User talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV/Archive7

You wreck my work and then ask me to comment here, Was my edit not accurate? It was, then why did you put your hands on it. — This unsigned comment was added by BronzeScribe (talk • contribs).

You can’t use Wiktionary to promote products. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Old Norse /sifjaspell/ has the now obsolete meaning "betrayal of a close kin". I speak Icelandic natively (and learned this Old Norse word in a local high-school). Can you readd the definition in your English words? SvartMan (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi @SvartMan. Sorry for reverting your edit back then.

It is unclear whether you mean that sifjaspell is a word attested in Old Norse texts (perhaps as an alternative form of sifjum spilla), or whether the meaning you added (“treason against a family or clan member”) is a distinct but no longer used sense of the Iceland word sifjaspell. Can you clarify this? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Romanophile, Jberkel, Angr, Andrew Sheedy, I’d like to announce the publication of the first prototype of a new project designed for people learning Portuguese. This project involves getting short public-domain texts and:

• adding the translation for each phrase, as a tooltip;
• adding superscript notes for potentially confusing stuff;
• linking each word to the individual sense being used;
• improving the entry of each word used.

I’d like to get some feedback on it. My plan is to try to convince the folks over at Wikibooks to host them once I have a bunch done. It took a lot of effort, so I won’t bother if it’s not particularly useful. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 04:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wow, that's great! The footnotes at the bottom are very helpful, and I really like how you can see the translation of the sentence as a whole as well as the translations of the individual words.

I started learning French (well, I learned the basics first) by reading The Hobbit and looking up more or less every word I didn't know in a French-English dictionary. I would have loved to be able to just hover over the words to see what they meant! It looks like a tedious job for you, but it could be a fantastic resource with a bit more material added. It's especially helpful for Portuguese, as there's less material out there compared to, say, French or Spanish.

One suggestion I have is that you put notes of some sort indicating usage that is specifically European or Brazilian usage. As I am focusing on Brazilian Portuguese in my learning, I'm afraid that I'll end up speaking some strange mix of the two if I learn from resources using the former.... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I’ll keep that in mind. But you shouldn’t worry too much about mixing standard Brazilian and European grammar as they are very similar (the grammar of the colloquial lects and the vocabulary as a whole are a different story). In fact, I think I wouldn’t be able to say for sure that this text was European if it was shown to me without the name of the author or book. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Good to know. I've been led to believe that there was a significant (though not huge) difference between them. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

• This is good stuff. If there were enough of it, it'd make me want to learn Portuguese (but I understand it's quite labour-intensive). Incidentally, if you feel like working on your Latin, nodictionaries.com has a similar service (but it's automated, so no phrase-level translation or handy notes, although I would be happy to answer any questions that I'm capable of fielding). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks! I’m focusing on Dutch now, but it’s a matter of time before Latin pulls me back. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fixe! Do you have the text linking part scripted, or is it all done manually? Let me know if you need any coding help. Some quick feedback: not your fault, but design-wise it's hard to read and looks ugly, lots of blue / underlined text. Maybe it should be reversed if possible (highlight non-linked parts?). Also, since it's an old text, the vocabulary (while interesting) might not be very useful for learners of modern Portuguese. One of my learning goals for example is to be able to read Portuguese newspapers without having to look up too many words, which requires a completely different set of words. But it's just a question of adding more texts for different topics I guess. – Jberkel (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

It has to be manual, because each word has to be analysed individually and humanly for the sense to be determined.

I have also noticed the ugliness. Links don’t work very well with tooltips and getting them to be displayed is a bit of a challenge. I was thinking of maybe using a hiding system similar to what we use for quotations. The two points I want to keep are: translations shouldn’t be visible immediately (so learners have the opportunity to try to understand the phrase by themselves), and translations should be next to the translated text (and not, say, the entire translation at the bottom of the page).

Indeed, I want to add texts with a different style. Copyright is a problem, which is why I chose an older text for the prototype. I was thinking of using a pt.wikinews article for the next one, but if you (or anyone else) have another suggestion, feel free to request it.

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Follow-up: Portuguese Wikinews is out of question. I went through several articles and not one of them was properly written. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Another idea for the presentation are interlinear texts. Latin used to be taught with this method, which consists of the target language source text mixed with a rough translation (word-by-word), set between the lines in a smaller font. For a modern example, there's a company called Interlinear books which publishes whole books in this format. I think this would work well for the short texts, but the layout might be tricky to recreate in a wiki context. However it should also be possible to convert the annotated mediawiki source to less constrained formats. A wiki is great for the production of these annotations, since they can be worked on collaboratively, not so much for the consumption. Jberkel (talk) 11:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm personally not a fan of interlinear translations. Once I have some level of proficiency in reading a foreign language, I don't want to be forced to see the English unless I decide to look at it. This is why side-by-side translations are so much better than interlinear. Interlinear is basically for people who want to read the language without actually learning it. --WikiTiki89 15:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

That’s why I want to keep the translations hidden, but everything I can think of, other than tooltips, requires adding stuff to the .js and .css files. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Side-by-side does not require that. But anyway, I think the tooltips are fine. --WikiTiki89 16:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Re interlinear, if the text for the English translation is set in a small font you usually don't read it, unless maybe accidentally. I only look at it if I don't know the word. Maybe something in between would work, foldable annotations, by default hidden? I find side-by-side is awkward, since you have to switch your focus to another place. Tooltip or open in a new tab is not much better. Jberkel (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Since English is my native language, I cannot avoid reading it if it is in my field of view. Just like I cannot avoid reading English subtitles when watching a movie in English. --WikiTiki89 00:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

For another approach, see {{ja-r}}. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. However, I think the issue of word-by-word translation is handled well enough by the wikilinks with senseids; it’s the sentence-level translations that I think should be changed instead.

For now, I’ll put the sentences and translations inside templates so that any future change to the layout is easy to deploy. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tsunâmi is not rare - it is the ONLY accepted form that figures in both the best-selling Brazilian dictionary (Aurélio) and the best-selling Portuguese dictionary (Porto Editora: http://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/tsun%C3%A2mi ). Please don't revert. — This unsigned comment was added by 179.177.201.38 (talk).

Bullshit on several counts:

• The second link also lists the spelling tsunami (I don’t know where to check for Aurélio, but given your past and current tendency to lie I wouldn’t be surprised if you made this claim up too).
• It doesn’t matter what dictionaries say. Wiktionary follows usage, not prescription, and tsunami is about 200 times more common than tsunâmi in Portuguese.
• Even if it did, many other big dictionaries include tsunami, and some don’t include tsunâmi at all.

Please stop using Wiktionary to promote adapted spellings. Start a blog or something. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't know who you are (and I don't want to). You don't know who I am. I don't need to prove anything to you. If you can't even get your hands on a good dictionary, just stop annoying. And thankfully you do not own this, you are not entitled to anything more than I am, and I will revert your edits. Please stop stalking me, or I will have to fill a formal request for blocking you - for stalking, for having called me an "idiot" and for removing verified and correct content.179.177.201.38 02:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please read WT:CFI carefully before you continue editing. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

179.177.201.38 since we go on evidence here, can you provide evidence that tsunâmi is not rare? Inclusion in a dictionary merely shows existence (or presumed existence, dictionaries do make mistakes) so simply quoting dictionaries won't help. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

• This is the same guy, I'm guessing? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Now I know what the Chinese editors felt when that guy who pushed accentless Pinyin definitions was around. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Maybe. But I think you have to suffer more to claim that. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Well, this guy has been at it for several months now. Since around June, if I remember correctly. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

  BTW, thanks for giving me the heads-ups. I appreciate it. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Is there a better place to leave this than your talk-page? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Here’s all right. Thanks. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

The only transclusion of {{l/en}} is now... User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV! Are you ok to delete unused l subtemplates? I can name a few if so. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I’m OK with it. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Just made the Spanish pernambucano. Can you add some Portuguese? --Stubborn Pen (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Merry Christmas, WF. May your main pages remain deleted forevermore. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I wish to you and all users of the Wiktionary Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Leonard Joseph Raymond (talk) 08:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks man. You too. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

• And a merry Christmas to you as well, Ungoliant. I'd wish you that in Yiddish but I'm honestly not even sure if there's an idiomatic way to say it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! A merry Christmas to you too. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

hello I am a newbie Wikipedia editor and I was wondering if you could provide me some additional information concerning the etymology of fubar. thank you and Happy New Year.Ccie w3c icann (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC) 🇺🇸Reply

@Ccie w3c icann, a happy new year to you too. This Wikipedia page has a very detailed section on the etymology of fubar.

Keep in mind that the etymology is unknown. All of the theories are not much more than guesses. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a feel for what proportion of English lemmas have a translation section? And what proportion of those have a single language in the table? SemperBlotto (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

My project of going through Category:English lemmas to add Portuguese translations gave me a relatively good idea of the proportion. I’d say some 3 to 5% of English lemmas have translation sections. Most translation tables (maybe 70-90%) have more than one language. Of those that have only one, Finnish, Italian and Portuguese are the most common. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'm mostly in French mode at the moment, so I'll try to add a few more. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Try out my translation-adding script. Copy the entire add_translation_tables() function from User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV/monobook.js into your js. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Done. It works well, but I shall have to modify it to change Portuguese to French (and maybe Italian as well). SemperBlotto (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

You've been WikiHounding me, most likely in an attempt to piss me enough that I'd leave voluntarily. Of course, I've known that for months, but glad you admitted it. Purplebackpack89 05:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

And I’ll continue to do it for as long as you make shit edits that need to be fixed. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Olá Ungoliant, qual é a sua gramática portuguesa preferida, em português (livro ou ebook) ? Procuro uma que tem muitos exemplos, trata as variantes do Brasil e de Portugal, e que também explica a língua falada / usada e não só a língua "culta". obrigado. Jberkel (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Eu uso a Moderna Gramática Portuguesa de Evanildo Bechara. Não é perfeita, mas dá para o gasto. Infelizmente, acho que não atende aos seus requisitos. Vou dar uma procurada. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Jberkel I was unable to find a grammar that meets your requirements. They all focus on either the formal or the colloquial languages, and on either the European or the Brazilian standard. Maybe you’ll need to use more than one grammar. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Tá bem, thanks anyway. Seems like I'm looking for the eierlegende Wollmilchsau of grammars. Jberkel (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I've just fixed the Ido translation in the article Doric, which contained a translation for the meaning "Doric Greek" that was taken from the Italian word. The same spelling is given for Interlingua and Interlingue. A quick check on the Interlingua Wikipedia gave one attestation for "dorico" and a few for "doric", but those included the Scots dialect and references to the arts. Would you mind checking the Interlingua translation, as you're of the very few active users who are listed as Interlingua users? 132.229.187.113 14:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi anon. The only instance of either word I was able to find in durably archived sources was doric listed as a translation of Swedish dorisk (in the musical sense). Neither word is present in IALA’s online dictionary nor in Gode’s original dictionary.

Despite this, I have no reason to believe the translation is wrong. Keep in mind that the word formation process of Interlingua is based on adapting from source languages, not on suffixation like Ido and Esperanto. Another thing to be noted is that Interlingua usually uses -ic for adjectives and -ico for nouns. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your work! It better remain in place then. 132.229.187.113 15:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Ungoliant could you please help me hide my IP address for this word: - Adjutor101 (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

 Done. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much !!! Adjutor101 (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

... I hope with some colleagues, in this page. Best regards, --Gloria sah (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, for some reason Angr tries to assert that /ɛɹ/ and /ɛɚ/ are the same pronunciation, even though in reality that is just his merry, Mary, marry merger talking. Tharthan (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The merry-Mary-marry merger causes that distinction? I thought it only affected the vowel. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I once talked to him about how if "square" were pronounced how he alleged it to be (/ɛɹ/), it would sound like squehhr (ehh being the vowel of "bet") which is nonstandard at best (I have never heard such a pronunciation of the word in my life, but to demonstrate the issue to Angr, I uploaded an audio file depicting such a pronunciation). The real sound of square lies between /ɛɚ/ and/eɚ/. I have heard both.

The thing with the merry, Mary, marry merger is that it has an influence upon a speaker's perception of /ɛɹ/, /ɛɚ/ and /æɹ/ as a whole, so in the case of /ɛɚ/, a speaker with the merry, Mary, marry merger might assume that the transcription "/ɛɹ/" would be sufficient, even though "/ɛɹ/" doesn't end any word in the English language. Hence why it is a bad transcription. Tharthan (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your recent addition, but I don't know, in this moment (my first edits here :-> ), how we can create this Bolognese page, since I haven't yet seen one similar. For exemple, the header should be ==Bolognese==?, and the language abbreviation will be also "egl"? What category below? Thank you in advance, --Glo (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh, as a latin dictionary on line, we (me and my daughters) usually use this one. Soon, --Glo (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Gloria sah, The way we treat dialects is to use the name of the language in the heading and the name of the dialect in a label.

You can see an example in our entry for duto. Some dialects have special templates (for example, see fiord); I can create one for Bolognese if you want. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh, so I sould be grateful if you do it. Then I'll be able to play with this new toy ;-P , --Glo (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Gloria sah, done. See galèna. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh oh, thank you very much, I'll take it as example in the next future! Bye ;-)) , --Glo (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I finally managed to install AWB on OSX and would like to try it out, but looks like I need special permissions. Would it be possible to add me to the list? obrigado. – Jberkel (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Done. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'm not that impressed with, and it was obviously built with Wikipedia in mind. Still might be useful for some tasks. Jberkel (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have heard that this was a slang term in Brazil even before the virus was known. Is this true and could you create an entry? DTLHS (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

zica --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. DTLHS (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Don’t come to Brazil for the Olympics, folks! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Ungoliant, I don't understand in this moment why the "Category:Bolognese Emilian" works in taking all the words whose page I write template:lb/egl/Bolognese, while the similar writing template:lb/egl/Carpigiano doesn't bring its words in its category:Carpigiano Emilian :-° . Can you kindly explain to me? Thanks, --Glo (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gloria. For automatic categorisation to work, the information has to be added to Module:labels/data/regional.

I’ve just added Carpigiano to the module (it also works if you use {{lb|egl|Carpi}}). Please let me know if there are any more dialects that need to be added, thanks! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh, thank you! Other egl dialects would be: Mirandolese, Modenese, Carpigiano, Reggiano, Piacentino, Parmigiano, Mantovano. Thank you, --Glo (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I’ve added all of them. Keep in mind that the software takes some time to update categories. In other words, it will take some time before entries that had, for example, {{lb|egl|Parmigiano}}, before I added the data are added to the categories. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wow wow, better than Harry Potter! Thank you very much! In this manner I'll surprise a lot all my eml.colleagues, with all those wonderful links! ;-P , --Glo (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Como identifica você quem Wonderfool é? --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Pelo padrão de edições: entradas em grande número, baixa qualidade e pouco conteúdo. Mas nesse caso é óbvio, porque ele estava criando entradas catalãs com sua conta anterior. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

It has become a standard that we only discuss how we tell if a user is WF offline (by email) so that he does not try to outwit us. There is certainly not a lot wrong with the current user's entries, but we can't afford to whitelist him. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto: I would be amazed instead if WF has not known how we find him out by now. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

WF knows very well how to outwit us, but I don’t think he is doing that at the moment, at least not with that account. He is in bona fide contributing mode as far as I can tell, but I agree that we shouldn’t whitelist him, because his editing style does lead to a high a number of mistakes even at his best intentions. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Ungoliant, you see this diminutive of the male given name Giuseppe: I think there are uncorrect those other categories there written. Can you controle it? Thank you in advance, --Glo (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I think I've fixed it for you (you were using the {{it-proper noun}} template in error. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

...I was considering that in the Emilian language there are at least 5 forms of suffixes in the masculine past participle, and consequently also in their feminine and plurals forms:

• incas-ê = "angry" in a Reggiano + Carpigiano qualifiers: pp of incasèr-es = "to get angry"; pl-m: -ê; s-f: -èda; pl-f: -èdi.
• incas-â = "angry" in Mirandolese and some other qualifiers: pp of incasàr-as = "to get angry"; pl-m: -â; s-f: -àda; pl-f: -àdi.
• alś-û, bb-û = "read", "drunk", in many egl dialects: pp of léśer or léśar, bèver or bèvar = "to read", "to drink"; pl-m: -û; s-f: -ùda; pl-f: -ùdi.
• vist-î = "dressed" in many egl dialects: pp of vistìr-es or vistìr-as = "to dress"; pl-m: -î; s-f: -ìda; pl-f: -ìdi.
• vìst = "seen": pp of vèder or vèdar = "to see"; pl-m: -; s-f: -a; pl-f: -i.

Therefore I watched that the Template:it-pp code or the Venetian one are insufficient for all those suffixes forms. Do you think there is already a Template-pp code to copy just for the egl language? Thank you in advance, --Glo (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Nowadays it’s very easy to make templates for complicated inflections, because we have something called Scribunto. I’ll work something out for Emilian participles. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ohi, I'm very obliged to you, because in fact I'm not very capable in creating templates.., --Glo (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I have a few questions relating to FWOTD:

• In what languages would you like to see more requests?
• Should there be citations for all meanings of a nominated lemma?

Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

1. I would like to see more FWOTDs in major languages other than those that already had a lot of FWOTDs (which are German, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and French). For example: Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish, Polish, Russian, Bulgarian, modern Greek, Japanese, Indonesian, Malay, Hindi, Urdu, Bielorussian, Macedonian, Albanian, and so on.
2. Unfortunately, during the early days of FWOTD this proved to be too time-consuming. I do recommend doing it, though. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Right. I can't contribute in nearly all those language, but I'll nominate fewer German words then. By the way, there's a template for speedy deletion at FWOTD for February 21st. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Hey Ungoliant. I'm hijacking this section because I remember you had generated a page a long while ago that listed entries in LDLs that have everything they need as FWOTDs, and I can't find it (an updated version would be ideal, but the old one would be good enough to go on). Thanks! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

  @Metaknowledge I’ll do it right now. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

  — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

  That's great, although I can't scroll below Ancient Greek... maybe the biggest ones could be chucked on separate subpages (not that we have a shortage of Ancient Greek submissions anyway...). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Try now. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

  That works. Thank you very much! I appreciate that you've been so understanding when I pester you, considering that you handled everything when I had ducked out. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Don’t worry about it, Meta. I’m glad we’re still able to keep FWOTD going after nearly five years! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Você pode melhorar esta entrada? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 20:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Foi. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Há sinónimos de bagagem? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 00:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Malas. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Pode‐se traduzir snack como comidinha? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 17:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Pode-se. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, everything ok? I was watching those frr terms: jeewe and blädje and I saw their qualifier lb Templates don't become blue. Can you please write their upstream code, as you wrote for the Emilian one? Many thanks in advantage (I have a love affair with minoritary languages, sic :->> ), --Glo (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The problem in these cases was that the label was “Mooring Dialect” instead of just “Mooring”. It would be possible to make “Mooring Dialect” an alias of “Mooring”, but I think it’s better to be consistent in this case, since no other dialect uses “Place Dialect” (i.e., it’s “England” not “England Dialect”).

I also love minority languages! In fact, before you came along nearly all Emilian entries were added by me. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ohi, ohi, I have just written the iper-recent it.neologism petaloso that just today the italian "Accademia della crusca" approved after that a primary-school boy used it in his homework. I hope no problem with this item.

Yes, I saw your edits in the Emilian pages, very good: your Bolognese dictionary is precious, better than mine that is little, even if written by the same authors. Soon, --Glo (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

--Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 08:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Using /c/ instead of /k/ was one of my most common mistakes when I started out. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

O aragonês leito significa «cama» e «leite»? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 15:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Acho que não. Leite é leit. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Mas o dicionário aragonês tem entrada aqui. Tou confuso. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 16:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Deve ser dialetal. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Se usa (ou usava) a palavra «per» em português? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 04:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Como palavra nativa, não se usa mais, mas está presente em alguns latinismos (per capita, percentual). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

E também indiretamente via pelo / pela? – Jberkel (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Verdade. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Como diz‐se «rabosa» no catalão antigo? E onde pode‐se encontrar textos daquela língua? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 15:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Guineu, guinard, renard, guilla, rabosa, volp, volpell. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

mateix --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 00:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Mateix, maseix, mateyx. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

factible & factible --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 05:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Factible. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

abolir --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 06:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Abolir está presente em alguns documentos do século XV. Não sei se são antigos o suficiente para que os chamemos de catalão antigo. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

GDLC diz que é atestado desde 1390. São incorrectos? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 16:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Devem estar certos. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

ahí --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 20:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Não consegui encontrar. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

or --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 14:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Aur, or. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

company --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 23:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Companyo, companyon. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

São do caso nominativo? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 23:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Companyo supostamente sim; companyon com certeza não. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Então
companio > companyo > company
companionem > companyon > companyo? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 23:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

compāniōnem > companyon > companyó — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Como se dizia bellu em leonês antigo? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 23:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sinto muito, não consegui descobrir. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

hasta --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 17:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ffasta, fasta. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

madre --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 22:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

madre. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

ellos --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 02:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

ellos, elos. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

cosa --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 03:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

cosa, cousa — Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

abraçar & abrasar são homófonos? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 10:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Não. Um tem /s/, o outro /z/. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Como se dizia reforç em catalão antigo? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 07:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Reforç. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Macanese: largo

Old Leonese: largo

Como traduzem‐se?

--Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 20:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Macanese: probably wide, broad; Old Leonese: generous. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

O que significa largo em istrio e liguriano? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 21:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ístrio: a li larghe, da largo: longe (adv), largo, a largo: em alto mar.

Liguriano: wide, broad.

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Se dizia largo em galaico‐português? O que significava? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 21:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Só consegui encontrar o derivado largueza, que significa generosidade. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Como se dizia agua em leonês antigo? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 06:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think this is the plural of obolos, not of obolus; note Greek vs. Latin origin. Equinox ◑ 21:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

You’re right. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oboloi is attested as the plural of obolus and obol as well, but too uncommon relative to oboli and obols to list in their HWLs. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The right "s" is this: ṡ. Can you please change the header in this manner, without redirect, and also in its plural "limôśni", because also in Carpigiano we rather say "limòśna", instead of that one, and Reggiano should say "limôşna"... Thank you, --Glo (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

 Done. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have added quotations for two senses, but most uses I could find on Google News and rather many in Google Books were actually "colon, final segment of the large intestine". It seems like a common misspelling for côlon indeed. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do you think we should add a definition line with {{common misspelling of}}? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, Google News suggests it's quite common, with these hits from March alone: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5). It seems less common on Google Books (1) (2) (3) (4). Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do you recall where you found the Alladian translations here? In Blench's work I can find the other words you added around that time, and Alladian words for a few other things, but unfortunately not an Alladian word for water. The only Alladian word for water I can find is /nʃi/ — what Panlex (using who knows what source) spells nší and what Marc Augé's Le rivage alladian: organisation et évolution des villages alladian spells n'ʃi. - -sche (discuss) 00:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Maurice Delafosse, Vocabulaires comparatifs de plus de 60 langues ou dialectes parlés a'la Côte d'Ivoire et dans les régions limitrophes, page 43. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Aha, hidden under an alternative name Wikipedia doesn't list. Thanks! - -sche (discuss) 01:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just to let you know, you got the transliteration wrong (which I fixed) and the image wrong (which I have not fixed, because I don't have the software to be able to make the background transparent). The problem with the image is that the letters should be using their connected forms, not their isolated forms. --WikiTiki89 22:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

God damn it. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I’m not going to feature Classical Syriac without transliteration and picture anymore. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Or you could just ping me to verify it. --WikiTiki89 13:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Alternatively, you could use Shibboleth, a free tool to enter ancient scripts in Unicode by Logos Bible Software. From the top of my head it includes Estrangela, Serto and Madhnhaya (East Syriac script). Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I wish to you and all users of Wiktionary Happy Easter.

Leonard Joseph Raymond (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Leonardo José Raimundo para você também! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge, JohnC5, I'm so meta even this acronym, do you know the macra of the accusative of Phocis? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can tell, the declension would be either:

Template:la-decl-3rd

or maybe:

Template:la-decl-3rd-Greek

I'm not sure I understand the question. —JohnC5 17:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

— IFYPFY (added locatives to the declension tables and corrected the Greek vocative). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering which vowels have macrons. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for answering, by the way. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

So this should cover it then? Based on a little googling, I think both the Latin and Greek declensions are attested. —JohnC5 17:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yep! Thanks again. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The ō of the stem is always long; the i of the stem is always short; the Latinate -em and Grecian -a accusative endings are both short. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge, JohnC5, I'm so meta even this acronym, what about the macrons of Quintinus? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

They're Quintīnus, according to Gaffiot. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym Do we know why we have a macron in quīntus? Are there sources to back this up? —JohnC5 14:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, it seems that the *quīntus macron was added by Doremítzwr on the 28th of July, 2011; he also added the *quīnī macron on the same day. The *quīnquies and *quīnquiplex macra have existed since those entries were first created by SemperBlotto on the 1st of February, 2011 and by kc_kennylau on the 10th of March, 2016, respectively. All of these additions are antedated by the *quīnque macron, which was added by EncycloPetey on the 10th of January, 2009. L&S have quinque, quintus, quīni, quinquĭens, quinquĭplĭco; Gaffiot has quinquĕ, quintus, quīni, quinquĭēs, and quinquĭplex; I don't currently have access to the OLD. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Going on just what L&S and Gaffiot have, shall we remove the macra from all the *quīn- entries except quīnī? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ BUMP. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: Do it. —JohnC5 14:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5: Done, done, done, and done. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Você acha que a gente deve proibir entradas portuguesas aos verbos pronominais? Saudações, --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 23:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Acho sim. A existência dessas entradas é resultado da inexistência de meios de marcar verbos pronominais durante a maior parte da história do Wiktionary. Agora que os temos, estou atualizando-as (vagarosamente). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

What do you think about this? Perhaps I don't know the best of the rules here in en.wiktionary and therefore I ask it to you... Thanks, --Glo (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Gloria sah there are pretty much two rules for Interwiki Links:

1. they have to have same pagename. For example, the page ] can have ] and ], but not ] nor ]
2. the page being linked to must exist. This seems to be the problem in this case; the Emiliano-Romagnolo Wiktionary doesn’t have a page called ], so you shouldn’t put a interwiki link to use in our own page for autostrè.

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh, thank you, Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (2764? Certainly there is some explication in your extrange name ;-DD ...), then I'll delete in some days, those fake links over there. --Glo (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

It’s the year I created the account, counted from the foundation of Rome. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

...ab Urbe condita, obviously ;-DD , --Glo (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: Ah! I've wondered that myself. What about the “Ungoliant” bit? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I usually use the names of my favourite Silmarillion characters for my online usernames. I remember that I first tried Morgoth Bauglir, but it was taken. Then I tried Feanor, also taken. Then I tried Ungoliant; it was also taken, and I got so pissed that I decided stick with it and add a number.

Fun fact: although Ungoliant is a female character, no one ever made the mistake of calling me a she! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

So " Mother of Shelob 2764 a.U.c."? Very cool. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was getting rid of the gap caused by FWOTD, a perennial problem. Maybe you'd like to suggest a better alternative. Donnanz (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Not screwing the layout of the rest of the page is a better alternative than doing so. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

A huge gap doesn't look good. And I don't think removing most of the gap "screwed up" the layout at all. What really needs to be done is modifying the FWOTD and WOTD templates so they don't cause a gap when Wikipedia links and images are involved. This has been moaned about before by others. Donnanz (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I think I have found a satisfactory solution. Donnanz (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

  I hope it’s working now. Tell me something, Donnanz, which browser do you use? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

  I'm on Windows 10, but still use the old browser rather than Edge or Chrome. Maybe I should take the plunge and try Edge, I'm not keen on Chrome. The solution for me seems to be in moving links and images down the page a fraction. Donnanz (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Internet Explorer has a notoriously shitty implementation of floats. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

  OK, I'll take your word for that. I'm now giving Edge a trial, IE is getting slower and slower lately anyway, maybe it's being phased out. By the way, thanks for featuring skrive as FWOTD today! Donnanz (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, thanks for thanking me for that edit. Secondly, I can't say whether Lingua Latina is exceptionally good, but I can't think of any other resource that imbues as much familiarity with the language proportionate to the effort involved. My favorite aspect of it is that it delivers the grammar purely through the use of Latin with no reference to any other language except with Arabic numerals. I would also recommend listening to the audio accompanyment for Familia Romana.--HerbSewell (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I’ll give them a try if I can find them. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Edit: I can't* think of any other resource.--HerbSewell (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for regenerating the statistics! As of that database dump, Wiktionary now has entries in one third of the world's languages! If you have time and could regenerate this, too, that'd be cool. - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think I can do it later tonight. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Se dizia despoñer em galaico‐português? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 12:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Duvido muito. A base em galaico-português seria põer. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Achas que o galego poñer é uma forma aprendida? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 16:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Com certeza é influência do espanhol ou astur-leonês. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Já recebeste esta notificação? Só quero estar certo. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 22:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Pings só funcionam quando a assinatura é colocada na mesma edição. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

PUTA MERDA! Odeio este programa! --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 22:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Não lembro a senha da porra do meu e-mail! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

De qualquer modo, não li nada que você tenha me mandado. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Funciona agora‽ --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 22:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Não. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Já‽ --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 22:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Agora foi. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

When you deleted catrin, you forgot to check whether or not the noun sense actually existed at catrín. It didn't. I had to go and clean up after you. Purplebackpack89 18:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

What an ignorant comment. If you don’t want your entries to be deleted, don’t make entries that need to be deleted. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

It needed to be moved, not deleted, and you didn't do that. I'm not even wholly confident you actually bothered to read catrín before deleting catrin. Purplebackpack89 18:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

You entry had a mistake in the inflection. Mistakes need to be removed, not moved around. If you are unable to make error-free Spanish entries, I ask that you stop editing Spanish. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely not. There is no requirement that all edits be error-free. Here's an idea: if you can't review my edits without being a schmuk, I ask that you stop reviewing my edits. Yeah, I made a mistake, because the place I saw the word was in all caps. You also made a mistake, because you didn't check to see if the noun definition existed before deleting the entry. And instead of admitting your mistake, you ask that I stay away from an entire language? Seriously, dude? Purplebackpack89 18:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

You didn’t just miss an accent mark. You added the wrong inflection. And this is not the first time you add crap in Spanish.

I will continue to review your edits for as long as you continue to make edits that need to be reviewed. If you don’t like me fixing your mistakes, the solution is simple: don’t make mistakes.

I know that everyone makes mistakes, but you’re the only one who starts a tantrum when yours are removed. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

You totally don't get why what you did was wrong. You delete the entry as a misspelling of another entry. The entry I created had one definition, a noun. The entry you said it was a misspelling of had only adjective definitions. It's blatantly clear to me you either didn't read catrin before deleting it, or you didn't read catrín before deleting catrin. Either way, you deleted a definition that belonged somewhere, and you see no problem with doing that. You totally have missed what I am saying. I didn't say it was wrong to delete catrin, what I said was that it was wrong to delete catrin without adding the noun sense to catrín. Purplebackpack89 18:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

You can avoid this issue too, by adding the content in the correct place. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Could you clean up the category from those modules? --Dixtosa (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

All of them can be deleted, except Module:pt-conj/data/-ar, Module:pt-conj/data/-er and Module:pt-conj/data/-ir. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do you think the "Suprasegmental" POS header could be used in all of these pages?

• Appendix:Capital letter
• Appendix:Italics
• Appendix:Superscript
• Appendix:Subscript

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

No. Actually, I’m not sure it can be applied to reduplication of words either. It’s better than symbol though. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I’d use orthographical usage (or similar) for these. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why can we not use "symbol" or "character" for all, and then let the definition describe what kind of symbol it is? —CodeCat 22:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ungoliant, but "orthography" is about spelling, no? I suppose "typography insert something here" is the most accurate POS-ish header we have at the moment, hence I used "typography rule" (could be "typography usage") in some of those. But I'm not satisfied with it either. No problem, though. I plan on creating a few more of these pages and maybe one day we'll figure out exactly what would seem to be the right label(s) to use.

CodeCat, I thought that would be a good idea at some point, (Appendix:Capital letter uses POS header "Letter" everywhere) but ideas like "italic type" are not symbols or characters. It would be nice to have a category like Category:Translingual suprasegmentals to see these pages at one place. It would be weird to place them in Category:Translingual symbols. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

You’re right. Typographic usage then. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I used Typographical usage for all appendices except Appendix:Capital letter. I also created Appendix:Strikethrough five minutes ago and used it. I'll let people know if I think of a better POS-ish header in the future. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Cool. These are just appendices anyway, they don’t have to have exactly the same layout format as mainspace entries, let alone the same POS names. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is listed as female on the main page, although the entry itself is correct (m). Jberkel (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I’m glad you noticed it. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for undoing my edit on aver. I had been mopping up after one of those cross-wiki vandals who makes some good edits and some bad ones, and obviously accidentally reverted some good ones. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

...this correspondence with this egl sound (so you can also hear my sexy voice ;-DD ), and eventually fix it? Thank you very much, --Glo (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Gloria sah; the only Emilian orthographical system I’m familiar with is Bolognese, and it indicates that the I is long (monofregh/iː/ṡum). Is that the case with your dialect? (By the way, I recommend indicating dialect by placing {{a|name of dialect}} before {{IPA}}.

Another thing, your audio has a buzz in the beginning. It would be great if you could rerecord it, as some people can be pretty anal about this sort of thing.

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 11:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Gloria — I didn't expect you'd record audio! I simply requested pronunciation out of interest for FWOTD-nominating, but I realised I also don't know where to cite it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 14:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Gloria sah: By the way, if you upload these recordings to WikiMedia Commons, rather than directly to the Emilian Wikipedia, then they would be accessible from all Wiktionaries and Wikipedias (and all WikiMedia sites in general). --WikiTiki89 15:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I didn't upload the record in WikiMedia Commons just because it was my first and also imperfect experiment. When I have verified that the record plays without problems, I'll upload it over there (so you didn't find my voice particularly sexy  ;-°° ), --Glo (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Now happily done :-p , --Glo (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Since it's an archaic form it might make sense to not display the "vós" forms by default in the conj tables, and have a little expand button to show them. What do you think? – Jberkel (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Pragmatic answer: I don’t think it’s worth the trouble. Every serious conjugation guide for Portuguese includes the 2nd person plural.

Idealistic answer: vós is still used in parts of Portugal, so I wouldn’t dismiss it as archaic just yet.

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK, my intention was not to remove them, just to hide them since they are very rarely needed. For now I might just write a gadget to do exactly this. Jberkel (talk) 08:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, are there dialects of BP in which unstressed word-final -o (e.g. in anjo, Paulo, demônio, and baixo) is pronounced or rather than or ? I'm wondering because the singer at youtu.be/_JeXqAJg3qk is pronouncing them that way. He's a native English speaker, but he's spent a lot of time in Brazil, so I wouldn't have expected him to use a Spanish-influenced spelling pronunciation. That's why I'm wondering if he could have picked up things like , , , from locals in some part of Brazil. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes for ; in fact, it’s the typical pronunciation in my own dialect. It is widespread in South Brazil and rural parts of São Paulo. But keep in mind that it is a low-prestige phenomenon.

Another situation where it occurs is when someone is trying to pronounce very clearly, especially if they are pronouncing each syllable as a separate unit or emphasising the end of the word. This use is common in music. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks for your help! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

...do you think we could make a now wanting page "Category:Emilian dialect" redirect to the existent "Category:Emilian language"? Thank you very much, --Glo (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

 Done. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry but I can't see anything ... --Glo (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh, only now I saw! Thak you, --Glo (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I just (utterly randomly) came across the quote you added to brook back in 2011, and noticed that the word used was actually in an inner quote, whose source (I think) was from 1966. I've updated the entry to point to the original quote. I just thought you might find it pleasing or interesting to know this. Thanks for all your years of work here. JesseW (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I wasn’t very good at researching books back then, so I used just the source I had at hand. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Could you please translate this passage for me from en->pt?

"Hi. I am an 18-year-old bisexual girl looking for a sweet, older girl to talk to. I do not speak Portuguese, but I'd like to learn the language. I am from the United States."

(I wouldn't ask what this is for though lol) Philmonte101 (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

That’s some weird stuff, but I’ll help you out!

Olá. Sou uma garota bissexual de 18 anos de idade procurando por uma garota meiga e mais velha para conversar. Eu não falo português, mas gostaria de aprender. Sou dos Estados Unidos. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I landed here because you are the author of some Hunsrik word entries. I have a personal, language hobbyist's interest in Hunsrik, as can be seen from my hunsrik.org website.

As you are aware there are two "competing" orthographies for writing Hunsrik words, and I tried to find out what's the Wiktionary policy regarding Hunsrik orthography in particular and regarding languages without clearly established orthographies in general, but did not find much. I saw an opinion on some talk page to use Wiesemann's orthography here on Wiktionary, and the rather few Hunsrik entries seem to use it, but it looks like there never was a proper vote.

What's your take on this? Rbrunner7 (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rbrunner7, thanks for contacting me.

I also have an interest in Hunsrik, as many of my family members are native speakers. I’m not up to par with the current state of Hunsrik spelling, but what I know is that Wiesemann’s orthography never caught on like it was expected.

What I recommend is NOT choosing an official orthography, but adding anything that is attested. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Ungoliant, for this fast answer.

Well, I believe you that a focus and reliance on attestation gives good results in the majority of cases. In the case of Hunsrik, I am not so sure.

So far I saw only very, very few examples of written Hunsrik that's more than a few years old. I think for a long time almost nobody cared to write it down. And what we have now are Facebook and personal blog posts clustered around the two orthography approaches that gained wider support, which I call "Standard German based" and "Portuguese based" (basically Wiesemann), for lack of any established terminology.

Are Facebook and personal blog posts usually considered Wiktionary-acceptable attestations? And what if they tend to "contradict" each other in systematic ways?

Wiktionary does not support "orthographies" as specializations of "languages", only languages themselves, right? (Supporting Latin and Cyrillic Serbo-Croatian entries must be something else, because there the difference is script, I would say.) Rbrunner7 (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Facebook and blog posts aren’t considered acceptable. Durably-archived publications such as books, articles in journals, magazines and similar are OK, as are Usenet posts.

A good source for durably-archived Hunsrik is Gaucho music. Bruno Neher has released quite a few songs in Hunsrik; those that have written lyrics use the German-based orthography. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I see. One last question: When you say Wiesemann’s orthography never caught on like it was expected, who did the "expecting"? Was this something like an expectation of the broader speakers' community, or only the hope of a small minority of interested parties, like linguists and language enthusiasts? Rbrunner7 (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

The latter. The Hunsrik-speaking community doesn’t care very much, because they see it as a variety of German. They are more interested in learning to write standard German and Portuguese than Hunsrik. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what you mean by "doesn't support". Sure, there are no language/script codes for orthographies, but none are needed. We have all kinds of different orthographies represented: US and "UK" English, Brazilian and European Portuguese, before and after any number of spelling reforms. There are no built-in structures, but we seem to do okay using the ones we've got. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

You are right, of course. I concentrated so hard on the Hunsrik situation that I completely overlooked analog (analogue!) cases that indeed are no problem for Wiktionary. Rbrunner7 (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is this accurate? The first-person singular imperative slots are indeed blank in abrir. If the forms are invalid, presumably the other line "First-person singular (eu) affirmative imperative of abrir" also needs to be removed and the other entries which include such forms need to be looked at. (Searching for "First-person singular (eu) negative imperative" and "First-person singular (eu) affirmative imperative" finds about 200 of each.) OTOH if the forms are valid, then presumably the conjugation table needs to be updated to include them. - -sche (discuss) 20:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's probably my fault. I'm sorry that I added first-person singular imperatives when I was creating Portuguese conjugation tables in 2008–2009. They really don't exist and should be removed. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes. This has been discussed on WT:APT. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK. I deleted a couple dozen; there are still 170-190 left: , . Perhaps they could be removed by bot. - -sche (discuss) 03:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

   Well, what should one do about broken link refs? Remove them while commenting only in the tea room? Just destroy the info that might lead someone adequately motivated to fix it, but not likely to search the edit history & discover that there was once alleged to be a source? Ignore it, and let people assume that it's adequately documented (as opposed to stealth vandalism)? Yes, that's sarcastic, but not solely sarcasm.
--Jerzy•t 16:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don’t know what’s the best way to deal with that, but using a non-existing template is not the way to go. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey, you asked about macrons at Wiktionary:Foreign_Word_of_the_Day/Nominations. Do they still show up for you, and if so, where? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

My bad, I meant to add that comment under the nomination for āxōlōtl. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hallo, Ungoliant, I'm not so able to copy all the definite articles you can find here in this template I wrote this morning. Can you please help me in improving it? Thank you, --Glo (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the delay, Gloria. I’ve made a small change: the template {{l-self}} makes it so the link becomes black when it links to itself. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Ungoliant, for your useful small change. I'll check the entire template running and completeness in the next days (you forgivable for your delay, only in case of honeymoon or... any universitary exams ;-p ), see you, --Glo (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just noticed that the stats haven't been updated in a while. I know that you're less active these days (leider!), but if you want I can help with regenerating the data, would need the scripts though. – Jberkel (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Jberkel I’ll send you the code! Can I send it to you using the Email this user feature? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV yes, you can, obrigado. – Jberkel (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Jberkel Check your mail! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed that you've already regenerated the stats, sorry but I didn't get to play with the code yet. Where is the actual data stored on Wiktionary? – Jberkel (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

WT:Statistics/generated. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 10:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Any reason you have your English proficiency at en-3 rather than en-4? I don't think I've ever seen you make an error in English, or even use unnatural wording. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Andrew Sheedy What a nice thing to say! Unfortunately, there’s still so much to improve before I consider myself at a near-native level:

• I struggle with the proper use of in, on and at, because they are all em in Portuguese. For a native speaker, the correct preposition comes naturally.
• I also struggle with the proper usage of present perfect vs. simple past, because Portuguese no longer makes this distinction. Often I use them interchangeably because there doesn’t seem to be an obvious semantic difference.
• Sometimes I mess up the word order, usually regarding the placement of adverbs.
• My pronunciation is rubbish. It has improved a lot this year but it’s still obviously foreign-sounding and slow.
• My wording is rarely unnatural because I consult the Internet when I’m not sure :-P
• I have difficulty in getting my point across. To be honest, I have the same problem in Portuguese, but not as much.
• Most importantly, I have to think when I use English. If I were truly fluent, the language-related aspects of anything I wanted to say would come to me naturally.

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, I never would have guessed! The fact that you're aware of what you need work on will no doubt make it easier to become fully proficient. I'm not always sure where I need work in French, which makes it hard to correct any mistakes I might be making.... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

You added this description a year ago, but it seems specific to one language and does not reflect other languages that might also have a "simple verb" type. Right now, a nonsensical description involving Arabic letters is being shown in the list at the top of Category:Old Irish verbs. Can you fix this please? —CodeCat 21:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I’ll get to it. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge, Jberkel, Angr, Andrew Sheedy can you guys bring me up to speed on the important changes in the last few months or so? Things like:

• any important change in regulations or practice?
• any important discussion I should read?
• any promising new Wiktionarian or major Wiktionarian who left?
• any RFD, RFV or RFC concerning something I made, or that I could help with?
• any new templates I should be aware of? Or important templates that have been deleted?

Thanks! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Hard to think of much that you won't be able to get from WT:N4E and the votes page, which I'm sure you've looked at. I'll try to keep pinging you when anything relevant comes up (but you may have some old pings to go through). And there was some drama, including CodeCat and Wyang getting into a destructive fight over transliteration/romanisation issues that led to Chuck Entz removing their admin bits (this has still not been resolved). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, some minor drama, but otherwise all quiet on the western front. One thing I've noticed that there are more and more pronunciations being replaced with automatically generated ones (for de and fr, it planned), not sure if we can do something similar for pt entries. Another highlight (at least for me) is that Wikidata finally got serious about the Wiktionary integration. There's a summary PDF floating around somewhere, see Wikidata:Wiktionary. – Jberkel (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

  I’ve been thinking about that for 5 years, and the conclusion that I always reach is that so many pronunciations would need to be parameterised that the effort wouldn’t be worth the confusion and trouble created by a template distinct from {{IPA}}, in particular for Brazilian Portuguese. Let’s consider this sentence from today’s ptWP front page:

“Periquito-de-rodrigues (nome científico: Psittacula exsul) é uma espécie extinta de periquito que era endêmica de Rodrigues, uma ilha no Oceano Índico a leste de Madagascar.”

• periquito: impossible to know from the spelling whether the raising of /e/ to /i/ is universal, unused or in free variation (free variation).
• rodrigues: whether the O is an /ɔ/ or an underlying /o/ (/o/); whether the raising of /o/ to /u/ is universal, unused or in free variation in BP (unused).
• nome: whether it has /ɔ/ or /o/ (both!).
• científico: whether the change of /si.ẽ/ into /sjẽ/ is universal, unused or in free variation (free variation).
• espécie: whether the raising of /es/ to /is/ is universal, unused or in free variation (free variation), and whether the change of /sji/ into /si/ is universal, unused or in free variation (free variation);
• extinta: whether the X is /s/ or /ks/ (/s/), which lead to the same problem as the nature of the es- in espécie (free variation, but /is/ is very uncommon).
• era: /e/ or /ɛ/? (/ɛ/).
• endêmica: whether the raising of /ẽ/ to /ĩ/ is universal, unused or in free variation (unused).
• Oceano: same problem as rodrigues (always /o/) and científico (free variation).
• a: /a/ or /ɐ/? (/a/, but a homograph exists which is in free variation (Brazil) or is always /ɐ/ (Portugal))
• leste: /e/ or /ɛ/? (/ɛ/ but a homograph exists with /e/).
• Madagascar: is the secondary stress on Ma or ga? (both).

I sure as hell don’t want a template that generates ambiguous results more than half of the time around, especially considering the human tendency to forget to use the parameters that would be needed. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok, that's a clear /nɐ̃w̃/ then :) I do remember reading about a research project to automatically construct pronunciation for various varieties of Portuguese, not sure how well that worked, will try to find a link. – Jberkel (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

• There's nothing I can think of that you haven't noticed or that hasn't been covered already. The above-mentioned drama is what sprang to mind first, but I have nothing more to add. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Oh, there are some FWOTD nominees in Portuguese that need cleanup/IPA when you get a chance. To wit, badameco, azáfama, and xamixunga all need attention, and you might want to check that I did xituculumucumba right (unless somebody nominates something better, that's my idea for Halloween). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

  I’m not familiar with Mozambican Portuguese but I have no reason to doubt it. Luckily, this word only contains morphophonemes that map to the same phonemes across all dialects I’m familiar with, judging from the spelling. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

  The <mb> is a prenasalised consonant rather than a nasalised vowel in the language from which it was drawn, but I assume this is how Portuguese would handle that regardless. If you know of any good resources on the phonology of Mozambican Portuguese (or hell, the lexicon) available online in English or Portuguese, I'd appreciate that. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV please explain why on earth you would undo my edit on provençal — AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 20:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

You added a completely made-up Portuguese pronunciation. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV Instead of just removing it couldn't you have corrected it? That could have been better. — AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 21:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Before my edit, the entry had an incorrect Portuguese pronunciation. After my edit, the entry no longer has an incorrect Portuguese pronunciation. Doesn’t that count as correcting the entry? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay, how do you pronounce provençal in Portuguese then, in IPA? — AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 22:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

In Brazilian it’s /ˌpɾo.vẽ.ˈsaw/, in European it’s either /pɾu.vẽ.ˈsaɫ/ or /pɾɔ.vẽ.ˈsaɫ/ (likely the former). Your transcription of /pɾoˈvɨn.sɐɫ/ was wrong on far too many levels for it to be worth a fix. Where did you get that anyway?

Sorry if I seemed brusque, but that transcription was completely unacceptable. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

From {{pt-IPA}} + typical penultimate stress rules AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 02:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The reason {{pt-IPA}} is not used anywhere is because it doesn't work correctly. @Ungoliant: Why would European Portuguese have /pɾɔ-/ in an unstressed syllable? I would think it's only /pɾu-/, but I'm not an expert. --WikiTiki89 14:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Some words have unstressed /ɔ/ and /ɛ/. Usually these words are compounds with words that had these phonemes in the stressed syllable, like você (from vossa mercê: /ˈvɔ.sɐ/); also some words that are very formal or have been loaned recently. I don’t think provençal is any of these cases, but I wouldn’t risk adding the European pronunciation without being sure. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

If he had simply corrected it, you probably wouldn't have noticed. Instead, you would have kept on doing more like it until he found the time to leave a message on your talk page. As for your methodology: Portuguese phonology isn't that simple, and there are all kinds of historically-based exceptions. If you don't speak a language, you should not be using any kind of source that requires figuring things out- it's too easy to be completely wrong and have no clue. Remember, this is a reference work, so people are counting on us to be accurate. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

If {{pt-IPA}} is encouraging people to add incorrect pronunciations, perhaps we should consider removing it from the main namespace or add some mean-looking warnings. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Can you delete this please? I need to move another page in its place. —CodeCat 20:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Done. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I haven't been creating these cats as necessary, but now I'm not sure if there's a good way to go about finding all the redlink categories. Also, it might be nice to have a template {{fwotd cat}} for them, but that would require a module. (BTW, this isn't something you in particular should feel obliged to do, but anyone else who might want to help is certainly watching this page.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I automatically create them as they appear in the wanted categories list. DTLHS (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, DTLHS. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I had forgotten about that extremely helpful service of yours. Thank you as always. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

See diff and diff Chuck Entz (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't think anything needs to be done. The definitions already inform readers that more than one verb lexeme has foste as a conjugated form, which is why the extra parameter was removed from {{verb-form}} in the first place. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 11:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm just wondering if there are any more double templates out there. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see. I'll run a dump analysis program when I have the time, but I don't think there are many such cases. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I wish to you and all users of Wiktionary Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Leonard Joseph Raymond (talk) 08:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks man. Merry Christmas to you too. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just noticed Categoria:Entrada com dupla prosódia on the pt.wikt. Do you think it would be useful to add this category here as well? – Jberkel (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Jberkel, absolutely. There are also other pronunciation variations that may be worth categorising, such as diphthong~hiatus (traição), /o/~/ɔ/ (poça), /e/~/ɛ/ (besta). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 11:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'll take care of the import. What should the category be called? "pt:Entries with double prosody" does not sound quite right. – Jberkel (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese entries with varying stress? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 11:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

tá bem, sounds good. – Jberkel (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Jberkel I'm an idiot! It should be Portuguese terms with varying stress. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I'll rename the category when I'm done. – Jberkel (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK, there is now Category:Portuguese terms with varying stress. I imported the words from pt.wikt and from a few sources I found around the net, please double check. – Jberkel (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ungoliant, do you know of examples of Portuguese pronunciation rules which are unpredictable? Like I know of stressed vowels such as 'e' and 'o' which can have slightly different pronunciations – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 05:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Awesomemeeos. This is what I could think of right now:

• ⟨e⟩ in stressed syllables: /e/ vs. /ɛ/;
• ⟨o⟩ in stressed syllables: /o/ vs. /ɔ/;
• ⟨x⟩: /ʃ/ vs. /ks/ vs. /s/ vs. /z/;
• ⟨e⟩ in unstressed syllables: /e~i~ɨ/ vs. /ɛ/;
• ⟨o⟩ in unstressed syllables: /o~u/ vs. /ɔ/;
• ⟨o⟩ next to a vowel in unstressed syllables: /o/ vs. /u/ vs. /w/;
• ⟨e⟩ next to a vowel in unstressed syllables: /e/ vs. /i/ vs. /j/;
• ⟨Vi⟩ and ⟨Vu⟩ (where V is a vowel): diphthong vs. hiatus;
• ⟨a⟩ in unstressed syllables before a nasal consonant: /ɐ/ vs. free variation between /a/ and /ɐ/;
• ⟨ai⟩ in stressed syllables before a nasal consonant: /ɐj/ vs. free variation between /aj/ and /ɐj/;
• ⟨gui⟩, ⟨gue⟩: /gV/ replace g with ɡ, invalid IPA characters (gV) vs. /gwV/ replace g with ɡ, invalid IPA characters (gV);
• ⟨qui⟩, ⟨que⟩: /kV/ invalid IPA characters (V) vs. /kwV/ invalid IPA characters (V);
• ⟨CiV⟩ (where C is a consonant): hiatus vs. diphthong;
• in words without diacritics and ending in ⟨u⟩ or ⟨i⟩: the stressed syllable;
• in polymorphemic words: the secondary stresses.

Unpredictabilities affecting Brazilian Portuguese:

• ⟨e⟩ in a syllable that is followed by a syllable with a high vowel: /e/ vs. /i/ vs. free variation;
• ⟨o⟩ in a syllable that is followed by a syllable with a high vowel: /o/ vs. /u/ vs. free variation;
• word-final ⟨r⟩: /ʁ/ vs. ∅ obsolete or nonstandard characters (∅), invalid IPA characters (∅) (this is predictable from the part of speech, but not from the spelling).

Corner cases:

• in loanwords and proper nouns: stressed syllable;
• ⟨h⟩ in loanwords and proper nouns: /h~ʁ/ vs. ∅ obsolete or nonstandard characters (∅), invalid IPA characters (∅);
• ⟨j⟩ in loanwords from Spanish: /h~ʁ/ vs. /ʒ/;
• ⟨ch⟩ in loanwords from Spanish: /t͡ʃ/ vs. /ʃ/;
• ⟨w⟩ in loanwords and proper nouns: /w/ vs. /v/;

See #Recent changes above for examples. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 11:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Esta entrada te satisfaz? — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 10:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Romanophile Sim senhor. O étimo é o latim callis (não lembro como ponho no eswikt). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 11:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please, help, Ungoliant: I don't know how to insert the right links and egl-categories to this word in Spilambertese language spoken in Spilamberto near Modena... If you kindly can provide in the same manner you made for Carpigiano, Modenese, Mantovano, ecc. languages, I should be really grateful :-) --Glo (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Gloria sah:  Done! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 10:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is this an actual Portuguese verb? The forms were created by bot already. DTLHS (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's a typo of subsidiar. I wonder how the bot got this info. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 10:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Good ole Wonderfool, of course.... — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please see these pages where the two separated components of the words remain in colour red... Thank you, --Glo (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

That’s how it’s supposed to work; it helps users find the definitions of the words that form a compound. If you want to suppress the red links, you can use, for example, {{egl-noun|f|béssi scudlèri|head=béssa scudlèra}}. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why have you undid my revision for consider? I researched on Google and it didn't say that it is a ditransitive verb and it didn't say that anywhere. Secondly, I did not mean (stop now) in a rude way and I did use vandalism in yesterday's edit but I do not do it today. I don't want to go into an edit war so I will stop reverting your changes. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

They were not my changes, but they were correct. Ditransitive verbs are a subtype of transitive verbs. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

My second question is: Why did you say (You stop now!) in the edit summary when I didn't say anything bad? I didn't even put the exclamation mark because I don't want to offend anyone. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I meant that you should stop reverting the editor’s edits. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

You have reverted my edit when the IP changed the word betray to screw you over. Why have you reverted my edit? Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

The IP’s edit was an improvement on the translation. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 11:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

The message ‘matou foi pouco’ means ‘he did not kill enough’ or ‘he killed too few.’ Does foi mean demasiado? — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 16:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

That is a good question. It’s definitely not an adverb like demasiado. At first glance, I think the most accurate description is that it corresponds to our definition #14 of ser: “(impersonal, transitive) used for emphasis”, especially considering that the same message without foi is semantically the same. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you don't use {{subpages}} on your user page. Is that because you like to group things in ways that subpage names couldn't achieve or some other reason? DCDuring TALK 22:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

For the topical grouping and alternative labels, and also to suppress links to irrelevant pages like User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV/sandbox. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'm too lazy to do it that way. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Agora Liuscomaes opera anonimamente? — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 00:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Acho que não, mas foi ele quem colocou essa pronúncia dissilábica primeiro: . — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just had a vandal go after tomorrow's FWOTD again. It's an attractive target for those that are smart enough to find it. Do you have a workable solution? We could always just bot-protect all the to-be-created FWOTDs through an admin's account, but is that the best solution? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I’ll try to work something out, Meta. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge, I have devised a way to protect FWOTD pages en masse. All of them up to August 11 are protected now. Do you think the protection level I’m giving them is enough?

If there’s nothing wrong, I think I can do it to all future FWOTD pages. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

What'd you devise? In any case, it looks good; autoconfirmed is definitely the appropriate protection level. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

A Javascript script. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

All 2017 FWOTD pages are protected now. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Invent a word, trick journalists and authors into using it until it is citable. Then the etymology section will say “coined by Wiktionary user Insert your name here”.
• Add valid citations from fucked-up sources, like the ISIS magazine and neo-nazi music.
• Find the Gayo word for abstract painting, so that it can be added to Category:gay:Art, link to this category from popular websites to increase the popularity of Wiktionary.
• Find some Anal words relating to sex, so that we can have a category dedicated to Anal sex, link to this category from popular websites to increase the popularity of Wiktionary.

I like this one. Please help me make Wikisaurus:anus and Wikisaurus:anal sex the most thorough list on the internet --Barytonesis (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Find a vandal’s identity, call their mum and ask her to discipline her kid, add video of the phone call to Youtube and make it viral, increasing the popularity of Wiktionary.
• Coin a word, teach three parrots to use it, publish books and articles quoting them. This way we can have a category alongside Category:Newfoundland English and Category:Norfolk English called Category:Non-human English.
• Write a song about Wiktionary. But not some safe crap like pop or soft rock. It’s gotta be depressive suicidal black metal, brutal death metal, extratone or something like that.
• Forge a runestone with written Proto-Germanic, bribe archaeologists into asserting it’s genuine. Trick another user into moving lots of PG entries into the main namespace. Publish a picture of us faking the runestone, laugh as the user has to move all of the entries back.
• Find an ambulance chaser who is willing to send legalese letters threatening to sue vandals. Tell the vandals that we will drop the charges if they hold signs promoting Wiktionary in public.

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Qual é o propósito disso? Estou muito confuso... — AWESOME meeos ！ * () 22:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Veja a data atual, mano. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

As a major vandal, I called your mum and asked her to discipline me on YouTube but she said she wasn't into that. Equinox ◑ 22:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

She’s not into gothic stuff. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your reversion says "there was nothing wrong with the examples". I beg to differ, although, if you don't/can't recognize the systemic bias (not to mention cliched tropes) implicit in (uncited) examples that invent three cases of females being judged on their appearance, while a male is hired for being "so good", and a total absence examples of males being judged on their looks, I wonder if it's even possible for us to agree on this.

Re. your change of "statement of opinion" re "she's pretty" back to "statement of fact" - how exactly is someone's personal assessment of someone else's looks a statement of a fact? It's clearly a subjective opinion. --TyrS (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

They are usage examples. They are supposed to show examples of words in use, not to fix or rail about the woes of society.

If you want to add new usage examples where women are hired for their goodness and men are judged on their looks, knock yourself out (as long as the examples are not unnecessarily offensive, POV-pushy or trying to promote sensitive topics). Another Wiktionary has spent a few minutes of their life in making the effort of coming up with a phrase for the benefit of language learners around the world; it is extremely disrespectful for you to come along “fix” these examples, especially with a dishonest edit summary like “minor wording tweaks in examples”. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oh dear, so I'm either "railing" or I'm "dishonest". Yet your desire to defend obvious POV in usage examples by reinstating unnecessarily offensive, male-privilege-informed (not to mention repetitive and very unimaginative) usage examples isn't disrespectful or agenda-driven? Deary deary me. Of course tweaking usage examples is a minor wording tweak. What would you call it, a major definition overhaul? Of course I don't know whether you personally came up with the previous usage examples, but I assume you know that taking edits to things like that personally is a bad idea. --TyrS (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Before you accuse usage examples of being agenda-driven, take a good look at what you are doing. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if you're the person I should be asking, but would it be possible to add a column on the Statistics page for the number of lemma entries? Currently we have gloss definitions, and total entries, but not the number of entries with gloss definitions, which I would find useful. The French Wiktionary has a column for the number of lemmas, so I assume it must be doable. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

It’s certainly doable. I’ll try to work something out, Andrew. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Awesome, I appreciate it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Andrew Sheedy: Here it is. Let me know if there’s any datum that seems odd or wrong (except the change columns). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Exactly what I wanted, thanks! If I'm not mistaken, most dictionaries count their entries in terms of headwords, so I wanted to be able to compare our coverage with them, as well as get a better idea of how we compare with various bilingual dictionaries. How exactly did you count the gloss entries? Are separate etymologies counted as distinct entries, or is it strictly based on how many contain gloss definitions? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Andrew Sheedy An entire entry counts as 1 if it has at least one lemma definition, 0 otherwise. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK, good to know. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to make sure you plan to include this in your next dump (and all future ones), in case it wasn't clear that that's what I was hoping for. Cheers! :) Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I do. I didn’t update the current statistics because we need a span of two dumps for the change columns to work. I think I’ll be able to update the page tomorrow, or Saturday by the latest. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Follow-up: it will take longer than I expected for the next dump to come. Maybe Wikimedia should take some laxatives. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Haha, no worries. I'm in no particular rush to get them, I just want to have the extra data for the long-term, so it's no big deal if I have to wait a few extra days. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Andrew Sheedy, it’s live. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

...because there is a bad accent over the caracter "a". In fact the right words are "tuaiōl" and "tvaiōl"... Thank you, --Glo (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

They’re gone! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

You may want to look at the edit history re the Portuguese translation. If a SOP expression is (as the user suggests) a more common way of saying something than the cognate/borrowed single word, it would probably make the most sense to add it with the individual parts linked, with the single word after it tagged as rare. But I wonder if the Portuguese word for this is no more rare than the English word, and only discussion of this precise historical concept is rare. - -sche (discuss) 21:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ha, Pacitu’s “correct” translation is a mixture of Spanish and Portuguese, and uncitable even de-hipanicised.

I couldn’t find any other term or phrase for this concept (other than the alternative form which I’ve just added). The terms Arnauta/Arnauto are rare and historical, but they exist. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Could you please figure out what the correct Portuguese here should be? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Meta, I really can’t find anything other than this quote from The Story of Swahili (which I presume is where you got it from in the first place): “from boleo, “droppings,” though not in modern Portuguese”

I tried various spellings and similar sounding words, but there seems to be nothing semantically related to manure. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

That book infuriates me with the shit it makes up. Almost as bad as Swahili Wikipedia. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is a vandalism-only account that vandalized fidget spinner, and because two accounts edited the same page at around the same time with the same kind of trash usernames, this suggests that these two are the same person. I only suggest you should block this one like you blocked his/her sockpuppet, User:Joe dsjafihdsajkhfd, since they're both vandalism-only and probably the same person. PseudoSkull (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have just realised that I did block him... for one hour rather than my usual one day. Although that short blocking time was an accident on my part, I don’t want to block the person again for the same edit. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, could you please also fix Template:es-adj, Module:la-headword (used in Template:la-adj-1&2), Module:it-head (used in Template:it-adj) like you fixed Module:pt-headword? There might be some more templates which recently got broken. -80.133.113.86 14:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I’m sorry anon; I don’t think I’ll have the time, nor will, to deal with the drama that this will inevitably create. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)Reply