User talk:Vininn126/archive/2022

Hey, just wanted to quickly congratulate you for becoming an admin! You're doing an amazing job with moderating and editing Polish entries! Also thank you for all the tips you gave me :) Keep up the good work! Mazab IZW (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Mazab IZW Thanks! It's my pleasure Vininn126 (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Congrats from my end as well! :) Could you please enter yourself into this list? Fytcha (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Fytcha Congrats all around! bam! ] Vininn126 (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. First of all, I'd like to thank you for your constant contribution and corrections that you make in my contributions. I really appreciate that! I'd like you ask you, do you know a tool or a special page where I could see all the terms that I've submitted so far onto the Wiktionary? I know there's such a tool on Wikipedia but I'm not sure about here. Tashi (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Tashi Hey! It's my pleasure. Learning how to edit Wiktionary is a difficult task, it took me a while and I'm still learning new stuff. I see you're improving, which is good. You should check out the "contributions" button in the top right and you should be able to click "show only new pages" in the "search for contributions" box. Vininn126 (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Cheers! I clicked the "Contribution" tab and it turned out that there's "Entries Created" at the bottom of it which has all pages I've submitted so far :) Thanks again! Tashi (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know about this category. I have my own bot, which produces a lot of lists based on occurrences of a word in all wiktionaries, not just the English, or the frequency in Polish language, still I can record something from this category. However, I would like to notice that about 3000 words from this category have been already recorded: User:Olaf/requests for Polish audio Olaf (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Olaf I figured many of them already were - we've been working on a way to automatically add them to the pronunciation template that we have (as of right now the bot that does that is incompatible with it). And thanks for your lists, this seems very useful! Vininn126 (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Lingua Libre has its own bot, which can do the job: . It uploads the audio files on four other wiki projects. Olaf (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Olaf The problem is it adds the audio in its separate template. On en.wikt we use an all-in-one pronunciation tempalte {{pl-p}}, which includes an audio slot. When the audio is added seperately, it breaks the standard layout of pronunciation. So the bought has to be taught to add it to the template, or add the audio seperately if the new template hasn't been implented on a page yet (I'd like send a bot to replace all {{pl-IPA}} with the new template but that's a different story...) Vininn126 (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I recorded some words and updated the list. Now it's over 4500 words recorded from the category. The rest of the category seems to be either archaic or dialectal (which I'm not sure how to pronounce) or inflected forms (which I'm not really interested in) or containing /r/ consonant which I'm not able to pronounce. So I believe I will finish here.

BTW, there are 6535 Polish lemmas (excluding surnames), that have no pronunciation recorded but are not listed in the category. Perhaps this should be done automatically in a template if a Polish word has no Polish audio? Or I may produce a list here and refresh it every day, just like my bot produces tens of lists on Polish Wiktionary and Lingua Libre? It looks very inefficient to maintain this category by marking the pages one by one manually.

Regarding the Lingua Libre bot, it has also a different problem - it's based on Lingua Libre only, so audio files from c:Category:Polish pronunciation are not uploaded by this bot. But it's by design, and still better than nothing. Olaf (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@OlafThanks for recording the rest! Yeah, I don't think anyone is really that interested in getting inflected forms recorded.

The category is now automated. I was originally marking it manually, but someone recently updated the {{pl-p}} template to automatically categorize any word without audio. And yes, it would seem that at least one regular audio recorder does not use LL. So that's something we'd still have to check for. Also, @Tashi has started recording audio on LL, you might be interested in having your bot check for their recordings for pl.wikt. Vininn126 (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

My bot is adding all the new pronunciation in all languages from Commons to pl.wikt every night, so Tashi's recordings are already added wherever the corresponding page existed, or will be added automatically once the corresponding page is created.

Well, the automated category which lacks 6500 entries sounds a little bit broken...

Perhaps you would be interested in recording something in English? I maintain a list on Lingua Libre of English words like cholesterol or neighbor that have no pronunciation on Commons. The list is sorted by the number of Wiktionaries having a particular word and refreshed every three hours. Olaf (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Olaf Well the list you generated on your wanted page is a dream. Using it now to update the pages that should have audio. As to recording English - I've considered it! I spend most of my time writing entries for Polish here, but I would like to sit down sometime and record a bunch of audio for English pages without audio. I'll probably use this list of yours sometime and do so, not sure exactly when. Vininn126 (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, thank you for your work on the Polish language! If you need the list to be refreshed, please let me know. Olaf (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Wow, thank you! All lists are automatically refreshed every three hours by my bot. The only reason for limiting them to 380 entries is the limit of 380 uploads per hour (?) for most users in Commons. So the new batch is already in place. During the night your recordings were also automatically added to the corresponding entries in pl.wikt. Olaf (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Olaf Good to know it's automatic! I'll add them everyone once in a while and let the bot do it's trick, it's like a well-oiled machine Vininn126 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I decided to spend a few hours cleaning up Polish relational adjectives. After pushing the changes, I realize I may have undone some of your work. In particular, I removed the text "of or related to X" in many places, to harmonize the use of the relational tag with the way it works in other languages (particularly Slavic and Romance languages). Basically, in my view something like this:

#: {{lb|pl|relational}} ], of or related to ]

doesn't really say anything more than this:

#: {{lb|pl|relational}} ]

The "relational" tag already links to a glossary entry explaining what "relational" adjectives are, and the translation in English will not normally have the text "of or related to ..." in it. My approach to this in Russian was to add a short usex when it seemed it might not be clear what's going on, e.g. if you have a relational adjective antymonowy (“antimony”), I might add a usex with the collocation proszek antymonowy (“antimony powder”), rather than trying to convey the sense using a dictionaryese definition like "of or related to antimony" or an uncommon English term like "antimonic". (For toponyms, similarly I often replaced uncommon terms like "Michiganian" with "of Michigan".)

After pushing these changes I noticed you added the "of or related to" text recently in the past few months, and I seem to have partly undone this in cases like abonamentowy and other words beginning with a. If you disagree strongly with these changes, I can see about how to undo them. (The author says User:WingerBot but the changes were all made manually, by loading all the Polish adjectives into a file and editing the file with a text editor.) Benwing2 (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 Alright, that's something I wasn't too sure if I should be adding or not. I'm not really too torn up about it, as it was something I was able to "automatically" add, but I can easily get rid of that bit. Vininn126 (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking of doing a bot run to convert all uses of {{pl-decl-adj-y}}, {{pl-decl-adj-ki}}, {{pl-decl-adj-owy}} and {{pl-decl-adj-i}} to use {{pl-decl-adj-auto}}. Do you know whether this will always work? I notice I need to be careful with {{pl-decl-adj-ki}} because if the second param is specified, it is passed as |olddat= to {{pl-decl-adj-auto}}. (However, I suspect the majority of these calls are broken. For example, burundyjski has ki as the |olddat= param and bydgoski has bydgoscy as the |olddat= param when in all cases it should actually be a boolean. I don't know enough about Polish grammar to know under what circumstances there's an "old dative" with adjectives in -ki. Can you help?) Benwing2 (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 That was actually the next thing on my list. The old dative is only used in certain prepositional constructions (po polsku, po aptekarsku, and does only apply to -ki adjectives. That should be the only snag with replacing them. Vininn126 (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 At that that's the sort of thing that isn't with every adjective, and most major dictionaries don't even list it. Vininn126 (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am doing a bot run to fix these now. My code issued 48 warnings (out of 1,158 pages needing fixing). You might want to take a look: User:Benwing2/split-pl-links-warnings. Benwing2 (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 What's the next step? Vininn126 (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I already ran the bot to fix the multipart links; you just need to look over the warnings, which represent cases that the bot couldn't do automatically, and fix up manually the ones needing fixing up. Benwing2 (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 Okay, I think I got them all. Thanks for all your help. Vininn126 (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

What’s the point of these kinds of edits? It’s very standard and helpful to have derived terms glossed, since aeons may pass before they are created, and people only need to look at the simples if we have lists of glossed derived terms, so actually we have completion just by listing derived terms, it’s the main dictionary content, thus seen—similar to the way printed dictionaries are consulted. جَوْز (jawz) contains every you need to about phytonyms constructed from it, and so the lists of nightshade and vervain are satiating for most people.

And the image part is very wrong: if a species is shown for a genus the immediate question arises is which species is depicted, if you read entries in a certain way. @DCDuring uses to add the taxonomical name if he sees such a thing. A name may also apply to very more distinct plants, as on قَيْقَب (qayqab), and كَحْلَاء (kaḥlāʔ), I find room for an example image for all. I can also kind of sneak in some derived terms into images of course as a starter, if there is a long list of derived terms not yet represented into Wiktionary. All messages you thwart. Fay Freak (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak As to the glosses - 90% of pages don't have that kind of information. Maybe we should be putting it, but I was trying to create a certain consistency. That particular one was related to some bad syntax that was on some pages (namely we were briefly putting {{l|pl|word, word}}. The other parts were more collateral, as I thought they might not have been good. (I've been working on the clean-up section). If you think those should be there, go ahead and put it back, I'm not too attached to it, aside from some of the bad syntax was there. If the image should be done a certain way, or if you think those glosses should be there, go ahead. Vininn126 (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also, what do you mean by "All messages you thwart"? Vininn126 (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I mean the messages that readers do not get if you remove information. Fay Freak (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

That’s what I thought. You went through a lot entries, great work, and then derived the conclusion that all pages should and could look the same, and our providing information is the toll: words aren’t the same, they have different requirements, and people don’t look at the dictionary from this bird's-eye view, with so great an expectation of consistency, and put different requirements to various kinds of entries. And in that particular case I don’t even see bad syntax: as I have brushed above, that on marek was planful usage. Fay Freak (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak thanks for the input - I've always been wary to edit pages related to specific species and such, there seems to be an exact way we do it that I haven't learned yet. Vininn126 (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'd be happy to explain what I try to do in taxonomic name entries and vernacular name entries for taxa. I have somewhat different standards for more linked-to entries than for orphans.

One way we could achieve perfect consistency is by removing ALL content. But WT:ELE itemizes much permitted content that most entries don't have. As it is, the consistency argument is usually invoked to remove content that the remover doesn't like, for whatever reason, eg, esthetics, taxonomy aversion. If someone doesn't want glosses in images in "their" language, I have no problem with that, especially if there is evidence of a consensus among contributors in the language. I will eventually review the images of organisms and remove them if they do not fit the content. For example, if the definition is for a genus and we don't have a ready-made gallery of species, an image of the type species for the genus, or other appropriate image for the genus, I will add a link to the Commons category (if any) for the genus, if there isn't one already, and remove the misleading image. Removing {{taxlink|EXAMPLE|taxon}} just moves EXAMPLE back in the queue of taxonomic entries to be added. If enough of them are removed, I can start working on the taxa of organisms in my body, house, garden, park, county, state, region, country, continent and hemisphere. I would hope I could finish those on or in my body, house, and garden by the end of the year. DCDuring (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also @Hergilei I'm thinking of doing some cleanups on Polish lemmas similarly to what I've done on Russian, Italian, etc. Possibly some of them may be controversial so I'd like to run them by you first:

1. Convert English-linked definitions to raw links, e.g. {{l|en|], ], ]}} becomes ], ], ]. Most foreign-language entries use raw English links in definitions and there's an informal consensus to do this going forward. In case the English-linked word is the same as the Polish lemma, it converts slightly differently, e.g. {{l|en|abdomen}} becomes ] on the page abdomen. I have a script to do this.

2. Templatize categories, e.g.

]
]

becomes

{{cln|pl|words suffixed with -izm}}
{{C|pl|Abrahamism}}

while

]
]

becomes

{{C|pl|Biblical characters|Individuals}}

The advantage of this, besides it being fewer characters, is that the terms sort correctly in their categories.

I have a script to do this, and currently it will automatically convert {{topics}}, {{c}}, etc. into {{C}}, although it could be made to prefer {{c}} or something else instead.

3. Use {{inh+}} and {{bor+}}. Essentially, From {{inh| becomes {{inh+| and From {{bor| becomes {{bor+|.

The advantage of this is, besides it being fewer characters, is it explicitly displays "Inherited from" or "Borrowed from" instead of just "From", which harmonizes the text with the categories (which also indicate whether the term is inherited or borrowed) and makes the derivational relationships clearer esp. to users who aren't intimately familiar with which languages can be parents of which others.

This can be done semi-automatically using find/replace in a text editor.

4. Use {{female equivalent of}} for female-equivalent nouns. Hence instead of (for entry abnegatka)

===Noun===
{{pl-noun|f|m=abnegat}}

# {{l|en|female ]}}
#: {{syn|pl|niechlujka}}

the definition would look like this (assuming raw English links):

===Noun===
{{pl-noun|f|m=abnegat}}

# {{female equivalent of|pl|abnegat}}: female ]
#: {{syn|pl|niechlujka}}

This will automatically categorize into Category:Polish female equivalent nouns.

This can be done semi-automatically with a script.

5. Convert raw quotes to use {{quote}}, e.g.

# {{lb|pl|intransitive}} to ] “]!”, especially as a ]
#* '''1901''', Henryk Sienkiewicz, ''Ogniem i mieczem'' (''With Fire and Sword'', trans. Jeremiah Curtin), vol. 1, chapter 10:
#*: Tatarzy, '''ałłachując''' coraz przeraźliwiej, zachęcali się wzajemnie; odpowiadały im krzyki kozaków: „koli! koli!“ i spokojny głos pana Skrzetuskiego, powtarzający coraz częściej komendę:<br /> — Ognia!
#*:: The Tartars, '''shouting "Allah!"''' with increased shrillness, urged one another on. The Cossack cries: "Cut! cut!" answered them; and the calm voice of Skshetuski, repeating faster and faster the command, "Fire!"
#: {{syn|pl|ałłakować|hałłachować|hałłakować}}

becomes

# {{lb|pl|intransitive}} to ] “]!”, especially as a ]
#* '''1901''', Henryk Sienkiewicz, ''Ogniem i mieczem'' (''With Fire and Sword'', trans. Jeremiah Curtin), vol. 1, chapter 10:
#*: {{quote|pl|Tatarzy, '''ałłachując''' coraz przeraźliwiej, zachęcali się wzajemnie; odpowiadały im krzyki kozaków: „koli! koli!“ i spokojny głos pana Skrzetuskiego, powtarzający coraz częściej komendę:<br /> — Ognia!|The Tartars, '''shouting "Allah!"''' with increased shrillness, urged one another on. The Cossack cries: "Cut! cut!" answered them; and the calm voice of Skshetuski, repeating faster and faster the command, "Fire!"}}
#: {{syn|pl|ałłakować|hałłachować|hałłakować}}

This provides more standard formatting and adds the page to Category:Polish terms with quotations.

This can be done semi-automatically using find/replace in a text editor.

6. In the longer term I'd like to redo the Polish noun and verb modules to make them more consistent, more thorough and easier to use, similarly to the current Ukrainian and Belarusian noun/verb/adjective modules (which were fairly recently written). But that will take longer than the above changes.

Thoughts? Benwing2 (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

(Notifying BigDom, Hythonia, KamiruPL, Tashi, Luxtaythe2nd, Max19582): as the other resident Polish editors. This would be a very big change. I'm personally okay with change one, but is there a reason to use ] over {{l|en|WORD}}?. </nowiki> I'm more than okay with change 2 (the categories). Change 3 - this one I have mixed feelings on in general. For the etymologies, I could go either way, and I know there was a whole big debate about using + or not, and I don't feel too strongly, I'm not sure if the other editors do. Change 4, I'm not the biggest fan of personally. If that were the case we should also use "perfective equivalent of" which we shouldn't always do, as sometimes the female/perfective forms have slightly different meanings. Change I'm a huge fan of. Change 6 is something I've been thinking about, too. As for nouns, I'm not sure how the process would look. Some nouns have a fleeting e that we need to show the module, at least for masculine nouns. Feminine nouns and neuter nouns _should_ be more automatic but I'm not sure, we might need to run the bot to find errors. As for verbs, we one way to simplify it would be removing the parameter after the verb class, so {{pl-conj-ai-am,asz|naciąga|pp}} becomes {{pl-conj-ai-am,asz|pp}}, as most should be able to look at the pagename. Some exceptions might be Class XI verbs. Unrelated, it'd be nice to update the Class V template to include an alt past form -nął vs -ł (like ucichnąć). Also, I have a potentially controversial change - updating derived and related terms to use {{col3}}? I'm not the biggest fan of this template or how it looks, but I know that a large part of the community prefers it. It would be a drastic change to the look of Polish entries, too. I at least want to mention it here to let other editors give their input on that. Vininn126 (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just FYI, you can specify the past= parameter for verbs like ucichnąć. I added the functionality last year, although to be honest I'd forgotten about it too until reading this comment! I've updated the conjugation on that entry as an example. Cheers, BigDom 18:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@BigDom Well I'll be damned, good to know. Vininn126 (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think changes 2, 3, 5 and 6 would be pretty nice to have. As for change 1, I pretty much agree with Vininn, but if that's what most foreign-language entries use then I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same. I don't really like change 4, and it also doesn't seem too necessary as we already list the masculine counterpart under the "Noun" header. Max19582 (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

2 and 5 feel like no-brainers. Agreed with Vininn about 1, is there some reason we shouldn't use {{l|en}}? I'm a fan of 3. 4 and 6 I'll have to think about once I've had some coffee. Hythonia (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

(Notifying Hergilei, Tweenk, Shumkichi, Wrzodek, Asank neo, KamiruPL): I guess for (1) I found it annoying dealing with all the wrapping of English terms when working with them, and the English term is always at the top anyway, so the only effect of the wrapping is to skip past the table of contents. But I will gladly defer to the community. As for ], that one doesn't need to be done. For (6), the fleeting e that appears or disappears in some nouns is handled in Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian by adding a * code in the declension param. In these languages, all of masculine/feminine/neuter can have this; for masculine and some feminine nouns it appears in the nom sg and not elsewhere, whereas for most feminine/neuter nouns it appears in the gen pl and not elsewhere. In general, the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian noun, verb and adjective inflection templates have only one template per part of speech, e.g. {{ru-conj}} and {{uk-ndecl}}. For example, for the Ukrainian noun бана́н (banán, “banana”), the template looks like {{uk-ndecl|бана́н<>}}; this specifies explicitly the position of the stress, while everything else is defaulted (by default it is masculine, inanimate, stress pattern a). For брат (brat, “brother”), it looks like {{uk-ndecl|брат<b.pr>}}; here, b means stress pattern b and pr means "personal". For мужчи́на (mužčýna, “man”), the invocation is {{uk-ndecl|мужчи́на<M.pr>}} which specifies the gender M explicitly since otherwise the noun would be predicted as feminine, and again pr for "personal". A slightly more complex example is за́єць (zájecʹ, “hare”), which uses {{uk-ndecl|за́єць<c*.anml>}}: stress pattern c, * for fleeting e (the nominative plural is зайці́ (zajcí), where the e has disappeared and the stress moved onto the ending), anml for "animal" animacy. The documentation on {{uk-ndecl}} gives lots of examples. For Polish, the issues of accent position and stress pattern go away, so it wouldn't be necessary to repeat the noun itself with an accent, you'd just put the stuff inside <...> unless you need to decline a multiword expression (which is also possible), so for mężczyzna you might just specify {{pl-ndecl|M.pr}}. For Ukrainian verbs such as чита́ти (čytáty), {{uk-conj}} looks like this: {{uk-conj|чита́ти<1a.impf.tr.ppp>}}. This means "class 1a" (where class 1 is verbs in -ати with first singular in -аю, and a is the stress pattern), imperfective, transitive, with a past passive participle. For Polish czytać, the equivalent might be {{pl-conj|1.impf.tr.ppp}} or whatever. I don't know if Polish has numbered verb classes like Ukrainian/Belarusian/Russian, if not they can be named, and it might not be necessary to specify explicitly whether the verb is transitive or not. Benwing2 (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 Personally if you wanna remove it from the pages where it's not the same as the English page, I'm okay with that. If it's for pages that's the same as English, let's just leave it. For point 6, zbytek is a good example of how we deal with fleeting e now in masculine words, and feminine and neuter seems to handle it automatically. The noun declension template is mostly the same, you just replace the gender. Vininn126 (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks. It is true that the fleeting e can be handled automatically a lot of the time in feminine and neuter words, but at least for Russian there are various cases where it can't, as well as feminine/neuter words that can have two genitive plurals, one with and one without the fleeting e. Don't know if this happens in Polish. Actually, do you have a good reference on Polish conjugation and/or declension? Benwing2 (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 I recommend this. Honestly, I think declensions are about as automatic as they can be given the state of Polish nouns. The main task will be replacing the old templates with {{pl-decl-noun-m-pr}}, {{pl-decl-noun-m-an}}, {{pl-decl-noun-m-in}}, {{pl-decl-noun-f}}, {{pl-decl-noun-n}}, with the appropariate tantum=s. As for verbs - they're all covered by templates, it's just we have a lot of them. Vininn126 (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126 OK. Thanks for the ref, I don't read Polish but I'm sure I can figure it out by analogy with Russian and with some help from Google Translate :) ... that's how I dealt with Zaliznyak's Russian grammar. BTW Zaliznyak's grammar not only describes how to inflect Russian words but lists every noun, verb and adjective in the language and exactly what its inflection is; is there an equivalent for Polish, or even better, an online dictionary that actually inflects words for you? Cf. this awesome resource for Ukrainian: . Benwing2 (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

PWN has an orthographical dictionary, WSJP, but also SGJP might the best for what you're looking for. Vininn126 (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Great refs, thank you!! Benwing2 (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

BTW, above I see you mentioned class XI and class V verbs, are these standard and do you have a reference on them? I looked on Wikipedia but there isn't so much info there. I am curious how they map onto the 16 classes of Russian verbs in Zaliznyak's analysis. (Russian class 1 would be Polish verbs in -ać with -aj- infix; class 2 would be Polish verbs in -ować I think; class 3 would be Polish verbs in -nąć maybe; class 4 would be Polish verbs in -ić or -yć; etc.) I see in the grammar book you linked some discussion on three classes of verbs starting around page 326 but that seems a different classification. Benwing2 (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 He lists those but there are more "sub" classes that are more their own. In the print copy of WSJP you get FULL declension tables (I might email that to you later, if you want). Vininn126 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

That would be great, thank you. Benwing2 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi all, just chipping in as Vininn asked for my thoughts.

• Change (1) I'm all in favour of. I'm sure the other Polish editors would tell you I've never really got behind the use of {{l|en|...}} in regular entries myself. As mentioned above the English word is nearly always at the top of the page anyway, unless there's a Translingual entry. As for entries where the English and Polish words are spelled the same, the ] syntax is fine by me, I'm used to links like that from when I first started here 10+ years ago, but lately we have been using {{l|en|}} and I am very happy continue with that.
• Change (2) is a no-brainer, although slight personal preference would be lower-case {{c}}.
• Change (3) I personally like and fits in with our use of templates such as {{deverbal}} which includes the text. If other editors aren't keen though, no big deal.
• Change (4) I'm leaning towards no, for the same reason I never got behind using a template for regular links like in part (1). Why use a template when simple ] links do the trick? However, the categorisation would be a bonus IMO, so I'm not completely against it.
• Change (5) is definitely an improvement but still only looks half-finished; wouldn't one of the more specific templates like {{quote-book}} help to tidy up the auxiliary information too? Not sure how you would choose the right template automatically though.
• Finally, change (6) I'm not in favour of at the moment. Given the examples from Ukrainian, the unified template looks horrendously complex to use. Not opposed to something in the future but it would have to be a lot more user-friendly to get me on board I think.

Hope this helps, BigDom 07:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

(Notifying Benwing2, Hythonia, KamiruPL, Tashi, Max19582‎, Hergilei): so they can be aware that further debate is taking place.

Change 1) I am in agreeance with BigDom. I think removing them from non-shared pages is fine, and it seems more people prefer the syntax {{l|en|...}} on shared pages.

Change 2) Already done, uppercase C was chosen. I'm sure we could switch it easily back to lower-case c no problem, but I don't think anyone here really cares too much.

Change 3) Okay, so I personally don't see the point of switching to the plus templates, but if y'all prefer it, that's fine by me. Hopefully we don't rekindle the war.

Change 4) Keeping as is, no change.

Change 5) In progress.

Change 6) Benwing is already looking at potential templates, I think we will have to see how they will operate. If they're more unified and easier to handle, great.

Change 7) I figure I should mention this: How does everyone feel about switching to {{col3}} and the like for derived and related terms? Personally I'm not the biggest fan of how these templates look, but they might be easier to handle than our current setup. Vininn126 (talk) 08:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126 I have no particular opinion of {{col3}} etc.; but it seems if they don't look so good we should try to fix that (unfortunately I am not a CSS expert). Benwing2 (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Chomczurek065 Forgot to ping you, too. Vininn126 (talk) 08:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey, are alternative forms supposed to be on the top of the page, even when the forms don't apply to some of the definitions? Because for szogun, I'm 99% sure one can't say siogun or szogun for its colloquial sense, and it seems kind of confusing to have those forms at the top. Max19582 (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Max19582 I get confused by entry layout, too. ] Hopefully this holy scripture will answer our questions. Vininn126 (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126 I think putting those below the etymology would make sense, as in this case they're meaning-dependent. Max19582 (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Max19582 Okay, it seems this problem is pretty specific and is going to need more attention. Vininn126 (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey, paręset, parędziesiąt and paręnaście are pronounced with the <e> sound. WSJP says the pronunciation is <paręset>, but I'm guessing the ę thing is just an oversight. Check out , and . Max19582 (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Max19582 I've heard both, but the person I asked to pronounce it was doing "careful speech". We might want to list both. Vininn126 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126 I'm not really sure if that's a good idea, because a lot of people confuse careful and hypercorrect speech. Since pronouncing word-final ę is usually considered hypercorrect, I think it'd be the same case with parę- words. Max19582 (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Max19582 Fair enough. Go ahead and revert. Vininn126 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

rei morto, rei posto (diff ~66004665) I just started reading Template:link to see if this is a bug or if I needed to set some parameter. The template documentation says "The template will automatically remove diacritics and punctuation from the page title" but offers no actual solution. I was about to change it to a flat link when I got an edit conflict because you already had. GMTA I suppose. Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Alexis Jazz Makes sense. Honestly, bare links should be used more on non-English pages, anyway. Cheers! Vininn126 (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Per WT:TRANS, please nest Translation tables inside the POS section. See here and here (and probably many of the entries here) I have a bot that can clean these up so don't worry about undoing them yourself. Happy editing! JeffDoozan (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@JeffDoozan Will do, cheers! Vininn126 (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I forgot to tag you in this clarifying edit. If the part of speech header is surrounded by 3 "=" symbols (L3), like ===Noun===, then the Translation section should have 1 more (L4): ====Translations====. If there are multiple Etymology sections, then the part of speech header may by L4 so the Translations would need to be L5. Thank you for all of your work adding so many translations! JeffDoozan (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@JeffDoozan Iiiii see. It needs to be nested. I thought you meant the position. Vininn126 (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey! You can archive multiple sections at the same time by pressing "archive" on all of them without clicking on proceed in between. It's more pleasant for those of us who have the page on our Watchlist ;) — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 21:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yep! I was going through them individually at first cause I was trying to read em. Just archived a whole bunch ;) Vininn126 (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Per the vote Svartava mentioned in the Beer Parlor these categories are unmerged now, are they not? 37.110.218.43 12:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

It is a red link again. Vininn126 (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand, what is "it"? 37.110.218.43 12:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Polish colloquialisms - it was deleted in preparation for changes as far as I understand. I'm not sure why are you are asking me about this on my talk page otherwise. Vininn126 (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

(if you wanna go ahead and recreate the categories, be my guest). Vininn126 (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

А? — This unsigned comment was added by 178.121.43.158 (talk).

I just told you in the revert. Translations only go on English pages. It's in our guidelines, which I'm assuming you didn't read. Vininn126 (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Не читал, братан, не читал. Ну мог бы перенести в английское соответствующее высказывание, зачем удалять — This unsigned comment was added by 178.121.43.158 (talk).

You should probably read them before editing, instead of making incorrect edits. If you wanna add those translations to the English pages, be my guest, but do not add them to other pages again. Vininn126 (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

А где их читать — This unsigned comment was added by 178.121.43.158 (talk).

Check out the welcome message I left on your talk page. there are more but that's a start. Vininn126 (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Послушай, а для "(как) бабка надвое сказала" - нужно две отдельные страницы заводить для двух форм или как-то на одной оформить? TupaUchetka (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, you shouldn't use parentheses in translations, but you can probably just list the more popular form (you can see I didn't list all the alternative forms in the Polish translation) Vininn126 (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Чтоб я еще знал какая из этих форм в большем ходу. Но в целом я понял, спс TupaUchetka (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Since I am not familiar with these templates, may you tell me the reason why polish pages should using {{C}} instead of {{topics}}? --TongcyDai (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@TongcyDai One reason is consistency - we use that on all Polish pages. Another reason is it's a smaller, shorter template, fewer characters. Vininn126 (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for you reply! Just wondering, if consistency and template length are important, why should we not replace all pages using {{topics}} with {{C}}, and tell editors not to use the former anymore? Also, why is this convention only restricted in Polish, not all the languages? --TongcyDai (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@TongcyDai That's a great question. In short - each language has its own community, and those guidelines are what we do in the Polish community. There has not been a website wide consensus for all languages as to this particular thing. Vininn126 (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I got it. Thank you for telling me this! --TongcyDai (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@TongcyDai No problem. Glad to have a new editor so open to corrections. Keep up the good work, and happy editing! Vininn126 (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

After searching Google Books, I found some, but not much, use of a passive participle dotyczony:

• "z załączonymi 1 dotyczonymi dokumentami", from a book from 1957, "Czyn zbrojny wychodztwa polskiego w Ameryce"
• "wpisywano do drugiej kategoryi ksiąg wszystkie rodzaje spraw sądowych, ... prócz ... spraw dotyczonych długów i pożyczek, jak to już wyżej zaznaczono." from the preface to a history book from 1903
• "Wraz z głównym raportem podano królowi spisany na gruzach zdobytych murów dokument, świadczący nader pochlebnie tak o sporządzających go jak i dotyczonym przezeń ," from an essay on Stefan Batory's war with Russia published in 1862
• "żądam złożenia kopii depeszy dotyczonych sprawy Polskiéj", from a translation of British parliamentary debates from 1861
• "Dotyczone w niem mocarstwa przystały chętnie", from an essay in a magazine "Kółko Rodzinne" from 1860
• "w dotyczonych 10 latach", from a law book from 1858
• "prawidła i przepiſy, ... które Rządom kraiowym dotyczonym du nayſciśleyſzego i naydokładnieyſzego zachowania podano." from a list of edicts of the w:Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria from 1805

(There were also some later examples that Google Books listed but its Snippet View wouldn't show.) This seems to satisfy the requirement of "use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year" in WT:ATTEST, but I'm not sure if that applies to specific uses of included words. - LaetusStudiis (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@LaetusStudiis Nice find. This seems attestable. If you want to change the template to have pp in it, and add this (possible as "rare"), that would be fine by me. We might want to add something like "usually intransitive". Vininn126 (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

From Słownik staropolski by A. Krasnowolski and S. Niedzielski. Michalite (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Michalite Also @KamiruPL I think we might need to do some clean up. Okay, you should stop. Old Polish is not the same as archaic Polish. Have all of your entries been this? Vininn126 (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Define "Old Polish". The scientific description dates its end at the end of 15th/beginning of 16th century. The Słownik staropolski by Krasnowolski and Niedzielski does not deal with the oldest works in Polish, in contrast to the Słownik staropolski by K. Nitsch, which only deals with that period, and only that one specifically. Michalite (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@MichaliteSo what date are they dealing with? Vininn126 (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Michalite Also what's the isbn, Google pulls up no results, I'd like to check it out for myself, we might want to make a reference template for it. Oh, Niedźwiedzki, not Niedzielski. Vininn126 (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

It generally runs undated, though the Introduction mentions "common parlance of the past centuries" as well as "written sources". I hence opted for archaic labelling when I'm unable to cross-check with Nitsch. The dictionary is available on the Polish Wikisource if you are having a hard time finding a more readable copy. Michalite (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

So the undated aspect really throws a wrench into the work. Turns out I have a copy on Google play, it was just the name that gave me bad results. I also have no idea how they made this dictionary. What are their sources, etc? It's hard to use it because we have no dates or sources, other than them. Vininn126 (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Michalite Also look at other Old Polish dictionaries - they all cite this dictionary, suggesting it's seen as Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please delete the λέλεγμαι entry and ban the anon...this trash obviously does not belong on Wiktionary. I'm guessing my attempt to ping you failed because I misspelled your name the first time. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Acolyte of Ice Done. Vininn126 (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

"poeta" is widely used as a two-genderd word in portuguese. 186.232.57.155 10:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I was just creating strzeliście this morning when I noticed something odd with the pronunciation template. Looking at the code now I can see it's designed to give alternate pronunciations when the word ends in -liśmy, -liście, etc. However, there are plenty of words ending in -liście that shouldn't show this alternative, whether lemmas like strzeliście and szkliście or non-lemma forms such as liście and soliście. Is there a way to make this functionality optional? Cheers, BigDom 06:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's a good point. @Max19582 added the code, but perhaps there'd be an easy way to turn this off. @Surjection, could you help? We need to be able to turn of the "local past tense suffixes" found at the beginning. Vininn126 (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Seems pretty easy to add. What should be the parameter name? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Maybe "lpt" for "local past tense"? Vininn126 (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Any idea what JFKGI stands for? Zero Google hits.

Unironically, "just fucking google it". it's on urban dictionary. You're either trolling or didn't actually just fucking google it. Vininn126 (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please don't be a smartass. "just fucking google it" is JFGI, for which there is an entry, and of which I am clearly aware. What we are discussing is JFKGI, with a K in the middle. 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:F04E:5F9B:5D4:BCB8 22:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I misread, and thought JFGI was removed, all apologies. Not sure what it could be, in which case you are probably right to remove it. Vininn126 (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

QED. 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:F04E:5F9B:5D4:BCB8 22:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! MichaelTheSlav (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for advice, I’ll make sure to read the linked page. When it comes to my last edit – this word is also used in Częstochowa and surroundings, and this is why I wanted to add it in the first place since I’m from there. I compared the entry with the one on Polish Wiktionary and hastly just copied the label, forgetting that Silesian is classified as a distinct language here. My bad! I added it back, just for Częstochowa. If something’s still wrong you can revert it, I’m still getting used to editing Wiktionary having previously only edited Wikipedia.

BTW, I remembered I have a book which is a study of colloquial speech of Częstochowa residents with transcriptions of speech, and I’m pretty sure I can find a few examples for dialectalisms from there, would that be an OK source to cite examples from? MichaelTheSlav (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@MichaelTheSlav Okay, that's fine. I'm not taking your edits in bad faith, obviously if you're from a region and they talk a certain way, it's harder to doubt. The quotes are best if they are used not in a sort of linguistic context, but if it's like a study or something and they are quotes of real people, I'm pretty sure that's fine. Vininn126 (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! The methodology of the study is described at the beginning of the book. According to it the people were asked questions about a variety of topics and their responses were recorded. They were not informed about the purpose of the study and care was taken to make the tone of the study informal, so that they speak their vernacular. The transcribed texts are mostly monologues of people describing various things and stories from their life. I think this would be good then? It’s not very easy to find examples of dialectalisms in other contexts, and this is probably better than a book f.e. where the author could imitate a dialect incorrectly based on stereotypes or cliches. MichaelTheSlav (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@MichaelTheSlav Yeah! That's real, actual use. You'll want to get acquainted with {{quote-book}}. 3 quotes is ideal, but this should cover at least 1 for a lot of them. And yeah, dialectal stuff is usually a lot harder to document, it's sad. Vininn126 (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I thought I posted a reply to you here in the morning, but it seems I accidentally closed the tab before saving oops. So as to your question: in the book the texts are given in a phonetic transcription, so no punctuation or capitalization of any kind, just pauses in speech marked. But whenever lexical or grammatical forms are discussed in other sections they are written in the standard orthography for convenience (if pronunciation is discussed the transcription is kept obviously). AFAI can see this is the way dialects are usually transcribed. So in the examples I give I adapt the spelling to the literary standard, because I am giving an example of a lexical item, so pronunciation is not a concern here.

Also, I tried looking up the words in Słownik gwar polskich but I have to rely on online scans since it costs a fortune and I am a poor student, and it’s more difficult than I thought, and as I wrote in edit desc. the two terms I just edited seem to have a very widespread dialectal discribution (TBH, I had no idea „tera” is dialectal, I thought it was just a general colloquial variant). So wdo you think it’d be OK to just leave (dialectal) there, instead of listing everything? MichaelTheSlav (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@MichaelTheSlav I believe I have the same dictionary. And I see, I was asking just for formatting. Vininn126 (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I noticed your reversion of an IP at the Grease Pit yesterday (this morning my time). Some background: this is someone in Greece who is so convinced they know more than everyone else that they've been trying since at least 2015 to completely rewrite Wiktionary's coverage of English philosophy and physics terminology. The fact that it isn't their native language means nothing to them: as far as they're concerned, actual usage is all based on ignorance and should be replaced with stuff they made up. Their trademark is verbose definitions that don't make sense because they use their own meanings instead of what anyone else would understand. Just recently I ran across a revert by someone from Greek Wiktionary, with an edit summary making it clear that they're as fed up with this idiot as we are.

It got to the point that I finally wrote Abuse Filter 128 to lock them out of languages other than their own. That's why they post to the Grease Pit: the default abuse-filter message links there. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up. It seems some people just can't let certain things go. Vininn126 (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you check out what seems to be one of your edits in rozmyślać? I can't make heads or tails out of the typoes (or some kind of mistaken paste error?) in {{preo|pl|nad|instrumental|means=on something}}. Kristian-Clausal (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

It was just missing a closing bracket, but you've never heard the syntax to ponder on something? Vininn126 (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kristian-Clausal Fixed. Vininn126 (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I do not know Polish and I had never come across "+" in templates before. After trying to google for "preo" or "prep" or "preposition" templates I gave up. I will not bother you in the future. Kristian-Clausal (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kristian-Clausal Here's a secret: in Wiktionary's search bar and type Template:+preo. You can do this with any template to learn more how to use it. Vininn126 (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ad Have you visited those sites? WSJP just reads "Number of entries: 0. Not found." PWN reads: "Not found". PWN has a corpus, but the corpus doesn't contain this word. "WSJP is constantly updating" - ok, so we can add this link when (if ever) it is updated with this word. But at the moment there is nothing a reader can learn after following those links. Olaf (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Olaf Yeah, I know. It's a bit of a weird thing we do. I've discussed this with some of the other editors. It's a bit easier to have them now for when they eventually get to it. But the counter argument also makes sense. If you wanna raise this with some of the other Polish editors, sure. Vininn126 (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Is this policy described anywhere? Where was this discussed? (I don’t see anything in WT:About Polish) This seems really backwards to me. It’s IMO dishonest and misleading to list sources that do not contain any information about a given entry. I know it’s not the References section, but still I take dictionaries listed in Further reading of an entry as a statement that those dictionaries back this entry and information therein (and I think I’m not alone? as in, that’s the default for most Wiktionary readers?), while in fact they don’t. // Silmeth ^@talk 18:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Silmethule It hasn't been much, it's a defacto rule that's been aruond as long I have been editing. I am not married to the practice. There has been a certain amount of pushback and it's probably worth it to bring it up somewhere. While I don't particularly love the practice, it has paid off on numerous occasion, as they are frequently adding words. Might be worth it to somehow scrape their recently added word list (which only lists a few each day) and somehow automate it. Vininn126 (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I found this in the abuse filter logs and just had to share it with someone. First a little background: there's a spambot run by some idiot in Indonesia that tries to increase search-engine rankings for various sites by creating fake user pages that link to them all over the internet. Aside from the fact that we don't allow the type of user pages that the bot is trying to imitate, the whole idea of generating user pages by randomly combining names, places, personal details, etc. and trying to pass them off as something an actual human being would post is doomed by the programmer's ignorance and incompetence.

See Special:AbuseLog/1301108 for probably the goofiest example I've seen since the one about living in "a seaside town in northern Switzerland"... Chuck Entz (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's the madlibs of spammers. People will try to use Wikis for anything, but I can this is something else... What the hell does it mean if your hobby is knapping? They just took a list of random-ass gerunds! Vininn126 (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

There actually are people who make stone tools as a hobby (see Knapping#Uses. The parts are pretty much all plausible- it's just the combination that's bad (along with some rather poor English). Chuck Entz (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Interesting! Thanks for sharing. Vininn126 (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey! It seems like you've added translations that mean "extremum of the function" or "global extremum" to both of these. If that is the case, then it is wrong because extremum is a hypernym of minimum/maximum. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

You are right. I have corrected the translations. Vininn126 (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Just wondering about this edit as it seems quite odd to me. Why would there be a comma before a gloss, and is the binomial name really a gloss at all? My understanding is that the gloss template is meant to be used when there is a clarifying definition after the translation if needed as per WT:ELE. Other things in brackets which aren't glosses (e.g. binomial names, brief usage notes) just go in regular brackets/parentheses, or at least that's how I've always done it. Anyway, like I said, just wondering. Cheers, BigDom 11:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

The comma is erroneous for sure. Good catch. As to the gloss, that's a fair question. Perhaps you are right, and I might not touch other translingual names. Vininn126 (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. Yeah it's not too clear in the ELE when to use the template and when not to, just the way I've always done it. Consistency is good though, so I'll try and remember to use it for short glosses too such as {{gl|fish}}. I think leaving binomial names in normal brackets is probably a safe bet though. BigDom 11:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

According to WSJP orać (though not the derived words zaorać or zorać) has two imperative forms orz or órz (in addition to the colloquial oraj). Is there a way to include these different forms (orz, orzmy, orzcie and órz, órzmy, órzcie) in the first conjugation template on that page now, or do you need to add a separate conjugation template for each form of the imperative? - LaetusStudiis (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@User:Vininn126 the change you made to orać doesn't seem to do this correctly, since the template applies the suffixes only to the second form and thus lists the 1st person plural imperative as "orz/órzmy". - LaetusStudiis (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

You are right. I'm not sure the template has an altimp parameter (yet). For now we'll have to use two. Vininn126 (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi! In your edit yesterday you added that maciora comes from mać + -ora (is this even a suffix in Polish?), but as I myself added this form doesn’t come from any suffixation but from grammatical leveling. Maybe I could illustrate this. You can see the PS inflection here, and from that the Old Polish inflection looked something like this (modern orthography, omitting the dual and the vocative):

Dat. plur. by regular sound laws should be as above, although I don’t know whether this is even attested, because later it was leveled to -am and yet later to -om. But as you can see this declension has three stems, the nominative mać, and two oblique: macierz- and macior-. Because this inflection is not only horrendous, but also this is one of only two r-stems I think, this was simplified, but to all three stems at once, so the word was split up and the meaning too. So I don’t think there is any case to be made for a suffix †-ora. The -or was part of the old oblique stem, whence it was extended to the nominative stem, and -a was added because feminines in Polish can’t end in a hard consonant.

Cheers! MichaelTheSlav (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@MichaelTheSlav We have one other word suffixed with -ora at the moment, which is kasiora . This kind of grammatic leveling isn't something that Polish id often, but you should mention that in the etymology line. Vininn126 (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey Vininn. Don't hesitate to let me know if you don't like my translation request spam. It's not that I need these translations into Polish, I just have the Finnish and Polish requests as part of my copy-paste template for when I want to add a German translation. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Fytcha Nah, I was mostly just goofing around. It's some sort of inside joke between various editors to ask for only Polish and Finnish, seeing as Surjection and I deal with it. I complain, but it's not meant to be taken seriously. Cheers! Vininn126 (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I remember seeing some comments of exasperation some time back when I added a couple of dozen requests to some very technical vocabulary :') so I just wanted to make sure! Cheers — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Are you sure that "pospacerować" is the perfective pair of "spacerować"? For me it's the same like "pośpiewać", "pograć" - to do some activity for some time (BTW. This is also the PWN definition). When we look at the page of Russian гулять (imp.) we have погулять (perf.) - and their translations are: 'to walk' and 'to take a walk'. And "przespacerować się" means 'to take a walk' (PWN: 'odbyć spacer') in Polish. If you go to the page 'to take a walk', it will send you to 'stroll'. That's why I think that pair should be: "spacerować" (imp.) and "przespacerować się (pf.).

I have an additional question, can I show verbs with the reflexive pronoun, like "naspacerować się" (of course the page link is to "naspacerować") or "przespacerować się"? Are only the "spacerować" and "naspacerować" versions acceptable on Wiktionary? Caslonc (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Caslonc I also am unsure that pospacerować is the pair. It might be a verb without a perfecitve pair - przespacerować się would be a very odd pair. As to reflexive verbs - we tend to not show the reflexive particle on pages, and only in the definition line with the {{label}} reflexive. Vininn126 (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't insist on "przespacerować się". But "pospacerować" just doesn't work for me.

BTW. From when we have a rule that pairs of aspects have to be predictable? Pairs can be non-reflexive and reflexive, e.g. Russian стать (perf.) and становиться (imp.) 'to become'. Caslonc (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Caslonc I've removed any perfective pair for now. And I'm not saying it can't happen, it happens quite a bit, but to me it's more an indicator that something else might be happening. Vininn126 (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Now that I think about it (I really forgot that there is "przespacerować" ;) ), it's better without any perfective: "Spaceruję. - Przespacerowałam się." but "Spaceruję 5 km dziennie. - Przespacerowałem 5 km." They can't be pairs - because one sentence need the reflexive pronoun and other not. I consider the topic closed. Thanks for your hard work and editing the page. Caslonc (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

If this is wrongly formated, please amend, but do not leave something wrong. Diligent (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Diligent It'd be worth it to check other sources and to see how we format Proto-Slavic entries to be sure which form to link to. I am unconvinced we use the forms always presented in that dictionary. Vininn126 (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I just made a little mess with topic categories that needs to be cleaned up...I added a category to an Abkhaz entry, which is represented by langcode ab but somebody had used the code abq, which is for Abaza, in the {{syn}} template. As a result I wrongly created a "chain" of topical categories with the lang prefix abq, and as the lowest level one, Category:abq:Shrikes, is empty of course the whole lot of abq topical categories up as far as and including Category:abq:Animals should be nuked. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Acolyte of Ice Should be taken care of. Vininn126 (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Nice, thanks. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Polish edition of Wiktionary translates the term "circumambulation" as okrążanie. What do you think? Apisite (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Apisite That's also fine - literally "encirclement, lap (e.g. around a race track)". There's no specific term for the ritualist connotation AFAIK so I went with a general "walking around" gerund. We could probably list both. Vininn126 (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I like the addition of collocations such as this, but I was just wondering whether there might be any copyright issues with borrowing WSJP's lists wholesale like that? Obviously they are common collocations but I would think that the specific choice and ordering would definitely be within the realms of intellectual property. I had a quick look around but couldn't see what license (if any) they were using, just a generic copyright notice (also don't know what copyright laws are like in Poland). Just a thought anyway. Cheers, BigDom 09:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@BigDom You raise a legitimate concern, I believe. I wonder what a solution could be? There is also concern for things like using synonym lists, IIRC. I have been trying to avoid this by changing it around some by adding a Doroszewski word and such when appropriate. Vininn126 (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@BigDom Following this further - I do frequently change them a little - remove some, add some, or get my own from NKJP, like on boazeryjny, but you are probably right I shouldn't really ever do each and every one, just to be safe. Vininn126 (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, been out for the day and just got back. Yeah it's a tricky one, I don't think there's anything wrong with using a few, especially if they're very commonly used because this kind of information is really useful for readers/learners, but we should probably avoid overdoing it. Cheers, BigDom 18:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

As to overdoing it - I have been wondering about the format. On some pages it's rather cluttery. It might be best to have them collapse like some nyms, or to have them collapse after a certain amount. Vininn126 (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, collapsing would be great if possible. How many were you thinking, 5, 10? BigDom 05:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking 3 :P I've been trying to bug one of the programmers to implement that, but it's slow goings. Vininn126 (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@BigDom Just to inform you, I've taken to scraping collocations from NKJP. They aren't as complete but we can work on it with time, and with large ones I add them in a box. See afirmacja. I was wondering, though, thing I should add the {{R:pl:NKJP}} template to references when I do this? (I made it for some etydating, and I tried getting the template to allow for a link, but the links they produce are weird). Vininn126 (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me, much tidier in the box (although on the flip side, obviously less visible). I guess a reference would be preferable but if it's too difficult to link to an individual word then it's no big deal. BigDom 14:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

The issue is that the reference is just a link to the corpus in general. I've had to do that with dating before, too. I guess I'll start leaving it under references. 14:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC) Vininn126 (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's standard practice to remove cognates once the proto page is set up. All the cognates can now easily be found, so there's no point in highlighting just one cognate (or alternatively, listing them all on multiple pages). Hergilei (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Has it been? Talking with other editors I haven't heard that. If it is, could you link me to the discussion showing that? Again, I'm not against removing them, I've never found them the most useful, but I've heard different things from different editors. (This might be worth a BP discussion). Vininn126 (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Hergilei I have started a Beer Parlor discussion. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Vininn126 (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

i can't be angry at you (but only you!!!) so i'll drop it this time and stop arguing UωU Shumkichi (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

<3 Good boy. Vininn126 (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

;___________________________________________; btw. I recommend this channel, it's full of awesome nationalist songs :pleading_face: :thonk: :winin126: Shumkichi (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

🤔 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBi-LmIsTKc&ab_channel=FaryaFaraji Vininn126 (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

That’s grand. I am finally in the mood to sleep now, towards a productive day tomorrow. ヽ༼｡> ل͜ <｡༽ﾉ Fay Freak (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

t:coi, which you changed my use of t:uxi to, doesn't have any documentation now; do its parameters work the same way as with t:uxi, or are there significant differences in their use that I should be aware of? - LaetusStudiis (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's more or less the same. One thing that's different is that if there are many, they are put into a box, e.g. błysk (if you see a page with a ton of them don't be afraid to convert it into a box). Vininn126 (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please ban this idiot who won't quit vandalising the alop entry, as per my post at WT:VIP Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

👍 Vininn126 (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

For IPv6 addresses (the long ones), you need to append /64 at the end of the IP before blocking. Otherwise, it doesn't really do anything, see mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ah, thanks. Vininn126 (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oh, it's really that simple? I had always wondered about range blocks but never got around to asking for an explanation. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Now they are either engaging in block evasion or another person is doing the same thing...please block this IP and protect the alop entry. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

In case you were unaware, you can block an account from specific namespaces or pages without blocking them from everything. For someone who is causing problems on RFV, RFD, BP, etc., simply blocking them from the Wiktionary namespace would suffice. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am, please see my response on his talk page as to why it was a global block. Vininn126 (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I understand that pronunciations of extinct languages might not be exactly accurate, but also at the same time many extinct languages have reconstructed pronunciations here, so I thought adding Old Polish one could be interesting too. Kapki555 (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kapki555 This is a wider issue that involves more than just the Polish community. While I think Old Polish pronunciation is mostly reconstructible (however there are also issues with Middle Polish), there's also the issue of providing IPA for extinct languages in general. There have been Beer Parlour discussions about this, and frankly, the issue deserves more attention than what my talk page can deliver. Vininn126 (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well, I haven't looked into any discussions about it, but alright, I understand that it might not be as simple as I thought. Kapki555 (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kapki555 I'll try to find the conversation for you. If you are interested, please participate! Vininn126 (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sure, thanks! Kapki555 (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kapki555 here you go! Vininn126 (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

(also pinging @Shumkichi for info) Didn't mean to start WW3 with this entry, apologies! I'm pretty neutral as to whether the lemma is at the positive or negative form (I went for the former on the model of English have a clue and have the foggiest), but if it is to stay positive then probably best to move it back to mieć zielone pojęcie (currently a redirect) and delete mieć zielonego pojęcia as ungrammatical. I would do it but not keen to get involved in the edit war. Cheers, BigDom 16:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think being used in the positive makes it worth including as such, consdiering it pops up on NKJP and similar. It's odd, we could maybe do something like "almost exclusively in the negative". Vininn126 (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oh, don't worry, @BigDom, I wasn't arguing with you and it's not your fault :3 we're cool bro Shumkichi (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

What is the point of including the PWN link when PWN doesn't list anything for this word? - LaetusStudiis (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@LaetusStudiis They usually have a corpus and irregularly update. There's a whole issue of deciding whether to include both WSJP and PWN on everything since they update. If we could figure out a system to add links when a word is added I'd be for not including them. Vininn126 (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I removed links that showed nothing and you reverted. Links should not say "Term in Source" when the source shows nothing for the term, not even quotations of use. That's positively misleading. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Dan Polansky The issue is these resources frequently add these terms - time and time again for example WSJP has added terms that were missing before but are now there, and at an alarming rate. I'm not happy with dead links but I don't want to have to check each day whether terms without them were added. I'm not very happy with either solution, and I would like a bot that could check their recently added words and automatically link them here. Vininn126 (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see what you are trying to achieve but the method chosen seems questionable. There could be a way to instruct the template to show uncertainty about the term being there, like not "X in Y" but "X (maybe) in Y" or the like. That's a complication, of course, and I don't recall us ever doing that before, but meets the requirement not to misrepresent. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for tips, i must admit that in polish Wiktionary is easier because template the whole article is always visible and here isn't so obvious. I will try to come up with my own examples next time. Best regards Twomithe (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just now I reverted this oddity. It certainly seems like nonsense, but it's Polish nonsense, so I thought I'd run it by you. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Thanks for the heads up. I can't make heads or tails of what the hell they're talking about, and it looks like some weird Polish + Slavic pidgin. Vininn126 (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

https://en.m.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/baklava#English

This rollback is unjustified. 85.106.105.237 13:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please delete this, seems someone has been messing around putting {{rfv}} and {{rfd}} on it but honestly I feel it should just be speedied per my use of {{d}} there. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Done! Vininn126 (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry about the pings. I appreciate when someone draws attention to how my edits can be improved. For example; I just learned about {{etydate}} and how {{lbor}} is used 😄 --Christoffre (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Christoffre Glad I could help! I have a ton of templates on my userpage here. You can check out their documentation by typing T:TEMPLATENAME into the search bar. Vininn126 (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I believe that my edits on ergo and particularly on Rhymes:English were not in error and should not have been reverted.

For the latter page, none of the links for the vowels /ɛ/, /ɪ/, /aɪ/, or /ʊ/ that lack the ə symbol actually contain the rhymes that end with /ɹ/ in GA. For example, look at Rhymes:English/aɪ, which is after your reversion linked to by the link /aɪ(ə)ɹ/. It does not contain the rhyme /aɪ(ə)ɹ/ which the listed example word mire falls under. It does contain /aɪɹ/... which only lists rhymes followed by a vowel, which are distinguished in some dialects. Instead, the correct rhyme is found on the page that I had changed the link to, that the RP rhymes section already links to under the example word mire, Rhymes:English/aɪə-, about half-way down the page as /aɪə(ɹ)/. if you go to the page Rhymes:English/aɪə(ɹ), you will see that mire is indeed listed there. The situation is the same for the other three vowels.

As for ergo, the pronunciation /ˈɛɚɡoʊ/, though it is occasionally considered an error, is well attested in American English and should be listed in any dictionary of American English. Merriam Webster's online dictionary even cites this pronunciation first, spelled in their respelling system as ˈer-(ˌ)gō before listing the older pronunciation with /ɝ/ as ˈər. I don't care so much whether it is listed first or second, but that's the explanation I included in my edit description, to which you replied "What." I hope it makes sense now.

Dijekjapen (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Dijekjapen I have NEVER seen this notation for rhotics and it's also not something that has been discussed in our fora recently in conversations often led by @-sche. You need concensus before unilaterally changing the notation to something unused. Vininn126 (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, which notation do you mean, like the /ɛɚ/ I used at ergo? That does seem to be used for GA or US English all over wiktionary, for example at air, err, bear, or tear. other places seem to use /ɛɹ/, /ɛ(ə)ɹ/, or /ɛəɹ/. Would that be preferable?

Or did you mean like /aɪə/ for the Rhymes page? I did not invent this, I just wanted the rhymes links for the r-colored vowels to lead to the correct rhymes, because currently, they don't.

It was not my intention to change any notation, I just copied what I saw on other pages. I apologize if I made a mistake.Dijekjapen (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Dijekjapen I see this is being used there - very odd. Feel free to undo me, I was just taken aback. Vininn126 (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks, I undid the reversion on ergo. As for Rhymes:English, do you think that edit was ok, or should I maybe discuss it on one of the forums first? Maybe on Information Desk? Dijekjapen (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Dijekjapen I suppose, sure. Vininn126 (talk) 08:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, r-coloured sounds and especially the air sound get transcribed many inconsistent-but-synonymous ways (as well as non-synonymous Mary-marry-merry ways); probably we should try to be more consistent, perhaps once we have an English pronunciation module. Regarding the rhymes page, I think this edit was actually right(?), or at least, Rhymes:English/aɪə- is were the rhymes of mire are linked to from as there is Rhymes:English/aɪə(ɹ) and not Rhymes:English/aɪɹ. Perhaps some of the issue is that Rhymes pages only use RP? (Unless GenAm actually uses a different phoneme than the normal reflex of the RP in GenAm.) - -sche (discuss) 23:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@-sche I reverted the page to that edit. I do think the problem is that the rhymes are structured for non-rhotic RP, and it would make more sense for my particular dialect (some kind of Western American) if they were sorted differently (Maya, Gaia, etc. are not in the same category as mire for me). But it sort of makes sense because I have words ending in /aɪɹ/ consistently with two syllables, the same as Rhymes:English/aɪ.ə(ɹ). It is worse for /ɛɹ/, /ɪɹ/ and /ʊɹ/, which are all consistently one syllable for me, and very obviously do not contain schwa. Sorry, maybe I should have written this somewhere besides Vininn126's talk page. Dijekjapen (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Most modern and older Bible translations appear to use only "flowing with", though.

DayronPL (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@DayronPL Sure, but that's not what's been lemmatized in the language itself. It seems most speakers say it without. Just because that's what's in the Bible doesn't mean we should be linking to that Vininn126 (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

We could leave the literal translation in parentheses.

DayronPL (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@DayronPL I think this is close enough and gets the point across. I think a better place to do that would be to add {{lit}} to the etymology section of kraina mlekiem i miodem płynąca and link to that on the page. Vininn126 (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

these are mostly not synonymous. i've never seen "spoza" used in the sense "from behind", to me it sounds erroneous, but PWN dictionary says it's legit. but that's the only sense where these 2 words can be considered synonyms Norill (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Norill Yes, it's definitely not super common. If you doubt a word's existence it's better to RFV it, instead of just deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply