User talk:The Ice Mage/Archive

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! Teh Rote 17:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your contributions of Japanese nouns :) though we have the code of WT:AJ on Japanese entries. I hope you'd read the code first. :) we don't use {{inf|ja}}. see ばんぱく, banpaku, 万博. I hope you'd keep the great contributions with the code. THX :) --Carl Daniels 20:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Right, Template:infl is only used for languages without templates. Use {{ja-noun}} {{ja-verb}} {{ja-adj}} and {{ja-pos}}. Again, your edits/creations look nice, but sometimes cause formatting problems.--Hikui87 13:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay i'll do that but could you tell me what template to use for adnominals?--PalkiaX50 19:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Use {{ja-adj}} for both i- and na-adjectives. The template talk page explains what to do.--Hikui87 19:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

For Adnominals, we have {{ja-pos}}. Please, use {{ja-pos}} with the option "adnominal", instead of {{ja-adj}}. and... I think you can learn the format from ...

Category:Japanese nouns

Category:Japanese pronouns

Category:Japanese proper nouns

Category:Japanese adjectives (see the subcategories, i-adjective and na-adjective)

Category:Japanese verbs (see the subcategories, type 1(godan), type 2(ichidan), type 3(suru))

Category:Japanese adverbs

Category:Japanese adnominals

--Carl Daniels 22:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean surname or given name or something else? SemperBlotto 17:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd say it's probably first name because the dictionary I'm holding right now says 名(na) for first name and 名字(myōji) for surname and further more mei is another reading for 名.--PalkiaX50 17:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your created pages and edits look nice, but we have a format to follow at WT:AJA. If you'd like to suggest a change, put it on the discussion page there. If you don't get any feedback (I usually don't), put it in the beer parlour. The only common divergence from the format on WT:AJA is that the 'ja-def' template is usually used instead of simple brackets to wikify terms in Japanese. Your format is particularly troublesome on じんとく. I'm not sure why you were unhappy with the previous format of that page.--Hikui87 05:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also, hiragana entries have a certain format. See WT:AJA#Hiragana_entries.--Hikui87 01:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/User:Tohru

We do have an entry for (deprecated template usage) device, and have had it since 25 August 2003. —Ruakh_TALK 16:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I can see that now but could you please go to 工夫 and tell me what's going on?--50 Xylophone Players 18:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Now fixed; it was just a typo. See <http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?diff=4863120> for what I changed. Thanks for your contributions! :-) —Ruakh_TALK 18:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay thanks Lol I can't believe I actually thought there was no entry for device. If that was the case then I'm sure I'd think that Wiktionary and its users were really slipping up...--50 Xylophone Players 18:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have rolled back something you did in the course of trying to figure out a vandalism problem. Sorry for the inconvenience. DCDuring TALK 14:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Np, I'll just re-do it now. Btw is there chance of getting the retard that did that Avril Lavigne thing blocked (indefinately if possible)?--50 Xylophone Players 15:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wth?! It's still on the rfv page!--50 Xylophone Players 15:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay I'm taking a litle break from Wiktionary for today (I might be back on later) I sincerely hope that the hacked rfv page will be fixed when I return--50 Xylophone Players 15:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not up to the technical challenge. This is one of the more skilled troll/vandals. I share your hopes that it will be fixed soon. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes!!!!!!!! It's fixed!:D--50 Xylophone Players 16:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am wondering why you consider the categorization of this as a Japanese noun pointless? I didn't want to categorize abu because it is the diacritical form that is the proper form according to Kodansha (1993). --Ceyockey 11:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that but it's not exactly my fault because when I just went to Category Japanese nouns to do a routine check I saw ábu and thought that perhaps something was up. So when I clicked on it it redirected me to abu which had no Japanese section whatsoever. Then when I went back to the redirect all that was there was a redirect page categorised as a Japanese noun. Surely you can understand why I thought that was pointless--50 Xylophone Players talk 12:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Odd, because I had created a Japanese section at abu about the same time as I created the redirect. I've since dropped the section in favor of a proper entry at ábu. --Ceyockey 05:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

While I do think that creating entries like ábu might be a good idea, you'll have to discuss something with an admin because as far as I know there are no other entries like that at present. Perhaps we could do something like what is done for Latin, i.e. the entry for exeō is at exeo. However, even if such an idea was accepted I think it would still be best to keep seperate entries that are distinguished by macrons like ningyo and ningyō--50 Xylophone Players talk 10:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have looked about the policy and guideline pages quite a bit and there is little detailed information on dealing with diacritical marks in entry titles. However, the section Wiktionary:Policy - Transliteration#Key terms and the page Wiktionary:About Japanese/Transliteration suggest that "ábu" is within the current policy boundary. Also, the edition of Kodansha's that I have indicates that the romanization used is "a version of the popular Hepburn system with some modificatoins", the Hepburn system being the standard in use here. --Ceyockey 03:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Right. If that's the case then I think Wiktionary might have a lot to sort out as far as Japanese is concerned. My Japanese-English Collins dictionary has similar things in it; e.g. ノルウェー人(a Norwegian (person)) is romanised as norúuējìn. And from what it says in the introduction I think it's safe to say that some words that might be listed here as homophones are not homophones; apparently momo can mean peach or thigh but peach is momó and thigh is momo.--50 Xylophone Players talk 13:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would suppose that this problem would be vastly greater for Chinese languages than for Japanese due to their tonal character (FYI: I speak nothing but English). The Japanese for peach (桃) and thigh (腿) are at separate entries as they differ their kanji representations, though they are listed as having the same hiragana and romaji forms. I have not looked deeply enough to find recommendations/discussions on dealing with (phonetic) transcription vs. transliteration --Ceyockey 15:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't quite get what you're saying about Chinese, but I think you are talking about things like (FYI:I don't speak Chinese I just heard this somewhere) the fact that the words for "to buy" and "to sell" differ only in intonation (of course the Hanzi are probably fairly different, but that statement was just referring to pronunciation).--50 Xylophone Players talk 19:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note. For loan words, I will refrain for creating entry and associated ja-noun template instance unless I have both katakana and hiragana at hand. My aim in editing the past few Japanese entries is to take advantage of my having a Kodansha's dictionary at hand, adding where I can without negative impact on content. --Ceyockey 15:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please indicate your acceptance on that page. Conrad.Irwin 20:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, if you just leave the edit summary blank on a new page creation, it will automatically use the first 200 chars of the entry; this is much more helpful than "birth of entry" Robert Ullmann 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I'll do that in future.--50 Xylophone Players talk 15:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is true that the number of entries may be growing faster there but this is not necessarily a desirable goal. In fact, many (way too many) entries in fr.wikt are generated by robots and have over years never been touched by humans, but only by some other robots which added interwiki links or implemented certain changes in layout policy (Example). The vast majority of the last 500 new entries are adjective forms relating to place names in France, such as fr:vallangoujardoises (random example), which may accompany persons or objects (plural!) of female gender that are from (or at) w:fr:Vallangoujard, a village of 635 inhabitants some 50km north of Paris. Such entries don't contribute too much to the quality of a dictionary. We should remain focused on content, rather than the number of articles. -- Gauss 00:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to sysophood. You should notice a few differences. Have a look at Help:Sysop tools and add a section to Wiktionary:Administrators. Cheers SemperBlotto 18:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. You don't need to create Italian plurals manually - we have a bot that creates them automagically (it runs most days, and also does forms of adjectives and conjugated forms of verbs). Cheers. SemperBlotto 08:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

It does make sense to add pronunciation information, though. H. (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nope, agenda’s is indeed the correct plural form in Dutch. See http://woordenlijst.org/zoek/?q=agenda&w=w&sourceid=Mozilla-search. H. (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The reason is explained in the rule book if you read Dutch. Unfortunately, I found nothing on English Wikipedia about it. H. (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

w:Apostrophe contains a little bit of explanation. The rule is: if the word ends with an open long singular vowel then the plural gets an apostrophe. So agenda’s but bureaus, since the latter is not a singular vowel. And also eindes since the last ‘e’ is not open (it is a schwa). There’s quite some rules hidden under there, actually, also have a look at w:Dutch phonology. A difficult case is azalea’s, which gets the apostrophe despite the two vowels at the end since those vowels each form their own syllable, in contrast to the French ‘eau’ in bureaus…

I would suggest you only add derived forms of languages you feel sufficiently comfortable with. H. (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not clear whether there was a formal decision taken about this (I had taken some time off), but the last time the topic came to be discussed, it seemed that for French pronominal verbs the pronoun-less form was the best. I'm using the pronoun form only for multi word expressions where omitting the pronouns would be really odd. Circeus 20:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

If by "good" you mean that they add to the count of entries, any double brackets will do:

1. in-text wikipedia (or other sister projects) links, including those links to other wiktionaries at the bottom of entries
2. categories {hard-wired)
3. in-text wikt links
4. brackets inside templates that allow them.

If by "good" you mean linking as many words as possible, I don't think most folks would agree. I try to link only the words whose sense in the definition is a little obscure (hence, "fellow"). I also have an intense personal distaste for bolding the initial caps in abbreviations. DCDuring TALK 19:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't fully understand what you mean, could you show what you are suggesting I should do instead of typing "good"?--50 Xylophone Players talk 19:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

In your edit summary for FACP, you had said you were making the entry "good". I didn't understand what you meant there, but tried to cover all bases. DCDuring TALK 20:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I meant "good" as in that it's counted by the software.--50 Xylophone Players talk 21:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Then it already counted because ] was wikilinked and the unabbreviated was WP-linked. DCDuring TALK 23:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I suppose it was a screw-up on my part then since I'm intermittently working on Robert's "not counted" list.--50 Xylophone Players talk 23:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I don't always bother to log in when I just think of a couple of words to consider, so that User:Equinox edit you reverted was actually legitimate. If the edit looks harmless and especially if the IP begins with 86, it's probably my doing :) Thanks anyway. Equinox 11:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Before deleting pages that Conversion script has changed to lower case, you should check for and correct the pages that link to the capitalized form. I notice, for example, that there are such links to Это and Ш. —Stephen 22:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'll be more careful

Yeah, we try to let loose with one of these each Christmas and Easter, though the specific event is different each time. They're usually structured in a way that encourages the creation of new entries. --EncycloPetey 16:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and your extension to Game 4 is not valid since the "u" in atzucac does not appear in either the preceding or the following word. The interposing word cannot have extra letters; it must be formed using the end three letters of the previous word and the initial portion of the following word, using at least three letters of the following word. Sorry. However, you may try a corrected expansion. --EncycloPetey 17:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

How was my edit to Game 4 a false trail? the u in atzucac is found in cacahuate. --50 Xylophone Players talk 17:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

But only through rearrangement, which isn't allowed. Think of it this way: the interposing word should be visiable as a "hidden" word when the preceding and following words are written together, one after the other...like in a word search. To use Atzucac as the interposing word, your following word would have to have begun with "ucac-". --EncycloPetey 17:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

We have a little-known template that helps with taxonomic names. I've added it to this entry so you can see how it works. --EncycloPetey 16:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Great! Thanks for showing me that. 50 Xylophone Players talk 16:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Although "correct" formatting for taxonomic entries has never been settled, you might find useful the formatting I used for entries like Lepidoziaceae. --EncycloPetey 17:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

What I usually do is include one common name as a wikilink in the text of the definition. All the synonyms (in the linguistic sense) can then be added to that English entry. The problem with listing them in the Translingual entry, of course, is that the common names are in other languages, and they're different for each language. An alternative is to link to Wikispecies and to list the common names there, which is something they were set up for. --EncycloPetey 19:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I seem to have run into a problem here: Chromista says that it is a taxon within a subkingdom but in the following page (that I am giving a link for) it's classed as a kingdom

Now if you don't mind me saying so WTF is up with that? 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The name does not have a fixed rank in the literature. Different authors treat it at different ranks, which is one reason I haven't done more in terms of adding taxonomic names. I finally did all the liverworts (down to genus) this last summer, but only because a comprehensive classification came out recently. I plan to do the mosses and pteridophytes sometimes soon, again because there are agreed-upon recent reclassifications. However, the algae are still unsettled, and the ranks above order are in a state of flux for the flowering plants as well. As a result, I haven't seriously considered doing anything for those groups. The genera and families are (relatively) stable among the flowering plants, and APG II proposes an acceptable ordinal classification, but I don't know how stable modern algal classification is. --EncycloPetey 22:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

It should be possible to add entries for species, genera, families, and orders, as I don't believe they have changed much. It's the higher-level taxonomy that's changed a lot. --EncycloPetey 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Right, thanks for the help. 50 Xylophone Players talk 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

The high placement on Special:WantedPages for that word is incorrect- check the "what links here" on it. Googling the term gets few hits, most of them mentions or scanning errors, none pointing to a potential meaning. Please don't add it to the queue again, thanks. Teh Rote 01:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

When doing this, please redact the content of the entry so it isn't in the deletion log. The log is public, permanent, and known to be archived on at least one site. So it gives the personal attack permanence with an association to the wikt. Not good. This also applies when personal info shows in the delete summary (telephone numbers, etc.) Robert Ullmann 13:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Right, but what do you mean by "redact"? 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Um, last I looked, there was a dictionary lying around here somewhere you might look it up in? (;-) Robert Ullmann 15:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I get you now I just thought it was something that was a bit too "jargonish" to be included. 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, real word. (:-) Most people (like my age and older) learned it when the Nixon tape transcripts were published, and they were full of . Apparently in the Oval Office he would swear a lot. "expletive deleted" became something of a catch phrase. What I do is either just blank the "content:" line, or replace it with "". Robert Ullmann 15:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

It does, in fact, have to do with R-->L vs L-->R. I don't fully understand the underlying mechanics of it all, but it can do some crazy things. Some tips I've learned from my own experience: Never try to move a piece of R-->L text together with a piece of L-->R text. It never works out right, for some reason. Trying to copy Arabic text with Latin brackets usually ends up with the brackets being pasted all on the same side of the Arabic word....and sometime all facing the same way, eerily (although, even with all the brackets on one side, the link sometimes still works). Additionally, if you need to select a R-->L word, you have to double click it, or drag your cursor from the right end to the left end. So, to update the wanted queue, I double-clicked the Arabic words, cut them, created new left brackets, pasted, created new right brackets, deleted old brackets. Hope that helps (and wasn't too didactic). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

When you correct a call to {{inflection of}}, as you did here, please remember that adding the wikilinks groups the 1st and 2nd parameters as a single parameter. So... you have to add another pipae after the wikilinks, like this, or else some of the inflectional information will not show up when the page is displayed. --EncycloPetey 07:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'll do that in future whenever I come across an entry with similar problems. 50 Xylophone Players talk 17:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

You seem to have misunderstood one of the rules. While the interposing word begins with the last three letters of the previous word, the following word begins with the remainder of the interposing words, not with just the last three letters. Example (from Game 1):

• present (entenderé, entender, entende, entend) endereçasse

Notice that the red final portion of each interposing word (the word minust the three letters taken from the previous word) exists as the beginning of the final word. There are thus no letters from the interposing word that are not part of either the preceding or following word. --EncycloPetey 22:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, about that, I didn't forget there was just something on my mind. I'll be extra careful from now on.50 Xylophone Players talk 22:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

A couple of days ago, you added -ber and -bris to the queue. If these were "Latin" requests because of the month names, then there are no entries to create. See the discussion at Wiktionary:Requested entries:Latin#B. If they were for some other language, it would help to add the ISO code in parentheses after the link, so that people will know. --EncycloPetey 03:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please be advised that your contribution to game 2 was not within the rules as I see it there. Someone played after you, so it has been moved to being a false trail --Neskaya kanetsv 22:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

My bad, it wasn't. --Neskaya kanetsv 22:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please don't delete blank rows that separate the different sections in Hungarian entries. It is very hard to read wikitext that way. Thank you. --Panda10 00:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The blank rows will automatically be reinserted by the software when that section is editted, so removing them is Sisyphean anyway. There is no point to removing them, and there is reason to have them. --EncycloPetey 00:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

tx for restoring "nonsense/gibberish", one of the most useful reasons (sorry for terseness, net awful right now) Robert Ullmann 00:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Np, I'm used to internet slang and shorthand. 50 Xylophone Players talk 00:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is an easier and better way to do it than trying to add it to every use of pl-decl-noun. I'm going to be busy for a bit so can't do anything right now, but the idea is to make a pl-cell template, and use it in pl-decl-noun, where pl-cell does basically #if isvalidpagename, link else use the input. Then a simple value will be linked, and a template or page that wants something more complicated can pass something already linked. And this fixes the w/s-newline strippign problem. Robert Ullmann 18:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Right, while I've got you, can you check my question at (the bottom of) WT:ID? 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

You might want to consider asking for a bot flag to add these if you intend to continue at the present rate, as you are generating a fair amount of noise on Special:RecentChanges. Conrad.Irwin 21:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there is something like {{g}} for the grammatical forms. Conrad.Irwin 21:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

how easy would it be to write a bot for the task (would the programming be complex)? 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

A bot already exists, you'd have to ask one of the people who runs it (User:SemperBlotto perhaps) how complicated. You don't need to use a bot to have a bot flag, you can edit normally using that account - it would just make RecentChanges cleaner. It isn't necessary. Conrad.Irwin 21:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking of having my own bot to do this, only problem is I don't know python yet. 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oops, yes, well spotted. I tend to do a load of inflections and variants at once. Equinox 00:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

No prob, I just want to keep everything right here, so if I notice any slip ups (or rather screw ups in some cases) I fix them to the best of my ability. 50 Xylophone Players talk 00:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please go see. Steel Blade 16:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I was trying to put the content for awful, but Semperblotto removed them and consider them "bad". Try to be careful. He can be strict. Steel Blade 22:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there again. He said that that derived term was bad because it's SOP. Anyway, I was wondering is English a second language to you? 50 Xylophone Players talk 22:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

No. It's my first, maybe awful amount is good enough. An awful lot can be an idiom, but it's SOP. Steel Blade 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Are slang words notable? Iceblock 17:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary doesn't believe in "notability". We include rare words and boring words just the same as common ones and oft-discussed ones. See Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. —Ruakh_TALK 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I would like to do some corrections on dégueulasse because now the wikisyntax is not very clean and the entry misses some information. I put my version on User:Pharamp/Sandbox, can you verify if all is correct? I really don't know how to do in this case with the etymologies/same verb forms from different verbs. I hope to learn how to resolve it. Thank you very much anyway =) Pharamp 19:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yep, looks perfectly fine to me, I've created Category:French words suffixed with -asse in advance which all entries containg {{suffix|xxxxx|asse}} will automatically be categorised into. Cheers! 50 Xylophone Players talk 00:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've updated it now. Thank you so much og kossar =) Pharamp 09:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

PoS headings are at the same level as the Etymology heading for words with a single etymology in a given language. We have a bot that has been tagging these as "rfc"s, but they need to be manually corrected. See WT:ELE. DCDuring TALK 00:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Right, thanks, somehow I always thought otherwise... 50 Xylophone Players talk 00:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The inconsistency between single and multiple indentation patterns never made much sense to me. I assume it is a problem of incremental evolution. DCDuring TALK 01:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I've done a few dozen of your French words, so "All bluelinks that are unstroked need French" is no longer true. Equinox ◑ 23:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I did lots of additions and some corrections to a couple of entries you created. See autodégradable, aclinique, métalinguistique, chthonien, pianistique and their respective forms. Please check if you find errors =) --Pharamp 15:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ouh, also, I would like to ask what template we use for this etym (télégraphe) because it is composed by a prefix+suffix and I really don't know how to make it. Thanks =) =) =) Pharamp 14:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Equinox:Thanks, I have not been on in a while because first I went on a school ski tour and when I came back I found that my PC needed to fixed. :( as such I have a lot of routine work to catch up on. Just to give you an idea my last contribution (from this PC) was made at 01:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC).

Pharamp:I don't think there is such a template, perhaps you could ask someone with knowledge of programming to create one.50 Xylophone Players talk 22:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help earlier. I usually do make sure that they are correct before I create the plurals, however, seeing as I am fr-1, and you are most likely much better than me at French, I wouldn't know if it was correct or not. Cheers, Razorflame 19:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. :) 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, but does that mean when ALL forms of the word are the same, conjugation through all tenses, its etimology etc. because as the matter of fact it's the very same language (being called as one until recent wars occurred)? As if, and more than that actually, there was a separate, duplicate, section for American English on top of existing English, for each and every word there is in English language? --93.86.96.88 18:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The separation of the Serbo-Croatian languages is currently being rethought at Wiktionary:About Serbo-Croatian. By all means voice your concerns there. However, if two languages are treated as separate languages, then yes, there will be redundant sections, even if nearly everything is identical. While this overlap may seem silly, the words are very rarely identical, even if they are sometimes very, very similar. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

...use script templates. — opiaterein — 20:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks. 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is no definite genitive in Armenian. Please do not add inflected forms unless you are certain that that which you are adding is in accordance with the language's inflectional mechanics and quirks. — opiaterein — 21:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, for the "recycled, reformed" tip. ;) 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

It seemed particularly fitting, since you did the same thing that you dragged someone else up on. Except that Armenian has far fewer editors here than French, and your mistake may've gone unnoticed for longer than the other.

And it wasn't reformed, it was a direct quote. Copy, paste. — opiaterein — 21:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

P.S. are there any other red herring forms suggested by the table at շաբաթ?

If you're going to add them, I think you should be able to recognize the basics, regardless of what the template says. — opiaterein — 21:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I say reformed because its being used with Armenian in mind not French. 50 Xylophone Players talk 11:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

It was better before. Now it is not that clear. http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3Aplural_of&diff=6353947&oldid=5942646 TestPilot^{talk to me!} 03:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, this should be discussed with some other admins I guess, I'll see if I can "fetch" one or two. 50 Xylophone Players talk 16:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've brought this to User:Conrad.Irwin's attention as well as User:Opiaterein's, as I don't do templates. I think the word form of should be in there. --Neskaya kanetsv 16:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

It makes things less consistent, while I prefer an absense of "form" in these template, I know many others disagree. (Still no harm in a bit of WT:BP bikeshedding). Conrad.Irwin 16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

While I understand the rationale behind the change, {{plural of}} is a widely used template, and any changes should probably be brought up in the Beer Parlour. Thank you. --Neskaya kanetsv 16:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Neskaya. Such a change to a widely-used template ought to be discussed first. Personally, I use that template mostly for English entries, where I suspect either wording would be just fine. However, I am not certain which other languages make heavy and regular use of this template. There may be some languages where one wording or the other is clearly preferable, so discussion first sounds like a good idea. The discussion could also provide a nice community summary of the template's current use which could be added to the template documentation for future reference. --EncycloPetey 03:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why did you undo revisions by User:71.197.235.239? DAVilla 07:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not quite sure anymore but maybe it had something to do with this. 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

It looks a lot better when you compare the old version with the anon's more properly formatted revision. DAVilla 08:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

You have recently made several edits and a move regarding casing in Japanese romanization. As opposed to translation and other English spelling conversions, Japanese romanization is all lower case by convention. For example, just be 亜米利加 (amerika) means America, it does not mean that it should be romanized as Amerika. Same goes with similar edits. Regards, Bendono 14:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, it would seem to me that a lot of Japanese romaji Proper nouns we have entries for are capitalised; just check Category:Japanese proper nouns. 50 Xylophone Players talk 07:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand what you are saying. I regularly use those templates. Equinox ◑ 23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

A few entries you created had need of them but they weren't there. I saw this as I was sifting through your weird words for some easy things to create entries for. 50 Xylophone Players talk 01:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, sometimes I can't be bothered with really obvious ones like (deprecated template usage) un-, (deprecated template usage) re-, and (deprecated template usage) -ly. Depends on my mood :) Equinox ◑ 13:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Heh, guess I do similar things too sometimes, but still I don't like having to "trailblaze" after you just to have to get those into the cats. they should be in. 50 Xylophone Players talk 13:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Incidentally isn't it odd that the Vietnamese wikt. (of all the ones there are!) seems to have entries for a lot of the new "un entries" which are on your list?

Yeah, some pretty strange (semi-obsolete) words turn up on the Chinese one, too; I imagine they imported a lot of entries from a rather old English translating dictionary. I shall try to be more consistent with adding etymologies; perhaps I can hack something together to save typing so many curly braces. Equinox ◑ 13:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello PalkiaX50! Thanks for welcoming me to Wiktionary! Its great contributing here on what's probably the world's largest dictionary. I'm now starting to really get the hang of how it works here. Feel free to sign my guestbook on Wikipedia! And to have a look at my list of contributions on my userpage. So once again, thank you. Ross Rhodes (T C) ^Sign! 22:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

It looks as though you've elected to put all the verb functions into the same template as the other functions. If you do this, you'll need additional parameters, because it's not at all unusual for a verb to need three, four, or even five parameters. Note that {{inflection of}} and its offspring were designed only to be used with nouns, adjectives, and similarly inflecting parts of speech. There is a separate {{conjugation of}} template for verbs, and it is entirely possible that it will satisfy the needs of Icelandic verb forms without any modification. --EncycloPetey 00:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was just about to save said changes. 50 Xylophone Players talk 00:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

*yawns* I need to get to bed for school; when I get back on I need to discuss some tweaking of {{is-inflection of}} with you. 50 Xylophone Players talk 00:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

My primary point in my last post was that you may not need the verb functions in the is-template at all, which would reduce the number of required calls to the grammar tag, and thereby save on server strain. Verbs seem to have a more consistent set of grammatical parameters across languages. You may be able to use the existing {{conjugation of}} template for all verb forms. Nighty-night, and note that I may not be online much tomorrow until after UTC 2:00. --EncycloPetey 00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Supine and reflexive are not useful for "form of". Most languages do not have these as separate forms. Supine is not a major verb form except in Latin, Swedish, and a handful of other languages, and the added server strain for the extra tag isn't going to pay dividends. For those languages that have reflexive "forms", many of them do not treat it as a "form" here on Wiktionary, but give a full separate entry. For example, Spanish lists the reflexive infinitive as a lemma form, and a few other languages (at least) do this as well because the reflexive "form" has a different definition from the non-reflexive form of the verb. I'm going to revert your changes, but this means that the server will have to re-render all pages that use the template (just as it did when you made the changes). Please don't make such a major change to such a widely used template without discussion, or unless it fixes something that is clearly broken. The server has to recheck all pages using the template each time this happens. --EncycloPetey 02:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps I should make {{is-conjugation of}} then? At any rate did you check (deprecated template usage) athugar? As for your arguments against those tags please check (deprecated template usage) athuga to see why I think they should at least be included in an Icelandic-specific template. 50 Xylophone Players talk 17:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

An icelandic template sounds like it would be a good idea. --EncycloPetey 00:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay! since it's Friday I'm going to get right on it :D 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I've made an abbreviated version of this proposal at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/Context labels in ELE v2. Please have a look. —Michael Z. 2009-05-17 18:05 z

I've been following EP's notion that we would make it our practice not to have entries for multi-part species names as entries or redlinks, at least for now. The logic is that these are inherently encyclopedic and that both WP and Wikispecies have them. Of course, all one-part taxonomic names and all vernacular names are fair game even under this practice. Wikispecies is not that good on vernacular names. Wikipedia is not at all good on non-English vernacular names, though good on English names. There is also a good case for us to include obsolete and disputed taxonomic names. I'd welcome your thoughts and questions on this. DCDuring TALK 20:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm busy atm so I can't say much but I think they should be included (despite their variability and changeability). 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've never heard of a Dutch word enzan before, but when I pronounce the sentence it sounds something like "Ik ben zo eenzaam zonder jou" which means "I'm so lonely without you". That's all I can make of it :) Good evening User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 18:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough I thought it was a slander of sorts being laid upon someone (as the entry was the name of a person) but that seems unlikely to me now. 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can I ask for a link to the edit? User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 18:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Since you're not an admin I'll just tell you about it (it's a deleted entry). It was something like this:

{{person's name}} - Ik ben zo enzan zonder jou

and the title was the same. 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see, I wondered whether the editor was a southerner. User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 20:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Eh? What do you mean by southerner? 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I'm sorry. Southerner in the sense of w:North Brabant, w:Limburg (Netherlands), w:Flanders User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 15:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the {{etyl}} template requires a second parameter whenever the language of the current entry is not English. --EncycloPetey 20:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oops, in that case I should have said a third parameter as I meant than the likes of {{etyl|la|es}} will do no more than {{etyl|la}} will. 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, it will. Using {{etyl|la}} says that the entry is an English word derived from Latin, and categorizes the entry in Category:Latin derivations. Using {{etyl|la|es}} says that the entry is a Spanish word derived from Latin, and categorizes the entry in Category:es:Latin derivations. This is an importnat and necessary difference. --EncycloPetey 20:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, my bad. I don't really have the knowledge or resources to deal with etymologies other than those involving the likes of {{prefix}} and {{suffix}}. As a result I wouldn't really be dealing with {{etyl}} much. 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I fixed the list in your userspace to all points, if that's what you wanted. Bugboy52.40 18:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

You RFD'd this entry last year - can I speedy delete it? --Jackofclubs 07:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's an invalid (albeit possible) reading of (deprecated template usage) 旅人 which I must have recklessly concocted by comparison to (deprecated template usage) tabinin, a valid alternative reading. Either that or it was just an accident. Regardless of which it is, I musn't have known about {{delete}} back then. 50 Xylophone Players talk 17:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Inersimasuk is print error, i correct it, yes my nick is greenlandic in witch i am, and i can see there small number of they should corrected, sometime ... byebye for now, cuz i'm off for now --Qaqqalik 00:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Palkia! I'm here again to ask you how to format Icelandic verbs. Category:Icelandic_verbs suggests:

'''biðja''' (+ {{accusative}}) (]; ], ], ])

That becomes:

biðja (+ Template:accusative) (bið; bað, báðum, beðið)

As you can see, it's a simple string written in wikisyntax without a sigle template. Do you know if there is something? I didn't find anything. A template like {{is-noun|gender|gen sing|nom plur}}, that is for nouns, with {{is-verb|1|2|3}} could work quite well in my opinion. Bless á meðan og kossar=) Pharamp 11:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, perhaps I will try and hack something of that description together tomorrow. For now though I just thought I'd draw your attention to them templates {{is-inflection of}} and {{is-conjugation of}} which I took the liberty of creating a little while back. In my opinion they are the best way to deal with form of entries for verbs, nouns, etc. By the way do adjectives inflect in any way in Icelandic? 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, adjectives have m/f/n gender, sometimes the declension is different m/f/n, sometimes m/fn (see fallegur and réttur). And also, there are strong/weak cases. (woooo too things!) (koss) Pharamp 19:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi again *_* I have another question - this time it concerns Greenlandic entries. I've created two standards (link) for singular/plural nouns, seen the confusion with different templates. Can you please check it? And also, I wrote two "possibility" which have been used but I personally don't like. Thank you very very very much and cheers=) Pharamp 17:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

You mean two alternatives which you have been using ( :) ), yes? Ok, well here are my ideas

1. Scrap those other "possibilities" all together.
2. For plural do not use {{infl|kl|noun}} or anything of the sort as plurals need not be categorised into the noun category. Simply type '''pagename''' or of course '''{{subst:PAGENAME}}''' if it's more convenient. 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oulalà je n'ai rien compris, excuse-moi :( Est-ce que tu pourrais modifier directement ma page Pharamp/Standardization avec les templates que tu estimes les meilleurs? Comme ça j'baserai mes prochains edits en fonction de ce schéma. Merci =) Pharamp 16:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

D'accord, je te parlerai en français pour le moment et peut-être tu me comprends plus facilement. J'ai modifié ta page et maintenant tu peux voir quoi je parlait sur. Aussi, un autre point n'utilise que la modèle {{infl}} à moins que la langue en question n'a pas des modèles. À bientôt! :) Oulalà, j'ai réalisé quelque chose c'est le premier temp que j'ai écris à mon page dans un langue autre que l'anglais (sur l'Internet en général aussi, je crois). C'est génial :D 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Merci merci merci =D bisous et à bientôt! Pharamp 16:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Mr. PalkiaX50, I truly need your help with the word "supercompress", please. It's difficult and this is the only specific word I'm having trouble with. Thank you. My request is sent. Steel Blade 18:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, PalkiaX50. Steel Blade 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I don't know. Never happened to me before. Either way, I was just trying to inform him about the consequences. Why I did go into questioning at all (I am an admin on mk.wiki and usually don't waste words) is because I noticed that he has some sort of admin privileges, which got me into commenting in the first place. Thanks for the advise though. --B. Jankuloski 10:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

No no no, you're wrong about that; even non-admins can undo edits and welcome people, although the latter is not common place. It is rollbacking that only admins and people of a higher rank can perform (i.e. only they can undo all edits a contributor has made to a page since someone else last edited that page). 50 Xylophone Players talk 11:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Well, actually I used to create those noun forms on my own but Opiaterein informed me about that accelerated noun form-creation. I mean, I didn't create the templates and English is not my mother tongue, so I guess you know it best. Sinek 17:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I shall have a look at them but you did understand what I was asking you, yes? 50 Xylophone Players talk 17:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think I did. "ablative singular of" rather than "singular ablative of"; I meant it's written automatically. Sinek 17:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's what I was saying and I'm checking out the code at the moment. 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi I know you block a vandal recently, it may be the same under a different name. http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Special:Contributions/Coghjk Anatoli 04:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Heh, looks like someone already blocked the retard... Oh, well maybe next time. 50 Xylophone Players talk 09:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I will respond to your comment on my talk page as soon as my ridiculously slow computer gets around to it. ; ) L☺g☺maniac chat? 20:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello PalkiaX50 -- Re this edit, actually your "mess" looks a lot like my "mess". I generally avoid the quotation templates, since they are sometimes changed in questionable ways, affecting many entries. Re your comment -- {{sic}}<!--replace this with something better if you can:it is indicating that the italics were present in the original text--> -- the italics are present in the original text. -- WikiPedant 16:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but you seem to have misinterpreted my concealed comment; I added it to make sure people knew the italics do exist in the original text. I was not trying to say that they were not present in the original text. 50 Xylophone Players talk 16:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, PalkiaX50, I get your meaning now. But, in any case, the italics in the original text seem to be grammatically correct since, in this parenthetical expression, the author appears to be referring to the term Pillayar, and not the god himself. -- WikiPedant 17:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough then. 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The etymology is incorrect. The element "egybe-" is not being added as a prefix to another word, rather it is the root word. --EncycloPetey 21:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Huh? two things:

1. How do you know that?
2. I didn't put that in the entry, I just created the prefix category.50 Xylophone Players talk 22:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

See User talk:Qorilla, where the conversation has been happening with the person who set up the etymology. --EncycloPetey 22:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Would you please stop screwing up our language? See: Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#zeebodempje Jcwf 17:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay, first of all would you please be a little more civil? :P If it's that much of an annoyance to you from now on I'll only create diminutives that are attestable per CFI. 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi PalkiaX50 - I think the issue you raised on my talk page is now fixed.

92.8.148.2 18:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks :) By the way, you seem to have forgotten to log in (or are you just making a "hit and run" sort of visit?) 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

isSTANDEDabr i/myLONGMAN[iput dothere COZEVbloto,NOTwantin2exposeme evreproachs vSILINes fromyside[tho restev entry 'd'vmade clear aniway

• / didNOTno wethaSTANDEDornot i/wt--ijustTALKppMARATHONS'dbe madeACESIBLE2mesoICANTFISIKLI,evenwhen entrysofme rconsidrd ok[4wich imhapi!!:p
• 2do ichangd in doIN[me stilCONFUSDbouthat i/engl:(
• ta4infl etc!
• iLUVITwenppl makewotidoBETA[imSUBtop i/quite afewthings,soALWAYSrum4improvmnt,ta!!{ihate blunt rv's ala ep et.al tho..:(

ta'gain

ps'dbe deN uil irealizd afteweds[OLDflemish sodaWILgoz2the bak4rhym purposes[mod.nl: nt wil zien.

• praps w/l.m we'd makeLONGHANDofthis nputon "sv'scompl"--i'vno meanbone i/me,ijust wishtheyGET2UNDERSTANDwotimstruglinw/nCANTDO,THEYppl--fr.wp=MOST CMNocc.diseas i/fr,inOz=epidemic,wasi mistakn i/c-inda goals vwmf ppl'dbeENLITENDherbut9m0runin,postin w:rsiNUTINworkd,BUTpraps sbw/HELTHYhands'n'resn canmakeaDIFRENS--inourshrt/onlyRECNTdealinz uimpresdme aSENSTIVnRSNBLwichiV.MUCH APRECIATE,"framed":false,"label":"Reply","flags":,"classes":}'>Reply

"2do ichangd in doIN[me stilCONFUSDbouthat i/engl:("

If I understand you right then my understanding of it is as follows: in English you say "to do so" (not doing so) but I think in doing so is also acceptable. 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

but you broke Recent Changes and Watchlist in one go... -- Prince Kassad 20:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

(please don't think I'm mad at you but...) what the fuck did I do wrong...>_> I was about to message someone to see what was going on but obviously there's no point in doing so now. 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

You seem to have screwed up big-time with those comment tags. -- Prince Kassad 20:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, one sec, I'll try to fix it properly now...50 Xylophone Players talk 20:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's okay now isn't it? 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes it looks fine now. -- Prince Kassad 21:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thankfully...50 Xylophone Players talk 21:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you can cite it in English (not Scots, a distinct language), please do so! Otherwise it needs an RFV. Equinox ◑ 22:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm saying that (deprecated template usage) gypsie doesn't exist in English, only in Scots (as far as I know), and those Google Books results are Scots ones, not English ones. They are separate languages on Wiktionary. So unless you have evidence to the contrary we should not have an English entry for gypsie. Equinox ◑ 00:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Looks a bit archaic, and we need three. Equinox ◑ 20:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can you please add plural form of fordel (french definition). I do not know how. Thanks, Razorflame 14:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean? Fordel doesn't seem to be a French word. I even check a not so small French dictionary of mine (nothing massive mind you). DO you perhaps have a definition of it if it is a French word? 50 Xylophone Players talk 14:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. I meant to say galops. Thanks, Razorflame 14:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's as simple as this :) 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, and I see. Razorflame 15:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I assume you are aware that Verbo appears to edit under User:Fastifex now? Caladon 17:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

What?! He is using another account? Either way, whether he is here or not he seems to never obey or even respond to any advice he is given. Whatever his problem, that is what I've seen. 50 Xylophone Players talk 17:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

He is Arcarius (talk • contribs), Matricularius (talk • contribs), Verbo (talk • contribs) and Fastifex (talk • contribs) at least (and on wikipedia too), nothing fundamentally wrong with his contributions, just a fondness for spanking and lack of ability to take criticism. If things go terribly wrong, we could block him again, but I doubt it'll help in the long run. Conrad.Irwin 17:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not to mention selective inability to reply to people, and repeated refusal to comply with formatting standards...;P 50 Xylophone Players talk 17:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

S/He seems to make some really good edits, and then edits that seem to have come out of a drunken stupor. I can't think of any other rationale for them. The Latin edits from this user are woefully bad, but they keep happening. The sockpuppeting alone could be grounds for blocking if things don't improve. (I'm not holding my breath on that). He created an entry for Vienna sausage where his example sentence didn't even include the entry word, but seems to have included some other non-English word. I don't get it. --EncycloPetey 04:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

A bothersome and rather kooky editor, to be sure. It's good that a number of us keep an eye on him. -- WikiPedant 05:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

When you created this entry, did you look at the definiton of vindicatory? There has been a lot of discussion of late about avoiding "in an X manner" as a "definition" for an adverb, and this is why. --EncycloPetey 04:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I think the (deprecated template usage) vindicatorily defn works in conjunction with the (deprecated template usage) vindicatory defn. The adverb means "in a manner that pertains to vindication". Not spectacularly informative, but accurate as far as it goes. -- WikiPedant 05:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Heh, yeah I tend to agree with WikiPedant on this one. 50 Xylophone Players talk 16:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree too. It's inconvenient that users have to click a couple of times to get to the "meat", but that applies in other cases like swordbearers = plural of swordbearer = one who bears a sword. It doesn't (IMO) invalidate the definition. Citations would be an improvement, as always, of course. Equinox ◑ 16:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, if I try another (semi-obscure) one like vindicatorily any time soon, I'll try to fetch a citation for it.50 Xylophone Players talk 16:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The big problem with meaningless "in an X manner" definitions like this is that translations get added to them. Then, years later, when a real definition is added, and it turns out there are actually two senses of the adverb, then all the added Translations have to be moved to "Translations to be Checked", and all the work that was done ends up having to be redone. We've had several recent complaints about this problem, so why don't we start doing something to fix the problem before it starts, by adding real definitions instead of pawning adverbs off as not worth bothering over? -EncycloPetey 03:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Then apparently we also need to redo all of the "plural of X" entries because if X has two senses it won't translate in the same way! Equinox ◑ 15:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good point! but... we don't do translations of plurals do we... Nice try though :/ 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

If we decide to put translations on non-lemmata, then yes. If we decide not to include translations on non-lemmata, then no. --EncycloPetey 15:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

We have been treating adverbs as if their meaning was obvious from the adjective, ie, more as if they were a mere inflected form than a derived word. In this we follow most dictionaries' practice for most of the adverbs they cover. (I'm not sure about OED.) But, not every sense of an adjective carries over to its derived adverb and sometimes the meaning and usage is not very obvious when one has to think of it consciously. The adverbs with sentence and degree usage are perhaps the worst. In any event they seemed so to me.

Vindicatorily might just need a usage citation. DCDuring TALK 15:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

PalkiaX50, you should test your edits thoroughly before doing anything to frequently used templates. Breaking the template caused unnecessary problems for Wiktionary. I have now reverted your edits. Don't try to create the inflection categories before we get consensus on how they should be named. --Jyril 13:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Are you doing bits of my -ingly page? Good stuff. Equinox ◑ 22:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Please don't link in this template. It's not one parameter=one word template. You can wikilink in subtemplates. Maro 18:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'll keep that in mind. 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

This category should not exist. Heavily-inflected languages use "noun forms", since there are several plural forms for each noun. --EncycloPetey 19:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Meh, I'll add a note to say what they are. I don't see what the problem is; Hungarian already does this. 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that the category is very non-specific in its name. We tend to use this category name and structure only for languages that have one plural form only for the noun. Hungarian was (unfortunately) modelled on the monstrous Finnish categories, which are periodically under discussion for severe simplification. --EncycloPetey 19:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, the note (that I just added) sorts that out and at least I instigated the tidying up of the Hungarian noun form categorisation. 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

So, are you going to create categories for the genitive plural, accusative plural, etc.? If so, why? If not, why not? What's special about the nominative plural form that merits a separate category? --EncycloPetey 19:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

EncycloPetey, in that case, could I clean the category Polish plurals? :) Maro 15:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The thing is, that unlike Hungarian, in SC (as well as most other IE languages) there is lots of instances of case syncretism. generali is both nominative and vocative plural of general. tla is genitive singular, as well as nominative, accusative and vocative plural of tlo. To say merely that it's "plural" would be imprecise. Hungarian can get away with this, and even provide translations as English plurals, others are not so lucky. --Ivan Štambuk 19:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, perhaps I may try to make them like the Hungarian categories. But not today of course. Ivan, even if you some things occurring like nominoaccusatives occurring it's still not totally unideal to use something like this; if a form is nominative and accusative plural then it could be put in this and a category form accusative noun forms. 50 Xylophone Players talk 22:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, perhaps. In case of nouns of neuter gender (such as tlo above), in IE languages there is syncretism in nominative, accusative and vocative plural (c.f. declension of any thematic neuter noun in Latin, Ancient Greek and Sanskrit), so the best terminology would be some sth like nominovocativeaccusatives but I don't think that that word exists.. :)

There is also a problem with multiple forms which might overlap. For example, in Slavic languages there is animate/inanimate subgender distinction in accusative singular. Generally if the noun is animate acc. sg. = nom. sg, if it's inanimate acc. sg. = gen. sg. And there are some nouns that simultaneously have both animate and inanimate senses. So it would be impossible to encompass them all in a single category.

I have no problem with creation of individual categories for every individual category of inflection. I just think that it's overkill to have them and that they don't serve any kind of purpose. Who'd wanna browse a category of e.g. accusative plural forms ? :)

My only objection with all this "plurals approach" is the inherent notion of projection of categories that are designed and well suited for languages such as English, but not so for other languages where there are additional grammatical markers beside plurality. And it's not only cases: some languages would have "normal" plural, and a plural form marked for definiteness. Those with ergativity would have dual nominative plural forms: absolutive and ergative, which one to use depending on the transitivity of the verb. I see no problem in translating them all as English plurals of their lemma sense, but glosses of inflected forms should really be as complete and proper as possible.. --Ivan Štambuk 23:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

What's with moving the seemingly valid Chinese entries to different page names and deleting the redirections? I'm sure you're doing it in good faith, but it could be considered vandalism, especially with no prior discussion to justify it. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is something under "examination" at the moment and soon to be voted on. Now I haven't studied Chinese but I can see that these toneless pinyin entries are undesirable and right now I'd honestly much prefer if things stayed less "tonelessy" if you catch my drift. So as I'm leaving Wiktionary for the night soon I'd appreciate it if you would kindly tell Mr. Abc123 to cease and desist until this vote has run its course. 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Young Mr. Štambuk's acolyte, your switching entries from Serbian to Serbo-Croatian is vandalism. Template:sh-proper-noun is not a direct replacement for sr-proper-noun, and Template:sh-decl-noun is not a direct replacement for sr-decl-noun. Now these correct entries have incorrect declension tables. Look at them closer, to see what I am talking about.--Pepsi Lite 22:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh lower your tone, half of your inflections are wrong anyway. --Ivan Štambuk 22:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

They were at the start, but now that I have bought some grammar books, they won't be anymore.--Pepsi Lite 22:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

A cynic would say that alleged -4 speaker wouldn't need the help of grammar books. Speaking a language and being versed in a grammatical structure of its literary idiom to the extent of being a proficient lexicographer are two very different things. This alone makes the nature of your complaint almost surreally farcical, and esp. given the fact that almost all of duplicative entries that PalkiaX50 mercilessly obliterated, the act of which you deviously misname "vandalism", are in fact blatant copy/pastes of Serbo-Croatian entries I made. --Ivan Štambuk 22:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've only noticed as, ас, Adam and Адам on my watchlist. That he's been deleting Croatian entries, I don't care. And what makes you a proficient lexicographer in the Serbo-Croatian language? Is University of Zagreb again a bastion of communism, that they have abandoned the sublime Croatian language, and now look again to the east for the correct way Štokavian should be spoken? The etymology sections are almost always, valid duplicates across every Slavic language anyway. Those sections in Russian, Polish and your own are validly duplicated.--Pepsi Lite 22:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

What does communism have to do with this anyway? Serbo-Croatian language existed long before that ideology was created, and has had its grammars and dictionaries written while Karl Marx was still pissing his pants. And I'm not speaking only of etymological sections (which I usually propagate to many Slavic languages whenever I add them to SC ones, in fact I've added most of the Common Slavic etymologies for all the Slavic languages here...): it's the pronunciations, meanings, inflections, derived terms... You all (primarily you and Elephantus) simply look silly while advocating "separate" Croatian and Serbian languages, and simultaneously copy/paste entire ==Serbo-Croatian== sections to ==Serbian== and ==Croatian== with trivial changes (e.g. changing sh code to sr/hr, and adopting different parameters in templates). I imagine that many a neutral observer is laughing his ass out seeing us "fight" over this.

It is also inconceivable to me how you don't understand that all your efforts are ultimately futile as much as they are ludicrous. With the recent sky-rocketing growth of SC entries in terms of both volume and quality, it's completely insane to pursue the simultaneous addition of separate B/C/S entries. And the motivation for it: I've grown quite fed up with restricting myself to editing only SC entries over the last months, but whenever I see some proud Croat or Serb in a righteous rage over some "historical injustice" on their language my blood starts to boil and immediately distracts me from whatever I've been doing. Now I'll have to create 1000 new SC words simply to chill out from this talk. --Ivan Štambuk 01:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Mr. Štambuk, you give a false picture of how different Serbian and Croatian languages are. Here is an example: Športski rezultati → Sportski rezultati for which you were blocked at Croatian wikipedia, soon after. You've changed Croatian words into Serbian. The word "sport" is purely Serbian, whereas "šport" is correct Croatian. Your additions to Serbo-Croatian sections is almost exclusively Serbian. So too with words like munjosprem, which you've improperly marked for deletion. The reason you are doing this is probably because you found some _hot_ socialist chick at Zagreb University, and this is the way to impress her.--Pepsi Lite 05:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you should come from your distant Australia to Croatia some time and hear how people speak around here, because no one says šport (I've never heard it spoken in my life), it's always sport. Try searching those words (and inflected forms and derivatives) on any corpora or Web search engine on .hr domain: sport has always at least an order of magnitude more hits. Kubura's insisting on šport and športski is purely based on some ludicrous nationalist paranoia, as he abundantly "explained" in Kafić some weeks ago when he decided unilaterally to rename hundreds of pages and categories containing sport and sportski to šport and športski. He was also explained to how silly is to insist on that form simply because eastern variants of Serbo-Croatian tend not to use it. The most funny thing is, that proper puristic perspective would mandate the borrowing from English sport and not German mediation thereof in šport.

You are so funny Pepsi Lite, accusing me of trying to portray "false picture of how different Serbian and Croatian language are", on such an absurd example which in fact proves by itself how all such "differences" are imaginary and worthless. Of all the real and imaginary differences among standards and actual colloquial usage, you picked one that the least deserves to be singled out :)

My additions of SC sections almost exclusively Serbian? o_O Sorry to inform you, I've been checking these entries exclusively against Croatian dictionaries (Rječnik hrvatskog jezika by Vladimir Anić, and corpora-based multiple-authors Hrvatski enciklopedijski rječnik). If you don't believe me, try looking up those words there. You'd be surprised how many "Serbianisms" are listed. munjosprem? Fantasy Tuđmanism, never has that word been spoken by any Croat. 9 out of 10 people of the street would have no idea what that word means. Most of these puristic neologisms are never spoken, only written as propaganda words in right-wing media.

Hot socialist chicks? ^_^ That's an oxymoron, trust me :) Initially I engaged with the creation of SC entries chiefly because I genuinely didn't wanna waste time with maintaining 3 mostly identical sections (what we did for more than 2 years), later it was to demonstrate that it can be easily done on large scale to all those doubting Thomas out there, now it's primarily to fill some gaps given that quite a lot has been done, and to help kick-start new SC learners here (Bogorm, and Krun, and also Opiaterein in some near future). There is some real value in our SC entries, because we include pronunciations and full inflections which you cannot find almost anywhere in English-language resources on it. And also the fun of infuriating nationalist of all kind, by providing citations of Croatian authors for "Serbian words", Serbian authors for "Bosnian words", and Bosnian and Serbian authors for "Croatian words". And you get to learn a lot in the process: Who'd say that "Croatian" word tisuća was used in 14th century Dušanov zakonik ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk 06:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Pepsi Lite, I was playing video games when this discussion began and asleep when it finished. Furthermore, I was enjoying Xmas presents until a few minutes ago. Honestly, when I saw I had a message I thought it was something (semi-)important from a sensible contributor! Now normally I'd be civil since this is Wiktionary, but I'm sick of seeing you crapping on discussion pages with your FUD so please, listen to Ivan or eff off you damned wastrel...! 50 Xylophone Players talk 17:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Are words that are formed with both the un- prefix and the -ly suffix not supposed to use the {{confix}} template? --Yair rand 23:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, somehow I doubt there's anything set in stone about this matter but I think the likes of {{suffix|uncareful|ly}} is better because it likely represents the etymology better; first someone decided to put (deprecated template usage) un- and (deprecated template usage) careful together and later someone put (deprecated template usage) uncareful and (deprecated template usage) -ly together. 50 Xylophone Players talk 16:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Whatever the etymology, it is of some value to make sure that -ly adverbs are easily identifiable by multiple means, at least until we are sure that all of them are in Category:English adverbs. For words such as "uncarefully" which are uncommon and where both the prefix and the suffix are productive one could easily imagine speakers recoining them, rather than remembering them. That would be a rationale both for using {{confix}} and for not expending much effort to investigate the priority of "uncareful" vs. "carefully".

It would be useful for us to have information on the productivity of prefixes and suffixes, currently, recently (say, last 100 years), and in Modern English or post-Middle English. DCDuring TALK 17:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe it says anywhere in WT:CFI that this isn't dictionary material. If anything it would be contested under WT:RFV for fictional universes, but given the figurative sense I would believe it to pass fairly easily. 70.112.22.212 02:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Erm sure, but why exactly is it that you're telling me this? It's not at RFV and this is the first I've heard of the entry. 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi PalkiaX50. (Would you prefer Aaron?) I noticed that apart from myself, you also use (or have used) {{q}}. This presumably means that you think it’s worth keeping. As such, I just wanted to inform you of the discussion regarding its deletion at WT:RFDO#Template talk:q, with a view to avoiding having the work I’ve put into the template wasted. My apologies if you regard this as spam. Regards, † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 05:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not, at all. :) Its random crap, chain mails and shit like that I'd regard as spam. Yeah, You can call me Aaron if you wish and sure I'll look at that discussion...>.> Be it mainspace or not, methinks I often saw a tad too much of deletionistic spirit about the site. ;-) 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Aaron. I am happy to note that it seems that the template will be kept. :-) † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

nice 1 ^_^ 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello mate. I've tidied up this page a bit. Can you have a look and let me know if it's close enough to what you had in mind? I think the way I formatted it is to the best interest of people who will likely look up this word in this dictionary. If it is please remove the attention template. Else, we can always discuss it here. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 07:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I advise you to take another look at that page you just created. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

ack!!! sorry >_< must've clicked too fast... 50 Xylophone Players talk 17:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry about it. There's something surprisingly stress-relieving about working through recent changes... † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hehe, well I was more annoyed (because of the mistake) than apologetic. ;-) 50 Xylophone Players talk 17:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I undid your action because of the vote. Seemingly, we now keep S-C, S, C, B, and whatever else as separate sections. I'm not saying we should, just that we do.​—msh210℠ 19:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Look msh210, I'm not trying to be rude but with all the bullshit that arose because of that vote it may as well mean sweet fuck all... :P Just listen to any sensible SC contributors here (such as Ivan) and you'll see how foolish this "informed opposition" is...If you don't know and don't want to learn the language then at least get clued in like I did. Remember, fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Also, like someone said before, there is too damn much bureaucracy in Wiktionary... >.>

Do you mean so that if somehow, through some miracle, a vote to crown Wonderfool supreme emperor of Wiktionary was organised and passed you would not rebel simply because the vote had okayed it? Yeah, that'd make a power of sense... 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

He is already, no? Seriously, though, I don't know whether S-C or the others make more sense to include. I do know that, in absence of such knowledge, having more information is better than less; so I reverted your removal of some. If you redo it, I'll leave it alone, certainly.​—msh210℠ 20:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, that's nice to know...FYI, since you seem to be unfortunately ignorant of the situation, allow me to quote Ivan on the supposed 3 languages "Grammars of standard B/C/S differ less than 1%. Inflection of nouns, verbs and adjectives is 99.9% the same". So really, no info is being lost. In fact, any entries that were converted by Ivan often even gained more info in the process. If there is a notably common word exclusive to one or two of the dialects, then it shall be entered as SC and marked accordingly. 50 Xylophone Players talk 10:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

You'll notice I've renamed this. Templates should either have proper names, or be on you user page (like User:Mglovesfun/surname). Can you do the remaining ones, as I don't want to edit your work too much. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Meh, okay...I'll do it tomorrow provided that I'm not too bogged down with school work. 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Did you miss a subst: here?

Seems like a very large mess to me ... Robert Ullmann 00:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, you did it correctly, whilst Daniel. had seriously mangled the template. Robert Ullmann 00:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I saw that mess on one page alright... >.> 50 Xylophone Players talk 14:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I urge you to vote. (I don't know which way you'll vote, but I want more voices, especially English Wiktionarians' voices, heard in this vote.) If you've voted already, or stated that you won't, and I missed it, I apologize.​—msh210℠ 17:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for contributing to our pages of Pokémon. (: --Daniel. 08:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Np...though who knows? Maybe a virtual equivalent of a nuke's gonna be dropped on it. :P On second thoughts no...Wiktionary isn't like that...Voting will take place, that a "virtual nuke" might be dropped. At any rate I might as well check out that pending vote a bit more tho tbh I don't know whether to abstain or oppose... (since I don't think I want to support) 89.204.234.157 19:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

comment above is mine...I forgot to sign in 50 Xylophone Players talk

The only current vote that closely concerns Pokémon is Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-10/Disallowing certain appendices. The apparent idea is defining their layout, not their inclusion, so apparently either way Pokémon pages will be kept. There are multiple discussions appended to that vote, so feel free to see them, if you have time and interest. --Daniel. 23:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I know, the content won't be annihilated, I guess I misworded that somewhat... and I had stuff on my mind so perhaps m previous comment on the vote was inaccurate. But I think I won't bother doing anymore until some definitive decision is reached . That would be better in general IMO. 50 Xylophone Players talk 00:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see. I personally don't bother waiting for a result, mainly because I know the information will be there afterwards, and it is also my personal way of showing interest of this particular project that has started years ago. Do you already have a personal opinion concerning that vote, like preferring a list, or individual pages? --Daniel. 00:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'd like the page per term approach but I highly doubt it'll go through what with such opposition and Equinox raging about it. >.> Polluting the project huh? Information is information be it about anime, gross sexual depravity (opinionated that I guess), racist terminology, occult, genocide...whatever. If it's a word it should be defined (albeit not necessarily in the main space). Heck, if it wouldn't be so damn hard I might consider "stealing" Wikitionary's content, setting up another site with it, and allowing all this stuff there. xD But yeah...whatever happens happens. Time will tell. 50 Xylophone Players talk 00:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I do not necessarily agree with placing fictional words in a separate site rather than Wiktionary, but this idea can be easily fulfilled by using MediaWiki and the legal stuff known as "Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0" if you'd want something virtually equivalent to here. I probably would contribute to such a project, and directly copy information between both sites regularly.

Equinox' main reason for opposing fictional words, as I understood it, is that fiction is inherently not suitable for Wiktionary (as you quoted, "polluting the project"), which I don't consider a very strong argument per se. (: I have already counterargued other sentences that I felt relevant. You may want to join me and formalize your opinion, by voting for one page per term too. --Daniel. 01:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would like to know your preference as regards the use of "<" vs "from" in the formatting of etymologies in Wiktionary, whatever that preference is. Even explicit statement of indifference would be nice. You can state your preference in the currently running poll: WT:BP#Poll: Etymology and the use of less-than symbol. I am sending you this notification, as you took part on some of the recent votes, so chances are you could be interested in the poll. The poll benefits from having as many participants as possible, to be as representative as possible. Feel free to ignore this notification. --Dan Polansky 10:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I suppose this is not really important but since I just put in a lot of work to make this consistent, I wanted to point out that I put spaces before the -na in quasi-adjectives because of what it says here Wiktionary:About_Japanese#Quasi-adjectives which is the closest thing I could find to a guideline. In another part of that document, namely Wiktionary:About_Japanese#Quasi-adjectives_.28.E5.BD.A2.E5.AE.B9.E5.8B.95.E8.A9.9E.29 it contradicts itself and has no space, to be fair. Just below the section on the first link it even points to categories that don't exist (because they have been moved.) I suppose my real complaint is that somebody should update that guideline and make it consistent with itself. Anyway I don't want people to think I am a vandal or anything like that. If I really did vandalize those pages I volunteer to fix them if you think I should. There aren't that many pages in that category anyway. Do you think there should be no space before -na? I think it looks kind of funny to have one, but on the other hand it does make the words more readable. Thanks Haplology 16:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think the no space forms look better but current format of declension tables does the opposite so...I think perhaps someone else with more knowledge of Japanese should be consulted. Also, I wouldn't call you a vandal, rather you just unknowingly went against a standard. If you don't mind it would be nice if you could readd the ja-def links, if I didn't get them all. 50 Xylophone Players talk 16:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

A bit late, but to add my 2p to the pot, the general rule of thumb for romanizing Japanese keiyōdōshi, suru verbs, and similar is to add a space where things are clearly divisible. For keiyōdōshi, the な is divisible, as the part before is a standalone morpheme that may just as easily take だ/です, etc., instead. For suru verbs like 愛する, the ai portion is standalone, so we add a space before the suru, whereas for suru verbs like 達する, the tas portion is not standalone, so we do not add a space before the suru. -- HTH, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. There is no need to add these manually. We have a bot that generates them automagically (normally once per day). Cheers. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, I don't mind, and (although it's not something really really crucial) when I can get my hands on it, I add pronunciation info to the singular if needed and copy it to the plural. 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, your message to me was: "Please note we include Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian all under the Serbo-Croatian header.". I must express my disagreement with this practice, because Serbo-Croatian, whether it exists or not, is not the same language as Croatian. No one speaks "Serbo-Croatian"! It is not official language of any existing country. So why are you forcing it here? And I can assure you that the words I entered are only used in Croatian and not in some, nowadays, nonexistant fusion of these two language.

93.139.18.183 22:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Butting in, Category talk:Croatian language, they were officially merged some time ago, and unofficial merged a very long time before that; I started editing in 2009, and they've been treated as a single language during that whole time. Yeah I know it's controversial, but as long as it has majority support (or more accurately, there isn't a majority that wants to change it) it'll endure. And from what I know, linguistic consider them the same language (mostly anyway) because of the identical spelling, pronunciation and morphology. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, what Mg said, if you don't like it, sod off to Croatian Wiktionary or something, :P dodgy as it might be. 50 Xylophone Players talk 22:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Sod off", really? Wow, that was mature. Look, I am not going to dispute with someone who has an opinion which they are obviously unwilling to change (the opinion on something they know nothing about, which is based on weak arguments made by dilettantes). Also, Mglovesfun, they do not have identical spelling (Croatian is based on Iekavian, and Serbian on Ekavian, not to mention that Serbian is written in Cyrillic), nor pronunciation, nor morphology, nor syntax, and most importantly they have different lexicon (although there is considerable intersection).93.139.18.183 23:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I might not speak the language but I was contributing (albeit not in SC areas of course) when the vote that decided this was going through and I saw enough bullshit from "your" side of the argument (not to say they were just being idiots, but some were) and well informed arguments from contributors here who DO know SC, and I gladly sided with those who voted for unified SC when I had read through the discussion. So that's the end of it... Like Mg said, it's not going to change. Post here again complaining about this and I'll block you; it's really not helping you, me or anyone here. 50 Xylophone Players talk 01:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

P.S. See up here for more crap I already dealt with before about this. Including input from someone who knows what he's talking about...

you stole my inflection. i'll get you Equinox ◑ 23:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hah, (deprecated template usage) denunciates was it? I was just checkin' RC and decided to look at the entry and just saw it hehe. 50 Xylophone Players talk 01:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I saw the recent edit at (deprecated template usage) forwhore. I could not find an attestation of the Old English word. Do you have one? Leasnam (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, I just thought it was strange that an Old English link was being treated like a Proto-language term. 50 Xylophone Players talk 14:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but that is correct, since there is no concrete evidence of that word in Old English. It is a reconstructed form of the OE word. Leasnam (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please let me know if you happen to run across it. For now, however, I have moved it back into the reconstructed terms cat. Leasnam (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I was wondering if there are currently any large, active collaborative projects on Wiktionary. I suppose what I'm looking for is an equivalent to WikiProjects on Wikipedia. -- AnonymousDDoS (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

• <butting in> No. But see Wiktionary:Task lists. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC) </butting in>Reply

Actually, we regularly redact e-mail addresses, so the people (who may have expected their feedback to be sent like e-mail, rather than publicly posted) won't get spammed by the bots that crawl the internet looking for such addresses. You can check this by searching WT:Feedback for "@" (no e-mail addresses come up) vs "redacted" (many addresses have been redacted and replaced by notes to that effect). - -sche (discuss) 20:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Meh, whatever. The spambots point is a valid argument I guess, but it still seems a little stupid to me. 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I moved your entry you added to (deprecated template usage) takoja to (deprecated template usage) takója. Here on Wiktionary, for most languages we include accents and such in entry titles, and Lakota is no exception to this general rule. So, just remember this if you intend to add more Lakota words. :) 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I didn't realise it was supposed to have one! I came across it in a compound noun used as a personal name, and worked out what it meant from the English translation, by elimination of the other term. The usage was unaccented. Nickshanks (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ahh, I see. I'm no expert, but that's the way it seems it's supposed to be. 50 Xylophone Players talk 13:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Uhh…isn’t ‘Inserting/creating nonsense/gibberish’ acceptable in sandboxes ? Was that block really necessary? --Æ&Œ (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps, but the user (If we're on the same page here) in question also made a nonsense template: {{Gump}}. It was all some "X loves Y" message abbreviated and unabbreviated. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 00:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ah, this makes sense now. Sorry to disturb you. --Æ&Œ (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

No prob, you're not an admin right? So, am I wrong or does that mean you can't see the deleted contributions of other users? User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 00:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I was never an ‘admin’ here. I actually still do not know how to view deleted contributions, if possible. --Æ&Œ (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well on contribution pages I have these links beside the username: (talk | block | block log | uploads | logs | deleted user contributions | user rights management | abuse log) I guess maybe deleted contribs, block, etc are only visible to admins and above. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 00:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You blocked the above account indefinitely, but this prevents me from usurping it. Could you please now delete it, so I can complete my unification process. Thanks. — This comment was unsigned.

• Now unblocked. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You've deleted the user page but it doesn't seem to me that you've deleted the account. It still insists that I've got the wrong password when I try to use my unified account. Can you have another go please. Chris55

Sorry about that. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

For picking up on the Olympic stuff and creating the sports pages. It is cool. --BLurpty (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

No prob, not really something I'm interested in tbh haha but I said I might as well create the pages. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 17:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I wish you wouldn’t separate it into many tiny files. The small ones are unusable. I use these on average about once a week, but I only use the full years. It takes forever to open and search through many little month-sized files, so I never even look at those. If we break 2011 up, it will make it impractical to use. —Stephen ^(Talk) 13:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

...Well fine, if you like it that way I won't delete the full page. But I like seeing it split up so I'm going to keep it split up as well. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 13:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Where are you going to put the full pages? I’m the only one who uses these, and I only use the full pages. Wherever they are put (the full pages, that is), there needs to be a link from the Translations request page so that I can find them. —Stephen ^(Talk) 14:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

If you look at the archive again you'll see I readded a link to the full page. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 14:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ok, grazie. --Discanto (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any thoughts about structuring this set of categories? I am not the only one frustrated at trying to grasp the range of template possibilities. Between lack of documentation, lack of clarity of documentation, and lack of categorization there are plenty of barriers to use. The clogging of Special:Unusedtemplates and Special:Uncategorizedtemplates even makes maintenance harder than it need be. I'd appreciate any ideas, criticism, etc. DCDuring TALK 22:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I'm not sure really, but as you obviously must have noticed, I'm cleansing RFDO of obvious tosh and unwanted/unused pages. So that of course includes quite a few templates. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 22:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Between the cleanup and your stated interest in categories, I thought you were a good candidate for thoughts. Let me know if you think of anything. DCDuring TALK 02:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ehehe, well I might have a good look at it sometime soon, but generally my interest in categories in the past has stemmed from efforts to empty WantedCategories and whatnot. I have never done any of the more vital or core work like creating a new or additional category system or whatever. Well, with the exception of the Icelandic noun form subcats, but of course that was just copied from Hungarian. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 02:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ha yes I spend too much time reading Internet memes ;). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hehehe, no worries I spend my fair share of time doing similar things sometimes. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 22:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You learn something new every day! (Oops.) Equinox ◑ 00:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hehe, no worries...at least it was quick and easy to fix. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 00:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for offering to do inflection-of pages in Latvian! (Liels paldies!, as they say...). When you have more time, drop me a line, and tell me how this works, what I should do and/or tell you. --Pereru (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for the tip in translating. — This unsigned comment was added by Pgfeller (talk • contribs) at 14:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC).Reply

Hello,

I saw that you're currently working on categories, so maybe you're interested in this list containing needed categories (I'll keep this up):

Needing attention:

• [Proto-Celtic terms needing attention
• [Proto-Finno-Ugric terms needing attention

Nouns:

• [Egyptian feminine nouns
• [Egyptian masculine nouns

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have recently expanded the page Wiktionary:About Irish. Please take a look, be bold in changing it, and make comments on the talk page. Thanks! —Angr 14:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I will try to follow the format. I rarely work on English wiktionary so please forgive me if I forget and make other mistakes. --Ngocminh.oss (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ah no worries. I probably made my own fair share of mistakes in formatting when I first joined too. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 15:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi PalkiaX50,

I think this revert was in error, due to EN and ANG Wiktionaries having different policies on using macrons in page titles. Pengo (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well I don't know about ang.wikt policies...but interwiki mainspace links are supposed to map to exactly the same titles. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 06:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

...then it will be impossible to link these pages which are for the same word. Pengo (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dur... Coffee hasn't kicked in yet.  :)  Thanks for catching that -- I was going through anon changes and missed the fact that this one was actually valid.  :-P -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hehe, no prob. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 18:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

So, are you going to "correct" the entry for lac? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Hint - see .

Eh, whatever, my bad. I only deleted it because whoever-it-was made it a redirect by moving it, saying "lactium" was right. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 16:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is stupid. The words I'm punting are Kajkavian, and thus speak only in Croatia and Slovenia. And are considered completely non-understandable to Serbs, Bosnians... Slavuj (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'm sorry if I come across as terse but...deal with it...You may like to speak to User:Ivan Štambuk if you would like more information. While I really have little to no knowledge of SC, I am an admin here and so and just trying to ensure standards are adhered to. I will say in closing though, there was a community vote about "unified Serbo-Croatian entries" in lieu of B/S/C and well, it passed. The decision is unlikely to be reversed. As I said, you would do better to discuss any further concerns with Ivan rather than me. But in case you think it odd that I am talking about this when I don't have much knowledge, let me say I was around when the vote was underway...and I saw enough arguments and debates, stupid AND valid alike, to cast an informed support vote. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 21:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Words considered by Štambuk dated, archaic, obsolete... as well as spelling of those words, are very much in everyday use, others however only by educated people (cultural élite). The sole goal of Štambuk (a Yugoslav nationalist, a hardcore Vukovian - however he call himself) is to promote "Serbo-Croatian" language, and deny existence of Croatian language, which is ridicules because of Croatian millennial literature and culture of written word, whilst Serbian language (solely created by The Great Wolf) started to exist in 19th century, as well as Macedonian and Slovenian. So if there is only one language it is certainly not Serbo-Croatian, nor Slovenian, nor Croato-Slovenian, but only Croatian. Just like there is no American, Australian, Canadian English... but only English language. Slavuj (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Look, I don't want to here any more of the argument. I am not going to make any efforts to replace SC with the old B/S/C, or something different. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 22:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I really don't understand Your eagerness to preserve "Serbo-Croatian", no one forces Norwegian, Danish and Swedish in one language in some "N-D-F language", nor any one forces Czech and Slovak into Czechoslovakian language, nor any one forces Russian and Ukrainian into one language, aad all of them have the same degree of mutual intelligibility, as Serbian and Croatian does, all of this is stupid. Only "holy" Serbo-Croatian needs to exist, this is pointless. I do understand Štambuk and his eagerness (Yugoslav and Vukovian), however I can't put my finger on Your eagenessness. I am not going to make any contributions more on this god-forsaken misery of quasi-dictionary. I was trying to repair tainted integrity of historic Croatian language, but as All, in vain. Slavuj (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Farewell, you shall not be missed. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 14:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! :) It is very great that you want to contribute adding and creating entries for Basque language. Unfortunately most of the online Basque language resources are available in Spanish. However, I know these reliable online resources which are available in English:

• Morris Student Plus (Basque-English / English-Basque) dictionary.
• Euskalterm (Basque Terminological Dictionary). It is a very good dictionary of technical terms. If you search for a word in English, it shows you the translation into Basque, Spanish and French languages.
• A brief grammar of Euskara (University of the Basque Country)

Regards! — This unsigned comment was added by Zuiarra (talk • contribs).

Just to note, you put a quite of a mess in your common.js. The script will not load this way, it will just throw a few (harmless, though) syntax errors. That installation link relied on a hack which stopped working in recent versions of MediaWiki, I should have removed it earlier. Sorry about that. Keφr 11:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Right...:/ If you don't mind could you fix it? The installation seemed easy enough...but I don't really know anything about js and so I've failed to get it to work twice now and am kind of doing other things atm, so help would be appreciated. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 11:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I updated the instructions already. Clear your custom script page and follow the new ones. Keφr 12:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Aha, I got it working! Thanks. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 14:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply