Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word User talk:This, that and the other. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word User talk:This, that and the other, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say User talk:This, that and the other in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word User talk:This, that and the other you have here. The definition of the word User talk:This, that and the other will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofUser talk:This, that and the other, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Welcome!
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have corrected the ety (it was only slightly off, as the correct etymon is an alternative spelling of what was put). It appears that shpellë exists and already has an etymology. Further back than that, and I would suggest asking User:Ivan Štambuk. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί06:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Sorry. I was trying to use it on Appendix:French verbs, and I obviously didn't want that intro there. On reflection, the text needs to be switched off by a named parameter or something. See my contribs for other fr-conjes I did it to. (Sorry, busy at the moment.) This, that and the other08:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The etymology at 6@Chin says that it comes from the "W" of the English word water. Do you think that this is incorrect? Or do you think that this does not mean that it's a descendant of the word? --Yair rand (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
However, surely it's just a typo because the r and t are next to each other on a QWERTY keyboard. Typos aren't words in their own right, they're just mistakes. 12:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. Red links are an important way to allow the dictionary to grow. Perhaps somebody knows an alt form but doesn't have time to create the entry. Don't remove them indiscriminately! Equinox◑02:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Heh, actually, one of my pet hates is when people stick an alt form that's obviously obsolete (like "nowadayes") without flagging it as such. I can imagine a foreign learner coming and thinking "oh, I can spell it with an E if I want!". Equinox◑02:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
(Since I'm back here: at least we have changed the entry structure now so that alt forms usually go below the main entry content. Good.) Equinox◑05:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
interwebs
Added follow up comment on interweb -- ryper(Talk) 19:30 19 Mar 2015 (UTC)
So you translate French…
Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
Hello This, that and the other. I note from your user page that you “can read French, which means can read frwiktionary stuff and move it here” and that you are “more active on the English Wikipedia”. I wonder: Would you be up for creating English-Wikipedia articles, however stubby, for w:Félix Gaffiot and/or w:Dictionnaire Illustré Latin-Français from their extant French equivalents at fr:w:Félix Gaffiot and fr:w:Gaffiot? I requested the articles in the English Wikipedia's requests lists ages ago, but seemingly nothing has come of that. They're needed for linking from {{R:Gaffiot}}, you see. Just a thought; it's no sweat if you have no interest in doing so. Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A.03:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi I.S.M.E.T.A.! Thanks for the message. I actually did a French-to-English translation course late last year, so I ought to dust off my skills and give it a go! I can't make any promises, but if I end up getting it done, I'll let you know. This, that and the other (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you @This, that and the other for your correction (diff) and all your corrections. Sorry to bother you here, at your Talk page, after 2015. The only thing i know about editing, is copy-paste, and I made this weird thing:
because i needed a pseudo-headword line which would NOT put the page γέννα at Ancient Greek categories neuter nouns & neuter 2nd decl. This is a Medieval-only word (unlike feminine γέννα), but I am not allowed to create a separate section for it. So, i mimic a headword line.
I had tried {gkm-noun, (gkm=Medieval) It does not exist, and it is not allowed
I had tried |nocat=1 but it doesn't work
I do not know how to make links black colour, not blue (for abbreviations n, pl).
You spotted this edit! Are you a bot? Then, if these patterns remain, maybe in the future, there WILL be a Medieval section, and then, they can be traced and redone?
You do not need to answer, I am just apologizing for this messy edit of mine... I shall not do it again, I will avoid mediaeval words. sarri.greek (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi Sarri! No need to apologise; I am correcting invalid HTML and wiki syntax, and you should not feel bad about adding invalid syntax to pages - lots of people do it all the time, because the rules are complicated and not all written down. Normally at this wiki we do not link abbrevations like "f" and "pl". As for your other questions, I feel that we should ask at one of the discussion pages, perhaps WT:TR or Wiktionary talk:About Ancient Greek, for some advice. This, that and the other (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello! Are there any specifics on the etymology of this term? Could you provide example usages? Since the term does not appear in GEOnet, I believe the term is likely to be a common misspelling. Also, I am not sure if this would be an alternate form of Xinjiang or a synonym. If we keep this page, I would like to include a link to it on the Xinjiang page with a qualifier saying it is a mistake (if it is a mistake). Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry if I have come off the wrong way. I have never done a page about a word I personally considered to be a clear misspelling, and I actually don't know how misspellings are documented in Wiktionary. Sorry for bothering you. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In your 07:41, 27 November 2021 edit on the page rhathymia, you included the comment "at least do it properly", presumably referencing the modifications you made to my own immediately preceding edit. Could you point me in the direction of some good resources on how to do it properly, specifically for adding the morphemes? I added them mainly because I noticed that the word did not appear in "Category:English words suffixed with -thymia", and tried to use the same formatting as other pages. However, if I did so incorrectly here, that means I likely also did it incorrectly in several other places - and I need to know what exactly to do to correct them.
Pinball larry (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Pinball_larryReply
Hi @Pinball larry, and welcome to Wiktionary! Thanks for your contributions so far.
I'm sorry if I came across a bit brusque with that comment. Your edit was valuable in that it included a morphological breakdown of the word in the etymology section. There are a couple of ways it could have been improved:
The confix template was awkwardly placed at the start of the etymology with no logical connection to the rest of the info there. This is still the case at, say, cacothymia. While we don't currently have a settled, standard way of indicating this kind of synchronic morphological analysis alongside the traditional etymology, it's normally included as part of a sentence. Some editors write "Synchronically analysable as ...", while others (including me) write "Surface analysis ...".
Although I left it in the entry in deference to your edit, I don't believe rha- is a real prefix. To my knowledge, no other English words incorporate this element. In that sense, it may have been better to avoid the confix template and manually include the article in the relevant category: ] Or alternatively, place something like "(see -thymia)" after the relevant etymon.
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As I start typing I don't know the following:
Whether we should have it with initial capitals
Whether it should be italicized
Whether it should Translingual or English
Whether it is used in works written in languages other than English
I do know that:
It is not part of current ICTV taxonomy.
ICTV has it as an unclassifed virus
NCBI has an entry for it.
WP and Wikispecies have articles for it.
It is in use with this capitalization, more frequently than with title caps but less frequently than no caps.
I in ICTV means international and ICTV leadership is not
It does seem to be used by authors for whom English is not their native language.
It was isolated in 2010.
It is mentioned in only 5 "articles" on ICTV site
It does not appear on the ICTV site in italics or in this orthography; items in the taxonomy appear in italics with initial capitals on the ICTV site, items not in the taxonomy do not.
1. means to me that there is no presumption that it is Translingual.
2. means we should have this orthography
3. and 4. don't mean much
5. means that it might be best treated as an alternative capitalization of the all-lower-case form.
I net this out that the entry in question is:
an alt form of the lower-case form, which should have all the external links, the fullest definition, etc.
in the absence of evidence of usage in other languages, it is an English term.
a proper noun, as is the main entry and other alt forms.
That's a good idea, actually - might implement it. My inclination is that it should present a warning unless a specific flag is set (e.g. override=1). Theknightwho (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Can you help me to understand the purpose behind the edit of this page?
We give definitions of words as they are used, not how certain people may think they should be used. This, combined with the anecdotal evidence of anyone who has been paying attention to world news in recent decades, should be convincing enough for anyone. This, that and the other (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
The examples of the term oligarch being used to describe people in several countries are numerous. Using current geopolitical sentiment to derive a proper usage of a word seems to be the wrong way to go about this. Sebastian-Hady (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Did you actually read the article you cited before citing it? "While not labeling its own wealthy and powerful elites as “oligarchs,” US corporate media do, as noted, occasionally acknowledge that the United States itself is an oligarchy. ... What a strange country the US is—an oligarchy without any oligarchs." Sebastian-Hady (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that last sentence contains an example of the word "oligarch" being used to refer to (putative) American oligarchs. I have no doubt you can find numerous "examples of the term oligarch being used to describe people in several countries" as you claim; my point is that examples referring to Russian/Ukrainian oligarchs are significantly more numerous and that this has been the situation for at least 20 years. It's hard for either of us to prove the point either way; you can start a discussion at WT:TR if you like. This, that and the other (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Haha, I just noticed your reversion there, from the "flog" error. Thanks. This was not deliberate trolling. I nearly always use flog as my copy-paste source for verb forms. Equinox◑05:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! I'm trying to categorize all Latin words starting with in- according to which of the homophonous prefixes they contain (i.e. empty out Category:Latin_words_prefixed_with_in- by sorting all contents into its subcategories), and I'm confused by and curious about the etymology given for inconcessus: "Apparently from in- + concessus (perfect passive participle of concēdō), but more properly an adjectivisation of in- + concessus, -ūs (noun)." Why is it more proper to say that it is from the noun concessus? From what I know, it's quite typical for Latin adjectives starting with the negative prefix in- "un-" to be formed from participles, and not usual for them to be formed with fourth-declension nouns as their base. The meaning seems to fit with derivation from the participle: "unallowed". Hoping you could shed some light on this.--Urszag (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Urszag! I've noticed your efforts here in categorising the in- entries I created. In many cases the categorisation was obvious and I just got lazy (sorry!), but in many cases it is not obvious. I find that in- is often used as an intensifier without any kind of spatial or temporal sense of "in, within, inside" as defined at our entry in-, and I always felt a bit uneasy about putting those words into id1=in. It just didn't feel like the right fit. Perhaps we need a fourth sense of in-.
As for inconcessus, I really have no idea why I wrote that. I've looked at my usual resources and none of them support this. So feel free to restore it to the more logical derivation. This, that and the other (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the quick response! I was also wondering a little about whether the different semantic meanings of prepositional in- "in" should be categorized together, but ultimately, I do think that's the best way to handle it. It is a case of one preposition/prepositional prefix having multiple meanings; probably, the best thing to do is to add additional definitions at the entry for in-. E.g. I'd say English "up" is the same word/particle whether it's used with a literal physical sense or with an abstract sense as in "hold up", "buddy up", "act up". More practically, it's usually straightforward to categorize the negative and prepositional prefixes separately, but I think it would be messy to try to distinguish subsenses of the Latin prepositional prefixes. Urszag (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Equinox while I have you, I think you might have deleted grucched in error. I evidently forgot to change the header to Middle English when I changed the language code of the templates, but it is a legitimate ME form that we should have (an apparent use by Chaucer turns up in GBooks). This, that and the other (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Yes by all means restore that piece of crap. I may have made a mistake while enjoying the Aprylle showers by the roote. Equinox◑02:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
The entries look fine now. Please don't delete a word just because it looks like a form of a missing word. Even if it's annoying. The existence of quirkafleegs (let's say that's an English plural) implies the existence of quirkafleeg singular. Yes, the Right Thing to Do would be to create quirkafleeg with citations and rfdef template, but if it's a word it should stand. The point of this project is to define words, essentially. Not to fulfil your idea of cleanliness. Equinox◑02:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Ultimateria Thanks for pointing this out. I'll have to check whether these forms exist. (Also thanks for noticing that the inflected forms had to be deleted! Most admins who patrol CAT:CSD don't seem to be too careful to do this.) This, that and the other (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
re: this edit: apparently {{inh-lite}} saves memory by using a list of pre-defined language-code/language-name pairs hard-coded into the template. While changing fy to frr in that context is perfectly correct, it causes an error unless the language code is in that list. It might be better to forgo using AWB for that template unless you're sure that the code in question is in that list. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
You realise that the old text supported future changes to RFV, but your new text does not, and any RFV changes must now be copied there. Are you convinced that is a good change? Equinox◑10:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Equinox the text "three citations of figurative use that fulfill attestation requirements" is already in CFI in two places, so it can't make things worse to put it in a third place. On the other hand, CFI doesn't mention the term "RFV" anywhere. We should try and keep our policies easy for newbies to understand.
The problem is that some day RFV might change so that we need FOUR or FIVE votes, and the previous text was fine, but now, you need to update your text to change the number. Do you commit and swear that you will always do this forever? Equinox◑11:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
"the text 'three citations of figurative use that fulfill attestation requirements' is already in CFI in two places, so it can't make things worse to put it in a third place." And how did I miss this?! I've killed two girls so I might as well go for the triple! Anyway, I'm sure you know what you're doing. I am just clearing up my horrible list of 15 ignored "bell" icons. we cool? cool. yes. Equinox◑06:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Nice list! It turns out that most of the errors were from Wonderfool's sloppy editing. Luckily, we have an army of dedicated users to clean up Dunderdool (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
And we might as well get the complete set: Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, Wikivoyage, Wikibooks, Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki. I doubt there'll be a big number Dunderdool (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'll do it if I can be bothered. It's kind of tedious though. Plus, there are <1000 links to each of these wikis (other than Wikispecies) so there won't be too many broken ones. No idea why we are even linking to Wikiversity or Wikinews... This, that and the other (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
A list of all words in es.wikipedia that don't have a Spanish entry in en.wiktionary. A good way to a) find tyops in es.wikipedia and b) find missing Spanish words. Dunderdool (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm, these aren't great. Having a quick skim through, I reckon there's about 1% of that stuff that is actually Spanish worth including here. We'd want to filter out anything with punctuation marks, anything in italics, anything classed as a quotation/reference/external link. Dunderdool (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Dunderdool I tried to remove all italic text, references, and external links, although it's still a pretty scrappy effort. Page 1 is still almost completely full of crap, but lower down the list (say at page 14) we start to get some more interesting things. What do you think? Any suggestions on how to improve it further? This, that and the other (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, it is getting better. We also want to filter out anything inside a template, anything with punctuation (brackets/hyphens/slashes/numbers/apostrophes/pipes/asterisks/quotation marks etc.), non-Spanish symbols like ʔ or ī (but obviously keeping ñ and the vowels with acute accents). I reckon with that the list will be pretty usable. Dunderdool (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Another list
Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Thanks a lot! The list looks good, but it'd be slightly more useful to change the comma to a | before the terms, showing bogey: bogey man|triple bogey instead of bogey: bogey man, triple bogey Dunderdool (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hmm I don't know if I want to make the lazy copy-paste into {{der4}} too tempting for you... for instance, the list for "ace" needs to be split over various etymologies/POSs. Can I trust you to be reasonable?
And they are already in alphabetical order (although for some reason caps got sorted before lowercase).
@Almostonurmind heh thanks for nominating me! I'd rather use the carrot (maintenance lists) than the stick. And besides, it looks like Eq is keeping you on the straight and narrow for now.
@Dunderdool A WF admin nomination? Truly the highest honour of Wiktionary. I would have said it's a trap, but you seem to have a good hit rate. Also I practically behave like an admin already, so it's probably about time. Let's do this. This, that and the other (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@GreyishWorm I'm not sure if it is worth it. There are more than 10,000 entries with broken links to Wikispecies, and to my untrained eye, most of them look to represent a lacuna on Wikispecies' side, not an error on ours. Here's a sample for your persual:
Wikispecies has long had trouble keeping up. WP has better coverage, though their coverage of organisms is split between entries under taxonomic names and vernacular names. WP also has better prioritization of contributor effort in the sense that they waste less on obscure lower-rank taxa. Commons has systematically deleted categories for underpopulated sub- and super- type taxonomic names, even when such names could be populated based on the low-level taxa than would be included.
{{taxlink}} serves two purposes, other than providing a link to Wikispecies: categorizing and providing a count of taxonomic names that have no en.Wiktionary entry. In cases where Wikispecies has no entry, a user on the no-entry page there can truncate the entry to find something relevant, eg, often find a genus name from a species, subspecies, or variety name (thence sometimes discovering a error in the specific epithet gender or a spelling error), sometimes find a different-level taxon name by eliminating rank-indicating suffixes, etc. This has seemed better than nothing to me. I would be interested to hear any suggestions as to alternative Wikispecies link targets when the current name is missing as Wikispecies. DCDuring (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
alternative spelling
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I think its not an alternative form bcs alternative forms are just like turkish suffixes that can change with rules, like -di/dı/du/dü, thats just a different spelling of one word that I decided to mention due to the various dialects of Salar. I think form and spelling are not the same. -raq has a form but gölek has an alternative spelling (bcs there is no an official one). BurakD53 (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
I don't really care when you run it, but in the OPEN-SOURCE SPIRIT of the wiki, I would urge you to publish your code. Even if it's some awful LibreOffice formula. Thank you. Remember the bus factor! Equinox◑06:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Equinox Nah, it's a sequence of regex find/replaces and manual spreadsheet lookups that I repeat from scratch every time. Not something that can be published short of writing a full-on instructional how-to (or writing a proper Python script to do it all from end to end). Sorry. This, that and the other (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hey. Firstly, thanks for helping out with the Webster monster. You reckon we'll get it down to zero in this decade? Secondly, how about generating the list one last time? In theorie it'll be emptie, but perhapse a fewe have thensince intrickl'd It is probably (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, you deleted the pages Norwegian Bokmål redlinks which I had created, since they were all empty. Could you instead please let me know how I fill these pages? When I looked at Redlinks for other languages, they only consisted of the auto cat template, so I don't understand why mine were empty. Thanks! Supevan (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Lotje Easily done - I just added it myself: . In future, feel free to go ahead and add images where you see fit, especially where the entry does not already have an image. The lack of images in the vast majority of our entries is possibly one of Wiktionary's greatest weaknesses, or at least, a source of unrealised potential. This, that and the other (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Need your input on a policy impacting gadgets and UserJS
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Dear interface administrator,
This is Samuel from the Security team and I hope my message finds you well.
There is an ongoing discussion on a proposed policy governing the use of external resources in gadgets and UserJS. The proposed Third-party resources policy aims at making the UserJS and Gadgets landscape a bit safer by encouraging best practices around external resources. After an initial non-public conversation with a small number of interface admins and staff, we've launched a much larger, public consultation to get a wider pool of feedback for improving the policy proposal. Based on the ideas received so far, the proposed policy now includes some of the risks related to user scripts and gadgets loading third-party resources, best practices for gadgets and UserJS developers, and exemptions requirements such as code transparency and inspectability.
As an interface administrator, your feedback and suggestions are warmly welcome until July 17, 2023 on the policy talk page.
Maybe you can take a look at the policy and comment. I'm concerned that they may be going overboard here but I don't know enough about the details of some of the gadgets used on Wiktionary to know whether and by how much we'll be affected. Benwing2 (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 thanks for the message. The only thing that comes to mind that would affected by this is WT:QQ, which relies on Google Books APIs.
The "alternative search engines" feature on Special:Search would probably be safe, but the proposed policy isn't clear on what is meant by "loading".
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Part of the issue is that Mączyński wrote very unclearly and segmentally, so it's hard to know exactly which meaning he meant, among other issues. This is also how it's handled on SXVI! I find it a bit odd, as well, but there's a certain logic to it. Vininn126 (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
It just seems odd to me that you wouldn't at least suggest that the word means a certain thing that it clearly wants to mean. Sometimes lexicography requires certain leaps of faith. Anyway, like I said, I trust you to know what you are doing, especially since I know nothing about Middle Polish or the sources involved! This, that and the other (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Gadgets on mobile
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The nature of the Webster 1913 dataset makes it difficult to detect broken links that contain non-ASCII characters, so I just manually removed these from the old list as there were too many false positives. I'll see what I can do... This, that and the other (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi again. I've nearly finished all the linking that you gave me (less than 500 entries to go!). It'll be useful to get a regen of the page. To be more efficient, can the new list exclude anything appearing on the 2022-09 lists (because it means I checked it and decided not to link to it, although there may be a few accidentally missed out)? Also, any alternative forms that only differ by punctuation can be omitted (like wood-wool as wood wool is the main form) P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Do you know why Wiktionary:Thesaurus#Multilingualism says nothing about thesaurus entries containing several languages? For instance: Thesaurus:droga recreativa (2 languages), Thesaurus:idiota (2 languages), Thesaurus:vagina (5 languages). It could be interesting; it seems that the English wiktionary is the only wiktionary where some thesaurus entries contain several languages.
I have seen this edit where you wrote the annotation "needs diffusion by sense into distinct Thesaurus pages with Finnish-language titles, this kind of page is not found anywhere else in the Thesaurus". Do you think that Thesaurus:café needs the same annotation?
@NicoScribe thanks for your message! Let me respond in turn:
The convention that by far predominates is convention A, which is the same convention we use in the main namespace for regular dictionary entries. As you point out, there were only a handful of entries that use convention B and C, and I am in the process of standardising at convention A. I'm not saying it's the best convention, just that it is the status quo in the Thesaurus namespace.
I will update WT:WS soon to reflect the status quo. Think of Thesaurus entries just like normal Wiktionary entries - multiple language sections for the same orthography.
The problem with WS:sound/fi was that it seemed to include Finnish "synonyms" for all senses of the English word sound. This is rather confusing, so I requested that it be diffused to appropriate Finnish-language titles. Surjection has moved it to the appropriate Finnish verb title and removed the noun synonyms, resolving the issue. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with WS:café; it follows convention A as described above.
OK, it's great, thank you very much. And your recent update of Wiktionary:Thesaurus#Multilingualism is great too.
Remark: in the French wiktionary, the title convention is "French headword, language" (for instance Thésaurus:fruit/anglais); for the content, the convention is "1 entry = 1 sense in 1 language"; there are also the pages centralizing the thesaurus entries in different languages for the same headword (for instance Thésaurus:fruit is just a list with Thésaurus:fruit/anglais, Thésaurus:fruit/français, etc.).
I am just sad that Wiktionary entries containing multiple languages can not benefit from interlanguage linking via Wikidata. You know this disadvantage (you described it in Wiktionary:Thesaurus#Multilingualism). There is no solution, I am not requesting a change here, I am not trying to convince you, I want nothing, but here is an illustration, the report of the most complete case:
Thesaurus entry in English wiktionary
Equivalent entry in other wiktionaries, via Wikidata
Remark: in the French wiktionary, the convention "French headword, language name", with the language name at the end, allows an easy display of the list in the pages centralizing the thesaurus entries in different languages for the same headword. For instance, Thésaurus:fruit calls (through one template) the special page {{Special:Prefixindex}} to display the list. In the English wiktionary, I don't know whether there is a desire or a solution for this centralization (filling the first column in the table above was difficult for me).
Instead of Thesaurus:French/beau, you could use Thesaurus:fr:beau (convention B) to match the prefix of the mainspace topical categories. You could also keep convention A for English entries (Thesaurus:beautiful) and use another convention for foreign entries.
I have checked several wiktionaries, and it seems that:
several wiktionaries use convention A, but they have only native language entries: Bengali (10 entries), Catalan (8), Welsh (2), Icelandic (3), Malay (2), Portuguese (86), Thai (125)
Chinese wiktionary uses convention A, they have 582 native language entries and 10 foreign entries
Serbian wiktionary uses convention A, they have 6 native language entries (with English wiktionary content?) and 50 foreign entries
Mon wiktionary uses convention A, they have 0 native language entries and 3 foreign entries
Spanish wiktionary uses convention A for 94 Spanish entries, and "reversed convention B" (native headword, language code) for 9 foreign entries (except two entries: 1 and 2).
So: most wiktionaries use only convention A. But it doesn't prove that it's the best convention. I think these projects are keeping the convention A because they have not yet experienced title conflicts (because they have not many foreign entries).
I have not found entries containing multiple languages: now I am almost sure that the English wiktionary is the only wiktionary where some thesaurus entries contain several languages. --NicoScribe (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Fyxen
Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments3 people in discussion
Hey there! May I ask why you made this edit? Multiple books that I've worked from have contained fyxen as a word for female fox, so I'm not clear on why you removed the information. Vergencescattered (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Vergencescattered the Old English word fyxen was subject to a Request for Verification, and no verification, in the form of a citation in an Old English text, was provided. See WT:RFVN#fyxen, which will be archived at Talk:fyxen at some point. You're welcome to undo my edit and re-add the word if you can provide appropriate evidence from at least one of the books you mention.
Note that Old English refers to English texts written before the year 1066. If you find the word fyxen in modern English (post-1500) books, we would need three citations to accept the word. See WT:CFI for more info.
That makes perfect sense, thank you for explaining! I'll do some research to see if I can find anything but if no one else could I doubt I will. Have a good day! Vergencescattered (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
So, the word "fyxan" is used in Chartae Anglosaxonicae. Bosworth-Toller lists the lemma as fyxe, which seems to be an assumption. Regardless, neither form suggests that fyxen exists, so doesn't seem like it would be good to restore the page. The books I had been working from before were secondary sources, so they must have gotten the word from some later, ahistorical source. Vergencescattered (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
The form implies a lemma of fyxe, which would make fyxan the acc/gen/dat singular and nom/acc plural. However, it seems as if only the form fyxan is attested. Hope that helps! Vergencescattered (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I don't know where else to reply so I'll do it here. Thank you for adding ãade to cat:roa-opt:birds. For me it's fine, I suggested a category specifically for ducks because galinha has it's own (cat:roa-opt:chickens). However, would it be ok with you if I changed the category ãade is in to cat:roa-opt-poultry? I think it fits it better and I can try doing it by just mimicking what you added and changing birds to poultry. Amanyn (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Denazz happy New Year! I'm glad you had a fun time. It would be great if you can put {{citations|en}} when you make a citations page so the list doesn't keep expanding. The bot will be updating the list weekly, to make sure you've been behaving. This, that and the other (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Correct language code in, or usage of, etymology template(s) using AWB"
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Chuck Entz sorry about this. The script I use with AWB doesn't warn you when you are about to do this. Most of the time I manually notice and fix them in AWB before saving, but as you say, it's easy to miss when in the zone. I might see if I can recode my script so it changes inh to der in situations where no chain of inheritance exists. It'll be a bit of work, but it will save you from having to clean up after me whenever I run it! This, that and the other (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
etymology question
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for indulging me on this. The gadget behaves funny in a couple of ways. As it is supposed to save vertical screen space, the more annoying problem occurs at the top of many pages. Eg, at short-tailed chinchilla, the inflection line does not appear next to the heading, but rather at the top of the entry, where it is followed by a lot of white space. This seems to have something to do with interaction with the right hand side ToC gadget as the white space ends exactly where the ToC ends. Commenting out enough sections to eliminate the ToC eliminates the space problem. The behavior seems to occur on other entries. I will continue to use the gadget for a while to see whether there are any other problems, but I'll probably abandon it if the problem isn't eventually fixed. If it is too hard to fix or not worth fixing (eg, because I'm the only user), I'll understand if you remove it. DCDuring (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@DCDuring the problem is indeed caused by things "floating" down the right side of the page. This could be images (as in the case of nutcracker) or the right floating TOC. I don't see an obvious way to fix this, and I would go so far as to say it could be impossible to fix it properly. This, that and the other (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi - I really disagree with your decision to merge these: one of the main motivations for making this was to catch problematic editing patterns in certain languages (e.g. the wrong apostrophes being continually used), and smashing them all together like this just makes it harder to work it out.
Ultimately, these are maintenance categories, and they can just sit there doing nothing if they're not needed - but from the numbers I've seen while they've been populating there are clearly quite a few entries which have been affected. Theknightwho (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho fair enough. I do worry about the proliferation of maintenance categories in general - it makes it difficult to find actually problematic entries that need solving, especially in smaller languages. But I suppose that's a separate discussion to be hand. In any event, Ioaxxere reverted the change as it broke stuff for some reason. This, that and the other (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think this change would reduce the number of categories unless multiple languages were affected, though. Plus, if there's no language subdivision, then how would we know where the problem is in the first place? It would make solving the issue on a page like a effectively impossible. Theknightwho (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
When I was talking about reducing the number of categories, I was thinking from the point of view of browsing the categories themselves, rather than the set of categories at the bottom of entries. Either way, you do make a good point about entries like a. This, that and the other (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Idea for another list you can generate
Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Every instance when an entry links to a thesaurus page, but the thesaurus page doesn't include that entry. Also maybe the reverse, for when a thesaurus page includes an entry but the entry doesn't link to that thesaurus page. Ioaxxere (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The IP that created the QuickPath entry geolocates to Richmond, CA and the one that's trying to get it undeleted is a proxy. Both of them are interested in Wicca, LGB (mostly G), Spanish, and dabbling in American Indian languages. Everything points in screaming neon mile-high letters to this being GTroy, aka Luciferwildcat, aka Baymiwuk aka Ndołkah. They now seem to be dabbling in Chinese folk religion, which fits the pattern perfectly. They tend to be rather dense, clueless, and overly impressed with their competence. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Sartma I assumed the transliterations were done automatically by a Lua module. It seems I was mistaken; they are manually entered using the |tr= parameter. In any event, it seems to be putting the cart before the horse to request deletion of the pirig̃ entry before updating the transliteration at 𒊊 itself. I'm happy to delete any transliteration entries that are wrong, but in this case I got a bit confused and wasn't confident to delete. This, that and the other (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Sartma oh, I see that transliteration and romanisation are different when it comes to Sumerian. This is incredibly confusing, and seems needless (our search box fills in diacritics for you if you don't type them). I take it that the convention is not to create entries for transliterations but for romanisations? This, that and the other (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Did I not provide three (albeit poor quality) citations? Also, if you could recreate it I can add attests for it. Sorry for not doing so earlier; as an interjection, most of the attests for the word are just the word itself sent on its own as a reply to other people's posts, hence why it was difficult for me to find good attests to use. It is definitely a valid and pretty unique word IMO that I think should be included on Wiktionary; I never used Reddit when I first started seeing this pop up quite frequently on Discord messages and in YouTube comment sections (although neither of these services are cite-able unfortunately), so it is definitely more widespread outside of Reddit, or was for me at least. Also, I have now found many useable attests for it on Twitter that I will add if the page is re-created. Hope this is good enough! Thanks, LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@LunaEatsTuna Thanks for your contribution. I've restored the entry; please add your cites within the entry, following the model of, say, radtwt. Personally I would say it is not necessary for a citation to consist of a single tweet; it could consist of a sequence of tweets - but I don't know how one would format that. It would be uncharted waters. This, that and the other (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why did you delete "foreskin envy"?? That is a real condition, and has been cited numerous times since the late 1990s. I included several citations that I will now have to research it all over again.
@Mynewfiles The entry was deleted after a discussion at requests for deletion (RFD), where it was decided that the term did not meet WT:CFI for reasons other than lack of attestation. You can read the archived discussion on the entry's talk page: Talk:foreskin envy.
Because the problem with the entry was not attestation-related, the number of citations is not relevant. If an entry has been deleted at RFD, and you believe the community got it wrong, you should not unilaterally override the community's voice by recreating the entry. Instead, start a new discussion at WT:RFDE stating why you think the entry should be undeleted. (In my view, since we have other "... envy" entries as stated by Equinox in the RFD discussion, there is a convincing argument in favour of undeletion.)
In future, before recreating entries that have previously been deleted, I encourage you to read the entry's talk page ("discussion" tab).
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
Latest comment: 7 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Morphological derivation templates like {{affix}}, {{compound}}, {{prefix}}, {{suffix}}, etc. are generally okay once |nocat= is added (I use |nocat=1, but I've seen |nocat=y). The sections for those templates are more cluttered with false positives with each run.
Also, an argument could be made for category templates being excludable in some cases: they apply to the page as a whole, and tend to get added at the bottom of the page. I believe there are still bots running that move them to the right section from time to time.
That said, they often get moved to entries without changing the language codes and it's entirely possible to have a category that matches the definition of the intended language but not the definition of the language that matches the code even if there's an entry for it on the page: for pie, Category:en:Desserts and Category:es:Anatomy are correct, but Category:es:Desserts and Category:en:Anatomy would be wrong- no matter where they were on the page. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz thanks for bringing this up. The script is supposed to ignore templates with nocat=:
# Skip etymology templates with "nocat=" specifiedif'nocat='intemplateParams:continue
Can you give a page where a template with |nocat= was incorrectly included in the list? I spot-checked three examples and they had all been cleaned up by you or WF after the list was generated.
As for category templates, I feel it is still valuable to include them in the list for the reason you mention. If there is a bot that automatically moves these to the "right" section (putting {{c|en|Anatomy}} under the English section of pie for example), it risks making these errors impossible to track down. This cleanup task unfortunately seems like yet another manual job – AWB is useful too, but needs to be run with great care, which is why I don't share my AWB script publicly (although I'd be happy to share it with you or other trusted users privately). This, that and the other (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz ah yes, sorry, I see. The script doesn't handle nested templates. If the |nocat= falls after the nested template, it will not be noticed. I will have to spend some time rewriting this script. This, that and the other (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@P. Sovjunk sorry for the delay. A new computer was foisted on me and I have been focusing on setting up the critical tools for my work, and my Wiktionary scripts are not yet ready. I know, my priorities are wrong etc. But by the time I am able to set it up it will almost be time for the next dump, so I think I will wait until early next week.
Yeah, comma shit is resolved. But new shit surfaced - the listing of things at Arctic which were already there. This seems to occur with terms "double-linked", like {{l|en|}} inside the {{col-auto}} templates. Granted, most of that was sloppy Wonderfool editing... Perhaps something to fix for next time. Denazz (talk) 09:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Congrats on your vote passing! Can you update the User:TTObot page to look more like a normal bot page (cf. User:WingerBot)? No need to add specifics on what the bot does, but at least it should have the standard bot header box. Benwing2 (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 will do. I'm actually a little annoyed about TTObot having the bot flag, as it means that the bot's edits no longer show up on my watchlist, which is an important way for me to monitor what it's doing and keep an eye on the lists itself. I'm pretty sure I set pywikibot to not mark the edits as bot-flagged, but they still doesn't show up irrespective of that. Do you have any experience with this? This, that and the other (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@This, that and the other I'm not sure it's possible to turn off the bot flagging and it definitely doesn't seem like a good idea. Instead, you can tell the Watchlist to include bot edits. And feel free to edit the {{user bot}} template :) ... you're probably right that it hasn't been changed in ages. Benwing2 (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
You mention you're annoyed about your bot's bot status. There's a way around it, of course, creating a new account and using that as a bot, but lying that it's not a bot. I did that for a while, and got caught out eventually and blocked, which is an occupational hazard for me. P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago12 comments4 people in discussion
Greetings,
Would you please explain why you nominated this entry for deletion? I've added three cites, and this term is used widely in medicine/endocrinology. It is certainly not SOP. newfiles (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mynewfiles it's important to recognise that the term has been brought to RFD, which does not deal with questions of attestation. So the inclusion of three cites is great, but ultimately orthogonal to the issue at hand.
The reason I sent it to RFD is that it seems that it is trivially analysable as Achilles tendon + reflex + time, the time of the reflex of the Achilles tendon. There's no additional meaning inherent in the phrase that can't be deduced from the individual constituent parts. Kiwima and I may well be wrong, hence why I didn't just speedy delete it. But if you think the term is not SOP then make your case at RFD. This, that and the other (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mynewfiles to add to this, the reason I didn't respond to your points at RFDE was because I didn't feel you responded to the point at hand, which was that the word was SOP. We'll have a better time discussing things if we respond directly to each other's points. This, that and the other (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is not SoP as I explained before, and has a specific and unique meaning and edifying use in the field of medicine. Kiwima deleted it originally because the first author contributed an unclear and ambiguous definition of the term. newfiles (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is an actual test used in endocrinology, and the term, cannot in theory, be split into different parts. I'm confused as to why you think it is SOP. newfiles (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mynewfiles I think you're misunderstanding what SOP means. The existence of a concept doesn't mean the term for it isn't SOP, and what's SOP can vary from language to language, e.g. the classic example of SOP tennis player (kept only as a translation hub) vs. Polish tenisista. Benwing2 (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am new and trying to understand Wiktionary's SOP / inclusion rules so have been doing some reading up. Interestingly @Benwing2 there is WT:TENNIS which takes the contrary view: tennis player was not kept only as a translation hub, though it would have been kept for that purpose anyway. The actual reason it was kept, judging from the deletion discussion and as far as I can see accurately summarised at WT:TENNIS, is that it was deemed to refer primarily (and perhaps surprisingly, so not "sum of parts") to a profession. That is, there's a difference between introducing someone as "this is my friend Roger — he plays tennis" and "this is my friend Roger — he's a tennis player". LeadingTheLifeOfRiley (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, I don't think that makes it non-SOP. All professions work that way. "My friend Roger is a Spanish (Navajo, Polabian, Toki Pona, etc.) teacher" leads to the implication that it's done professionally; but they are still SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure about that example. "He teaches Spanish" and "He's a Spanish teacher" to my ear both indicate someone teaching professionally? Whereas one of the arguments made in those deletion discussions was "Master P plays basketball, but failed to become a basketball player" is a commonly understood distinction that a non-native speaker could not have made out from the meanings of the individual words. For, say, "He's a solitaire player" versus "He plays solitaire" there's no such difference. Look, as a newbie, I am finding the whole sum of parts business infuriatingly difficult to get my head around. And I can see why you thought your example was a particularly clever and instructive one, with the English vs Polish comparison. But it is a plain matter of fact that your explanation to @Mynewfiles of tennis player being "kept only as a translation hub" is incorrect - even if the decision to keep "tennis player" was wrongly decided, it wasn't for that that reason. On the other hand, judging from the multiple discussions at Talk:tennis player you wouldn't be the only person to claim it was SOP, even if that opinion did not carry the day, so I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong on that point. What I would say is that calling this the "classic" example of SOP is unhelpful for us confused newbies, since whether it is SOP turns out to have been rather contentious, and WT:IDIOM even lists the "tennis player test" by which "tennis player" is deemed genuinely idiomatic (in line with its deletion discussions, but contrary to your quite reasonable arguments that it's SOP). So overall this example has left me more confused than before, rather than enlightened. Perhaps for future instances of newbie instruction you would do better to pick something uncontentiously SOP from the failed items list at WT:IDIOM? LeadingTheLifeOfRiley (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for that, I wasn't aware of it! I'm not asking for a tutorial right now, I think on balance I'd rather steer clear of the whole SOP business for the time being, just wanted to point out why previous disputes over "tennis player" make it a poor example for explaining SOP, particularly since the most recent consensus is that it is idiomatic despite arguments to the contrary, and that it was a factual error to state it was kept only as a translation hub - I suspect you have to explain SOP to newbies regularly, and I felt some sympathy for newfiles when you were saying one thing and WT:IDIOM (and the associated deleted discussions) would be saying another. LeadingTheLifeOfRiley (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Why did you delete these entries? They are officially registered as actual colors, and each of them has a designated hex color code. newfiles (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mynewfiles have you actually read WT:CFI? I'm becoming increasingly convinced you haven't, because being "officially registered as actual colors" has nothing to do with whether Wiktionary includes a term or not. Find three good uses of these colours names – ideally in running text, not just in auto-generated lists – and I'll undelete. This, that and the other (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I have a question about Wikitionary's regulations: according to the criteria for creating articles on Wiktionary, is the organization's own name allowed to have articles here? P. ĐĂNG (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that is the name of Buddhist organizations such as Cheng Beng Buddhist Society, Vietnam Buddhist Sangha and Miao Xin Vihara. These titles are all Wikipedia articles. Could these titles be considered notable enough to be included in Wiktionary? P. ĐĂNG (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@P. ĐĂNG I would say they are not eligible for inclusion. The criterion is not "notability" like it is on Wikipedia. It is actually a much stricter and narrower criterion. Some editors even felt that United Nations should be deleted (although it was eventually kept). This, that and the other (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Special Orphaned pages has been rendered useless by universal self-transclusion
Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I've referred to this at GP. The undifferentiated list was never very useful for me, but I would really like a list of Translingual L2s that are not linked to from principal namespace and not merely by self-transclusion. There are various problems that might become thereby identifiable: headword misspellings/alternative spellings, poor prioritization, missing {{taxfmt}}, etc..
I asked @User:JeffDoozan about this on his talk page and he referred me to you.
@DCDuring I had an initial go at this, and I got a list with around 5,300 results. Here are the 10 newest and 10 oldest* entries in the list (* edit - the creation log only began on 27 June 2018, there are actually ~2000 more entries in the list that predate this)
Thanks for the quick response. Rather than work from a category like Translingual lemmas, Translingual proper nouns would be better, or better yet entries that use {{taxon}}. I don't have the skills, interest, or energy to deal with characters, emojis, etc. It would also be handy, but not essential, to have immediately available as part of the run the first parameter of {{taxon}} (the "rank" of the taxon).
I would not need it weekly!!! I would find it very useful less frequently, possibly quarterly. And it is possible that I could find it useful in ways I can't imagine now. I do not intend to simply add links to reduce the size of the list, but rather come to some personal policy about entries that are arguably not worth working on. I might advocate that those who add certain kinds of taxonomic entries are wasting their time or that they should think about links into the entry when they create it and support my argument with data from this or similiar lists.
Latest comment: 3 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion
I don't know if you noticed, but the change in the language code for Prakrit happened at just the wrong time, so every Prakrit language code in the dumps was flagged as incorrect. That wasted a lot of space in Wiktionary:Todo/Lists/Template language code does not match header, but it completely obliterated all useful content in the language-sorted version. Any chance you could run them again with Prakrit filtered out? There's a similar and older issue with codes for language varieties being allowed in many templates, but that will require more care in sorting things out- this one is a no-brainer. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz I did notice this. As you say, it is just down to bad timing: the dump process uses data from the 1st day of the month, but my script downloads WT:LOL at the time the actual dump file is generated, which is a few days later. Changes to WT:LOL during that interval will create exactly this problem.
I'll see if I can regenerate the list for you with Prakrit excluded, noting that it will still be using data from the same dump, so anything fixed since then will still show up on the list.
As for the variations issues, does this relate to Persian? I did notice some funny stuff there - it looked like etymology-only languages being used in unusual places, but I didn't look into it. Can you help me understand what's going on? This, that and the other (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 can explain it better than I can. Dari is one of the official languages of Aghanistan, but linguistically it's more of a Persian dialect, and Classical Persian also shows up in lots of etymologies. Apparently these can be used in templates that couldn't use them before. After years of being lectured by Bosnians, Serbs and Croats about "Serbo-Croatian" not existing, I guess we can stop reverting a lot of their POV-based language-code changes. Now if we could get Indonesians to stop randomly mixing id and ms (not to mention jv and kaw), and people from India to stop mixing up Assamese/Bengali, Pashto/Urdu Hindi/everything, things will quiet down.
The other thing that needs attention is that Chinese lects are ending up there when they shouldn't. Perhaps we should just consider "Mandarin", "Cantonese", "Hakka", etc. as valid matches for "Chinese" and vice versa. Then there are the weird transclusion tricks of templates like {{ja-see}} and {{zh-see}}, which means that headers and language codes in the secondary entry itself don't always have to be complete for the entry to work. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz I've started a new run of the "sorted by language" list. Should be done in 8 hours or so. When it finishes, I'll look at the situation regarding Chinese - there is code to treat all Sinitic languages as the same language for the purposes of this list, but perhaps it is not working in some situations. This, that and the other (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@This, that and the other I think what @Chuck Entz is referring to is that etymology-only languages (for which there is a plan to rename them to "language varieties") can be used in many places that formerly allowed only full languages. In general I have expanded the places that allow etymology-only languages as much as possible, because sometimes (as for Classical Persian and Dari vs. plain "Persian") they have different properties (in particular transliteration schemes). This just means when checking for cases of "language code does not match header" you need to normalize any occurrences of etym-only languages to their full-language parent (since headers in particular must always be full languages). Benwing2 (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 Thanks for the explanation. More coding for me, then!
Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Did you generate it by counting {{taxlink}} instances for a given name-rank combination or pages with such 'taxlinked' combinations? It looks like you did. If so and it isn't too much trouble for you, I would stop running mine, which I do only every few months. I don't think we really need it for every dump run. Having it outside user space might make more folks realize that it is a shared task. I seem to be the only person who adds taxon L2s based on their "wants", though there are many who add taxonomic entries, often instant durable orphans. DCDuring (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@DCDuring It counts instances of {{taxlink}}, {{taxlink2}} and {{taxfmt}} (without distinguishing between these templates). I'm glad you find it useful - in that case I will keep running it. It's no trouble to run it against every dump - the system is fully automated, and all the dump-based todo lists are generated off a single pass through the dump, so adding an extra one has no noticeable impact on the overall process.
The two problems I am aware of are:
it counts individual links rather than entries (hence we see "English spurge, English spurge, English spurge, English spurge, English spurge") - I want to change it to count entries rather than links
it treats synonyms (like Potentilla anserina) as if they don't exist - I guess these should not be treated as nonexistent taxa
I am not certain who (and how many) would use such a list besides me. Do you know who is using taxonomic names list that you generate? I know that no one is making use of mine, besides me. I know that all the blue links now at the top of your list are for entries that I have added from my lists.
I view counting individual links as a feature not a bug. (OTOH, listing them in the way they are now doesn't seem as desirable, though certainly not deal-breaking.) The more times a term appears, whether in a vernacular name shared over several related languages, etymologies, derived terms, descendants, or image captions, the more 'important' it is, IMO. To me the same thing would apply to any redlink of a term in any language, however difficult it might be to capture them.
The runs that would serve best to improve taxon entries have been changing.
I will need a separate run on {{taxfmt}} instances to find mistaken uses, ie, redlinks, and to find which taxonomic entries are "important", so that such entries are as 'complete' as possible (images, hypernyms, hyponyms, actual definitions, translation sections , and references to external databases). (quarterly?)
I need to include {{taxlink2}} in my runs, if I continue them. (all missing-entry runs)
I want to find all instances of taxonomic names that are not enclosed in templates 'taxlink', 'taxfmt', and 'taxlink2', starting with those formatted with {{l}}, proceeding to those wikiformatted as "'']''" (starting with taxa that have spaces, ie, sub-generic names). (annual or less frequent)
At some point I will need to spell-check all taxonomic names, wherever they appear, probably against a database like Catalogue of Life, supplemented by Wikispecies for taxa at ranks like subtribe or 'clades'. (annual or less frequent)
I have, in my efforts, downgraded taxonomic synonyms and extinct taxa, not always taking the time to enclose them in {{taxlink}} or even mark them with †. That should be remedied at some point, with such items being included in the normal workflow. (one time, but uncertain how to do completely)
These needs/wants are obviously specialized. I would be happy to do all these runs myself, but my programming skills are very limited. In particular, I am not very good at anticipating problems in making fully automated changes to Wiktionary. I can do the simple programming for 1, probably 2, possibly 3, doubtfully 4 and 5.
I use the search box to find entries that have specific problems and like to prioritize my efforts by number of 'wants'. It is a shame that we can't rely on using "&sort=incoming_links_desc" to generate useful lists from the search box, due to the large number of links from user space. Such links might be useful indications of 'wants', were they not repeated multiple times, eg, Berkel's lists. I have commented out repeats of my "missing taxa" lists, reactivating them only when I am actively using them. DCDuring (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Denazz I hate to break it to you, but the italic links were actually there in the previous edit too, it just wasn't as obvious because they appeared in the various language sections. There's a long and technical explanation for why they showed up under "unknown language" this time. You're right that they don't need to be fixed! Next week's update should do away with them entirely. This, that and the other (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I would suggest excluding {{zh-pron}} and {{zh-dial}} from future runs, since they get their Wikipedia links from data modules and the useful information is massively diluted by being repeated on thousands of pages. For instance, the link to w:Neipu_District comes from Line 30 at Module:hak-pron, but takes up 3,761 items in the list before the 5,000 limit is reached. A search on "Miaoli and Neipu" returns 12,952 results, probably all from {{zh-pron}} and all accompanied by the bad link.
Perhaps you might separately compile lists specific to the data modules for these templates, but you would want to avoid going through the literally thousands of term-specific data sub-modules, which have no actual links in them. Fortunately those sub-module names follow universal patterns, so that shouldn't be hard. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz Yes, there is certainly a problem with individual templates flooding the list. The problem isn't as bad as it might look though; I think I have managed to eliminate all the bad Chinese dialect links that were causing problems. My plan is to only exclude particular templates from the list if they cause recurrent flooding problems over time - we'll have to see how it goes.
Compiling lists of Wikipedia links from modules is very much non-trivial. Instead, I want to add a third column to the todo list that names the template that was responsible for the bad link. In some cases this will be {{w}} or {{quote-book}} or something that needs fixing in the entry itself, but in other cases, it should help to identify the templates (and, indirectly, modules) which need repair.
The 5000-result limit works rather unusually in this list. It's complicated to explain, but suffice it to say that, once the list settles down and we manage to get below 5000 results, everything should start to make more sense.
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I remember you saying you were going to be away from your computer for a week, so I'm not about to nag you for not being punctual with the dump-generated ones. I just want a ballpark guess on when. Oh, and please do factor in time needed to catch up on other stuff first. I appreciate what you do, and don't want to burn you out. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz well remembered! I'll be back on Monday. As for the dumps, the todo list system checks daily to see if there is a new XML dump file, but apparently dumps have been suspended due to a glitch - see the latest Tech News in GP. It looks as though they've fixed the problem and we're now just waiting for the dumps to be turned back on. This, that and the other (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Changes to inflection templates
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi - thanks for updating a bunch of inflection templates. Could you please change any links called by frame:expandTemplate to direct calls to the link template? Adding this to a lot of templates can have a significant effect on large pages. Thanks. Theknightwho (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
All of the Linnaean orders and classes should probably be in Wiktionary. I took a run at this one. Surprisingly they are largely excluded from mention in WP. DCDuring (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have been using the list you've generated to guide my efforts. I used the species list directly to address all(?) the orphaned species for which there were 2 or more for a genus. I sampled some of the other lists, but quickly came to the conclusion that many orphans were very time-consuming to resolve and focusing on the list diverted me from working on missing entries that had "many" (more than 8) incoming links. So I am adding missing families and adding "selected genera" to hyponyms, the principle of selection being that we already have an entry for the genus. This leads to some orphans being adopted, typically one or two per family. Unfortunately, many new entries (from VGP) don't say what family the (subgeneric) taxon belongs to, so such entries need to be cleaned up to be included in the process. Some taxa are very isolated, usually because they are new (eg, subtribes, higher ranks of viruses) or have no vernacular names. I may not get many of these 'adopted' in my lifetime.
This means that the Translingual orphans list does not yet need to be updated. Obviously there are plenty of other entry deficiencies the list identifies, which provide me without other cleanups to do as well. I can use various ad hoc searches and dump-processing runs to find missing families that have lots of incoming links, which should add 'important' families and lead orphans to be adopted. I will ask for another run when the missing-families strategy no longer leads to much adoption of orphans. DCDuring (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mysteryroom you say it's dated, but the quotes in the entry are from 1974 and later. Moreover, there is an enormous gap between the early attestations (Citations:enhort), which were surely influenced by Middle French, and the late attestations, which clearly weren't influenced by Middle French nor (in all likelihood) the old uses - it's a modern recoining of the term. I would put an etymology like "Blend of enjoin + exhort" or something, similar to irregardless. This, that and the other (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
(pinging @Vergencescattered) this is a continuation of a discussion on the Wiktionary Discord server. VS pointed out to other editors how the new Old English adjective declension template did not look pleasant for him or other Old English editors.
I have kept the changes on template for right now, but I wish to ask you to take in the criticism from the language editors for updating templates. I appreciate very much your work on updating old templates, but there is still room to improve. one thing is: this declension table has gaps between the two grammatical number , making it look less like a chart and more like four spreadsheets glued together (this also causes issues in mobile). please ask for more feedback, because I am not the one who works with these! cheers! Juwan (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
You are my Santa Claus
Latest comment: 12 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I've been a good guy this year (mostly), and for Xmas I want you to give me the opportunity to improve WT. Can I get a) Wiktionary:Todo/phrases not linked to from components/2024-12 generated, like the October one, b) coding skills so I can generate lists myself, and c) whatever code you use to generate the list, and d) for you to fix everything on the list, so I can drink sherry instead. P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion
After you changed how TOC works, it is broken for some languages like Slovene, Kashubian, (Old) Czech, Slovak, Proto-Slavic, and probably many non-Slavic languages. I don't know how to fix this. Sławobóg (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Sławobóg are you sure this has been recently broken? In any event my modifications were only cosmetic, I am fairly sure I didn't mess with the actual content of the TOC boxes. Perhaps you will need to post at WT:GP to attract the attention of other technical contributors. This, that and the other (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Column templates and show more
Latest comment: 7 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
@Vininn126 thanks for the positive feedback! I'm glad you like it.
I'm not sure how closely you were following the RFDO discussion, but the motivation for the change was that the old "show more" functionality didn't work properly with nested lists and other complex templates. Now it's possible to make descendant lists collapsible without having to resort to the old NavFrame box. However, making this change meant we needed a new visual style that looks acceptable even when the bottom item appears "cut off". This, that and the other (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi, and compliments on my behalf as well! :) Given that Wiktionary's look is mostly square, could we take the border radius of the button down a notch from .5lh to .25lh? Or maybe drop it entirely, to match its surroundings. Catonif (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Discussion first?
Latest comment: 4 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion
@Thadh thanks for the feedback. I have been doing a lot of inflection table conversions over the past few months, and there have been very few objections. Relying on reversion and discussion after the fact as a feedback mechanism is an established wiki way.
I was aware that there are other Afar verb table templates - my intent was to come back later and convert the others. In fact, since you have concerns about the colour change, it is probably a good thing I didn't change any more than a single template!
As for the colour, most Wiktionary inflection tables are either grey or indigo, and I have been trying to help give these templates some distinct "personality" by choosing a colour palette relevant to the language, nationality, or ethnic group that is most closely associated with the language. In the case of Afar, I chose green, not randomly, but because it is one of the colors that has been prominent on flags of the Afar region.
No need for keeping the indigo colour, I guess green works fine, it's just that it was a very out-of-the-blue change that I didn't realise you actually made for a reason.
I'm not sure moving the "singular/plural" to the top to save space is sustainable though - in {{aa-conj}} that space is used to display other forms below. Thadh (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi @This, that and the other! On the topic of the {{hu-decl-table}}, it had it's own personality already, so only changed because of dark mode compatibility right? Wouldn't it be possible to keep the colour palate of the original with different colours for the top rows and columbs? Other Ugriclanguages tried to follow this colour scheme by me, with complementry colours. If it's not possible I understand. Also the white outside border just makes it look disconected from the page in my opinion. Ewithu (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ewithu yes, the Ugric templates have always had some character, although the use of the blue background for the terms themselves (in a context where the overall template didn't have a blue colour scheme) was unusual and not shared by other declension templates.
Are you referring to the way the top row of the template (singular, plural) previously used a darker colour? It might be possible to get a similar effect by applying class="outer" attribute to the relevant cells. However, in general, picking ad-hoc custom colours that work in both light and dark modes creates much added difficulty (and may not even be possible on a template-by-template basis - I've never tried it), so the {{inflection-table-top}} template presents a selection of preset colour schemes based on the Wiktionary palette.
And I agree with you about the border. Although I originally coded the double border on purpose, I've come to realise that it is not the best look. Unfortunately it's especially challenging to make it a single border, but I will sit down at some point and try to fix this. This, that and the other (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
North Frisian personal-pronoun templates
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for making these prettier! It's just that in the case of "frr-Foehr-personal-pronouns" you seem to have mixed up the widths. The possessives as a whole are too wide and the individual columns are also irregular. See for example the page ik, where you can compare all three dialects: Mooring and Sylt look great, but Föhr-Amrum is a bit lopsided. Thanks in advance if you'd be good enough to even this out! 92.73.31.12500:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for letting me know. I've had a go at improving the situation. Let me know if it can be improved further.
In general, getting these template widths right is very difficult - and I am only really focusing on the Vector 2022 skin, which is what logged-out users like you see. Logged-in users who've chosen to use other skins will probably have a poorer experience. This, that and the other (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Oh, sorry for the lack of details. It displays correctly on Chrome 132.0.6834.83 and Firefox 134.0.1, but not on Safari 18.2 (20620.1.16.11.8), I see this. (աղավնատուն(aġavnatun) )Text cutoff on Safari when using inflection-table-top — Fenakhay(حيطي · مساهماتي)00:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Fenakhay try now (you might need to null-edit the page). Thanks for drawing my attention to this!
Incidentally, on աղավնատուն the box's header text sits pretty low, because it is wrapped in <small> tags. I'm inclined to remove those <small> tags. Box headers are already smaller than body text by 5% by default. Is there a reason this one needs to be even smaller than that? This, that and the other (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Lotje (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Here you go: User:This, that and the other/broken interwiki links/2023-07-20/wikipedia @Overthesnowmelt This, that and the other (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Done and the former page moved to Wiktionary:Wonderfool sockpuppets. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
