User talk:Rodasmith/Archive 7

thanks for the helpful explanation. DCDuring 12:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are you done with this? --Connel MacKenzie 22:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, yeah, that. Gone. Thanks. Rod (A. Smith) 22:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Concerning Wiktionary:Votes/2007-11/Lemma entries 2. This vote seems to have stalled, and I'm just checking to see what the situation is on this. Is it being resigned to the dust bin, or are you still thinking about it? I'm curious, because some sort of solution really needs to happen. Everyone who voted against it has obviously never seen φιλέω, or thought about what the ramifications would be of trying to maintain high quality pages for all 3,945,359,948 forms of that word (ok, that was a slight exaggeration). Although, Ruakh mentioned that French verb. I wonder if they looked at it. Now, admittedly there are other solutions that have been put forth (such as embedded templates put on all forms), which have merit, but something needs to be done. So, I guess I just wanted to rant and ask what the scoop was on that and see if I could be of any assistance. Atelaes 03:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I tried a few different tacks and wandered a bit off course failing to generate consensus (e.g. here), then finally ran out of steam waiting for feedback (e.g. here). I doubt I'd be very effective promoting a solution now, but I'd be happy to assist you or anyone else who takes on the issue. Rod (A. Smith) 04:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, my time is limited, so coming up with such a daunting policy and promoting it may be beyond my reach. However, if it does happen, I'll definitely recruit your assistance. Thanks. Atelaes 07:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I added a link to the pertaining page of the Little Green Book (the legal spelling standard) and changed the page accordingly. Jcwf 23:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering if I could request an inspection of {{etyl}} from you. My template writing skills are somewhat juvenile, and since it holds the possibility of becoming fairly widespread I thought it wise to have a more competent editor look at it, so that issues might be recognized before they become difficult to deal with. Many thanks. Atelaes 06:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looks good, Atelaes. We do have an ISO 639-3 code for "translingual" (namely, "mul"), but you're right that we don't categorize translingual etymologies. To that end, I think I'll add "mul" as an alias for "-" in the second parameter. Anyway, that template will come in very handy. Well done! Rod (A. Smith) 17:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

What is the procedure to decide to have {{en-noun|-}} categorize into the class for English uncountable nouns and have the template changed? There didn't seem to be opposition but discussion at the grease pit stalled about a week ago. RJFJR 03:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

A week in WT:GP without objection indicates that it's acceptable from a technology standpoint. The intent should be mentioned in WT:BP to allow people to review it from a non-technical point of view. Then, if there are no objections for about a week, just make the change. If there are objections, try to avoid a WT:VOTE by resolving them in BP. Rod (A. Smith) 16:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just intended to make the output text more exact, i.e. to tell what is the tense and mood of the verb form. -- Frous 17:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why is HotTea altering your archives? Jcwf 19:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea. For fun, maybe? Rod (A. Smith) 21:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I blocked HT for a day. It was my first and I have no sense of procedure. Any advice? DCDuring TALK 22:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

(Sorry for butting in) - Well, do you think he is ever going to be a useful member of the community? If no, the block should be infinite. SemperBlotto 22:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I may have to learn for myself what works and what doesn't. My thought is that it might be possible to actually get a message to HT. Deleting the only known contact point is no help. (HT did not leave an e-mail address.) Perhaps the message should be firmer than what I left. HT would have plenty of ways of trying again anyway. DCDuring TALK 23:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Given the amount of confusion generated by those archivals, the short block seems entirely just. Still, it's just barely plausible that HT was trying to lend an (uninvited) hand by archiving people's talk pages, so it wouldn't hurt to leave a message on User talk:HotTea about your reasoning. I often invite the user to contact me by e-mail (through the "E-mail this user" feature on my user page). Rod (A. Smith) 22:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I doubt it based on the taunting responses to the vandalism complaints posted. It can sure get the adrenalin pumping. DCDuring TALK 23:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, you and SemperBlotto are probably right. Anyway, good job. Rod (A. Smith) 23:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rod, can you restore my discussion page? HotTea archived it and now you deleted the archive. I don't know how to restore it. Thanks. --Panda10 21:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done. Rod (A. Smith) 21:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Stop saying that I'm trolling. I'm not banned from here, so there is no valid reason to block me. Connell66 01:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't know, you just reverted my edit to Dmcdevit's talk page. Connell66 01:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, no complaint. Just please don't block me, because I'm trying to clear my name. Connell66 01:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your point is? Connell66 04:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you want to know the meaning of a word, look it up. If you can improve an entry, do so. If you just want to chat, use IRC instead. Rod (A. Smith) 04:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't want to chat. Let us remember WT:MYSPACE. I am afraid that I'll be blocked as a troll. Connell66 04:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, 'mustɑ 'listɑ is the standard pronunciation for the Finnish musta lista, so I use the slashes // when the pronunciation is standard, and square brackets , when the pronunciation in question is dialectal, right? -- 15:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your approach matches what many editors do here, but it's technically not quite right. Technically, square brackets () may be safely used in both of those situations. Slashes (//) should only be used to indicate pronunciation using symbols for phonemes (rather than symbols for sounds). Ideally, we would first create a list of symbols for Finnish phonemes at Wiktionary:About Finnish or somewhere else. (That list would show example words that contain each phoneme.) Then we would use only those symbols when transcribing Finnish words between slashes (//). Then, readers who know a particular Finnish dialect could read the slash (//) transcription and review our phoneme list to interpret how to pronounce the word in that dialect. Anyway, that's the technically correct approach, but not many editors here actually follow it, so feel free to use square brackets () for dialectical pronunciations and slashes (//) for standard ones. Rod (A. Smith) 18:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd be curious to hear more about the error your were getting with the check in MediaWiki:CustomSearch.js. Particularly, which browser you were using that supports AddSearchProvider but doesn't support the if (window.external.AddSearchProvider) check (and what the problem/exception was). Mike Dillon 23:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's an IE7 control hosted in a custom .NET host rather than the normal browser. window.external enumerates the host's members, and window.external.AddSearchProvider("...") invokes the method as expected, but for whatever reason, testing window.external.AddSearchProvider without invoking it throws an exception. I hope the new syntax is acceptable. Rod (A. Smith) 23:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The new syntax is fine (I believe the "in" operator is supported back to IE5.5-era browsers). I was just curious how it was failing since I've seen thousands upon thousands of uses of that idiom for testing function existence and I've never seen it fail. I'm glad to see it's only happening in a limited context. Mike Dillon 00:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is some consensus on BP for a change to en-verb, and I've posted a request on GP that that be done. I don't know whether you saw that request, but am wondering if it'd be possible for you to do this.—msh210℠ 18:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

User:Conrad.Irwin took a good whack at this at {{en-verb2}}. I initially wondered how best to handle the table-formatted output, but Conrad's approach seems best -- leave both columns. Rod (A. Smith) 23:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

So, I've been spending some time trying to go through the L2's at User:Robert Ullmann/L2/invalid. So here's the problem, there is no language code template which says "Frisian" and yet there are a number of entries which have "Frisian" as their L2. I was thinking that the old 639-1 code fy could be used for just Frisian, and the newer three letter ones be used for the various divisions of Frisian. However, I see that you changed it from "Frisian" to "West Frisian" a while back, and so thought I'd bring this fight to your doorstep. So here's what I'm thinking. If you know Frisian well enough (or if you know of another editor who does) to be able to go through the words and relegate them to their proper subdivision, then great, let's do that. However, if, as I'm sort of guessing, you don't, then I propose we set {{fy}} to Frisian so that we have a general purpose template, to hold in keep til an editor comes along who is knowledgeable of Frisian and can give them the proper sorting. What do you think? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I vaguely remember editing some West Frisian entries. I think Frisian is a language family rather than an individual language, and that most of the time, "Frisian" refers to the West Frisian language. I'm about a Babel 0 in the Frisian languages, though, so I'd defer to whatever authority you find. Rod (A. Smith) 20:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Frisian is a language family, not a language, so this would be an imperfect solution. However, I don't think we have anyone who can sort the words into their proper languages. It looks like the user (User:Jronner) who created most of these has left us, but I'll leave a note on their talk page. Basically, this would simply be a sweeping the dust under the rug type solution. I'll leave a note on Category:Frisian language that this is not actually language, but a language family and needs to be sorted. That way, when/if we do get an editor on Wiktionary who knows Frisian they'll be informed of the situation and go to work. Does this work for you? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Very good. Thanks, Atelaes. Rod (A. Smith) 22:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

We might create a template (and category) for "Frisian words needing attention" and tag these pages with the template. --EncycloPetey 23:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you like take a look at the changes I made to the Frisian language category. And EncycloPetey, it would be a lot of work to tag them all, as there are over 300 of them. Perhaps we could ask Robert to do it, but doing them by hand would be, in my opinion, a severe waste of man hours. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, of course I mean by bot, silly ;) --EncycloPetey 23:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I like the template you have for uncountable/countable nouns. I was thinking that we could have a style guideline somewhere for nouns that are uncountable in whole or in part. OTOH I don't want to even open a BP discussion if those who have shown indications of interest in the question don't agree. I liked Widsith's approach of assuming that countability was the default; omitting uncountability at the inflection line; inserting uncountability tags (but not countability tags) for each relevant sense; making sure that there is at least one countable sense, even if of the "instance of"/"type of" variety; and including the usage notes template. It is the aesthetics of Widsith's layout that I like, slightly reducing the busy-ness of having tags on every definition line plus the inflection line. Your thoughts? Also, where would a style guideline go? WT:ELE subpage? DCDuring TALK 17:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, countability is a sensible default, especially in definition lines. Some readers may not understand that default, though, so they may be confused by "turbulence (plural turbulences)". I don't think "countable and uncountable" in such headword lines is overly verbose, but so long as there is at least a clear usage note, I won't object if others would prefer to remove that phrase. Rod (A. Smith) 17:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Because it would just be a guideline, we could leave some flexibility, but encourage contributors to make the entry less busy. Maybe we could replace "countable and uncountable" on the inflection line with just "also uncountable". One less bit of blue; a little less total "ink". The usage note provides an additional way to help users resolve their confusion, but the requirement to click will drastically reduce the effectiveness of the off-page link. Often when I have a bee in my bonnet about an issue, I insert every possible tag and option to highlight my resolution of the issue without much thought as to the overall impact. That is why a style guideline might help. DCDuring TALK 17:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, "also uncountable" seems like a nice, terse replacement for "countable and uncountable". We could definitely use some style guides somewhere in the Wiktionary namespace, but not in WT:ELE, because attempts to add to it are often met with the reply that it's already too long. (As requite reading for regular editors, its effectiveness diminishes with length.) It would probably be best to have at least two separate style guides: one for entries for English terms and one for entries for foreign terms. Rod (A. Smith) 18:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to waffle here, but now that I see "also uncountable" in context, it doesn't seem quite so nice as "countable and uncountable". Since "countable" isn't mentioned before it, it almost looks like "uncountable" is another possible plural for the headword. That's not a major objection, though, so if others like the change, it's fine with me so long as "uncountable" is in italics like the other grammar terms instead of bold like an inflected form. Rod (A. Smith) 18:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since you're the one that implemented it, Could you have a look into template talk:term#Edit request? Circeus 17:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Replied there. Rod (A. Smith) 18:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would you say that desusado has the same general meaning as a label in the RAE as obsolete does here? I found it on exir and wasn't sure if there was something more appropriate. Nadando 00:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how long (deprecated template usage) exir has been desusado, but either {{obsolete}} or {{archaic}} is appropriate. (It's always hard for me to remember which of those two tags is stronger, anyway.) Rod (A. Smith) 00:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please have a look at {{cardinalbox}} and let me know what you think. I've devoted more than 9 hours to it today, in addition to planning the basic design well ahead of time. Of course, it shouldn't be used yet, except for testing, because it may continue to change with additional suggestions, but I'd still like to have some feedback. You can see the template in action on the entry for (deprecated template usage) novem, in addition to the several examples on the template talk page. --EncycloPetey 06:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

It seems quite nice, EncycloPetey. Question on talk page for {{cardinalbox}}. Rod (A. Smith) 16:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Answered there. --EncycloPetey 17:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Follow-up: I may have found a page describing how to create optional table rows. If the method described actually works, then adding transcriptions may just be possible. I'll try this out sometime in the next few days. Right now, I'm helping adjust some Hungarian templates for Panda10, setting up the Appendix:Latin cardinal numerals, and pushing an article through FAC on WP... in addition to my life in meatspace. --EncycloPetey 07:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have added the exception of an intervening adjective, however, without example. Do you think that the formulation is reasonably clear? Matthias Buchmeier 13:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, your reword was clear. I tweaked it just a bit more to clarify that (deprecated template usage) el isn't nescessarily considered to be masculine in this situation. I think it still reads pretty clearly.  :-) Rod (A. Smith) 15:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Assuming you are still willing, please accept at Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2008-08/User:Rodasmith for checkuser , Thanks! --Versageek 13:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've been meaning to put some time into this. Could you extend the vote start for maybe a week while I do some research? Thanks. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 06:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Of course. I'm eager to begin writing more than just sample entries, but of course. Done. Rod (A. Smith) 14:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

This shouldn't ever be used in lists because it alters the format of the displayed word. If we need glosses in lists, then we need another template for that. --EncycloPetey 04:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also mentioned to User talk:Msh210

Wanted to say thanks for your work on Wiktionary:About sign languages – I’m keenly interested in sign languages (particularly ASL), and hope to be able to help with sign languages at Wiktionary. (No time or expertise now – busy with Japanese.)

Thanks again, and look forward to helping out!

Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

The only concerns I have are (1) there is no indication of how facial expression cues are to be included in such entries, (2) it would be nice if there were more than one sign language (ASL) listed as an example in the proposed policy. --EncycloPetey 00:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would you prefer I postpone the vote until I address those concerns? Rod (A. Smith) 00:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

If it wouldn't take long to address them. --EncycloPetey 00:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, I can pretty quickly address the first concern by noting that facial expressions should be described in the "production" section and by giving an example, but I'm not familiar enough with sign languages other than ASL to include any non-ASL examples. Rod (A. Smith) 00:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm asking simply for a few languages to be named, not for specific examples of entries. --EncycloPetey 00:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Rod, please see this vote, and follow the instructions for requesting CU at m:Steward requests/Permissions#Using this page. —Neskaya ^kanetsv 17:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't really understand how this works, but is it possible to have {{a|NZ}} link to w:New Zealand English? Ƿidsiþ 19:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done! Rod (A. Smith) 02:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't care so much about the image as much as the layout horror that it had created. The image would need to be near the ety, but after the more basic image now at the top. I did not succeed at keeping it from pushing the text following it to after the entire right-floating toc. If you can figure out how to get it on the left side, say, and not push the text below the toc, good for you and I will attempt to do the same the next time this comes up. DCDuring TALK 01:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be one who has a good idea of how the Symbol entries, especially letters, should look. E is on rfc and beyond my skills. Or does someone else do these? DCDuring TALK 01:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Maybe I have some different skin selection from you, but for me, the TOC is not floating to the right. If you can tell me what settings to choose to get the same view you see, I'll give it a shot. Rod (A. Smith) 02:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also, I don't see anything in particular that needs cleanup on our entry for (deprecated template usage) E. Is there something specific about the entry that you think needs cleanup? Rod (A. Smith) 04:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see now. You were referring to Greek (deprecated template usage) Ε (E) rather than (deprecated template usage) E. Better now? Rod (A. Smith) 04:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey Rod,

Great job on editing on my ASL entries! :) Michael A. Cooper (ECUgrad96)

Hey Rod,

I'm thinking of that perhaps we can start "creating macros" to make handshapes etc, be more efficient and more smoother. Similiar to the templates that I have seen you make, but more easier, more automatic. I know it's a lot of work, but can we do that? ECUgrad96