User talk:Sgconlaw
 Archive |
|---|
| 2014–2019 · 2020–2024 |
Signing posts
IP address learned to sign posts 90.167.163.65 11:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, thank you. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
WOTD audio
Please tag future WOTDs with {{rfap}}. This way our entries can be even more complete before they're highlighted. PS love what you're doing. Father of minus 2 (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Father of minus 2: sure, no problem. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Template dude
- Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Yeats Sophocles' King Oedipus.
The Wayback Machine link in aprimorate
- Discussion moved to Talk:aprimorate.
QWERTY -- WOTD nom
Hi SGC. Meant as a joke entry. Thought you might leave it there for a short while. Then again, it wasn't exactly hilarious, was it! -- Keep up the good work. -- ALGRIF talk 05:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Algrif: oh, it was meant to be a joke? Erm, OK. You've kind of missed April Fools' Day by a month … — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
FWOTD fallback
Hi, thanks for setting up FWOTD fallbacks. I wonder if the pages should still have a {{was fwotd}} template. I see that бууз (buuz), for example, doesn't have that template. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 17:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Justinrleung: hmmm, I guess maybe we should add
{{was fwotd}}to indicate the first time the entry has publicly appeared as FWOTD. I was just wondering if it made sense to use this template because FWOTD fallbacks do not appear on a specific date—rather, they will appear on the same day each year if no specific FWOTD for that day is set. But it makes sense to use{{was fwotd}}so editors know that an entry has already been used. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)- Yeah, I was thinking the same. It would be good to indicate the first appearance. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 14:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Justinrleung: by the way, please help to suggest FWOTD fallbacks for upcoming dates in June—see "Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2025/May#Suggestions for FWOTD fallbacks for June dates". — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
buckaroo
- Discussion moved to Talk:buckaroo.
- Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Withycombe Christian Names.
PIE root categorization
Be careful adding PIE roots. This is neither formatted correctly for a PIE root nor (as *meh₂-) even a candidate the root of *múh₂s (now moved to *múHs because the uncertain laryngeal). As we don't know its root, {{word}} is enough. — 2600:4808:9C30:C500:24A4:A222:AC09:12B9 16:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Which entry are you referring to? — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- The first phrase in the OP is a wikilink to a diff. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- In that case, is there an error in the etymology of mother? Because that's what I followed. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Aside from any issues referred to by the OP, I would advise caution about etymologies for any word used by infants. Babies make sounds as part of the development of the parts of the brain controlling speech. To start with, they have no control of their tongues, so they tend to use their lips, as in "mamamamamamamamama...". Later they progress to simple dental sounds like "dadadadadadadada..." they have no control of nasality, so it can be "m" or "b", "n" or "d". Since family members are usually the ones present at these stages, there are names for family members based on the babbling of infants worldwide and throughout history (ever wonder about the similarity between "母親" and "mother"?).
- That means that a word like "mommy" could be passed down through inheritance, or it could be freshly picked up from infant babbling at some later state. "Mommy" is just a diminutive of "mama", which perfectly matches infant babbling and is thus impossible to analyze with the tools of historical linguistics. A word like "mother" at least has morphology tacked on that can be analysed for sound changes, and some words like "father" show sound correspondances to related words like "pater" that would have happened through inheritance from a common ancestor. Since there's no way to tell if "mommy" and "mother" are etymologically related, importing the etymology of one into the entry for the other is misleading and probably wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- In that case, is there an error in the etymology of mother? Because that's what I followed. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- The first phrase in the OP is a wikilink to a diff. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello – I'm messaging you because you were one of the users who participated in the RFV regarding sense #2 of Black fatigue. The user who created the RFV has now shut it down and removed the sense in question from the entry, in spite of the fact that four durably archived attestations had been added. Is this regular? Zacwill (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps I should ping This, that and the other as well. Zacwill (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Zacwill: no, I think that shouldn't have been done while the discussion was ongoing. However, I don't have time to deal with this until later today or perhaps tomorrow. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
No link terms in glosses in etymology sections
How come? JMGN (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- @JMGN: I was advised against this many years ago when I started editing the Wiktionary. I think it is to avoid overlinking, since there are already links in the definitions. Feel free to start a discussion at the Beer Parlour if you wish. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thatd make no sense: its you that's reverted mine, not the other way round. JMGN (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- @JMGN: I'm not sure what you mean. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thatd make no sense: its you that's reverted mine, not the other way round. JMGN (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
not done template
Hi Sgconlaw,
I noticed in your edit on Entry layout's talk page that you misunderstood the purpose of {{not done}}, as an indication of rejection of proposals. As the name says, it just means a requested change is not done. The documentation explains. Chealer (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Chealer: I’ve not seen it used in the way you describe. Anyway, let’s see what other editors think. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Chealer You may read it as meaning the task hasn't been done yet, but everyone else will interpret it to mean that someone has seen your proposal and didn't do it because they decided it shouldn't be done. The graphic displayed by the template is a very clear symbol of rejection. It's kind of silly tagging your proposals with something that will cause people to not even bother looking at them. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- No,
{{not done}}is used to reject proposals. It's not used to mark unfinished changes. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 07:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)