User talk:Sarcelles

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It 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.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, additionally there's Quotations (Quotes/Citations/Cites) which might be a good read. --2003:DE:372B:BD1:341A:FBD5:2A61:D0BB 23:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, as for your out-of-process removals of senses, as in & , please see WT:CFI (already mentioned above) and WT:RFV. --2003:DE:3717:717B:3CDE:5F5F:5E40:A290 09:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Proper process was explained/mentioned in e.g. & (, , , , ), yet there are several out-of-process removals of terms/senses: , , , , , , , , , , , , (cp. ). --93.234.200.97 00:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, as for additions like the protologism English Westniederdeutsch in , please see WT:CFI again. Similar to WP's no Begriffsfindung, WT is no place for protologisms. (If it is no protologism, then please create and attest English Westniederdeutsch in accordance with WT:CFI.) --93.234.200.97 17:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

As for some of the terms you wanted to add, can you please attest English Westniederdeutsch, English Mecklenburgisch-Vorpommersch, Mecklenburgish-Western Pomeranian, East Westphalian (noun), Zentralniederländisch, Südostlimburgisch, Nördliches Niederdeutsch in accordance with WT:CFI before adding them again? For example, for Mecklenburgish-Western Pomeranian Google Books finds only one result () which alone isn't sufficient as per WT:CFI. At Google Books, instead of Zentralniederländisch (noun), there only seem to be some results for zentralniederländisch (adjective). For Südostlimburgisch only one questionable occurence (), though some occurences of südostlimburgisch.
On the other hand, Altmärkisch, Sauerländisch, Schleswig-Holsteinisch, Märkisch (“a South-Westphalian dialect”), Ijsselländisch, Utrechtisch (cp. ), Niederbergisch, Krefeldisch, Mecklenburgisch, English Mecklenburgish, English Westmünsterländisch, südniederfränkisch, nordniederfränkisch for example were attested, some especially because of your doubts of their existence. --93.234.200.97 18:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You mentioned Heeringa¹ and Lameli². Each of them gives at best one usage of terms (if they don't just mention them, cp. use–mention distinction). That alone isn't sufficient per CFI, that is for a WDL like English or Standard High German. Additionally, Heeringa would at best be one English and Lameli one German usage (normally, they could for example also provide an abstract/summary in another language than that used in the rest of their work). Hence Heeringa would be irrelevant for German and Lameli irrelevant for English entries/terms.

• ¹ Wilbert Heeringa, Measuring Dialect Pronunciation Differences using Levenshtein Distance (series: Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics 46), doctoral thesis or dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen: Groningen, 2004
• ² Alfred Lameli, Strukturen im Sprachraum: Analysen zur arealtypologischen Komplexität der Dialekte in Deutschland, Walter de Gruyter: Berlin & Boston, 2013

--2003:DE:3717:7177:E866:2C4D:3F6D:60D4 04:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You have https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2024/April#East_Bergish. Why don't you just answer there?

Sarcelles (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why don't you answer here? E.g. your additions of protologisms is unrelated to East Bergish.
Also, why do you link to unrelated talk pages? E.g. is about Schwäbisch or maybe (Ost-)fränkisch (or Alemannisch, Bairisch, Oberdeutsch), yet the linked pages are about East Bergish, Limburgish and Dutch dialects, and e.g. (which is quite messy) is totally unrelated to the edit. Similar, in you linked to but a) the talk page is quite long and it's unclear to what exactly you're referring, and b) there's nothing explaining the edit, questions like "Sollte dieser nicht mit jenem fusioniert werden?" for example don't explain anything and don't justify the edit.
WT:CFI and WT:Quotations are still good reads. --93.234.200.97 22:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sarcelles,
please read the above again and

• stop removing senses out of process () – proper process is WT:RFV
• stop adding protologisms () – see WT:CFI
• stop removing correct quotations using the term in question (, ) – cp. WT:Quotations, and also WT:CFI again

--93.234.206.105 19:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sarcelles,

1. holländisch is ambiguous, which means the term has multiple senses.
2. holländisch (“Dutch, of the Netherlands”) and niederländisch (“Dutch, of the Netherlands”) have the same meaning, are synonymous. The first of the two is a bit informal, but a) that's noted (labels, usage notes), and b) they are still synonymous.

Maybe see also Holland for its ambiguity etc. You're welcome. --2003:DE:3717:71F1:404A:E9B2:9A67:B206 12:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sarcelles,
you might want to look up what that means/is:

• in Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon (6th ed., vol. 9, 1907)
• in Brockhaus' Kleines Konversations-Lexikon (5th ed., vol. 1, 1911)
• in Pierer's Universal-Lexikon (4th ed., vol. 8, 1859)
• “Holländerei” in Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache
• “Holländerei” in Duden online

You're welcome. --93.234.206.105 18:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply