User talk:Redboywild

I wonder, brother, whether the changes you made to deism merit paralleling at pandeism? Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, they do, thanks! I wonder how many entries use tables like that... Redboywild (talk) 08:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Redboywild!

I tried finding sources supporting this, but I didn't find any, only îi as a regionalism. That's the reason why I deleted it. Do you have sources supporting this reintroduction? Please add them and I'll be fine with you reverting my edit :-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

DOOM lists it in the entry for fi. DEX has i instead, which I think is just a different spelling, since I can't think of a way to use it as a stand-alone word. Redboywild (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, as long as you're sure about it it's ok, but do you mind adding a qualifier, such as regionalism or familiar? I was aware of the îi form but not -i. Thank you for your help! --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

 Done. Redboywild (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I've been – against my will – involved in an editing war with an editor over fierăstrui and fierăstruit. According to dictionaries (DEX), Google and Google Books, the predominant and preferred forms are ferestrui and ferestruit, and I tried following the appropriate Wiktionary formats when I edited the abovementioned entries. Do you mind checking them so that they look ok? You're more tech-savvy than I am, so if a format for "Romanian alternative forms" is missing, do you mind creating one? Thank you in advance! --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The entries were ok, so I made the entries for the main forms and moved most of the information there. I also removed the saw-toothed definition, since it's not listed in the dictionaries. Redboywild (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your help! Concerning saw-toothed – are you sure it's not used this way? I too had a hard time finding the definition in dictionaries , but there are a couple of hits on the internet, e.g. definition for cosaș (Phytotoma rara) and cosaș again (this time on DEX). --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay, looks like you're right. I'll add back the definition and the translation at saw-toothed. Redboywild (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Just noticed that you made some improvements to this entry. I'm wondering if it's necessary to have declension tables after every definition, considering that it's the same declension? It looks a bit "cluttered" if you ask me. If you just followed Wiktionary rules, I apologise for bringing this up and you can disregard this message. Keep up the good work! --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know, there should be a declension table for each etymology section, but I agree that it's pretty useless to repeat the same table five times. If you want, you could ask at the Beer parlour, I don't really know what the best practice is in this case. Redboywild (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'll ask at the Beer parlour. Feel free to join the conversation! --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for taking a look at Romanian rhymes - the category was (is?) a mess and I asked for help to clean it up. It looks as if you have things under control now, so thank you again :-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. I'm not very good with the IPA, so there may still be some mistakes, but at least it's better than before. Redboywild (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

In case you weren't already aware: module errors have turned up at miercuri and ornat. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, they're fixed now. Thanks for reminding me! Redboywild (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Would you like to translate this into Romanian: "Contrary to popular belief, children need fathers." --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

"Contrar credinței populare, copiii au nevoie de tați." Redboywild (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Now for another: "God is within every single person. The Hindus understood that concept thousands of years ago." --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

"Dumnezeu este înăuntrul fiecărei persoane. Hindușii au înțeles acest concept cu mii de ani în urmă." Redboywild (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I never seem to understand how to make declension templates work. I tried my best at deșteptăciune, but it's just not working for me. Since you're my go-to person when it comes to Romanian templates, do you mind teaching me how to make them work? --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sure. The Romanian templates are a bit inconsistent and I want to improve that at some point. {{ro-noun-f}} is the basic template that can be used for most feminine nouns. It can take the parameters |def= for the definite form, |pl= for the plural, |gd= for the indefinite genitive/dative form (when different from the plural) and |voc= for the vocative. The problem at deșteptăciune is that the template needs the plural to know the genitive forms, so you need to give the |pl= or |gd= parameter, even if the noun is uncountable. However, a better way to make that declension table is with a specialized template: {{ro-noun-f-e|deșteptăciun}}. The specialized feminine templates are named like "ro-noun-f-x" or "ro-noun-f-x-y", where x is the singular ending and y is the plural ending. (Following that rule, a better name for {{ro-noun-f-e}} would be {{ro-noun-f-e-i}}, but when I made it I didn't think of that.) To use the templates, you need to give the stem of the noun (without the ending in the template name) as the first parameter, like {{ro-noun-f-e|descoperir}}. If there's a vowel or consonant change in the plural, use the second parameter for the plural stem: {{ro-noun-f-e|ciocănitoar|ciocănitor}}. Hope this helps! Redboywild (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wow! Thanks a lot Redboywild! I'll make sure to use these templates and parameters from now on. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Mind lending me a hand with the declension table for torero? According to DEX the correct Romanian plural is "toreros", but remaining forms are marked as invariable. I just can't make the declension table look presentable! --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Since this is a very irregular noun, you have to use {{ro-noun-manual}}, which just takes all the forms as parameters. I fixed it for you.

By the way, do you think it would be a good idea to show the feminine singular, masculine plural and feminine/neuter plural forms of adjectives in the headword line? The numbers that are currently shown there aren't very useful for those who are not familiar with Romanian grammar. This is what it would look like:

comic m or n (feminine singular comică, masculine plural comici, feminine and neuter plural comice)

Redboywild (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're my rock Redboywild :-) Thank you for your help! When it comes to adjective forms in the headword line, I see what you mean and I agree with you that it could be useful. Looking at how adjectives in other Romance languages are presented, it seems a bit silly for Romanian not to receive the same treatment. However, Romanian adjectives – unlike the others – also have declension tables. Do we risk confusing people if we provide them with somewhat elementary info in the headword section, then supplementary info in the declension table? I'm just a bit hesitant to provide too much information, which might end up making an already complicated article structure even more complicated. But with that said, I still think that the pros outweigh the cons, so you have my full support. --Robbie SWE (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I see what you're saying about the declension tables. I know some people want to have no information in the headword line if there's already a declension table. However, a lot of languages give information in both places, and Romanian does it too for nouns and verbs - so I think it would be good to have it for adjectives too. I don't think we need to be concerned about confusing people. Anyone who knows the basics of Romanian grammar would know those are not all the forms and would look for a declension table. The main problem with introducing this new headword line is that the templates cannot know if the forms have changes in the stem (for example, prost has the feminine proastă, but anost has anostă), so all the adjectives would need to be checked to fix the incorrect forms. Redboywild (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing the Romanian section. I don't speak Romanian, but I saw the word coming up when I was searching Google for the English entry, so I tried to do my best to fill it in. Apparently that didn't work very well :)

Your edit comment said "not a noun", and you changed the category to adjective, but you left the entry in the Noun section. Is that correct? Just want to make sure it's not an oversight. -Apocheir (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Whoops, yes, I forgot to change the heading. Thanks for pointing it out to me! Redboywild (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Redboywild! Thank you for your edit! According to DEX there are two plural forms – one with only one "i" and another with two. I didn't know how to add two plural forms in the template so I opted for one variant. How can we add two plural forms? Thank you for your help! --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I didn't know about that plural form. Actually, I'm not even sure it's a valid plural form, since it's not listed in any dictionary and I could find very few uses in Google Books. I don't know where DEX Online got it from. About the plural forms in the template, currently it's not possible to add multiple plurals in one template, so you have to use the template twice for the two different plurals. BTW, thanks for adding new entries to Category:ro:Birds. Redboywild (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Redboywild! To be honest, I was a bit hesitant myself adding the "colibrii" plural form. I guess DEX could be wrong, it would certainly not be the first time. Concerning the template, maybe we should have a possibility to add multiple plural forms, if there are any that is. English nouns have this option and it might benefit the few Romanian entries where this is needed. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the late reply. Yes, it would certainly be useful to be able to add multiple plural forms. You can currently add them in headword lines, but not in inflection tables. I'm planning to add that option and make the noun templates a bit smarter and easier to use at some point, but right now I'm more focused on the adjective templates. Redboywild (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey! Thanks for the Romanian work. If you get time, could you have a look at Category:Tbot entries (Romanian)? I've cleaned up a few of the entries that were in them, mostly just the easy ones like proper nouns and chemical elements, where there's generally just one clear sense. I've got the number in the category down to 99 entries, and the remaining ones probably need a native speaker's touch. If you do clean any up, you can remove the Tbot cleanup tag. Thanks again. --P5Nd2 (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the cleanup work. To be honest, I don't really like cleaning up Tbot entries because I feel like I have to make each entry perfect and add all the missing senses before I can remove the tag, which takes a bit of time and is pretty boring. But I'll take a look at them and clean some up when I get the time. Redboywild (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree, it is a boring task. That's kinda why I'm asking others to do it instead of me. --P5Nd2 (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's nice to make a perfect entry out of it, but really all you have to do is make a legitimate entry out of it: set it up with all the normal formatting and basic definitions like a normal, competent human editor would do if they were creating it. This is a wiki: as long as there's nothing wrong with it, it can be "perfected" later by you or by others. These are entries that were created by a bot from material of unknown quality years ago, so the important thing is to correct any errors and bring them up to date. It's best not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Yeah, all done now, except schepsis, which I RFD'd, although I probably shouldn't have. --P5Nd2 (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi! According to DEX, disjunct is rare and synonymous with disjunctiv. Call me old-fashioned, but I've only heard of disjunctiv and I've managed to find more mentions for the latter than the former. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's true for the general sense, but in the math sense of "sets that share no elements" disjunct is much more common. DEX also supports that: the math sense is not listed in the definition of disjunctiv but is listed separately at disjunct, which means that the label "rare" only applies to the other senses and disjunct is the proper word for the math sense. Also, a Google Books search for "mulțimi disjuncte" (with quotes) finds hundreds of results while a search for "mulțimi disjunctive" only finds one. Redboywild (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ah, now I see. My bad, thank you for clarifying the situation. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Redboywild (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey Redboywild! I have a proposition for you – and feel free to say no if you're not up for the task, I promise no hard feelings even if I truly hope you'll say yes. You have impressive coding skills and a deep understanding for templating and I'm wondering if you're interested in creating a bot which creates inflected noun forms back at the Romanian Wiktionary? We are currently really lacking in that department and I think it's about time we give this area the attention it deserves. Let me know if you're willing to participate in this endeavour! --Robbie SWE (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Bună Redboywild! I see you're the last editor on ro-verb, could you please have a look at my question here: Template talk:ro-verb? Mersi! Golradir (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply