User talk:Nadando/Archive 2

Archive
1 2 3

Hello,

I am not happy with what you've done with interrogative particles. These particles are unique in most cases or have no more than 4 and no need to split them by language. I created the category to show the similarity between languages that use these particles in contrast with languages without them. "See also" was used as such an example as there is no perfect equivalent in English. You could have asked after checking the entry history for courtesy. --Anatoli 06:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is no precedent for combining entries for multiple languages into 1 category. I believe that an Appendix: would be more appropriate for that kind of collection. Nadando 06:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

What about subcategories? Don't they belong to one large category like Category:Nouns_by_language? Anatoli 07:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip! And thank God for bots. ^_^ I hope it will finish traumatizar for me if I stop now. Ultimateria 03:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nadando. When you delete such terms as homodoxian, please make sure to create a link from the page to the appendix using: {{only in|{{in appendix|Words found only in dictionaries}}}}. Thanks. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, if I come across another I'll make sure I do that. Nadando 03:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Cool. :-) † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The accented characters are posing a problem because of text encoding; they get rewritten as question marks, which would corrupt the page. I'll look into that at some point. Equinox ◑ 01:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh! You're right. My bad! I have just corrected it. Thank you for advising me. --Jesielt (user talk) 21:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this edition, this is the first time I hear of "espada" being used instead "pez espada." The RAE dictionary does not have it as such. Where is it used like that? And is it used as masculine (v.g. *Pescaron un espada) or femenine (v.g. *Pescaron una espada)? Could you provide some reference, please? Regards. --Jehane & Louli 10:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I believe that you're right, and it is only used in "pez espada". Nadando 18:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, you made millares "milares". Ultimateria|discusión 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for correcting me. Nadando 22:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

...but the point was that you can redirect milares to millares and supress the redirect. Or at least create millares from millar and delete milares as a bad redirect. Ultimateria|discusión 23:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh right, I had forgotten that I created that. Nadando 23:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Assuming you are back in the country (?), you might want to check out Wikipedia:Meetup/Phoenix and its talk page, where discussion is starting to heat up again about possible meetings in December and January. I'd love to meet you in person. :-) Dominic·t 07:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll look at it, thanks. Nadando 07:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Sorry, I find this practice not productive if not damaging. DCDuring has this habit as well. Why do you need to tag translations with ttbc when the original translators may not be available any more? If you don't trust translations you have to discuss it with them, if you can reach them now. Anatoli 01:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The translations are still there, aren't they? I am making no assumptions about the trustworthiness of the translations. I always look through the history of the page to see if I can match any to one specific sense (see this edit to Hollywood). So I don't see how it makes any difference to move from a box with no label to a ttbc box. Nadando 01:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

It does make a lot of difference. If the English entries keep growing with new senses, I don't think it will require flagging all the existing translations in bulk with "to be checked". Otherwise, it's wasting other people's contributions. Führer is Führer, at least the original/one sense should stay populated. --Anatoli 01:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have brought this up in BP, not specifying this particular case but if you wish to argue, please continue there. I have been "checking" quite a few translations before and I think the flags are added lightly without consideration of what's involved. --Anatoli 01:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Although my definition was wrong, it does appear in dictionaries without the -se. I found it in a Cambridge dictionary. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'll create acartonar in a second. Nadando 20:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Nadando 20:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you please check the translations on the quotes for this idiom? I'm not sure if I got them right or not. Thanks! :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 17:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

It looks good to me. Nadando 17:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Great. L☺g☺maniac chat? 17:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

... and huevos estrellados please? L☺g☺maniac chat? 18:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I like using {{...}} to mark if I don't have a complete passage, but other than that it was OK. Nadando 19:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Did I create the page alright? Just want someone who knows Spanish a little better than me to double-check my work. Thanks, Razorflame 20:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's fine for a basic entry, although there's no need to specify fpl in most cases. Nadando 20:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks :). Cheers, Razorflame 20:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

1525 - very nice! I didn't realize that source was available on-line. --EncycloPetey 02:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I recently found out that I have access to the OED through my school, which is where I found it originally. Their citation coverage is inspiring. Nadando 02:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing the formatting in alloerotic. BTW, the Skelton quote mentioned above includes an interesting line: "Parrot is a goodly byrd, a prety popagey". "Popagey" would sound a lot like попугай, used in Russian in 1488 and (supposedly) from the Arab "babaghā". Which all amounts to a lot of indecision on the whole medieval bird naming scheme, or something. Cheers! ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not indecision, nor coincidence. English popinjay (= popagey) existed in English at least as early as 1310, and derives from a French word that comes from the same Greek and Arabic roots as the Russian word. The word parrot is a later adaptation into English and supplanted the earlier English popinjay. --EncycloPetey 06:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please include "From" at the start of etymology sections, since (1) it's part of our house style, and (2) omitting it can have unwanted implications of direct borrowing or equivalency. For example, a Latin etymology section that begins with "Late Latin;" implies that the word originated in a particular period, and does not imply a language of origin. --EncycloPetey 02:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll do that in the future. Nadando 02:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Me doy un chapuzón y te doy las gracias nadando. :) --81.38.36.121 00:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Gracias, y espero que decida quedarse. Nadando 00:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I know this term, but am not 100% certain what the "p" stands for, since my sources don't tell me. I have some guesses, but thought I'd ask your opinon. --EncycloPetey 01:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

This page suggests puñetero (damn), here they say pinchi, which I'm not sure of (maybe pinche). I can't find anything other than those 2 sources online- where did you encounter this abbreviation? Nadando 03:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Long ago. I no longer remember the original source from which I learned it, which may have been directly from a Mexican botanist. I have found it is a couple of on-line references, but not with a full breakdown of the acronym. --EncycloPetey 07:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nadando. I noticed that apart from myself, you also use (or have used) {{q}}. This presumably means that you think it’s worth keeping. As such, I just wanted to inform you of the discussion regarding its deletion at WT:RFDO#Template talk:q, with a view to avoiding having the work I’ve put into the template wasted. My apologies if you regard this as spam. Regards, † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 05:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I used it a few times, but I have no strong feelings about its being deleted. Nadando 06:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK; JW. :-) † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 06:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the advice and for fixing the entry. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫^WT:APR 06:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

It seems to be impossible to change the template, so I'd go with the second option. ;)
--Alif - le reformeur siamois 20:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the catch. I was just getting around to fixing that, after I fixed the Italian entry I made (which I did). You just beat me to it. Cheers, Razorflame 20:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

This...shouldn't it be uncountable? Razorflame 21:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Maybe. There are plenty of uses of the plural though, so it's at least attestable. Nadando 21:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

That link is good enough for me. Cheers, Razorflame 21:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

The fr translation at McCarthyism was marked with a (1), which was the pre-gloss method of identifying definitions. I tend to assume the numbers were right when they were added, so have un-check-trans-ed the French. Is that presumptive of me? Conrad.Irwin 03:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I didn't see the number- must be too tired. Nadando 03:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The list of "easy" ones is at the bottom of WT:TODO. Conrad.Irwin 12:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Nadando 18:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Seems wrong, what does "computing" have to do with "press conferences". Mglovesfun (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nothing... Nadando 21:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you speak Mandarin? If so, please update your babel box. If not, please refrain from adding Mandarin entries on Wiktionary. ---> Tooironic 07:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Or are you just cleaning up after 123abc? In which case, ignore that. :P ---> Tooironic 07:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was just fixing a template (that I created) to use a language code instead of name. Nadando 07:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good. I expanded my wishlist :)

• add a sc= parameter with {{Xyzy}}
• remove the big space generated after the template --Vahagn Petrosyan 09:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The second parameter now takes a script template. I didn't use Xyzy. I don't know what causes the extra space or how to fix it. Nadando 21:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --Vahagn Petrosyan 09:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching that - please can you delete all the pages here --Rising Sun talk? contributions 21:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey man, do you happen to know specifically which dialects of Spanish (or Spanish-speaking areas) that drop /s/ in some places? The only specific words I can think of are forms of "estar"... I was watching a film from Spain, Tres días, and I noticed when the main character said "donde estas" it sounded like . I don't know if it was the actor's native accent or if it was for the film, since a number of the characters did the same. And I don't remember where the story took place... Do you happen to know anything of this phenomenon? — opiaterein — 22:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't have any really detailed information, but I know that many Spanish-speaking regions do this. There is, however, a lot of variation even within a single country. Where I was in Nicaragua it was moderately prevalent, enough to be noticeable if you had learned Spanish in the US, but not completely aspirated. I think in the Dominican Republic it is even more pronounced- 'tu estás' becomes /tootas/. It's difficult to characterize when there are so many variations, which is part of the reason why there are so few pronunciation sections in our Spanish entries. And the s dropping is only 1 aspect- have you ever heard an Argentine or Uruguayan pronunciation? Nadando 03:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not as far as I'm aware... I've mostly heard Spanish from Madrid, Barcelona and parts of Northern Mexico. I'd like to add more region-specific pronunciations, but it's so daunting... the variations seem so unpredictable. — opiaterein — 13:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Argentine pronunciations are the most identifiable I've heard. I've overheard people talking (in English) and correctly guessed they were Argentines because of their accent. I also have a friend from Chile, but I don't know whether the peculiarities of his speech are personal or are characteristic of that nation. --EncycloPetey 15:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just so you know, I've started on this. No need to comment yet, in case you were thinking about it, because I already have a lot in my notes to add to the functionality that has not yet been incorporated. (e.g. secondary plural forms, nouns with more than one gender form, etc.) If all goes well, I may have this in a workable preliminary form by this weekend. Then comments on the template will be welcomed. --EncycloPetey 05:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for working on this. It will be good to have 1 template to use for all nouns eventually. When it's ready, are you planning on automating the replacement or going through the entries by hand? Nadando 05:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm hoping to someone automate the "easy" changes, such as calls to the existing templates that contain no parameters at all, and possibly those uses that contain only the parameter "pl=" (if that's easy to code for). Other cases will probably have to be done by hand, but those should be the minority, by far. --EncycloPetey 05:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dutch verbs are also nouns of neuter gender, used where English would use a gerund. Dutch grammar is different from the English one on that point. In fact many sport activities have "incomplete verbs" where the finite forms are missing. This one has developed finite forms too, so it can be used as a true verb, but that is not always the case, because it is a secondary development. Even the incomplete ones that are mostly used as "gerunds" are typically categorized as verbs in Dutch grammar Jcwf 14:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. When editing Spanish suffixes, maybe you should specify the parameter 2= of {{es-suffix}}, to ignore the hyphen and sort them alphabetically in Category:Spanish suffixes. --Daniel. 07:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Also avoid using accents, or they won't alphabetize correctly. I'm not sure what to do with a tilde, but it could be given as "n" for sorting. --EncycloPetey 20:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

zhiwuren is really a Mandarin word. Please see Wenlin Pinyin dictionary. 91.104.53.57 03:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how to find any information from that site. You didn't respond when I asked you what a 'vegetable person' was. Feel free to create it again though. Nadando 03:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that {{list:playing card suits/es}} contains the terms "pica, corazón, diamante, trébol", in this exact order. Shouldn't "corazón" be the first term, according to the alphabetical order? Or is it another standard collation used specifically for playing card suits in Spanish? --Daniel. 03:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, just me being lazy. Nadando 03:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've never heard alma used to refer to the blood-pumping organ. There's a missing sense for the Spanish corazón. --EncycloPetey 03:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Deletion debate, needs input from a good Spanish speaker. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please see articles such as on en.WP. And the governing guideline is . tony 04:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

In case you hadn't noticed, this isn't Wikipedia, and the manual of style has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. Provide an example of use with an en dash or you will be reverted. Nadando 04:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Now you need a lesson in civility. That is plain brash. Ask nicely and I will furnish you with all the evidence you need. It has been the subject of much discussion and resolution at en.WP, which in fact isn't on another planet, as you appear to wish it. tony 04:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think you’ve put the wrong Spanish conjugation for abolir. I realize that the Spanish Wiktionary has done it, too, but I suppose that editor just didn’t know what to do with a defective verb. abolir only has the 1st and 2nd person plural of the present indicative, and has no present subjective forms at all. The only imperative form is abolid. I am sure that we had this correct before the template was deleted. There simply is no "abuelo, abueles, abuele, abuelen" or "abuela, abuelas, abuelan" forms (and certainly no "abolo, etc."). —Stephen 06:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're right, I didn't remember that I was the one who changed abolir to a regular conjugation when I moved the template to {{es-conj-ir (aterir)}}. The defective template is still there, just under a different name though. Nadando 06:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I haven’t seen how that template will work. Have to be careful, because abolir is, strictly speaking, an o > ue verb, so that all of the missing forms would be abuel-. Be sure the aterir template works correctly for abolir. —Stephen 06:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just looked at it. It shows the unused forms greyed out. However, they are all incorrect, since all of those greyed-out forms should be abuel-, not abol-. —Stephen 06:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just recreated the template with the correct conjugation- how does that look? Nadando 07:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me. —Stephen 07:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nadando. I noticed you added ridibund to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms, so I went looking for citations. IMO, the 1931 and 1978 citations are perfectly fine; however, I'd like a second opinion on the 1863 citation of a German–English dictionary. What do you think? –Is that citation valid, meaning that this term has been tri-cited, or is it not, meaning that the word should remain in the appendix with a note that we've found only two of the three requisite supporting quotations?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's a dictionary, isn't it? So I'd say there are still only 2. Nadando 19:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's not quite that simple. The ban is on terms' being listed as headwords in a dictionary counting towards the attestation of those terms. Take ONF. as an example of text from a dictionary legitimately being used to cite a term. What I'm wondering is whether that text in that 1863 dictionary conveys enough meaning to validate that citation.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I see your point. In that case I guess there is enough for a full entry. Nadando 21:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done. Though I've given it a {{rare}} tag, given that it only just scraped through.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, it's me again. I hate to bug you so much, but I'm having some difficulties with the template you've created for me! (http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Template:nmn-noun) I have created one page !ùm that uses the template now, and I notice that while tone class does successfully link to the appropriate appendix, clicking on noun class only refreshes the current page. I also am not very sure how to create the two new categories to have popped up at the bottom of the page as a result of using the template (tone class II nouns and noun class 3 nouns). Can the poscatboiler template not be used? Also, is there any way to squeeze two diminituves and two diminutive plurals into the dim=*** and dim_pl=*** parts of the template? Adding for examples "x OR y" will automatically link to a non-existant page with that title rather than provide two links, one to "x" and one to "y". I apologise profusely with bombarding you with questions that probably should be common knowledge, but I do get confused quite easily! A million thank you's once again for creating this noun template for me!! Xoolanguage 22:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done. I've removed the categories, fixed the link, added optional pl2, dim2, and dim_pl2, and made all of the parameters optional as well. Nadando 22:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

If ever there was an argument for using ISO 639 codes in templates instead of full language names, this is it... Mglovesfun (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much Nadando! You've been an absolute godsend. :) Xoolanguage 12:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Nadando. I left this message for you in fr.wikt. You can ignore my request for help because, as you see, this IP is not blocked right now. Regards. --82.198.250.66 10:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Stephen G. Brown seems to have just fixed all or at least some of them. Regards. --82.198.250.66 12:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

An IP added a lot of verb forms to this. I didn't revert as it looks too plausible. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The RAE agrees with our conjugation. I'll search for some of the defective verb forms to see if they're in use. Nadando 19:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Bot flag added early - I can't see anybody objecting. SemperBlotto 16:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Watch out for things like this and this. --Bequw → τ 01:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's annoying. I guess I'll go through the pages I edited and make sure that the lang= parameter matches the section header. Nadando 02:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Instead of reverting NadandoBot, couldn't it do another run to fix its previous mistakes? AFAICT it's overapplied the rules and modified some text outside of {{form of}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not without reverting first. I noticed it early in the run when the bot had only got through A / B, so there aren't very many pages to be fixed (around 200, and I do have a list which I'm going though). Nadando 09:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete the Spanish section? ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 22:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I mistakenly moved it to ártico. Thank you for correcting me. Nadando 22:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is there a rule as to which Spanish proper nouns are capitalized? I know some aren't. ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 22:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Capitals are used for names of people, places, and written works such as books. Other than that I think you'd be safe using lower case. There are probably exceptions however. Nadando 20:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

muy bien, gracias! ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 00:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

After this current run, would you want to convert other form of templates to the {{term}} style? --Bequw → τ 03:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any specific suggestions? I was only planning on using the bot only where something was visibly broken, but I could modify every use of {{form of}} if you think it would be worth it. Nadando 03:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I'd say to convert a template at a time (to minimize the concurrent number of templates in transition) starting with the ones used directly in entries (e.g. {{plural of}}). If the community supports the widening of the scope, I think we could tackle all English and multi-lingual ones (foreign ones if asked for by editors). --Bequw → τ 17:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

When you work with translations, please don't remove the spaces (empty lines) between translations sections. They make the further editing so much easier, and do not produce any harm - or do they? --Hekaheka 14:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, just a habit. I will stop doing that. Nadando 18:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thx. --Hekaheka 19:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please see http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Talk:Latin#etymology_of_.22argentum.22. Do you have any source for your edit? --Espoo 22:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

My source would be the Online Etymology Dictionary (although I don't know what source I used 2 years ago). I see someone has already adjusted the etymology accordingly. Nadando 01:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be good with categories. Why doesn't Category:xcl:Parthian derivations show up in Category:xcl:Etymology? --Vahag 14:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think I can answer this question: Category:xcl:Parthian derivations does show up in Category:xcl:Etymology. (after I purged the Parthian category by editing it, changing nothing, then saving it) --Daniel. 14:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

As long as you're here, another question: today I had to manually create Template:topic cat parents/Parthian derivations. Are we supposed to do that for all language codes, manually? --Vahag 15:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes. It should be possible to create some sort of preload link if {{topic cat}} doesn't have a description / parents template. 19:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

According to how {{topic cat}} is currently coded, it is actually necessary to create two templates for every language, such as Template:topic cat parents/Old French derivations and Template:topic cat description/Old French derivations.

If no "parents" template exists, the automatic parent will be the "All topics" of the related language. If no "description" template exists, an automatic description is provided, but related to topics in general, not derivations.

I believe that it is not possible to create an automatic text just for derivations, because this result would rely on the page title (for example, testing: if the Category:Portuguese derivations contains a language name between "Category:" and " derivations", it is a derivations category), which is not easily readable from templates. --Daniel. 01:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I know it's a bit of a bore, but if you could remove entries listed on to do pages once you've fixed them, I'd very much appreciate it. Otherwise I end up trying to fix a problem, and wondering when I can't find it have I missed it or has someone else done it. As ever, your efforts are appreciated. Thanks, Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. I'll try to keep better track of what I've done. Nadando 18:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you have created Template:derived terms to contribute with WT:BP#Extending etymological autocategorisation, may I suggest moving it to more convenient name "Template:deriv"? --Daniel. 00:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sure. I never know what to name templates I create. Nadando 00:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! --Daniel. 00:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Take a look at {{derv}} for a similar approach, based on {{morph}}. DCDuring TALK 00:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have inserted a subhead under Doremitzr's for your specific approach, using the heading above. If you want, we could continue here, though I think it is better aired at BP. DCDuring TALK 17:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have prepared a first draft of a morpheme-presentation and -autocategorization template, {{morph}}. It is probably botched in its treatment of he|yi and lacks the categorization of the second morpheme, but its use is illustrated at referentiality. Like confix, from which this is derived, it is limited to three arguments. A variant (or a called subtemplate?), capable of handling more morphemes, at least six for normal English, more for Joycean terms, would be desirable.

Please tell me what you think and fix what needs fixing. DCDuring TALK 15:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

This seems like a great solution to the synchronic / diachronic issue. What is the purpose Category:English words with base referential? Is it something you'd like {{suffix}} to generate?

Do you think that pages like -ity should have headers such as "Morpheme", to distinguish between formations directly from suffixes? Nadando 18:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

1. I think I've explained as best I can at WT:BP about the first question.
2. I'm not entirely sure about {{suffix}}, because of its inflexibility in terms of presentation where the base itself has more that one morpheme.
3. I'm having second thoughts about the desirability or, at least, the importance of having morpheme categories. The morphological analysis that shows and categorizes the "base" terms seems highly valuable, as do the derivational categories for affixes. The "related terms" display for affixes seems a bit silly.

A question about {{prefixsee}} and its siblings: Can it be made to display in multiple columns? The more columns, the more derived terms appear on the page. The more derived terms on the page, the easier it is to compare hard-coded derived terms with the derived terms generated by the category. The easier the comparison, the faster the conversion of an entry from hard-coding to category-based. In addition, a multicolumn display is just more economical of user screen space.

I don't know of anything other that some dump-processing program that can compare the two lists and generate a list of the items on the hard-code list and not on the category-based list, preferably split by red and blue links.

BTW, I am extremely grateful that {{prefix}} and {{suffix}} operate with the base parameter omitted. It allows the prototype stage to proceed more smoothly. It also might allow any rollout to focus on replacing {{prefix}} and {{suffix}} only where there are two or more morphemes in the base. Working on the others one at a time would allow for the gradual creation of many of the derivational categories and enable a relatively rapid completion of the process once {{prefix}} and {{suffix}} are cut-over to versions that use the new categories. DCDuring TALK 22:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wow, the new categories you are creating are very comprehensive. Unfortunately I think the only way to customize #categorytree (ideally making it identical to {{top3}}, etc.) is to get a developer to customize it for us- the code isn't accessible for editing. Nadando 05:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am gradually expanding coverage, but am doing so in search of issues. I am trying to implement "densely", but the desired density of coverage is not obvious. Do we really want complete lists of related terms? I have already "decided" against such for affixes and commented out autocategorization by {{morph}}, which now doesn't do anything that {{term}} doesn't do. It might be best to avoid autocategorization for common morphemes when they are involved in direct derivation. For now, that means clitics and affixes. I will even omit common words from the "closed" grammaticized PoSes: conjunctions, prepositions, forms of "be", etc., even in "direct derivation" of open compounds.

I am not yet hopelessly committed to the idea as a whole, let alone the implementation. Also, we would have a problem with words with multiple etymologies. We need stable etymologies and section links to make that word acceptably. I appreciate your reactions to any of the decisions I have made on this prototype implementation. I will probably put some summary up on WT:BP. I will probably start putting these long posts on a user subpage and provide the parties I hope are interested or whose help I need (!) with a link thereto.

And thanks for your responses. DCDuring TALK 13:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have modified {{derv}} to produce even finer categories: pos and etymology heading number. There are cases where this will be useful, IMHO.

Could you take a look at the template?

I have not rigorously tested it and am not experienced enough with templates to know desirable practices. I have not yet modified {,"framed":false,"label":"Reply","flags":,"classes":}'>Reply

• re: {{dervcat}}. Thanks a lot. DCDuring TALK 00:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Also, most of the population is from misuses of {{compound}}, {{suffix}} or {{prefix}}; from entries with no Etymology section; and from Etymology sections with no templates. When I get a cluster of things or can split Derived term between parts of speech, I get aggressive and try to find all the potential members, no matter how good their previous templature may be.

  I've been wondering which of {{compound}}, {{confix}}, {{prefix}}, or {{suffix}} it would make sense to convert. I don't want to do it for all languages. I would like to do it either English or some language where it would fill a need/be feasible for the current set of (willing) contributors. Any thoughts about how? I can keep on doing this manual stuff indefinitely, but it is not very fast. The approach of first filling in the neglected areas should give me a chance to show what it might look like when done. But it would be still better to have some large-scale automation of category creation and consent to implement language-wide template changes. DCDuring TALK 00:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any thoughts on this? There have been scattered talk that these compounds shouldn't be entered directly (though I think its OK), so maybe we should unlink the compounds or make them black-links? If we don't link at all, I think there should be someway for a search for compounds to find the main verb page. Maybe we should subst the compounds in somehow. --Bequw → τ 01:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't have a problem with them existing as entries, but I definitely don't think they should be created indiscriminately- so yes, black links instead of red. I've only added them when they've been attested in some way- mainly through User:Robert Ullmann/Español. I wouldn't be comfortable using a bot to add them. Adding the template to verb entries would make them show up in search, right? Nadando 20:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not unless the user subst'ed the template into the verb entry. The search engine just searches pre-expanded wikitext, so it just sees stuff like {{{stem|{{{1}}}}}}me. But subst'ing would bloat the wikitext a lot. --Bequw → τ 21:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

In working on mast- I realized that {{prefix}} and its siblings really do suffer from not being able to discriminate by the Etymology (or sense?) of the prefix involved. Suffix -er is a major example among suffixes. Coupled with the failure to allow for discrimination between "synchronic"/morphological derivation and "diachronic"/historical derivation and the lack of categorization of the bases, I wonder what the best way to salvage it is, long term, for English. Short term it is useful, even for English. Long term there may me many languages that need nothing more, at least for starters. Thoughts? DCDuring TALK 20:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Have you considered using glosses for {{derv}} and the rest? The gloss would go in the category title, for example, Category:English words prefixed with -er (person or thing that does). I can't think of any other solution without stable sense IDs that we don't have. Nadando 20:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You added templates to holocube, but now some quotations show up with a comma after the year and others don't. Any way to fix this?

Also, the etymology now says “holo- +‎ + cube.” —Michael Z. 2010-10-14 15:46 z

It displayed correctly when I edited the page. There must have been some change to {{prefix}} or a subtemplate it uses since then. I've reverted for now. Nadando 18:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you include more of the citation for context? I can't access the quote at all via the link. I suspect this may be referring to a millstone or something similar that is operated by means of a horse, but I can't tell from the limited context. --EncycloPetey 03:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sure, there's an image too. Let me see what I can get. Nadando 03:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

THE MULLER.

This is a tool much used in Rhode Island, which I have never seen elsewhere, but which is worthy of general adoption. Its local name is the muller.. Its construction is very simple, (as

Fig. 65.—The Muller.

shown in Fig. 65,) and it is made at the wagon shops throughout the State. Its teeth are about six inches long, and the front and back teeth alternate along the bar, so that every inch of the ground is pulverized. By bearing on the front or back row of teeth, (by lifting or bearing down on the handles,) slight inequalities in the surface may be made smooth.

The muller is drawn by a single horse, the traces being attached near the ends of the bar. It is more properly a harrow than a cultivator, as it is too wide to be used between rows, although a shorter tool of the same construction, with a steering rest behind, would answer very well for this purpose.

Whatever kind of horse-hoe or cultivator we may use, they will usually be found profitable, in proportion, to the frequency and the depth of their use ;—the only qualification of this statement being, that their vigorous use should cease after the side roots of the crop have spread so as to occupy all or nearly all of the ground between the rows.

Hi Nadando, you requested this Hungarian word "vegyévissza". Where did you find it? This is incorrect spelling, you may hear this in dialectal conversations, but normally it would be "vegyél vissza", the base verb would be visszavesz (vissza + vesz = take back something). --Panda10 21:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

It was from a conversation I heard online. Thanks for looking into it. Nadando 21:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, please remove the block. A bot need to make some edits (about 50) to proove that it runs successfuly. Thanks by advance -- Quentinv57 ✍ 19:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Fine. It's always better to announce test edits first, however. Nadando 19:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comprehension. I've tell the bot owner to edit slower. Have a good evening. -- Quentinv57 ✍ 19:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could you please remove the block #67784 too please ? You surely forgot to disable autoblock of IPs (you should never autoblock IPs when blocking a bot for disfunctionment, as owner can't contact you and tools such as Wiktionary:Random page won't work if the bot is located as Toolserver). -- Quentinv57 ✍ 20:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was just about to RfV that "adjective" sense, which is so obviously a mere attribute use, but are you allowed to just remove senses like that without going through the proper channels? ---> Tooironic 06:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've always thought it better to be bold than to start yet another verification / cleanup thread. So yes, if something is especially obvious to me I'll remove / change it without discussion. I wouldn't mind if you restored / RFVed it, if you want. Nadando 06:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Cheers for deleting the vandalism... I thought I was going to be immortalized forever on Wiktionary as a paedophile! Keep up the good work, man. —Jakeybean^TALK 03:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Did you contact a steward or someone higher up about it? The username of the person who created the page has been completely purged from the site- I can't block them or even tell who they are. Nadando 03:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nope, the only other person I contacted was Nbarth, but I just deleted it from his Talk page cause I saw you'd already deleted the entries. And I assume Nbarth didn't have chance to read what I said because he never responded. That's rather odd. —Jakeybean^TALK 03:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

There has been a lot of activity on proto-languages lately, so it would be very useful if the index were up to date. Is there any chance you could update it any time soon? It would be greatly appreciated! —CodeCat 22:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Give me a few days. I lost the code when my old computer died so I'll have to rewrite it. Nadando 07:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for getting it done so quickly, it's really nice to see a lot more blue links in there now! —CodeCat 10:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

How often are you able to update the indexes? I've been fixing incorrect etymologies but it's hard to keep track of what still needs to be done if the indexes aren't up to date. Is it possible to update at least the Germanic index, say, once a week? —CodeCat 01:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

It all depends on how quickly the dumps are released. The last two were released about a week apart, but before that it had been months since there was a dump. I will try and stay on top of it though. Nadando 01:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Would it be possible to adjust the bot so that it generates its pages at Index:Proto-Germanic rather than Index:Proto languages/Germanic? I believe that is the proper location for it. —CodeCat 19:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'd prefer Index:Proto languages/Proto-Germanic so I can see everything using {{subpages}}. Is that acceptable? Nadando 19:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

{{langcatboiler}} used on the language category pages links to the page I described. That can't be changed without messing with the template.

Also another thing. I noticed that the bot seems to group different forms together with 'see' listed at the bottom of the page. That makes it rather difficult to see what pages link to which variety. For example, under the listing on Index:Proto-Germanic/i, at the bottom there is a link to 'ika' and a reference to Index:Proto-Germanic/e#ek. But there are lots of references to that term, and there is no way to tell which of those contains the reference to 'ika' specifically. So I would prefer it if this grouping weren't done at all. —CodeCat 19:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh, a new dump has just just released I think. —CodeCat 18:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I've moved all of the index pages to the new titles. It should also now only use see for redirects. Nadando 23:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and there's a bug with some definitions that I found after I started uploading, I'll fix that for the next dump. Nadando 23:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for updating, it's really helpful! But I found another bug I think. Some etymology sections use a nonstandard notation for words, and I've been correcting them. One of those was changing v to w. But this page was never updated (not even moved to the new location), it should really be blanked or deleted entirely. It also seems that the index at the top of each page still links to the old names. —CodeCat 11:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

And judging from the {{proto index header/extended}} template, it seems the original bot was supposed to add a date= parameter as well? —CodeCat 12:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I moved the pages using the bot, so any pages that were blank in the new dump got skipped. I should probably write something to detect when a page is emptied between dumps and mark it for deletion... Nadando 20:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just letting you know a new dump has been released. —CodeCat 20:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Could you run your bot sometime soon, please? The indexes are over a month old now and they don't really match the facts anymore... Thank you! —CodeCat 10:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for running you bot again! It creates really useful pages. When looking for translation code errors, it will of course find some syntactical ones too: diff These template fragments might ruin the tables. Maybe it's necessary to put a pair of nowiki-tags around the text before you write it into a table cell. Happy hacking :-) --MaEr 19:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Experienced Spanish speakers wanted. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hiya! I made a proposal a while ago about the template {{proto}} and I thought you might want to see it, because it affects your proto-index bot. If you could take a look and adjust your bot so that it understands language codes as well that would be nice. :) —CodeCat 15:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I saw it. Shouldn't be a problem. Nadando 23:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Does this verb allow first and second person forms? Can you say "I snow", "you snow" (etc.)? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

No- it's an impersonal verb. So the conjugation table is probably somewhat misleading. Nadando 04:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Someone nominated some of the conjugated forms for speedy deletion, that's why I ask. The conjugation table at neiger#French might help as a guideline. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Could you, as soon as you have time, refresh Wiktionary:Todo/stray template calls. I've been using Special:WantedTemplates, but that includes all namespaces, such as user pages and talk pages, so finding the key NS:0 ones is much harder that way. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm kind of busy at the moment, but I'll see what I can do over the weekend. Nadando 21:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I made a suggestion at WT:GP#Orphaned appendix pages to ask if there is a way to see which entries link to each entry. Would it be possible to extend your bot so that it also lists appendix pages that are not linked to from etymology sections? In other words, if an appendix entry exists, it should be listed even if no entry lists it in its etymology. It would be very helpful! —CodeCat 12:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll see what I can do. Nadando 15:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

That was easier than I had expected. Do you mind that I removed the call to {{proto}} from the table template? It was very slow and now that the Appendix: links are there anyway it doesn't seem necessary. Nadando 01:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's harder to find out which pages exist and which don't, now. I would prefer it if the word was still linked. And if it is, then it shouldn't be necessary to add the appendix page to the list of links. However, appendixes can still link to each other... —CodeCat 10:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

You voted on this topic before, so I thought maybe you would like to give your input on this vote again. —CodeCat 19:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hiya, if you want to add codes for proto-languages, you will need to add them to {{langprefix}} as well, otherwise they won't work. —CodeCat 20:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I was wondering about that. Nadando 20:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you add the proto-languages to the 'enclosing' family instead of to the family it is the proto-language of. This doesn't really make sense to me... Proto-Germanic is the oldest Germanic language, because it has all the defining characteristics of a Germanic language by definition. And it would be the same for all other proto-languages. So, I think it would be best to put proto-languages into the same family as their descendants. —CodeCat 22:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh and there is another thing. When you create new language templates, could you add sub-templates for them in {{langrev}} as well? Thank you! —CodeCat 22:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply