User talk:Mglovesfun/Archives/18
i have responded at talkchesthairLucifer (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
you really need to give this a second look you can't just vote to delete every entry i create out of spiteLucifer (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well... I'm not, so that ok right? And of course I will give it a second look, more than just two looks in fact. I don't think I would ever comment on a deletion debate and not go back to see what further comments there are. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
wokara
(Deletion log); 22:08 . . Mglovesfun (Talk | contribs | block) deleted page wokara (Nonsense)
(Deletion log); 22:08 . . Equinox (Talk | contribs | block) deleted page wokara (Creative invention or protologism: please see WT:CFI; use WT:LOP)
Hey! We both deleted the same copy of the same page at the same time! race condition! Equinox ◑ 21:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I was gonna post the same on your talk page. Am I supposed to say jinx or something? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wait, he/she re-added it almost immediately, so maybe there were two copies. Equinox ◑ 21:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Wrong means wrong. Has 3 (three!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) accents on "ι". It is not Ἐφραΐμ, please check it again. Wikifriendly --Xoristzatziki (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, administrators have to be pretty sure about something to delete it. You didn't explain why you wanted to delete it, also I didn't realize it was a redirect as you overwrote the redirect. Bad redirection is a valid speedy deletion reason, so I will do so. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Template:io-conj error
I just made the page infuzar, and when I used the Template:io-conj template, there is an error where the box isn't showing up (the drop down box). Could you please try to fix it? Thanks! Razorflame 18:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- You can't prefix a dropdown box with *. I've come across this before. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I must have mistakenly added the * because I thought it was a derived term list or something like that XD AND I REALLY NEED TO STOP FORGETTING TO SIGN MY POSTS!!! XD Razorflame 18:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey, would you mind deleting this entry, I created it without realizing that it was supposed to be capitalized. Thanks Speednat (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I came across this Old French term while looking at the Spanish entry baluarte...thought you might like to create the entry :) Cheers, Razorflame 00:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. I've added this as French. I've no idea if it is actually Old French (as well as, or instead of). I can see quotes from 1609 to 1773. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Looks good. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Help with {{lv-noun}}
I've been trying to change this template to add three new parameters, irr=xxx (to add a parenthetical comment saying '(irregular xxx)'), fem=xxx and masc=xxx (to add the comments 'feminine form xxx', 'masculine form xxx'). Everything goes more or less OK, but there's something I don't understand: I format these comments in the template as italics, i.e. as '' (irregular {{{irr}}})'', but what appears is italic bold, with an extra apostrophe at the beginning (see e.g. suns). I can't see anything in the template that would lead to this behavior. Can you help me with this? Thanks! --Pereru (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC) I note that, when the fem= parameter is specified, an unexpected space appears after the declension number (e.g., latvis). --Pereru (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I seem to have fixed it, though in both cases, I'm not sure how I fixed it. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Since I'm not a template purist (I prefer to copy than to create), I'm quite happy to take the result without any deep insight into the causes thereof. Thanks! --Pereru (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
abbettdin and abbettdins
Can you do me a favor? I created both of these pages and when I double checked my work, I realized that I spelled them with an additional t. I have since created the correct ones, so if you could do me a favor and delete both of these, I would appreciate it. Speednat (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Done Mglovesfun (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- In future use
{{d}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)- Will do, thanks Speednat (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- In future use
Which IPA symbol to represent ch and j
I have noticed two differing viewpoints on these two pages, here and here. Which one is correct? A more exact question, on the specific sounds, j and ch which d͡ʒ or dʒ and t͡ʃ or tʃ is more acceptable and/or correct. I also notice on the first link... IPA Pronunciation key, that it has more IPA symbols for us to use with super subtle differences in sounds, what is your take on that? Thanks in advance Speednat (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know, consider WT:BP. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I only even use /dʒ/ and /tʃ/, and I see those more often than /d͡ʒ/ and /t͡ʃ/. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Some explanations needed...
As I understand (from notices to other users ]) it will be not possible to have something like Template:el-verb-αω-ω which "includes" the only definition (thus there is no need to have a "distinguished" hash for definition). Also the explanations written with double ## (like in σφράγισμα, used to further explain which of the meanings of "sealing" are used) are not... "tolerated" :-( (). If so, then please let me know in order to remove my... "testings" and replace them with the usual. Thanks --Xoristzatziki (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Am just heading out... I dunno, maybe? I will look into it later. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I see... no, I mean it's possible but undesirable. KassadBot (talk • contribs) will tag them as definitionless because there's no hash character, furthermore it means you won't be able to insert context labels like
{{archaic|lang=el}}. BUT... it looks like it might work as a subst: template; see{{new en plural}}for an example. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I see... no, I mean it's possible but undesirable. KassadBot (talk • contribs) will tag them as definitionless because there's no hash character, furthermore it means you won't be able to insert context labels like
Would you mind taking a look at the etymology section of abeltree? I am not sure if I have written this in the best, clearest way possible. Thanks in advance. Speednat (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Why don't we just delete the stupid thing. He's never going to make any contributions. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- I dunno really. it probably fails WT:USER as off-topic anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I think you broke this template with your last edit. See for example Buch. It uses gen1 and gen2 but the header line now only shows the first genitive. --Zeitlupe (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Probably, the problem is the template was broken before, just broken by design, though don't ask me why. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- (I moved the rest of this discussion to Template talk:de-noun) —CodeCat 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Care to explain why you keep deleting the entry with three valid citations listed? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- The lack of three valid citations. Um... that's it. What's it to you anyway, I thought you didn't edit here anymore? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Before restoring the entry for the second time, I also restored the third citation , which was deleted by Ruakh . So the entry has had three valid citations each time you've deleted it. Please restore the entry this is getting ridicilous. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's debatable, to me it looks like the second and third ones might both be invalid. Hence the need to debate (see debatable) rather than act blindly. Admittedly by the letter of the law... nobody's right, since we've never bothered defining 'durably archived', durably archived means whatever someone wants it to mean. I fear that if it comes down to pure voting, you'll lose, but not because of WT:CFI. So can we TALK about this, please? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- In my experience, it's sometimes better to concede a battle like this. See Citations:Tsolyáni for example, which I deleted myself. But if you act unfairly towards your own entries ('doing a Dick Laurent') then you lose respect among your peers, respect which will be useful later on. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's debatable, to me it looks like the second and third ones might both be invalid. Hence the need to debate (see debatable) rather than act blindly. Admittedly by the letter of the law... nobody's right, since we've never bothered defining 'durably archived', durably archived means whatever someone wants it to mean. I fear that if it comes down to pure voting, you'll lose, but not because of WT:CFI. So can we TALK about this, please? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Before restoring the entry for the second time, I also restored the third citation , which was deleted by Ruakh . So the entry has had three valid citations each time you've deleted it. Please restore the entry this is getting ridicilous. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- So what exactly are we arguing about - that the Web (as mirrored by the Internet Archive) is not a valid "durably archived" medium, as opposed to the vanishable paper books, or spam-infested Google Groups which is likely to be scrapped in the near future like the myriad of other unprofitable Google projects have been? Unless there is a specific clause forbidding such content, I'm afraid that the disputed pair of citations is perfectly valid per "common sense" policy. Please restore the entry. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm arguing that it's not really me you should be talking to, I'm only the most recent to delete the entry, not the only one. Maybe WT:TR is the place. Again I'd advise restraint and communication rather than simply edit warring. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's irrelevant who deleted the entry originally. Ruakh did it because apparently at the moment of his deletion the entry had a single citation lacking for it to pass the attestation criteria, an attestation which he removed a few moments before the deletion (404 error), and which I later restored to the equivalent Internet archive mirror (and which he could easily do by himself). For an undisclosed reason you deleted the entry twice afterwards, and I'm curious to know why. AFAICS, all I got in response for you is apparently an advice to "stay out of this", relativization of the whole matter ("nobody' right", well-known ambiguity of "durably archived" which was discussed ad infinitum over the years) as well as a threat that you and your cronies will outnumber me should this matter come to a vote. And let's not forget blocking me for the spurious reason of "inserting gibberish" at that moment I was editing only in the Citations and the Talk namespace. You really shouldn't be an admin IMHO. OK, I'll take this matter elsewhere. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm arguing that it's not really me you should be talking to, I'm only the most recent to delete the entry, not the only one. Maybe WT:TR is the place. Again I'd advise restraint and communication rather than simply edit warring. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- So what exactly are we arguing about - that the Web (as mirrored by the Internet Archive) is not a valid "durably archived" medium, as opposed to the vanishable paper books, or spam-infested Google Groups which is likely to be scrapped in the near future like the myriad of other unprofitable Google projects have been? Unless there is a specific clause forbidding such content, I'm afraid that the disputed pair of citations is perfectly valid per "common sense" policy. Please restore the entry. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- With all due respect, you're talking nonsense and you know it. If you have nothing relevant to say, please say nothing. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Missing Declensions
Bonjour. Notai que beaucoup adjectifs en ancien français sont manquant tableaux de les déclinaisons. Est‐ce quelque chose que désirez à fixer ?
En addition, amoreus ou amoros nécessitent à être redéfinir comme une forme alternative.
Pourrais enquérir pourquoi vous n’avez pas dans MSN récemment ?
(Mes excuses pour mon français.) --Æ&Œ (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- I did say I don't like MSN! Anyway yeah there are a lot of words like amoreus and amoros where one either could or should be an alternative form. As for declensions, it's not something I've put much time into. It's not terribly difficult, though. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Puisse ‘plus’ être usé à le signifier et en le français ? --Æ&Œ (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Dunno what you mean really. If you mean as in 'deux plus trois', 'deux et trois' then yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry. I just desired to enquire if ‘plus’ is used a synonym for ‘et’ en français, similar for ‘and’ in our language. --Æ&Œ (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is it though in English? Outside of arithmetic they don't seem to be interchangeable very often, if at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- ‘As a conjunction, "and," it is Amer.Eng. colloquial, attested from 1968.’ —Douglas Harper. --Æ&Œ (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is it though in English? Outside of arithmetic they don't seem to be interchangeable very often, if at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry. I just desired to enquire if ‘plus’ is used a synonym for ‘et’ en français, similar for ‘and’ in our language. --Æ&Œ (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
hyphenation
I am using Websters Third International unabridged dictionary, for reference sake, and they point out that a word should never be hyphenated with a single letter syllable as the only syllable one one line or the other. For instance, about, hypenated would be a-bout, but they state that if you can write a-
bout then you may as well just bump the entire word to the next line. I have another book on Grammar, punctuation etc. , let me look that up in those books and I will get back to you. Thanks Speednat (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ah you've missed the point! Hyphenation on Wiktionary is about where the break in the syllables lies! Hopefully
{{hyphenation/doc}}explains this. Admittedly the template name is counterintuitive. Perhaps there's a definition of hyphenation I'm not aware of. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Amusingly, the same debate was had on de.Wikt in the past few months: is hyphenation (on de.Wikt "Silbentrennung"/"Worttrennung") where the word breaks across lines, or where the syllables break? In this case, I would actually prefer if we provided information about line-breaks, since the IPA can provide information about syllabification... and I think line-break info is actually what
{{hyphenation/doc}}says the template is for. Maybe we should raise this question in the BP? - -sche (discuss) 09:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)- Actually, maybe it's me that's not up on this, having read the documentation. But still counterintuitive to me! Mglovesfun (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Don't want to delete the "bad" hyphenation if that is not what you were implying that I do. But I do want to fix it if it won't ruffle feathers. Thanks Speednat (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, maybe it's me that's not up on this, having read the documentation. But still counterintuitive to me! Mglovesfun (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
ku-noun
- Hi Mglovesfun
- could you add the categories ] and ] and ] to the template ku-noun.Thanks.GeorgeAnimal. 10:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Could you or not?GeorgeAnimal. 11:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I can; just doing other things at the moment. One note, when gender is mf, do you want Category:Kurdish masculine and feminine nouns or Categorx:Kurdish masculine nouns AND Categorx:Kurdish feminine nouns. For instance,
{{fr-noun}}uses the latter, not the former. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I can; just doing other things at the moment. One note, when gender is mf, do you want Category:Kurdish masculine and feminine nouns or Categorx:Kurdish masculine nouns AND Categorx:Kurdish feminine nouns. For instance,
- The second variant is better.Thanks.GeorgeAnimal. 15:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have attempted (it) but it hasn't worked.---GeorgeAnimal. 17:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you couldn't fix it or if you have not time for it, say me, and than I will ask other users for it.GeorgeAnimal. 17:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think I have it; I need to test it next. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've set g and 1 to do the same thing; that ought to fix it. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Now I've set it only to categorize in Kurdish nouns lacking genders when there's no g or 1. What that won't catch is something like g=n, because g is given. Not sure why it was doing what it was doing before that, you'd need to ask someone with more knowledge than me. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- You've removed the declension type stuff, but left the comma. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Now I've set it only to categorize in Kurdish nouns lacking genders when there's no g or 1. What that won't catch is something like g=n, because g is given. Not sure why it was doing what it was doing before that, you'd need to ask someone with more knowledge than me. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've set g and 1 to do the same thing; that ought to fix it. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think I have it; I need to test it next. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Many thanks.A last please:could make the plural forms blink?--GeorgeAnimal. 18:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
What the hell, dude? Why does almost everything I do get deleted, RfDed or RfVed? Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist...it's more an American usage. There are 11 million hits for "there's an app for that", and I can guarantee you that at least three of them have the usage I use in definitions #2 and #3. So why waste my time with a frivolous RfV? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 18:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- You object to everything! I think the real question is why should I read your comments, they're so predictable. I tried asking on the talk page hoping to avoid an rfv, it didn't work as you refuse to cooperate (no surprise really) so I rfv'd it. The reason a lot of your stuff gets deleted is because it's either off-topic or unverifiable. Do the same thing on Wikipedia, the only difference is it'll get deleted a lot quicker. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- The problem seems to be, that when someone questions one of your entries, you get so upset you're incapable of discussing it. And with no discussion possible, the other party has no other reasonable option other than rfd or rfv. If you could just discuss these things without taking it personally, I think in some cases, rfv could be avoided (but not rfd so much). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that my entries get questioned an inordinate amount of time, often when they shouldn't be. If there are 18 million hits, you can probably find three of them to satisfy an RfV. And the "it would never last on Wikipedia" argument is a tad inaccurate...Wikipedia is much more inclusionist than Wiktionary is. Which is dumb...Wiktionary should be inclusionist, and Wikipedia deletionist Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 15:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's what I mean (kinda) you're taking it personally. Also raw number of hits isn't relevant, you can get lots of hits for stuff like abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz. Especially since we require durably archived sources. Basically your edits are being proportionally nominated for deletion/verification based on their content. Using your logic, if there are 18 million hits for something, there are probably three showing it means alligator too. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that my entries get questioned an inordinate amount of time, often when they shouldn't be. If there are 18 million hits, you can probably find three of them to satisfy an RfV. And the "it would never last on Wikipedia" argument is a tad inaccurate...Wikipedia is much more inclusionist than Wiktionary is. Which is dumb...Wiktionary should be inclusionist, and Wikipedia deletionist Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 15:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- The problem seems to be, that when someone questions one of your entries, you get so upset you're incapable of discussing it. And with no discussion possible, the other party has no other reasonable option other than rfd or rfv. If you could just discuss these things without taking it personally, I think in some cases, rfv could be avoided (but not rfd so much). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
A question
- Sorry, but can you not see that i have changed the name and the templates in the enries?
- PS:And the template name ku.decl arises from Dick Laurent and not from me!2012 (UTC)
- I have only added that templates to few entries.= only 20.And I have corrected it.I dont need the template ku-decl, because you said it the name should be template:ku-decl-noun and i have done it. Only you said it.Sorry.
- What do you do want with your template variant?Could you explain me it?Please!--GeorgeAnimal. 18:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- And i am the only Kurdish contributor here but if nobody wants that i create new entries than i will work in other Wiktionarys.Thanks--GeorgeAnimal. 18:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I only want to enhance the English Wiktionary with new Kurdish entries.But if you dont give me to rename other templates because i imaked a fault than my contribution is aimless--GeorgeAnimal. 18:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- We do, I'm using Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:ku-decl (or whatever the template name is). What actually happened is when you nominated the templates for speedy deletion, the entries using the templates were also nominated for speedy deletion. Basically you accidentally nominated 20 Kurdish entries for deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
{{ku-decl-f-y}}uses{{ku-decl}}. Again, I can't fix it as I don't know any Kurdish. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- We do, I'm using Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:ku-decl (or whatever the template name is). What actually happened is when you nominated the templates for speedy deletion, the entries using the templates were also nominated for speedy deletion. Basically you accidentally nominated 20 Kurdish entries for deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- The problem was that you blocked me for 5 min.And that's why i coulnd rename them.GeorgeAnimal. 18:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- You only should delete the templates which i renamed.--GeorgeAnimal. 18:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- That was just because you were nominating the templates for deletion faster than I could undo your edits. BTW
{{ku-decl-m/f}}is used{{ku-decl-m-f}}relies on it, so if you want ku-decl-noun-m/f to be deleted you need to totally redo ku-decl-noun-m-f. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- That was just because you were nominating the templates for deletion faster than I could undo your edits. BTW
- Thanks for the information--GeorgeAnimal. 18:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Could you delete this template because it is existing here also the same template?GeorgeAnimal. 18:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Don't block me please if I ask you to delete this template page because it is redundant because the same template is existing here--GeorgeAnimal. 18:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- It wasn't a punitive block - you were nominating the same pages multiple times after I undid your
{{d}}edits, I just blocked you to have time to get you to understand why I was undoing the edits. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)- I think I can, as I said above (but with a typo)
{{ku-noun-mf}}calls on{{ku-decl-noun-m/f}}so I can't delete one. However I might have fixed the problem, I don't guarantee it though, please see{{ku-decl-noun-mf}}and modify it if necessary. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think I can, as I said above (but with a typo)
- It wasn't a punitive block - you were nominating the same pages multiple times after I undid your
I or to
Bonjour. Surely the definitions for interro & excappo should start with I and not to ? Ciao. --Æ&Œ (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I thank you. By the way, I just created my first entry for Vulgar Latin not too long ago. I modelled it based on your ‘interro’ entry. I would be delighted to see what you think about it. --Æ&Œ (talk) 07:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mglovesfun,
Would you be willing to use AWB (or whatnot) to subst: all instances of {{py-to-ipa}}?
Thanks in advance,
—RuakhTALK 19:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Of course, are you closing the discussion as failed? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know. Mostly I was asking because it would be difficult to close the discussion without someone doing that. Do you have an opinion on how the discussion should be closed? (If so, please comment there!) —RuakhTALK 20:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ruakh, for future reference, with a combination of Lupin's pop-ups and an easy modification to my format.js (so it only does one type of change and so it saves rather than previewing), I can very quickly go through whatlinkshere to subst a template or make other s///-type changes; and I've done so in the past, and you can, obviously, do the same, or ask me. I know nothing about AWB: it may be quicker/easier.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Come to think of it, I've done that sort of thing before, too (not using Lupin's pop-ups, just using JavaScript that changes all the links to point to the edit-page). I don't know anything about AWB, either. —RuakhTALK 20:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
It says ‘literally of figuratively’ there. Is that a spelling error ?--Æ&Œ (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely! Mglovesfun (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
without vs lack
Ut not ungrammatical. but the a big differences between aphobia and simply lacking fear. aphobia is not simple a lack a fear. aphobia is without fear, nor can the be fearful at all. --Roguebfl (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Really it is, that's why I asked you what your native language is, as it appears to be not English. If so, please let native English speakers proofread the entry! Mglovesfun (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
format of synonyms, antonyms, see also's
Hi. Following your question about my reversal of your edits, I posted my suggestion on Tooironic's page. --Anatoli (обсудить) 00:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Western Armenian
I do not think so. Aravelahayeren and Axpareren are so different. You say sirum em, we say gë sirem. You say (i do not know how to make sentence in future simple) but we say "bidi gartam" (I'll read). And you do not use è so much dislike in Classical Armenian -for example, dèr voghormya, hayerèn-. And you use "hi" at the beginning of the word and that is not pronunced "y" but "h". for example "hotë" but we say as classical "eotë" (yotë pronunced but with Yech written). Also there are so different words. An Axpar and Hayasdani cannot communicate easily. If you look at the pages of Agos, Hrant Dink Hradaragchoutioun (also we write -outioun but you write modernised -outyoun, also -ean/-yan, -ian/-yan) you can easily see the big difference. 188.58.144.175 19:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how much you know about Wiktionary, but we have lists of language codes, literally thousands, and Western Armenian isn't on that list. So if we want to add another language, we discuss it on WT:BP. I don't oppose this addition, just I'm not qualified to comment, so a discussion on WT:BP would be needed. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Western and Eastern Armenian are different in grammar and pronunciation, yes, but their vocabulary is almost the same. And because Wiktionary is a dictionary, not a grammar book, it is more practical to use ==Armenian== for both, with pronunciations marked and inflection templates different. --Vahag (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
{{rfap}}
- Thanks for your kind words! Everybody seems to be very nice around here. As for
{{rfap}}, should it go under ===Pronunciation=== even when there is nothing else there? That would imply creating an empty heading just to place the template. Is this how it should be done? (I could put it ===Noun=== or ==Latvian== instead, which are always present and never empty.) --Pereru (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)- Yes, we do the same with
{{rfp}}and{{rfe}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)- So, is molibdēns OK with local practices? I had
{{rfap}}between ===Etymology=== and ===Noun===. If you OK it, I'll go on doing it like that from now on. --Pereru (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)- I put it under the ===Pronunciation=== header. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I see it now. I've done it to veļu māte as well. Now, if you think this is OK, I wonder if I could ask you to use your bot to help me put all those
{{rfap}}'s in the right position? It should be relatively simple to use your bot to change all the{{rfap}}'s that happen to be at the end of the Latvian entries in Category:Requests for audio pronunciation (Latvian) so that they are in the ===Pronunciation=== section right before ===Noun=== (without changing those few ones where the template already is in the right place, under ===Pronunciation===). Would it be possible? --Pereru (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I see it now. I've done it to veļu māte as well. Now, if you think this is OK, I wonder if I could ask you to use your bot to help me put all those
- I put it under the ===Pronunciation=== header. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- So, is molibdēns OK with local practices? I had
- Yes, we do the same with
NOW we know what TV stands for! —CodeCat 19:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Funny that you say that, I'm off to watch a film (i.e. a movie) in about 15 minutes. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
List templates without documentation
...are freaking out. See {{list:brain lobes/en}} or Dominica for example. It looks pretty bad on a page. Ultimateria (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Right, what does this have to do with me? I have no idea how to fix it. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- I saw that you had created Category:Templates requiring documentation so I thought this was part of something you were working on. But I just looked again and realized that was not 2012...Derp. Ultimateria (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- It was my problem. It's fixed. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I saw that you had created Category:Templates requiring documentation so I thought this was part of something you were working on. But I just looked again and realized that was not 2012...Derp. Ultimateria (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Baufortin asteikko {the Beaufort scale in Finnish)
I noticed only now that you had deleted the table that I had made. I understand your comment of tables being primarily Wikipedia content, but I thought it had at least some linguistic value as it provided a quick reference to the English equivalents of Finnish verbal descriptions and vice versa. Under Beaufort scale, e.g. the term "moderate breeze" has a very specific meaning and if one wants to communicate the same idea of wind force in Finnish, the correct words are kohtalainen tuuli. If one wants to find that out in Wikipedia one has to switch back and forth between fi and en pages. Admittedly, it is not a superhuman task, but cumbersome anyway. --Hekaheka (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
msn
Hullo. Have you used this in a while? It has been a long time since I saw you on. If you are not going to use it again then I may as well get rid of it (too). Ciao. --Æ&Œ (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Right now at least, the only people I talk to on online chat services are people I know in real life. I did say that. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, however, never in nominative. See Wiktionary:Information desk#Some questions regarding Gaulish for discussion regarding the shape of the entry. Bli med (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Question/bot
- Hi Mglovesfun!
- Metaknowledge have blocked my Bot although the Bot had added 2 entries: napesinînim | napesinînî.Why did he unblock the other Bot but not my Bot?
- Sorry, what 'other bot'? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- YS-Bot --GeorgeAnimal. 17:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously only he can answer that, I can't tell you what's in his head! Mglovesfun (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'll deal with that. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Wait, what? User:GanimalBot has tons of contribs, way more than most unapproved bots get. I unblocked User:YS-Bot because that bot has not made 30 contribs, which the operator requested the right to make. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously only he can answer that, I can't tell you what's in his head! Mglovesfun (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Any idea how to translate these? See w:fr:méreau. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Frankly, no. But I can look into it. It's seems to be a sort of 'token'. If the Wikipedia article linked to some online sources it might help a bit. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- actually helps quite a lot. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Equinox ◑ 11:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've had a crack et Middle French mereau. For bon-pour, still never heard of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Equinox ◑ 11:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- actually helps quite a lot. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Next one. "Au xviiie siècle, l'interdiction de remouture des sons est officiellement levée et les boulangers commencent à utiliser le charbon à la place du bois pour chauffer les fours." (regrinding of sounds??) SemperBlotto (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC) p.s. I suppose we ought to have an entry for xviiie and the like.
- xviiie is either an error or an archaic form of XVIIIè, meaning 18th. For example the Old French numeral that I see a lot of for four is iiii. rather than iv.. I might be worth noting in i#Translingual and the like that lowercase forms or Roman numerals were in use for quite some time. As for remouture, fr:son#fr says that son is the leftovers from grinding, so it's not the regrinding of sound but the regrinding of ground material. We have mouture and remoudre. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sure it must mean more than just regrinding. Here is one of several similar entries for albums in fr.Wikipedia :- "Durée 39 min 24 s / 68 min 40 s (remouture)" (remixing? remastering?) SemperBlotto (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Five of the French Wikipedia hits are from albums by The Cranberries, so it's probably only used by one wiki editor. One is the one you've posted above, the final one seems to be a copy-and-paste job from an uncopyrightable source. It uses pre-Modern French terms like estoit instead of était. It's horrible. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but son as nothing to do here with sound or noise... I know, the French sentence quoted by Semperblotto seems a little tricky. But let's have a closer look to what is says.
- "Au xviiie siècle, l'interdiction de remouture des sons est officiellement levée et les boulangers ". This sentence comes from w:fr:pain ("bread") and speaks about boulangers ("bakers"). What is bread made of? Wheat (most usually). How do you call the outside layer of a grain of wheat (or other cereal)? It's called bran. Well, bran in French is said... (wait for it), son! Son (from Latin secundus) is the bran of the wheat grain.
- So, la remouture des sons is literally translated by "the regrinding of the bran (or the brans)" (whatever it means...).
- Voilà. I hope I have been helpful. — Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 06:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Five of the French Wikipedia hits are from albums by The Cranberries, so it's probably only used by one wiki editor. One is the one you've posted above, the final one seems to be a copy-and-paste job from an uncopyrightable source. It uses pre-Modern French terms like estoit instead of était. It's horrible. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sure it must mean more than just regrinding. Here is one of several similar entries for albums in fr.Wikipedia :- "Durée 39 min 24 s / 68 min 40 s (remouture)" (remixing? remastering?) SemperBlotto (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- xviiie is either an error or an archaic form of XVIIIè, meaning 18th. For example the Old French numeral that I see a lot of for four is iiii. rather than iv.. I might be worth noting in i#Translingual and the like that lowercase forms or Roman numerals were in use for quite some time. As for remouture, fr:son#fr says that son is the leftovers from grinding, so it's not the regrinding of sound but the regrinding of ground material. We have mouture and remoudre. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
If you dispute everything and consider that "nobody's been able to shown it is used" (that's your own words), then why don't you delete the article right away? Go on! As we say in French: fais-toi plaisir !... — Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 12:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Everyone who knows the rules agrees (so far) that it doesn't exist. The rules are publicly available at WT:CFI, and I have no doubt that you're perfectly capable of reading them. Unlike the French Wiktionary, we don't only do voting, we do also use evidence. A YouTube video is about as far from durably archived as you can get, as they get deleted all the time. Ditto for web forums. Hey I didn't come up with the rules, in fact I'd support changing them at least with respect to 'durably archived' but just because I don't agree 100% with the rules isn't a reason for me to go against them. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- The reason I won't delete it now is it gets 30 days minimum, which would take us to 19/08/2012 (08/19/2012 for Americans). We don't always delete things bang on 30 days, but since it looks like editors have tried to cite this, there would be no reason to extend the deadline. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- In your opinion, sincerely, is there any chance that this article might escape from deletion?— Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 12:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I actually haven't checked, but it seems other people have and they think it can't pass. Remember that it needs three durably archived citations at any point, and that includes after it's been deleted (if it is ever deleted). If if by January 2013 there are three acceptable citations on Citations:pussy pass it could legitimately be restored. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- In your opinion, sincerely, is there any chance that this article might escape from deletion?— Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 12:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- The reason I won't delete it now is it gets 30 days minimum, which would take us to 19/08/2012 (08/19/2012 for Americans). We don't always delete things bang on 30 days, but since it looks like editors have tried to cite this, there would be no reason to extend the deadline. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
FYI. —RuakhTALK 20:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Would you be amenable to making the font size smaller? 130% is intrusively large for myself and others. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- I actually like the intrusiveness because it makes it easy to find the Navajo words on a page :b but I realise editors who don't deal with Navajo may not find that useful, and editors who do deal with Navajo may find it annoying. I also don't think you deal with Navajo very much, do you Mglovesfun? So I agree with those saying it should be reset to 100%. - -sche (discuss) 18:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- 100% works for me. I was simply reacting to how small the fonts originally appeared. Now they appear too large, so should be reduced (not sure if 100% is optimal, you guys can work that out). PS would have replied earlier but I didn't think I had anything useful to say. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- I actually like the intrusiveness because it makes it easy to find the Navajo words on a page :b but I realise editors who don't deal with Navajo may not find that useful, and editors who do deal with Navajo may find it annoying. I also don't think you deal with Navajo very much, do you Mglovesfun? So I agree with those saying it should be reset to 100%. - -sche (discuss) 18:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about this. My first ever Chinese contributions will necessarily be a bit messy. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- It needed categorization mainly. I don't know anything about Cantonese templates so I just categorized it overtly. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have deleted the Cantonese section. It was badly formatted, no traditional version, no transliteration. No point in having a Cantonese entry when there is an identical Mandarin entry. Besides, 舊金山 / 旧金山 (gau6 gam1 saan1) is borrowed from Mandarin, phonetically it doesn't make sense in Cantonese. 三蕃市 (saam1 faan4 si5) is more common among Cantonese speakers. --Anatoli (обсудить) 10:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it seems to be back in the entry again. I don't actually know any Cantonese; I just thought that I might as well add it in (since I know it's used) when I put in the Mandarin, which I'm slowly learning. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- I added it back and fixed the format, which can be used as an example. --Anatoli (обсудить) 23:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Wonderfool
Anyone else find themselves typing 'wonderfool' when they're trying to write 'wonderful'? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Liliana does! My fingers usually want to type mutli- for multi- (think Dick Dastardly). I have made other good Freudian slips but can't remember 'em at the moment. Equinox ◑ 21:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
"Pizza Girls and the Revenge of the Princess"
I suddenly miss the ability to peek at deleted pages' history. Was it some awful Powerpuff Girls fanfic? Equinox ◑ 20:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Aha yes, same applies to me on the French Wiktionary. Was simply "Pizza Girls and the Revenge o the Princess is a computer-animated film inspired by a fairy lights carousel shown on TV Tone the Channel". So no. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
ku-verb-form of/negativeimperative forms
- Hi Mglovesfun
- when my Bot was creating ku. verb fomrs I noticet that the negative imperative form is showing as singular conditional I although I tried to fix the problem.Could you fix it if you can.Or shall I replace the old negative imperative parameter with new?Thanks in advance.GeorgeAnimal. 19:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know; is the problem in the template or is the problem that the coding for the bot is wrong? If it's #1 then I can help, if it's #2 then not really, Or rather you should be able to fix it yourself quicker than I could since I don't know any Kurdish. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is #1.I have added this code
in=]Negative imperativeand in the entry imperative singular conditional I of.Can you fix it.I don't know whic parameter is wrong.If I replace the old parameter in (imperative negative) nothing is changed.GeorgeAnimal. 16:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC) - For imperative forms (singular and plural) I use the parameter
i=]Negative imperativeand it works.thanks in advance--GeorgeAnimal. 16:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)in=is part of the switch for the fourth unnamed parameter, nekojîne uses in in the second unnamed parameter. I'm not quite sure how to fix it in a way that won't wrongly affect other entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have solved the problem.I have changed the old code.See..Best regardsGeorgeAnimal. 11:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Telugu plurals
Why are you using {{{pos|Noun}}} and '''{{te-noun}}'''? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- What should I use. I want the plural to be shown in the singular word page. Please suggest. Thanks.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- te-noun now accepts pl and p, also it now automatically adjusts for Telugu script too. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much sir. What is the difference between Noun and other Noun heads.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
transliteration in translation entries for sh
Is there a reason why you removed it here and here? --BiblbroX дискашн 21:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- I do the same thing if a Roman version is also present. I guess the transliteration is redundant when Cyrillic and Roman translations are in sync. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is definitely redundant. K, so I won't add it anymore. --BiblbroX дискашн 22:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Anatoli's answered this. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is definitely redundant. K, so I won't add it anymore. --BiblbroX дискашн 22:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
fittin
no it's not, please restore it while i work out the kinks, i was just about to add this sentence as a usage example. "“I'm fittin' ta throw this shit in a box.”"
- No it is, that's fittin', which is a variant of fitting, so the definition should be at fit#Verb. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think it is fundamentally a different word from "fitting" it has nothing to do with fitness, rather scheming and planning.
- Just no, I mean really, really no. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think it is fundamentally a different word from "fitting" it has nothing to do with fitness, rather scheming and planning.
A little enquiry
Who taught you how to be so awesome? What’s your secret? --Æ&Œ (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ha, awesome in what way? I'll concede I have some good qualities, but some bad ones too. Maybe the bad ones don't come across on Wiktionary (apart from getting irate from time to time). Mglovesfun (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your passion for Romance is awesome, especially extinct Romance. I know nobody else here who is so learnt in Old French, Middle French, or Anglo‐Norman, and labours arduously to explain so much of these languages. Many people would reject the chance to learn an obsolete language, I suspect. You are also more involved in decision‐making on the project, which I tend to shy away from. I hope that you continue to contribute! --Æ&Œ (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, 'passion' is right. It's partly natural, also one 'side effect' of the antidepressants I'm on is I become more meticulous and attentive to detail. When I'm not taking them I just can't be bothered, which is itself a shame. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your passion for Romance is awesome, especially extinct Romance. I know nobody else here who is so learnt in Old French, Middle French, or Anglo‐Norman, and labours arduously to explain so much of these languages. Many people would reject the chance to learn an obsolete language, I suspect. You are also more involved in decision‐making on the project, which I tend to shy away from. I hope that you continue to contribute! --Æ&Œ (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Salut. Le mot tient un descendant moderne ici, qui ne tient pas un équivalent exact dans le ancien français. Et désolé pour ces mots‐là redondants à la liste du tien. Ciao. --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- User:Mglovesfun/to do/Old French says "erms used in etymologies may be added to this list alphabetically. For miscellaneous requests, please use WT:RE:fro." Should the ones you added be at WT:RE:fro? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- And specifically, see fret#Old French. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ai ajouté le mot à ce liste‐là. Ciao. --Æ&Œ (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding beau, you could've changed the template yourself. Old French nouns and adjectives have the same declension. So all I did was change 'noun' to 'adj'. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ai ajouté le mot à ce liste‐là. Ciao. --Æ&Œ (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Ido has a Present Perfect
I edited the Ido verb template but you reverted it. I just want to say that Ido does have a Present Perfect, look at the bottom of this page http://en.wikibooks.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Easy_Ido/Lesson_two PatMan817 (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Page 121 of Ido For All: English Course for Learning Ido says:
- For the present perfect the ordinary past is used:
- Ton quon me skribis me skribis. - What I have written, I have written.
- => Me skribis to quon me skribis. - I have written that which I have written. (I wrote what I wrote.)
- For the present perfect the ordinary past is used:
- If we can't find durably archived, primary evidence of Ido speakers using the present perfect, then we have to err on the side of not claiming that it exists.
- —RuakhTALK 20:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Main problems were no edit summary, also as for Wikibooks, I have no idea how accurate that page is. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you mad at me again?
Are you irritated? I’m sorry to see you extract so many of my submissions in your list. Should I only add Old French terms to the list if they are mentioned in etymologies on this project?
(Please don’t hurt me.) --Æ&Œ (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not mad, I do get angry but usually only for a few minutes then it's gone. It seems like a simple misunderstanding. Same applies for the Anglo-Norman and Middle French subpages. For 'general' requests can you use WT:RE:fro (and so on). Again, no I'm not mad. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Uncertain reconstructions
I think if it's clear on the entry that it's not the only possible reconstruction that matches the attestations, you can add them all. There could also be a template for that, similar to {{LDL}}, which would add the entry to a category 'terms with uncertain reconstructions' or something like that. But I'm still uncertain about one thing... what if there are two possible reconstructions, but only one that matches the word's probable ancestor (in Latin, Germanic etc.)? —CodeCat 19:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)