User talk:Mirek2

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page 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.
• Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
• Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
• The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
• We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! --EncycloPetey 18:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't this be speciesism? Nadando 21:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)bReply

Why did you remove grasping? I think it is correct. --Yair rand 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Whoops, I meant sordid. (I got confused because grasping was the gloss.) Anyway, Dan Polansky put it back in. --Yair rand 17:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

What makes you think "norm page" is an English term? I cannot find the term used in Google books and Google web:

• google books:"norm page"
• google:"norm page"

The occurrences that I find are like "norm (page": they do not really use the term "norm page".

I've sent the "norm page" entry to a request for verification:

• Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#norm_page.

--Dan Polansky 10:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, "odzaškrtnout" that you have added to "uncheck" is likely not attestable, and it is in any event a rare term.

• google books:"odzaškrtnout" - zero hits
• google:"odzaškrtnout" - around 70 hits

--Dan Polansky 11:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I get similar results with "odstranit zatržení".

I'd recommend that, in case of doubt, you verify in Google books the existence of the Czech terms that you add. The inclusion of terms in Wiktionary is governed by WT:CFI; this normally requires attestation in three durably archived sources, which includes printed books and magazines. Getting inclusion criteria satisfied is not a problem with common terms such as "kočka", "modrý" or "rovnat", but gets tricky with some Czech colloquialisms AKA informal terms. My experience is that great many Czech terms can get attested in Google books, and also in Czech Wikisource AKA Wikizdroje. --Dan Polansky 11:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, some formatting notes, also to be found in WT:ELE:

• There is no "definitions" heading in the standard layout of English Wiktionary.
• Headings are usually formatted like ==Heading== rather than like == Heading ==; but this gets corrected by a bot automatically.

Also useful for copy-and-paste templates: WT:ACZ.

Thanks for contributing. --Dan Polansky 22:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Czech nouns need gender, don't they? Try finding a solid example in ] and click 'edit' to see the structure used. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Some more notes:

• There is the markup for horizontal line (----) between each two consecutive language sections; this markup should not be removed .
• By convention, there is an empty line between the inflection line and the translation or definition; the empty line should not be removed.
• Instead of "(inf.)", the better markup is {{informal|lang=cs}}.

--Dan Polansky 15:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

More notes:

• You can link the words of multi-word terms directly in the inflection line.
• The section "Related terms" is only for terms that are etymologically related, meaning they have a common origin. So "růže", "růžový" and "růžovka" are likely etymologically related, while "růže", "květina" and "trn" are semantically related.

--Dan Polansky 09:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

More:

• Once you enter "cs-noun" template, you do not need to enter "Category:Czech nouns".
• In Czech entries, the convention is not to place definition into the entry but rather a translation followed if needed with a gloss in the gloss template. Many non-English languages follow this convention, while some don't.

--Dan Polansky 10:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is a noun, isn't it? We use the ===Noun=== heading for multi-word entries too. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why have you removed "double-click" from "poklepat"? --Dan Polansky 01:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have removed "kalkulační tabulka" from "spreadsheet", as the term does not seem to be attestable per WT:CFI

Relevant Google searches:

• google:"kalkulační tabulka" - 530 hits
• google books:"kalkulační tabulka" - 1 hit in a dictionary, which does not count as attestation per WT:CFI

--Dan Polansky 08:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can you please use the "gloss" template?

If you disagree with using the gloss template, which is the current practice with Czech entries in English Wiktionary, let's talk about it, here or in Beer Parlour. --Dan Polansky 12:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The common practice is to put the definition for "udusit se" to "udusit", merely indicating "udusit se" as a reflective form. Hence this edit of mine.

It is open to discussion. --Dan Polansky 09:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please see WT:ELE for the layout of Wiktionary entries, including:

• (a) the level of headings: ===Noun=== vs ====Noun====
• (b) the order or sequence of headings

My recent fixes of your edits:.

This really is not a subject of negotiation, or not an easy one. If you would want to get anything changed in the standard layout, you would have to convince a lot of people in Beer Parlour. --Dan Polansky 09:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have fixed a level of headings:. --Dan Polansky 09:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I assume that you have switched to the user MirekDve (talk • contribs). --Dan Polansky 11:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see you are editing from User:Mirek2 again instead of from User:MirekDve. Could you add your babel boxes to User:Mirek2, just like you did in User:MirekDve? --Dan Polansky 09:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, after a considerable delay due to my wiki-break I have now responded at User talk:Dan Polansky#Czech Abbreviations. --Dan Polansky 10:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

What makes you think that "decentní" can be translated as "decent"? In what sense of "decent"? Do you have a Czech example sentence that uses "decentní" in such a way that it would be translated as "decent"?

I am asking because I have always thought "decentní" and "decent" are false friends. OTOH some dictionaries indeed do have this translation pair, among other translation pairs. But I cannot think of a Czech sentence where this translation would fit. Thanks. --Dan Polansky 10:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, my mistake. Do you think "unobtrusive", "temperate" or "subtle" would be better fits?

Off-topic question: Where should I post replies to your messages on my talk page: here, or on your talk page? --Mirek2 12:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, no problem. I erroneously entered *"peróna" into Wiktionary, and it had to be deleted :), so everyone makes mistakes.

"unobstrusive" sounds most fitting, although I would be most comfortable after seeing a Czech sentence with its English translation such that both sound natural and use the translation pair "decentní"->"unobtrusive".

The prevailing custom in Wiktionary is to post responses below the post to which one is responding, so I would have expected you to reply on your talk page. But it is true that thus the poster often does not notice that he has an answer. To amend this, there is the template {{talkback}}, which you could have posted to my talk page. It has been used for instance here: User talk:Dan Polansky#Talkback: Nils von Barth.2C Merging in a revision history. --Dan Polansky 13:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. :)

You seem to be inserting some strage spaces before added related terms: in this revision of "společnice" I see a long space between the bullet and the term. Can you see the long space too? --Dan Polansky 18:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• For some reason, it seems that inserting a single space after an asterisk symbol creates uneven spacing with multiple list items for me. I have no idea why. Should I just not put a space after an asterisk when creating lists? --Mirek2 18:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Inserting a single space after an asterisk has always worked for me without any problems, and it is the preferred format in Wiktionary. I thought that maybe you were inserting some strange unicode character, like a hard space or something. But I don't know. I still see an odd space in the first two list items (but not the third list item) of the RT list in this revision of "společník" while everything is fine in this revision of "společník". The latter revision contains spaces after asterisk, and yet all looks okay. A mystery. --Dan Polansky 06:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • I finally figured out what it is. It seems like I sometimes accidentally pressed "alt gr" with the space bar, which produced a different kind of space. I'll be more careful now. :)

Hi, any chance you would add an inflection table for první, druhý and třetí?

They seem to be declined like adjectives. I have seen you have been setting up and adding declension tables for adjectives, so maybe you already have the needed skills and enthusiasm. --Dan Polansky 07:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Cool, thanks. --Dan Polansky 08:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

For some time, I have been avoiding adding gender tags to items listed in synonyms, antonyms, derived terms, related terms, etc. I present this option for your consideration, but there is no clear consensus in Wiktionary on this point, but neither is there anything like a controversy. Rationale: A gender tag added to a term listed in DT seems superflous, as it is already listed on the main page of the entry, and it does not seem to be a particulary important piece of information; it does not seem more important than part of speech (noun, adjective, verb, ...), which is not listed. An example: "nástupce" without gender. Latin entries, to pick another gender-equipped language in Wiktionary, usually do not list a gender tag in DT and RT.

My procedure has been to avoid adding new gender tags, while I do not go about removing existing gender tags. If there would be consensus among Czech editors, which is me, you, and Karelklic (talk • contribs), I would start removing the tags, after I would notify of this in Beer parlour. --Dan Polansky 07:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I understand your position, but, quite frankly, gender tags on nouns, unlike POS tags, (not Czech, but those of languages I am studying) have been very helpful to me. At a glance, they a) suggest a declension (e.g. "důchodce" being masculine suggests it's declined like "soudce"), b) suggest the meaning of the word (e.g. "Čech", listed under the derived terms of "Česko" as masculine, suggests that it means a male inhabitant of the Czech Republic), c) suggest the part of speech (as nouns can have various different suffixes, while adjectives usually end in -ý, verbs in -t, adverbs often in -ě). I'd agree to the removal of the tags of the terms that have their own Wiktionary page, but not of terms in red that don't. --Mirek2 10:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I see; interesting. Note, however, that redlinked terms are a temporary condition; ultimately, there will be no redlinked terms listed. To indicate gender on a specific location in the wiki as only a temporary measure seems unwise to me. The target page of the link will ultimately carry much more information than the gender could let the reader guess: not only the gender but also a full inflection table, which is much more useful as inflection information than mere gender.
  • Am I right that you are okay with me removing the gender from the terms that are bluelinked (without the hypothetical conditional "would")?--Dan Polansky 10:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • Definitely. --Mirek2 19:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)