User talk:Vininn126/archive/2023

Mat kooperacyjny (or mat pomocniczy) means helpmate; mat żakowski is archaic/obsolete (no longer used); mat głupi (= foolish/stupid/silly mate) is a rough (inaccurate) calque and can only be found in machine translations (as well as random juxtapositions of words); mat głupca (= fool's mate) is also a (literal) calque, but it is in real use. So, please restore my edition. Kamdenek (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kamdenek The problem is many of those translations are still correct, even if not used, but you removed them anyway. Remove the the bad ones, but keep the archaic ones. Vininn126 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

e problem is you removed many translations that ARE correct. h Vininn126 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I made further research in the book and found the position on page 176 from which one can see that the fourth move is what we call today the second move. In light of this, the archaic term "mat żakowski" indeed refers to the fool's mate and can stay. Kamdenek (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kamdenek Alright, seems good to me. I made a change on the English page with the formatting. Vininn126 (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Should the etymology section on Polish multiword terms still use the "literal" template when word order differs from English? This being the English Wiktionary after all, I'm concerned that readers who don't know which-word-means-what will conclude, from the literal template, that for example in lis rudy lis means red, and rudy means fox. Shouldn't there be a word-by-word etymology instead? – Vuccala ✿  12:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Vuccala I don't believe there are strict rules for the {{lit}} template, I prefer it on entries. Some people probably don't like it, but we've been adding it on Polish entries. Vininn126 (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Vuccala BTW as to the order, yeah, it's fine to change the order of the translation. Also, the template has a second parameter for looser translations. Vininn126 (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Affirmative, and thank you! – Vuccala ✿  18:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

"clutter up categories" - mhm, sure, and you came up with this excuse yourself or was it someone from Discord? That's not a logical reason at all, how can you clutter up categories if the specific entries say explicitly that they are alternative forms? wow, so much work clicking on the basic form instead. but whatever, i can see that you're too afraid of the clique here to decide for yourself and you have to "discuss" everything with them. and stop threatening me, lol, i'm not a child. Shumkichi (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Shumkichi It's generally preferred by the vast majority of editors that those forms aren't there. Imagine you're browsing the category and you see that? What purpose does it serve to see three alt forms of the same thing in a row? And I do plenty of things that don't agree with the others; you just feel the need to start drama and yes, discussion is the entire process of Wikis, so is reading the CFI, which I know you haven't done yet. Vininn126 (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

they are all full-fledged words with their own declension or conjugation, pronunciation and all that stuff, all of that is intact, the only difference lies in the frequency of use, so they need to be given categories and etymologies at the very least, it doesn't matter that they are alternative forms that are rarer than the basic ones. Shumkichi (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Things that are different seem fine to include, i.e. pronunciation. But that does not actually respond to my point. Vininn126 (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Shumkichi "and you came up with this excuse yourself or was it someone from Discord?" Guilty. :) I, Twilit puppet mistress Discordia, directed Vin to you because straight-up femdom would be much too straight for thee and me. /s ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo Then you're all wrong, as always. I always have to do everything myself ehhh you should start paying me for adding these entries and preventing you from destroying everything for real dude Shumkichi (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why have you deleted some of my comments? They constituted an update to a report on what was currently being done and a statement of what I was proposing to do and why. --RichardW57m (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@RichardW57m If that happened, it was likely due to a Thread tools error; the updated discussion tools are prone to that. Feel free to copy and paste them. But if you check the history, you'll see that my edit did no such thing, so I don't see why you're accusing me instead of checking the history. Vininn126 (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@RichardW57m If you're referring to the rollback, it was a misclick, and if you again look at the history, you'll see I immediately undid that. Please check more thoroughly instead of accusing. Vininn126 (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't the definition here be "chronological", the adjective not the adverb? Acolyte of Ice (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Acolyte of Ice Thanks! Vininn126 (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am so sorry. Originally I wanted to change it to południe, but I was too tired, so I made a mistake and wrote it as an adjective. Solvyn (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Solvyn Shit happens, no worries, I was just confused. Vininn126 (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

No one is perfect, if you look at the conversation just above this one, you'll see I made a silly mistake, too. Vininn126 (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for talking to me about this! Solvyn (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Couldn't "scotobiology" also be called "skotobiologia" in Polish? -- Apisite (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Apisite Having searched through polona, google books, {{R:pl:NKJP}}, and declined forms on google-groups and scholars, I am unable to come up with 3 quotations. If it's on Wikipedia, it's likely a protologism in this case. Vininn126 (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Probably should have asked you first...but I just deleted an occurrence of a template, Template:onam, that you added to the etymology of this entry. It looks like something that would be quite useful if it worked. The problem is that not only was the template nonfunctional, but the vital word "imitative" didn't show up in text for readers, and I'm not wikisavvy enough to know of a more elegant workaround. If you can define the template or otherwise fix the issue less heavy-handedly than I did, please undo my change...HelpMyUnbelief (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@HelpMyUnbelief The template is indeed "onom", as it is now. Vininn126 (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

User:Chuck_Entz fixed the entry. "Imitative" should have clued me in that onomatopoeia was intended. As I mentioned on his talk page, I must be a halfwit to have missed something so obvious about the entry for the godwit. – HelpMyUnbelief (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@HelpMyUnbelief No worries, you had good intentions and templates can be rather cryptic. Vininn126 (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Stop edit-warring. You do not have consensus to change the (dwarf) planets of the SS. They are what they are, not what you think to be important. kwami (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

What are you talking about? Did you READ the discussion or my reply? Vininn126 (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes. One person made a request. You made an incompetent implementation to that request. Two people, no further discussion. The least you could do would be to remove false claims from the template -- you're not a vandal. As you have protected it, it's a table of IAU planets and their notable moons, plus Pluto and all its moons, not of planets and most likely dwarf planets and their notable moons. Also, for a responsible edit, you should review the links and remove the template from any articles it no longer supports. kwami (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

And the thread was closed by an outside third person, many such discussions are closed that way. Vininn126 (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

You should still attempt to make a competent job of it. kwami (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sure, the links did slip my mind! Vininn126 (talk) 09:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami You know, you don't have to come at the issue so aggressively; if you had decided to follow the steps I provided above, this whole thing could have been resolved in a much less aggressive manner. Please take that into consideration next time. Vininn126 (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I removed several of the links.

Sorry, I do get irritated when people edit-war to enforce obvious errors. Could you at least correct the wording "Planets and most likely dwarf planets"? Eris is universally acknowledged as a DP, so that doesn't work. Or perhaps restore the Eris column instead -- that's the DP most likely to have a non-IAU form in European languages like Russian (since we don't care about non-European languages). kwami (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami I don't know if you intended it this way, but this still reads with quite a bit of snark. Also, that all seems to fall under scientific classification, which, while is one accepted way to classify things, is not the only, and in terms of lexicography, we do allow colloquial classification, even if it disagrees with scientific ones. This is all something you should bring up in the NEW discussion. Vininn126 (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

So, colloquially, if something is universally accepted to be something, it is not among the "most likely" to be that thing?

"Dwarf planet" is a scientific category, so the only factor in inclusion is the scientific one. There is no separate colloquial use of the term. "Most likely dwarf planets" means just that. I mean, if you can demonstrate that "dwarf planet" means something differently colloquially than scientifically, it would probably be a good idea to add that definition to dwarf planet. (I just checked. We have no such definition.) kwami (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami I'd like to reiterate this would all be better for a new discussion about the template. Vininn126 (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Then answer there. kwami (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

So you require a what, week-long? month-long? 'discussion' before you will correct an obvious error that you made, even after it was pointed out to you and you could simply fix it in good faith. Butter to obstruct with bureaucracy, I guess. kwami (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami Can you seriously calm down? I've been trying to be nice to you as much as I can, but you're not helping. And yes, the correct answer is to go through a discussion. First time here? Vininn126 (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, I expect competent people to correct errors when they come across them. How you fix them is your call, but it's ridiculous to require everything to go through a bureaucracy. If I come across a typo, do I really need to start a discussion on whether we should fix it? kwami (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami If you continue this behavior I will take action. This is also a false comparison - the two are not even remotely similar. All I asked was you start a proper discussion instead of commenting on a closed on and undoing everything, which is not how these things are handled. Get used to it or leave the project. Vininn126 (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

"This behaviour"? You will "take action" because I complain when you refuse to correct an error you created, and block others from correcting it. Okay, you're not serious about creating a reliable dictionary, that's on you, but making threats over it is ridiculous. kwami (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami I didn't refuse, I went around removing some links, you just beat me to the others, thanks for the help by the way. I also suggested you start another thread. I have no idea what other "errors" I could be "refusing to correct". That is an accusation simply not based in reality. And this is incredibly intimidating behavior. Vininn126 (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wait, your threatening to "take action" against me is intimidating behaviour toward you? I complained, and was snarky, but I don't see how anything I said could be intimidating.

The error, as I pointed out, is that the template says it's the "planets and the most likely dwarfs", but it's not. Not any more. When the content was changed, the description of the content should have also been changed to match. We could re-add the most likely dwarfs, even if only the one column for Eris, or we could change the wording to reflect the new contents. You might be able to think of other ways to correct it. kwami (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami Where's the thread I suggested you start? Vininn126 (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

As for you finding my words intimidating, I apologize. I really don't see them that way, and didn't intend them that way. kwami (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I asked you multiple times to stop being snarky - we both ultimately want to improve the project and I suggested ways of doing that and you resorted to snark and insults instead of changing your tactic when you barely even know me. And yes, this is something people take action over. You know better than that. Vininn126 (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I wished I'd thought of it sooner. A flood flag would have been a way of being nice to all those who watch RfV. DCDuring (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring yeah,sorry, should have. Vininn126 (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think the best way to do it would be to make a general heading for what you are going to do, eg, Old Polish terms with errors, then set the flag, do the individual RfVNs, move them around any intervening RFVNs from others, then unset the flag and say what you've done. That way it doesn't look like you are hiding anything and you get the links between the entry and WT:RFVN, and you would be less likely to forget to remove the flood flag. I'm sorry if I'm telling grandma how to suck eggs, but I never really thought about flood flag. DCDuring (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

This idiot spammed the same shit on their talk page, please ban them from editing that too...Acolyte of Ice (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Could you run your cleanup script on Silesian? I've been working on adding sources, and I did some manually. I know there is some controversy regarding Silesian but for the time being we are treating it as a language it seems, it would be nice to have the propery headword templates, + templates, etc. I appreciate all the changes we've made to West Slavic lately. Vininn126 (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

"We should stop adding dead links and remove the other ones. We too hastily added WSJP because it did belong on a lot of entries, but not all)"

I agree if it's clear that a particular dictionary is no longer being updated and won't be expanded in the future. But for those dictionaries that are growing I think it saves us time and hassle to include the link even if there's currently no entry. There's no guarantee that someone will take the time to spot new entries to a dictionary and add the links to Wiktionary when they become available. Hergilei (talk) 21

25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hergilei (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is still somewhat controversial, and I get the impression from other editors this might still be frowned upon. I have mixed feelings. Like, we shouldn't link Middle Polish or obsolete terms to WSJP. Vininn126 (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

"we shouldn't link Middle Polish or obsolete terms to WSJP."

I agree on this point. Hergilei (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Vininn126, is there a bot that can detect new additions to WSJP and other dictionaries, and then add the dictionary links on Wiktionary? Otherwise, I just don't see the sense in removing links to a growing dictionary. All it does it create a lot of extra work for us in the future, just to avoid a minor inconvenience of someone clicking on a link and finding that it's not yet included in that dictionary. A word like koprzywowy is almost certain to be included in WSJP at some point, but who will go to the time and effort of re-adding the links on Wiktionary when that happens? And that's only if someone takes the time to find new additions. Hergilei (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Hergilei It could be written, for sure. If that word is never added, we'll still have to check, thus it's the same amount of work. Vininn126 (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

If such a bot is created, then I'm totally fine with your removal of these links. However, I'd prefer that we wait until we know for sure that this bot is possible before we proceed with removing links. I never got the impression that these links are controversial. Except for Dan Polansky, I haven't seen anyone get outraged about them. Hergilei (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is wide, wide, consensus in the community that we should not add dead links. Please do not add them further. I can call other admins if you like. Vininn126 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Source for PIŹDZIĆ: https://wsjp.pl/haslo/podglad/81259/pizdzic. It's a doublet of BŹDZIĆ. I want a logical source for PIŹDZIĆ "From pizda +‎ -ić." Since when Polish language works like that? ;) Regards. Caslonc (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Caslonc I will look into my sources when I get home. And update the etymology, but the word isn't attested until the 1900's, if it were inherited it would be somewhat younger.18:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC) Vininn126 (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Caslonc I have added a source confirming the pizda derivation. Also, if WSJP does that, it doesn't always mean a doublet, rather, that it might be an alteration, cf. bida/bieda. Vininn126 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to thank you for making me familiar with the {{surf}} template. I had been using "Equivalent to" because I had encountered it on English terms, but this looks much better. Why does English not use it instead of "Equivalent to".

But I don't understand your edit summary. I am not sure what you mean by "Proto Slavic", but the word uslyšěti is Old Czech. Zhnka (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Zhnka I believe that Proto Slavic had *uslyšati, I can look into it. If we make the reconstruction, we can update the Slavic entries. Good to know it was in Old Czech. Vininn126 (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also in response to your other question, editors have different preferences, and also many entries were made before its existence. There was also once a thread to change the wording somewhat. Glad you like the template. Vininn126 (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I saw you reverted my edit to the Czech entry "bavlna".

From my understanding, you're not supposed to use "borrowed" like that, because now it implies that Czech bavlna was borrowed directly from Middle High German boumwolle, which is not true. Czech itself hasn't borrowed anything, they inherited the word from Old Czech.

Therefore the first word should be inherited, and all before that should be derived. Supevan (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Supevan Cheers. Vininn126 (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Since Old Polish didn't distinguish ⟨ą⟩ from ⟨ę⟩, now that ꟁ has Unicode support, should the lemmas be moved to that spelling? kwami (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami The lemmas are normalized, because the orthography in Old Polish was extremely unpredictable and unreliable - I could see using this perhaps in the quotes and maybe even transliterations, but I think applying it to the head is a bad idea. Vininn126 (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

You mean they've been normalized according to what it turned into in Modern Polish?

I don't know what I'm talking about, just wanted to make sure people were aware that the option existed! kwami (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

More or less, however there are still some changes that account for some phonology (i.e. ą represents a short nasal vowel and ę represents a long nasal vowel, ł represents dark l, etc). Sadly the system for Old Polish is very simple, we confer with Słownik pojęciowy języka staropolskiego which has the largest corpus. Sometimes we deviate from their lemma but often it's the best to not. Some day I might have a bot go through and change the nasals to the new unicode one! Vininn126 (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami: I think it's a bit too bleeding edge to adopt just yet. I'm probably not unique in seeing that character as nothing but tofu. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I want my edit on the page "jagoda" regarding the Slovene translation be reverted. It means "strawberry", and the source provided (fran.si) lists the word with the meaning "nizka rastlina s trojnatimi listi in belimi cveti ali njen rdeči sad" ("a low plant with trifoliate leaves and white flowers or its red fruit") . This meaning clearly means "strawberry", however there's also a meaning "droben, okrogel plod" ("small, round fruit"). May the page at least be allowed to have the Slovene word have "strawberry" as sense 1, and "berry" as sense 2? Thanks!

--146.212.51.39 08:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

So the word can be both just "berry" but also "strawberry"? If that is the case then both should be listed! Vininn126 (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Apla" is not only monochromatic, but also fully covered. Halftone is monochromatic, but "apla" cannot be halftone. The definition "monochromatic background" is therefore not precise (full), so please correct it. May be you should mention continuous tone Kamdenek (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kamdenek Eh, sure. Vininn126 (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

It was a red link. The blue link now makes sense.:-) Kamdenek (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kamdenek This is something we do for most feminine nouns with the intention to eventually make them en mass. Vininn126 (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

As a native Turkish speaker I am safe to say that Allah is singular only in Turkish (and pretty much every single language I am aware of its existence) Non lex rex (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Non lex rex 1) the formatting is wrong, you removed the headword template. Please click this: {{tr-noun}} to learn how to make the change you want. 2) Often proper nouns do end up having plurals - it would be better to check a forum such as the WT:Tea room and start a discussion there asking if the plural really is attested or not. If there are no quotes in text of it, then we can very safely, and should remove the plural! Vininn126 (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Non lex rex While I hate to say it, the "native-speaker" argument does not sway me. It holds some weight, but native speakers are not always aware of every detail of their native language. Vininn126 (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Y'all won't give up implying there are more than one God, will ya.. Non lex rex (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Non lex rex This is actually unrelated to the issue! I would like to remind you of our WT:CFI, which states we include something that is attested 3 times in independent sources - this includes things like weird plurals! It would probably make sense to include a note like "Usually uncountable", however! Vininn126 (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Whatsoever. Non lex rex (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Non lex rex I encourage you to start a discussion in the Tea room. Vininn126 (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I am mostly skilled in Czech language. Can you direct me to a good place to continue editing? Maybe there are entries I could contribute to? Thyself be knowne (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Thyself be knowne Hi! There is much work to be done. See Category:Czech_entry_maintenance, Category:Requests concerning Czech, and WT:RE:cs to start. You should also take a look at WT:About Czech and the discussions we've been having on the discussion page. Happy editing! Vininn126 (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126 Thanks for the internal links. WT:RE:cs is a good start for me to cut my lexi-teeth Thyself be knowne (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Thyself be knowne It's good to have another Czech editor! Please do not hesitate if you have further questions.

Relatedly, there is a template used to ping a group of editors all at once, and there's one for the Czech editors, would you like me to add you? Vininn126 (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I don't know what that question means. You mean like a newsletter? Thyself be knowne (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Thyself be knowne Not quite. On Wiki projects we have many fora and discussion threads, and when a particular thread is of interest to a group of editors that regularly edit a language, they can all be notified at once, the same way how I ping you in these replies but en masse. Vininn126 (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126. I don't want to be notified now. I will first learn more about editing the website, it already appears very complicated. Thyself be knowne (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Hi! I was reading the literature you sent me on my Talk page, and found some useful projects to work on, which I hope will help this project Thyself be knowne (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

  @Thyself be knowne That's great to hear! If you have any other questions, please just ask. Happy editing! Vininn126 (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

bok

@Chuck Entz Fixed. Vininn126 (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Someone added the wrong audio file to this entry. Just said I'd alert you instead of removing myself, in case you know if an appropriate audio file actually exists. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Acolyte of Ice Thanks, checked the commons, nothing there; removed. Vininn126 (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

{{subst:An3-notice}}

{{subst:uw-disruptive2}}

This user is vandalising the "cisgender" wiktionary page by making edits that push an anti-trans agenda, adding in the definition of the word that it's "sometimes offensive" and claims with weak evidence that people prefer words like "nontransgender".

This user is clearly pushing a political anti-trans agenda with these edits and is hiding it under the guise of accurate reporting. Wiktionary isn't a news website, and we shouldn't make those edits to the definition of a word just because Elon Musk tweeted.

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=cisgender&action=history

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=cisgender&diff=prev&oldid=73567303

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=cisgender&oldid=73566477 HastinessParrot (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The only people who find the term cisgender as offensive/ a slur do so because they see themselves as the normal and believe the label is useless (Which is undoutably a belief based in prejudice and normative society where being cis is default and trans is othered). There are cases where some people might find the term offensive because they genuinelly don't understand what the term implies however I don't believe thats a strong enough of a reason to add that.

I persoanlly think its counter productive to add language based in fear and ignorance and protray it as a valid reason of concern. This is coming from a cisgender person myself. Cisgender is a neutral term, the same way heterosexual. homosexual and transgender is. Don'taskwhyImadethis (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Vininn126, I know this is old news by now, but I wanted to say you did a good job handling this whole situation. I may not have liked the state of the page when you locked it, but I'm impressed that you were willing to talk it out for so long, and I think the end result strikes a better balance.

As for your comment about how a bunch of Wikipedia editors weighed in without realizing that Wiktionary works differently? Yeah, guilty as charged. I'll be sure to read up on wiki-specific policies next time. Player 03 (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Player 03 I appreciate that. Also, page-locking during edit wars is standard practice. Vininn126 (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nope, you locked The Wrong Version, completely unforgivable. (Actually, I'm familiar with the practice since it's exactly the same on Wikipedia. I wasn't saying you should have done anything differently, I was just providing context.) Player 03 (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Player 03 Lol, that's funny, gonna have to refer to that one more. Vininn126 (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is the interfix -o- necessary for a derived word that contains a word ending with -o? Solvyn (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Solvyn Ah yes, the "invisible morpheme" as I call it. Basically we can posit that certain morphemes are present if if the way they attach is invisible. Another example would be -e, as in podzamcze. There are words ending with -e, but when prefixing a preposition, you always add -e. Polish grammars corroborate this, and even on occasion you'll see a change in the stem because of such a change. Vininn126 (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your helping! Solvyn (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Either remove the sources in references on the page for the word mlýn, since they both contradict the stated etymology, or link it up to the Old High German word mulīn, which is the correct derivation. Ohh, and thanks. 178.255.168.177 16:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I updated it. Vininn126 (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

the entry should actually be "nie owijać w bawełnę", which is intransitive Chomczurek065 (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Chomczurek065 We can move it, but it's at least ambitransitive. Vininn126 (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I did this for Polish; there were about 70 terms needing fixing. In the process I tried to split most cases where you had a masculine and a feminine surname under the same headword line (usually {{head|pl|proper noun|g=m-pr|g2=f}}), creating two headword lines {{pl-proper noun|m-pr}} and {{pl-proper noun|f}}, two definitions, and two declensions (where appropriate, i.e. when the feminine isn't indeclinable). This affected about 10,000 entries. There are still a smattering (maybe 100 or so) that need to be fixed manually one-by-one. Benwing2 (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also I downloaded the whole list of {{pl-p}} usages. Quite a lot of them have a single quote in them marking the stress, and I'm not so sure how to handle this. Many of them will magically go away because they won't need any respelling, but for the remainder I'll need additional help. As I mentioned before, I really need you to think carefully about what sort of transformations need to be done, taking in as many edge cases as possible and giving examples of such transformations (ideally several dozen of different types, not just one or two). Benwing2 (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'd also like to consider switching to {{pl-pr}} and using inline modifiers instead of separate parameters, similar to how {{es-pr}} and {{it-pr}} work. I think the inline modifier approach is generally more flexible and intuitive. Benwing2 (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 Unfortunately you are right - I think this might be a process of replacement, because the previous code was so janky. As far as using modifiers, @Catonif had some similar ideas as well, and I am okay with it, and as far as using this abbreviation, I personally understand, I don't know how the other editors would feel. Vininn126 (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Finally, can I just quickly get people's opinion's on including the Northern borderlands dialect? @Tashi @Shumkichi @Hythonia I propose we just do a simple consonant substitution of all the consonants listed at the Wikipedia article and put the transcription in . Any objections? Vininn126 (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

k, no objections Shumkichi (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 Is the list somewhere? Vininn126 (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

See User:Benwing2/pl-p-manual. There are 10,302 entries. Benwing2 (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 Thanks. It seems like most of these should stay or use "." Vininn126 (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126 Take a look towards the end. Also can you give me specific examples of what needs to be changed and how, if it's not simply to be deleted? Benwing2 (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 Like I mentioned before, if we can remove the respelling and the IPA is the same with the new code, it should be removed. This should get rid of a TON of respellings, including ones with affixes, -ti-/-di- -> -tj-/-dj- respellings, respellings with nasal vowels, etc.

Words starting with o-, na-, po- will have a ' or . immediately after them followed by any number of .'s and potentially ' if they were followed by .. In these such cases, we should remove all syllable breakers after the prefix and replace what's after the prefix with just ., such as oznaka, postali, następstwo.

Liquids now attach to their previous syllable, like r, so take that into consideration when removing respellings.

Multiword terms with prepositions will now automatically cliticize them, so na-zdrowie can now have the respelling removed (this should still be related to the first change).

If there's a ' in a non-penult syllable in a respelling, the word should be left alone. Vininn126 (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

You made a ridiculous number of Polish RQ templates. Are they ever gonna be used? GPWERGLWE (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@GPWERGLWE they are slowly being used! They are serving a very specific purpose, and I used one recently on miotelny or raz. They help sometimes chronologize a term or even help proof its existence. Most haven't been used yet but not much time has passed since I made them, but they are slowly, one by one, being used. Vininn126 (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove the usage note for Polish collective numerals? Was it wrong or something? Esszet (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Esszet not needed - part of grammar that one should know for Polish, it's not really lexical. Vininn126 (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

You know what, you're right, it doesn't need to be in every entry, so I moved it to Appendix:Polish numbers. On the other hand, {{number box}} has gotten completely out of control, it desperately needs to be trimmed back. I'll start a discussion on User:Totoja's user page if you want to chime in. Esszet (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Esszet cheers! Vininn126 (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I hope you can sort these out:

Your work on improving Wiktionary's coverage of the Polish lects is nothing short of awesome, btw! This, that and the other (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@This, that and the other It seems @BigDom helped clean up a bunch while I was asleep! (Thanks!) And thank you for the kind words. I cleaned up the Old Polish RQ templates. Vininn126 (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I have a questions. Do you agree that the Old Polish language is a collection of dialects? Do you agree that the Silesian language is a descendant of some Old Polish dialect? ɶLerman (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@ɶLerman Rather both, i.e. Old and Middle Polish had much stronger dialectal variations, such as Mazury, Wielkopolska, Śląsk, and Lwów, and Silesian was one of those. There are clear reflexes in the vowels that also match the end of the general Old Polish period, i.e. the so-called "pochylone" vowels. Long e changed into /e/, which became /ɨ/ in Silesian, long a became /ɒ/, which had various reflexes depending on the position, and lonɡ o became /o/, which remains in Silesian. During the Middle Polish period, Middle Polish and Silesian probably had a very similar phonological system, but with other various changes, i.e. Silesian retained the aorist. This can be evidenced by the fact that Silesian was first mentioned as being a lect during that period (which I source on w:Silesian language). Vininn126 (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@ɶLerman Furthermore, as to Old Polish being a "collection of dialects", only very few traits actually made it past that period, so there is a certain logic to saying that there was a general Polish period. Vininn126 (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, do you know how to add a second imperative form to conjugation tables? For example, the imperative for zespolić can be either zespol or zespól. I tried imp2 but nothing happened. Not sure why it's not working. 173.206.11.7 22:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be a problem with the template. We'll have to use a manual one for now. Vininn126 (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thank you. 173.206.11.7 11:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for fixing that entry up so quickly! The quote I sourced is dated quite a lot later than the spelling reform, is the quote date misleading or was the spelling form not uniformly followed? Helrasincke (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Helrasincke Changed to the second template we use. Vininn126 (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also, @Helrasincke please don't use {{t-needed}} for quotes, it's only for translation boxes. Quotes will automatically go into the right category if you don't translate. Vininn126 (talk) 07:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126 No problem, I see that I forgot to add the |quote=1 parameter. Helrasincke (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I was hoping to get your thoughts on the etymology. Brücker rejects a relationship between mara and mora / zmora, instead connecting mara to mamić and manowiec, but wouldn't the roots for the latter be mam / man, not mar?. Both mara and mora (zmora) apparently can refer to the mythical creature which disturbs people in their sleep (which is mentioned in SEJP under zmora). Or is our entry for mara wrong? WP treats them as synonymous but then I guess that doesn't prove anything. Helrasincke (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Helrasincke I honestly don't check Bruckner that often. He was a pioneer for Slavistics and did incredible work, but being a pioneer has its costs, often your theories end up not being right. Not to his discredit, he was working with less data, but it's usually better to check Sławski, Boryś, and Bańkowski, and also Mańczak. Both Boryś and Mańczak tie zmora to *mora. Boryś also claims PS for mara, and I would go with these theories over Bruckner. Boryś isn't always right, but this seems sound to me. Vininn126 (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

What does the Kashubian term brac mean? It's found at the entry Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/bьrati. -- Apisite (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Apisite I have added the term. Vininn126 (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks; now how about the term cyc as well as Category:Requests for translations into Kashubian? --Apisite (talk) 08:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Apisite Please add it to WT:Requested entries (Kashubian). Vininn126 (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

 Done --Apisite (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm a bit confused over the title of Template:R:ia:Gode1951. Shouldn't it be over at Template:R:ia:Gode1955 instead? The Dictionary was published in 1951, while the Grammar was in 1955. —⁠Desacc̱oinṯier 16:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Probably. Create the new link and set the old one as a redirect. Vininn126 (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'd prefer to have a reference for the Dictionary at Template:R:ia:Gode1951, and move the Grammar reference to Template:R:ia:Gode1955 without a redirect; it's used on less than 50 pages, so I can just fix all of them myself. —⁠Desacc̱oinṯier 18:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps a new template could be created to mark a “double diminutive” or “triple diminutive”, etc., for languages that have more than a “single diminutive”? Maybe “ddim” for a “double diminutive” and “tdim” for a “triple diminutive”. Hans-Friedrich Tamke (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Hans-Friedrich Tamke Maybe. I have no strong feelings. I'd bring this up in a place where it will get more views. Vininn126 (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Bedankt. ShjsywaghgFtFFj (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

can you help fix the declination? The word "sznaps" is not declinated!

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/sznaps_baryton

Ban this idiot IP please: Special:Contributions/2603:6000:B800:EB4:DCDB:DA88:D017:632 Acolyte of Ice (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Acolyte of Ice Also nuked. Vininn126 (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

What's that mean again? You deleted all pages they made? If so I didn't realise they'd made any.. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well more specifically I hid their edits. Vininn126 (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh right, I saw that. Thanks. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

The source is Oczapowski's own words in an article he wrote in 1853 > znaleźliśmy w dykcyonarzu akademji Petersburskiej i w leksykonach rossyjskisch wyraz starosłowiański tlen oznaczający zepsucie jakiego ciała przez tlenie

I assume 'Old Slavic' refers to OCS. I have the pdf saved on memory, but I can't find it on the internet. The article was republished by Chemik Polski in 1910 in Nr. 12 of their magazine.

Also, sorry for the poor formatting. Kanclerz K-Tech (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kanclerz K-Tech It's better to add that source to the page. "Old Slavic" being OCS is a rather big assumption. Vininn126 (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Kanclerz K-Tech (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I came across the Polish term fidel after encountering the term vielle. -- Apisite (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Apisite It does appear to be a type of musical instrument. You can add it to WT:RE:pl if you so please. Vininn126 (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I saw that you removed my IPA entries.

I understand your concern about reconstructed pronunciation, but most Proto-Germanic, Proto-Italic and some other lower reconstructions have IPA entries, should these also be removed? Lëtzelúcia (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Lëtzelúcia

1. There is debate whether they should, and personally I would vote for that.
2. Reconstruction pagenames are partially phonemic as it is.
3. The specific phonemes are harder to reconstruct, we just know the phoneme represented by a later existed, but it might not have been the phone that letter typically represents.
4. PIE is particularly egregious because of the pharyngeals. There is absolutely no consensus on what their values were.

I appreciate that you wrote to me to discuss this with an open mind! Vininn126 (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your quick reply.

About the larynheal theory, there is actually a consensus, cf the work of Kloekhorst and the Anatolian based reconstructed phonology. E.G. *h₁, also known as the neutral laryngeal (I think I do not need to explain this, you seem to have knowledge within the topic, but I just like to) is probably a glottal stop (based on inconsistent reflexes in Hittite and Hieroglyphic Luwian, Lehmann 1993, Kloekhorst 2004, Pronk 2008, Melchert 2010). But I see your point, as Rasmussen (1983) agrees with a schwa. Most of my sources come from Universiteit Leiden, although they are good Indo-Europeanists and have their own reconstructed phonology (as I pointed with the references) I understand that Oxford or Harvard for instance may not agree with Leiden. If you get any news about removing the reconstructed IPA entries get in touch with me, as I have the same concern of yours. Lëtzelúcia (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Lëtzelúcia There is consensus within a particular group, but PIE studies are very broad and scholars have very different opinions, as you mentioned, some even consider schwa, others have other ideas. I hope that this doesn't deter you from further editing, you seem to be of good faith and to have a head on your shoulders. Vininn126 (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, and likewise. Lëtzelúcia (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Lëtzelúcia Just chiming in to agree with Vininn about the problems with adding IPA for Proto-Indo-European. For example, Ringe thinks *h₁ was more likely /h/ or maybe /x/ and not a glottal stop (which makes sense to me; the other two were almost certainly fricatives and all three patterned alike in PIE, so it seems odd to me to have *h₁ have originally been a glottal stop, although it could have evolved into that later). Reconstructed IPA in general is rather problematic, but especially so for PIE. Benwing2 (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I also agree with that! I just decided to add some IPA for PIE because I saw IPA in PGmc, PHel and PAnat. I was just testing to see the feedback. Now talking about the laryngeals, Anatolian evidence points to all being stops, *h₁ was probably a glottal stop, *h₂ was a geminate uvular stop, with a fricative allophone in syllabic positions (to match PIE phonotactics) and *h₃ was a geminate labialised uvular stop, again with a syllabic fricative allophone. This is for early PIE (Indo-Anatolian) of course, late PIE (Nucleal Indo-European post-Tocharian) had all of these as fricatives, so a voiceless glottal fricative and the voiceless uvular frictives. The evidence is found in Hittite plene spelling and Hieroglyphic Luwian (cf Kloekhorst, Kortlandt, Melchert, Kim, Bomhard, Woodhouse), later evidence is found in Tocharian (cf Adams). Of course this is only my opinion, and it is obvious that PIE had multiple dialects (e.g. pre-centum PIE, pre-satem PIE, post-centum PIE, post-satem PIE) and multiple stages (Indo-Anatolian, Indo-Tocharian, Nucleal Indo-European, Indo-Italo-Celtic etc), so it is hard to define an exact pronunciation, the only pronunciation system I agree is for Indo-Anatolian, post-Anatolian is very hard to be defined because of PIE dialectology and some other factors. Also some of the scholars I mentioned have their own thoughts within the general Leiden phonology, for Melchert PIE had voice as a distinctive feature, so a * allophone is used for his historical Anatolian phonology, while Kloekhorst and Kortlandt agree that PIE didn't have voice as a distinctive feature, it was instead a glottalic system (pre-glottalisation and eventual ejectives in late stages of Indo-Anatolian, cf the Hittite reconstructed phonology by Kloekhorst and Jäntti). Lëtzelúcia (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Lëtzelúcia Thanks, that is interesting; I had never heard of a suggestion that *h₂ and *h₃ were originally stops but it seems at least possible. I think it could be argued that Balto-Slavic had glottal stops as reflexes of larygneals due to the broken tone in modern Latvian. But I think you'll be hard pressed to find very many people outside of Leiden who still believe in the glottalic theory; in general the Leiden school is rather idiosyncratic in their beliefs. Anyway, the point of all this is that it would best to avoid reconstructed IPA, especially for PIE, exactly for these reasons. Personally I think it's best not to have it for Proto-Germanic, Proto-Anatolian or Proto-Hellenic either, but some people disagree here as the uncertainty about reconstructed pronunciation isn't quite as much. Benwing2 (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. Lëtzelúcia (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I know you just removed it to the etymology line, but since I've added a few other terms in there (there was an edit conflict when I tried to save), I've left częsty in both places since the list felt incomplete without it. Feel free to remove it again if it really bothers you. Helrasincke (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm making significant progress on this but I have a question. Based on Silesian being its own L2, I've implemented a total separation between Polish and Silesian in that there will be different templates to get the pronunciation in one or the other, and there's no way to have a single Pronunciation section display both sorts of pronunciations. But since Middle Polish is an etym language, I haven't made such a separation for Middle Polish, i.e. it's possible to have both the modern and Middle Polish pronunciations in the same section; does this seem right? The way the Portuguese module works is if you give no respelling or you specify the respelling in |1=, it displays pronunciations for all dialects (i.e. all dialects of both Portugal and Brazil), whereas if you specify a respelling using the |br= dialect group param you get only the Brazilian dialects displayed (unless you also specify a value for |pt=) and if you specify a respelling using a dialect-specific param like |rio= for Rio de Janeiro, you get only that dialect displayed (again, unless you also specify values for other dialects or dialect groups). The equivalent for Polish would be to show modern Polish as well as Middle Polish early and late pronunciations by default; but this seems problematic to me so it probably makes sense to require Middle Polish to be turned on explicitly. What do you think? This would mean that by not specifying a respelling, or using |1= or |pl=, you'd get only the standard Polish pronunciation (since we have only one Polish dialect currently implemented), whereas by specifying a respelling in |mpl= you'd get early and late Middle Polish pronunciations, and to restrict to a specific period you'd give a respelling in |mpl-early= or |mpl-late=. To get both Middle and modern pronunciations, you have to give respellings in both |pl= and |mpl= (note that the value +, or maybe # for compatibility with the existing code, is a shortcut respelling for using the pagename itself). Benwing2 (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

BTW happy (belated) Thanskgiving! Benwing2 (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Happy belated Thanksgiving!

Yes, Middle Polish can be below modern standard and definitely shouldn't be turned on automatically. I also wonder if other dialects, when/if I add them (perhaps Masurian if we don't split it) should also be manually entered. As it currently stands with the current module, you have + for Middle Polish (and no way to separate early and late). It might make more sense to use # as the magic character like we do for the rest of the module. Vininn126 (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have gotten some preliminary code working; see User:Benwing2/test-pl-szl-IPA. For the moment it's always showing Middle Polish pronunciations, for testing purposes. There are a lot of things to fix but one issue I'm not sure about is how to handle the "early" vs. "late" pronunciations. In the Portuguese code, a dialect group like "Brazil" or "Portugal" has a "standard" pronunciation that displays when the dropdown is in the "closed" state, which when expanded shows all the dialectal pronunciations. For the Middle Polish dialect group, I arbitrarily chose the "early" variant as the standard but I don't know if that makes sense or if it even makes sense at all in this case to have a "standard" pronunciation (vs. maybe always showing both if they are different?). Thoughts? (see the examples with dropdowns on the page I linked above; look for the "More" button) Benwing2 (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 I was thinking of having 3 parameters for Middle Polish, one for both, one for early, and one for late, and of modifying {{zlw-mpl-IPA}} to include those. Personally I think it'd be nice to have all Middle Polish pronunciations (if any) displayed alongside standard, but to have dialects in the collapsible box. Have any of the outputs changed from what me and Catonif cooked up? Vininn126 (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126 OK, I will add Middle Polish early and late alongside the standard pronunciation and have any dialects be collapsed. BTW there are already params for Middle Polish both/early/late in my code. When you say "have any outputs changed" what are you referring to? The input params are definitely different but I haven't changed the code that generates the pronunciations other than to clean up the syllabification code (which shouldn't change the output). Benwing2 (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 Okay, great! I didn't see any differences in the transcriptions, I just wanted to make sure. I wonder if it would make sense to display Opole/other Silesian automatically, but that I'm less attached to. Vininn126 (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126 What do you mean exactly when you say "display Opole/other Silesian automatically"? The current plan is that does happen if you use {{szl-IPA}}; but as I mentioned, since Silesian is its own L2, there's currently a strict separation between Polish and Silesian in that a Polish lemma will never display Silesian pronunciation alongside the Polish pronunciation and vice-versa. Benwing2 (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 Yes! I meant in Silesian entries, currently the main difference is ŏ, which displays two pronunciations, one for Opole and one for the rest (though the nasal should probably do that too). Currently I see the main pronunciation with Opole collapsed with words containing this grapheme. Vininn126 (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126 Oh, are you asking for the box to be in an open/non-collapsed state by default, or simply that both pronuns display regardless, with no dropdown box? Benwing2 (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also what exactly is Opole? And when you "the nasal should do that too" is there a different outcome of nasals in Opole or is the different nasal outcome some other lect? Benwing2 (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 Yes to your first question, but if you feel it shouldn't be then I'd be okay with that. The two nasals have non-nasal realizations in western Silesia (same vocalic value, just no nasality). Vininn126 (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126 I can make the two pronuns display regardless; the support will be similar to that for Middle Polish. As for "western Silesia", is that the same as Opole or is it something else? Benwing2 (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 Ultimately we'd have up to three sections - one for ŏ and one for õ/ã, so I actually think it'll just be best to have the regional one's hidden. Vininn126 (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK. That's fine. Benwing2 (talk) 09:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Actually you can theoretically have up to 4 if the ŏ pronunciation and the õ/ã pronun cross-cut: You'd have standard on both; standard ŏ but non-nasal õ/ã; non-standard ŏ but standard nasal õ/ã; and non-standard both. Benwing2 (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 You're right, so even more reason to collapse them I suppose. Also I just remembered once it's deployed I'm gonna need a list of Middle Polish pronunciation sections with <rz> in the headword so I can decide which parameter to set as currently there is no way to set it. Vininn126 (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi please unblock me on discord. ɶLerman (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply