User talk:Type56op9

Disruptive edits? Pah! Note to self: prismed is the next word to add. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi WF. Do you mind attesting choppin' and bearin' please? Posting three illustrative and independent b.g.c. result pages each in WT:RFV#choppin' and WT:RFV#bearin' would be sufficient. Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I did it under a different username. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I was going to say that Mr. Granger had done the citing, and that you therefore wouldn't need to do anything, but then I saw you using the IdotIdotI account, so I figured you'd moved on (except that that one's now been blocked too, as an unauthorised bot (?!), apparently). Welcome back. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's a good a reason as any to block a user. --Type56op9 (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I just chose a couple pages more or less at random from es.wikisource and got another pile of vocab we lack. But I'm not quite sure how to format entries like imaginarle and edificarse, especially with regard to the conjugation table. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

"words" may not be the best word...I'd say "compound forms", which I very rarely add. Mostly, as they're totally dull, but also as anyone with a low level of Spanish should be able to separate form like imaginarle, hacerlo, edificarse to garner meaning. As for conjugated forms, I favouring using my illegal bot to create them (disguising the activity as not being done by a bot, of course). --Type56op9 (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

As for the connjugation table, leave it out. Examples of compound forms are, unsurprisingly, found at Category:Spanish combined forms. --Type56op9 (talk) 07:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, I've helped you out with that list of yours. Lots of decent missing entries you found, thanks a lot! --Type56op9 (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Agreed, compounds are dull, but they're inflected forms in an intelligible way, and I'm pretty sure that they count as words. My method was to take Spanish text, use a regex to make it all into {{l|es| links, and then copy over the orange and red linked pages. Is there a more efficient way I could do that? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Orange links? What are they? I'm not sure if there's a more efficient way - ask User:Equinox, who seems to make hundreds of lists to make missing entries. --Type56op9 (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • In your preferences, in the 'gadgets' tab, there's an 'orangelinks' gadget that turns links orange if the page exists but doesn't have the language section that is being linked to. Useful gadget. - -sche (discuss) 17:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
      • Got it. Thanks a lot, will come in handy. --Type56op9 (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Also, about compounds: do we not want entries like amarse the way it's currently formatted? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

  I like how amarse is formatted. I suppose I'd like to see separate entries for reflexive verbs, but am not too bothered either way. --Type56op9 (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

  @Metaknowledge, that's already geekishly cool approach. Anyways, you also can try AWB and find an symmetric difference of

Spanish lemmas + non-lemmas and the words from your text + Spanish lemmas + non-lemmas. This solves the problem of extraction of the orange/red links. (how did you do that?)---Dixtosa (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I can't run AWB on this thing, I'm afraid. And I did the extraction manually, so not very cool... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

  $(".new,.partlynew").each(function() {console.log($(this).text());})
  

  Type this in your browser's console. This will print oranges and red. Experiment with it here--Dixtosa (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I added some more words to my list, but it's still puny. I've been adding a fuckload of scientific vocabulary in Spanish and it's going well, so I suppose I'll get going on that again when I get back. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Enjoy your time off, Meta. --Type56op9 (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

... you could add reasonable entries. See kaputtmachen and even alegrón can be improved. Of course it would take more time and your edit count would suffer! Keep on taking the tablets. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• It's true what you said about a little more effort. --Type56op9 (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yo! The Spanish Wiktionary has further meanings for this word. My es-1 is not good enough to translate them. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I added one, then lazily added an rfdef. --Type56op9 (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the Sae1962 templates thing was still ongoing, even if slowly (since others are so distracted). You did not archive discussions which probably deserved preservation, like the PIE word. And why were you so itching to archive WT:RFDO anyway? This is the page which needs it least. WT:RFV could use some dicsussion closing. — Keφr 20:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply