User talk:Mzajac/2008

Most English words have only one primary stress. --EncycloPetey 01:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please keep in mind that we are not an encyclopedia. --Connel MacKenzie 19:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I second that, see my cleanup of Little Russia, if people want detailed information about the thing to which a word refers, they can go to Wikipedia. If they want details about the word itself they come here. Conrad.Irwin 21:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oops, I cross-replied at User talk:Conrad.Irwin#Little Russia. See also User talk:Connel MacKenzie#WWIN, and let's move further discussion to talk:Little Russia. —Mzajac 21:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would that be almost Etymological information, or is that the definition of the word? Feel free to change the entry to reflect the information that you feel is important, however the definitions shouldn't be too much longer - certainly if they are taking up more than a line and a bit they contain too much information. I feel that Wiktionary should almost never have specific dates, regions or other boundaries in its entries, as a dictionary we just don't have the facility to give that information about every country/region on earth, not to mention everything else that only existed for a set time in a set place. That is what Wikipedia is for, and it would be foolish to try and replicate their articles in our definitions. This is more general than just Little Russia, so I will post it here - though feel free to cross-post to the talk page too. Conrad.Irwin 22:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just a note, be sure to list such removals on WT:RFV to give folks a chance to look around for citations. More than once I have found a definition I thought was bogus only to be informed that it was widely used somewhere I had never been :) Thanks! - DaveRoss 20:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I did not know that; will do so right away. Thanks. —Mzajac 20:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding the Ukrainian translations to Canadian. However, putting all the inflections there does look a bit messy (imagine if every language did that). Usually what we do is define a form (for adjectives usually the masculine singular, but it depends on the language) as the lemma, or main entry, and put all important information at that form (including a full inflection table). For example, the entry λύω (lúō) is the lemma page and has the definition, etymology, full inflection, etc; it is found as the translation for loosen. Additionally, entries like λύεις and λυέτω are inflected form entries which simply say which form they are and direct the user back to the main page. If you pull open the inflection tables, you'll quickly see why we wouldn't want to put them all at loosen. :) I suggest that you do something similar. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

That makes more sense. I've done this on a few pages, and I'll try to clean it up. Thanks. —Mzajac 06:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks. You may want to get in touch with User:Stephen G. Brown, as he's working on Russian and will probably have some useful ideas for Ukrainian. You may also want to take a look at Wiktionary:About Russian, which gives the policies for that language. While there will probably be some differences between the way the two languages get done, I imagine many things will be similar. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also - for languages with grammatical genders, such as Ukrainian - common lemma form for adjectives is masculine and that one should be listed, without the gender indication; see Wiktionary:Languages with more than one grammatical gender for more info. Cheers! --Ivan Štambuk 08:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oops, I had to be told twice. It just feels incomplete to list only the masculine, when I am not yet prepared to take the time to create the main entry plus the supplementary entries for the other genders and numbers. —Michael Z. 15:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, you were right; that document is not policy and should be considered somewhat obsolete in parts. We have the one-letter gender templates precisely because we use them in translation tables. Lots of entries give both the m and f forms. Of course we don't want to list all the inflections, but sometimes 2 and (more rarely) more gender/numbers are very useful. (and note that even that document shows the example with a gender marker.) 4 (m/f, sg/pl) was probably overkill ;-) Robert Ullmann 16:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have no problem with it not being policy. Even if it is not, it is the closest we have to it and consistency is good.

The translation links should be systematic: linking to just the lemma is not comprehensive, but it does make sense that more detailed information will appear in the entry. It just seemed easy to add the other genders/numbers in place to me, but would have been significantly more work to format one or more entries. I was also reluctant to include partial information when some other entries on the page had more.

The more I think about it, the more it seems that including any additional forms will bloat the translation section and leave it with a bunch of inconsistent entries. In many cases a particular language will already have more than one translation for a word, anyway.

In either case, I think the translation sections could be quite a bit neater if the {{t}} template format were cleaned up, bet there doesn't seem to be any active support for the idea.

Thanks for your patience. —Michael Z. 03:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

- the purpose of {{see}} is to introduce at the top of each page (i.e., in a language-agnostic part) minor spelling variants, not to replace ====See also==== or ====Related terms==== sections. That should have been handled at the software level, but up until it does, we have to take care of it manually. --Ivan Štambuk 10:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also, per WT:ELE ===Alternative spellings=== section is intended for support of spelling variants such as Brittish/American/Canadian... and also {{alternative spelling of}} for use in the definition lines. Creating redirect such as grey jay is not really preferable, because it favors one spelling over another, and that might initiate some very unproductive discussions over which spelling is "the best" (like for color vs. colour - see the talk pages) --Ivan Štambuk 10:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

But I don't see how using {{alternative spelling of}} avoids these discussions. It still points the reader to a "primary entry", as the template notes state. —Michael Z. 16:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't, but at least it adds English-language section, so if the redirect name means something in some other language, entry could easily be expanded without "losing" information. Redirects are generally done only in extreme cases (not like 'pedia!), but lots of folks here would find it very problematic if it were a common practice redirecting non-US (Canadian/UK/Australian) spelling to those of American English, such as with gray/grey. Cheers! --Ivan Štambuk 17:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi :) Just a few more little but important things to keep in mind before you end up approved on WT:WL:

• Wiktionary is case sensitive so Fierce and fierce could well be entries in two different languages.
• ==Related terms== section is reserved for related terms in the same language as the {PAGENAME}, so if you want to list cognates/borrowings in other Slavic languages you could add them in =Etymology= section.
• All languages are written in their native script (except when there's none), so you might want to use {{rfscript}} for Persian and Arabic, and someone knowledgeable will hopefully come and check spelling, or provide proper spelling when transliteration is only available.

Beside that, everything is perfect :)

BTW, I recently updated from uk.wikt Index:Ukrainian with tens of thousands of entries, so you might wanna check those. Also, if you're interested, you might help adding Ukrainian cognates into Proto-Slavic lists inside Category:Proto-Slavic language, and add Ukrainian entries with etymologies based on those (using {{proto}}). Cheers! --Ivan Štambuk 12:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Lots to remember, but it is impressive how structured the Wiktionary entries become (compared to Wikipedia articles).

But woah, woah, I don't know about this white-list thing.... If I get approved, then how will I get someone to follow me around and clean up all my edits? Regards. —Michael Z. 18:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, IMHO almost all of your edits so far are conformant with WT:ELE and of very high quality. It takes some time for all of newcomers to adapt to the normal usage of some dozen of usual templates, but once that step is finished, adding new content becomes simply a matter of automation (i.e. you focus on the content, not the format of content). The most important thing is the format itself - and you're doing it just fine. There is also Ullmann's AF bot that checks recently edited articles in the background and tags them with messages like "missing language tag" or "invalid part of speech header" etc. - kinds of silly mistakes people often do, so watch out for AF's changes on the entries on watchlist.

One more thing; as you probably noticed in my edit, all of those etymology templates take a parameter for FL etymologies: ISO-639 code of the destination language, so Persian derivations in Ukrainian would be {{Pers.|uk}}. {{etyl}} is genericized version of those: it takes 2 parameters: the source and dest. language, so using it it would be {{etyl|fa|uk}} because {{lang:fa}} = Persian (Farsi, 𐎱𐎠𐎼𐎿 (Pārsi) in Old Persian, reborrowed from Arabic where there is no "p" :). Cheers! --Ivan Štambuk 19:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you care to inspect {{t new}} and friends you'll probably realize why I wasn't bothering with the stray space by itself ;-) Anyway, you will be able to get any of the link forms that you suggested. Robert Ullmann 14:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, I have rolled back your edit toCategory:uk:Bulgarian derivations where you reverted my last contribution. The templates {{dercatnav}}, {{dercatboiler}}, {{etymcatboiler}} were a temporary work around that I created until the {{nav}} template could be revised to handle the Etymology categories correctly.The new template {{topic cat}} is set to replace {{nav}} at some point but there are some gubbins that need to added to the sub pages of {{topic cat}} for it to handle the categorisation and explanatory text of each Etymology category.

I am busy doing this and hope to be finished in a couple of weeks (there are a lot of categories to fix/migrate/update). for the time being feel free to use {{dercatnav}} and {{dercatboiler}} until I manage to get to all the derivations categories.

BTW {{etymcatboiler}} is now completely deprecated.

Since you brought this up I will create an entry for these templates at WT:RFDO this week to make sure all discussion around this move is in the open. Regards, --Williamsayers79 17:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that. I just noticed that the Bulgarian cat showed up in *Topics, while no others did. I changed it following some examples.

I'll make sure I'm more familiar with the category templates before I go messing about there too much. Thanks. —Michael Z. 17:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hm. This was not appreciated. I don't think it's helpful to arbitrarily remove references, or demand that another editor duplicate Oxford's research.

Here's part of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary's definition of skid mark, for your review: "2 slang something resembling such a mark, esp. a stain left on underwear by feces."

Now please restore the citation and the sense you removed, or I'll do so. —Michael Z. 00:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Let me first say I do not mean at all to be uncivil. Let's pursue the answers knowing that neither of us means no ill. As far as that sense goes, you have just shown me exactly what I had thought -- that it was Canadian Oxford's attempt to soften the blow of that particular reference, or arbitrarily enlarge or generalize the definition to be more inclusive. However, I don't think there's any evidence for the use of "skid mark" to refer to a general stain that wasn't caused by a skid. Any skid marks on the walls, on clothing, skin, are called such because they are caused by skidding. The separate reference to poop is a direct and specific euphemism to tire tracks. Additionally, you have parsed and separated one sense from Can.Oxford into two senses. It's really them trying to fully explain and make sense out of the poop euphemism. All we are really talking about for the sense you want is someone using "skid mark" to refer to a stain not caused by something sliding across something else. Hence the request for a cite -- It wasn't meant to be uncivil; I just don't believe "skid mark" refers to a non-skidding stain except the poop euphemism. -- Thisis0 18:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I had thought your edit summary implied that I was being dishonest, so I'm glad to hear that you didn't intend any offence.

Your interpretation of the story behind the Canadian Oxford's definition may be correct, or it may not. All we have to go on is what it says in the dictionary. I believe that they place a lot of emphasis on researching usage, then boil it down to a very terse definition, so lacking additional evidence we should take them at their word. And regardless of how we choose to interpret it, I don't believe that paper references are considered to be problematic around here, so the entry's only reference should be restored. —Michael Z. 2008-04-16 21:05 Z

I'll point out again that you separated one of their senses into two. A sense they wholly tagged as slang. The first part of their definition was an attempt to define, or put into general terms, the observed slang sense of "poop stain". They were approaching it from the front end, attempting to describe the sense, while you are looking at their definition from the back end, assuming they must have observed citations for something other than poop. It's one sense for them, don't try and make it two. On the other hand, if you can possibly find a couple examples where people refer to a not-cause-by-a-skid stain as a "skid mark", then obviously we can cite that. As for now, I believe all bases are covered by the three senses present at skid mark and skidmark: 1) Tires. 2) All-inclusive marks caused by skidding and sliding. 3) the well-traveled poop stain euphemism. -- Thisis0 00:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I first tried to enter it as one sense, following the basic definition. When this was reverted, I added the general definition as I remembered from the dictionary. If you're happy with the entry as it is now, I'll leave it, but please don't remove the reference again. —Michael Z. 2008-04-17 02:52 Z

What you did the first time was remove the euphemistic sense in favor of a more (in my eyes unsupported) general sense. This is actually confusing to me now in light of the definition you were referencing, which directly refers to the underpants sense you claimed was "not a particular sense of the word". -- Thisis0 03:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're right. I was wrong. but please let's leave the reference in. —Michael Z. 2008-04-17 04:52 Z

hey man, i promise i'm not trying to belabor the issue, but i'm curious why you want that templated unlinked reference to stay? At this point, there's no special case why this reference is any more relevant here than in any and every other entry? -- Thisis0 05:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

It seems to be the one and only reference we have for this usage. Citing sources is the basis for wiki. —Michael Z. 2008-04-17 11:04 Z

Well, Wikipedia is a tertiary source; it cites secondary sources. Wiktionary does that too, to a certain extent, especially in etymology sections and usage notes. But unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary is also a secondary source, inferring definitions directly from quotations; that's what Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion is all about. —Ruakh_TALK 23:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just so you know, when using {{etyl}} to introduce a cognate or other form for comparison, you have to insert a dash into the second parameter, otherwise the word comes up as a descendant of that language when it's not. For example, take a look at the changes I've made to Kyiv. Also, just to let you know I have not forgotten about your request for a dialect friendly version of etyl. Rest assured that I am thinking about that. It's finals week for me, so it probably won't happen 'til next week, but I am working on it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oops, thanks. I usually just type the name sans template, but sometimes forget. Dash is better. —Michael Z. 2008-05-15 05:15 z

Your changes to diaeresis made the definition wrong; the diaeresis is not used to indicate a separate syllable in Spanish (deprecated template usage) vergüenza, nor in French (deprecated template usage) ambiguë. This is especially a problem since Spanish (deprecated template usage) vergüenza is one of the examples we give. —Ruakh_TALK 23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Forming a separate syllable implies both that the letter doesn't form a diphthong, and that the letter is sounded, not silent. I couldn't find any pronunciation transcribed to confirm that this is what happens with the Spanish and French terms, but the older definition didn't contradict that either. (I had initially written "indicating that it is sounded separately from another", but then found the unusual example of Brontë.)

Can you better explain what the diaeresis does in these examples? Do the vowel combinations become diphthongs in vergüenza and ambiguë/ambigüe, or form two syllables? —Michael Z. 2008-05-15 23:23 z

In both examples, the diaeresis indicates that the <u> is not silent; in the Spanish one it's a /w/, or maybe a /^w/ (labialization of the /g/), and in the French it's an /y/. With French (deprecated template usage) ambigüe the current definition is misleading but not inaccurate; but in French (deprecated template usage) ambiguë the <e> is silent, and in Spanish (deprecated template usage) vergüenza the <u> is part of a diphthong or part of a consonant, I'm not sure which. (It might depend on the analysis.) —Ruakh_TALK 23:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll move this for more eyes and reply back at WT:TR#diaeresis. —Michael Z. 2008-05-15 23:52 z

See this edit: the wikipedia pybot code moves categories to the end if you do any category operation; this is not correct for the wikt; we put cats in language sections. category.py (or whatever) must be run with the -inplace option to prevent this. Robert Ullmann 15:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that. I'll be more careful in the future (and don't have any more plans to run robots anyway). —Michael Z. 2008-05-20 05:40 z

Hi Michael,

Would you accept a nomination for adminship?

—Ruakh_TALK 23:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cool. :-)   To accept your nomination, go to Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2008-08/User:Mzajac_for_admin?action=edit&section=1 and fill out the commented-out part after "Acceptance:". —Ruakh_TALK 01:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Couldn't help notice your use of this word (that we haven't got a definition for yet). I was wondering - are there any Greek restaurants in Russia and, if so, what do the menus look like? Does Russian wiktionary include cyrillizations? SemperBlotto 16:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply