User talk:Speednat/2012

I do not show that your username is blocked, and I do not have privilege to reference the IP address. Please email me your IP address if you are comfortable doing so and would like for me to investigate further. Otherwise there are other channels you can pursue. DAVilla 05:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

You seem to have e-mailed me using ] about SemperBlotto's blocking and reverting you. As you alluded to in the e-mail message, he quickly lifted the block. I'll skip that for now, then. As to the reversions to ], they seem to be correct. (Specifically, the same definition should not appear twice in the same entry, not even once as "Alternative spelling of torc" and once as "...necklace...".) Once you questioned the reversion, as you did in your edit summary of 05:33, 10 May 2012‎, by citing a dictionary, any future reversion should have come with an explanation IMO — but it did, as the next reversion coincided with an explanation ("There is no point in duplicating the definition") by the reverter on his talkpage in a discussion you were taking part in. Now, that explanation was a little terse (doesn't really explain that he means "duplicating the definition" within the same page as distinct senses, and you may have thought he meant "duplicating the definition" in the two entries), and communication could have been clearer, but I don't see any wrongdoing. I do hope you continue your good streak of productive editing; welcome. You might also wish to see help:Interacting with humans.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Clearly I am not the only administrator you contacted about this. I have edited torque into the form I think is correct, and I believe satisfies the requirements set forth by everyone involved. Hopefully this settles the matter concerning that particular entry. However, in reference to SemperBlotto, you must understand that he is among the more prolific (and well respected) editors on this project. Additionally, he is one of the few editors who does regular patrolling, which of course attracts flak his way. If he sat down and had a full-fledged discussion with everyone who took issue with one of his reverts, that's all he would ever do. So, he is admittedly brusque. He is also very experienced on this project, and was right where you were naive. Your claim that torque should be the primary spelling was correct, but you made mistakes concerning Wiktionary formatting in your attempt to rectify this, and didn't take proper heed when they were pointed out by SB. I strongly suggest that, in the future, if you are reverted by an administrator or other experienced Wiktionary editor (there are few people who fall into the latter but not the former), that you consider the reverted entry strictly off-limits until they say otherwise. There is simply too much content, and too few administrators here to properly administer it all, and so we have no time to spare to mollycoddle new editors. We are generally happy to answer questions, but if you start an edit war with us, we will simply block you because we can't waste the time to do otherwise. If you have any comments or questions, I'm happy to address them, and they can be left here, I'll be watching. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nathan,

Thanks for your recent etymology edits! We share an interest in etymology, so I’m delighted to have more editors working on this! your edit to limn was good and helpful (I was kinda wondering where that was from myself); I’ve polished it some at this edit to give an idea of formatting. The page Wiktionary:Etymology, while rather long, has a lot of helpful pointers, and I’d encourage taking a look at it.

Some specific notes:

• Link to etymons (using {{term}}), even if it’s a red-link.
  • We only don’t link when the term is reconstructed, hence won’t have a page.
• Reference if possible
  • If you could add footnotes, or at least list sources in a “References” section, that would be very helpful (I see you make assiduous use of references). The Reference templates make life much easier!
• Latin verb lemma form is first principle part (first person present)
  • Many dictionaries give Latin infinitives in etymologies. At Wiktionary, we use the first principal part instead as the lemma (basic entry), and consider the infinitive as derived. Thus, in etymologies, please use the first principal part. (I don’t know Latin and didn’t realize this, so it caused a lot of headache for the poor Latin editors!)
• Use {{rfscript|...}} if you don’t know a script.
  • I see that you often list Sanskrit cognates (I find this quite interesting as well!). Since dictionaries rarely list Devanagari (and I suspect you’re not familiar with it), it’s fine to just list Roman characters and tag with an {{rfscript|Devanagari}} so editors familiar with this script can fix it. (It categories it into Category:Entries which need Devanagari script, subcategory of Category:Entries needing various scripts.)

If you do the above, your edits will be fine!

You might want to fix up caress for practice, following model at limn.

That said, an imperfect etymology (accurate but imperfectly formatted or incomplete) is much better than no etymology, so please feel free to do as much or as little as you have time and energy for.

You’ll notice (in my edit to limn) that I also added further etymons (going back to Proto-Indo-European), and native English cognates or direct borrowings of earlier terms. This is not necessary, and takes time, but it’s a nice touch.

If you’ve questions on specific words, please bring them up at the Tea room, while if you’ve general questions on etymologies (esp. formatting) that are not answered at WT:ETY, you can ask at the WT:BP, or ask me or other editors directly. Thanks again, and looking forward to being pleasantly surprised at new etymologies!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Note that how far back an etymology should go is not entirely settled. I would prefer that such an etymology not list the PIE, stopping at Latin. However, there is no consensus on the issue, and so editors are more or less free to do as they see fit. However, just about everything else demonstrated by Nbarth is official policy followed by all experienced editors. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Atelaes!

Nathan – as Atelaes notes, there is some disagreement about some aspects of etymology (as with other aspects). Notably, if a word is a compound at some stage, then tracing back the etymologies of every constituent part can potentially make the etymology explode and is generally avoided. A less substantial but rather contentious issue is usage of “from” vs. “<” in etymologies. There are also some disagreements about treatment of borrowings vs. native inheritances, etc.

My personal preference is to use “from”, to trace etymologies back to PIE if possible and not distracting, and to mention significant cognates of earlier stages; this is preference, not policy. The bulleted list (link, reference, etc.) is pretty settled and basic policy though.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

A few other points:

• {{rfscript|Devanagari}} etc.

  I messed up the formatting above (sorry! corrected now) – when using {{rfscript}} you need to include the script name for it to be categorized properly, as in {{rfscript|Devanagari}}.

• Etymologies on lemmas, not regular formations

  We don’t include etymologies for regular formation, but only on the lemma, to avoid redundancy (this is widely followed policy). However, we do include separate etymologies on closely related terms, or if a form was separately borrowed, rather than being formed in English (I think this is widely accepted, but there may be some dissent).

  For example, limned is just limn + -ed (verb form, used as adjective), so {{suffix}} is sufficient; there’s no need to repeat the etymology (I’ve fixed this).

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Latin oscillatus is not a "part participle", as Latin has two separate past temses. Please describe such forms as "perfect passive participles". --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I think you added the pronunciation of Abkhazian here. :) Double-check my correction please. —Internoob 05:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure if what you did is correct or not, as my references do not list it that way. Thanks for catching my mistake though. I will see if I can do some research on that spelling. Speednat (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's not necessary to add {context} to context templates (like {nautical} and {obsolete}). Read {{context}} for information on where to use it. Ultimateria (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I just want to make sure that I am not creating any messes that need cleaning up. It seems to say here that I should use them.Speednat (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry about it. You'll pick up the proper format quickly. One thing though: I think you're confusing ɳ with ŋ . Honestly, the template's only use is if the first parameter is something that doesn't have a template (e.g. (physical therapy) as opposed to creating {{physical therapy}}). Otherwise it is superfluous. Ultimateria (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please note that pronunciations should start with an asterisk (*). Thank you, Mglovesfun (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have been utilizing a solid reference book. Chambers dictionary of etymology, and it seems that the word aardvark existed well before 1833, but it was an afrikaans word. It was first used in an english language publication on 1833. Also, I was under the impression that the etymology section would be where you would put when the word was created since that is what etymology is about is defining--- the creation of the word, history etc. My book that I am using if you want to look it up has an ISBN # of 0550142304. Any pointers or advice would be appreciated. Speednat (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well the OED has citations from 1822 and 1785. That is the problem with giving specific dates in etymology sections: they are liable to be superseded quickly. Instead, we use {{defdate}} on the end of definition lines (which is what I did for (deprecated template usage) aardvark). Ƿidsiþ 15:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Will this be useful? Is enough known about Egyptian even to know any difference between Egyptian used in Egypt and used elsewhere? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am not totally sure what I am doing here, I was trying to create a regional label for Egyptian words that are used in the english language, as in Ab -- just created If it is wrong, please let me know what I am doing wrong, thanks Speednat (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just put it in the definition, I guess {{Egyptian mythology}} would be ok, see {{Greek mythology}} for example. But {{Egypt}} means a term is used in Egypt. Context labels aren't to be used instead of definitions (which is why {{mammal}} got deleted) but to clarify them. So if something is used in reference to Egypt, you can put 'In Egypt'. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

What Internoob (talk • contribs) did was standard here. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, this isn't a 'policy' but I find it confusing when plurals are tagged with context labels. For examples in quarks the definition wouldn't be # {{physics}} {{plural of|quark}} as it implies that there's a different plural when quark is used outside of physics. In fact this isn't the case, the plural of quark is always quarks! Mglovesfun (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Mg is right, context labels should not be used on plurals unless the plurals themselves are restricted in their usage. For example, ] is correctly described as the archaic plural of ], because there are other plurals of shoe that are not archaic. Similarly, context labels shouldn't be used on alternative forms unless the alternative forms are restricted to / typical of particular contexts (e.g. ] is correctly described as the UK variant of what is in the US spelt ]).

A context label on any entry (singular or plural) implies the term is chiefly used in that particular context — hence I've removed "ethnography" from ], because the people are definitely referred to outside the context of a narrow social science (like like ]s are). - -sche (discuss) 17:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for creating and those other new entries, though. Keep it up. :) You'll get the hang of Wiktionary's admittedly sometimes-unclear policy on context tags soon, I think. - -sche (discuss) 18:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I got what you are saying, and I will try to make sure that the context categories make better sense, thanks for your advice Speednat (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is the same as (deprecated template usage) Abkhazian, no? Perhaps it should just be an alt. form? 50 Xylophone Players talk 01:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am realising that just now. My dictionary has Abkhas and Abkhasian but not Abkhazian. I will fix,. Speednat (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hullo. A template in an etymology you created is not functioning. Would you like to fix it ? Do you require assistance? --Æ&Œ (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Done thanks.

Thanks for adding the missing "agent" sense to aborticide! I tweaked the pronunciation you added. In speech, the "t" in "aborticide" is often a "d"-like sound, you're right (though it's an alveolar flap rather than a true ), but in "broad transcriptions" like we give between /slashes/, we don't get that fine-grained (we just use /t/). You could give a very precise transcription between — many users, including me, find those useful — but then you also have to carefully mind things like aspiration ( is distinct from ), which is why I don't add them often. If you have any questions, let me know. :) - -sche (discuss) 04:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I am still learning about the IPA sections. Where would I find more info on the details that you are talking about. I have some pages bookmarked here on wiktionary, but they don't seem detailed enough to help me. Speednat (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The IPA you added to ] and ] suggests that the words are pronounced with the first syllable sounding like the word "eye". The way I've heard them pronounced, the first syllable is either /eɪ/ (like "day") or frequently just /ə/. If you take a look at Wiktionary:IPA pronunciation key, we have a decent overview of what the symbols mean. It might be good to familiarise yourself with them before you add more pronunciations. w:IPA and the pages on the individual symbols also have a lot of detailed information and audio examples of the sounds. - -sche (discuss) 06:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching my mistake. I do understand the IPA well enough, I just made a mistake. but again thanks for catching it. Speednat (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Are you copying Webster's Third definitions into Wiktionary, word for word? An example of this would be at absolutely convergent, whose definition differs from Merrian-Webster: absolutely convergent only by "if"-->"when" replacements. (Curiously, I can access the Merriam-Webster page when getting to it after googling the Witionary definition, but not by clicking the hyperlink above.)

If you do, please stop. Entering definitions word-for-word from Webster'S Third is likely to constitute a copyright violation, regardless of whether you reference your source. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am not copying word for word. On some, absolutely convergent being one, I may not have mixed it up enough. I will adjust my work, if you feel it may cross the line. Speednat (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Re: "I may not have mixed it up enough": Sorry? You have not mixed it up at all, right?

The thing is, I do not have a ready access to Webster's Third, so I won't be able to verify case by case whether you have crossed the line. If you are systematically going throught the content of a single dictionary by alphabet and entering their content, even if rephrased, that could create trouble, as you do not know what extent of their originality your have rephrased away. A more secure way of entering content from other dictionaries is to work with at least three dictionaries, and base your phrasing on the content of all three. In any case, you should aim at significant rephrasing, which is not what you have done at "absolutely convergent". --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Like I stated above, on a rare few words, I may not have mixed it up enough. Although if you want to argue semantics, you are more than welcome to say not at all if you desire. Also, like I stated above, since someone has called me on it, I will stop. I do not want to cause a problem for Wiktionary. Granted, on some words, I know I got a little lazy, especially if it was late, because I struggled with rephrasing them. I am normally very cognizant of copyright issues. Also, I do use multiple dictionaries, I have four open at any one time, but I do appreciate the advice, and the concern. Speednat (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is strictly French, and is an adjective, not an adverb. The English term used in heraldry is (deprecated template usage) abased. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is included in Websters Third New International Dictionary, with a definition of " heraldry abased" and it does show adjective, did I write adverb? Let me know what you think. I think it seems to be saying that it is a "much" lesser used variation on the word, but still a valid word.Speednat (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Manual of Herladry (1846), utilizes the word abaisse as a proper word to be used instead of abased.Speednat (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I did a search on books.google.com and found a plethora of references to both abaisse and abaissé, with the former being the more popular. Most references are in Heraldry dictionaries and they point out the fact that the word(s) if French, and is synonymous with abased; however they also point out that they are both valid English words. I am going to re-add the definitions with references and quotes from some of my sources. Please let me know if you disagree or ...Speednat (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have sent Abbetdin to WT:RFV, as I cannot attest it per WT:ATTEST. Just that you know, a reference to a dictionary does not count as attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove a definition from Abderian in diff? The definition is sourced from Webster 1913 and Century 1911. The next time you want to remove a definition, you'd better send it to RFD or RFV using {{rfv-sense}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I did not remove any definition. If you took care and read my reason for change, you would have noticed that I "moved" it to the non-capitalized version. I was under the impression that we as editors were to "edit" the entries. Not just use a copied version of Websters 1913 as bible and move on. My sources showed that there was a non-capitalized word, along with the the capitalized word. I then did some searching on google.books for any use of the "foolish" definition as a capitalized instance, and found none. Does that mean there are no instances? No, but I couldn't find any, rather than just changing it back, if there are instances other than, as you so succintly pointed out in your discussion of Abbetdin, a dictionary source, then please share, so we can move on. Speednat (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

You couldn't find any quotations => send it to RFV to see whether other people can find any. We do not need to trust Webster 1913; we can send its terms and definitions to RFV. But it seems rash to remove definitions that are present in Webster 1913 without any process. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I cannot attest "abderite", which you have entered, so I have send it to RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just so you know: My understanding is that if you take an etymology from a copyrighted source and insert it into Wiktionary, that is a copyright violation. I am not saying that you are doing that, but if you do, you would do well to stop. If you argue merger doctrine for etymologies, that is a major thing, to be discussed in Beer parlour. As if we can accept merger doctrine for etymologies, we can import etymologies wholesale from commercial dictionaries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hullo. Do you think that this term is an alternative form of *ad bassiare? I found that form from Etymonline. This is just somewhat confusing for me since I am not sure if both are safe to create appendix entries for. --Æ&Œ (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi! FYI, "footnotes" should go in the ===References=== section, like so. - -sche (discuss) 01:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I keep forgetting that I am not on Wikipedia. I have since stopped doing that. What I am doing now is this abaht. That eliminates the unused "Footnotes" header, whilst still keeping things organized. What do you think?

Speednat (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ah, understandable — I have the opposite problem and find myself calling on Wiktionary templates when I'm on Wikipedia. :b ] looks great, thanks! - -sche (discuss) 06:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'd say avoid using <ref></ref> as we rely on primary sources, not secondary ones. There are a few reasons for this, we're not trying to 'mirror' other dictionaries, we willingly exclude things that other dictionaries have because our criteria for inclusion aren't the same as Merriam-Webster or Oxford (etc.) and include things that other dictionary don't have for the same reason. <ref></ref> isn't banned so much as we don't use it nearly as much as Wikipedia does. That's because when a sense is contested, appearance in other dictionaries doesn't count for anything, but usage by actual people does. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

It only does what it does for taxonomic names, not vernacular names. It is designed to create lists for adding taxonomic names that we are missing while linking to wikispecies or a wiktionary entry if we have one. Take a look at the categories created at Category:Entries using missing taxonomic names and some entries. Let me know if there are problems with it. DCDuring TALK 08:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Also, it now requires a second parameter, indicating what kind of taxonomic name: species, genus, family, etc. DCDuring TALK 08:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

So, I should not use it on "bird" but do use it on "Aves", in essence, correct. Thanks. I saw that you used it and I thought a cool new template for me to abuse :) Speednat (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't "Passer domesticus" be entered both words together as a binomial.I thought that is what I saw you do yesterday, the first time I saw that template in use. It makes sense to link to Passer domesticus, it does';t make sense to link to domesticus, or at least as much sense.

Speednat (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello again! I notice you've been changing {{a|US}} to {{a|GA}} in a number of entries. Personally, I see no reason to change "US" to "General American" in most cases, but if you do, you should use {{a|GenAm}}, because that one's actually an accent template (Template:accent:GenAm) and links to w:General American the way "US" links to w:American English. It should be possible to either redirect Template:accent:GA to GenAm to catch all the pre-existing entries, or bot-change all the "GA" entries (so that no-one has to change them by hand), but I'll ask Mglovesfun about that because I notice he deleted Template:accent:GA back in 2009. - -sche (discuss) 02:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

no problem, I thought I read about a month ago that if you used the standard IPA then RP and GA were correct and if you used the extra diacritics like ˤˠʵⁿ, then US or UK were to be used. I did a quick search for that info and can't find it, but I remember being dismayed when I read it because of all the US's I had already typed. But I can change back if needed.

Speednat (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh, a bot can change all the {{a|GA}}s to {{a|US}} or {{a|GenAm}} as needed; no need to do that by hand.

As for ˤˠʵⁿ: those are used in narrow transcriptions in , and not in broad transcriptions in /slashes/; such transcriptions can be given for any dialect, so the issue of UK vs RP and vs /ti/ are two different issues, I think. Admittedly, Wiktionary's documentation of IPA-related policies and practices is scattered and incomplete, and could use an overhaul. I'll ask at the WT:ID for more input to be sure. - -sche (discuss) 02:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

No prob. I will just keep on then except leaving the US's alone. Thanks for the input Speednat (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

GA could refer to Georgia, the US State. I'll leave {{accent:GA}} for the moment but if another admin wants to delete it, it's with my blessing. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Good point, and we do have entries which use other state abbreviations, such as "NY". Can your bot change all the "GA"s to "GenAm"? It should be easier for us to glance over a list of the bot's edits to make sure no Georgian accents were mis-corrected, than to correct all the GenAms by hand. - -sche (discuss) 19:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there were only four, did it a few minutes ago. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh hang on there are loads but AWB is not picking them up and I don't know why. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Fixed using a workaround that really shouldn't work at all, but it did, so let's not complain! Mglovesfun (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

The first obvious problem is that you're listing the references at the bottom and using inline references which also go to the bottom, so you have the same information twice consecutively.

As I said, in terms of WT:CFI secondary sources, sources that are not usage but record usage such as dictionaries count for literally nothing when it comes to whether a word is allowable or not. See Appendix:English dictionary-only terms for one reason why. It's not so much that dictionaries sometimes get things wrong, which they do, but that we don't intended to mirror other dictionaries, but rather built a dictionary from the ground up. Oxford, Chambers, Collins (etc.) don't use the same criteria as us so it's normal that our content isn't identical. Also using inline references could get a bit silly, such as cat: "A domesticated subspecies, Felis silvestris catus, of feline animal, commonly kept as a house pet." Surely that doesn't require a reference.

Thank you, Mglovesfun (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

As far as the double reference problem goes, I realized what I was doing was not "wiktionary" style, I was on Wikipedia mode, and have since changed over to the inline citation showing all the pertinent information, not creating the redundant footnotes section and then having the references tag on the references section. See abaht. Also I utilize the inline references as far as definitions go, only on oddball definitions, but mainly on attestation dates, etymologies, etc. I don't want to type in a bunch of info to have it deleted, but I do feel in those situations it is useful to the site and its users.

Speednat (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, in {{defdate}} you need to specify what the date you're adding means. You seem to mean ‘from 17th c.’ (or whatever), but you need to say that. Otherwise it looks like the term in question was only used in the 17th century (and I have indeed tagged many such senses in that way). Generally we say ‘from 17th c.’ (meaning it's still in use), or ‘17th-19th c.’ (for obsolete words). Ƿidsiþ 17:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I wish people would tell me these things before I get this far. Thanks anyway. I will adjust what I do from now on; however the problem wouldn't have occurred if the template had some documentation. What should I do about all the defdate's I have done already? Speednat (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't worry too much. I'll fix them if I see them. You're right of course; the template really needs some documentation. Ƿidsiþ 17:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please be careful to use the parameters right! See this change, for example. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

My bad, although I was not finished yet, as I had just pulled up the template page to verify the arguments, since that is not one I have memorized yet. But thanks for catching that within the minute of my posting it :). Speednat (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I usually mess up on that one too, probably because it's rather uncommon. Thanks for checking yourself, by the way! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

You've listed this as an obsolete Middle English word. That doesn't make any sense, all Middle English is obsolete. It's a bit like calling a Sumerian word 'dated'. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

That's not true. I'd use {{obsolete}} for a very Anglo-Saxony term that became rare after the 13th century, like theodand. This is English, though. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Seems like it's Middle English, found a 15th century cite from Chaucer. Not sure about whether the modern English is citeable, actually. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply