User talk:Vildricianus/Archive2

Sorry to cut across what you are doing, but equally well I'm committed to trying to get some policies roganised, and to get you lot thinking a bit more organised. before Beer PArlour becomes completely unmanageable.--Richardb 09:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, thanks. I've been meaning to do some organizing as well. — Vildricianus 09:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
• Note: I'd be best to have the entire discussion as it was before your moving in the BP archives. — Vildricianus 09:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Really there are two aspects. THe policy, and the work to try to keep translations common. As written, the policy can stand regardless of the success of Connel's idea for the latter.--Richardb 10:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Richard, I'd like to propose a policy, that you never do that! Every time you remove stuff, you compromise the integrity of the archive. At the very least, copy it to the archive first, then retain the link. If all of our archived conversations are corrupted in the manner you performed above, it makes it harder to find relevant prior discussion.

• Every time Ncik or Ec ask me for a link, I search. (Denial of the existence of previous conversations seems to be both of their MOs.) Their pretending things have not been discussed before is very frustrating, but it is greatly compounded by only the most relevant content being stripped away, lost forever!

• What you've done to the Beer Parlour is vandalism. Don't ever do that! You didn't even leave a link! I mean, holy shit, you didn't even leave a link! If you compromise the integrity of a simple archive, then you compromise the integrity of all of Wiktionary.

• --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Hehe, I knew your reply was going to be like this. I had told Richard to make sure it got archived correctly, but I got a weird, seemingly irrelevant reply. Don't worry, it'll get in there exactly as it was before today's removal. (I'm dishwashing BP archiving). — Vildricianus 19:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Glad to see someone is keeping an eye on me, to keep me in check. Restoring those archives is greatly appreciated. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I thought the solution I proposed was a viable solution too. Instead of garnering useful comments though, the concept seems to have been ignored. The last time I saw the conversation, Hippietrail had a counter-proposal to use a similar template trick, to fully reinstate the POV schism. So I don't know...maybe Wiktionarians will continue to insist on keeping it AFU.

Then again, maybe Hippietrail was mired in the technical details of the template, and wasn't considering the NPOV vs. POV issue at all. Hard to guess. I'm pretty discouraged with the whole situation right now.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 19:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem either, the issue is left cold for hardly a week now. Give it some time, it's a quite radical change (or perhaps not, whatever), and it'll need some time to settle. When I'm done with the webster pages, I'm going to tackle some of the (currently) low-profile entries like rancour/rancor, rigour/rigor and so forth, with your system, then move up towards some more complex stuff. — Vildricianus 19:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wow. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, the relevant Wikipedia pages are useful on this topic now. A year ago was about the last time I checked, and they seemed useless then...I guess these pages have undergone tremendous reworking in that time. We used to have a policy specifically prohibiting traversing such lists to assert one POV spelling over the other, but it seems Ncik and others have gone ahead with the UKisms despite that policy. It seems that the main page w:American and British English differences was traversed, filling entries in here, in order of appearance on that page. It certainly looks to me like a certain amount of UKism impropriety. --Connel MacKenzie T C 09:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, added to list of things to consider. Please note further things you find on my talk page, as the following months, I won't have the time to check all pages. Cheers. —Vildricianus 18:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Connel. Came looking for how you were progressing with Wiktionary:Project - Keeping Translations Common and Synchronised Across Different Spellings, but found nothing, so came looking here. As V says, sounds a good idea to me, so I'd like to see you make progress with it. (No idea where Hippietrail's stuff is even) --Richardb 09:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC) added emphasis --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

But, as to stripping archives etc. I try to do the best I can in taking the pages and pages of stuff out of BP to put into some sensible spot, so that when someone new to the discussion can find out what has gone before relatively easily. Sorry if I stuffed up a bit. But, boy, can I ask you to try setting up project and discussion pages earlier for this in-depth stuff. Point is, people should not have to look everywhere for the past discussion, or keep their own index. It should not be splattered all over Beer Parlour archives. It should be in one logical place, where any one can find it easily. I'll promise to be more careful. But, can you try to be a bit more organised in this one respect. Please.--Richardb 09:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

And it will be easier to counter any denial of previous conversation. It is all too easy for someone to subtly delete a little bit of inconvenient stuff out of Beer PArlour (which is so fast changing, and few people check the history of) without anyone noticing (which I feel sure has happened occasionally). Harder in a specific project page, where the history is probably more closely checked.--Richardb 09:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Um, I check the Beer parlour only by its history, to see what has been posted since my last checking. — Vildricianus 09:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I assert that the Beer Parlour is the most central place for people to keep an eye on. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is there any way to search Wiktionary User Pages for folks who have identified themselves to have specific expertise in specific fields? I'm wondering as it would be helpful to have someone with a background in Economics review the "Slutsky" page and the 'rfv' you put on it.

I don't know anyone with a specific economic background here. You may want to try at Wikipedia, where I think the term belongs. I think you'll need to provide evidence from printed sources in order to get it verified here. We try not to include material that is purely encyclopedic. — Vildricianus 08:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I got a mail from the above mentioned user that he'd been blocked. Claiming you blocked him altho he did usefull work, do you want me to forward his mail to you? (I can't really help the guy, I just develop software :)) 81.243.70.131 13:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC) (try me on nl-wikipedia or en-wikipedia as henna)Reply

Yes, please forward the mail. — Vildricianus 13:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

mm, an emailadres for you would be helpfull in that case, if you don't want it online, [email protected] works to reach me Henna 13:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah yes; the mediawiki email feature doesn't help to forward. — Vildricianus 13:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

found the mediawiki one finally, forwarded. Btw, you do know that there's a new Vandalfighter? http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/user:Henna/VF Henna 13:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Yes I do, but I find that the interface has become a bit too spacious for my 800x600 resolution. I'll stick with the 3.3 for now. Cheers. — Vildricianus 13:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have unblocked this IP address. The page Wiktionary:Why Wiktionary is not so great is a valid page that has been linked from Wiktionary:Why Wiktionary is so great for nearly a year. The comments that he put on the page may have been erroneous or newbie-ish, but I see nothing malicious or vandalistic about them. Some previous comments on that page were suspect but they came from other users. The page is being unprotected blank, and the notice removed. Eclecticology 00:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I had already unblocked him. I found that page highly suspect, also given the previous edits to it. Thanks for the explanation. — Vildricianus 12:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sinds wanneer is het beleefd wijzen op de tamelijk beledigende en discriminerende aard van een aantal Engelse uitdrukkingen spamming? nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf

1. This is the English Wiktionary, talk goes in English.
2. You appeared to be "spamming" all talk pages of those entries. And I didn't consider your comments very constructive. — Vildricianus 18:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I'm a sysop at Commons as well as a volunteer for Wikimedia Foundation and was reviewing some of your recent admin actions. Was curious why you deleted the US spelling of tranquility (See deletion log). Does Wiktionary have a policy on not accepting any commonly used US spellings? Bastique — talk to me 22:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

It was a redirect to the other spelling variant, which is not acceptable indeed. All versions get a complete entry here, regardless of which standard they belong to. Usually I don't delete existing redirects without replacing them with a proper entry, but this one was created recently while I was watching RC and I forgot about it. — Vildricianus 12:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Got it...so there's not a UK Spelling Cabal? Goood. Bastique — talk to me 18:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nothing serious. It's always something I do when we receive a user complaint that they've been blocked unfairly with a sysop with whom I'm unfamiliar, to see if there is a pattern of administrative abuse.

Obvsiously, no explanation was necessary. Bastique — talk to me 15:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

This one caught my interest today. It would be nice if you could run your eye over the etymology for me.... Widsith 09:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Interesting one, indeed. Seems to be correct, apart from snee being a noun, meaning "a cut". Could it be then that the snick is also from the noun steek, instead of from the verb? Or perhaps both are from verbs? — Vildricianus 14:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I left a response and request on my talk page to keep it all together. Thanks. - Taxman 20:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Since this discussion is about WT:BP, doesn't it belong on Wiktionary talk:Beer parlour? Rodasmith 20:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

It does, but a major change like this should be viewed by all, I think. — Vildricianus 16:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary talk:Beer parlour is on the watchlist of everyone who watches Wiktionary:Beer parlour, so posts to each location have the same audience, right? (Posting here since I loathe the length of WT:BP. Let me know if you would rather I post on WT:BP.) Rodasmith 17:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't have the Beer parlour in my watch list. Some people don't have anything in their watchlist here, and merely read the Beer parlour. I still think this should be kept there for a while to draw attention. Once more specific things are to be discussed, it can be moved (which is, according to me, how the majority of BP-discussions should be treated - alas, this only happens in rare instances). — Vildricianus 17:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK. BTW, the length and disorganization of BP and the resulting tendency of editors not to keep it in their watch list somewhat explains the low participation in the use-mention orthography vote. Peace. Rodasmith 17:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I know. Which is, obviously, why I want to change it! Cheers. — Vildricianus 18:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I don't use my watchlist for anything anymore. After a couple thousand entries, it isn't usable. I do know that comments made on that talk page of discussion pages here usually go unnoticed for months. I think talk:WT:BP, talk:WT:TR, talk:WT:RFV, etc. should redirect to the main respective discussion page to avoid that problem. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Perhaps we can make them usable again by including all of them on some "main talk page" - a single page to read all comments on (similar to the proposed "main Beer parlour page"). — Vildricianus 18:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Vildricianus for welcoming me to the Wiktionary project.

Be warned! You are now officially on my English Wiktionary support list, though i'll try to bother you only when i find no alternative.

I'm currently working on compiling a useful list of Wiktionary links on my User page.

May you raise upright children and never suffer from severe ear ache,

Itay 10:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hehe, thanks. I've seen your list, good job. There's much to do here on the organizational front, and I understand it's not easy for newcomers to find their way through the maze. It's good to see your interest in all this. If you find mistakes or incomplete pages, be bold in updating them! Enjoy your time here. — Vildricianus 10:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good job working out these policies, we do need them. Yet, a stupid comment of mine: could you perhaps make the titles of Wiktionary: pages a bit shorter? Eg. Wiktionary:Disambiguation in layout - Policy Think Tank could easily do without the " - Policy Think Tank". This may sound like a trivial matter, but I get confused by these long titles, especially by the dashes in them. (I also often fail to find them back because of this reason.) Cheers. — Vildricianus 11:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation in layout is the name of the Policy. Policy is a necessary tag to differenetiate it from any odd page. We coulddrop te Think Tank bit. Feel free, but I'm off to bed!--Richardb 12:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Uhm, Yes, I accept nomination. It's a bit unexpected. - Amgine/^talk 17:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the welcome. I've been editing Wikipedia and Commons for a few months, so I'm still learning my way around. I made a "test" edit to the Wiktionary, here: whirligig, so that I might follow up with a question. Is it appropriate to provide simple illustrations for Wiktionary articles such as the one I provided in my test? I am a photographer, and I've been loading my photos into the Commons bit by bit, and I thought it might be nice to make the most of them. Personally, I think an illustrated dictionary would be nice. However, I'm keen to follow policy and practice. Please let me know. Rklawton 20:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:Pictures seems to have answered my question. If you would like to add to the the information it provided, please feel free to do so. As per above, I'm uploading my images to the Commons and just want to make good use of them. Cheers. Rklawton 20:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Up to now, I don't think anyone has set adding illustrations as one of their goals. Personally, I would encourage it (I even think it's great to see someone finally doing this), and I think the majority of Wiktionarians would agree, but if you're going to add a lot, prepare to stir up some discussion! Enjoy your time here. — Vildricianus 20:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've added a few more photos to test the waters. If you have time, could you check them out and let me know if I'm making any mistakes? It's easier for me to fix a dozen edits than a hundred. I've got the relevant articles linked on my user page. Thanks! Rklawton 04:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nice set of pics, I must say. I see no big problems, actually. The left alignment (pigeon and chapel) won't work I think, but apart from that, it's nice. Layout is, after all, always changing here, so in those instances where it overlaps other boxes, a small tweak can fix. Cheers. — Vildricianus 15:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure the Russian is right? I thought it was something like "сколько у вас лет?" — Vildricianus 21:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. Not sure. I removed my translation, because you're right that "сколько у вас лет?" sounds more natural. Darn. I thought I had that one. Rodasmith 21:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. "сколько вам лет?" Rodasmith 21:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah yes, a dative. — Vildricianus 21:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Does Wiktionary support phonetic searches for folks who can't spel? If not, would it be useful to add redirects for common misspellings to the correct spelling? Personally, I'd rather hold out for phonetic searches because that requires the labor of only one programmer. Variations of the Soundex function would work well for this. Cheers! Rklawton 00:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

The English Wiktionary does not permit redirects for misspellings. The SOUNDEX lookup feature is something I'm fond of, but the MediaWiki developers either are not, or haven't had the time to implement it yet. Note also that SOUNDEX is best used only for English terms, while here on Wiktionary we include all languages.

The MediaWiki engine was recently enhanced to use a Lucene search (when pressing the button instead of .) Beyond that, there has not been much activity since it was last discussed. The proposal from several months ago, was to tag all Wiktionary entries with their SOUNDEX hash, so that the search function could simply search on the SOUNDEX value if no match was found. The 'bot required to do that (to every entry here) is no small effort, nor is the Javascript coding to finagle the secondary searching. So, no resources have been directed toward that effort at this time.

Also of note, there are several others besides SOUNDEX that are possibly better suited here, for multilingual coverage. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Very interesting, thanks! Also, would you e-mail me the names (or even code) for the multi-lingual tools? Can you tell me more about them? This is one of my areas of interest. I do a lot of data-work in English and have done so in Spanish and Italian in the past. Rklawton 04:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wildrick Steele

There is a need to use the talk page for this article to verify or refute the alleged malicious nature of this site.

Since you did not check out a Wiktionary Project Page before deleting it and then blocking my access I am posting this note to you so that you can join the discussion in the Tea Room under the topic of Escape and become fully aware and informed of the need to use the talk page in order to allow the REDIREDT in the article proper to be maintained for the time being.

There may also be other information which you are not aware of in order to be fully informed so as to prevent the status of the Wikimedia Foundation with the State of Florida from coming to an untimely end.

Any questions you have you may direct them to me.

Patrick Eberhart

[email protected] 15:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

We do not discuss websites on our talk pages. And I do follow your posting spree in the Tea room, but would rather not spend my time commenting there. Nor do I have any questions for you. — Vildricianus 15:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your refusal to cooperate has been duly noted in addition to your relationship with Connel.

Have a great day.

[email protected] 16:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is Wiktionary convention to start template names in lowercase, whenever possible. This was one result of the untimely de-capitalization. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Are you going to start moving all the existing uppercase ones or shall I? — Vildricianus 10:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Coolness, my latest button produces the following, with cursor focus on "Part of speech":

==English==

===Part of speech===
'''{{subst:PAGENAME}}'''
#

This can be expanded to fully cover all preload templates, or more. — Vildricianus 16:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am against this in principle. The templates:new_en_* should bear the brunt of the Ncik formatting wars. Obfuscating my activities to be exactly in the format *I* prefer would probably be viewed negatively. (Note that for 'bot activities, I don't have the same flexibility, as the subst: iterations are not possible; all the inflection transformations must be done beforehand.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok then, whatever. This will be for personal use then. — Vildricianus 19:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Another for your list of US/UK isms that need combined translations. --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've no idea here what the differences across the pond are. — Vildricianus 10:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was referring to the BP topic and my talk page; Richard had archived a conversation that was still semi-active and far from concluded. You replied to my response. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

In the UK, they are called sweets, while in the US, they are called candy. The term "sweets" is sometimes used in the US to refer to all desserts collectively, while in the UK I think this refers to what we in the US call hard candy. Actually, candy in the US also refers to chocolate bars, while sweets can mean anything containing sugar, including ice cream. The term "sweets" in the US is very rare. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

In Australia, we use the term lolly (countable) for candy. Sweets, or much less commonly just sweet means dessert. You will hear sweets used as a synonym for lollies but this will sound a bit British to many people. Candy sounds both very American and like the name of a stripper or hooker in a movie and we wouldn't use it. Even cotton candy goes by another name here. You might hear candy cane at Christmas time. — Hippietrail 16:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Could you please use one of your bot accounts (DblRedirBot, for example) to do these changes? Thanks. — Vildricianus 18:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sounds perfectly reasonable. This one-time run is a sort of redirect, so that makes sense. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi I think these things are great but on this XP machine with Explorer at least, the hide/show button is superimposed right over the edit button. You might want to try to find a way to fix that. — Hippietrail 20:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Did you clear your cache? I changed MediaWiki:Monobook.css to fix that. Looks fine here. Cheers. — Vildricianus 20:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, it works great now! — Hippietrail 18:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Obvious entries to delete can also be tagged with {{delete}}, which adds them to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Use {{rfd}} when you're not 100% certain. Cheers. — Vildricianus 21:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK. I wondered whether Wiktionary had speedy deletion. Thanks for the info! Rodasmith 21:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've been too busy again — do you think what I've done at foam#translations is useful? IIRC, you've been experimenting with the hide/show thingy as well, right? Anyway, it's useful in the first two BP sections. Cheers. — Vildricianus 20:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I helped Shibo copy his experiment here from zh:. The response on WT:BP was, as you can expect, stunningly inconclusive.

When I first loaded foam just now, the translations/verb's and marks on the right were on top of each other. Now they aren't, but I didn't think I changed anything related to that section. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I modified MediaWiki:Monobook.css for that, so if you didn't reload your cache, the links overlapped. — Vildricianus 07:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm. On WT:BP the show/hide makes the total d/l speed slower (since all monobook.js and .css get loaded with every page.) Wasn't one theory about the BP's current state of affairs that the load time should be reduced? --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, but it has nothing to do with the BP revamping actually. Evaluative test only. — Vildricianus 07:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey Wild Rick of One Anus. Just to say that we greatly appreciate you busting your guts out on here. You're doing an awesome proactive job (with your help, and others, soon maybe I'll even use this site as an actual reference site as opposed to for procrastinating). However, maybe you would benefit from a holiday, this much time on any unpaid project can't be healthy for you. If you fancy coming to Wales for a 2-day boating trip in June then let me know! I may pop in and say hi on our IRC channel in a few weeks time. --Dangherous 18:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dang; thanks a lot. So you finally figured out the logic behind my username :-). I'm afraid I won't have any time in June, there will be some exams going on that time (let's hope you won't see me here too much then). Nevertheless, sojourning in Wales is indeed on my todo list, how did you find that out? See you then! — Vildricianus 18:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Was it you who made these templates? Nice work but I have a bit of bad news. They actually have nothing to do with encodings )-: What they do is set a font that works for a certain script (also known as writing system. The idea is a good one but the name is sadly wrong and misleading. I think out of "Font templates" and "Script templates" that the latter is most fitting and accurate. I can imagine font template could also be used for other things.

Sorry again. Keep up the good work! — Hippietrail 23:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

You mean the category? No prob, changing the name takes 0.5 seconds :-) The template categorizing I've been doing is still preliminary work and probably needs more refining. The FOOchar templates are now in Category:Script templates and the ones that set fonts or font size in a subcategory. — Vildricianus 08:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the welcome at my IP address; sometimes I'm lazy and/or impatient and make edits without logging in first. But I'm Badagnani 00:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I just came back here and read your message to me. Thanks for the formal welcome. By the way, I am the anonymous user with the IP 70.249.61.170, in case you wondered.

Sorry to take so long. I don't come here a lot, mostly just Wikipedia, but I do visit sometimes. Last time I was here, I searched that word, noticed that it's past tense wasn't in, and figured "Hey, why not?" and stuck in the definition.

Once again, thanks for the formal welcome. =)

--The Digital Pioneer 04:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Right, this reminds me of it. I'm going to take it on right now, so what do you think? There's going to be 366 pages, but it'd be a bit silly to make all new ones while there are some months of them already done. Can I start moving the existing pages of the format ] to ], adapting all links? That's phase 1 then. Following is the semi-protection of all 366 pages, while you or anyone can move the past WOTDs to archives. How does that sound? — Vildricianus 11:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Make the proposal on the WOTD Talk Page. There's some on-going discussion there. I'm not particularly concerned about the mechanism specifics, as long as the day-to-day operations run smoothly. Just make sure the next day will come up automatically. --EncycloPetey 11:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yup, I'm moving right now. Please tell me if I've overlooked something or if you see a bug. — Vildricianus 11:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but I don't know enough about the coding to spot a bug. We'll have to wait until the change-over tomorrow to see if it works. Connel might be able to spot a bug, though. --EncycloPetey 11:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Never mind. Cheers. — Vildricianus 11:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've warned you about deleting entries from Project Pages or the pages themselves. If you were 35 years old or older I might consider your antics to qualify as those of a Thought Police but since you are only 20 years old and have only become a sysop in the current month of April I consider your antics up to this point to be those of merely an irresponsible child who enjoys playing with new power and learning its bounds. To date your antics have resulted in a copy of the Wikipedia Foundation bylaws being mailed to me by the Pinellas County Legislative Delegation. This will inform you that regardless of whether your childish rookie sysop vandalism persists a full examination of the Wikimedia Foundation bylaws will be made and the resulting findings provided to the Delegation in due course. I suggest you not risk violating those bylaws by practicing further sysop vandalism.

[email protected] 12:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you must respond anonymously by leaving derogatory messages on my user page instead of here please be so kind as to leave them on my user talk page...

[email protected] 08:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Hi there. Can you detect redirects that have extra, invisible text after the redirect pagename? See ipomoea as an example. SemperBlotto 16:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • One-timer run done at User talk:Connel MacKenzie/badredirects. --Connel MacKenzie T C 13:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
• Also, (low priority) instances of {{top}}/{{mid}} in other sections than the translations. — Vildricianus 16:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks. --Connel MacKenzie T C 13:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
• More to do: find Talk pages that have no corresponding articles, which are therefore usually crap. —Vildricianus 21:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • User talk:Connel MacKenzie/orphaned talk pages. --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • You might want to start with Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:rfvResult as these dudes should be deleted - the "archive" of the RFV conversation is now kept in WT:RFVA instead, unless it was merely a failed sense. --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you give some feedback on today's moving and changing of mine? I've split out the WOTD pages into archives and recyclable pages (to be protected). I guess the majority of links and tricks are fixed, but there'll probably be something I've overlooked. There's also a host of redirects but I've waited to delete these. Do you have an idea to keep an overview on these "recycled pages"? — Vildricianus 15:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I can't stop bugging you about it :-) How the heck do I automatically pull up a link to the templates themselves on Wiktionary:Word of the day/Recycled pages/May, like I manually did in the first two headers? Right now {{wotd}} has , but that doesn't work of course. PAGENAME doesn't either. —Vildricianus 10:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. The dictionary link there is an unknown dictionary. I explained that Aryanpour is the most famous English-Persian dictionary. I don't understand why you insist on having a dictionary which has probably a low quality. Second, the word Farsi has been banned by academy of persian language and literature. The word is not used in academia. --Mehran Kashi20:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

You should probably address this issue, if you feel it is one, in the Tea room, where more people can see it. Various regular contributors here have different views on that, but I can't recall a discussion on that. — Vildricianus 20:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK. I will. Thanks. I could not find any previous disscusion in the archives. I doubt there exist any controversies on this issue and my proposal for a standard dictionary (instead of an unknown one). But I will write something in the tea room tommorrow morning. Good night and thanks again. --User:Mehran Kashi20:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Informative: we have a whole bunch of useful templates for such things that automatically add categories. Cheers. — Vildricianus 21:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know where to look for those templates, so thanks for the pointer to that category. I did happen to know about {{archaic}}, so I used {{subst:archaic}}. Should I not have used subst? Rodasmith 21:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

No. Actually, I can't think of any main namespace template that is subst:'ed here. BTW the category is new since yesterday :-) — Vildricianus 21:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Can you tell me if overmoed is a word in Dutch? And if so, what does it mean – and if not, how would you interpret the word if you saw it? The reason I ask is that there is a famous word in Old English (ofermōd) which no one is entirely sure how to translate (it is only attested once). I know German Übermut means ‘high spirits’, and I was curious about what the Dutch equivalent might be. Thanks! Widsith 17:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely; it means "overconfidence", more or less the same as the German noun. I'd say that it's a contraction of over and moed ("courage"), but seeing that there's this OE cognate makes it more interesting. — Vildricianus 17:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wonderful! Thanks a lot. Mōd certainly could mean ‘confidence’ in OE, but it could mean a lot of other things as well! (It's the ancestor of English mood.) Widsith 17:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi and thanks for answering my question on Connel's talk page!

From time to time things come up which some of us here deal with, but not the majority. Like the CSS and Javascript customisations, and also like the script templates - which can also use CSS.

Probably best is if you know about these topics, add them and then point me to them to check for you. If you don't know what I'm talking about I'll try to find talk pages for you or describe them myself so you can FAQ-ize them and again I'll check them. My brain is too chaotic to patiently sit and write documentation and stuff myself (-:

Thanks again, don't hesitate to ask my any questions. — Hippietrail 21:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, yes, it seems you're a bit chaotic: I posted on your talk page, not Connel's :-). I don't fully understand your post here, but it's getting late, so I'll reread it tomorrow. Cheers. — Vildricianus 21:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh well sorry. Too many long bus trips, lugging heavy backpacks, and granitas de café (-: Also, feel free to email me if that's more convenient. You can do that via my talk page. — Hippietrail 01:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Vildricianus. Would you mind having a look at the Appendices for Appendix:Months of the Year and Appendix:Days of the Week and be sure that both pages include the appropriate NL entries? Also, some of these basic entries may be missing from Wiktionary. Kappa has already helped to created the Korean ones, and I'll be looking for others to help in additional languages. Thanks for whatever help you can provide. --EncycloPetey 09:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd already noticed it; nice pages. Would you mind me putting them in some visual table? Days of the week are ok. I'll add the Dutch months when I'm back. Cheers. — Vildricianus 09:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what you mean. Both pages are organized as tables already. --EncycloPetey 09:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I meant giving them a border or so, so that it's a bit easier to read them when they're bigger. — Vildricianus 09:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you have some specific idea about what would help, then BE BOLD. --EncycloPetey 09:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your Welcome! --KlaudiuMihăilă ^Message 12:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reminding me. Wietsezuyderwijk 22:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi again Connel.

I wanted to start a non-Beer-parlour thread on the subject of normalizing articles. I used to do it, stopped for a while, started again, and am now trying to stop again. I think you and Stephen also do this so for now I just wanted to discuss it amongst us before taking it to everybody on the Beer parlour. Please invite other contributors you know who normalize though.

I think this needs to be opened up to anyone that wishes to comment, now, before going to WT:BP. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

We can bring it to the BP by just {{including}} this page there. But you may first want to move it out of your user talk page space. —Vildricianus | t | 09:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

No way, no how. This is gigantic. My initial brain-storming list was a start, but about a quarter of them (or more?) have been contested. What I wish to present to WT:BP is the concise list of non-controversial terms only. As people see the positive effects each of these changes gradually has, we can add the contested or controversial topics to WT:BP separately, one per week. The ones I've struck out must not go any further at this time. But as this working-list settles down, I think we'll have a dozen items to present to the community, with explanation. That is probably too much for most people to grok all at once. Right now, we're still getting new, fresh viewpoints on things that seemed absolutely sound. Let's try to keep it small for a few more hours, then present only a tiny list of the things that we know are OK with everyone. --Connel MacKenzie T C 11:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I should have struck out my comment; I went through all of it afterwards and saw how big it had become. Jeez! —Vildricianus | t | 11:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

By normalization I mean making minor changes to formatting which usually make no or little difference to how a user sees the page, but does make them conform more to what each of us thinks of as best when editing a page.

Issues such as where to put blank lines and how many, whether to put spaces inside the == ==, or after asterisks in lists.

A few months ago I modified some of the stuff I had been doing for ages to bring it more into line with what I saw you were doing, but I seem to notice now some other things that Stephen and I might be doing differently, which has made me think we should check with each other about what such changes we've been making and agree with each other, then take what we come up with to the Beer parlour, altering the instructional pages on formatting if need be.

Do you think this is a good idea? Where should we start? — Hippietrail 00:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, I started with a list of twelve names, then realized I'd forgotten about another two dozen people. Rather than have anyone feel left out, I'll skip naming names. I'm sure all are welcome to chime in, and some probably will, here.

Because these activities always turn out to be more controversial than imagined, it might be considered improper to have a back room meeting. OTOH, this is not exactly behind closed doors. Furthermore, practically discussing these things in a small group first may wheddle out some of the more bone-headed things.

Where to start is also difficult. I'm not as consistent as I probably should be. Some of it is from semi-automatic changes from my monobook, others are specific requests (over time.)

I also consider the 3rd level headings consolidation efforts to be part of normalization. Those consolidation efforts (that Polyglot started) give en.wikt: a consistent look and feel, that significantly adds to usability. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Connel. Would it be a good idea, for each proposal, to link to a pair of example words showing the yes/no usages. Just so we are certain that we understand what we are talking about? SemperBlotto 08:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. I agree. I've always done this. But note that disambiguation see also goes before here, and many times the wikipedia link - but the latter suffers from much variance. — Hippietrail 16:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Right - I always remove blank lines between {{see}} and the first language heading. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. No whitespace before first language heading.

I agree.—Stephen 09:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. — Paul G 07:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. The 'pedia link should not go before the language header, as it may not apply to all languages on the page. Widsith 10:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Disagree, but only in cases where there is a "SEE" tag or line ahead of the first language header --EncycloPetey 14:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why? To offset the first heading (vertically) incorrectly? --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

For section editing purposes, this functions as a separate section before the first section edit possibility. --EncycloPetey 17:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC) (POV on your part. Note that just because something is called "incorrect" doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. In the Netherlands, coffee with cream is termed "koffie verkeerd", which literally translates as "coffee wrong", but that doesn't stop me.)Reply

2. Do you mean between the == and the actual heading name? (I prefer "heading" to "header" by the way though I sometimes use the latter term due to programming habits) — Hippietrail 16:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I do. E.g. ==English==, but never == English ==. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

2. No whitespace after a headerheading start, nor before a header end (i.e. between the == and the actual text.)

I agree.—Stephen 09:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree - these spaces are seen in many entries (mainly older ones, I think), but it is entirely superfluous. — Paul G 07:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. -- EncycloPetey 14:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Realize that this one is actually, in part, determined by software. When you use the "+" tab to add a new section to a talk page, it prompts you for the heading, and when it constructs the == line for you, it does use those spaces. So, strictly speaking, for maximum consistency, we should either declare the spaces to be correct, or change the software to match our recommendation. (But I'm tossing this out as food for thought, not as a serious suggestion that the software needs to be changed.) –scs 14:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am unsure whether any discussion of this page is still actual, but I disagree here. As I mentioned on Connel’s talk page, it makes navigating easier if the spaces are there. H. (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

3. Agree. I remove these often. Note that spaces at the end are usually due to copying and pasting from some other software. This is a very minor point for me. — Hippietrail 16:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not minor at all, as it throws off section editing - resulting in the wrong section being edited. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

3. No spaces or tabs after a header

I don't know what this one means. Do you mean word spaces before == or line spaces before the following text?—Stephen 09:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Neither. This is about junk coming after "==English==" on the same line. --Connel MacKenzie T C 13:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I agree we have to work around this bug: However, it is our duty to report it. I was looking to see if it's already reported earlier but that machine crashed. If anybody else can do that better than me, please do. — Hippietrail 21:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Is it a "bug" or a "known feature"? (Note the lack of smiley.) Really, the "bug" I see is that the MW software doesn't enforce this. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

No comment on this until it has been clarified/fixed. — Paul G 07:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

4. Is there a better place for such comments? I have done this from time to time when I've thought it appropriate. My lost parser could handle this. — Hippietrail 16:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Again, as Vild points out below (and I expounded on above) this breaks section editing numbering...so clicking on the link on the right side of the page edits the subsequent section instead. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

On #4: it seems to be quite important that there is nothing on the same line as the heading since this confuses the numbering of sections (you end up editing different sections than those which you intended to if there are comments after any header). —Vildricianus 18:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

4. No comments after header, on the same line as the header (breaks section editing!)

I agree.—Stephen 09:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree as with #3. #3, #4, and #5 should be merged. — Hippietrail 21:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean for the "final" list (whatever that is) or that I should abandon the numbering concept within this page? I separated them originally for no reason whatsoever, but on reflection, they each have different reasons for being problematic. {Shrug}. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree - comments should go on the following line. — Paul G 07:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree -EncycloPetey 14:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

5. I've also done this. My reasoning was that I wasn't sure that putting a category or a comment (as above) on its own line may introduce an extra blank line on some browsers. — Hippietrail 16:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Again, it breaks section editing numbering. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

5. No templates after header, on the same line as the header (breaks section editing!)

I agree.—Stephen 09:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree as with #3. #3, #4, and #5 should be merged. — Hippietrail 21:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree, as for #4. — Paul G 07:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree, and dislike seeing anything on the same line as a header. --EncycloPetey 14:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

6. I used to remove such blank lines but it is one of the changes I made after seeing that you were adding them. — Hippietrail 16:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

So it was you removing them? Ah ha!  :-) . Well, I think that having the language heading stand out in the edit section is pretty important. (Gah, did I just say "heading" and not "header"? I'm messing up my own conventions now.) Also, AFAIK, this was the convention used by a clear majority of users, when I was learning Wikt: layout style.

6. No blank line after any header except for all level two language headings

I agree.—Stephen 09:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. — Paul G 07:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not sure. I can't think of any cases where I would disagree outright, but I have to think about this one. --EncycloPetey 14:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

7. what about ((Acronym)) and ((Initialism))? Are these exceptions or should we stop this practice. Personally I've been doing this since it seemed standard but I never liked it. — Hippietrail 16:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've waffled a few times about this - I think I started this practice way back when. User:Dmh was doing is category/template experiments at the time; I took these to this "extreme" but I've never seen a viable alternative. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Even if the categories are "solved" (e.g. the 4th parent category becomes a separate super-category, but no longer a parent relationship to the other three categories) the template(s) would still need to add two (or more) categories to each entry. Using AWB, it is conceivable to subst: the template and zap the category to the bottom of the page. But AWB is not permitted to do that on en.wikt: just yet. Is it Vild? --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

So you advoicate removing the templates like {{temp|m}}, {{temp|f}}, {{temp|n}}, {{temp|c}}, {{temp|pl}}, etc from all the translation sections? I would agree with that. --EncycloPetey 14:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

No. What? Item #7 is talking only about characters that appear between == and == (or === and ===, or ==== and ====.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

For clarity: leave out the and translation sections part. At first, I didn't get that either, actually, until I realized this was about the {{lang}} templates ({{sv}}, {{nl}} etc). It was, right? Perhaps that deserves a separate section, although most of the work restricted to a dozen more templates to be subst:ed. —Vildricianus | t | 19:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

7. Templates generally prohibited in headings and translation sections (notable exceptions: {{acronym}}, {{abbreviation}}, {{initialism}}.)

I agree.—Stephen 09:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. — Paul G 07:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. --EncycloPetey 14:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree, and personally I'd go farther and get rid of {{acronym}}, {{abbreviation}}, {{initialism}}, too. –scs 14:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

8. Stephen and I, and perhaps others have been discussing a more common sense approach than "top 40". The reasoning is that exotic languages remain exotic to the majority of users (readers) even if a fan of such language adds thousands of entries, and a well-known language with few articles still doesn't need to be looked up often. A sub-point is that I always wikify exotic language names also in the level-2 heading for the exact same reason. I know others don't do this and it may be that some undo this. — Hippietrail 16:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

As Vild comments below, I think you guys have a decent handle on these. I am mostly ambivalent about the final list. (I have my own POV, of course, but for this I can mostly ignore it.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

On # 8: I once tried to bring this to the public but few people (except the two of you) replied there. See Wiktionary:Translations/Wikification. I'd also reason that "exotic" languages are wikified both in translation sections as in level-2 headers. —Vildricianus 18:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

8. Wikification of non-"top 40" languages (as per HT's/SGB's final lists - I could care less.)

I agree.—Stephen 09:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Should merge #8 and #9. — Hippietrail 21:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. — Paul G 07:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree, but the language list for the top 40 should be made easier to find. --EncycloPetey 14:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I really don't like the disparity. I understand it's nice to have a handy link to the entry describing a language you've never heard of; I understand such a link is distracting and unnecessary for a language everybody's heard of, but still, it seems odd to me to have wikilinks in headers at all, and just wrong to have this split scheme where sometimes the language header is a link and sometimes it isn't. I wish there were some completely different way to provide the convenience link to the language name, one that didn't have this disparity problem at all. –scs 14:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please see WT:BP#Language wikification in translation tables round 7 (can be found here now H. (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)) and comment there. — Vildricianus 15:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

9. Goes with #8 — Hippietrail 16:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

As Vild says below, yes, this list is identical to #8.

9. De-wikification of all "top-40" languages (as defined in previous number)

I agree.—Stephen 09:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Should merge #8 and #9. — Hippietrail 21:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree; this goes with #8. — Paul G 07:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. --EncycloPetey 14:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

10. I feel strong agreement here and have always done it. I have a pet peeve against "compressed" articles - those which use few or no blank lines. I find them unreadable. — Hippietrail 16:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

On #10: complete agreement. —Vildricianus 18:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

10. One blank line before all subsequent headers

I agree.—Stephen 09:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree - like Hippietrail says, entries with no blank lines between sections are difficult to read and edit. — Paul G 07:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Disagree. I've tended to compress the initial sections (language, etymology, pronunciation) together, except when these sections are more than a line or two. I also disagree for a variety of foreign language situations. We have a current discussion (I forget where, at the moment) concerning the best place to put categorization tags for foreign languages. One favored suggestion is to place them immediately following the language header, which is the one I favor. I see no reason to have an additional blank line after that, though this is a special case. --EncycloPetey 14:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

This formatting guideline/recommendation has nothing to do with where the categories go. I said in the category-relevant sections that my opinion about category placement is just too controversial for this conversation. So, it is my opinion that in the case where those categories are "in the relevant section" that there would still be a blank line. e.g.

==Swahili==
]

===Noun===
]
'''@#$$%SDSAa'''  (romanized term)

# def #1

The blank lines here are what are being discussed, not whether to shuffle the categories to the bottom of the page. For foreign language entries, the white space is perhaps more important, as English-only editors have such great difficulty understanding what is there. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Note: finding "compressed" entries is a good way of identifying contributions from new Wiktionarians, that may need some gentle guidance. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good point, although these might be hard to find without writing a special bot to track them down. — Paul G 07:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, I haven't written a custom search for these yet, but I plan to.  :-) --Connel MacKenzie T C 09:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

11. I always used to do this but grudginly gave it up and practised the opposite when I saw that was what you were doing. I would vote strongly in favour of keeping the headword/inflection/romanization line attached to the heading above it and with a blank line below it. — Hippietrail 16:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps I worded #6 unclearly. I agree 100% with what you say here. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

11. One blank line after "inflection line" (originally for Polyglot, now this has grown on me.)

I don't know what this means.—Stephen 09:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

E.g. "===Noun===" / "{{en-noun-reg}}" / <<blank line>> . --Connel MacKenzie T C 13:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just to make this clearer: "No space between POS line and headword/inflection line, but always a space after" — Hippietrail 21:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree (with Hippietrail's clarification). — Paul G 07:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. --EncycloPetey 14:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

12. I have no opinion. Whatever others decide is fine with me. — Hippietrail 16:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

12. One blank line before a translation section gloss (except first gloss)

I agree.—Stephen 09:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree - the blank line is unnecessary and makes no difference to the rendered page. — Paul G 07:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree for the reasons Paul G. gives. --EncycloPetey 14:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

13. Agreed. I've always done this. — Hippietrail 16:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

13. One blank line before ----

I strongly disagree on this one. It results in compression, and the visual impact of this would be completely unacceptable in print, and I think it's unacceptable in a webpage as well. As a general rule, pages benefit visually from a little whitespace artfully applied to margins, between paragraphs, and before headers. Putting just a single blank line before ---- has the same effect as putting no blank line. I feel strongly that there should be two blank lines before each ----. —Stephen 09:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I've never heard an explanation for this before, so I always thought it was a mistake. Now that I understand it is not a mistake, I'll try to look a few more before forming an opinion on it. --Connel MacKenzie T C 13:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Solved this quite conveniently by adapting monobook.css. Perhaps this is a good candidate for adoption in MediaWiki:Monobook.css:

.ns-0 #bodyContent hr { margin-top: 2.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em }

(or adapt as you please). —Vildricianus 17:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is important. Everybody needs ---- in edit mode. Non-monobook users need it always. Am I right in saying most monobook users would prefer it hidden in view mode? If so we can move a version of this code into the standard monobook CSS. But can anybody think of a way to hide the actual line, but still add extra space? This aspect of this topic is beyond normalization and should probably be taken to the Beer parlour. — Hippietrail 21:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've boldly gone ahead with this - see the Beer parlour. — Hippietrail 22:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wish I had seen this comment sooner.  :-( I've applied your fix to my personal monobook.css, so I'm content with this. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've only ever put a blank line before the ----. If it makes a difference (and I didn't know that it did) I'll put one before as well. — Paul G 07:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

14. Agreed. I've always done this. Though I think Stephen is adding two lines here. — Hippietrail 16:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

On #14: I find that the Wiki layout renders too little space before and after horizontal dividing lines, which two blank lines may solve. But customizing the top and bottom margin in CSS might be a better solution. —Vildricianus 18:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

14. One blank line after ----

I agree.—Stephen 09:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. — Paul G 07:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. --EncycloPetey 14:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

15. Agreed. Didn't used to like it but I've been converted. — Hippietrail 16:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

But what about the cases where categories are not placed at the end of the page? This is an on-going discussion, but the issue is that people editing only a single language on pages with multiple language headers need access to the categories for editing. One proposed solution (which I favor) is that for non-English categories, the category tags would be placed immediately following the language header. In this case, I would not favor including a blank line before the categories. --EncycloPetey 14:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Gah. Excellent point. This was written with the assumption that categories were moving to the bottom of the page. So this needs to be clarified to refer only to categories (or groups of categories) appearing at the end of 1) A language section 2) the entire entry. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

15. One blank line before categories

I agree.—Stephen 09:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. — Paul G 07:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree in cases where the categories appear at the end of the page. --EncycloPetey 14:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

16. Agreed. Between cats and interwikis. — Hippietrail 16:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

16. One blank line before interwiki links

I agree.—Stephen 09:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree, although I don't think I've ever used interwiki links. — Paul G 07:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. --EncycloPetey 14:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply