User talk:Vininn126

Archives

2020: 2020 2021: 2021 2022: 2022 2023: 2023

Aside from a block of bot-generated inflected-form fails, this is the only entry in CAT:E, and, not coincidentally, the only transclusion of {{RQ:zlw-mas:Mazurski Fébel}}. The way you set up the template guarantees a module error if the first parameter isn't empty- the module won't allow use of both |page= and |pages= at the same time. I might have been able to fix it myself, but I have no idea what you were trying to do. Obviously page 99 isn't in the range 25—29, but that knowing that doesn't help much. If the |pages=25—29 is only for display on the template page itself, it should be wrapped in <noinclude></noinclude>. Otherwise, you'll have to come up with logic to feed either |page= or |pages= to the module, but not both. You come up with lots of great stuff, but you do have a tendency to overlook critical details a certain percentage of the time. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz I just needed to delete the pages parameter in the template itself. Thanks for catching that. And you're right. I also have a tendency to make more typo's - I'll work on giving everything an eye-over before hitting publish more (something I've been working on in the past as it is, I think I've made a huge improvement and usually I can get things down to a single edit). Vininn126 (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also lately I took a short break and I'm a little rustier than usual. I'm slowly getting back into the hang of things, but in the meantime I'll be a little more careful. Vininn126 (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the same kind of link to współ- (as you've corrected in wspólny) is also present in the formation of spółka#Etymology. So, it needs a similar correction, doesn't it? As for my edit, I was just upset that the red link didn't lead to an existing page (współ), which would explain the etymology (and współ- filled this gap).

(BTW, I opened all the sources before my edit, but at the first quick glance didn't see the explanation of the etymology there; perhaps, I didn't put enough effort into looking up this in the sources, but my case kinda shows that your assumption that looking into the sources would be enough for someone not to make such an edit is wrong.) Imz (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Imz Spółka is wrong. spół- is a different morpheme from współ-, which is a different morpheme from współ. If you want, you can request współ at Wiktionary:Requested entries (Polish). What sources did you check, because I have inline sources for that etymology, namely Boryś, do you have a copy of Boryś's dictionary? Vininn126 (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thought I'd get your opinion since you've edited the page a fair bit. This headword seems to be missing explicit indication of the fact it is a) plural and b) plurale tantum. Looking at the source code, I can indeed find this information in the parameters for the declension table (which I presume is what is actually sorting it into the relevant category). While evidently the 'nvir' information is important and I understand that it technically already contains the desired information, I'm worried 'nvir' might be overly cryptic for the average layperson/learner. Should we possibly change the display to something like 'pl nvir' or add a separate label or, if you feel it's more appropriate, usage note for pluralia tantum? At first I assumed this was just an oversight and was going to just go ahead and adjust it for this headword but Module:pl-headword doesn't even seem to support this. What are your thoughts, do you feel this could to be added/ammended in the module and relevant headwords updated? Helrasincke (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Helrasincke No, it's part of Polish grammar. Non-virile nouns are by default plurale tantum, i.e. plural only. Marking for all three would be entirely overly redundant. I believe the Wikipedia article explains what this means, but this is also how most Polish grammars and dictionaries mark such words, i.e. with "niemęskoosobowy", and nothing more. Furthermore the declension table already has only plural forms. It's fine as it is. Vininn126 (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also "plural" isn't clear enough, since there's also "virile". Vininn126 (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm concerned we may be talking past one another :-) My suggestion would be in addition (quote: "something like 'plural nvir', or 'pl nvir' for short"), not removing the current label or replacing the 'nvir' part (which I agree would be moronic). Here I will quote myself: While I understand that it technically already contains the desired information, I'm worried 'nvir' might be overly cryptic for the average layperson/learner. For context, I have a degree in Russian, am currently learning Polish in an academic context and also have a personal interest in Slavic languages and historical linguistics. I think it's fair to say I have a fair amount more insight into the topic than the average layperson (though of course, much less than some others, who however probably no longer qualify as laypeople). Whilst I could plainly see the term was 'nvir' (and could arrive at the rest via deduction), I still had to open the source code to confirm this word was indeed plurale tantum (confusing probably for a speaker of any other Slavic language, though that's part of the fun). I don't think this really supports the suggestion that everything is perfectly unambiguous. Adding two letters in the display after the headword couldn't hurt, even if, yes, it's technically redundant (as I feel I have already amply acknowledged). To your points:

1) I assume that what you mean by "non-virile nouns are by default plurale tantum" is that if we could further disambiguate, we would. It is true that the category of virility presents most striking in the plural. Yet non-virile does exist in the singular, it just happens that adjectival agreements allow us an even more specific taxonomy. Strictly seen kobiety, okna, sklepy, ogórki and psy are all non-virile plural. Further evidence comes from the fact the coordinate category, virile, also exists in the singular, as one subcategory of masculine gender (alongside animate and non-animate). According to Ronald F. Feldstein (A Concise Polish Grammar, n.d.) "Virile nouns have both their accusative singular and plural equal to the genitive; animate nouns have only their accusative singular equal to genitive but their accusative plural is equal to the nominative; inanimates have both accusatives equal to the nominative" (p40, emphasis in original); and " few masculine viriles take Lsg. -u instead of expected ‘-e: syn ‘son’, pan ‘gentleman, you’ " (p45, my emphasis). Oscar E. Swan (A Grammar of Contemporary Polish, 2002) goes even further to identify morphosyntactic subcategories of animate and personal masculine: "a. Pejorative personal: non-softening Npl: brudas slob b. Personal: softening Npl: student student c. Honorific personal: Npl -owie: Arab Arab" (p125, original emphasis) as well as "c. Especially pejorative personal: młokos milksop " (ibid.) under the animate nouns, thus having an Apl 'młokosy' (though I note we don't include that variant and nor does Polish wiktionary, so it may be substandard usage. PWN-Oxford also offers Npl in -y or -i, different again).

2) The use of the Polish term "niemęskoosobowy" suggests you refer to resources aimed at Polish native speakers or, at the very least, L2 users of advanced proficiency. I think this is inappropriate reasoning here because native speakers have fundamentally different needs (as a rule requiring much less overt explanation) than learners, particularly those in the beginning stages. It pleases me that prolific editors of Polish entries have that level of knowledge and are well versed in these resources, but it can be easy to take things for granted which were once also not obvious. What's more, traditional explanation doesn't necessarily always make for effective pedagogy and it's not unheard of for old and clunky explanatory mechanisms to hang around even while innovative explanations of the phenomena exist. For instance, the stubborn clinging to the two-stem explanation of Slavic conjugation (despite Jakobson's single-stem system being around for three quarters of a centruy, it remains largely neglected outside of North America) or the rather annoying habit (also followed here at WT) of trying to shoehorn seemingly every language with a case system to fit the traditional Latin order of Nom/Gen/Dat/Acc/etc (Finnish being a notable exception), instead of working with an order which works with the syncretism of a specific language best to thus lighten the mental load (again Jakobson proposed a very different order for Slavic). From the perspective of a native speaker, this of course understandable, since humans are known to be resistant to new information and if you've already mastered a system, you're not really in the market for a new explanation of it, even if it is simpler, more effective, or less error prone. Yet English WT is not aimed at Polish native speakers (in any case not primarily) and often includes a lot of redundant information (like full conjugation tables instead of key forms, for instance ) which are nonetheless extremely useful tools and surely part of what makes the resource so popular.

So, while it may be clear to you and me, I don't believe it's necessarily clear to a layperson. Whilst you are technically correct that "pl nvir" is redundant for the above mentioned reasons, I still think that pluralia tantum should be marked as such (or equivalent, i.e. 'plural only') or a usage note/link placed to an appendix which would obviate the former. Missing & incomplete entries are far from unheard of here and so explicit information is actually quite a lot more valuable than that which is merely implied. I note too that we routinely mark pluralia tantum in other languages, even in cases where the plural status itself could probably be morphologically or syntactically inferred, e.g. proceedings, quadrageni, fungi, брюки (brjuki), очки (očki), люди (ljudi), lieden, Leute (I think a label similar to one of these would be fine). I would be grateful if you'd reconsider. Helrasincke (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Helrasincke These plural forms you present have attested singular forms - the point of these entries is that the singular is not attested. Kobiety is not a lemma, okulary is. Kobiety is an inflection, okulary is not. The same oes for the virile nouns. Masculine virile in the singular translate to masculine plural for us, and virile is used strictly for plural only terms. The deprecative form is entirely irrelevant the plurality of the given nouns, but we do include them.

My question is, why are we assuming that a layperson won't see the term "nonvirile" and then decide to check the definition, oh, by say, typing it into the search bar? We have an entry explaining what it is.

Furthermore, we're not always trying to appeal to the layperson. It's more fair to say that Wiktionary is a scholarly dictionary first and foremost. Vininn126 (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Helrasincke tl;dr, not reading all that. who cares about noobs finding some terms "cryptic", lol? you could say the same about "f", "m", "n", or "impf" and "pf", it's up to them to learn what "gender" or "aspect" mean in linguistics SeashellSausage (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is attested in Словарь древнерусского языка XI-XIV вв. and Словарь русского языка XI-XVII вв., why do you remove it from articles? Proto-Slavic *orzpustiti is described in the Этимологический словарь славянских языков, by the way. 5.178.188.143 12:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

It was the entire second half of the etymology. Likely from? Uncertain? Honestly? It's clear as day. Vininn126 (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I struggle to understand: what in particular is clear as day? 5.178.188.143 18:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The etymology. Vininn126 (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

And what is it in your opinion? 5.178.188.143 21:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

• orz + *pustiti, and we have an entry for Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/pustiti. Any information about *pustiti doesn't need to be on *orzpustiti . Vininn126 (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  That's not how it works on Wiktionary: we have entries for Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/orz(ъ)zěviti, Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/orzoriti, Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/orzkrǫtiti etc. and we need an entry for *orzpustiti, especially that it has specialized senses not directly evident from *pustiti (check ESSJa for details). 5.178.188.143 18:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  We can have the entry, that's perfectly fine. I had a problem because your etymology said that the etymology was uncertain. Did you read what I said? Vininn126 (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I did read it several times, but I didn't understand unfortunately, because one who agrees with the etymology in general but disagrees with a minor details isn't supposed to plainly revert all the edits but rather remove the word they disagree with. Could you please edit the etymology how you believe suits it best? 5.178.188.143 11:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Sure. Vininn126 (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I noticed some missing inflection form meta data |accel-form= in some Polish templates. I updated the template {{pl-conj-ai}}. I'd be volunteer to continue the edition to other templates such as {{pl-conj-ap}}. Any hint on how to do it and on how to be helpful? JuChelou (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@JuChelou What don't you understand? Vininn126 (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Actually my main issue at the moment is that the template {{pl-conj-ap}} is locked for edition. JuChelou (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@JuChelou Changed Vininn126 (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please block all Wonderfool's accounts. WF's taking time off. Fond of sanddunes (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Wonderfool (imagine I pinged all those accounts too) can't you just not edit? Vininn126 (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Shall I delete all these forms as I deem they are, first, unverfied, and second - these entries give only basic information - no need to list all dialectal forms possible. Cheers IYI681 (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@IYI681 Yes. Vininn126 (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I added something without a proper header, or section, doesn't really matter.

To be honest, I'm really struggling with creating entries in a proper form. All I can do is look for some entry that has a section I need and then copy over, it's painstaking. Are there thorough documentations on what headers exist, how to use them, how to add templates for things like references, etc? For example, I found an external dictionary reference template on the German wiktionary that doesn't exist on the English side. Please advise. Petros Adamopoulos (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Petros Adamopoulos I appreciate your struggle, I went through it too. It's a lot of information to take in.

I recommend WT:About Polish. Also, on my userpage, I have a boilerplate for basic entries. Hopefully might be helpful. Vininn126 (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

This bot tries to create fake user pages here in order to unobtrusively leave links for search engines to find so the targets get ranked higher in search results. It never works, partly because there are several abuse filters that look for that kind of thing, but also because whoever wrote it is an idiot: Exhibit A. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz I always appreciate these vandals that you show. Gives me a chuckle. Vininn126 (talk) 08:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Vininn, I would like to know why you undid my edit, on the reconstruction page in Proto-Slavic it shows that IS the inherited form, not the one borrowed from Polish. Наименее Полезное (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Наименее Полезное The reconstruction page could be wrong - short o in PS giving Belarusian у is unheard of as far as I can tell, and Polish ó is pronounced exactly as у, and Polish has "lengthened" o before unexpectedly. Vininn126 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, I don't have advanced knowledge of linguistics or the evolution of Proto-Slavic for its descendants, I just "imported" what was there onto the page in Belarusian. Наименее Полезное (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Наименее Полезное I understand and there is indeed an incongruincy. The reconstruction page could use a little clean up. Vininn126 (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, thanks for the heads up! Наименее Полезное (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Наименее Полезное I invite you to the WT:Discord where discussion on these subjects can be more direct. Vininn126 (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the invitation Наименее Полезное (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is considered potentially offensive. SnivyPokemon (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@SnivyPokemon Why did you write on my talk page to tell me what to do? Furthermore you already marked Murzyn as sometimes offensive? Vininn126 (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

So that you don't change and remember SnivyPokemon (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

What? Vininn126 (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The words "upośledzenie/upośledzony" etc. are now offensive and politically incorrect. SnivyPokemon (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@SnivyPokemon You don't need to message me with this. Also you need to keep in mind that an institution suggesting something doesn't mean it's true. Vininn126 (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey Vininn, about your two recent reverts of my edits 1, 2, I did not know that we don't need cognates when they are on the proto-page. Is there a policy page where I can look up the conventions about the inclusion or exclusion of cognates? I don't edit Wiktionary very often, but it made sense to me to include those cognates, especially since they share a common root, but have changed slightly in meaning over the centuries. The proto-page, in this case Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/rěčь, does not indicate the meaning of the descendants, it just lists them. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Nederlandse Leeuw There is no hard and fast rule and it's a matter of preference, but I generally avoid adding cognates to terms that all point to a single descendants section, because it's an easy way to generate noise when all the information is present. You can add the gloss to that page, to do so, check the documentation of {{desc}}. Vininn126 (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Like this? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Nederlandse Leeuw Looks good to me! Vininn126 (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! In case there is no proto-page, would it make sense to add cognates to the closest existing page to the proto-page? E.g. we don't have a page for Ruggsack, but Rucksack is very close to it, so I added some cognates there. I was gonna do that at rugzak, but that is further away from the root word, right? So Rucksack has the priority here. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

WT:Etymology has guidelines (not rules but general suggestions). Vininn126 (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh that's quite helpful, thanks! I suppose I'll leave out the uk and ru cognates then, since they don't belong in the Germanic language family, and the guideline says 5 cognates is the maximum. I also see now most of them are mentioned in the Descendants section anyway. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think there should be some indication in words like "klient", "aktualny" etc. that the two vowels next to each other aren't pronounced completely separately. The Polish Wiktionary marks it: https://pl.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Aneks:J%C4%99zyk_polski_-_wymowa_-_zasady#S%C4%85siaduj%C4%85ce_samog%C5%82oski 2A02:A319:A13F:EC80:DD10:865D:2EC2:8F6E 22:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not phonemic. Vininn126 (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I see that occasionally there is a user who goes on an editing spree using an account without user or talk page for a couple hours, before you blocking them for ban evasion. Do the edits at least make sense? And what's the background story for this, may I ask? Shoshin000 (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Shoshin000 The edits are generally good, which is the sad part. They have made some bad ones before, like adding tons of incorrect doublets that we are still cleaning up or bad formatting decisions. They are User:Shumkichi, who has a history of being very toxic to new editors, you can see one of my first discussions on my talk page demonstrating this behavior. Well they did this too many times and are now permablocked. Vininn126 (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

So it's because of the character's unreliability and refusal to learn from mistakes, basically? In order to not have to check everything one by one? Shoshin000 (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Shoshin000 What do you mean "In order to not have to check everything one by one"? We can permaban people for having unacceptable behavior, it's one of the default options in the ban screen. We don't want a toxic environment here. Vininn126 (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see Shoshin000 (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

As long as I use .That usage is completely correct.Are you trying to start edit wars?Do not edit them again. Science boy 30 (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Science boy 30 it's completely unhelpful too. Plenty of people have asked you to stop showing you you are in the minority. I have every right to edit a page as well. Vininn126 (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I did not say that you do not have.

Also if you wish I can stop using narrow transcriptions.But do not edit my old ones. Science boy 30 (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Science boy 30 I can and will change unnecessary clutter that is unhelpful. Vininn126 (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well I cannot stop you.Do whatever you wish. Science boy 30 (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Science boy 30: the problem is that you're replacing the broad transcriptions with your narrow ones- undoing everyone else's work. While there's a place for narrow transcriptions sometimes, they're harder for non-specialists to read and they're worse at allowing for variation. You could probably listen to a dozen people and get a dozen slightly different narrow transcriptions for many terms. The goal is to help non-speakers of the language to learn the pronunciation, not to show off your technical expertise. In cases where a narrow transcription would help toward that goal, by all means add one- after the broad one. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I demand their restoration. SeaGrassSea (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Celestial_objects and Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Attestation vs. the slippery slope. Asteroids need further discussion on site. Vininn126 (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nice of you to insult my intelligence...

As a matter of fact I do know what "displaced" means, I simply thinks it's entirely superfluous on an Old English entry where the displacing term is already the given definition. Anyone with the faintest grasp of how historical linguistics works will already understand the implication.

And while I concede that comparing to Ancient Greek is reasonable as it is likely where the Old English got the concept from, the morphological structure of the words is not as similar as you suggest, the second component in the terms you compare to do not share that similar of a meaning and also have unrelated morphological structures themselves. Unless you're suggesting we compare this term to literally every other word inspired by the Greek, then I see no reason why Old Polish should have special consideration. Ythede Gengo (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@YthedeGengo It's frustrating to come across what appears to be a lack of checking. Displacement not counting because the later term has the same definition is a ridiculous reason to remove that. In fact if they didn't share a definition, how could you call it displacement? Displacement is "a term being replaced by a later one with the same definition".

And I don't see why we shouldn't list some such words - how many can there be? It might be better to include them on the Ancient Greek entry, but that's not what your initial edit was intending to do. Vininn126 (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126, how are you still defining words at me... If you don't understand why including a Modern English "displaced by" on an Old English page where the displacing term is already the given definition is superfluous, then I don't know what else to tell you.

And there are a least 8 more similarly composed (by your metric) words, going by the translations at astrologer; again, if you're suggesting those be included also then I suppose that could be fine, but the Old Polish word had no influence on the Old English nor vice versa, so I just don't see why Old Polish should get special treatment when it's not really that common to include comparably constructed words on Wiktionary in the first place

In any case I can't be bothered to argue this any further, I would just appreciate if you would be less disrespectful to me Ythede Gengo (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@YthedeGengo There's a difference between "displaced" and "displaced by", are you saying we should only have "displaced" on the Modern English entry? Your wording makes it sound like the fact they share definitions excludes them. What are you trying to say?

If you want to compose a list of potentially influenced words and move them to the Ancient Greek entry, that'd be fine by me. My issue is removing the content that was put there intentionally with a clear purpose and not trying to figure out a better way to do it. Vininn126 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

It seems that there is some misunderstanding.

My point is that if the word was borrowed from English (or French) for that matter, it would yield a closer phonetical equivalent. Like the words antreprener or tatuaż. However, here it was adapted to the pre-existing Polish word wizja, like happened with Portuguese televisão or Russian телевидение. Unless I am mistaken, this falls under the classification "calque". Does it? Shoshin000 (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Shoshin000 Not necessarily, no. Words can be reformed based on analogy all the time. Phonology can be a clue but it doesn't have to always lead to a calque when the sound doesn't 100% line up. This does blur the line between borrowing and calque, however, to a frustrating degree. Vininn126 (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

What's the general Wiktionary policy regarding this? Shoshin000 (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Shoshin000 That's a great question and I'm not sure there is one. It might need to be considered on a word-by-word basis. Vininn126 (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, in any case I hope you understand better in what frame of mind my edit was Shoshin000 (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Shoshin000 I do and I've also made that kind of edit before. Vininn126 (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

sweet memories: syjonizm Shoshin000 (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Бубрих. Северно-кашубская система ударения. — 1924 ɶLerman (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, could make a good addition to the 'pedia articles. Vininn126 (talk) 05:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I confess, that the word ingberowi being featured as the word of the day ("Słowo dnia") at the Kashubian Internet Dictionary made me make the entry ingber.

Also, has the alphabet being used for Slovincian been made in a similar manner to a Cyrillic alphabet devised for Akkala Sami? --Apisite (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Apisite You need to know more about the languages you're working with. Otherwise you leave behind a mess for others to clean up, or worse, mistakes/factual errors. If you want to read more about Slovincian, see WT:About Slovincian, w:Slovincian language, w:Slovincian grammar, but I implore you, don't add yet more languages to your list of languages you work with. Vininn126 (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I should have added any words featured as the word of the day ("Słowo dnia") at the Kashubian Internet Dictionary, but have yet to be covered here, to WT:RE:csb. --Apisite (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The same thing goes for Upper Sorbian through R:hsb:Soblex. --Apisite (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Rakso43243, Stríðsdrengur What do you think? --Apisite (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just have to agree with @Vininn126, you edit a lot of languages randomly and a lot of them seem like you don't have a good knowledge base about them, and that's problematic, I'm not stopping you from editing Upper Sorbian, I just want you to improve your edits, you know what a mess Sorbian is in. Stríðsdrengur (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:Todo/Lists/Template language code does not match header (sorted by language):

• Kashubian (csb)
• Old Polish (zlw-opl)
• Polish (pl)
• Silesian (szl)

Chuck Entz (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz I'm surprised it took you this long to get tired of this constant mistake of mine! I've gladly cleaned them up. I'm surprised by how many of these weren't mine, mostly Polish of course, but a little Kashubian. Vininn126 (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You changed |allowparams=2,4,5 to |allowparams=3,4, so now hałka and prawda are saying "Parameter 5 is not used by this template.". I don't know the context, so I don't feel comfortable fixing it myself. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Thanks for the heads up. Fixed. Vininn126 (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. How do I properly add https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=syllepsis&diff=prev&oldid=79250648 ? 184.146.170.127 19:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

When you open the editor you should see a template {{examples}}, where you can see other examples that we have. Vininn126 (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, so it's as simple on Wiktionary as just leaving out the source? Thanks. 184.146.170.127 19:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you want that exact example as a source, you can use {{cite-journal}} or whatever in refs. I'm not sure we need more examples. We do of course have sources, such as quotes, but quotes need to demonstrate the word. Vininn126 (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Let me clarify; Wiktionary at it's core is merely trying to document words used in sentences. Examples are an extra. It's not that they can't be sourced, but we also can come up with our own material for them, since it's not proving the word exists. Vininn126 (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Etymology 2, Verb, quotation under 1st sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Strange, don't know why the module broke. I'll have to see if I forgot an end somewhere or something. Vininn126 (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz I'm aware of the current errors as well, looking into it. Vininn126 (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Whilst the entries in Słownik języka polskiego PWN and Wielki słownik języka polskiego tend towards the approximate sense "tactful", I've spent the morning comparing the senses of this and related words in the electronic dictionaries licenced for Apple devices (which, admittedly, I should have double-checked that they weren't already cited before committing the edit) and there appears to be a missing sense not already encapsulated by our current entry. The relevant entries are as follows:

• Oxford PWN Polish-English dictionary gives: "polityczny I adi. 2 przest. (rozważny, układny) prudent, politic". In same work is also listed politycznie, in the dated sense 'prudently', for which an example sentence is given: "wobec teściowej zachowywał się bardzo politycznie ".

• Uniwersalny słownik języka polskiego gives: "polityczny przymiotnik 2 przestarz. umiejący się znaleźć, roztropny, dobrze wychowany"

I think that our current sense 2 overlaps to an extent with my proposed one: prudent, politic > sagacious, diplomatic > thus: choosing a path of action that avoids causing offence. The English word politic has a remarkably similar range of meaning; Compare French politique (“political; diplomatic, politic, tactical, calculating”), which gave rise to both English politic and political, Slavic cognates are Russian полити́чный (politíčnyj, “politic”) (contrast with полити́ческий (politíčeskij, “political”)), Ukrainian політи́чний (politýčnyj, “political; tactical, prudent, diplomatic, politic”) (original: "1. политический 2. (тактичный, предусмотрительный, дипломатичный) политичный).

In the other direction, politiczny is evidently not going to appear as a gloss for politic, prudent or even tactful in any of these works since the Polish word is obsolete in those senses. I understand there is also the consideration of originality of wording for our own purposes, though I personally find the current wording "tactful, classy" to be too narrow to properly cover this range of meaning.

I think they should either be a) merged or b) a subsense for "tactful, classy" established. I unfortunately do not have the resources to source quotes. I left the two gloss lines separate because I knew you would have your own opinion on the matter and (apparently naively) figured this one less likely to irk you. I'm very happy for the synonyms to go, since I agree they are not likely to be perfect synonyms, depending on the wording we decide on. My preferred wording would be some combination of prudent, politic and tactful. Classy is in my view an overly anachronistic gloss for such an outdated sense but that's only my two cents. Helrasincke (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC) Helrasincke (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Helrasincke I think that these are just alternative glosses; adding them to line two is, in my opinion, best. It's a bit awkward to translate, to be fair. Vininn126 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You've been entering page numbers with "r" and "v" for "recto" and "verso", but your module can't parse an Arabic number in that format- so they're ending up in CAT:E. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Thanks for the heads up. Vininn126 (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

What does the fraze "pierdolenie kotka za pomocą młotka" have to do with pomoc? How's it its derivative? 88.156.137.135 17:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It... contains the word "pomoc" in it, does it not?

"pierwsze koty za płoty" would in turn be listed on the pages pierwszy, kot, płot (not sure about including them on prepositions...) Vininn126 (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

But why exactly this as an example, it's not a commonly used fraze like mentioned above "pierwsze koty za płoty". 88.156.137.135 17:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't mean it's not real. It's easily attestable on WSJP, and it definitely deserves an entry at some point, and we definitely link multiword phrases to their individual pages. Dictionaries have vulgarisms, get used to it. Vininn126 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't have problems with vulgarisms but for me it looked like someone put a vulgarism for the sake of putting a vulgarism in a wiki page. 88.156.137.135 17:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

But if you really want to keep it shouldn't it be under "preposition" section instead of "nouns"? 88.156.137.135 17:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Explain to me, praytell, how is "pierdolenie kotka za pomocą młotka" a preposition? Vininn126 (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I meant that the fraze "za pomocą" is a preposition according to the mentioned wiki page thus "pierdolenie kotka za pomocą młotka" should be under "preposition". 88.156.137.135 17:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You mean on the preposition page "za pomocą", not with the title "preposition" in the "derived terms section"? That sounds fine. Vininn126 (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, I think we came to reasonable conclusion. 88.156.137.135 17:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Vininn126,

Concerning your recent reversion of my edits to Eden, would you be able to explain your reasons? I did search beforehand and couldn't find any relevant Wiktionary guidelines to discourage me. Due to the structure of the page and how deeply nested the sections are, I believe my edits make it easier to navigate. I particularly think having the long list of place-names be collapsible is a significant improvement as it otherwise obscures the secondary definition, which I think is not ideal since this is first and foremost a dictionary. This isn't a content issue so I won't push back a ton on this, but I just wanted to make my case as I think my edits genuinely improve the readability of the entry. Pangur Bán & I (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The style applied on the headword should be discouraged. Vininn126 (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Noted. I will take that under advisement for future. My intention was to make the different senses more visibly distinct since the deep nesting makes all the section headers at that level the same size. Would you have any alternative suggestions to achieve that end?

And what about the collapsible list? I still quite firmly believe that it improves the readability Pangur Bán & I (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The headword size thing is a limitation of MediaWiki. Basically, it wasnt designed for projects like ours with our subsubsubsubheaders ... some pages even have to use a sixth-level header. so i understand fully why you wanted to help out. but if we did make a change like what youre suggesting, we'd do it globally because there are thousands of other pages with five-layer nesting that would need to also be changed. If you want it to change for your own view only, you can edit your custom CSS file and use a similar modification. —Soap— 20:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. I knew it was a global issue, but I wasn't aware universal conformity was so critical, but I will know for future. Thank you for addressing this. Pangur Bán & I (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unsure. I personally don't have a problem with navigating it - maybe others do. Vininn126 (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Would you then be amenable to me restoring the list edit, but leaving the headword reversion? Pangur Bán & I (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is the kind of stylistic change that would in theory be placed in multiple entries and should get consensus before doing. Vininn126 (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Pangur Bán & I: This would be a pretty big stylistic change. Could you start a discussion at the WT:Beer Parlour? The collapsed list of definitions seems like a good idea FWIW. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Certainly. I'm a pretty small-time editor so I normally shy away from big discussions, but if there's support for it, I'd be happy to. Pangur Bán & I (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

i'd be willing to endorse the creation of a template based on the collapsible code you used, which would allow it to be used on other entries as well. i'm also shy about starting threads even though i've been here a very long time, but if you don't feel comfortable starting the thread, i or someone else can at least get it started. —Soap— 21:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not necessary, but thank you very much for the offer! Pangur Bán & I (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I accidentally hit "Publish changes" before I had a chance to add an edit summary, so I'll explain myself here. The template was throwing a ParserFunction error at anioł consistent with {{{2|0}}} in the url code evaluating to nothing instead of to 0. I replaced the #ifexpr: with nested #if:s, which should work the same as you intended with the other logic. I tried putting 0 in the empty parameter, and it suppressed the url as expected (though, of course, it said "Page 0"). I have no idea why your code didn't work, but then, I don't understand a lot about how ParserFunctions handle numbers and math. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Page added, thanks. Vininn126 (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why this revert? The non-diminutive form zioło doesn't exactly convey the jocular nature of the diminutive. Compare trawa vs. trawka, babka vs. babcia, pasy vs. paski. JimiY☽ru 07:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@JimiYoru That's not what I'm saying. the {{dim of}} template already covered the senses that you added. Vininn126 (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would have thought a borrowing from Gothic is remarkable enough to warrant an explicit mention... Exarchus (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Exarchus It's remarked upon in the Proto-Slavic page. Generally chains should be avoided; you might be interested in {{etymon}} however, which can handle chains somewhat automatically. Vininn126 (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Generally chains should be avoided" - Are there really documented guidelines for this somewhere? I'm 100% fine with not giving the further chain "... from Proto-Germanic *stiklaz etc.", but in my opinion not indicating the borrowing from Gothic wouldn't be user-friendly. Exarchus (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Exarchus No, but consider this: imagine we have a full chain going very far back, potentially 5 steps, and let's say this word has been borrowed in tons of languages. This might happen with certain older languages and internationalisms. Let's also say that we want chains for all the daughter languages. Finally, let's say we need to change the notation or something high on the chain. The chances of us updating everything can be astronomically slow, because it's all entered manually. This is not all words, but this is a common case. It's much better to give to the first blue link, and if you want more information, the tree is there and can be updated automatically on many on other pages. Vininn126 (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see your point, but in any case: most etymologies for (e.g.) English words don't simply give 'up to the first blue link', for good reasons imo. Exarchus (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd argue English is different. Vininn126 (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rather than assuming I didn't include the source, maybe check what the source that's already there, Wielki słownik języka polskiego, actually says. Since you appear to know everything around here I assumed you might have read it: "internac. / niem. Graphiker / ros. gráfik". Please revert, and feel free to please yourself with the formatting. I didn't explicitly label it as borrowed from Russian because otherwise it will be categorised as such. We don't actually know for sure, so I judged it better not to. Helrasincke (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Helrasincke Hi, how about you don't start off with a snarky attitude? Also there are plenty of ways to format this without categorization; including turning it off for German. Check internationalisms. Fix your attitude. Vininn126 (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Furthermore I've added a source. Vininn126 (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126 My apologies, I should have paused to read that through before sending it. I'm not sure if you yourself are aware but your approach comes off as quite dismissive of anyone who thinks slightly differently to you and whilst I try my best to remain professional and focus on why we're actually here, it can be draining at times. After having a few edits reverted by the same admin (and not for glaring mistakes concerning content mind you, but for mostly differing views on formatting), one starts to wonder: If I keep trying will I eventually get it right or simply get banned?

I'd like to be able to work together to achieve the goals of the project. We have a policy of assuming good faith. If there's anything glaring in my edit history that suggests I don't make a strong effort to always a) consult and b) cite reputable sources for my etymologies where possible, please feel free to bring this to my attention so I can take steps to fix it (the polityczny example notwithstanding, since I wasn't sure how to cite an electronic dictionary which doesn't appear to be available online. If you have ideas, I am all ears). I note your second comment that it was in the further reading section and not the reference section, that is an oversight on my part.

Furthermore, I am not aware of any binding rule I broke. Whilst I genuinely admire your work to harmonise the Polish entries, and would support your efforts to continue doing so, the fact that you prefer to revert an edit which doesn't fit in your editorial straight jacket ("not how formatting is done", followed by no reference to anything I can use to improve, suggesting you either have no expectation I will want to or can improve, or alternatively that there is in fact no policy), rather than adjust it to fit, even now that I've clarified the misunderstanding, comes off less as a genuine interest in improving the project and more as a power play. If creating an atmosphere of arbitrariness and fear is not your intention, perhaps try fixing my edit in the future and tagging me, as you have occasionally done in the past, so that I can learn from your example. Or document your expectations explicitly and let me know, I'll be happy to follow it. From my experience (granted, mostly for Russian and the Germanic languages), the use of the {{m}} template is actually extremely common in etymology sections where there's an "either this or that explanation" situation, and I am yet to find anywhere that says this is bad practice or outright banned.

In any case, whilst I try my best to make quality edits, I'm not particularly interested in getting lost in the technical detail of how to decategorise etymology terms right now as I've got much bigger things on my plate. If that side of things is something you enjoy or get a kick out of, go head and improve on it, I have confidence you will do a great job. I really only have capacity at the moment to supplement missing or incomplete information here and there as I come across it. Or perhaps you prefer for me to just send you notes of needed additions. Helrasincke (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Helrasincke I'm aware I am rather direct. Consider it part of my upbringing and neurology. I also know I tend to be pretty forward-pushing with certain beliefs of mine.

I also hope you can take the polityczny case of how I really am open to changes and things and am aware of my own faults with certain entries. The truth is what's most important to me, not my own opinion.

I can admit that my tendency to undo and then not improve can be overdone - sometimes there are so many edits and so many other things to be done that it's overwhelming and I'd rather do it later, since at some point it will be done.

I never assumed you had bad faith with your edits, just that the particular edit wasn't all the way thought through. I hope you understand I wish someone would undo my edits like that (and I wish that would happen more often, to be honest). Vininn126 (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I'm Pole. When you play this file, you hear a jitter that makes the pronunciation difficult to hear. I guess it's not a problem with pronunciation, but with registration. Abraham (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I do not hear this jitter at all. Vininn126 (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Don't you hear that sounds rather pierdulnięty? It should actually be pierdolnięty. Abraham (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not really. Vininn126 (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Abraham I will ask a few others on the WT:Discord. Vininn126 (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK. No problem. Research as much as you want. Research and verification are desirable in projects. Abraham (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Abraham @Sławobóg says the file sounds fine to him, as well. Vininn126 (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you fix incoming links for RFD-failed cztero- and soon-to-fail -godzinny and wielo-?

Also, Shumkichi moved content away from these pages: nie posiadać się, poradzić sobie, radzić sobie, upodobać sobie, wmawiać sobie, wmówić sobie. Can you delete or restore them as necessary? Ultimateria (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ultimateria On it. Vininn126 (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ultimateria Should be done; Shumkichi's moves were actually correct. Vininn126 (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ultimateria I went ahead and deleted them (sorry for the triple ping). Vininn126 (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

All good, thanks! Ultimateria (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Is this the proper pronunciation of your username?

Thank you. Flame, not lame (Don't talk to me.) 00:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not quite! I have IPA on my userpage. It's the i as in sit, not seat. Vininn126 (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I updated my audio a minute ago. Now is that accurate? Flame, not lame (Don't talk to me.) 22:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Flame, not lame There ya go! Vininn126 (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't suppose you could paste my audio onto your user page? This can be helpful for people who are unfamiliar with IPA. Flame, not lame (Don't talk to me.) 12:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Flame, not lame Ha! Alright. Vininn126 (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Concerning term prusak (which you incorrectly updated by removing the right definition) - please check out "Further reading" section of the term "prusak" and its detailed description in the source dictionaries: sjp.pwn.pl and wsjp.pl .
The sources say:

https://sjp.pwn.pl/szukaj/prusak.html

prusak

1. pogard. «butny Niemiec»

https://wsjp.pl/haslo/podglad/82900/prusak/5208004/czlowiek

pogard. Niemiec

Bluffer8 (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Bluffer8you clearly did not read why I undid. Correct information formatted in an unusable way is unusable. There's no need to be combative. Vininn126 (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please explain what you exactly mean. If you think there is a format issue, then why don't you format the article accordingly to your expectation. Removing correct information (without giving proper explanation) is not a solution - it is disrespectful arrogance and ruining the article. Be constructive. Bluffer8 (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Bluffer8 It's not on me to teach you formatting. There are guides on the site and plenty of examples. If we had everyone who didn't learn it try to add something we'd end up with an unusable mess. It is constructive as I don't want information that breaks things. It's not arrogant either, you just took the undo personally. Vininn126 (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, you are removing valid information because of some unclear and unexplained format issue - that is not constructive. That is just acting to the detriment of Wiktionary. Please explain how you want this article to be formatted (give me an example or point what is wrong with the formating) so I will fix if and end this nonsense. Bluffer8 (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Bluffer8 it is not an unfair expectation to ask readers how to learn to format while editing. Get over yourself. See WT:ELE and as I've said, countless other entries. You included no #, labels, proper templates, etc. Vininn126 (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I added the information in proper format. Please check it out and if you have any remarks, then please let me know or make corrections. Bluffer8 (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Bluffer8 Thank you, much better. I changed it slightly still, but that's definitely much much better now. Vininn126 (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

See e.g. abdankować, can you add an entry for "adapted borrowing" in the glossary? Benwing2 (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 Done. Vininn126 (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please cancel the changes you've made to the "Rus" page on the English Wiktionary. They're highly offensive to Ukrainian people, and can be considered as supporting the russian rhetoric and propaganda. Thanks in advance. 188.146.140.64 20:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your message is much more biased and also not even fit for a dictionary, but an encyclopedia. Please read Wiktionary:Neutral point of view before you contribute more, and learn the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. Also keep in mind some definitions and words are inherently going to be offensive. Just because we don't include your personal opinion in the definition does not mean that it's biased. Get a grip. Vininn126 (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please, see Talk:Kamieniec:

an obvious error

This article have an obvious error, a fake, from the first version (4 April 2018) by Hergilei.

There are no Polish surname Kamieniec. See pl:Kamieniec, w:pl:Kamieniec.

— Yuri V (t•c) 14:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC).Reply

@Yuri V. If you have doubts please send it to WT:RFVN instead of leaving a page without definitions. That is entirely unacceptable. The talk page is not a replacement for RFV. Vininn126 (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I didn't found a Template:geogr to translate pl:Kamieniec, pl:template:geogr. Please, help me. — Yuri V (t•c) 14:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC).Reply

@Yuri V. I don't know what you're trying to do. Please don't blindly copy from other Wiktionaries or various Wikipedias, this can lead to mistakes. The pressence or lack of something on Wikipedia is not indicative if something is real or not. Please see WT:CFI and compare other entries. And again, if you doubt the surname, please read the instructions at WT:RFVN. Vininn126 (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Btw, @Yuri V. https://nazwiska-polskie.pl/Kamieniec plenty of Polish people with the surname.A quick Google search confirmed that. This just proves you should stop copying from Wikipedia/other Wiktionaries. And stop removing content out of process. Vininn126 (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Mekong gets its English name from Khmer: មេគង្គ Mékôngk. មេ /mee/me/ means mother and គង្គ /kʊəŋkeaʔ/Kong/ means Ganga. The literal meaning of “Mekong” is “Mother Ganga”. Kong is a borrowing into Khmer language of the Sanskrit word “Ganga”. The Mekong is named after Hindu Godess Ganga, the name sake of the river Ganges.

Source: 1.Headley Jr. 2.Chim 3.Soeum, 1.Robert 2. Rath 3. Ok. "Modern Cambodian-English Dictionary". www.sealang.net. 174.164.30.163 15:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please see WT:ELE among others to learn about formatting, and please see {{cite-book}} to learn how to source claims. As it stands the formatting is atrocious. Vininn126 (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Someone asked on Wikipedia about the fact that (until recent edits prompted by that discussion) we had listed these words as homophones, whereas Polish Wiktionary has them as different. Can you check that the pronunciations we have now are correct? - -sche (discuss) 22:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@-sche See this. Vininn126 (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Howdy Vininn! Are you winnin’? What is {{intant}}? What do you mean by senseid? I probably have lost some discussion about this stuff, but I have seen a lot of people using these numbers, but what is it? I don’t get it man, what am doing wrong now? I look through older discussions about formatting, but ain’t finding nothing. Tollef Salemann (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Tollef Salemann Typo, see {{intnat}}, which can be used when we aren't sure of the exact path of a word, it could be one or two sources.

Semantic loans are used when a word already exists but a sense is added. Królewiec wasn't originally a calque from Ukrainian, but instead that meaning was added through Ukrainian. Similarly, myszka is not a calque of English, but a semantic loan from English. The template {{sl}} can behave differently based on if you give it a senseid or not. Vininn126 (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, am gonna now try to learn me differences between calque and semantic loan. Maybe we have some of them in Norwegian and Russian too (i mean, not listed here on Wiktionary). I know what semantic is, but never heard of a semantic loan. Tollef Salemann (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Does U with breve (ŭ) actually exist in Silesian orthographies? I saw this source using it (especially around the hau- section, which they seem to write as haŭ-), but none of the Silesian entries currently on Wiktionary use it, and another source lists hauzyrować with no accent on the U. Thanks! Insaneguy1083 (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Insaneguy1083 You're probably thinking of <ů>, which was used in Steuer's orthography and corresponds to <ō>. I wrote w:Silesian orthography for just such an occasion. We normalize all spellings with <ů> to <ō> and can give the spelling with <ů> as an alt form, marking it as Steuer. Vininn126 (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, not thinking of <ů>. Scroll to page 267 of the dictionary I linked (page 273 in the PDF). Weirdly, they look like they're using U with macron in the blue text, but U with breve on the side. In addition, there's literally a word that uses both U with macron/breve AND U with overring, that is haūptzicherůng with also an overdot on the n somehow. It's on the same page of the dictionary I mentioned earlier. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Diphthong. That would be normalized to "u". Vininn126 (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. And I assume the N with overdot would be normalized to just "n" then? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you give an example? Vininn126 (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Still on haūptzicherůng, the N before the G. I just don't know how to type it out here. Unless it's just there to indicate a /ŋ/ sound? Not sure. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also this particular dictionary seems to disagree with other Silesian dictionaries on how to handle German sch; like we have sznelka, but that's not mentioned at all in this dictionary, meanwhile śnelka appears several times. So which one should we follow? Or maybe I can insert śnelka as an alternative form in the sznelka entry? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Insaneguy1083 This appears to be a somewhat dialectal dictionary. I'll try to work on a normalization in a documentation, sounds good? Vininn126 (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 10:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Insaneguy1083 There's already a template for this, it's {{R:szl:Wencel:2023}} which has a normalization. Wencel is a dialectal dictionary that uses a specialized phonetic transcription which also has masuration, which should be avoided. I'd recommend not using this as a source until you become more comfortable with Silesian as a whole. Vininn126 (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Vininn, someone from Belarus has done research of Bordziło, or in Belarusian Бардзіла (Bardzila). I have a Wikipedia page under Bardilo. There are constant variants of the name from their Proto-Slavic ancestor bordy and the Proto-Germanic calque bardō. I have saw your message, and I'm a bit confused but seem to understand. Are you saying I can't transcript a page from another? If so, that's something I can avoid for sure. I know that most personal names and surnames are toponymic, but if their etymological or reconstructional origin is left out, it has to be in the page somehow. Some users have different terminologies on how to use Wiktionary, so how does your terminology work? Please explain it to me so that I understand a bit more.

My best, Juliusmborris (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

What I'm saying is you are giving etymologies suitable for English entries, not Polish, etc. Please look at other toponyms and surnames for comparison. Vininn126 (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Example: your sourcewords are all given in their English transcription, not how they would be written in their original language. Vininn126 (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't generally write Polish, so do I let someone write for Polish entries like you?

My best, Juliusmborris (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Juliusmborris You should use templates such as {{rfe}} and such for requests. Don't edit languages you don't speak. Vininn126 (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thank you for giving me that code. That would help me! Juliusmborris (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Juliusmborris: Is there any value in adding Wiktionary entries for random surnames? Especially if they are added as incomplete stubs. --Ssvb (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's governed by WT:CFI#Given_and_family_names, but having an incomplete stub still doesn't look nice. --Ssvb (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

An entry with nothing but pronunciation and request templates is pretty useless, especially if you created it from a redlink. The bluelink gives the false impression that a real entry exists, so it may actually delay the creation of a useful entry by someone who knows the language but doesn't know about the request categories. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I've noticed that the list in Category:Etymology templates is missing the back-formation template. I don't know how to edit category pages (or if I'm allowed to in the first place), hence I'm asking you for help. Do you have the means to add the missing template? Thanks in advance. JimiY☽ru 06:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@JimiYoru That's because it's in CAT:Morphology templates, which is a subcat of etymology. Vininn126 (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I've seen you've changed Module:pl-IPA to transcribe the Polish letter ⟨y⟩ as /ɘ/ instead of /ɨ/. And while I fully agree with this change, I'm wondering if there is a consensus now to change it. Some 6 years ago there was a discussion on Beer Parlour about this and it seems they haven't found a consensus, were there any new discussions where the consensus was reached? (if there were I can't find them)

Also, I think you should update the Module:pl-IPA/testcases because they are failing now. Ryēkī (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ryēkī It's in preparation for the eventual deployment of {{pl-pr}}, which uses a completely new module. I've been talking with various Polish editors and people generally agree. Vininn126 (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

About your modification https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Module%3Aetymology_languages%2Fdata&diff=81920050&oldid=81562744 The documentation of the module says "The Wikidata item with the Q at the beginning removed.". You let the Q in. Lasconic (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oops, thanks. !!!! Vininn126 (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanx for fix. Can you fix this: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Goch#Polish ShjsywaghgFtFFj (talk)

ShjsywaghgFtFFj As it stands the entry is usable. I don't do much with proper nouns. Vininn126 (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Goch is a surname. Also Goch is a plural genitive form of given name Gocha. Only the first one is mentioned now ShjsywaghgFtFFj (talk)

ShjsywaghgFtFFj Okay, done. Vininn126 (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rather than nag you about CAT:E, here's a link that should get you ahead of the game: search for "zlw-mas" in all mainspace pages. Use it in good health! Chuck Entz (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Thanks. There might still be reconstructions, but I think I'll manage. Vininn126 (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just change the namespace in the search form. I was going to say something about by, but then I discovered that someone made a bad edit that broke the Japanese section right after you fixed the Old Polish. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz I think I got everything that needs checking. Vininn126 (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you run a quick check over pospolite? We might want an entry for Kingdom of Poland too? Denazz (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Denazz What do you mean a quick check? Seems fine, but I don't deal with English. Vininn126 (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeh, English sucks...Perhaps a specific defn at ruszenie, and a grammar note in the Etymology? Denazz (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Denazz Check the etymology at the English entry and tell me what you think. Vininn126 (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nieuważny is both female and male last name!
Examples here:
Male persons with last name Nieuważny:
https://nauka-polska.pl/#/profile/scientist?id=17713
https://nauka-polska.pl/#/profile/scientist?id=58522
Female person with last name Nieuważny:
https://nauka-polska.pl/#/profile/scientist?id=20065

ShjsywaghgFtFFj (talk)

User:ShjsywaghgFtFFj I don't doubt it's male. I'd assume Nieuważna would be the female equivalent. How many women are there with specifically Nieuważny? Vininn126 (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

How many women with last name Nieuważny? At least 3

1 https://nauka-polska.pl/#/profile/scientist?id=20065

2 https://www.facebook.com/katarzyna.grzonkowska.31

3 https://www.facebook.com/jagna.nieuwaznyShjsywaghgFtFFj (talk)

ShjsywaghgFtFFj Well that's more than I expected. I'm not sure what the WT:CFI are for names, to be honest. Vininn126 (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Those 3 I could find quickly... I presume there are more. Nieuważna is also a valid female last name. Both female forms do exist. The female last nameNieuważny is used so we have to accept it...ShjsywaghgFtFFj (talk)

Found fourth one: https://pl.linkedin.com/in/anna-nieuwazny ShjsywaghgFtFFj (talk)

ShjsywaghgFtFFj check the page now. Vininn126 (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

All looks ok. Only... Hard to tell if female last name Nieuważny is rare. It's less frequent than Nieuważna but the difference looks not big. 1:4 according to results in FB.ShjsywaghgFtFFj (talk)

ShjsywaghgFtFFj It would be useful to check certain sources. CAT:Polish reference templates should have something. Vininn126 (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be better to use {{demonym-noun}} in the definitions like this at bełchatowianka:

{{femeq|pl|bełchatowianin}}: {{demonym-noun|pl|Bełchatów|g=f}}

which would give

female equivalent of bełchatowianin: female native or inhabitant of Bełchatów

and correctly categorise the page without use of {{C}}. Do you agree? And should the "male equivalent" part of the headword be kept since it is already in the definition? İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 15:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nothing against this formatting. I decided to keep male equivalents usually for symmetry, and also you might have the rare neuter equivalent, etc. Vininn126 (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Keep up the great work! Both of you are insanely active so this is a really tight race. Just a week or two ago he was ahead by 2k (yes I've been following along 🤭) Ioaxxere (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ioaxxere I sometimes compare with other editors as well but hadn't checked knight. Kinda surprised they were able to rack up so many so fast! Vininn126 (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho Catch up, nerd. Vininn126 (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I note there is the Slovincian entry wôgjeń with the ń as ɲ. Does this Wiktionary orthography have ń and if it were not ɲ, what is the function of this letter? Thanks so much again. ElkandAcquerne (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ElkandAcquerne As explained in w:Slovincian_language#Transcription (which I linked you to...), ń alternates with nj in declensions and such. We also tend to use nj instead of ń medially, meaning ń only occurs at the end. Essentially, similar to Polish orthography, but with j instead of i. Vininn126 (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply. I wonder though why for /n/ and not /ɲ/ for ń as the phonetic relalization of the IPA. ń is never IPA /n/ right? ElkandAcquerne (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I said, it signals an alternation of ń~nj, where as final n will not have n~nj. It's an etymological spelling to some degree, which happens all the time in orthographies. Same reason why Polish keeps ó, as it alternates with o. Vininn126 (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ElkandAcquerne Something is broken in the module, wôgjeń should be /ˈvɵ.ɡjɛn/. Sławobóg (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sławobóg I would assume any word spelled with ń in Slovincian would be /ɲ/ though right? For Slovincian, final -n would be /n/ and final -ń would be /ɲ/? ElkandAcquerne (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not from what we found. <ń> is /n/ but in declensions becomes <njV> /nj/. Sławobóg (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah ok thanks for the clarification. For the Proto-Slavic roots, I have been adding Slovincian or making the Slovincian match the Wiktionary orthography. Any of you please feel free to check my edits for accuracy. ElkandAcquerne (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ElkandAcquerne I patrolled a few - you seem to be doing it generally correct, even moreso after my corrections. Please do not be afraid to ask if you're unsure - Slovincian is particularly tricky and messy. Vininn126 (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You reverted all my edits, including some you never should have. Why? DonnanZ (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Donnanz I reverted one. I gave an explanation. Until you learn how to count or read an edit summary, I won't be continuing this conversation. Vininn126 (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The cheek! You were rather careless and reverted four edits. Two at least need reinstating, so you have work to do. I will be checking your work. DonnanZ (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Donnanz Or you can do it correctly this time sticking to guidelines instead of ignoring them for your own preferences. Vininn126 (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's all very well referring me to WT:ELE, but you don't explain what you think is wrong in your eyes. I spent a lot of time today on this, only to see it all undone. A very high-handed act, I will be restoring parts, but you won't like my edit note. DonnanZ (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I am not sure how to properly put Lorentz's lgǻř (meaning liar, page 574) into the Wiktionary standard orthography. I am pretty sure I am reading the word correctly in Lorentz. Can you help with this word? Thanks so much again! ElkandAcquerne (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ElkandAcquerne You have Lorentz's headword correct. This would generate lgorz. That a is the result of old Lechitic "pochylone a", which phonemically we spell as o, but has many phonetic realizations. Hope this helps. Vininn126 (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC) Vininn126 (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much. I noticed a Proto-Slavic page for *lъgařь was created. The Kashubian word is łgôrz while the Polish word is łgarz. I was planning on adding the Slovincian to this page. ElkandAcquerne (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ElkandAcquerne I see. Yes, I saw some other edits related to this lexeme. In Kashbubian if you have ô you should have o in Slovincian, and also the opposite is true; Kashubian o is like Slovincian ô. Standard Polish levelled out almost all pochylone vowels except ó. It has l instead of ł because Slovincian has "bylaczenie". Vininn126 (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your Polish edits are immaculate! Zestiest bowler in the rock (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Vininn126 (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could you block me for a month? -saph668 (user—talk—contribs) 11:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Saph668 Ask and ye shall receive. Vininn126 (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Can you add Jew York Shitty to Derived terms section of Jew? And Syria-Palestine to Palestine. I'm unable to edit those pp. P. Sovjunk (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@P. Sovjunk Done. Vininn126 (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

meoω~ can you block me for like 2 weeks? thanks :3 əkrəm. 16:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Əkrəm Cəfər Done. Vininn126 (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply