User talk:Nemo bis

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! --Ivan Štambuk 11:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Anything using {{context}} automatically ends up in context templates, so it's usually going to be the other one (without context) that's a duplicate. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wikiquote is not a source used for our quotations. That's not what we mean by "quotations" here. Most quotations we use are not notable enough to ever be included in Wikiquote. See Citations:parrot for examples of what Wiktionary wants in terms of supporting information. --EncycloPetey 22:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please stop creating test pages. If you must create them by all means then use your own subspace User:Nemo/.... -- Gauss (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sister is not an adjective. You can't say "those cities are sister". Besides, the page you linked to shows the part of speech as a noun, but mentions that the sense in question is used as an adjective, which is just another way of saying that it's used attributively as if it were an adjective. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I created a discussion suggesting moving Wiktionary:Requested entries (English)/Wordlist to your userspace: User:Nemo bis/Wordlist. Would that be ok with you?

Main reason: That's how most other pages listed at WT:Redlink dumps, see the discussion for details. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The list (and others like it) is potentially useful, but some factors reduce its value:

1. As is it is too big to be edited readily. Perhaps inserting section headers corresponding to the alphabet would help.
2. It includes terms that we would class as Translingual, such as taxonomic names. Some of such names can be identified by suffixes like -ida, -ini, -inae, -idae, -aceae, -oidea with varying degrees of reliability, but many others, especially genus names, cannot.
3. It includes many toponyms for which an FL entry and links to FL project articles or entries would be better than an English entry.

Other than item 1 and, possibly, extracting the taxonomic names distinguished by their suffixes, I don't see how the list can be improved without significant manual effort. One kind of template that I have found useful for working on such lists is exemplified by {{REEHelp}}, which however cannot by inserted for every term without serious performance degradation.

Do you have any thoughts about such attempts to improve the usability of such lists, especially approaches other than those mentioned? DCDuring TALK 15:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) I agree this list is quite disappointing. I did not inspect the methods used to generate such wordlists. Originally I put all terms together but then split out proper names etc. because they seemed questionable.

1. Headers are certainly helpful, I just didn't have time that day. Maybe even split to subpages, once the list is more stable.
2. I don't see an easy solution. Perhaps take a subset of the wordlist.sf.net lists, hoping all said terms are in the lower frequency classes.
3. Perhaps we could filter out most toponyms by removing all terms which already have an English Wikipedia article?

I must admit I didn't know about Wiktionary:Frequency lists. I can do filtering (2) and (3) if there is interest, while for the rest I'd let English Wiktionary experts decide and act. Nemo 15:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Illustration of (consecutive!) taxonomic names in the list

• Zygadenus^{WP WSp Commons}
• Zygnema^{WP WSp Commons}
• Zygnemaceae^{WP WSp Commons} *
• Zygnemales^{WP WSp Commons} *
• Zygnemataceae^{WP WSp Commons} *
• Zygobranchiata^{WP WSp Commons} ?
• Zygocactus^{WP WSp Commons}
• Zygodactylae^{WP WSp Commons}
• Zygomycetes^{WP WSp Commons} *
• Zygophyceae^{WP WSp Commons} *
• Zygophyllum^{WP WSp Commons} ?
• Zygopteraceae^{WP WSp Commons} *
• Zygopterides^{WP WSp Commons} ?
• Zygopteris^{WP WSp Commons} ?
• Zygosaccharomyces^{WP WSp Commons} *

Note

• on right indicates items fairly reliably identified by suffix; ? indicates items less reliably identified by terminal strings (suffix or other) DCDuring TALK 15:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've inserted alphabetical headers to aid in studying the list, but off-wiki processing is probably essential.

What is the source of the list? How was the list constructed? IF the list reflects frequency usage in English-language texts, it could be useful.

I would like to extract (and subtract) from it the taxonomic names, for which we would eventually add entries not under the English L2 header but under the Translingual L2 header. Wikispecies could provide a useful list to be a tool in such extraction. The vast majority of names in Wikispecies principal namespace are either taxonomic names or taxonomist author names (or abbreviations of such author names). Items on the (misnamed) English proper names list that are also on a list of taxonomic names extracted from Wikispecies should be on a separate Wiktionary list of Translingual taxonomic proper names. The author and abbreviations entries would make a useful separate list.

Further, many of the items on this list are not proper names of any kind. Some, eg Quakerize/Quakerise, are verbs, some are adjectives, eg, many of those ending in ic or ish, some would be classified as common nouns. None of these, nor toponyms, should be discarded. They should be in lists with names that correctly characterize them, with an explanation of how the list was produced. DCDuring TALK 14:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

ipso_facto means a fact in it's own right, regardless of causality. Regarding edit: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=ipso_facto&oldid=35465831 Gdbf137 (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sure, causality is not the only or main point; I've clarified the parenthesis. My addition was sourced, I don't understand what source justifies your removal. Please mention your sources if you believe the current version isn't right. Nemo 10:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Could you add {{Babel}} to your user page? I'd appreciate it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Better now? Nemo 19:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply