User talk:Mihia

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I saw that you haven't yet edited the label at Module:en:Dialects. Are you having difficulty understanding how Lua code works, or just haven't gotten to doing it yet? — Eru·tuon 21:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Erutuon: To be honest, I am not 100% enthusiastic about using "alter" as it does not provide brackets. I prefer brackets, and most other similar examples that I have found have them. Mihia (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Mihia: The module that services {{alter}} should probably be modified to add brackets, at least for languages that do not have transliteration, then. It is the template that is supposed to be used; if it isn't satisfactory, it needs to be improved. — Eru·tuon 02:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

In fact, @ObsequiousNewt has already posted on Template talk:alter and made the same comment as you just did. — Eru·tuon 02:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Erutuon: OK, well I added "British English" to the label in Module:en:Dialects anyway. I will raise the brackets again at the "Beer Parlour" thread and see if anyone wants to do the work to add them. Mihia (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

	Hello, Mihia. You have new messages at Wiktionary:Word of the day/Nominations.
	You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{talkback}} template.

You're adding inflections in the wrong order. The past forms must come last, e.g. en-verb|gives|giving|gave|given. Equinox ◑ 21:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox Oh yeah, thanks for spotting that. I haven't been looking properly at what I've been doing with those. Mihia (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

On a number of occasions, you have removed an "rfv" tag for lack of citations, but did not mark the corresponding entry on Requests for verification/English. If you read the process at the top of the page, you need to mark the entry as RFV-failed when you close out an entry that has not gotten any citations. This acts as a heads-up to people who might want to make a last check before deleting something. Kiwima (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Kiwima: I don't understand what you are referring to. Please give a specific example of what I did and what I should have done differently. Mihia (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

In December 2016 you made this revision, but if you look at the entry for "go in" on Requests for verification/English, you did not edit the entry to say RFV-failed. Yesterday, I noticed that you had done so, and put in the notice, which then waits for a week before the entry is removed from Requests for verification. This allows anyone who has a problem with the decision to make a final search for citations at that point or argue that it is not actually a fail. You did the same thing here on "spin" and here on "mercy me". Kiwima (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK, I see. You said "you have removed an 'rfv' tag for lack of citations". It sounds as if you meant I removed the tag but left the entry in place, which would not make sense with "for lack of citations". Mihia (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Don't you find it ironic that the entry for "all over the place" is all over the place? --85.201.168.136 22:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Again, the use of that template is independent from the content of the page; it may be redundant, but that doesn't matter. See User_talk:Isomorphyc#Overkill. --Per utramque cavernam 23:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Just passing by to say that I really appreciate your comments in discussion pages; I always find them well-pondered and thought out. For example, over at RFD, you're one of the few people I'm always interested to read, because I don't see you resort to some nonsensical rationale when you want to keep an entry. Thank you. Canonicalization (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Canonicalization: Thank you! That's very kind of you to say so! Mihia (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Where did you learn that? I usually move them to the end because they are the least interesting and most obvious. Equinox ◑ 18:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox: It is only based on what I remember seeing on other pages. Please move it back if you like, but it might be worth raising it at the Beer Parlour to see what people generally think? Mihia (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox: See Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2020/February#Positioning_of_.22.26lit.22_entries. Mihia (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Before we sign off on the rfv, I thought I'd give you a peek into the mind of the person who added the challenged sense (as an IP): this is typical of the way they approach English adverbs and prepositional phrases- any resemblance to actual English is strictly coincidental. You can see why I'm a bit nervous about this rfv. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: It's getting a bit complicated because the original challenged sense, "almost, not quite", which I think is the one you are referring to, has now been removed. The present challenged sense, "yet not: nonetheless not", was added recently in this edit. I don't understand either of these senses, but other people seem to support one or other of them. Fresh opinions at Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#not_yet would be useful I think, if you wish to comment there. Mihia (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I find it so funny how similar our comments were, and at the same time (you beat me adding it though !), but our points were opposite. On some level I think we may be on the same wavelength ! :) Leasnam (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Must be telepathy! Mihia (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Apologies, purely finger trouble, quite unintended --Enginear 19:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Mihia (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think the old version is better. I hope you don't mind me reverting it P. Sovjunk (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You mean revert to the old version you link to? You have GOT to be kidding. That old version is poorly organised, poorly illustrated with usage examples, and misses many uses and senses. That's why I spent so much time improving it. Mihia (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I was drunken editing, I thought it was a hilarious message. Turns out it was just slightly funny. P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the words of Travis Bickle: "you talkin' to me?" (vs. -sche). If you were, I'll look at it again tomorrow. DCDuring (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you're referring to the question in my most recent post in the Tea Room on this subject, well, you were the one who wrote "Elsewhere they say that they don't believe that the different complements do not warrant different PoSes", weren't you? Mihia (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I finally made the correction. Thanks. DCDuring (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I, for one, really appreciate your efforts to clean out the definitions of highly polysemic common words. If I didn't have a firehose of new taxonomic entries and new instances of {{taxlink}} and {{vern}} to deal with, I would try to do the same, though probably not so well. DCDuring (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Mihia (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! I noticed your recent overhaul of 'at' because it's been on my watchlist for several years. I'm not sure about some of the consolidated examples, but I mainly wanted to explain why I added a new subsense at the top of sense 1. When looking over someone else's edit today, I read over the three subsenses you added, and it seemed to read as though they were meant to cover all of the main uses of 'at', sense 1. I realize that probably wasn't your intention, but I worried that I wouldn't be the only person to read them that way. And I think it's vitally important that the use of 'at' to indicate location not be lost or overlooked.

One of the more annoying grammar issues I have noticed over the years is when editors automatically "correct" 'at' to 'in' (or occasionally 'of' or 'from') out of the mistaken belief that it is somehow wrong. Of course, 'at' is the best choice when one does not intend to indicate a spatial relationship to the boundaries of a place, or point of origin. But American English (perhaps; I have not seen this as much in British English) seems to be forgetting that there can be any distinction. Perhaps I provided too many examples, but I wanted to make certain that they included both instances of people and events, and did not want them all to be from antiquity. I hope that you will understand my additions to the entry, and that they are not intended to undermine your work. P Aculeius (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Where there is a main sense and subsenses that are specialisations of this, I tend not to repeat the main sense as a subsense. However, now that the main sense has, in different words, been made the first subsense (at least, I don't think that a difference will be obvious to readers), there is the issue that the original examples for the main sense ("Caesar was at Rome" ... "at sea") fit just as well under the first subsense, and in fact are more widely representative than the present subsense examples, which are all geographical place names. I think all these should probably be merged under the first subsense, probably with the loss of one or two geographicals to keep the examples more balanced ... unless we want a separate subsense purely for geographical place names. Or, if you feel that the "at"/"in" distinction needs to be expressed, I think it needs more words. Mihia (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to OED, 'at' is traditionally used with the names of all cities, towns, and small islands, with the supposed exception of London (though it then says that it was formerly used with London); and my concern has been that some readers or editors seem unfamiliar with this and seem to think it's a mistake.

But perhaps the issue is with subsenses, which seem to be cropping up everywhere I look lately. I think they tend to be numbered and arranged confusingly—1.1, 1.2, 1.3 instead of as a traditional dictionary might, 1a—and like disinformation boxes, they are potentially misleading, in that they promise a more thorough explanation of the sense, but in fact provide only a partial example: subsenses 1, 2, and 3 (prior to my addition) did not represent all of the possible uses of sense 1, but three specific instances to the exclusion of the primary meaning. And this, I think is confusing to readers—the list of subsenses is inconsistent with the definition. I don't know how best to remedy this, but for the time being I will try to reduce my contribution. P Aculeius (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe that subsenses are very useful in long entries, helping readers make sense of what is otherwise a huge monolithic and unstructured block of definitions. They also help us organise our ideas. I am thoroughly in favour of them. I personally agree that letters are better than numbers, but of course editors cannot change this, so it would have to go to the technical people. The question of whether the main sense can be a full sense in itself, or whether it should just be a container for subsenses, which should amongst themselves cover all cases, does exist, I agree. Often the latter works well, but in this case it seems hard to devise a subsense 1 that does not essentially just repeat the main sense. If you wanted to deemphasise the "at = in" implication, your wording "Indicating location" could be accommodated in the main sense, I think. (I didn't write any of the main sense, so I don't have any personal investment in it.) Mihia (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply