Someone who knows how to write etyl: templates should write template:etyl:pro, as currently {{etyl|pro}} links to the redlinked w:Old Provençal language, whereas it (apparently) should link to w:Old Occitan. Thanks.​—msh210℠ 17:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed with a wikipedia redirect (they're both valid names). {{etyl}} is using the standard language template {{pro}}, and if we change that we might have to change lots of category names. --Bequw → τ 20:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

SIL gives them both as valid names for the same language. I posted about this once before, and nobody really saw any reason to rename the ] give it's listed as a valid name by SIL/ISO 639. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of comments at WT:FB either requesting etymological information or pronunciations. Would it be a good idea, in the feedback box which anons see at the left of every page, to have an option saying "there's no etymology" and "there's no pronunciation" which would automatically add {{rfe}} or Template:termp to a given page? It also might be an idea to have some kind of link to WT:FB itself because I think most people aren't sure where to go to see if anyone has answered their questions or not. Ƿidsiþ 09:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thought useful, it would seem hard as some pages have multiple entries (where to insert the {{rfe}}?) and, relatedly, for non-English entries the lang= parameter would have to be filled in. --Bequw → τ 02:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Just using my Sandbox I've noticed that a lot of major templates don't have a parameter that means they only categorize in the main name space. Do we want to add these to virtually every template or what? For example you can't use them in appendices or talk pages (etc.) without them categorizing, which generally speaking isn't good. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to fix a template, one way to do it is to put the categories in an alternative to a parameter, such as {{{demo|]}}} This will make the template categorize unless |demo=| (or the like) is used: and then you use that whenever you don't want to categorize. This is already being done with a number of templates. (Of course, you can do as you said: make sure it only categorizes in mainspace. I'm just offering an alternative.)​—msh210℠ 16:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The templates currently used to display the headword/inflection line for Greek adjectives needed improvement. Examples of the new template {{el-test}} can be seen at Template_talk:el-test. Please could an expert familiar with templates have a look and make sure that I have not committed any howlers. It seems to work with the examples I have given it, but... Thanks —Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 16:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

{{el-test}} is now {{el-adj}} —Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 05:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I've got it, can I move this version into the actual template without breaking anything? There has been a request for a {{wlink}} parameter to avoid AutoFormat adding count page at the bottom of pages. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well. I forgot to update this one (while I was editing {{obsolete spelling of}}, {{rare spelling of}}, etc.) to the new format. Thanks for reminding me. (: The {{misspelling of}} is now updated. --Daniel. 10:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the non-use of {{wlink}} was intentional. We don't want misspellings to be counted; and I'm pretty sure that AutoFormat was already handling it correctly. —Ruakh_TALK 17:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

They should be counted as entries, although for the most part not in PoS categories like nouns, verbs, pronouns etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In the past, we've taken the view that they shouldn't be counted as entries. If you feel otherwise, please start a BP discussion. —Ruakh_TALK 18:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've never noticed a consensus of people with that (or the opposite) view.​—msh210℠ 19:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

People who have expressed or supported that view include at least myself, Conrad (below), RJFJR (May '09), Nadando (October '08), seemingly-DCDuring (ibid.), Robert Ullmann (ibid.), EnycloPetey (June '08), Raifʻhār Doremítzwr (December '07), and Connel MacKenzie (ibid., and November '07). Now, the December '07 discussion shows Rodasmith seeming to disagree, and Robert Ullmann seeming somewhat ambivalent; and Mglovesfun obviously disagrees, as might SemperBlotto (January '10); and the fact that we've had so many discussions suggests that not everyone has been aware of the consensus (and hence had the opportunity to share in it); and some of these editors may simply have expressed this view in the belief that they were expressing the community view, rather than particularly intending to express their own opinion. (I probably fall into that category, actually.) But overall, it seems like the status quo had better consensus than almost anything here. —Ruakh_TALK 15:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've refused to make the change for exactly that reason twice in the past. Conrad.Irwin 20:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Counting misspellings would open us up to a charge of entry-count inflation, whether or not that is anyone's intent. It is, after all, possible to have any number of misspellings for any given word. A given misspelling may even apply to more than one word.

We don't even have ny criteria for distinguishing alternative spellings from misspellings and common misspellings from not-so-common misspellings. DCDuring TALK 00:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's point out the obvious; misspellings are only not counted if they're only misspellings with no categories and no interwikis. Since the server counts any entry containing ] we'd also have to remove all interwikis and all internal links for it not to work. definately for example has a French interwiki, so it's counted. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Why does definately have an interwiki? Should we put misspellings on a clean-up list to have categories and interwikis removed. Can they be prevented? Should Autoformat tag them? DCDuring TALK 16:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Because the French Wiktionary also defines it? I don't think they can (or should) be prevented. Article counting is broken anyway, however there's no need to break it more in this case. I am of the opinion that no templates should support pre-linked parameters, it is more flexible and uniform to have the template do it for you. Conrad.Irwin 17:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Some comments above suggest there is no policy on whether a particular misspelling should be included on Wiktionary or not. I was naively supposing that the three-cites CFI rule would be sufficient for them. After all, three independent instances of a particular erroneous spelling (and related ortographical references that prove it as wrong) would be a very good clue to call that a "common misspelling". (For instance, the quantity of people who write the Portuguese word mas as "mais" is incredibly high) --Daniel. 16:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like a good way of doing it, the actual problem is when do we call it a "misspelling" and when just an "alternative spelling" - there is no obvious way to do this. The only way I can justify our having the mispelling label at all is that it is a common synonym of "proscribed spelling", but we don't ever show any evidence that it is proscribed, we should (given that we are a descriptive dictionary). What evidence exists, I'm not sure, perhaps usage notes in text-books or dictionaries - I'm not sure we can work out that exclusion from another dictionary counts as implying it's a misspelling. Conrad.Irwin 17:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we could provide references to textbooks and dictionaries to label certain words as proscribed or misspellings. Most likely people talk about this too, by describing their own experiences that could be quoted. Interestingly, WT:CFI suggests that misspellings should actually be counted, by describing the usage of {{misspelling of}} as "# {{misspelling of|]}}" with square brackets. --Daniel. 13:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Why doesn't the file I uploaded here link to wanton? ---> Tooironic 12:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It does, look at the bottom under "Global file usage". Conrad.Irwin 17:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but I can't play the link at wanton, can you? It comes up as a red link for me. ---> Tooironic 22:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It has turned blue for me. Everything was fine in wikitext. It seems like it was something on the backend that was slow to update. --Bequw → τ 02:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just been working on the hypocrite entry and am wondering what would be the best way to format the etymology, given that one of the ancestor terms is (apparently) from ecclesiastical latin? Does anyone know of any similar entries that might help guide me? Or do we just ignore the 'ecclesiastical' part? Thanks.--TyrS 03:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Last I heard, the best solution would be to create something similar to {{etyl:Late Latin}}, and use that. However, there have been some nifty changes to the template since I last checked in, so the situation may have changed. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe {{etyl:Ecclesiastical Latin}}, possibly with a redirect as that's quite hard to type. How about {{etyl:EL.}}, unless people think that would be confused with Greek (however, that's unlikely). Mglovesfun (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think {{etyl:Ecclesiastical Latin}} looks good. I would argue against {{etyl:EL.}}, as the standard policy is to only use official abbreviations, such as SIL codes, in these types of things. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

But to encourage use {{etyl}}, not lose information, and economize on contributor keystrokes, we are using such codes as "LL.", "VL.", and possibly "NL." and "ML.", all of which are Webster 1913 rather than official ISO. It doesn't seem wrong. The period serves to clarify the source of these and avoid potential conflict with ISO codes. DCDuring TALK 00:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a good point. However, I prefer the longer forms, for a few reasons. First, Two letter abbreviations will quickly be used up. What happens when someone wants to create a shorter version of.....say...{{etyl:Eastern Lao}}? I have no idea if anyone ever would, but let's assume it to be possible. If we use the full forms, such overlap is avoided. ISO codes are importantly different from Webster codes in that they are intended to be comprehensive, whereas Webster is certainly not. Finally, the longer form is frustrating, and this frustration serves to remind everyone that this is not an ideal situation. I would very much like to see a dialect capacity added to {{etyl}}, and I have been clamoring for such a thing from day one. However, to have such a functionality, it needs to build upon a standardized system for dialects, which we currently lack. I have heard rumours that ISO 639-6 will create such a thing, which I eagerly anticipate. However, in the meantime, we are resigned to creating goofy, non-robust kludges. I would prefer to keep our kludges just a little bit cumbersome, to encourage us to switch to a tenable system, when one comes along. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

{{poscatboiler}} should support this title. The template is so widely used and so delicate, I daren't update it myself. We also have Category:Italian past participle forms, which does not use this template as it can't. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You've asked this exact update to me, and I'm willing to do it (as part of my work of fulfilling {{poscatboiler}} down to every related category). Though you didn't respond when I asked: Why not Old French masculine singular past participles, Old French masculine plural past participles, Old French feminine singular past participles and Old French feminine plural past participles? --Daniel. 17:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah right, I never noticed a reply. Hmm well it's a possibility I suppose, but not one I favor. Too specific. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Though a past participle is by itself a participle form (or a verb form), isn't it? To my eyes, the category title Old French past participle forms is similar to Old French feminine participle forms, Old French plural participle forms and so on; therefore, very specific but not enough if we want specificity. --Daniel. 07:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal preference, but I don't see any advantage is subdividing the category further. We have Category:Portuguese adjective forms but not Category:Portuguese adjective masculine plural forms (and similar). Why wouldn't the same argument work here? — This unsigned comment was added by Mglovesfun (talk • contribs).

Well, the Portuguese adjective categorization is clearly subdivided into specific inflections and is fairly good in my opinion. The main categories are Portuguese adjectives, Portuguese adjective feminine forms and Portuguese adjective plural forms. Anyway, I've added support to {{poscatboiler|fro|past participle form}} as you asked. --Daniel. 05:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. See also Template talk:poscatboiler/theList where I added another request. I'm not strongly against subdividing these further, I just see no 'real' advantage to it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the policy in creating new categories? I want to create a category purely to perform maintenance on various kanji entries. Currently, {{ja-kanji}} is supposed to port any kanji into the hidden category Category:Japanese words needing attention if either of its "grade" or "rs" paramaters are blank. However, I've noticed that if the entry also includes the template {{defn|Japanese}}, then that category takes priority and and overides the the categories under {{ja-kanji}}. There are more than 17,000 entries in the Category:Japanese definitions needed. I know there are far fewer kanji out there that still have blank "grade" parameters and probably a few with blank "rs" parameters. I want to create a temporary category, also hidden, titled Category:Kanji entries needing attention to make it easier to find {{ja-kanji}} entries that need to be fixed (as a side benefit, I would add definitions to those entries as I fix the other template). Is this something I can be bold and do, or is there another avenue I should pursue.? Dcmacnut 23:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, as long as you categorise the category somewhere that interested editors will stumble across it (perhaps Category:Requests (Japanese)) then it can be sorted out in the future. Conrad.Irwin 23:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It was wise to explain yourself in advance. You might check with some of the most active editors of Japanese entries. They may have useful thoughts. If no one seems active besides you, consider checking with yourself after a good night's sleep. DCDuring TALK 00:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, all. I went ahead and created the category and updated the ja-kanji template to populate it. So far, it's generating 11,000 kanji with incomplete ja-kanji templates. Category:Japanese words needing attention probably would have captured all of these as well, but that is such a generic category there would be no way of knowing the specific issue to be "fixed." It may be overkill, but I really motivated to help at least fill in some of the blanks. 11,000 kanji is a tall order though. I haven't found too many other active Japanese editors here, so we shall see if anyone else finds this useful. Thanks again. Dcmacnut 05:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that our Japanese entries are usually quite poor and unformatted compared to other languages. I don't speak any Japanese but I was hoping to update some 'illegal headers' like Romaji to part of speech headers. If you know where to look for cleanup tasks, the number of tasks is in the thousands, to say the least. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's part of the reason I created the template. The current "needs attention" catch-all simply is too generic. For example, I speak Japanese but am not 100% familiar with the ins and outs of Wiktionary formating. So for me its hard to immediately see what "needs" attention in some of these articles, just as it would be for someone well versed in the formating syntax here who doesn't speak japanese. It may lead to over categorization, but the more we can focus in on specific needs for specific entries the better. For example, I've tried to delete Japanese entries for some hanzi simplified forms that simply are not used in Japan today.

One thing I've notices notation for "defintions needed" for each language subheading han character articles. Definitions are included under "translingual" and for the most part those definitions and meanings remain the same regardless of whether it's Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, or Korean. I see no problem in repeating definitions, but is it really necessary? Meaning nuances would be more apparent in articles on compound words, I imagine.Dcmacnut 23:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference between Wiktionary:REE and Wiktionary:EDH? It seems potentially confusing and/or counterproductive. Just a suggestion.--71.111.229.19 15:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

REE is for users to request entries. EDH is a generated list of entries in other dictionaries. Nothing should be added to it. (Remove English bluelinks, though.) If we merged the two, REE would be swamped.​—msh210℠ 16:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. But shouldn't REE be displayed at the top of the Category:Requested_entries_by_language page instead of EDH?--达伟 11:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the category is full of REE and similar pages (requests). EDH is not requests, so the category points to it as a "see also" type of thing. I've now moved that paragraph to the bottom of the page instead of its top.​—msh210℠ 16:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This page appears at the bottom of the user contributions list, herewith an English example : n:MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer, and a Wiktionary one : fr:MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer. JackPotte 20:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm, maybe here it should be like this:

$1: Subpages · User rights · Edit count · SUL accounts · Global Contributions

--Yair rand 23:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want it, go for it; doesn't make much difference to me in my crazy world of keyboard shortcuts (though it's always nice to put an link on messages like that, given how easy the names are to guess). Conrad.Irwin 23:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a compiler that generates MediaWiki template language from human-friendly input, and vice versa ? --Ivan Štambuk 01:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is one, would make a fun project if you have a few weeks to spend on the wikitext -> human-friendly converter (the other way is a day or two at most). Conrad.Irwin 13:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did found one, but it has almost equally unreadable syntax, lacking syntax highlighting and decent error messages...Sigh. --Ivan Štambuk 21:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In Paris, the 3 audio templates seem to be leaving an HTML tag open or something. Each template indents the rest of the entry. Can anyone figure this out? Is it affecting other entries? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2010-03-11 23:15 z

Yes, sorry, that was my mistake - I didn't even think to check for that error. Fixed now. Conrad.Irwin 23:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason that the (main), Mediawiki, and Category namespaces don't have subpages but their related Talk namespaces do? Not a big deal, but it does make Talk:AC/DC act oddly. --Bequw → τ 05:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, precisely because AC/DC is not a sub-page of AC (there's a configuration variable that dictates which namespaces have this feature). There is a bug for this (using exactly the same example, so it's probably not a hugely common phenomenon). Conrad.Irwin 08:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

w:Talk:9/11 is one of my favorites of this type. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This is a problem I posted about last month at Template talk:infl but apparently it is not read any more over there, so I thought of posting a notice here. Template:infl can specify one category with parameter cat= but certain words would require at least one identical parameter cat2= (and maybe more) because they belong to several subcategories at the same time.

It should be a simple change to copy the code for cat= so as to add support for cat2= and cat3= but the template is blocked for administrators only. I have explained full details and examples at Template talk:infl#Missing cat2, thank you if you can look into it. 62.147.24.102 13:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

cat2= and cat3= added. --Yair rand 05:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

On the "" page it lists all the languages supported by Wiktionary along with the number of entries for that language and how many are considered "good". I am mostly interested in the Tongan entries. It says there are 200 entries but only 2 are "good". There are no admins to ask about this and I have searched with no luck to find answers, I am not even sure this is where I ask, but hope it will lead somewhere.

First off, what makes an entry "good"? does it need to be verified? Can it be part of an existing page (en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/pig) or does it need to be published on its own page(en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/poaka#Maori)? Does it need its own entry on the language wiki (mi.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/poaka) it was intended for?

Second, is there a way to see a list of the "good" entries?

Third, how do you become an admin? Do you have to be a speaker or just be responsable? I dont speak Tongan, but I know a few words and have a number of friends from Tonga that have helped teach me how to say things, and since there are 0 admins for "faka Tonga", I was hoping to help get this language moving up the ladder (more than 2 "good" words)

Any help would be appreciated! thanks (you can also reach me at: http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/User_talk:BillyNair

The number "200" does not just apply to entries - user pages, image description pages, meta pages and categories all add to this figure, too. The "good" pages are entries in the article namespace which have at least one link (strictly, the literal string