirs put an rfc tag of instances where it is an L4 heading. Almost all the instances of this that I have corrected are attributable to you. The too-big header problem is much more general than this and would be a BP and VOTE matter. DCDuring TALK 12:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oddly enough I do the same with References and it turns out this is level three two, but bots don't correct it. Ditto See also, which lots of people do, and again, no bots correct it. It's not a policy matter, I was just wrong. I got MglovesfunBot to correct all the Old French and Anglo-Norman ones. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

They can all be L3 or L4 headers. Alternative forms can be L4 after a numbered Etymology or Pronunciation header. See also and References ought to be L3 only if they related to the language section as a whole, whereas they ought to be L4 if they relate to only one POS or if they relate to only one Etymology section in a multiple-etymology entry. Sorry to cloud the issue; I hope that makes sense. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think ===References=== should always be at the end of the language section, and (therefore) should always implicitly cover the entire language section (even if, by coincidence, all referenced statements are in a single subsection at the end of the language section), and (therefore) should always be at L3. —Ruakh_TALK 20:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why exactly? In the case of reparate, for example, the three separate References sections make it unambiguous which cited authorities support which assertions; the alternatives are in-line referencing (which have fallen out of favour on Wiktionary, despite their popularity on Wikipedia) and disambiguating notes or headers such as those used for sophy's Pronunciation and References sections. I think that each of those methods has its strengths and that none of them should be categorically prohibited. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I use <ref>, personally. It's much less ambiguous than what you've got at ]. —Ruakh_TALK 02:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

What's ambiguous about the presentation in that entry? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 02:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, I guess "ambiguous" is the wrong word, sorry. "Vague" would be better. But to answer your question, mutatis mutandis:— For example, the current entry tends to imply that the OED gave us, among other things, (1) the pronunciations in the adjective section and (2) the etymologies for the two verbs. In fact, it gave us neither: it doesn't give any pronunciations for the adjective (presumably because it considers the adjective to be very obsolete), and it gives a single etymology for both verb senses. The discrepancy between implication and reality could be described as "misleading", but I think "vague" is the best description. —Ruakh_TALK 03:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is this better? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I guess so, but I'm confused. Is there a reason you don't like <ref>? —Ruakh_TALK 14:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, if the cited reference supports a number of assertions, the entry gets peppered with bracketted superscript numerals and the footnoted reference itself is preceded by a long list of superscript numerals (of the form "^{1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6} …"), all of which is most inæsthetic. (I do use <ref> for isolated assertions in usage notes, however, as in the cases of the bit about *mosinee in moose and of the assertions in the usage note for shaman.) Moreover, AFAIK, <references/> still dumps all preceding <ref>s, which makes its use in multiple References sections impossible which, if not too great a problem within one language section, is a big problem across multiple language sections. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Unless something's changed again, each <references/> only includes <ref>s since the latest preceding <references/>.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ooh, you're right! When was that fixed? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Two or three years ago. —Ruakh_TALK 15:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Damn. I am extremely behind the times. Well, I guess that refutes the functional objection to the use of <ref> tags. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply