User talk:Vergencescattered

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Ultimateria (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, You've been creating a lot of entries for Spanish verb forms, which is not particularly helpful for the project. If you have time and expertise to contribute it might be better spent elsewhere instead of manually doing something that would be automated if the community thought it was valuable. Furthermore, the pages you're creating all contain "====Verb====" instead of "===Verb===" and include "===Pronunciation===" even though we don't usually included that on the forms because {{es-pr}} isn't always perfect and the generated output should be manually verified. JeffDoozan (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Why is creating verb forms not helpful to the project? They're already redlinked, so clearly they are supposed to be created. Regardless, I apologize for adding in the extra equal signs, I'll go through them and fix that and remove the pronunciation templates. Vergencescattered (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

PLEASE do not add words without their declension and pronunciation, you are ruining the project Stríðsdrengur (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not "ruining" anything. Regardless, I'm happy to add the pronunciations, but I'm working off of a dictionary that does not list the declension of nouns. Vergencescattered (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dude, it's not that difficult to learn how nouns decline, Wikipedia is open to teaching you Stríðsdrengur (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Stríðsdrengur Vergencescattered is not in any way "ruining the project" by not including inflection or pronunciation information - doing so would of course have been nice, but is not some kind of prerequisite for entry creation. I had a look at a couple of their recent Old English entries and they honestly look fine for the most part, certainly considering they're a new contributor; slightly barebones, but with few real errors.

@Vergence - some things to note if you're working from a dictionary: 1) keep WT:COPY in mind and 2) keep WT:ATTEST in mind. Sometimes dictionaries contain ghost words and other words which would not meet Wiktionary's WT:Criteria for inclusion. Some further minor points of improvement: you included a ===Descendents=== header on some entries, but this should be ====Descendants==== (nested one level below the part of speech it belongs to): see diff. Also, for alternative forms we tend to use the {{alter}} template, for synonyms we use {{syn}} (or a list of synonyms using {{l}}); "plain" links using just ] are OK, but generally it is better to use specialized templates. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mnemosientje Thank you for those links, I've taken a look at them and they're very helpful. And thanks for letting me know about the proper formatting with {{syn}}, {{alter}}, etc. I'll definitely make sure to do use them properly in the future.

@Stríðsdrengur I know the patterns of declension for Old English nouns. However, as I said my source does not state what declension nouns fall under, nor does it state if a noun has an irregular declension. I'd rather not add declined forms that I can't be sure existed. Vergencescattered (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

In case you haven't noticed, I've removed the translation tables from all of your non-English entries. These were wrong for two reasons:

1. First of all, we don't allow translation tables anywhere except in English and some Translingual entries. This is mainly to avoid duplication and make it easier to find translations. Duplication on a wiki is always a bad idea, because changes to one instance of the material are usually not made in the other ones. You then end up with all of them missing things, and error corrections missing from one or the other. No one who improves one entry should be expected to hunt down all the other places that need the same thing. If a concept doesn't exist in English, consider creating a Translation hub, providing it will meet the requirements.
2. Second, you obviously copied all the translations from English Judas tree to the translation table at Spanish ciclamor without saying where you got them from. That's a violation of the Creative Commons license that's at the foundation of every Wikimedia wiki, including Wiktionary. Basically you stole the credit for everything that was contributed to the translations at Judas tree. If you ever have a legitimate need to copy something from one page to another, always say where you got it from in your edit summary. That way it's possible to find out who contributed it by looking at the revision history of the original page. It may seem minor, but without the Creative Commons licenses, Wiktionary wouldn't exist. If you do it again, it could get you blocked. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Got it Vergencescattered (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, when using {{grc-IPA}}, please remember to mark α ι υ as long or short (unless they're part of a diphthong). Thanks! —Mahāgaja · talk 17:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Will do, sorry about that! I was under the impression that any time those letters are not marked as long they are short, is that not correct? Vergencescattered (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Where quantities are known, they are always marked explicitly with ¯ or ˘. 0DF (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just wanted to point out some things about Template:ang-IPA that may not be obvious at first glance. For compound words like hornfisc, hearpestreng you will generally want to use "-" to combine the two parts: this results in the second half of the compound being transcribed with secondary stress, which is usually correct. Using "+" makes the word be transcribed as if it is not a compound--there are only limited cases where you'll ever want to use "+". Prefixed words such as gedelf usually don't need any special formatting; the prefix is automatically marked as unstressed (correct since ġe- was always unstressed). Urszag (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see, thank you! The pages I had looked at when figuring out how the use the template used the +, so I mistakenly assumed it was supposed to be used in all cases. I won't make that mistake in the future! Vergencescattered (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for generating plurals. There's a list of some missing plurals at User:TheDaveRoss/en-noun, if you fancy helping out. Some need to be checked for countability. Denazz (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy to help with that, thanks for giving me the list! Vergencescattered (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

You can make the process faster by checking the box "Add accelerated creation links for common inflections of some words." in your preferences Fond of sanddunes (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh that's awesome, thank you! Vergencescattered (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Vengeance Scattered. Please take note of Category:Ancient Greek terms with incomplete pronunciation. The entry accelerator doesn't derive its value for the {{grc-IPA}} in non-lemmata from the value specified for the {{grc-IPA}} in the lemma (here |1=ἱ˘ππῑᾱτρός). 0DF (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I changed them, but I'm confused as to how it makes a difference. The IPA that is given by the template was the same before and after I made the change Vergencescattered (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see what you did there. Unfortunately, the second iota in each of those {{grc-IPA}} values is still ambiguous. I defined it long for the lemma, but that was inferred from its etymon; I haven't yet worked it out directly from scansion or what-have-you. 0DF (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Cheers, I am not out to nit-pick on trifleries, for there is much more important work to do in the encyclopedia, but your justification on why you reverted my edit inspite of recognition of its rectitude I find very wondersome to say it mildly. What does it even mean to say it is equivalent if the mechanism did not exist and even worse yet does still not exist. When we do "comparisons of equivalence" in etymology like retrograde analysis of what an inherited work might be deconstructed to by contemperary grammar etc. the assumption is that the mechanism is there. So even though for example "displease" was inherited from Norman French directly in whole, one could also equate it to a prepositional derivation of "dis + please" since English has both the seperate base word please and got the prefix dis productive in its own right. But here the mechanism of prefixation of the negative "dis" is a true mechanism! However in the case of yslende, neither did the mechanism exist at the time, nor is ysle in use, nor is ende the modern participle ende nor do we derive participles in English from nouns (although formally the distinction is not possible because of our form poverty). So what does your revert avail the reader? Really I cannot make any sense out of your statement and humbly ask you explain it, before I rerevert it. Best regards. Marcotulus ὁ Σεβαστός (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Marcotulus ὁ Σεβαστός It is equivalent because those are the two elements that make up the word. Just as saying "displease is equivalent to dis+please" technically is not the actual etymological history of the word, saying that yslende is equivalent to the two elements present within the word does not imply that the words was created that way. It's equivalent in the sense that those are the two elements of the word. If you have an actual etymology to replace it with, then feel free to do so, but otherwise I would ask you not to delete perfectly valid information. Vergencescattered (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

With all due respect, it appears that you chose to neglect the crucial point in my rebuttal that yes though dis + please is not the actual etymology it would have valid underlying derivational mechanism as opposed to your nonsense, its not a mere anachronism. Such non-etymologies are completely unscientific. Never in years of study have I come across the like. I did already indicate that a verbum supponendum in Proto-Germanic: *usilan > OE: *yslen and the participle *-andz > *-andī > *-ende are the components of yslende. I will give you a pass and not refer the matter to the higher administrators if you bring me a single academic work that presents etymologies such as yours. Do not mistake me, I am not out to wage war but very irritated nonetheless because these kinds of laxities have made Wiktionary a laughing stock among etimologists. My kindest regards. Marcotulus ὁ Σεβαστός (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bro you're taking this far too seriously. If you want to talk to an administrator, that's fine. Again, the entire point of the world "equivalent" is that it is saying that it is not the actual etymology of the word. And as far as I know, that's how Wiktionary does things. If you can point me to a part of wiktionary's policies that say otherwise, please do so, but this isn't about what other sources do. Vergencescattered (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ὦ Marcotule Σεβαστέ: Does this satisfy you? 0DF (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Vergencescattered,

Just wanted to drop by and say that you're doing a great job with the Old English entries.

Keep it up. :) Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I appreciate it! Vergencescattered (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just a thought: it might be useful to include a few words on the use or purpose of these compounds, e.g. "used in food science as a thickener" or "used in inorganic synthesis". Up to you. Otherwise the entry doesn't really say much beyond systematics. Equinox ◑ 19:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

That makes sense, thank you Equinox! Vergencescattered (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I have noticed that you are doing quite a bit for the Old English entries. A good number of us like to talk together about our common efforts to improve the OE side of Wiktionary, and we use the Old English Discord as our forum. I would like to formally invite you to join us (and I highly encourage you to do so), just so we can have as many OE editors in the same place as possible. I can't send you the link here, but if you search "Old English Discord" it's the first thing to come up. I hope to see you there! Byrhtnoð (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know! I've joined the server. Vergencescattered (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

To elaborate on my undo message: the main problem with -fold and -some isn't that they're unattested, but that they're completely SOP: any integer greater than one forms compounds by simply adding the suffix to the ordinal form- there's no useful information to convey in a number box. The fact that they're pretty rare and becoming dated just makes it worse.

It's quite different with the cardinal and ordinal numbers: there's simply no way to predict "thirteen" and "fifteen" rather than "*threeteen" and "*fiveteen" if you don't know it already. Besides which, the lower ordinals and cardinals are even more unpredictable: "one/first", "two/second" "three/third", not to mention "eleven" instead of "*oneteen" and "twelve" instead of "*twoteen". Including the predictable ones is a good idea just to be consistent.

Your edit removed all coverage for numbers between 12 and 20, not just the pointless stuff. You need to think these things through if you're going to be editing modules that don't give immediate feedback when you make mistakes.

While I'm at it, please be more careful with language codes: I've been cleaning up templates with codes for languages like Old English in pages with no entries for them. It's okay to copy templates to use in new entries, but you should always make sure to check the codes before publishing. We all forget a detail or two from time to time, but this has been too much of a pattern lately.

Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I see what I did wrong there, thank you for fixing it.

Is there a page where I can see mismatched template codes to fix them myself? Apologies for messing those up; in most cases it's not that I'm copying templates, just that I'm so used to editing Old English entries that my brain defaults to that. Vergencescattered (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

N.b. Wiktionary:Todo/Lists/Derivation category does not match entry language. 0DF (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I appreciate it! Vergencescattered (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're most welcome! 0DF (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Though in this case, it was Wiktionary:Todo/Lists/Template language code does not match header / Wiktionary:Todo/Lists/Template language code does not match header (sorted by language). I also created a Todo page of my own summarizing the things I work with to find bad language codes: Wiktionary:Todo/Language code errors. I created it a month and a half ago, but it's still a bit sketchy. Sorry not to follow up on this. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: Apologies; I didn't realise there were multiple lists. 0DF (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please edit slower and don't edit stuff you're not familiar with. I don't know why you changed a bunch of cities from "State of Mexico" to "Mexico State" but this isn't correct. Per Wikipedia, this particular state is normally known as "State of Mexico". In one case there was a mistake that listed a place in s/Oaxaca|s/Mexico, which you managed to change to s/Oaxaca|s/Mexico State, which is totally wrong; Oaxaca is a different state from the State of Mexico. Benwing2 (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The page we have is entitled Mexico State. Why should we link to a redlink instead of the page we actually have? Vergencescattered (talk) 06:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because the categorization works on "State of Mexico" not "Mexico State". By changing this you inadvertently removed all of these terms from their respective categories. I will rename the page appropriately. Benwing2 (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see, thank you Vergencescattered (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Vergencescattered, I just noticed how actively you are working on our coverage of Navajo and the associated templates. I am in the middle of converting the Navajo verb table templates to a new, more compact style that is more in keeping with declension and conjugation tables seen for other languages across Wiktionary, and also looks better in Wiktionary's new dark mode - I thought I should let you know so you don't get a shock.

I hope you find these changes beneficial - I'm happy to discuss any improvements that may be able to be made.

A couple of observations:

• Normally a verb conjugation like at nitsékees would be in a collapsible box. Since Navajo does not do this, I had to create a special template in order to ensure that multiple verb tables placed manually alongside each other adopt the same width. This is {{nv-conj-block}}.
• I added code to convert the heading in the top-left corner of each table (IMPERFECTIVE, etc) into lowercase. However, browsing the Navajo entries, I can see that this capitalised form is used consistently in other places. I am wondering why this is capitalised - is it a standard sort of thing in Navajo linguistic literature, or a Wiktionary-specific practice? If the latter, I would suggest it is out of step with Wiktionary convention. If the former, I can easily undo the lowercasing of the table headings.

Thanks, This, that and the other (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for reaching out! I like the look of nv-conj-block, and I appreciate you creating it.

The one thing I would note--and you might already be aware of this--is that Template:nv-conj-auto seems to be producing different formatting for the different modes. On yidiłbaał, for example, the lines for the imperfective conjugation don't match up with the lines in the perfective and future template. Also, the width of the automatic conjugation is much wider than the iterative template on nitsékees. Personally I prefer the wider one, but I'm fine with either. They should match, though.

As for the capitalization, that practice predates me. The main Navajo source I use, Young and Morgan 1987 does capitalize the names of the modes in conjugation tables, but I'm not certain how widespread this is in Navajo linguistics generally, and I'm not sure what the previous editors based the formatting on. Vergencescattered (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Vergencescattered I think I made too many edits to the templates in quick succession and MediaWiki got confused. Null-editing the affected entries seems to reoslve the issue. I've done a dummy edit to {{nv-conj-auto}} too in the hope that does some good.

Thanks for your feedback - once I've finished converting them all, I'll leave the templates in your hands to do as you require. This, that and the other (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Excellent, thank you! I appreciate it. Vergencescattered (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

...but how is Kahayagan East not derived from Kahayagan? Father of minus 2 (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Because it's a completely different place that happens to share part of the same name? It would be like saying the name of the state of Georgia was derived from the name of the country Vergencescattered (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. I don't know Filipino languages Father of minus 2 (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I changed the number one from tʼááłáʼí to łáaʼii, which per Wikipedia is the normal word for one, whereas tʼááłáʼí is used for "one" occurring in compounds (51, 61, etc.). There's now an error at tʼááłáʼí because it's no longer in the module. Can you fix up the definition and either remove the call to {{number box}} or update the module appropriately? If you include both tʼááłáʼí and łáaʼii as words meaning "one", make sure to add qualifiers using <q:...> in the definitions to explain the difference. Benwing2 (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Did you take care of this? I'm not seeing error messages on the module or any of the pages? Vergencescattered (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I commented out the use of {{number box}} on tʼááłáʼí but the module still needs correcting as I described. Benwing2 (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay, the module should be updated accordingly. Thank you! Vergencescattered (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

thank you for cleaning up this huge mess, but i wanted to say that it might get reverted because i brought this up before here and decided to let it be after reading the discussion. however, if someone does revert it, there are other suggestions in that thread for how we might handle entries like this. best wishes, —Soap— 20:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know! Vergencescattered (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the etymology, what is the relation between Proto-Germanic *trūjaną and *trūwāną ? Leasnam (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm assuming you're talking about the etymology on the truwian page? If so, I don't know. It was there before I first edited the page and I can't confirm it Vergencescattered (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

The standard is "no separate entries", not "do not use at all". The majority of "Alternative forms" and inflections should not have separate entries created. Griffon77 (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC) How about putting the insular script forms as alt|ang|Wulfgar|alt1=ƿulꝼᵹaꞃ etc. so no-one is prompted to create a separate entry. This should be the practice for the runic forms as well.Reply

The alternative forms section is for linking other wiktionary entries. If we aren’t going to create a page for them, then they shouldn’t be listed in alternative forms. All the alternative form listings with Wynn were removed by bot some time ago for this reason. Also, we simply don’t need to list insular script spellings. It’s still a version of the Latin alphabet, fundamentally no different from a different font. Vergencescattered (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, it is not. it is for listing "Alternative forms". the majority should NEVER be created as separate entries unless it is NECESSARY for common search queries. The same goes for separate entries for various inflections of a word. They CAN be created, but normally they shouldn't. For the most part they are reconstructions, not accounting for all variables and not always attested, which may need to be corrected in future. We can't be moving multiple pages to new spellings every time someone had the wrong inflection table.

Griffon, Please see Wiktionary:Forms and spellings: "...is the level-3 header we use to links such terms to each other." This section is explicitly for linking. If it's not a page that should be created, it should not be listed in Alternative forms. Also, it is common Wiktionary practice to create pages inflected forms, eg expectorating or rerumpublicarum. Vergencescattered (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

If, they are well attested. reconstructed inflections generated by the inflection templates are not attestations. they are often incomplete or misleading. the OE ones list both Saxon and Anglian variants in the template without differentiating them when these forms will often have different spellings of the lemma, not just the inflectional stem. many words in practice have mixed declensions, - e.g. nom. acc. from one stem and the other oblique cases from another stem Griffon77 (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

They don't need to be well-attested, they just need to be singly attested, per Wiktionary policy (at least for extinct languages). But frankly I'm not really sure what this has to do with the original point. Vergencescattered (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Just wanted to bring your attention to the stress in entries for verb forms such as tosyndraþ, tosyndra which you created recently. If I understand correctly, these shouldn't be stressed on the first syllable, but on the second syllable, right? Unfortunately, I think you'll need to manually mark pronunciation for entries like this rather than just going with what the accelerated creation process produces. Or if you can figure out a predictable way to get the stress right, propose a change to Module:ang-pron. In any case, if pronunciations like these are erroneously stressed, it seems good to establish a clear workflow for avoiding that problem before making more entries for inflected forms like this. Urszag (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for bringing that up! You're absolutely right that they should be unstressed. I didn't realize the accelerated forms were formed incorrectly, so I will make sure to correct forms with the prefix in the future. Vergencescattered (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I asked a question in the Grease Pit to see if there's a way to automatically generate correct forms in the future, and for help with cleaning up the existing entries.--Urszag (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think adding pos=verb to the pronunciation template is the best way to make these verb forms get stressed in the right position, and I edited Module:accel/ang so that this parameter is now automatically added when creating verb forms using the accelerated entry process. But I can't 100% guarantee that it will always generate the correct pronunciations automatically, so maybe slow down in the near future, and please be extra careful to look out for any other errors so that they can be fixed ahead of time if possible. If errors continue to occur, I'm thinking it might be best to just edit the acceleration module to not have pronunciations on non-lemma forms. Also, I'd recommend not using accent marks in the pronunciation template to indicate stress position (like in "tō̂bréc") because it seems this can get the position of the syllable break wrong: the entry for tōbrec was displaying the pronunciation as "/toːbˈrek/".--Urszag (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd fully support not including pronunciation on accelerated forms tbh. Either way I'll make sure to be careful in the future. I thought I had fixed all of the b'r errors but it looks like I missed one, thanks for taking care of it. Vergencescattered (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Forgive me for barging in, but I hope you will persevere with ensuring the acceleration module produces correct pronunciations, rather than doing away with pronunciations for non-lemmata altogether. That seems like too valuable a baby to throw out with some currently over-murky bathwater. 0DF (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, that is helpful feedback. I'm going to try to review the acceleration module and see if any more fixes can be made that will help lighten the load on editors to correct its output, but in the end it's difficult to ensure it's accurate all the time, considering the complications that arise in the case of e.g. compound words.--Urszag (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would like to recommend against using Stephens as a final source in the creation of entries on runic spellings, or goving citations to his Handbook of Old-northern Runic Monuments of Scandinavia and England. Although he is generally praised for the extensiveness of the corpus he provided, many of his readings are now poorly received, such as those of the Bewcastle Cross and the Ash/Gilton pommel (the reading offered on this site is also dubious). See my recent rfd for ᚩᚾᛋᚹᛁᚾᛁ for more. Unfortunately this means that some readings are perhaps too controversial that they should have entries made for them, such as the ᛁᚴ of the aforementioned pommel, but others do have more up to date interpretations, such as ᛣᚣᚾᛁᛒᚢᚱᚢᚸ for ᛣᚣᚾᚾᛒᚢᚱᚢᚸ.

I would personally recommend that, even if you still use Stephens to find inscriptions, you consult other sources, such as Page, R. I. (1999), An Introduction to English Runes, →ISBN, or perhaps Elliott, R.W.V. (1963), Runes: An Introduction and Derolez, R. (1954), Runica manuscripta, The English Tradition, whom are often cited by the Dictionary of Old English (although I confess that I have not yet read the latter two myself). And that if you cannot find a more recent treatment for an item in his works, that it might generally be better to not make use of it. Yeldred Gengo (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Good to know, thank you! I will investigate the sources you suggested for any future edits concerning runic spellings. Vergencescattered (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I have noticed you have done some Asia geography terms in the past months, keep it up! Looks great!! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

for this entry aren't you giving a definition and etymology for the alternate reading, geferliflice, not the entry geferliþlice? Geferliþlice following Bosworth Toller should be "(together) sociably, amicably, harmoniously, in harmony" from gefer "society" + liþlice "gently, mildly" etc.. The example given "Heom bám wæs forgifen; ꝥ hí moston on ánre eardungstówe geférlíðlíce lifian" reads better as "the home was given, that they must in one dwelling place harmoniously live", than it does with geferliflice "in one place live lively". If the word here should be geferliflice, it would seem to be better understood as "in social life/living, together sociably", such that there is only a subtle difference between geferliþlice and geferliflice. Griffon77 (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

You are quite right, BT gives the definition sociably, and I've changed geferliþlice. Thank you for pointing that out! Vergencescattered (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm assuming the both sources clearly read -liðlice and the editor is hedging whether that is a syncopated variant of liðelice or a transcription error for -liflice (misinterpreting /f/ as a th-fronted þ). Griffon77 (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The original manuscript actually has, quite plainly, liflice & g'ferliflice, as can be seen here: https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/catalog/ks785nk0024 on f137r. The reading of geferliðlice for both was made by Hecht in his 1900 Biwchofs Wærferth von Worcester Übersetzung der Dialoge Gregors des Grossen. The Dictionary of Old English chooses to keep it under geferliflice. Personally I don't see why it would need to be amended on semantic grounds, nor any reason to assume that the original would put f for þ/ð and leave out medial e twice in quick succession, especially the latter given this is a LWS text. In any case, these two are the only instances of the word, which translates Latin socialiter, so "sociably" or the DOE's "companionably" certainly seem an appropriate translation.

I propose that the entry be moved to geferliflice. Yeldred Gengo (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

yes, I see no reason why anyone would read that as ģferliðlice, unless there's another copy that could be misread as þ instead of f. is that quote editorialized by Hecht or did i miscopy the example in Bosworth toller? the Stanford text reads differently, i think it is "Heo' bám wæs forgifen ꝥ hí moston on ánre eardungstówe liflice lifian þa' eacgela'p ꝥ hí samod g'férlíðlíce fer don oflichamu'" "The home was given that they might live together in one dwelling place, and also that they might companionably carry out their duties." that's a great copy compared to the German Handschriften I've been looking at. if only you could link to specific pages. Griffon77 (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

And there apparently is another version. 'Yerkes, “Translation”; Johnson, “Who Read Gregory's Dialogues?”, 183–5, 190–203. The manuscripts are London, British Library MS Cotton Otho C. I (MS O), copied in two stages s. xi in and s. xi med; Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 322 (MS C), s. xi 2; Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Hatton 76 (MS H), s. xi 1; and the fragment Canterbury Cathedral Add. 25. Hecht's edition, Wærferth, Bischofs Waerferth Von Worcester Übersetzung Der Dialoge Gregors Des Grossen (cited henceforth as Hecht), presents MS C with parallel text of MS H where extant; MS H is the later revision and the MSS glossed by the Tremulous Hand are C and O.' Stanford has the Cambridge manuscript. Bosworth Toller quotes from Lye, who apparently references the Oxford manuscript, allegedly an updated and revised version. A few years after BT Hecht uses both. Griffon77 (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

it doesn't seem to be manuscript H, which seems to lack this section, might be in manuscript O which has later annotations. https://iiif.bl.uk/uv/?_gl=1*zscwy1*_ga*MTE3ODQ0MjkyMS4xNzUwNDcwNjM0#?manifest=https://bl.digirati.io/iiif/ark:/81055/vdc_100058087533.0x000001 Griffon77 (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi ! Is this really a Proper Noun ? I see it as analogous to Londoners. Leasnam (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would consider Londoner a proper noun too, but since it's not how wiktionary treats it, I suppose Lindisware should be treated as a common noun too. Vergencescattered (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't the entry match the head form, sans accents? Griffon77 (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The Onomastica Anglo-Saxonicum only has Beorhtgils, but Berhtgils is plausibly Anglian. I'd assume Berctgils is not the standardised Kentish form, but how the Roman Honorius spelled it. In Old Bavarian (c. 800) I have Perhtkis (with apocope), but in other names berct- is a regular spelling variant on the continent. Griffon77 (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

PASE (https://pase.ac.uk/pase/?list=person&detail=person&detailid=18426) normalizes it as Beorhtgils, but has Bede record it (in latin) as "Berctgislum cognomine Bonifatium" Griffon77 (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Beorhtgisl is the normalized form, so it's what the head entry should be. Personally I find the normalization policy rather absurd, but it is how entries are supposed to be created. Vergencescattered (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's not how I understand it. The main entry page should be the normalized West Saxon spelling, with capitalization of proper nouns and late West Saxon standardized spelling used in standard OE grammars etc.. Older attested spellings in West Saxon and other dialects will be the "alternative form of" the standard form - listed in the "Alternative forms" section of the main entry, which prompts and facilitates creation of new entries with the variant forms. According to the entry guidelines "attested dialectal forms should be added, but to avoid duplication of information and entries with identical meanings requiring to be maintained separately it is usually a good idea to make all dialect entries soft redirects to one unified main entry (at a 'standard' form, suggested: West Saxon) using a template such as {{alternative form of}}." The head form doesn't change except to add macrons and dots for palatal g and c. that is the practice for all other entries. If the attested form is not capitalized, uses ð or th instead of þ, or uu or wynn instead of w, ae for æ etc., then the main entry will be created with normalized spelling, marked by the {{normalized}} and the attested form (except for wynn) created as an "alternative form of" the normalized, standard West Saxon spelling. The head word is not normalized in the entry for the alternative form, that's needed to indicate palatalization and long vowels in the alternative form. Normalization of entries for other dialects may likewize replace ae and oe with ligatures, uu and vv with w, and ð with þ, but these are separate entries marked as "Normalized", with the attested spellings listed as the "Alternative forms". the whole entry is normalized, not just the headword under the part of speech. The only question is if the attested forms should be nested (variant spelling>normalized dialect spelling>standard, if necessary normalized, West Saxon spelling) or link directly back to the standard west saxon form. The wording of the guidelines suggests this is the editors discretion. For correct categorization and if known the dialects should be marked with {{tlb|ang|Anglian}} etc. after the {{head}} or equivalent, or by e.g. # {{lb|ang|Anglian}} before the gloss, but this isn't in the guidelines. if it's just an orthographic variant within a dialect (e.g. uu for |w|, c or ch instead of h for |x|) you can use {{spelling of}} or {{altsp}} as a redirect to the normalized spelling in the definition entry. Griffon77 (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't really understand your point. Beorhtgisl is the normalized West Saxon spelling, and since you agree that the entry should be at the normalized West Saxon spelling, I don't know what you're proposing. Vergencescattered (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

you have the headword line under Berctgils as Beorhtġīls.

as per the guidelines

"Headword line

The headword line is the line directly below the part of speech header, in which the word is repeated, along with a romanization if applicable. You can use either the generic template {{head}} or language-specific templates, such as {{en-noun}} for English nouns. In some languages, additional information such as genders and inflected forms are found in the headword line."

The OE entry guide specifies the optional use of macrons and dots here, not a normalized form of the spelling.

Beorhtġīls, if attested will have it's own entry as an alternative form of the main entry Beorhtgisl. If you add {{ang-IPA}}, then within that template you might use berht-ġīls or beorht-ġīls as appropriate. Griffon77 (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see the issue. That was a mistake on my part, I have fixed the headword. Apologies for the confusion. Vergencescattered (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply