Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Information desk/2020/December. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Information desk/2020/December, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Information desk/2020/December in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Information desk/2020/December you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Information desk/2020/December will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Information desk/2020/December, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Hello, my name is Intobesa. To prevent words spelled Mon language about Mon dictionary, I am writing it now not complete yet. if writing is complete, it will take about 3 days, don't delete it, I beg Admin favor, about the Mon dictionary I would like to keep it here, to prevent destructive writing of Mon words,
Thai Admin Mon Vocabulary written in a destructive way It is as follows
ကွေန်ၚါ် The Mon vocabulary he wrote was not true in the Mon language, as he wrote for the future Mon people are very dangerous, this article is for protection like this, he wrote the Mon vocabulary although I am a real Mon but I do not understand, I studied Mon language when I was young this spelling is never agreed upon and the word spelled in this in the ancient Mon language never agreed, I know (Raman รามัญ or Thai Ramanไทยรามัญ or Mon Tai มอญไทย), (Mon မန်၊ မွန် or Mon Nya မန်ည၊ မွန်ညာ့ or Mon Tang မန်ဒိုင်၊ မွန်ဒိုက့် or Mon Teh မန်ဒ၊ မွန်ဒဲ့ or Mon Burmese မန်ဗၟာဲ၊ မွန်ဗမာ or Mon Myanmar မန်ဗၟာဲ၊ မွန်မြန်မာ), (Mon Koreanမန်ကိုဝ်ရဳယျာ한몬), (Mon Khmer មនខ្មែរမန်ခမင်), (Mon Paliပါဠိမန်), language but have never seen that Mon vocabulary, I think he wrote Mon vocabulary in a destructive way, I need to protect it like this. thanks --咽頭べさ (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I already told you before. Mon has many dialects. We mainly use Myanmar dialect as main entries because Myanmar has the Mon state and 90% of Mon ethnics are there. Go check the word at . Or you should defend that Shorto's vocabulary (1962) is wrong; I would add to my exception list and change the word back. (I am not a stone.) For other minor spellings, like Thai Mon, we also collect as alternative spellings. I actually said "incorrect" once, I must say sorry, now I know Thai Mon (your) spellings are also correct too. So they are already mentioned in the page. What do you want further more? --Octahedron80 (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
PS: Myanmar Mon also use common nga (င) in their text interchangible with Mon nga (ၚ). You could check Mon Wikipedia and randomize some articles. But I do not yet add it unless I already see one.
I feel I'm being kicked out of Wiktionary
Okay, so what triggered this are recent edits to Sankt-Nimmerleins-Tag. Notice how there's a box complaining about redundancy of senses, even though my original submission made it very clear why one might choose different English equivalents. Note also that all the attestations have been deleted as ‘questionable’. I can't say I agree. Overall, comparing my initial version and the version as it stands now, the original was objectively better.
This isn't the first time something similar has happened, but I don't want to get bogged down in details. The feeling of getting kicked out is more of an overarching thing. I have long been disappointed with the overall lack of quality of this project. Often words or senses are missing, etymologies are wrong or missing, no or very few attestations, and so on and forth. But now I understand why that is.
Depending on the reaction here, I might consider giving up on this project for good. You may think that's no big deal, considering I've only been able to contribute very little. But you'll have lost me over the course of a lifetime and further, I think the underlying reasons are causing others to not begin contributing in the first place. Please tell me those experiences were just caused by some rotten apples and my impression is wrong.
All three senses at Sankt-Nimmerleins-Tag are the same sense, just used with different prepositions. So they shouldn't be listed as separate definitions. We don't divide senses by translation, but rather by meaning. In light of that, I've merged all three senses into one, since your various translations are valuable. You're editing in good faith and it was a good contribution. It can be frustrating when people challenge your edits, but it's also good to have some humility and figure out why people have an issue with the edit. I'm sorry you haven't felt welcome here...it's a steep learning curve, and we aren't always as friendly as we could be. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The glosses had to be fixed because of the common error of mapping to or sorting after English instead of the understanding of the described language.
The pictures were disallowed because they pertain to the authors of the quotes and make everything look encyclopedic.
What are “questionable quotes” though, @Surjection? Only the reference of the quote titled Grimm was to be fixed. IP’s right on the quotes. I note to the IP that it might have seen “quotation” sections but it is not that common to use them (but rather to add expandable quotations right after the senses or at the citation namespace near the talk namespace), although here it was and looked very okay since nothing else would ever be on that page anyway. Fay Freak (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The fact that there was a pretty clear political POV in them. A dictionary is even less a place for covert POV pushing than an encyclopedia. (For the record, this was not entirely an independent act; there was some discussion on the Discord server and general agreement that the quotes had that very problem.) I'm not exactly going to edit-war over restoring them back, but they should at the very least be under a citation page in my opinion. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 09:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
There is no political POV. The authors of the quotes have POV, but this does not carry over to the page. Wiktionary does not become socialist by quoting Karl Liebknecht as it does not become a rapper by quoting Too Short, or a bawdy house by quoting Iceberg Slim. IP of course cannot comprehend it because it is merely imagined, and even less so if his effort has not been moved but removed.
The idea of reaching a somehow general agreement over Discord is also a very problem that aggravates the issue of a new user legitly not being able to grasp what’s going on. Fay Freak (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
You're making a strawman argument. I was never arguing for a POV simply because the authors have a POV. If you cannot see it (or at the very least that the quotes are needlessly political) in the content of the quotes, I cannot help you further. It should be even more obvious in the context of the pictures as well as the quotes the IP originally added to Ewigkeitskosten; the IP is here to promote their political views and is not acting in good faith. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 18:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
No, you are needlessly fabricating problems here (or whoever on Discord you speak for as a strawman). It’s also wrong to consciously dismiss quotes because they contain POV without even carrying over to a message of the page. I see the reflected POV and find it useful. Even if the IPs original motivation is politics, it may have acted in good faith by sublimating such interest into perhaps showing his interests, that is his field of interest, because our interest is language, so also interested language. Mere motivation does not make crime (actually the concept of “good faith” is misleadingly worded thus as we should have long overcome the quarrels between the faithful and the disbelievers; I must be suspect of people adducing faith as well as of those invoking godly commandments), and POV quotes are normal. There is no rule that quotes must be of either somehow neutral or of a most trivial kind (again, the high and public registers are very interesting, not less than private talk), and even more, trying to avoid political messages in quotes is itself a slant. For instance, Ewigkeitskosten is a term specifically coined for political considerations, so that’s why such quotes are sought there. The second image there, of nuclear waste, also together with its text. was most illustrative, that’s the very image thought when using the term. Fay Freak (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with merging the senses into one, with removing the pictures, and with removing the most political of the quotes, but many of the quotes were wholly apolitical and just flat deleting them seems like overkill to me. Why not put them on Citations:Sankt-Nimmerleins-Tag? —Mahāgaja · talk10:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
What are “most political” quotes? Public discussion is constantly politics. If you open a newspaper, half of it is politics, and the other half also drifts into politics without you admitting it at first (e.g. sports are very political). And political delicacies are what dictionary users seek to know, also and in particular with such a word. There is nothing najis about documenting political use even in the most deliberate fashion or in being directly subjected to perceiving such documentation. If I am a journalist or jurist or diplomat that’s what I want to know. Fay Freak (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
For the version at I'd say the most political quotes are the ones dated 1913, 1981, 1993, 1995, 1998 and 2017. The other five are rather apolitical. But honestly, I don't mind keeping the political ones too, especially on the Citations: page rather than the main page. And the reason I'd prefer moving them to the Citations: page has more to do with space considerations than with their political nature. The translations need some cleanup though (e.g. Northern Ireland has a peace process, not a "piece process"). —Mahāgaja · talk12:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, please restore the quotes. The problem is more the quantity (and formatting, <center> tags, 1990s throwback time), not the content itself. – Jberkel18:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I ignored the discussion on Discord and while the pictures were absolutely a bit much, the quotes were nice for the most part. Yeah, Brecht was a communist, but who cares? There's no problem with his 1941 quote. Similar things can be said of other quotes here. The Liebknecht quote is interesting historically and, as Fay Freak mentioned, for the register. If anything we could keep most of these on the Citations page, and tbh a few on the main entry wouldn't hurt either. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Just noticed this discussion was on the 2nd, not the 22nd of December, so I'm a bit late. I have created Citations:Sankt-Nimmerleins-Tag, and restored 3 (hopefully) unobjectionable quotations to the main entry, as a lot of people here seem to agree blanket removal is undesirable. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Surjection that the quotations taken as a whole were too biased and politicised. I don't object to the current selection and wouldn't mind either if the Liebknecht quote would also be included in the entry. For some words, it just can't be helped, all their uses are POV, but in this case a slanted presentation is avoidable. ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
That would be because of the youtube links, which are almost always added by someone trying to promote something. There's no reason to use them, anyway, because they aren't evidence of a term's existence according to our Criteria for inclusion. If your etymology is correct, we probably wouldn't want it: we're a descriptive dictionary- terms have to be part of the language, not something made up by someone for a video. It's possible that it already exists somewhere, but a quick look at Google Books doesn't turn up anything promising
By the way: it doesn't mean anything regarding whether to have an entry for the word, but this would be all wrong, etymologically. The words twice and thrice are from Old English words related to two and three. The "quadr" element is ultimately from Latin quattuor(“four”). If there were an English equivalent, it would probably be something like frice. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
What is the correct location for a translated word in plural?
The word in question is dust devils, translated to Portuguese "pés-de-vento". This word in singular, dust devil, was already translated by me. I guess I should put the plural in dust devils but it seems I shouldn't because I don't see that approach in other entries, like houses for example. Should I add it in to dust devil marking it as the plural form next to the singular? Naluna (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
@Naluna: Translation tables should appear only on the lemma forms of English words and should contain only the lemma forms of foreign words. So the translation table at dust devil should have "Portuguese: {{t|pt|pé-de-vento|m}}", while dust devils shouldn't have a translation table at all. The Portuguese plural pés-de-vento should be findable only from the singular pé-de-vento, not from any English-language entry. —Mahāgaja · talk14:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure how {{Han etym}} works. I found an image in a 1905 book published in Japan that seems to be a seal script version of 茶 and I wanted to add it to that entry, but there don't seem to be any instructions on how to use the template, or how it works. Help! NMaia (talk) 06:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to take some information from wiktionary and turn it into Wikidata in Lexemes. I checked your Wiktionary:Wikidata policy. Does that policy mean I have to ask somewhere for each word I want to put into Wikidata as Lexeme data?
Quote from Wiktionary:Wikidata policy:
Any and all edits using Wikidata must have been
previously approved in a discussion or vote,
otherwise they shall be reverted on sight
I'd like to just freely go to a word on the English wiktionary and then feel free to turn any information I find into a Lexeme on Wikidata. Does your policy address my use case? LotsofTheories (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately Wikidata chose to go with a license incompatible with ours when setting up their lexicographical data project, mostly ignoring/dimissing the input of Wiktionary editors throughout the process. This has made Wikidata and Wiktionary largely useless to each other beyond some minor aids (like interwiki links and sense IDs) and in good part squandered the potential they had for mutual improvement.
In practice, for your specific case, it means that very simple uncopyrightable facts can be copied over to Wikidata, but any part of Wiktionary whose creation involved the slightest creative input (such as the wording of our definitions) cannot legally be copied. (This is not addressed by the policy you link, though; that page is only talking about the use of Wikidata data on Wiktionary, not vice-versa.) — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 15:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
The policy is referring to the opposite of what you describe: taking information from Wikidata and presenting it here. DTLHS (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
That is correct, so the short answer to the original question is “No” – our policy does not address LoT’s use case. The longer answer, given by Vorziblix, is that, however, the incompatibility of the respective licenses stands in the way of this use case. --Lambiam00:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Colloquial (Levantine) Arabic Section & Module
Cheers everyone. I have been using Wiktionary for years now as an Arabic reference tool. It's a fantastic site, but I've noticed from the start that the Arabic entries are almost entirely for Modern Standard Arabic, with a few entries for Hijazi Arabic. While there's a fair amount of overlap between MSA & individual dialects, the conjugation tables in particular are not very relevant to Arabic dialects; for those of you who are familiar with Arabic, I'm sure I don't need to justify that claim.
I've just created an account here, as I was hoping to contribute conjugations of certain key verbs in Levantine Arabic — which I study professionally — as a starting point toward including more entries on Levantine Arabic & indeed other colloquial Arabic dialects. However, I've just learned that the system is not as straightforward as I thought, and the conjugation charts for the Arabic entries are actually produced through coding. Although I don't know coding, I suppose that that would make the endeavor of including Levantine Arabic entries quite easy in the long term.
So, I was wondering if there is anyone capable on the coding side of things who would be interested in collaborating to create a conjugation module for Levantine Arabic verbs. I actually don't think it would be very hard, since it mostly entails removing irrelevant sections of the Standard Arabic conjugation module (e.g. the jussive; dual forms; the passive voice) & modifying a handful of prefixes; not to mention that there are almost no significant exceptions or irregular verbs to account for.
I almost considered trying to do it myself, but I'm quite busy — teaching Arabic, no less — so it would be great if someone could take care of the coding side of things. I have already created an Excel spreadsheet of Levantine Arabic verb conjugations for my own use; it's really just a matter of translating that into code.
@AdrianAbdulBaha: The problem is much greater than you realise; we need not only conjugation tables but entire entries. Furthermore, we separate North Levantine (e.g. Lebanese) from South Levantine (e.g. Palestinian) Arabic here. @M. I. Wright, Kritixilithos may be interested in helping you with building this infrastructure and learning to create entries. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds02:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Until an edit this year by @Fenakhay, one found it acceptable to have an Egyptian Arabic conjugation table under a Literary Arabic table at دَرَسَ(darasa). Why he decided to drop it we are not told. I found the formatting thrilling every time I came upon it. It was a step towards that Chinese formatting Metaknowledge sometimes dreamed about. Fay Freak (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Etymonline says the sense dates to "c. 1910, perhaps extended from" the slang sense of "toilet" (which they in turn suggest is short for "piss-can"). Partridge dates it to 1914 but offers no further information, although they do record several other senses we lack, including "Navy destroyer", (military) "tank", a measure of marijuana, a safe, and a car. - -sche(discuss)20:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I was just reading an American book from 1910 with a German professor character in it, and found this weird expression "py chiminey." It appears to be some sort of German-sounding interjection the author used through this character to make him seem more German, but (perhaps since I don't know the language) I can't determine what it's supposed to mean, or what German word it's trying to imitate. There is no entry for chiminey or Chiminey. Here are the lines where it's used (see here for the full context):
"What, he!" cried the stout German. "For why should I tell him about them? He knows nothing. He has bought my time to instruct classes; he has not bought, py chiminey! everything—even the soul Gott gave me!"
The astute German cast on him a quick glance of interrogation. "Why not?" he said. "It makes nothing to me what purpose you will be carrying out; no, py chiminey! not if it costs me my position of trained bear; because I have confidence in my psychology that it will not make any innocent man suffer!"
According to Google Books, a few other books seemed to have used both py chiminey and py chimney, so they might even be attestable enough as English entries here. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
That's supposed to be "by jiminy" as in "Jiminy Cricket". There may be a German dialect somewhere that devoices a lot of initial consonants (it would be High German if it exists), but this is certainly an exaggerated stereotype. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Since /d͡ʒ/ doesn't occur in native German words, some German speakers have difficulty pronouncing it and replace it with /t͡ʃ/, even if they don't devoice other voiced stops. —Mahāgaja · talk21:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
It seems to have been a "thing", among some English writers of the 1800s and early 1900s, to signal "Germanness" by flipping the voicing of consonants, even in ways that make no sense relative to actual German. I've found books with "German" characters saying things like "Pisness was splendid mid us". - -sche(discuss)22:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
It's possible to print the entire English Wiktionary?
The English Wiktionary is the biggest english dictionary ever conceived, including information not even high reputation premium dictionaries could offer... That's why I ask if it's possible to be put to print; English is not my native tongle, so is my message right?. — This unsigned comment was added by 190.219.181.90 (talk) at 03:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC).
It would be a ridiculously huge number of volumes. I don't think anyone could afford to print it. Even the Oxford English Dictionary stopped their print edition and went online only. Equinox◑04:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
As of November 22 the total number of characters on all English Wiktionary pages was 1,682,862,310. If you could fit 5,000 characters on a page that would be 336,572 pages. But probably you would only want to print out lemmas which would be smaller but harder to estimate. DTLHS (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Earlier this year I met some editors of le Wiktionnaire and they showed me a printed edition of the French Wiktionary–only a subset, and only French entries, but still cool to hold a paper copy in hands. I think it was specifically designed to be used in schools, in cooperation with some publisher. – Jberkel22:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
@Dngweh2s: I asked for that years ago, and was given User:Ultimateria/en-needing-ipa, which is based on a database dump that was already over a year old at the time. I've been working through the list off and on for the past 5 years, but the list provides only the most common English words that didn't have an {{IPA}} template at the time of the dump. The only way to remove entries from the list is to delete them or, as I have been doing, comment them out. There doesn't seem to be any way to get an automatically updated list of English entries that currently have no {{IPA}} template. —Mahāgaja · talk06:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
In English it is common to just use the proper noun attributively when e.g. a dialect is meant. You may find it weird, but it is not nonsensical. ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
@Lambian: How? In the source-code it's already the correct "Münsterländisch". Somebody fucked it up somehow somewhere else.
@Lingo Bingo Dingo: It's not used attributively in the entry as it's not "the Münsterland dialect".
Yes, but it's hardly unusual or ungrammatical to use names of locales that are often used attributively as stand-alone labels as well. You may find it unaesthetic, but it is a practice often found in English-language linguistic literature. ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Do you have examples? Better for German dialects and at best for English Münsterland(“Münsterländisch”). I'd bet that (most) usages are different, e.g. using the place name in the sense of "as spoken at this place" instead of "spoken in this lect", or being clear ellipses. Examples I saw:
"the Münsterland dialect" (attributive use which was never questioned)
"brochte: In Osnabrück many irregular verbs retain endings for the preterite whereas they are lost in the Münsterland, where broch is the usual form." (): Here, Osnabrück and Münsterland are place names and not names of dialects, hence this doesn't support "dialects, including Münsterland".
"the dialects of the Lower Elbe and the Münsterland differ" (): Also refers to the region and is not the name of a dialect; it's pretty much "the dialect of the Münsterland".
"the dialects spoken in the Ems region, in the Münsterland and in Osnabrück" (): Region, not dialect name; "the dialect spoken in the Münsterland".
"the Saxon dialects that developed on formerly Frankish soil, e.g. in Münsterland" (): Region.
As is not unusual with indirect objects, both forms are possible:
So she explained methat her husband left her
She explained to me later that the rug was not a common thing for that purpose
(Note that some grammarians may object to the first form, but it is common enough.) Because the object of the verb (that which is explained, underlined here) is a whole phrase (that ...), it moves to the end. Thereby you cannot see that the word order for the two forms is actually different. With a simple object, you get:
she explained methe work
she explainedthe reasonto me
This is not specific for the verb to explain; it is a more general grammatical phenomenon. Compare I wrote hera letter with I wrotea letterto her. I agree, though, that it is generally desirable (as also stated at WT:USEX) to give natural examples of how the word is commonly used. --Lambiam13:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@Lambiam "Note that some grammarians may object to the first form" Is that proscription specifically American? Compare similar proscriptions and prescriptions with to give and to tell. ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The book where I found this uses British English spelling, and the first author, Angela Downing, holds B.A. Honours and M.A. degrees in French and Spanish from the University of Oxford. --Lambiam13:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
As an American from Los Angeles, anything that starts with "she explained me" looks like it should be referring to an explanation about me rather than an explanation to me. For me the dative is rather weak, so I need a preposition to reinforce it where there isn't a noun or simple noun phrase that's clearly the direct object (I have no problem with "throw me the ball", but "explain me the rules" is right on the borderline- I would use "explain the rules to me"). Of course, my mother was a teacher who majored in English, so I may not be typical. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm being threatened by an admin. How should I deal with it?
It depends on the circumstances. If you're being willfully disruptive to the point that a block would be within the rules if you kept at it, a warning is certainly acceptable. Robbie isn't always the most tactful, and he's been known to go too far on occasion. On the other hand, he does an enormous amount of work to keep vandalism, spam and bad edits out of the dictionary. He also wouldn't hesitate to block anyone who was harassing you in violation of the rules. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Although I have same sympathy for your cause, I do not have the same sympathy for your approach, which is (if not already there) on the verge of becoming disruptive. It does not help your cause if you cast aspersions on the motives of unidentified editors who do not agree with you – you have thereby squandered a lot of goodwill (or benefit of the doubt). The rules here are rules agreed upon by the community, not rules imposed by some cabal of deletionists, and it is unbecoming to attack editors for trying to follow these rules. --Lambiam23:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I guess. Nobody here likes me anyway, so I don't think there's any goodwill to squander. I'll try to keep my personal grievances unspoken in the future. — Dentonius00:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Why is it okay to introduce a new deletion request every day (even two or more if you want to), but it's not okay to add an undeletion request every day? Don't the people who submit deletion requests every day also add to the RFD backlog and make the page huge?
I tend to exclusively vote keep when I take part in RFD matters. Why do people here insist on telling me that I must vote delete sometimes in RFD? Isn't it enough that I pick and choose which deletion requests I want to contribute to? It's not as if I vote keep on every single RFD entry. I single out the ones I want to keep and I vote on those. They even tell me that they don't think my vote matters because I never vote delete when I choose to vote. Isn't it unfair that I'm being pressured to vote delete?
Nobody is demanding that you vote "delete" to spice things up. You have openly stated that you will vote keep for everything, regardless if it meets CFI or not. It's like you're saying "I know that the community has decided on rules and regulations, but screw them, I'm gonna do my own thing cause they're all idiots anyway". This is pretty much what you've done from day one instead of doing what you yourself said you were going to do which is to boost our Jamaican lemmas category. It's a pity, not only because you initially showed such promise, but also because there's enough discord in the world. Your credibility in the eyes of many admins and seasoned users is gone and the tone you use when talking to and about your fellow colleagues, is just too much. I think the main reason why these undeletion requests are an eyesore is because the purpose of the forum is to cut words that don't belong, not arbitrarily recreate - at times recently - deleted entries. Secondly, it's also about questioning a democratic process à la Rudy Giuliani and Trump's legal team - undeleting requires a really good reason and evidently, you have failed to sway the votes in your favour. In that case you should take a break and analyse why those votes are failing instead of bombarding the community with a constant stream of new requests and accusations. --Robbie SWE (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I see. But I'll just repeat something I said elsewhere. If everything is so crystal clear, why are we wasting time with the bureaucracy? If all of you can see that something is SOP, why don't you just delete it? Why fill up a page, wait months, even years with pages in limbo? Just delete everything which you think doesn't meet CFI immediately. I just don't like the idea of rubber stamping these decisions. As for what I openly stated, I believe I openly stated that I want to "rescue useful terms whether or not they meet CFI." I don't think the others here are idiots. There are some exceptionally talented people here, undoubtedly. I can't create as many Jamaican lemmas as I'd like because: (1) I have a family (2) I operate on ten different wikis (3) The way I create entries is fairly time consuming. I spend a lot of time on citations, translating, etc. I'm not concerned about my credibility. We won't exist 100 years from now, but Wiktionary will. But I do agree that my emotional outbursts might be a bit too much for others. — Dentonius00:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think everything is crystal clear and most of the time I don't see anything that could be called a "process" in RFD. Most of the time it's just a numerical vote for whatever people's internal conception of what a dictionary is supposed to contain is. Maybe that's OK. But certainly there is no written document that reflects the decisions made there. DTLHS (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
It is okay to introduce a deletion request everyday in so far there are enough entries created that deserve deletion – after all every Tom, Dick and Harry can create pages, and it is rather disappointing that there is so little input. It is less okay to request undeletion as in lack of new arguments such requests are less likely to be granted, and you are wasting our precious time. Separately from this people tell you should vote for deletion sometimes because it affects the evaluation of your votes – because we do not just sum some random internet people’s velleities together to reach a decision. Iudex non calculat and the website is too free-for-everyone for that. I dismiss Robbie’s comparison with democracy. A stakeholder meeting is not democratic, not everywhere where one has votes there is democracy (in fact a basic meaning of vote is the opinion of a judge, as e.g. the dissenting votes appended to decisions; I see now that the Wiktionary definition of vote is horribly wrong, since “matters of administration” are not subsumable under “democratic activities” nor is it a good wording for courts judgments and other, informal, judgments), and unlike the rigged election system in the US there is no problem with fraud here as we do not merely count together anyhow. If we counted together instead of assessing arguments, we would have to be concerned – to an extent as Wikipedia is with rigging because of all the miscreants around, parallelling the professional parasites who stole this year’s US presidential election, but luckily in lexicography there do not appear such interests involved that one couldn’t find a common ground and one would needs resort to counting; glowies like word collections too. But how is it with the common ground if you haven’t made us yours discernible? Fay Freak (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to dive into a political discussion – it's not Wiktionary's purpose and it's also blatantly obvious that we're on opposite sides of the aisle Fay Freak. I do however respect your opinion and humbly hope that we can agree to disagree. If I am to return to the subject at hand, I do however disagree with DTLHS – there is a process in RFD: anyone is free to nominate an entry for deletion, present reasons why it should be deleted and await the verdict of the community. Of course it would be awesome if more members participated, but it's their democratic prerogative not to participate if they don't want to, even if that choice undermines the validity of the democratic process. Democracy isn't perfect, nor is it easy. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Is every rule in the CFI the result of a vote?
I've been learning more about the history of en.wikt, the past votes, and policies. It's taking some time to go through every thing, but it appears that not everything in the CFI can be referenced with past votes or discussions. Where, then, do some of these rules get their authority from? (I'm just asking because I want to go back and read all these past conversations). — Dentonius18:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
It is hard to give a general answer that applies to all clauses. The page WT:CFI was created on 14 December 2002, and the page WT:Votes on 22 September 2006, so obviously those elements of our CFI that are earlier than that date won’t be found on subpages of WT:Votes. But some rules arose from consensus established on the talk pages of CFI or other discussion pages such as the Beer parlour; many others simply codified existing practice. --Lambiam18:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I see. Given that some of the rules are informal and were just passed down from one "generation" to the other, how valid are they today? What if people challenged them? Wouldn't it make sense for us to ratify the CFI and get it formally accepted by the community to ward off such challenges? — Dentonius19:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
If you have issues with a certain part of the CFI, you can always create a vote with suggestions to remove or amend it and see what happens. Typically before such a vote is submitted, a discussion is held (usually at BP) to gauge interest or ask for input. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
We had one admin who tried to get a vote on every part of one of the policy pages (I believe it was WT:EL). After dragging the community unwillingly through an endless succession of votes, he had to give it up. Although there's much that wasn't explicitly voted on, there is a very strong implicit consensus to treat CFI as if it were all voted on. To make substantial changes in CFI like you want would require getting the community to overcome that inertia and do the hard work to develop a consensus. As it stands now, that's highly unlikely, because no one trusts you.
You've burned through whatever credibility and good will you had by trying to force your way through without getting people to agree with you first, then demonizing people they know and respect as evil Machiavellian hypocrites, and by turning everything you touch into a negative, politically-charged battleground. And the worst part about it is your conviction that there's something noble about it, that you're just being true to your principles and trying to make Wiktionary better.
What you don't seem to grasp is that a wiki works because it's a diverse community that's committed to work together in spite of its differences. Respect and compromise aren't just nice things to give lip service to, they're the blood that keeps the community alive, and the bones and sinews that hold it together. You may not have any qualms about burning a few bridges, but the bridge you're setting fire to right now is the one you're standing on. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Chuck, as much as you hate me, I want you to know that you're one of the people here whose words I pay close attention to and take seriously. Starting a vote isn't something I'm interested in. I promise you that I'll never do it. To be fair, I've never asked anyone to trust me. I'm not sure I'd want them to, either. As you said, a wiki is a diverse community. But just like in real life, there are people like me in communities as well. Are you saying that you don't want me to be a part of your community? As far as I know, I've neither forced anyone to do anything against their will nor taken anything away from anyone. Let's assume for a second that I can change. What and how would you like me to change? — Dentonius08:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
As I've said before, I don't hate you. At times I get annoyed after finishing a long day of telecommuting and seeing all the confrontations and arguments that you cause. I don't have time right now to start on something like you're asking, but I have the day off tomorrow. Maybe then. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I'm awaiting your response. If you reply and tell me what you'd like, I'll make a serious effort to make it happen. — Dentonius16:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I wanted a rewrite of the CFI anyway because the CFI are too ambiguous and gappy due to their roots in a friendly introduction instead of legalese – Dentonius may recollect old posts of me to find out specific points –, then with such a Neuverkündung all would be the result of a vote. But I like to wait as lockdown and generational shift increasingly reduce contact of editors with durable media, and to attain more legal experience before tackling such a task. Fay Freak (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Language template for an unspecified dialect
I would like to specify that a Breton word is borrowed from dialectal, i.e. non-standard French. How do I do that? The source word is attested in many regional varieties throughout Continental France, but not in the Standard. Barnyard fowl (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@Barnyard fowl: A lot of lects conventionally considered dialectal or nonstandard French are treated at Wiktionary as separate languages. If you know exactly which lect (e.g. Gallo) the word is borrowed from, you can use that lect's code, which you can find by going to CAT:Old French language, opening the "Family tree" box, and seeing if the lect is listed there. If so, you can use that code in the etymology of the Breton word thus: {{bor|br|roa-gal|...}} (or whatever the appropriate code is). If you don't know exactly which lect the word was borrowed from, you could say "Borrowed from dialectal {{bor|br|fr|...}}" (in which case the word will categorize into CAT:Breton terms borrowed from French, which could be unfortunate if the word was actually borrowed from a lect that we don't consider French), or you could say "Borrowed from an {{bor|br|roa-oil}} language" followed by a list of some likely candidates or cognates in whichever Oïl languages have them. In that case the word will categorize into CAT:Breton terms borrowed from Oïl languages. (That category does not yet exist, but you can create it by clicking on the red link and typing {{auto cat}} into the edit box.) —Mahāgaja · talk08:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
