User talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV/Archive6

AviBase (The World Bird Database) contains this word. Another resource is the Russian dictionary of Pamukkale University . If you search by Google, you may find results from some dictionaries which are very famous in Turkey (like TurEng, YeminliSözlük, SesliSözlük, etc.). --176.219.166.20 12:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

You keep saying that, and the other guy keeps saying it’s a made-up word. Add three WT:CFI-conforming citations or it won’t be readded. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I was want to remove at https://species.wikimedia.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Diuca_speculifera&action=history the "buzulkuşu" word but I have been blocked :( Can you remove that "buzulkuşu" word and my block please? --123snake45 (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I can’t. I’m not an admin at Wikispecies. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

They are cheating again! They tell lie buzlaqquşu now too... --123snake45 (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

You’ve already done what needed to be done by RFVing the entry. Thanks. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi UM, could you please give me the flood flag for a while? I'm going to add lots of Spanish adjective forms (without a bot, by the way, it is using WT:ACCEL). And also a few Portuguese ones, especially for you. --Type56op9 (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sure, but I suspect it may be removed by someone else. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

And one more time, if you'd be so kind. --Type56op9 (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have been contributing to the Wauja Wiktionary for a few months. I just learned today that there is a mentoring program for new users, and I would be very grateful for some mentoring help. Last August, you kindly helped me with some technical issues. At this time, I would like advice regarding how to meet the Criteria for Inclusion when the language you are working with has an oral tradition, and not a written one.

Wauja is an Arawak language spoken by about 400 indigenous people in the Parque Indígena do Xingu in Central Brazil. A generation ago, the Wauja had no familiarity with writing at all. Today, they have established village schools where their children are learning to read and write in both Portuguese and Wauja. However, at this time, there are no published works authored by native speakers of the Wauja language. I would like some advice regarding how I can contribute to the Wauja-English Wiktionary and follow community CFI norms, even though there are currently no publications in Wauja. Indigenous languages of Brazil are natural languages, and deserve to be included in Wiktionary. If the CFI rules require at least one attestation from a written source, then for languages that have no publications with ISBNs, perhaps we could allow transcripts of audio and video recordings? If that is not a good solution, I hope we can find a better one. That is why I am writing you, so you can perhaps give me guidance regarding how Wauja entries can be added and still meet community CFI norms.

I am planning to return to the Wauja community in Brazil this summer to train a team of young Wauja schoolteachers in contributing to the Wauja-Portuguese Wiktionary site, as they are bilingual in Wauja and Portuguese. These Wauja teachers have been struggling with the task of creating and maintaining manuscripts of their dictionary in Microsoft Word, in addition to printing and distributing them periodically at great expense. They were thrilled and delighted when I told them they could build a Wauja-Portuguese Wiktionary, and thereby do it all online. Recently Chuck Entz suggested I bring the problem of CFIs for languages without publications to the Beer Parlour for discussion. I followed his advice, but I feel out of my depth. I simply want to contribute to the Wauja Wiktionary, train the Wauja to participate in building a Wauja-Portuguese site themselves, and abide by community norms. If the CFI norms exclude all natural languages that lack a body of publications, I hope we can modify the norms for such languages, until they do have publications. Above all, I think it is important that all human languages be included. Thanks! Emi-Ireland (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Emi-Ireland Well, the mentoring project has kind of been abandoned for a couple of years, and it never really kicked off to begin with. Regardless, I will be glad to help.

• The most important thing that you have to keep in mind is that the English Wiktionary does not aim to be a primary source of information. I know this ends up limiting our ability to include words in languages with limited written traditions, but it also prevents made-up stuff from being presented as real words. If you had to patrol the recent changes page, you’d be surprised by the amount of rubbish that people try to add every day. And it’s not only people making stuff up, it’s also people who end up adding incorrect information because they want to help out with languages they don’t understand very well. Just this week the community has run across some Spanish nonsense from a user who got blocked over two years.
• So far, you’re doing the right thing by making that proposal in the BP. It will probably require a vote in order to alter the policy. Until then, know that audio and video documentation is also acceptable, but they are subject to the same restriction as writing: they have to be published; some video on Youtube won’t do.
• Didn’t you mention there was a Bible published in Wauja? You can use that as well.
• There are published scientific articles about Wauja, they can also be used to cite words:
  • Waurá e Mehináku: um breve estudo comparativo (Corbera 2012)
  • Uma análise fonológica das listas de palavras Wauja (Arawák) (Postigo 2011)
  • As línguas Waurá e Mehináku do Brasil Central (Corbera Mori 2005)
  • A nasalidade de vogais em Waurá e Mehináku (Mori 2009)
• Perhaps the best solution for you is to request the creation of a Wauja Wikipedia and Wiktionary. This way you and the Wauja community can have more control over what should be included. Read this page: meta:Language committee/Handbook (requesters) for instructions on how to do that. I warn that it usually takes months before such requests come to fruition. Even when it does, I ask that you don’t give up on us! We are very happy with your contributions, which is why we have turned a mostly blind eye to the citability issues of your entries.
• One last thing: when you teach the guy how to use the Portuguese Wiktionary, keep in mind that different dictionaries have different rules and different layout structures.

Cheers. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much, Ungoliant, for your prompt and very thorough reply. You've given me lots of good information. I will consider it all carefully. For now, I'd like to ask exactly what would qualify as "publishing" a video or audio recording? Would having it deposited at a public archive, such as the Smithsonian Institution or the Library of Congress be considered publishing? If not, what would be considered publishing?

Thank you for the sources. It was kind of you to look them up. These are my colleagues, whom I respect. As a rule, however, I don't use snippets collected out of context by non-native speakers unless they are checked by native speakers. I apply this rule to my own field notes, as well.

There are two words currently in the Wauja Wiktionary that I know to be incorrect. They were posted by a Wiktionarian, who quite reasonably took them from a superb reference book written by a scholar who is a world-renowned authority on Arawak languages. I personally think her work on Arawak languages is the best there is. Obviously a reliable source. The problem is that these two Wauja words were collected by someone else, who only briefly visited the Wauja and did not speak the language. These two words were later included in the excellent book on Amazonian languages by the Arawak scholar, who has learned several Arawak languages herself. She just doesn't happen to speak Wauja. She published what little was available at the time on Wauja. In any case, I don't plan to try to get these two mangled words corrected on Wiktionary. Instead, when the Wauja themselves are trained to participate in Wiktionary, they will address it, I am sure. They will wince when they see one of the words, which is an iconic Arawak word, familiar from sacred stories and everyday life, and spoken many times a day.

To my knowledge, there is still no published bible in Wauja, though the project is underway, and some young Wauja receive wages for working on the translation. However, this is not a suitable source for a Wauja dictionary, because it is merely a translation from another language and another culture. The Wauja have their own language, culture, and religion. They have their own stories of creation, and their own moral system. If we had no sources of Wauja literature spoken by Wauja storytellers, then it would make sense to use a translated Christian bible, full of translated foreign concepts, as a source. But we have excellent, lengthy, transcribed audio and video recordings of Wauja literature spoken by Wauja storytellers. (If you give me your email address, I can send you a link to a BBC video of a Wauja Storyteller. Note this is not a print publication; it is a video.)

So, when I say that Wauja lacks publications, I am referring to print publications authored by native speakers. (There are oral "publications" the Wauja themselves would recognize as authoritative: recordings of articulate elders performing oral texts.) If you have a choice between:

(1) A published source containing out-of-context snippets collected by someone who did not speak the language, versus

(2) An unpublished transcript of a lengthy oration by a native speaker who is a respected storyteller or ceremonial authority, along with the original audio or video recording

The second option is BY FAR more valuable, more informative, more authoritative. Ask any native speaker of an endangered language, and they will tell you that is merely common sense. After all, would you take English lessons from someone who couldn't speak English themselves? Who couldn't carry on even the most basic conversation in English? The danger of assuming anything that's published is authoritative is exactly the same as that you cite above: "people who end up adding incorrect information because they want to help out with languages they don’t understand very well."

A final note: in the relations between members of powerful societies and less-powerful societies there is a long and unfortunate history of domination and appropriation. We should be very conscious of the many ways in which speakers of minority and endangered languages have been marginalized and silenced, defined by the OTHER, and not allowed to define themselves.

For all these reasons, it is intellectually and morally important that we ask ourselves: Who is the authority regarding Wauja language, a native speaker of Wauja, or someone who is not Wauja, and who may not even speak or understand Wauja at all? Is the printed word so authoritative that it can silence the voices of an entire people who deserve to define themselves? That's why I want to train the Wauja to participate in Wiktionary themselves, so they can correct the clumsy, if well-intentioned, mistakes the rest of us have made. Emi-Ireland (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I’m not sure what counts as published as far as non-textual media goes. AFAIK a situation like this has never been discussed by the community.

But you’re probably safe with anything that is being sold (i.e. DVDs of films, series, documentaries, etc.) or archived by organisations (i.e. SIL’s audio recordings), but not stuff that is only “archived” by an individual (i.e. a personal VHS tape).

As for the Bible, it doesn’t have to be only source (once it gets published). There’s no need to exclude words for foreign concepts, and it’s not like every word in it will be for foreign concepts.

By the way, if you are 100% sure the two words you mentioned are incorrect, please state your case at the WT:RFD page. Even though we place high value on published material, we don’t want to replicate their errors.

Equinox just explained to me that I don't need to provide a source to post a note on the Talk page for a lemma, so I have just done so. Emi-Ireland (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC).Reply

I don't think the words need to be deleted. The translations are correct, they were simply transcribed incorrectly. Particularly kamo, which had the wrong vowel and an accent placed on the wrong syllable. Once source materials are available for these words, examples can be added. Emi-Ireland (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Obrigada, Ungoliant! If you think the Wiktionary community might consider recordings that are "archived by organisations" as "published," I will make sure to do that ASAP.

Re: the errors, Unfortunately, for these words, I don't currently have any suitable sources. It's in my head, which is not a source. I could easily get an email from a native speaker (which I think would be authoritative), but I have been asked not to use email or Facebook IMs, even if written by native speakers. I think the Wiktionary community should consider this issue, as native speakers of endangered languages rarely have access to university presses and other major publication venues. I think that communications written by literate native speakers of LWTs, if duly deposited with an archiving organization, should be considered acceptable as sources, but that is for the Wiktionary community to decide.

Pending specific guidance from the Wiktionary community, I have lots of reference material based on recordings of native speakers that have been transcribed, with the transcriptions carefully checked by literate native speakers. I feel that it's appropriate for me to contribute that. On the other hand, if I have an idea in my head about a word, but no source, particularly since I am not a native speaker, then I believe I really should get a source Wiktionary would accept and not muddy the waters with an unsourced entry. Given the issues surrounding attestation for LWTs, I want to provide proper sources for anything I contribute. I do believe audio recordings of native speakers, with transcriptions verified by literate native speakers, are among the best possible sources, but the Wiktionary community may not agree. If the community can decide exactly what sources are acceptable, I will provide them. If emails from native speakers are not acceptable, and only an audio or video recording that has been deposited at an archive will do, then I will obtain the recording when I return to Brazil in September 2015, deposit the transcribed recording at an archive as appropriate, and make the change.

Above all, I want to abide as strictly as I can by Wiktionary community norms, particularly because I have told the Wauja I am starting a Wauja-English Wiktionary site that I will show them in September. This September, people will be traveling long distances by motorboat from two satellite villages to the main village — just to discuss Wiktionary. From elders to young university-educated schoolteachers, everyone is very excited about the project. I don't want to do anything that would undermine that project. The plan is to (1) build a Wauja-English Wiktionary, already underway (2) build a Wauja-Portuguese Wiktionary, to be initiated after September by the Wauja themselves with my help, and that of any Portuguese-speakers who want to help them, as well, and (3) eventually build a Wauja-Wauja Wiktionary site, as you suggest. Perhaps that would come about in 2016. We have to train a seasoned team of Wauja Wiktionarians first. Emi-Ireland (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Obama page is locked. Please add Obomber as a synonym. — This unsigned comment was added by 89.242.86.7 (talk).

Is this Pass a Method? Before I do that, tell me: isn’t Obomber derogatory? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

It is, but you can tag it as derogatory under the "sense" template. 89.242.86.73 22:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

See discussion on definition talk page that is the best place to have it. WritersCramp (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Você tem interesse em aprender alemão? Conheço um curso de nível iniciante a intermediário por rádio chamado Deutsch, Warum Nicht?, que foi criado por uma famosa rádio da Alemanha em colaboração com o Instituto Goethe. Consiste em ouvir a sequência da lição (que conta uma história e introduz conceitos gramáticos) e depois ler uma ou duas páginas comentando sobre. Se quiser, posso te enviar o material completo do curso por e-mail. - Alumnum (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Obrigado. Vou dar uma olhada. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there,

your revert in raptor of my splitting the translations with those of bird of prey is unfortunate, in either of these two cases:

1. I split them because several languages have both terms as well: "bird of prey" ("predatory bird"), and "raptor" ("bird of theft/catch/grab/snatch").
2. if this must be reverted, then you should also revert my work in bird of prey, else many translations will be lost for good.

--Jerome Potts (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean that raptor and bird of prey are not synonyms? If so, the definition of raptor needs to be updated. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm not saying that they aren't synonyms. I do, however, find it interesting that other languages also have both ways of naming them: the "bird of prey"/"predatory bird" way, and the "bird of catch" way. Therefore, i propose to keep the two distinct, like such:

English	raptor	bird of prey
French	rapace	oiseau de proie
German	Raubvogel	Greifvogel
Slovene	ujeda	ptica roparica

Other languages seem to use one of these two ways of naming them; that is, some call them "bird of prey", while others "bird of catch". --Jerome Potts (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

You know that reich means rich and lich means ly? richly. It's correct. — This unsigned comment was added by MontChevalier (talk • contribs).

That doesn’t mean that the words formed with -ly will be accurate translations of those formed with -lich. In this case, reichlich is an adjective, while richly is an adverb. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

MontChevalier, -lich does not mean -ly: they are cognates, not translation-equivalents. --Thnidu (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for pointing out the issue over wether it was a verb or noun! How did this come to your attention if you don't mind me asking? Davski (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

As an administrator, I have to patrol the recent edits to make sure they’re OK. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I made my own Wiktionary. Just for the hell of it. It's so much fun for me to use: http://wikitoslav.monathevampirewiki.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wikitoslav:Frumpsida

Click the random page button or search for stuff if you want to see its content. NativeCat ^{drop by and say Hi!} 00:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

For your conlang only? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

BTW, there is a line you can place in the MW configuration file to allow lowercase pages. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hm. I didn't know that. I thought that this was only able to be set up for Wiktionary. Thanks for letting me know. I'm trying to fix it now. NativeCat ^{drop by and say Hi!} 00:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well it didn't work. :( So I can't do that...

I tried what it said and it messed the site up. I might do it later. NativeCat ^{drop by and say Hi!} 01:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

You have to add

$wgCapitalLinks = false;

to a file called LocalSettings.php — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I did this, adding it to the bottom of the page on LocalSettings.php , and it made my site just show up blank and so I had to delete the line and put it back to the way it was. :( NativeCat ^{drop by and say Hi!} 01:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Entendido. Agradeço pelo aviso. - Alumnum (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Could you check these edits quickly please? Originated from an anon IP and I'm not 100% sure if they are correct. Obrigado. Jberkel (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

There’s something very strange going on: the diff of his edit to Module:pt-conj/data/-ir shows a removal of 2,245 bytes, but actually content was added.

Anyway, I fixed the incorrect verb forms. Module:pt-conj/data/-servir can be deleted, right? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, noticed the weird diff as well, looks like a mw-bug. And the extra module can be deleted. Ta! Jberkel (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I am embarrassed to say that a side effect of my wikibreak is that I really don't remember how to fix template issues that are not exceedingly obvious. Would you be so kind as to solve my issues? Currently I'm having trouble understanding why {{cy-noun}} is misbehaving (see WT:GP#Template:cy-noun behaving oddly) and why entries like jiko#Swahili are not categorised into Category:Swahili ma class nouns. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Both issues have been fixed, I think. If you could check some Swahili nouns as well to make sure they’re OK that would be great. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yup, it works. Thanks, Ungoliant. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

BTW, does this mean you’re becoming active again? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, I've been pseudoactive for some time now, but in fits and spurts. That won't really change, I'm afraid, but I'm trying to make some headway with Swahili again, so who knows. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you’re interested, I have some dump-parsing tools to help with editing:

• missing translations per priority;
• Semi-automated entries (similar to t-bot, but you get to tweak the wikicode before saving the page);
• Semi-automated alternative-form entries.

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi again UM. Could you fix me up with a list of Spanish words to be added semi-automatedly? I know you refused last time, but perhaps I have caught you in a good mood today! --Type56op9 (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I’m in an OK mood today. Let’s see if your attention-paying skill improived since your last attempt. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Type56op9 . — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I put it in a .txt file, saved it as UTF-8. Remind me, what do I do now with it? --Type56op9 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Save as .htm — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Got it! Thanks. I'll see if Spanish can pull ahead of Portuguese in the competition to get the most entries! --Type56op9 (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Lol, I'm wf and dont pay attention...--Type56op9 (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hehe! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I'm almost done with the list you gave me. Can I get the next instalment? Starting with lowercase a, if possible. --Recónditos (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Let’s wait until your recent batch of edits is mostly patrolled. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Olá Ungoliat, thanks for cleaning up after some of my edits, I've already learned a lot. Wiktionary is such an amazing resource, I hope I'm not turning it into "O Novo Guia da Conversação em Portuguez" :) Jberkel (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Obrigado pelo seu interesse em editar português. Você não sabe o quão deprimente que era ser o único editor polífico da língua.

Aliás, o que é esse guia? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

É um guia de conversação português-inglês publicado em 1855. Mas o autor do guia, Pedro Carolino, não falou inglês. Então é um guia muito engraçado, é disponível online (só o texto inglês). Acho que há uma versão com a parte portuguesa no Google Books. Jberkel (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I consider your block of User:Dan Polansky to be inappropriate, as you were edit-warring with him when the block occurred. The block should have been done by an UNINVOLVED administrator, and probably both he AND you should have been blocked. Purplebackpack89 20:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

And I should care about what a troll like you thinks because...? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

You definitely should care about what a sysop like me thinks. And it is highly inappropriate to respond to a valid question like this with a personal attack. -- Liliana • 20:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

What you think I care about, and if you want to unblock DP, knock yourself out. It’s the trolls that I ignore. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Um, I'm not a troll. I'm an experienced Wiktionary and Wikipedia editor who considers a particular administrative action of yours to be inappropriate, and your response to my concern shocking. Purplebackpack89 20:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Is there a way to stop edit-warring without blocking users? Mind you, I'm not enamoured with either party, being called crazy by this user recently. But I'm not taking exception to it. Donnanz (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Absolutely: telling the other party that he should stop what he is doing (which I did and DP chose to ignore). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

  A request from a year and a half ago isn't particularly germane. You should have asked him again, and if he continued to edit-war, stepped aside and let another admin handle it. I frankly don't understand why you edit-warred at all: whether or not an article has a particular tag or not seems to be a really minor issue. Purplebackpack89 21:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

  What, do you think DP forgot about the warning? Do you think he forgot that he responded to it and pretended to ignore it? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Seems plausible after that length of time. But even if he didn't, that still doesn't make you an uninvolved administrator and therefore the only type of person who should be doing any blocking. If anything, all it does is prove how involved you are. Purplebackpack89 21:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Proving how involving I am? Damn, you caught me PBP. I was trying to hide it. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

  You act as though being involved doesn't matter. It kind of does. Purplebackpack89 22:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I register here my opposition to user's Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV entering {{rfp}} to Czech entries, and thereby either making them look ugly or wasting unsuspecting newbie editor time on what is likely going to be replaced by templates. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you think that {{rfp}} should not be used, then either nominate it for deletion or forever hold your peace. —CodeCat 14:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The extent to which the use of RFP is meaningful depends on the language in question. I am known for my opposition of RFP, RFE and similar in general; deleting the template would be my preferred treatment of them. However, I acknowledge that most editors probably do not want to get rid of RFP, RFE and the like altogether. Nonetheless, in case of Czech and Polish, asking other editors to manually add IPA is to ask them to waste their time, which is less than nice, to put it mildly. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Dan Polansky. For most languages IPA transcription is not important at all. There are a very few instances in Russian and Ukrainian, when words are read contrary to the rules, and in Belorussian all words are spellt as they are read. The same is very true for the Romance languages, and even for Hebrew, the transliteration will perfectly do well. Alexdubr (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The purpose of IPA is to show the pronunciation, not to show the pronunciation when someone knowledgeable enough with the orthography can deduce it. Not all Wiktionary users are familiar with the spelling of every single language. —CodeCat 15:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

When manually entered IPA gets replaced with automatic template such as {{pl-IPA}}, used e.g. in krowa, the effort of those who have previously entered IPA manually will have been wasted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why is that relevant? —CodeCat 15:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Are you asking why is limiting waste of editor time relevant? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

No, I'm asking why it's relevant that replacing {{IPA}} with {{pl-IPA}} is relevant to adding {{rfp}} to entries. —CodeCat 15:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

There are only two ways of getting rid of RFP: removing it and serving it. For removing it, I was blocked by user Ungoliant. To serve it, editors need to waste their time that could be better employed elsewhere. The use of their time to fill IPA is considered a waste by me because of the extreme predictability, and the likelihood that their work is going to be replaced by a template. Clear now? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

If it's likely that the work will be replaced by a template, why not just add that template straight off? —CodeCat 15:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Because I am not into pronunciations. No one can command my scarce resources; everyone can only command their own scarce resources. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

So then don't remove the request, and let someone else handle it. —CodeCat 15:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

So that someone else can waste their time, great. Not really inconsistent with CodeCat's other behavior, such as that discussed at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/December#Mass or indiscriminate adding of RFE - requests_for_etymology which had to be limited by creating Wiktionary:Votes/2014-12/Adding RFEs to all lemma entries where etymology is missing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Dan Polansky I will continue to use {{rfp}} and {{rfquote}}. If I see you removing any I will block you again for a longer period of time. — Ungoliant ^(falai)

I submit that your threat and your behavior is not based on consensus, and that you should be desysopped. Desysopping is unlikely, so too bad. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

My best hope is that other editors will join me in rebellion against tyranny. Those who support this case can help by removing {{rfp}} from alibistický. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

My best hope is that other editors will join me in recognising you as a threat to Wiktionary. Your constant attempts to make bureaucratic processes last longer than necessary, your harassing and intimidation of users (beginners and veterans alike) and your incessant bickering and attempts to prevent improvement paint you as another concern troll.

You got away with intimidating ReidAA away from Wiktionary, and with publicly accusing another user of being him. Next time you pull off something like that, I’ll make sure you don’t get away so easily. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Re: "You got away with intimidating ReidAA": That is a baseless personal attack. I did not intimidate ReidAA. I undid his unconsensual changes that I opposed; that is not intimidation. I have the right, for instance, to readd spaces after "#" that he removed; my readdition of these spaces is not intimidation. By contrast, Ungoliant's edit warring on alibistický followed by blocking me is a genuine intimidation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

For the record, most of the above is a baseless personal attack; there is very little that is accurate there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

You’re not going to fool any of the active users, Polansky. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@CodeCa Why would anyone be interested in IPA for a language they don't study? Even if there are a handful of such, the amount of work does not seem worth while. Alexdubr (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I see no problems with pronunciation requests. All languages may use IPA pronunciations, including "easy" ones. Editors don't need to add pronunciation, if they don't want to, others may do it instead. I don't find the request "ugly" either but this can always be improved further. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert the change? South Calabrian is in fact attached to the Sicilian language. The Neapolitan family extent of Calabrian is from Cosenza to the north. --Tanet (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

You’re right. I’ll restore your edit. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Tanet could you rewrite the proper noun definition of Calabrian? As it stands it’s not very good and is probably inaccurate. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

asteróide – Jberkel (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

What's the name of the template you're trying to use? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Never mind- I found it. It's {{European Portuguese form of}}- not "spelling" of. Fixed. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing it - I didn't write the entry, just found it broken like that. Jberkel (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The information, for one. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, is the term "paleemos" of palear a real Portuguese verb form? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Real? Yes. Citable by itself? No. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Now I'm wondering whether bético is comparable or not. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Comparability is 100% context-based in Portuguese. It’s comparable in situations where it can be used in comparisons and not comparable where it can’t. In most situations, bético can’t. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why do you want quotations added to this entry? I don't think I have seen quotations in any other inflected form- entries. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

So it can be featured as a FWOTD. The quotations can be added to the lemma, if you prefer. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think it's a bit silly to put examples of each separate form on the page for that form. I come across that in entries occasionally and always remove it, moving them to the lemma page where they'll actually be found. —CodeCat 19:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

In general I agree, but in some situations it’s worthwhile to cite specific forms. Rare irregular forms, plural of normally uncountable words and nonstandard forms for example. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

But that's citing, to attest the existence of a form. I was referring to usage examples; it wouldn't make much sense to provide a usage example of were on that page rather than on be. —CodeCat 19:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have added one quote for every sense of tuima plus a quote from a linguistic article that discusses the word. One might argue that such an article is a mention, not use, but at least in this case it serves as a proof of existence of the two contradicting senses. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! You’re the best, Hekaheka. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the eq= parameter, and for your work cleaning up Portuguese name entries. I edited the documentation page to take out some outdated info, but the changes don't show in the Template:given name page. I'm not an admin, so could you possibly fix it?--Makaokalani (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Oops, taking back my request. It's fine now, it just took some minutes obviously.--Makaokalani (talk) 09:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes edits to transcluded pages take a while to cascade. You can speed it up by doing null edits (saving the page without changing anything), but you can’t do that to protected pages. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thought you might find this interesting, I've just extracted a list of European / Brazilian pt words from Wikipedia. Jberkel (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Unfortunately the Portuguese Wikipedia is a very untrustworthy resource, especially in their claims of what is European and what is Brazilian. I can tell that a lot of items on that list are generalisations, plain wrong or fail to take the latest spelling agreements into account. Examples: barracão/galpão, bases de dados/bancos de dados, batista/baptista.

If you’re interested in the subject, the Priberam dictionary has a very comprehensive documentation of what is used where. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK, was wondering about the quality of the data. If anything it's a good start for research, I'll make sure to cross check with some more reliable resources. Jberkel (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I had removed the New Latin word because I thought it was a loanword directly from English, not from the New Latin. And now you reverted that. Is there any evidence from the word coming from the New Latin word? Then I'll settle. Hillcrest98 (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

That’s what the Aulete dictionary says:

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

“alligator”, in The Century Dictionary , New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911, →OCLC. says that French and Portuguese took the term from English, but more recent French and Portuguese sources would be better, obviously. DCDuring TALK 00:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

It’s common practice in Portuguese etymology to ignore the genus name as a step in the etymological chain. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ultimately, the genus name still came from the English word. But I reworded that "New Latin" statement again now to make it clear that it came from the genus. Hillcrest98 (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Sorry for the blunt way in which I responded to your edit. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Pode‐se dizer «mercearia» em vez de «loja»? --Romanophile (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Em alguns casos. Mercearias focam em itens de uso diário, como comida, sabonete, giletes, etc. Lojas podem ser mais especializadas. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ungoliant. Can you make out from these quotations of what Portuguese term enus. is an abbreviation, perchance? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 09:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think it’s enunciados, but I’ll have to do some more investigation before I can create the entry. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Never mind, it’s enumerações numeradas (“numbered enumerations”). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Is the entry I've created for the abbreviation OK? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

The entry is OK. But I suspect it is a neologism of the author; I’ll try to look for more cites. — Ungoliant ^(falai)

Thank you, and thanks for creating enumerações and enumeração. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's presumably based on Category:Lemmas by language, which has 1559 subcategories. —CodeCat 22:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yet another reason not to use 1560. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

There are still some entries around that don't use {{head}}, though. So it's possible there are a few missing. —CodeCat 22:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why exactly are you telling me this? Are you unhappy with displaying “over 1550 languages”? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

You reverted my edit on pro, but I disagree with that. I made the edit because there's currently no page called "in favour of", while "in favor of" exists. I wanted to remove the redlink in pro but I don't know how to properly make a British English equivalent of in favor of, so I just changed the link on pro to go to in favor of. I won't revert your reversion unless we reach an agreement, because I don't want it to look like I'm edit warring. AutisticCatnip (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

You want an alt-form entry. I'll make it. Equinox ◑ 05:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Also, per Wiktionary:About_English#Regional_differencesWT:AEN, the link should be to "in favor of" because it was created first, so I'm going to revert the Italian entry on "pro" to "in favor of". AutisticCatnip (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@AutisticCatnip “the link should be to "in favor of" because it was created first”: that’s not what the page says at all.

Wiktionary is a work in progress and we don’t have every page we want yet, but that’s no excuse to Americanise links. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 11:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think this is the best solution to this issue. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just use both forms at once. It won’t kill anybody. --Romanophile (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's pretty irritating though. I always use US spellings because an arbitrary norm is better than chaos. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

How is it chaotic? Just use both forms in a definition when possible. Here’s an example: couleur#French. I don’t see what the big deal is. --Romanophile (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

These should only categorize in the main namespace, WR:RFV is in Category:Northern Sami terms with IPA pronunciation. I'm only asking you because your in the recent changes and you know how to fix it. My WT:GP post got ignored. Thanks, Renard Migrant (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

IPA also needs to be categorised in the Appendix namespace. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I’ve done {{audio}}, but I’ll leave {{IPA}} to someone else. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much Adjutor101 (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

		The Linguistic Barnstar
		Dear and most helpful Ungoliant , thank you for all your contributions to Pashto language. You have helped me in my dream to preserve my mother tongue. May God keep on blessing you. With regards and best wishes, Adjutor101 (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

A bit bombastic for just a couple of module edits, but I’ll take it. Let me know if I can help you with anything else. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hopefully this will be the last time I will be bothering you. Am so deeply sorry and deeply thankful. I need help with this: Error messages are appearing here:

• https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Category:Pashto_doubly_irregular_verbs
• https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Category:Pashto_derivative_verbs

And the information I added to this:

• https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Category:Pashto_simple_intransitive_verbs

Adjutor101 (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Adjutor101  Done. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

omG your a legend. B-O-S-S Adjutor101 (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I feel so ashamed now but I need your help again with this:

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Template:ps-conj-simp-irregular-w/o-peculiar3rdperson Adjutor101 (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Someone fixed it, thank you so much though Adjutor101 (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

You have recently reverted my edit to this page. I believe this was completely uncalled for.

The term "star" exists in Avestan (meaning star in English)

It was rendered as "starag" in Middle Persian

This was later garbled into setaré in Modern Persian. Compare to other Iranian languages such as ster in Kurdish, стъалы in Ossetian, etc.Grinevitski (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

• <butting in> Avestan nouns are not written in the Latin script. See the contents of Category:Avestan nouns for how they should be presented here. </butting in> SemperBlotto (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I set FWOTDs for today and tomorrow. Any idea why {{was fwotd}} isn't showing up properly at xłp̓x̣ʷłtłpłłskʷc̓? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much Angr. {{was fwotd}} was updated so the text only shows up after the actual day of featuring. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK, that makes sense. Thanks! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Pode‐se definir isto? --Romanophile (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Foi. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Como diz‐se enough is enough? --Romanophile (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Já chega! Basta! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Como pronuncia‐se no Brasil? --Romanophile (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

.ˈse(j).ɾ ] — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tás bem? Tuas entradas recentes concernem‐me. Saudações, --Romanophile (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Não. Obrigado. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

ali : não comparativo
lá : comprativo

Correcto? --Romanophile (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Não. Na prática, ali é para distâcias menores e lá para distâncias maiores. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

O mesmo aplica‐se às palavras aqui e cá? --Romanophile (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Essas são para coisas próximas do falante. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

São sinónimos perfeitos? --Romanophile (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Eles tem conjuntos diferentes de significados, alguns deles são. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Muito obrigado pela tua gentileza. Não sei porque é tão difícil para outros. --Romanophile (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ungoliant, I removed trigésimo of the section one of thirty equal parts of a whole because in Portuguese, the division 1/30 (one thirtieth) is um trinta avos. The fractionary numerals classifies thus:

1/ 2 - meio

1/ 3 - um terço

1/ 4 - um quarto

1/ 5 - um quinto

1/ 6 - um sexto

1/ 7 - um sétimo

1/ 8 - um oitavo

1/ 9 - um nono

1/10 - um décimo

After 1/10 (one tenth) use the word avos after the numerals:

1/11 - um onze avos

1/12 - um doze avos

1/13 - um treze avos

1/14 - um quatorze avos

1/15 - um quinze avos

1/16 - um dezesseis avos

1/17 - um dezessete avos

1/18 - um dezoito avos

1/19 - um dezenove avos

1/20 - um vinte avos

1/30 - um trinta avos...

After 1/99 (one ninety-ninth) use um centésimo and so on.

Leonard Joseph Raymond (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Trigésimo também é usado como fracionário. Não deveria ter sido removido. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

...and evidently forgetting to replace all the langcodes when copy-pasting. You always seem to be adding good vocabulary, so it's easier to follow you than generate more wordlists. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

If anything, I’m flattered. Last time someone did this I left them a secret message, but they stopped. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

By the way, the offer to send you the pre-generated entries still stands. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I completely forgot about that, and I'm not sure I remember what it entails, but I'm very willing to accept the offer. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

It generates links like this, from translation tables. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I used that functionality a long time ago and got somewhat bored by it, mainly because it didn't seem worth the effort at the time to make it actually useful for languages like Latin. But if that were just slightly modified, it would be great for Spanish. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tell me what modifications you need and I’ll do it. Trust me, it’s greatly speeds up the entry creation process. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

And please ping me too! It's the kind of stuff I find very useful. --Type56op9 (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Well, the only things are just predicated on the different designs of the templates and what parameters they require. I assume you know the differences, but would you like me to collate them here? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

  That’s all done for Portuguese, Spanish and Asturian. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Are you translating every English word on Wiktionary, in alphabetical order? Sweet. Equinox ◑ 22:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fuck yeah! I’ve been at it since December, and at the rate it’s going I will have shot myself in the head before I finish it. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

When I've added every word that exists, I'll go back to AARDVARK and start doing all the voice recordings, in my creaky old 80-year-old voice. Equinox ◑ 22:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I feel guilty lately when I add anti- words. Haha. Keep it up! Equinox ◑ 20:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Didn’t you have a list of anti- words somewhere? Anyway, the next list will have a few more, as well as three possible new senses of anti-. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I finished that list at some point, but Visviva's science-bot is always finding more of them. Equinox ◑ 20:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I just want to make sure I haven't created any errors when editing the definitions for the Portuguese verb "andar". Not everything was grammatically correct, and while the grammar is now fixed, I want to be certain I haven't inadvertently altered the intended sense of a translation (Let me know if you have any questions about those edits. I'll check back here tomorrow). JodianWarrior (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JodianWarrior it’s all good. Thanks for fixing it; I hope it wasn’t me who added that gibberish! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Good, thanks! Also, thanks for cleaning up some of my bad edits. How embarrassing some of them are. I will tread with greater care in the future.... JodianWarrior (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

When the next database dump comes out, I'll be interested in seeing how much higher woman is in this ranking. Btw, what does the "(2)" after man mean? And would it be possible without too much effort to place the number of translations that each term has in parentheses after it? - -sche (discuss) 05:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I can do that, but I’d like you to clarify some things first:

How should the code treat subtranslations, like:

• Low German:

  German Low German: Fruu

• Serbo-Croatian:

  Latin: žena

  Cyrillic: жена

• Arabic:
  • Egyptian: this
  • Classical: that

And should it be counted per language, or per translations. I mean, should “Latin: mulier, femina” count as 1 or 2? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I would count per language (User:-sche/exceptional#Most_translations can be amended to clarify "translations into the most languages"), although I recognize that counting per translation might be easier. And I would count like this:

• Low German:

  German Low German: Fruu

^ one translation

• Serbo-Croatian:

  Latin: žena

  Cyrillic: жена

^ one translation, albeit in two scripts (if it is too difficult to count this as one translation, count it as two)

• Arabic: foo
  • Egyptian: this
  • Some other dialect: that

^ three translations (notice that in the case of Arabic, ar is often on the main line with dialects beneath it)

- -sche (discuss) 18:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

PS, do you have Annobonese resources that confirm or deny that dehe is its word for "water"? I've been trying to create referenced entries for all the translations in ] (like wínì), and I've listed translations I couldn't find references for on the talk page. At the moment I've only done the letter 'a'. - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the clarification, I will update the code.

I’ll take a look. Unfortunately, none of my Annobonese resources are searchable (they are all ultralow-quality scans), so it will take a while.

If you’re interested, I have a page to facilitate the search for translations of water. It needs to be updated. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@-sche I’ve added aua with a citation. I found nothing for dehe. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fantastic, thank you! I've updated ]. - -sche (discuss) 20:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your edit summary "I'm an experienced Wiktionary and Wikipedia editor” lol" constitutes a personal attack. Please refrain from those in the future. Purplebackpack89 00:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I will do that, as long as you refrain from claiming to be an experienced editor before you learn proper formatting. Deal? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You will do that regardless of any claims I make, as it is proper policy. As a sysop, you are supposed to set an example. That means refraining from sarcastic remarks and low-level digs. Purplebackpack89 00:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

As a rollbacker, you are supposed to revert vandalism. How often have you been doing that? Close to never, so perhaps you’re not the best person to tell me what to do.

I’ve seen contributors with fewer than 100 edits have a better grasp of Wiktionary formatting than you. If you are really that uninterested in learning proper entry layout as you seem to be, I will have to pursue more drastic ways of ensuring you don’t fill Wiktionary with your misformatted garbage. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

This isn't about formatting. This is about you continually making personal attacks and low-level digs even though I've asked you to stop several times, even though it's not polite, and even though it violates policy. Purplebackpack89 01:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Stop being such a drama queen. Ungoliant is being no more uncivil than you earlier when you accused Wikitiki89 of "bitching" and making a big "fuss" for correcting you on an obvious mistake you shouldn't have made. Equinox ◑ 01:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I’ve already explained to you that I will stop it, with one condition. Refer back to my first comment in this discussion.

Note that the condition is not that you improve your formatting skills (you should though), I’m asking you to stop lying that you are an experienced editor. You think me calling you out for you shitty formatting is a low level dig? Fine, I’ll admit it, it is a low level dig; but you know what is an even greater insult? Your claim that you are an experienced editor. It is a strong slap on the face of every Wiktionarian who knows what they are doing, and I am asking you to stop trying to fool everyone with that nonsense. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's not how civility works. You don't get to negotiate for civility, it's not a bargaining chip. Purplebackpack89 01:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) I don't know that it's lying, but it doesn't really mean much. After all, WF has probably as much experience as anyone, but we still have to watch his edits. If you think about it, inexperience is the most charitable explanation: otherwise you have to wonder how someone with all that experience is still making mistakes- is it really worse than claiming carelessness or incompetence? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Also, I'm not entirely sure where I said it. It's not on my user page or anything. It's certainly an overreach for Ungoliant to call me a liar; he seems to see no need to be civil to me. Purplebackpack89 01:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

And if you're looking for an explanation (which you needn't be), the explanation is that I hadn't added a second etymology to a word. Purplebackpack89 21:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Here is PBP’s revision before I fixed it. I invite other Wiktionarians to look at it and see for themselves if PBP’s claim that the problem was that he “hadn't added a second etymology” is true. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

...before I added one with the edit summary you reference. Jesus louisus, why are you attempting to discredit me at every turn? You're turning a misplaced etymology into World War III! Purplebackpack89 01:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Because you refuse to take responsibility for your mistakes. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Maybe if you weren't so condescending to me, I'd be more inclined to say "ok, I goofed." As for any other "responsibility", there's no more mess to clean up. Purplebackpack89 02:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I’d really prefer that you stop blaming other people for your own misbehaviour. --Romanophile (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've added the occasional definition to Portuguese words, when they're missing obvious ones (the kind that are taught at a beginner level on a language-learning site), but since I am just learning the language myself, I can't be sure that they're complete (or 100% accurate). The most recent such word is seguro.

If I put "needs checking by native" in the edit summary when I add definitions, how likely would you be to see them? I don't make major edits every day, but I'm coming across very basic Portuguese words that have no entry, or an incomplete one. I usually come to Wiktionary for a fuller definition than I learn elsewhere, or for clarification of the meanings in some cases, so when a definition is missing, I can usually only add the ones I've learned.

Rather than bothering you with that, if you could point me to a good, free online Portuguese-English dictionary (which I have been unable to find), I could use that as my source. Thanks! JodianWarrior (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The best thing you can do is keep a list of the Portuguese words you add senses to and send it to me when it gets relatively big.

There is no good Portuguese-English dictionary. If you are already able to make sense of written Portuguese, I recommend using a monolingual dictionary. Aulete () and Priberam () are by far the best. Otherwise, the least worst bilingual dictionary I’ve come across is Michaelis ().

A word of warning: Portuguese Wikipedia is a good starting point for research, but under no circumstance use it as evidence of the existence of a word. Ever. It’s so full of made-up words it’s not even funny. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JodianWarrior: I'm in a similar situation, currently learning Portuguese and editing here. Don't be too afraid to make mistakes, but it's good to double-check with reliable sources. Editing is a great way to build up your vocabulary in depth. Even though information is missing here and there the big advantage of Wiktionary is that it is multi-lingual – you don't get this in any other dictionary. Being able to make connections between words is very useful for language-learning.

Jberkel (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'll start a list, then. The same thing goes for Spanish. Do you speak it, or is there someone else I should ask once in a while to check my edits to the definitions of Spanish words? JodianWarrior (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I speak some Spanish. You can send it to me until you find someone better, if you want. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

What does the word high-end mean in the second definition. "Expensive/luxurious", "from the top of the trunk", or something else. I'd guess "expensive/luxurious", but I'm not sure. Some other word would probably be better. DCDuring TALK 22:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I’ve been using high-end to translate nobre, which is used to describe wood that is expensive, hard and/or high-quality. What other word do you suggest? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I would say "highly desirable for flooring because of its hardness" DCDuring TALK 04:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

That just scratches the surface. It’s also used for high-end handicraft, sporting goods, furniture, moulding and tools. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 04:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I thought the point was that its surface was relatively difficult to scratch. In the US the word appears most abundantly in flooring advertisements. I didn't want to include too long a laundry list. I'll add "and other specialty uses". DCDuring TALK 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why should the definition of a Portuguese word take into account how the word is used in another language? Ah, but what we need is more research and solid statistics. Later on I will investigate the Google Books hits; it may turn out that Portuguese usage is the same as in English. In my personal experience, the most common reference to jatobá is not to its wood, but to its bark which is used to make a medicinal tea. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is it heartwood? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

No. It has to do with species of the tree. For example, pine and eucalyptus do not yield madeiras nobres, but mahogany, Paraná pine, imbuia, cherry and courbaril do. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Why should the definition of a Portuguese word take into account how the word is used in another language?" I was thinking of giving an English speaker learning Portuguese and connection to the term, but I really only objected to the high-end, mostly because I thought it too informal and possibly ambiguous. I also am trying to include more semantic content in definitions of natural things. I can't really contribute much to non-English entries. DCDuring TALK 17:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

See jatoba, which is basically a hijacking of ]. DCDuring TALK 17:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

IMO, jatobá should discuss what the word means/connotes in Portuguese; what its English translation connotes to English speakers should be noted in the English word's entry. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I went through the hits for google books:"de jatobá" and google books:"em jatobá" (both mean “made of jatobá” among other things). Disappointingly, only 7 hits were using the sense in question:

• secretary desk
• table
• dresser (2)
• flooring
• furniture in general
• mouldings

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, in newspapers the English hits for jatoba (searching on floor|flooring|floorboard) are often ads for flooring. A search for for "furniture"|"woodworking"|"table"|"chair" got fewer newspaper hits. The opposite is true for books, many of which are specialty publications for woodworkers.

"High-value" would be a perfectly adequate substitute for "high-end".

An encyclopedia of woods or trees mentioned railroad ties among the uses, so "high-end" or "high-value" has not always been the case. DCDuring TALK 23:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

By retaining this kind of 'see also' section, a link would be suggested between between 'filicide', 'infanticide', 'neonaticide' and 'prolicide', which are forms of murder, and abortion- which isn't. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

That’s your opinion (an mine, by the way), and it’s OK that have that opinion. What’s not OK is to pretend that these words (especially neonaticide and prolicide) are not connected to the word abortion. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't perceive there to be a connection at all; I am not pretending anything. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I know it must seem like I am trying to make a political or religious statement here, but that wasn't my intention. That was honestly what I thought (that there was no connection). However I think I had better go away and think about it. Thanks. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I too will let other people deal with this. People from English-speaking countries are probably the best to decide what to do since they belong to the same culture as our intended audience. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Synonyms in the Collins Thesaurus of the English Language (via the Free Dictionary) include aborticide and feticide/foeticide. Synonyms via WordNet do not include them. DCDuring TALK 14:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Note that we are not even listing them as synonyms, but just as "see also", implying there is a difference. --WikiTiki89 15:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I now regret my first edits to 'abortion', where I said it was 'crass':/ You can remove the edits if you want, as it may inflame things. If someone changes it back, I won't change it again. The right answer will depend on one's background and culture. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's difficult to present this without offending someone. aborticide and foeticide/feticide have been around since the 19th century. It is difficult to find a definition from a reasonable source that says that abortion is a type of murder, so 'Coordinate terms' does not seem supportable for abortion relative to the various other cides. 'See also' at ], 'Etymology' at ], and 'Derived terms' at ] seem like the places that express the relationship, not to mention all the citations that assert the predicate is murder for abortion. Those predications can be shown to have increased dramatically in from the late 1960s, peaking in the 1990s DCDuring TALK 15:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Whether or not you consider an act of abortion to be an act of murder has more to do with how you define murder than with how you define abortion. This means we should avoid the word murder in our definitions and just describe the physical act that the word abortion refers to. I also notice we are missing the more general definition of "an act of aborting" that can refer to any meaning of abort. --WikiTiki89 15:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

In a definiens we should be confining ourselves the to most common definition of the term unless the context makes it clear that some other sense is involved (eg, one might use head in the definition of the peen of a hammer, but possibly not in the definition of addiction, though some drug users are heads). I don't think the most common use of murder includes abortion because a foetus is too far removed from the folk concept of person. IOW, one has to push the boundaries of any of the common definitions of terms in this area to allow murder to be in the definition of abortion, though it is an arguable predicate, once one allows the senses of the common terms to be pushed beyond typical use. DCDuring TALK 17:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't mean that "abortion" is another sense of the word "murder", but that "abortion" is within the confines of many people's primary definition of murder. No one would ever argue that "drug user" is within the confines of anyone's primary definition of "head". --WikiTiki89 18:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps one might find attestation for such usage in communications within some body of speakers. DCDuring TALK 18:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Isn't head short for pothead anyway? It's basically a whole different word. What I mean is you can't cover "drug user" and "the head you have on top of your shoulders" in one sense line. --WikiTiki89 18:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I would like to declare this can of worms......open! Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hoo-motherfucking-ray! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

• This month's dumps haven't even begun. They are being done manual by Ariel Glenn. He apparently hasn't responded to e-mails for three weeks. DCDuring TALK 14:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Does he do all of them or just enwikt? The enWP dump was running yesterday. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

  But damn! This is sad news; I run so many dump-analysis programs. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Here's what he said on xmldatadumps-l:

Ariel T. Glenn <[email protected]> 2:36 PM (3 hours ago)

to Bryan, Wikimedia, xmldatadumps-l Probably no one else does know (how to run these dumps).

So to clear up a little of the confusion/lack of information, automating staged dumps is currently tracked in Phabricator here:

https://pha November 2012 to August 2013;

   August 2013 to June 2014;
   July 2014 to January 2015.

Contents

   1 Buzulkuşubricator.wikimedia.org/T107750

Just got the configuration files puppetized for the scheduler, which was started manually this time but won't need any other intervention. I'll be keeping an eye on it anyways since this too is new code.

I've been playing whack-a-mole with bugs in the streaming stubs/logs production, which is why the delay again last month in completing enwp and why only one set of dumps went off. This run should be better, cross fingers that nothing else crept in.

After one complete run finishes for the non en wikipedia dumps, we'll be able to do a second run, probably leaving off revision history since most folks don't need those more than once a month. <-- If this is wrong, speak up now.

The order in which things are run has been redone a bit, hopefully to get the parts of the dumps people need done sooner in the cycle.

I'm still reluctant to do partial dump copies over labs unless we can guarantee a little more space over there to keep e.g. the last full good dump along with whatever new files are being copied. I've opened a Phabricator task for that here https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T108077 and added Coren so we can figure out the space issue.

I've not wanted to weigh in earlier until I had things in place to kick off the new run. My apologies if that just made folks more annoyed.

Ariel

Other than knowing that he's working on it, I didn't get much that is useful to be other than the two Phabricator tasks. DCDuring TALK 22:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring it’s running now :-D — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I noticed, but there are many opportunities for things to go wrong. So I try to curb my enthusiasm. DCDuring TALK 14:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ungoliant, how do you create these statistics from the XML dumps? Are the scripts published somewhere? – Jberkel (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

C++ code, and I prefer not to publish the code, for personal reasons. I know this is unwiki behaviour, which is why I originally had the statistics as a user subpage. -sche convinced me to publish them “officially” anyway, but I will move back to userspace at the second someone starts complaining about them. Miraculously, this hasn’t happened yet; not even the concern trolls have complained! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ah, OK. Not exactly the answer I wanted to hear, but thanks anyway for your work on it! Is there any historical data available, like an archive? Jberkel (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The history page, I guess. If you want, I have the data from June 2014 onwards in a rawer format (tab-separated values). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, raw TSV values would be great, thanks. – Jberkel (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Jberkel . — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Some possible good news:

1. The time between the first steps in the process and availability of "pages-article" was short.
2. Enwikt seems to be positioned early in the cycle.

Ariel Glenn has been responsive, so maybe things will remain better. DCDuring TALK 13:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Is this right? I would have thought the forms would be "muita louca" and so on. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

In this phrase, muito is an adverb and therefore does not inflect. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Could you add documentation of the usage seen at antiateu and any other undocumented features? Cheers. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sure. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto: Template:pt-adj/documentation#List of suffixes (second parameter). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK. I believe that my bot is now good. It doesn't add plurals of invariant adjectives, and it knows about all the various parameters coded in the actual pt adjectives module. It does not generate comparatives etc. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. This Portuguese word is quoted (as if English) in today's Guardian - any chance of an entry? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Done. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Neither of the definitions explain the Google hits I get for the word. --WikiTiki89 15:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can you give an example? Nearly all hits I can see are for sense 1. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

This dictionary has some more informal definitions. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I think it's the title of a song (or two), which explains the videos of people dancing. Not sure about the accuracy, but this dictionary says "Brigar, lutar."(but those are verbs, so I'm confused) and gives the example sentence "João quando chegou em casa, encontrou seus irmãos que estavam na maior quebradeira.". --WikiTiki89 15:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I added a few more citable senses. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hon'ble sir. Am a poet & and a philosopher. I'm new at the WIKIPEDIA & WIKTIONARY. I've just completed a script on ' THE SOUL '. It's waiting for publish. And I would like to propaganda & constructive criticism on my thinking about the SOUL. Am requesting you, add me with you, please. Md. Mofiz Uddin (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary is a dictionary, and not a good place for you to do this. I recommend creating a blog or social media account (http://wordpress.com is very good). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Per your request to be notified if you might have made an English grammar/spelling mistake I would like to suggest the addition of the word "of" to this line:

"Have Portuguese beat Spanish in number of gloss definitions:"

If, by chance, this suggestion goes against your intentions -- then please disregard my message :)

Please contact me if you have questions/comments regarding this suggestion.

Best wishes,

Tezamen (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Tezamen: thank you so much! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please accept my apologies for not proceeding with the main etymology - I thought that I might let another Wiktionarian edit first. It might help if I check other spellings first! There was no need for an edit there - the correct etymology was already under COMBE - passed through in place names initially as CUMB, then possibly influenced by Welsh CŴM. (Circumflex does not exist, but is just added for want of long W). Kind Regards, Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)AndrewReply

Ungoliant, why appears a message: Script error: The module returned a value. It is supposed to return an export table? What I do should make to back at the normal?

Leonard Joseph Raymond (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's not your fault. See Wiktionary:Grease pit/2015/August#Module error cropping up in many places. --WikiTiki89 00:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

• That use is genuine. It can be checked by reading the book referred to. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Ok, but you need to add a new definition instead of using a new section, and without changing the correct pronouns in the other definition. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

• You reverted my change on the mismo article. In lieu of the article I just wrote to clarify an unobvious expression, would it make sense to put that link back on? Cheers, Quasinanopraeverbium (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The problem was changing emphasises to emphasizes. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ah I see Quasinanopraeverbium (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Re diff, please see diff.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

What do you want me to do? It is already referenced. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I thought it must be a typo, so wanted to call it to your attention, or that of anyone who knows the language for double-checking. If it's indeed correct, then excuse the intrusion. If that reference is for that alt. form, I'll put a footnote for clarity.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was surprised when I first discovered it too. Pará Arara words vary depending on the animal one is talking to. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Cool. Thanks for the info (and edits).​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Nu? You're saying just for some farkakte gelt these people are lying to gullible linguists? It's a shanda. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Someone is playing games with these entries, and making a mess in the process (you've already dealt with a few of their early edits). I have no idea whether there's any merit to their assertions about which is the main form and which are the alternative forms, so I haven't fixed things. The fact that they've used at least two different IPs and three one-off accounts makes me suspicious, though... Chuck Entz (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I’ll have to do some research before I do anything about it. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I counted the number of hits in Google Books and Google Scholar for every spelling I could think of.

This supports having Abkhazia as the lemma.

As for this or that being the spelling prescribed by this or that organisation, I can say that such information is barely worth a usage note, and not at all worth considering in the choice of lemma. Even though the regulating bodies of Portuguese are taken more seriously than those of many other languages, there are some aspects of the official orthography that are usually ignored. One such aspect is the prescribed placenames. Next to no one, from dumb kids posting crap on social networks to teachers, legislators, scientists and journalists, gives a fuck about it. This can be observed in the table above, where the alleged official spelling holds a meagre ~5% of usage.

If no one objects, I will move the lemma content to Abkhazia and delemmatise the other entries. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I support lemmatizing Abkhazia and delemmatizing the others. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

 Done. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

About Wiktionary:Requested entries (Portuguese): Good job! --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have been working through the list of requests for definition in English, and I noticed that you recently added an rfdef to Monterey, on the line with the definition "The place name of various cities and counties". I am not clear what you are wanting to see there that is missing, and you left no comment with the rfdef to make that clear. Are you wanting a list? Kiwima (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The current definition is useless. The very least it should do is list or mention the more well-known Montereys. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yikes! Sorry to have started such a drama! How do you feel about it now, with the mention of California an a link to the list of Montereys in Wikipedia? Kiwima (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Kiwima Don’t worry about that. It’s fine now, IMO (personally I’d prefer if every attested sense were listed, but it’s already much better than how it was); the inclusiveness of placenames is a point of contention around here, because unfortunately we don’t have a special policy to treat them different from regular words. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Romanophile, Jberkel, Andrew Sheedy: Now that I’ve finished my project of overtaking Spanish in number of gloss definitions, I will focus on improving the basic Portuguese content. I’d like to ask you, and any of other non-native leaner who happens to run across this post, what do you think that needs to be improved in our coverage of Portuguese? What would help you most personally? What would it take for Wiktionary to be your primary English-Portuguese dictionary? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Do you speak Brazilian or European Portuguese? There seem to be far more pronunciations for the latter, so more Brazilian pronunciations would be helpful. If I recall correctly from when I was spending more time with Portuguese on Wiktionary, the verbs are especially lacking those, but I think coverage was pretty good for European Portuguese. I'll let you know if I think of or come across anything else. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

More regionalisms. And (as I’ve mentioned previously) the regional categories need to be organized so that the orthographies are separated from the semantic senses. category:Portuguese Portuguese and category:Brazilian Portuguese are messes. (And calling a category ‘Portuguese Portuguese’ sounds weird.) --Romanophile (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you both for answering.

• My dialect: I am Brazilian.
• Pronunciations: One thing keeping me from adding pronunciations is the lack of a guideline on how they should be transcribed. It’s hard for me to come up with one because there is only one other use who does Portuguese pronunciations (Liuscomaes), with whom I could discuss such a policy. So my next step is doing some serious research and writing Appendix:Portuguese pronunciation. After that I will work through Category:Portuguese entries needing pronunciation, so feel free to add {{rfp}} to entries. You can add Brazil as the second parameter in case it already has a pronunciation in another dialect.
• Regionalisms: duly noted, I’ll make a point of keeping an eye out for them.
• Regional orthography issues: I’ll deal with that, but it will probably take a while.
• Portuguese Portuguese: I’m afraid there is nothing I can do about this name.

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

From my perspective, what I find most useful (roughly ordered by importance, and not necessarily unique to Portuguese): a) Etymology with cognates. It helps me form connections between words I already know from other languages and new words I'm learning. b) Good, short, simple and idiomatic usage examples. "Un dictionnaire sans exemples est un squelette" (Le Petit Larousse). Quotations / cites are useful from a lexicographer's perspective but not that interesting to a learner. c) For verbs: information about prepositions. I saw that you've already added some labels / data for this which is great. d) Synonyms / derived / related terms: to strengthen connections between words in the target language and to build up an in-depth vocabulary. e) Usage notes. To indicate the finer, non-obvious (esp. to non-native speakers) subtleties of a language. f) IPA – often not present at all or only for a very specific region in Brazil, not that helpful. – Jberkel (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree that usage examples (rather than quotations taken from old literature or Harry Potter) are very helpful. The entry for comer is a high quality entry, thanks to the information it gives in its example sentences and with the context tags, notes on prepositions, etc. (as well as having both Portuguese and Brazilian pronunciation). Usage notes are also great, if there's something to note that doesn't really belong in a definition. For me, etymologies, while deeply interesting, aren't as necessary for language learning since I can often draw connections on my own.

I find it very helpful to know the register and frequency of a word when learning a language, so context tags and appropriate translations in the definitions are key. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Usage examples: Thank you for saying that! Many Wiktionarians view usexes as merely a stopgag for quotations, and I’ve even seen usexes being removed once quotations are added. I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees their value in helping users understand meaning and usage.
• Cognates: I ashamedly admit that I’ve never bothered with cognates, even though they help me a lot when reading German and Dutch entries. The problem is that I don’t know where to draw the line: surely Spanish, French and Italian cognates are worth listing, and Aromanian, Istriot and Piedmontese are not, but what about Catalan? Romanian? Galician? If you tell me which ones you think would help the most, I will start adding them.
• Verbs with prepositions: I don’t know what took me so long to do that... it will take ages to update all the verbs! But I’m happy to hear you noticed and found it helpful.
• Usage notes: I find that, in most cases, adding usage information in the context label or qualifiers is better. Can you provide examples of entries that you think lack usage notes?
• Synonyms et al.: I think our coverage of synonyms is adequate, relative to the overall coverage of Portuguese. I’ll try to make more Wikisaurus entries; that would be very cool for those interested in synonyms. As for related terms, years ago I proposed a system that would make adding them easier, but it was opposed which kind of stifled my eagerness to add them. I’ll renew my interest, since you think they are important.
• IPA: see previous post.
• Register: it’s hard to give this sort of information detailedly without being cluttery. For example, finalizar (“to finish”) is a bit more formal than terminar, but not formal enough to be tagged with the label formal. What I sometimes do is add qualifiers like more formal, less formal, more informal, etc. following the link in the synonyms section, without doing anything to the definitions themselves. Do you think that is adequate? Can you suggest a better way?
• Frequency: same thing, using qualifiers such as less common, more common in cases where labels like rare or uncommon wouldn’t be accurate.

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 04:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Concerning cognates, I normally avoid listing cognates outside of language superfamilies (I don’t know what the proper taxonomic term is). So if I am making something like a Portuguese entry (for example), I’d list cognates from other Romance languages such as Romanian and Dalmatian, amongst others, rather than a Celtic or Germanic language. But if there’re very few cognates nearby to start out with, I think that it’s acceptable to go further. It depends on how much effort you are willing to pour into it. I always thought of cognates as being supplementary to the rest of the etymology.

I’m actually rather surprised to see somebody here advocate fictional examples; I thought that real examples were always preferred here. A fictional example can demonstrate a usage better than a real one, since real ones don’t always have context clues. Fictional examples can be shite if they’re too ambiguous or vague (‘Mike Hunt is an ’), but they can be fixed, whereas real ones aren’t supposed to be ‘fixed.’ Real quotes can confirm that a sense or word definitely exists, but not necessarily give a crystal clear demonstration.

If a word requires a preposition to make a unique sense, I would just make an entry including both the word and the preposition. For example: estar com.

Somewhat unrelated note: I don’t see the point in including hyphenations in the pronunciation sections. Are they guides on properly cutting terms at the end of a page? They seem more like orthographic notes than phonetic ones. I’ve always been apathetic about them, but maybe there’s somebody out there who needs them (for whatever reason). --Romanophile (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Cognates and superfamilies: there is still a line to drawn; what is the superfamily of Portuguese? Galician-Porutuguese? Ibero-Romance? Western Romance? Romance? Italic? Indo-European? Eurasiatic?
• Entries with prepositions: that’s what I had been doing until recently, but it’s not a good practice for several reasons:
  • a lot of senses can be used with many prepositions, so often we would need a series of entries that are exactly the same;
  • in some cases the preposition can be left implied; for example a, para and com with pronouns can be replaced by special pronouns. And even 100% transitive verbs can be used with the object implied, with means the preposition is dropped. In these cases, users would be left to guess what is the correct entry to look up.
  • Precedents. Such verbs (called transitivos indiretos) are a well-codified aspect of Portuguese grammar. No Portuguese grammar and no Portuguese dictionary I’ve ever seen treats indirect transitive verbs + preposition as an individual unit.
  • From a linguistic point of view, the prepositions are part of the object, not the verb. I.e. “falar de mim” is not .
• Hyphenation: are you talking about {{hyphenation}} or about periods in {{IPA}}? If it’s the former, indeed they are orthographic and have little to do with pronunciation.

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Cognates: for Portuguese the most useful ones are probably Spanish or French since a lot of people will be familiar with them. Catalan, Galician etc. less so. I've also never understood why some entries list more than 10 different cognates.
• Usage examples: it would be great if he had a tool similar to QQ, I wrote some ideas down a while ago (Tatoeba-gadget).
• Usage notes: maybe not so useful for a single entry, more interesting to clarify relationship between different words. I recently added usage notes to linguagem and idioma because I got confused by the differences (and English just has one word for all of them: language}}.
• Term linkage: useful for vocabulary exploration, esp. synonyms, antonyms, derived terms. The current interface for displaying them isn't ideal (just long lists of words), but if you decouple the data from the presentation all sorts of cool things can be implemented with this (visual browsers etc).
• Hyphenation: not very interesting right now, but the data is freely accessible and I think we should add it. More useful for implementing software based on wiktionary data.
• Frequency information: would be very useful, but don't think there's a good way to integrate this in a wiki context. I've seen the category "1000 basic Spanish words" (or similar) applied to some entries. But you would need the frequency information directly when looking at a list of words, e.g. you have 10 synonyms listed for a word and want to know immediately which ones are more used than others.

– Jberkel (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

If the frequency information were in a module it could be integrated with linking templates such as {{l}}. DTLHS (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Register: French is often divided into seven registers (as given by Wiktionnaire: literary, formal (what would be expected in a government document or very careful speech), standard/neutral (used in writing or in speaking to one's superiors), familiar (when speaking to colleagues, friends), informal (the level of language teenagers or young adults use with each other), slang, and vulgar. I think that's a good division of registers, and it would be good to have something like that, preferably standardizing them as much as possible, and if possible, linking to a glossary with further explanation (so if the difference between "familiar" and "informal" is unclear, it can be further explained there). Basically, I like to know if I'm going to sound like an idiot or a snob by using a certain word with a certain group of people. Usually, example sentences go a long way toward showing what register a word belongs to, but not always, especially when one doesn't speak the language well.
• Speaking of which: the French Wiktionary excels in its use of example sentences to demonstrate meaning and further explain common expressions in which there may be added nuances to certain words. For instance, articles like the one for avoir show more or less the full range of meaning of the word. I'm not saying we need that many example sentences, but it is helpful to include a bunch of common expressions among them as the French articles do (I'm not sure what's happening with collocation tags, but this wouldn't be necessary if that sort of thing were added).

I was interrupted several times while writing that, so hopefully I expressed myself clearly... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I just looked through Category:Portuguese terms with obsolete senses. There seem to be quite a few words that should be classified as obsolete forms, like quãdo. Technically that is an abbreviation, but it’s also an old spelling. For forms that’re obsolete or dialectal, I would just use both ‘obsolete form of’ and ‘eye dialect of;’ two definitions. The category is also quite poor in general; only ∼120 entries. --Romanophile (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I’ve written a sketch of the pronunciation policy. I’ve asked Liuscomaes to take a look, and I’d appreciated if you guys to commented on it as well. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

It looks pretty good to me, but seeing as how I’ve never seriously studied phonetics, this opinion isn’t worth much. One thing you could do is include ü for /w/. --Romanophile (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

 Done. Thanks. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

News

• Category:Portuguese Portuguese and Category:Brazilian Portuguese have been cleansed of words whose regionalness is merely a question of standard orthography. Maybe I missed some, but the bulk of it is gone.
• Appendix:Portuguese pronunciation is live. With a policy to hold my back, I’ll be more comfortable when adding pronunciations.

Next steps

• Category:Portuguese entries needing pronunciation
• Improve entries per frequency

Rant

• Couldn’t get AWB to run on Wine. A free software that runs on Windows but not on Linux? Blasphemy! Shame on you, developers.

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Seems to make perfectly good sense to have the see also there. The usage notes at the also template don't limit it to words that differ only by capitalization. Purplebackpack89 01:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Mr. Experienced User strikes again! {{also}} is for typographic variants, and it goes before language sections. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's for any variant, not just typographical. I read what it does before I reverted you. Purplebackpack89 02:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nope. At least you’re getting to position right now. One step at a time. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Answer this: it is possible that someone would get Northwest Territories and Northwest Territory mixed up? Then answer this: does not territory have a link to territories somewhere in its article, and vice versa? The only arguments you've given me are: 1) that {{also}} is only for typographical variants (which seems to be contradicted by what is actually at {{also}}) and the "I'm Ungoliant and I know best" argument (which is just you being full of it). Purplebackpack89 02:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Unbelievable. With this sort of attitude, it’s no wonder that people from outside Wiktionary are hating on you too. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

OMG, somebody who throws the word "troll" around spuriously and tells others to "fuck off" has the gall to lecture anybody on attitude. Purplebackpack89 02:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• For once, I somewhat agree with PBP. I wouldn't have added it, but I think it's a reasonable use of {{also}} (compare plus one for a comparable case). That said, I might've reverted it merely because of PBP putting it in the wrong part of the page and the fact that it has little or no added value to the page's helpfulness, but I decided to be nice and fix that instead. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you. FWIW, the "added value" I see is somebody typing in "Northwest Territory" looking for the current Canadian entity, and ending up at the defunct American one. I actually considered using an alt when I created Northwest Territory (a second definition something along the lines of "alt form of Northwest Territories", but it seemed to me you can only have alts of common nouns. Purplebackpack89 02:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• User talk:Renebeto#dona
• User talk:Spatialguru#geospatial
• User talk:209.98.145.60
• User talk:Duncan MacCall/Archive 1#Use of "also"
• User talk:Cdhaptomos#coldė and herė
• User talk:John1deer#prosoma
• User talk:Milkgodnl

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Anything in this decade? I should note that each of the talk page things you mentioned predates the current explanation of use; we appear to have become more lenient on its use in the past six years. I'd also note that you have no BP or other community discussions linked, and many of the notations are by the same 1-2 editors. It's ambiguous as to whether there still exists community consensus for your interpretation of the use of {{also}}. Purplebackpack89 03:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• User talk:Bahudhara
• User talk:Facts707/archive 1#Also vs. See also
• User talk:Amit6#Template:also
• Wiktionary:Grease pit/2012/December#also also
• Wiktionary:Grease pit/2014/August#A Peculiar Edit
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2013/November#Separate articles for inflected forms
• Wiktionary:Grease pit/2012/July#symmetric use of Template:also
• Wiktionary:Wiktionary for Wikipedians
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2011/October#Making 'see also' clearer to users

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK, now you're just throwing out pages that link to {{also}}. Some of the discussions you've linked have nothing to do with whether or not also should be used in a situation like this. Others discuss whether it should be used in situations like these, but have one or more editors supportive of a more expansive use. I'd also note that Wiktionary for Wikipedians a) includes the verbage "or are otherwise similar" to refer to usage of the template also. I'd allege singular vs. plural is "otherwise similar"; and b) it includes use of {{also}}/{{see also}} in a way that doesn't involve alternative capitalizations or diacritics.

BTW, your argument would actually have a modicum of credence if you provide some reason why the template should only be used in certain situations, much as I did above with why it should be used in this one. At present, you've only said that it's that way, which is a pretentious argument rather than a convincing one. Purplebackpack89 04:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Then why the hell did you ask for “Anything in this decade”? Thanks for wasting my time. Next time you ask me to provide evidence I’ll let you wallow in your own ignorance.

The fact is that {{also}}, with some exceptions (that don’t include singular/plural pairs), is used for typographical variants. If you don’t like this practice, you can start a BP discussion to change it. Until then, either use {{also}} properly or don’t use it at all. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 04:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

If anybody's time's being wasted, it's mine. First you edit war in the face of common sense, then you make me read discussions that have little or no bearing on the issue at hand. I have started the Beer parlour discussion. Purplebackpack89 04:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have started a BP discussion. In it, I explicitly call you out to provide a reason to violate common sense, so you'd better start thinking of one. Purplebackpack89 05:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

You can’t pester Keφr anymore, so now you’re getting on Ungoliant’s case instead? Do we need to propose another interaction ban? --Romanophile (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Romanophile I think you need to investigate the context of this discussion before referring to it as pestering. This all started because Ungoliant reverted some edits I made. And yes, if he was interaction-banned with me, those reverts would be forbidden, and he'd also be forbidden from calling me a troll and telling me to fuck off. Purplebackpack89 05:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

He wouldn’t have reverted you, but somebody else would have. {{also}} is for typographic similarities, and making ‘territory’ plural is not a typographic question. I would bet good money that the majority of regulars here would agree with me. You’ve argued with Ungoliant several times already and it’s clearly not doing any good. I don’t know why you prefer arguing with people rather than just admitting a mistake. Surely you would agree that you aren’t correct about everything. --Romanophile (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

This whole discussion is a prime example of the messenger fallacy. {{also}} is already used for disambiguating words that might reasonably be confused due to very similar spellings. I've used it on malternative and mallternative. I've seen others use it in a similar fashion. It's a simple, unobtrusive way to point readers who might enter the wrong thing into the search bar in the right direction. This really shouldn't be controversial. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Romanophile Somebody else might have reverted me, but that person likely would've done so in a more courteous manner. You act like I'm the only problem here. 70-80% of the problem is the fact that Ungoliant refuses to think of me as anything but a troll (like this little gem), and provides "nah nah nah nah, I'm right, you're wrong" answers, rather than answers that provide actual reasons for why he might be right. Purplebackpack89 12:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

More courteous? You aren’t exactly very popular around here, and you certainly haven’t been courteous with Ungoliant. You’re just pissing him off (again). You don’t need to approach him directly. The proper response should have been going to the Information Desk and asking, ‘Hullo. May I please know why this usage is prohibited? Thank you.’ If you still couldn’t understand why it’s prohibited, you could have made a case for your usage in the Beer Parlour. You already know that Ungoliant dislikes dealing with you, don’t you? If you do know but desire to continue poking him anyway, that says more about you than it does about anybody else. --Romanophile (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Popularity, schmopularity. This is a wiki, not a popularity contest. If Ungoliant dislikes dealing with me, why does he insist on following around my edits? It's been clear to me for some time that his primary reason for doing this is to find something I did wrong that he can lord over me. As for "proper response", it's never been improper to discuss an editor's revert of your edits with that editor. Purplebackpack89 13:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I follow your edits because you are an incompetent user and half of your content edits have issues that need to be fixed. Here are some recent examples:

• using the nonstandard heading Alternate forms, and in the wrong place;
• misuse of {{also}}
• incorrect title of a cited journal
• creating an entry without checking for citability and blaming someone else for it
• creating a lemma instead of an alternative form
• incorrect placement of a pronunciation section
• {{context}} without language code

Now, before you accuse me of thinking I am perfect, I’ll admit that I’m not. I make a lot of mistakes too. If you want to go through my edits to fix mine, knock yourself out. But I doubt you’ll do that; doing hard work at Wiktionary is not your thing, and it’s not like you’re able to recognise mistakes. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I resent your "doing hard work comment" Purplebackpack89 15:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Purplebackpack89: I can understand your resentment. Faced with such treatment, I would probably leave the project. We have a lot of formatting and other practices that need to be learned the hard way. I think Ungoliant has lavished a great deal of personal attention on your entries both to improve the entries and to provide you some opportunity to learn what constitutes value added to the project. DCDuring TALK 15:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for understand where I'm at. Purplebackpack89 16:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

My understanding of "also" is that it specifically disambiguates things orthographically, e.g. the English and German nouns tag and Tag. This is a bit like Wikipedia sometimes saying that its entry title is incorrect due to software limitations. I don't see why "plus one" and "+1" should use these mechanisms because it's a synonym, not an orthographic issue. Equinox ◑ 07:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox @Cloudcuckoolander: You may want to check out the BP discussion. BTW, since we brought Wikipedia into this, compare the use of seealso I did at Northwest Territory and Northwest Territories with the top of those Wikipedia articles. Purplebackpack89 12:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Isso é aceitável? --Romanophile (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Talvez sim, talvez não. Estou evitando as situações que estão mais para formas alternativas do que para grafias alternativas. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tá bem, abstenho‐me de repetir essa espécie de modificação. Saudações, --Romanophile (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

O que significa céspede? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 00:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

(poetic) ground covered with grass. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ungoliant, você sabe de locuções com as palavras Roma ou romano/a? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 20:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

O que me vem à cabeça são os provérbios Roma não foi construída em um dia, Roma e Pavia não se fizeram num dia, todas estradas levam a Roma e quem tem boca vai a Roma. Tentarei encontrar mais. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

em Roma sê romano, greco-romano, número romano, algarismo romano, católico romano, Império Romano, Sacro Império Romano, pré-romano, segunda Roma, Terceira Roma, Epístola aos Romanos. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

o último dos romanos, pax romana, galo-romano, cravo-romano, reto-romano, Nova Roma, nova-romano, celto-romano, hortelã-romana, catolicismo romano, Igreja Romana. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Te molesta quando agradeço‐te por todas tuas modificações? Saudações, --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 03:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Não. Fico feliz. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

much appreciated. --Fdena (talk) 01:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for creating the entry. The only serious problem was the lack of a HWL (headword line). If you don’t remember the name of the special templates (like {{en-proper noun}}), you can always use {{head|language code|part of speech}} (i.e. {{head|en|proper noun}}). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I read your message "Making all FL placenames link to English by default was not a good idea." in the BP. I've been thinking of adding a style= parameter. What do you think?

Current format:

1. {{place:Brazil/municipality|pt|state=Paraná}}

Proposed format:

1. {{place:Brazil/municipality|pt|state=Paraná|style=gloss}}
2. {{place:Brazil/municipality|pt|state=Paraná|style=n-g}}

n-g is non-gloss, as in {{n-g}}. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think that would be a misuse of {{n-g}}. Non-gloss definitions are definitions that describe the word rather than the meaning of the word. For example, "a municipality" is a gloss, while "a placename" is not a gloss. --WikiTiki89 17:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

True. I'll change the proposed format:

1. {{place:Brazil/municipality|pt|state=Paraná|style=main}}
2. {{place:Brazil/municipality|pt|state=Paraná|style=translation}} (the translation pointing to English)

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Daniel Carrero: The problem isn’t the formatting, but that the default definition assumes an English translation exists, and that it is necessarily the same word. Even if 99% of the municipalities do have an English translation (and I doubt they do), the safe thing to do is to generate a standalone definition by default and let users mark them so they are turned into translation-type definitions once their citability is verified.

But before you spend too much time on it, consider discussing with the rest of the Wiktionary community the creation of a single template that deals with the whole host of toponyms. The way it’s being done will create a huge maintenance nightmare; think about it: the templates are still hot from the oven and you already had to fix them a bunch of times and go through their transclusions. Can you imagine the sort of work it would be fix minor issues once we have a template for every state in the world?

I’m not saying they’re a bad thing. They’re already a great improvement over the previous situation (having to do the definitions and categories manually). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

"But before you spend too much time on it, consider discussing with the rest of the Wiktionary community the creation of a single template that deals with the whole host of toponyms."

I created 3 BP discussions in the last few days, the first one started with "I created a few templates for place names; they should be able to generate standardized definitions for them in all languages." and ended with "Thoughts?", but this discussion has been only between me and other person yet. More people took part in the second one. My current plan is: I'd like to finish creating entries for all municipalities of Brazil in Portuguese. Surely some time will have passed until then, and before moving on to any other country (I'm guessing Portugal), I'll create another discussion in the BP for feedback. Also, thanks for your last comment, saying that the template is already a great improvement over the previous situation (having to do the definitions and categories manually).

"Even if 99% of the municipalities do have an English translation (and I doubt they do), the safe thing to do is to generate a standalone definition by default and let users mark them so they are turned into translation-type definitions once their citability is verified."

That's fine by me, then. I plan to re-edit the template so it should work as you said. I recall that when you started populating Category:pt:Municipalities_of_Paraná,_Brazil, the template was generating standalone definitions (which looked good, in my opinion) before I changed it to the current English-translation style (which would look good only if all foreign-language place names had English translations).

Maybe the syntax should look like this, if no one objects:

1. {{place:Brazil/municipality|en|state=Paraná}} (default, standalone style)
2. {{place:Brazil/municipality|en|state=Paraná|style=translation}} (translation style)
3. {{place:Brazil/municipality|en|Campo Largo|state=Paraná|style=translation}} (use the 2= to ospecify the translation, should be used in case the translation is different)

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, a data-module based template would be a much better design. See {{Q}} and its modules. --WikiTiki89 19:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'm thinking about it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Daniel Carrero: I’ve created a prototype at Module:User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV:

1. {{(name)|en|municipality|state=Nonexistent State|country=San Marino}}:
   1. A municipality in Nonexistent State, San Marino.Category:en:Municipalities of San Marino
2. {{(name)|pt|municipality|t1=Schijteterstadt|state=Bahia|country=Brazil}}:
   1. Schijteterstadt (a municipality in Bahia, Brazil)Category:pt:Municipalities of Bahia, Brazil
3. {{(name)|pt|t1=Beira|t2=Bêira|macroregion|country=Portugal}}:
   1. Beira; Bêira (a macroregion in Portugal)
4. {{(name)|pt|municipality|country=Brazil|macroregion=South Region|state=Santa Catarina}}:
   1. a municipality in Santa Catarina in the South Region region of BrazilCategory:pt:Municipalities of Santa Catarina, Brazil

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Good job! I'll definitely want to use/edit/expand it. What I have to say could be a bit long, sorry! I'll try to make it straight to the points.

Random comments/usage:

1. It seems that the list of available placenames is controlled by the module, so that one is unable to use "town" and generate a new category Category:pt:Towns of Paraná, Brazil, which is important.
2. "South Region" for municipalities is TMI and could be omitted in my opinion (I prefer "A municipality of Paraná, Brazil.", not "A municipality of Paraná, South Region, Brazil.") At the very least, using the template/module should not ever generate Category:pt:Municipalities of Paraná, South Region, Brazil as a new category.
   1. That said, the region should certainly remain in the definitions of states. (Ceará = "A state in the Northeast Region of Brazil.")
3. It seems that using t1=, t2= parameters changes the layout of the template. The logic in that makes sense. ({{meta-place}} was using this logic in a previous version) I predict that I'll probably use t1={{PAGENAME}} a lot to save time when the name is the same.

What I'd change right now, a.k.a., my proposals:

1. About the switch " = { = true, = false, = true},". I'll try to change this in a way that specifies just what is true and ignores the rest, otherwise we'd have a lot more: county=false, prefecture=false, province=false, district=false, etc. (repeated for each country)
2. Don't make a list of places (municipality, state, etc.), each with a sublist of accepted countries. Do the other way around: make a list of countries (Brazil, Portugal, Japan, etc.), each with a sublist of accepted places. Reasons:
   1. As Brazilians and editors of Brazilian placenames, it would be of our interest to see all placenames of Brazil at once (for example, to judge if possible tricky terms like microrregion are being used correctly), it would be less interesting to see a list of all countries that use "state" together, and more troublesome to find the inner workings of a single country within a large list containing prefecture/town/parish/canton/zone/province/etc.
      1. Brazil: (state, region, municipality...) (also possibly: state abbreviation/initialism, mesoregion/microregion within each state, see the Bahia list for example; I don't know about small villages and neighborhoods because they could be controversial, though we do have a number of them and the template could have parameters for those too)
      2. Japan: (prefecture, subprefecture...)
      3. For more: w:Category:First-level administrative country subdivisions, w:Category:Second-level administrative country subdivisions, etc.
   2. Sometimes, a place qualifier behaves differently according to the country.
      1. Sometimes, a "province" is a first-level division, so the category would be Category:Provinces of (country)
      2. Other times, a "province" is a second-level division, so the category would be Category:Provinces of (first-level), (country)
3. About the parameters. I'd use this syntax exactly, and for the following reasons:
   • {{(name)|pt|Brazil|municipality|state=Santa Catarina}}
   1. Since the country is mandatory, I think it should be an unnamed parameter and not country=.
   2. Arguably, if we take my proposal #1, then the country should be the second parameter after the language code, since the country basically controls all the rest.

P.S.: I've been thinking of adding rivers (and mountains, etc.) though I haven't implemented any of it yet before your module. I like it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Available placenames: possible placenames are not limited by the module, only their categorisation. I think it’s better if we add categories as they are needed, and not make it so every toponym is categorised per type by default. If we do that, I doubt the rest of the community will support the template.
• TMI: that’s the beauty of the cat_data system: you can add as much information as you want to the definition, but it won’t necessarily affect how the word is categorised. As you can see in example #4, South Region isn’t included in the category even though it passed to the template as a parameter.
• List with the other way around: I’m not making sense of how that would work.
• Different level of divisions: I dealt with by using different names (macroregion instead of region). We could also use different hierarchy arrays, but that would be a pain in the ass.
• Country as a numeric parameter: country is not mandatory. Words like Western Europe, Amazon Forest and Moldavia shouldn’t contain country=.

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest having all the parameters be positional, with their meaning defined by a tree structure in the data module, just like {{Q}}. --WikiTiki89 15:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Muita confusão. dengue, dengo, dengoso, denguice. Did some research but going around in circles. Are both senses of dengue derived from Spanish? Is the tantrum sense (dengo) really derived from the disease? Could not find much information about the onomatopoeic Spanish sense which is sometimes given as source for the disease sense. Maybe I should just accept that it's impossible to get definitive answers here. – Jberkel (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I’ll take a look. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Here’s what my etymological dictionary (Nascentes) says about dengue:

• dengue (“tantrum”) is from Spanish, which is from denegar;
• dengue (“dengue fever”) is also from Spanish, but various theories for its further origin are given:

• from an American language
• from Arabic dengue (weakness)
• from English dandy fever

Aulete says dengo, dengoso and denguice are all derived from dengue. Their etymology for dengue only mentions Spanish.

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Obrigadíssimo, I'll update the entries. – Jberkel (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I would recommend Wheelock's Latin or for a more lay introduction, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Learning Latin. I learned the basics of Latin myself from The Complete Idiot's Guide. I would also recommend the Bantam New College Latin Dictionary for reference. Nicole Sharp (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Nicole, I’ll take a look at them. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Estou curioso em saber a fonte para isto… Tuvalkin (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Se você acha que não existe, use a página WT:RFV para requerer verificação. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your encouraging appreciation of my attempt. I was anticipating another revert! However, my edits are limited to etymologies, normally on Talk pages, where I am able to present an unbiased number code, to show the reader the degree of accuracy/inaccuracy of the contributions relative to the lexeme itself, or to the qualifying antecedent clause. My edits on the main entries are likely to be very sparce, but there are a few Old English words that do not have an etymology yet presented, for example SULK, that shall be my next edit. Thank you also for correcting my wrong code to NON from ANG. I will endeavour to learn from such mistakes! I was too late for BRASS, where the obvious Celtic cognates are missing; so had to include them on its Talk page. My first acceptable main entry edit was of RUDDY; I could have linked it with the Old English strong verb, RĒODAN (to become red); but there is an element of potential controversy as to whether RUDU (redness) actually relates to that verb, or whether it is akin to a Celtic dialectual form, akin to the root RŪTH in Greek ERŪTHROS (red), et cetera. Anyway, I realise that etymologies need to be succinct and prècised on the main page entry, because of the general lack of interest in that subject.

Kind Regards. Andrew H. Gray 21:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Andrew

I’m glad you are still interested in contributing to Wiktionary, even if it is mostly in the little-seen talk pages.

The succinctness of etymologies is not due to lack of interest; in fact, a common complaint is that we have so much etymological information that it distracts viewers from the definitions. It is actually due to our fear (justified, IMO) of avoiding bullshit. As you’ll know if you’ve dabbled in etymology for a while, the field is chock full of crackpots and nutters who are more interested in coming up with interesting or “cool” origins of words than truthful ones. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

The ultimate of all the examples with which I happened to be familiar, from your last sentence, is Welsh Cymry from COMRADE! A 'runner up' is picture from pre-Celtic Pictish root PIC (to paint)! I am afraid that I would have to sympathise with your description of what the etymology field contains in at least those two instances! Andrew H. Gray 18:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Andrew

Here is my personal favourite. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

My reason for not signing after the links codes is simply because of the application of them being completely unbiased. Any etymologist has the right, (or my permission, anyway) to change the coded numbers in my text if they are sure that any amendment is correct. Kind Regards. Andrew H. Gray 10:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Andrew

@Werdna Yrneh Yarg, all comments to discussion pages must be signed, no matter how biased or unbiased. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

On the quickscope page, one of the quotes you added was: I was a bit annoyed at first as my previous few games had boasted some pretty high K/D whilst quickscoping and now I was being bombarded by constant noob tubes and RPGs.

I took the liberty to modify what's in the square brackets because I thought you had clarified the quote yourself, I didn't think it was part of the original quote... sorry! Oh, and thanks for all the help you provided, I couldn't have done all of this work by myself. Sik666 (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi could you have a look at the things I posted at Template talk:place? —CodeCat 17:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

How do you combine {{indtr}} with an existing context? I.e. I want to tag a sense both as pronominal and as indirect transitive, so I would do {{context|pronominal|lang=pt}} {{indtr|pt|de}}, but this results in two separate context blocks. Does this make sense? – Jberkel (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply