User talk:-sche

Return to "-sche" page.


ArchivesEdit

Welcome!Edit

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here! By the way, you can sign your comments on talk (discussion) pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name (or IP number if you're not signed in) and the current date and time. If you have any questions, then see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my talk page.​—msh210 (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

ubersexualEdit

There's nothing wrong with including quotations from blogs and other informal sources though they wouldn't count for verification. Web pages and forums are fickle, and usually a paraphrased example sentence is better. The latter are the only quotations I would consider deleting.

In this case the durability of the quotation may be in question, but that does not mean deletion is acceptable. It was included with the hope of confirming the original source, one that other works we'd consider durable might choose to cite. It may be the case that confirmation will never be possible, but supposing it were, and that the quotation was still not considered durably archived, and then an author came along and put the quotation to print, does it make more sense to you to cite the original speaker indirectly just because the other source is durable?

I mean, any alleged significance of Rush aside, I'm sure there are many important speeches, by presidents, royalty and the like, that are only known from transcription. Do we not attribute these to that person directly, or do we always have to say it's according to such-and-such durable source? DAVilla 05:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't thought of that, but you're right, we can and should have illustrative quotations even if they do not count towards verification (whether because they're mentions and not uses of words, or because they're questionably archived). I don't understand how the quotation of Limbaugh helps confirm the original source (of the word?) — is he supposed to have coined it? As for comments by presidents and kings, I believe we do cite sources (recorded broadcasts, transcriptions, or published copies of speeches, for instance) even when quoting those. But you're right, we can keep the Limbaugh quotation as illustrative. - -sche (discuss) 20:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Translations of attributive use of nounsEdit

What do you think of encouraging translations of nouns to, in principle, include also the adjectives that translate attributive use of the English noun? I expect that the need for and value of this differs by language, ranging from completely unnecessary through predictable to essential.

How much of this already occurs in translations?

If it makes sense to you in principle, how would it be implemented? Or is there an emerging standard where it already is occurring?

If it can be implemented, how should it be encouraged? DCDuring TALK 22:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: "what do you think", "how would it be implemented?": You commented in the RFV discussion of belt and suspenders that we could allow adjectives as translations of English nouns to address the fact that English uses nouns attributively where other languages use adjectives. I thought and think that a good idea. (I don't want to preach to the choir, but for anyone else reading this, my argument for it is: it seems already required by our policy of including all accurate translations; if brass can be used in two ways, "that metal is brass" and "the brass knob", but we only provide the translation that works in uses like "that metal is brass", we're missing an accurate translation. Also, it represents a smaller change to our current practices than allowing unjustified adjective sections for English words or allowing foreign language entries to have translations.) I used the RFV-failures of the adjective sections of cork and brass to try it: I moved the adjective translations into the noun section. I standardised my language in both entries (corresponding to English attributive use, meaning ‘...’:), but I wouldn't call that an emerging standard; I'd like to shorten the language as much as possible. Do you have any preferred format / language?
Re: "How much of this already occurs in translations?": So far, I have only preserved existing information; I haven't added new information of this kind to any entry, nor have I seen it in other entries. However, I have seen the counterpart quite often — foreign language nouns in the translation sections of English adjectives (like Dutch: model- in model).
Re: "how should it be encouraged?": I don't know. How have we encouraged things like Dutch: model- (nouns in adjective sections)?
Do you think we should bring this up in the Beer Parlour? - -sche (discuss) 04:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
What is at [[cork]] and [[brass]] is very explicit but a bit long. Perhaps we should start with a template with that long explanation. Then we could shorten the explanation if folks object to the length and do so at once for all similar entries. The long text has value in publicizing the approach initially no matter what shortened text we might subsequently settle on.
As for encouragement: One approach might be to locate entries that have English noun and adjective sections with "noncomparable" adjectives and translation sections for the adjective. Those adjective sections could be RfVed where appropriate and the translations merged into the noun section with {{ttbc}}. Another possibility would be to insert {{trreq}} or a specialized version thereof ({{trreq-attr}} to explicitly request adjective translations. Or we could start discussions on Talk pages for one language at a time either at the "About XXX" pages or of leading contributors in language XXX.
Clearly this would need some discussion, certainly at BP. Do you have a sense for how many languages would require this kind of additional translation? This effort would presumably focus on common nouns first, but is the same thing required for proper nouns? What languages are you comfortable with? (Where's your Babel box?) To the extent we don't have comfort with a range of languages (I don't have much to contribute outside of English) we might want to test the idea with a range of languages: Germanic, Romance, Ugaritic, Slavic, CJKV, Arabic, Hebrew, Hindi, etc., wherever someone might be receptive to the issue. Or we could go straight to the Beer Parlor. DCDuring TALK 11:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I like the idea of a template to introduce adjective translations; in addition to being modifiable, it would be subst:able if we ever decided we preferred raw text to the template. I also like the idea of a {{trreq-attr}} — and I think we would need such a separate template, at least at first, because users are used to {{trreq}} in a noun's translation section meaning only ‘please add noun translations of this noun’. (Postscript: it occurs to me we could just modify the text of {{trreq}}.) As for how else to encourage translations: I'd rather approach contributors of foreign languages than seek out adjective sections to delete/‘move’. We should probably raise the subject in the BP before creating too many test entries, though, if only to get others' feedback on format. Matthias Buchmeier just had an interesting idea here, of putting attributive-use translations in a separate trans-box. I'm not sure which style is better, but we should probably pick one or the other.
I can contribute German and to varying extents other Baltic-Sea-bordering languages, but the hard part is thinking of applicable words, words that are nouns in English and not also adjectives but that are nouns and adjectives in the other languages. Perhaps simply going through English nouns that are not also adjectives is a way to go, as it seems most English nouns can be used attributively. - -sche (discuss) 20:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
We could certainly have someone prepare a list of English entries that have noun sections and no adjective sections. Even better would be a similar list of English etymology sections with the same characteristics. Matthias's idea is more appealing the greater the share of languages that require an adjective translation. I suppose most inflected languages must need one.
I suppose we are as ready as it pays to be before bringing it to BP. My only question is whether to wait we have a large number of senior editors active: August is a slow month. DCDuring TALK 21:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there a way to a way to prepare a list of common words that meet those criteria? I expect a complete list would be very long, tens of thousands of words. (We could always just flip through such a comprehensive list manually and pick out common words, of course.) Metals may be a good place to start, as many languages have adjectives for those, where English (to my surprise) often only has nouns. We can certainly wait until September to bring this up; perhaps I can create a few more trial/example entries in the interim. - -sche (discuss) 00:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Spruce is now another test/trial/example entry, as a result of a failed RFV. - -sche (discuss) 22:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Some Moldovoromanian thingsEdit

So, Cyrillic entries shouldn't be tagged as "Moldovan" or Moldavian (or whatever it is that we stupidly use), for at least two reasons:

  1. Most of Moldova uses the Latin alphabet, only Transnistria requires Cyrillic. (As a sub-reason, there are actually at least two Cyrillic alphabets for Romanian: one that was used in Romania and one that was (and still is used) in Moldova).
  2. There is actually a Moldovan dialect of Romanian (I think there are like 5 major ones or something) where regional context labels would be appropriate, so I can see some confusion coming out of that.

So if we're going to be allowing Cyrillic entries for Romanian (which I think would be nifty), these things have to be taken into account when we bang out an ideal format. — [Ric Laurent] — 11:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I just mixed up Moldav(i)an and Transnistria(n). As for the old Cyrillic spellings of Romania-Romanian, the BP discussion takes that into account; one suggestion is to format them like Arabic-script Turkish. How's this for a (not-old) Cyrillic spelling, and this for an old Cyrillic spelling (linked-to from here)? Again, Romanian editors should decide the format, I'm just making grob suggestions. - -sche (discuss) 20:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I think on молдовенеск especially, the usage notes are a bit long. I know this, too, will probably invite confusion, but I'd like to see "Moldavian Cyrillic" and "Romanian Cyrillic" where they differ, and just "Cyrillic" where they're the same. Of course I have no idea how frequent that is. Anyway, we can have those things link to descriptions of the Cyrillic alphabets and their uses without having Usage notes on every Cyrillic-spelling entry. — [Ric Laurent] — 20:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
We need a section on WT:ARO about this. Then, as you say, we could specify on each entry "this is the form used in the Cyrillic alphabet used in Romania before 1860", "this is the form used in the Cyrillic alphabet used in Moldova before 1989 and still used in Transnistria", etc (or even shorter than that). Feel free to modify the entries as you see fit, and we'll discuss. Also, this vote only explicitly assures the Latin and Cyrillic forms entries (when attested), it does not specifically allow or forbid the transitional alphabet. Including it, words could have five or more ===Alternative forms===:
  1. pre-1860 Cyrillic (used to write Romanian; sometimes in use after 1860)
  2. 1860s transitional (part-Cyrillic, part-Latin alphabet, used to write Romanian)
  3. post-1860 Latin alphabet (used in Romania)
  4. 1900s Cyrillic alphabet (used in Moldova until 1989, still used in Transnistria)
  5. 1989-2010 Latin alphabet spelling (used in Moldova; not a different alphabet, but sometimes different from the spelling used in Romania)
- -sche (discuss) 20:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
What's that last one there? I think you might be referring to something caused by the spelling reforms. Not sure how Moldova feels about them... also not sure when they were passed. Hm. That's the less fun part of historical linguistics lol — [Ric Laurent] — 23:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
When Moldova switched from the Cyrillic alphabet to the Latin alphabet, it switched to the alphabet Romania was using. Romania, however, passed a spelling reform a few years later (screw you! we don't want to use the same orthography as you! we're getting a new orthography! — my interpretation, not historically accurate), which Moldova didn't get around to passing for another 15 years or so. Of course, that's the same orthography used in Romania from whenever (1870?) until 1993. I suppose we'll just treat those as dated forms, a bit like connexion#English. - -sche (discuss) 00:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I think what German does for stuff like that is (pre-X year reform spelling) or something like that. I think I like that for Romanian. — [Ric Laurent] — 00:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Good idea! - -sche (discuss) 05:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

there-wordsEdit

Dutch has a category for such words: Category:Dutch pronominal adverbs. Maybe the same could be done for English? Then a template wouldn't be needed anymore. —CodeCat 19:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

English has a category, too, but See also sections are still helpful. (Compare the discussion of whether or not to do away with the "Coordinate terms" section just because there are categories, in which I agree with those who say categories don't obviate the need for Coordinate terms sections.) I modeled the there-, here-, where- templates on {{decimate equivalents}}. - -sche (discuss) 20:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
But because most there-words have an equivalent where-word and here-word, maybe a collapsible table with three columns would be better instead? —CodeCat 20:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Good point. I'll see about combining them. - -sche (discuss) 22:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

What am I doing to anger Dan?Edit

I am getting frustrated with the amount of negativity produced by Dan Polansky. I have crossed paths with him a couple of times and he seems to be getting personal with his attacks. I am not sure what to do. Obviously, I am trying to avoid any nasty confrontation and edit war, but I don't like being accused of copyright violations due to an odd "technical" definition that I have trouble rewording, so I enter the definition as a near-quote, WITH reference. I onlu do this on those technical ones that I have one example to work off of. Second, he is now going after my etymology entries, like those need to be originally created by us editors as well. Either Abbetdin comes from certain Hebrew words or it doesn't and either those words translate to certain English words or they don't. I understand the need for vigilance on the copyright front as that may cause system wide issues, which is why, I have restarted my editting order from A and am eliminating all of the quotes of entries that I can, of which the vast majority were there long before I started editting here. Please advise, and I apoligize for my rant, but you seem to be even-tempered and are an admin, and I respect your work and opinions thus far. Speednat (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, DP made a nasty little snipe against me today, too, on my user page. When I pointed out that I had already called for the word in question to be deleted (I had created it), he made an incoherent follow-up that seemed to be an explanation or perhaps an apology. Then he placed a different entry I had created on RfV, which is strange because lots of Google Books citations are readily available. --BB12 (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
don't get me started. DCDuring TALK 00:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, Dan snaps at people sometimes... he may just be having a bad day/week. It happens... one of our admins(!) snapped and deleted the Main Page not long ago. (Actually, snapping and deleting the Main Page seems to be an admin tradition haha...although mostly it's just one admin.) I would just let things go through the usual channels: if someone sends a word to RFV, there are plenty of people (myself included) who'll try to cite it (or in the case of Abbetdin/Abbethdin, move it to a more attested spelling). And if the two of you find yourselves in an edit war, let other users/admins intercede. - -sche (discuss) 00:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the perspective! --BB12 (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Botting.Edit

I know you've been learning some Perl, for XML-dump analysis and such . . . do you feel up to running a bot yet?

I'm not prepared to distribute my bot code publically (e.g., to GPL it), but I've sent it in the past to a few different editors for their own bot runs (Equinox mass-uploading mineral entries, msh210 mass-delinkifying the lemma-form argument of {{es-verb form of}}, etc.), and if you like, I can send it to you as well, so you can perform tasks like the one you describe at Wiktionary:Grease pit/2012/October#Bot task: replace deprecated IPA characters.

RuakhTALK 02:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

My Perl (and Javascript) knowledge is still sadly minimal, but it couldn't hurt to look at your code. If I could adapt it to change instances of foo to bar, I'd be able to do most of the cleanup tasks I find myself asking others to bot (like: update the deprecated IPA characters, orphan Template:ctlig per RFDO).
Perhaps what I should (also) do is download AWB. Wikipedia has a process for requesting approval to use AWB; do you know what I need to do to use it here on Wiktionary? - -sche (discuss) 02:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Flood flag? DCDuring TALK 12:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I've flagged myself during most of the things I've done. - -sche (discuss) 17:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
It didn't cover about a dozen items over the last 4 hours, but the problems was mostly 12 hours ago or so. DCDuring TALK 21:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, oddly, at least one edit went through without the flag just 1 minute after I set the flag. I apologise if I've clogged anyone's watchlist. - -sche (discuss) 22:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Argh. Flooded. Maybe 50? DCDuring TALK 09:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it would be better to set up a bot account for these edits? —RuakhTALK 13:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok. I am curious why setting the flood flag only intermittently works, though. I see it, too: even though I was flood-flagged during the edits, they still show up in my own watchlist even when I blend out bot edits. Actually, that makes me wonder if (and why) having a bot-flagged account would be any different... - -sche (discuss) 22:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Add replacements to edit summaryEdit

In AWB Options > Normal setting uncheck 'Add replacements to edit summary' and it'll make the edit summaries only what you put in the 'Default Summary' box. Makes edit summaries shorter and more 'human'. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks for the tip. :) - -sche (discuss) 18:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Church Slavonic language codeEdit

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Church Slavonic language code.

WOTDEdit

I'd like to take over WOTD — at least for now. I've already set up new words for October 28-31 to get the ball rolling again. Looking over diffs to see what others had done allowed me to figure out the basics, but there's still many other things I need to know about the process, especially what I need to do to create an archive, set up a new month, and polish the entry pages for words before they appear. Thanks! Astral (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you're interested!
The front-end part is simple—pick words and plug them into the templates. You're already doing a good job of that; I like your Halloween pick. As you seem to have gathered, the last definition doesn't end with a full stop/period (though if a word has multiple definitions, the preceding definitions do), because the template already adds one: double-dotted vs fixed. Featured words should have pronunciation info (either IPA or audio); the template will automatically notice and include an audio pronunciation if one is present.
The more additional info an entry has, like etymology, illustration or examples of usage, the more interesting it is likely to be to users who click through to it; on the other hand, trying to cite and find a picture for every word you feature on WOTD is a recipe for burning out. Strategise.
Once you've set a word, add the was-wotd template to the entry, so that it won't be featured again (mostly).
To create an archive, do what Ruakh did here, changing {{wotd archive|PREVIOUS|NEXT|YEAR|DAYS}} to the previous month, the next month, the year (four digits) and the number of days in the month (28, 29, 30, 31), and updating the pagename to the relevant month and year. An easy way of creating an archive is to copy-and-paste the relevant month's Recycled Page, e.g. Wiktionary:Word of the day/Recycled pages/October, simply changing {{wotd recycled}} to {{wotd archive}} and adding the YEAR and DAYS parameters.
At the end of the month, subst: all of the templates by changing each day's {{Wiktionary:Word of the day to {{subst:Wiktionary:Word of the day. The reason for not subst:ing a day before it's done is that someone might tweak the definition or fix a typo, etc.
- -sche (discuss) 04:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. This is very helpful. I've got a couple of questions. First, I'm not good with IPA, so is there a way I could arrange for someone who is to add pronunciation data to entries before they appear? Second, is it okay to occasionally select words I've nominated myself? I already did this with trainiac, because I wanted something "fun" between mulct and peri-urban, but I don't want to do it again if it's something that should be avoided. Astral (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, exactly how far back does the prohibition against using words featured as WOTDs on other sites go? It makes sense not to copy words other sites have featured recently, but three, four, five years back seems like a another matter. I need a verb, and wanted to use photobomb, but it was featured on Urban Dictionary in 2009, and more recently as a noun on September 28 of this year. Astral (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
So, I chose ambuscade instead, only to discover it was a Merriam Webster WOTD in 2010. Can't win. :( Astral (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I'm not Sche (@Sche: feel free to correct me on anything I say). Anyway, I think that choosing words that you nominate is fine, and that if you find a concise way to list all the entries you want IPA for pronto (on a subpage, maybe?) I would be happy to help out, as would Sche, Angr, et al. (probably) given their past contributions in that regard (and they're probably more trustworthy than I am). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you can just comment that you'd like to feature a word but it lacks pronunciation info. Many users watch that page, and someone should take care of it. And yes, you can feature words you've nominated—at least, I did. It's probably best to let a couple days pass between when you nominate a word and when you use it, in case anyone comments with objections, but I doubt anything you nominate will be objectionable (you know not to nominate redlinks or offensive words). As for other sites' words of the day: personally, I never paid much attention to that rule; I checked if a word had been featured on another site in the past few months, and if not, looked no further. Sometimes, people would strike words that had been featured by other sites years ago, and in those cases, I respected the strikings and didn't use those words, but I didn't strike words that had been featured by other sites years ago myself. - -sche (discuss) 05:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

AsuEdit

The language is called Asu but the code for it is asa. That could be confusing... I wonder why they didn't make a bit of effort at ISO to make sure that all languages with 3 letter names would have codes identical to their names. —CodeCat 19:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I've wondered that myself. They did give a few languages homographic codes, like Aja and Adi, and sometimes codes are based on different names, like {{ado}}, which we and they call "Abu" but which is distinguished from several other "Abu"s as "Adjora". But other times, it looks the task of assigning unique codes to several thousand different things got the better of them... "Ali" is {{aiy}} because {{ali}} is "Amaimon", which doesn't even have an "l" in its name! - -sche (discuss) 21:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
PS I may request to rename "Asu" soon, as it may be more commonly, unambiguously and autonymically called "Chasu". - -sche (discuss) 21:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

mittelEdit

Hi there. Could you check the comparative and superlative in the headword and the declension table please. I'm getting a bit confused between different online sites. Thanks. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's a tricky one. The positive form (mittel) used to inflect (in mittler Nacht/in mitteler Nacht), but fell out of (most) use before the modern era. The comparative and superlative forms remain in use, but the comparative is now often used as if it were the positive form (hence the book title Der mittlere Weg: Glaube und Vernunft in Harmonie). And the positive form is now in use again, but indeclinable(!). The headword line of "mittel" is correct (the comparative is "mittlerer", the lemma form of the superlative is "am mittelsten"), but the declension tables are wrong. I'll have to check how the templates work to fix them. - -sche (discuss) 22:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

TrademarksEdit

Hi. Please don't remove this info entirely. It can go into the Etymology section, to be dated later. Equinox 18:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hm, what do you propose the etymology should say? "Was [and may still be] a trademark"? It would be unjustified (unverified) in some cases, and obviously incorrect in others, to say "originated as a trademark": "Doom" didn't, "Apple" didn't, "Peugeot" didn't—"Peugeot" was applied to people from a certain family long before it was applied to companies or cars. "Häagen-Dazs" is among the relatively few that I can tell at first glance did originate as a trademark. The mere fact that a string of letters may have been trademarked at some point is info the lawyers among us advised us to exclude, because we practically speaking cannot, and should not attempt to, render and publish a judgement on the validity of trademark claims about every word we have. ("Tide" is trademarked? "Water" might be trademarked in Nepal for all we know.) Hence my simple removal of the template in most cases... - -sche (discuss) 19:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Is a trade mark the same as a brand name? I think "brand name" is free of any legal implications so we can use that instead. —CodeCat 19:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
But what do you propose the etymology should say? "Was [and may still be] a brand name"? (That's hardly "information" at all... that's non-information, except to the extent that it's unverified, often-missing and other times perhaps erroneously/wrongly-included information.) It would be unjustified (unverified) in some cases, and obviously incorrect in others, to say "originated as a brand name": "Doom" didn't, "Apple" didn't, "Peugeot" didn't... - -sche (discuss) 19:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
If its definition is as a brand name, then I don't think that should really be in the etymology. If a word originated as a brand but isn't a brand anymore (like sellotape) then that should be in the etymology. Not all names of products are brand names though... is "iMac" a brand name? So maybe "brand name" isn't fitting. I'd still prefer to avoid "trade mark" at all though. —CodeCat 19:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
(after e/c, as an afterthought:) If anyone is proposing simply replacing {{trademark}} with {{brand name}}: no, all the reasons it was decided not to indicate the current or past trademark status of words are reasons we cannot and should not try to indicate the current or past status of words as brand names. - -sche (discuss) 19:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

WOTD againEdit

We only have a couple more days of WOTD and no replacement for Astral, unless I missed something. Are you interested in taking it up again? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have much time to give it, though I'll see if I can set a few more days. Fortunately, WOTD is fail-safe and keeps running even if no-one sets new words; we'll get complaints from a few astute observers that we're showing the same words as last year, but no breakdown. - -sche (discuss) 01:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

genderEdit

I was thinking of creating "sexual apartheid" wit the noun "gender segregation". Its mentioned here. Would that be SOP? Pass a Method (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Good question! The term is on the border between idiomaticity and SOPness, but I think it is SOP in the end.
Our entry on [[apartheid]] does currently limit the term to race, but that's offensichtlich an error—there's e.g. google books:"sectarian apartheid", google books:"religious apartheid" and google books:"income apartheid" in addition to "gender apartheid" and "sexual apartheid".
Wikipedia and other references do define "gender apartheid" and "sex apartheid" as constituting discrimination against women (whereas our entry on apartheid defines it only as separation), but that's just another deficiency of our entry—all apartheids constitute discrimination against one of the separated groups (the original one constituted discrimination against blacks).
The large number of ways of referring to Islamic segregation of the genders (including google books:"female apartheid", google books:"male and female apartheid", google books:"sex apartheid", google books:"sexual apartheid" and google books:"gender apartheid") confirm, IMO, that it's SOP. - -sche (discuss) 19:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Great info. I like you :) Pass a Method (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

entryEdit

The fourth entry in God does not make sense. "An omnipotent being, creator of the universe (as in deism)." Deists don't believe in an omnipotent deity. They simply see god as the initiator of the big bang. Pass a Method (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi! sorry for not getting back to you about this sooner. I'm glad you've moved discussion to the Tea Room, because I don't know that much about the finer points of Deism. - -sche (discuss) 19:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Inscriptions and whatnotEdit

Discussion moved to WT:T:ALA.

please return definition of attachmentEdit

I agree with your premise.... and the definition you modified it to which could be added as well... however it is a "proper noun" aka terminology specific to lightning and a specific process in an overall lightning event. This would be the same rational for including definition #6... "attachment" (computing) "file attached".

I can provide plenty more if need be.

Thank you! Borealdreams (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for providing that reference (wow, what a title! "attachment of lightning to trees"). - -sche (discuss) 05:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Appreciated. Borealdreams (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello -sche. I have provided the requested backing information regarding Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#flash. I hope this meets your requirements to remove the "verify" request. Also you can see it hear Distribution_of_lightning, but I do need to do a few minor edits. In "Lightning: Physics & Effects" by Uman/Rakov [2003]... it is used in the first paragraph of Chapter 1.2 - Types of Lightning Discharge & Lightning Terminology, '"Lightning, or the lightning discharge, in its entirety, whether it strikes ground or not, is usually termed, a "lightning flash" or just a "flash"" Cheers Borealdreams (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

canEdit

Can the word scissoring be a noun or adjective with the sexual definition? Pass a Method (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be used as a noun, although I don't know if it's attested (in ways that make it clear its a noun rather than a gerund) in enough durable places to meet CFI. As for adjectival use: the closest thing to adjectival use I can find offhand is that several books use google books:"scissoring motion", one uses "scissoring action", and another uses "in a scissoring fashion"... but that's not very convincing. - -sche (discuss) 03:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Low German and User:Joachim MosEdit

This user has been adding Low German words and translations. Since you've been working on it as well, I thought you might be able to help them out. I've tried to explain the difference between nds-de and nds-nl but I'm not sure if I'm getting the point across. —CodeCat 17:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I'll talk to them when I get a chance.
I have (like you, I think) been going through all the transclusions of {{nds}} and replacing them with {{nds-de}} and/or {{nds-nl}} (and/or even sometimes {{pdt}}!), whichever turn(s) out to be applicable... creation of new {{nds}} transclusions is very unhelpful.
I have been tempted to bot-move all transclusions of {{nds}} to e.g. {{nds-xx}} or such just so {{nds}} can be deleted sooner (immediately, with nds-xx left to keep words that haven't specified a dialect yet working until we can review and update them) rather than later (after we finish the long process of reviewing and updating each entry by hand).
Once {{nds}} is unavailable to newcomers, I expect it will be easier to maintain the GLG / DLS distinction. That expectation, the separate existences of nds.WP and nds-nl.WP, and my conviction that it is linguistically better for Wiktionary to distinguish the lects than to conflate them, keep me from being discouraged by the amount of work that has to be done.
I know Wiktionary struggles to keep en and sco separate, and en and enm, but in those cases, the code people want to use to stand for both lects (en) still exists.
I know those who are used to nds.Wiktionary, which prominently merges GLG and DLS, may be unwilling to split them here... but Wikipedia's split of the two proves it is tenable, while nds.Wiktionary's policy of rolling even Plautdietsch into nds is simply untenable. - -sche (discuss) 03:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

nds.wiktionaryEdit

Ich weiß nicht, was ihr hier treibt, aber inzwischen wird das hochgestellt (nds) nicht mehr angezeigt, so dass Nutzer keinen Link zum nds.witionary haben. Vielleicht sorgst du einmal dafür, dass die Links wieder funktionieren bei deinem absolut unnötigen Umbau. Im übrigen darf ich dich darauf hinweisen, das nds die Sprache ist und nds-nl einer der Dialekte im Plattdeutschen und keine eigenständige Sprache. Im Plattdüütsch gibt es nämlich auch jede Menge Dialekte und so etwas ähnliches wie eine Hochsprache, zwar keine echte, aber eine, die zumindest in großen Teilen des plattdeutschen Sprachraums gesprochen wird. Und davon weichen einige kleinere Beriche ab. Wenn schon, dann muss du nicht nds-de kreiieren, sondern nds-sleswig, nds-meklenborg, nds-oostfreesland etc. Bei manchen Leuten kann ich nur den Kopf schütteln. Sorg also dringend dafür, dass die Links wieder funktionieren oder ich werde einmal den englischen Admins ein paar nette Zeilen schreiben. --Joachim Mos (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)--Joachim Mos (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Moin Joachim! Öck frei mi, een Mönsch der ok platt snackst to drepen.
Mir ist klar, dass die plattdeutsche Sprache (wie die hochdeutsche) nur als eine Vereinigung von Dialekten greifbar ist. Mir ist doch auch klar dass es zwei ‚Hochsprachen‘ gibt: die in Deutschland auf dem Hochdeutschen basierte nds-de und die in den Niederlanden auf dem Niederländischen basierte nds-nl.
ISO 639 enthält Codes für die meisten niederländische Varietäten (sdz, twd, usw.), und für 1–2 deutsche Varietäten (wep und vll. frs).
Es gab und gibt auch ein Code for die in den Niederlanden gesprochene und geschriebene Hochsprache, nds-nl... und dazu auch die mehrdeutige Code nds. (Das ist alles ganz abgesehen davon, dass es auch pdt gibt.)
Das englische Wiktionary traf die Entscheidung, sdz, twd usw. zu löschen, die niederländische Varietäten mit nds-nl zu kennzeichnen (nicht duplierend mit sdz usw. und nds-nl), und — um Verwirrung zu vermeiden — die deutsche Varietäten mit nds-de zu kennzeichnen. nds ist verwirrend, mehrdeutig: das nds.WP steht als ‚deutsch‘-plattdeutsches WP im Gegensatz zum nds-nl.WP; nds.Wiktionary bündelt hingegen nicht nur die ‚deutsche‘ und ‚niederändische‘ sondern auch die plautdietsche Varietäten zusammen.
If you think the various Low German varieties should be handled another way, you are free to contact my fellow administrators or to start another discussion in the Beer Parlour (we've only had four already).
I will advise you that nds.Wikt's way of doing things — conflating even pdt into nds-de and nds-nl — is unlikely to get any traction here.
As for the links: if {{t|nds-de|foo}} and {{t|nds-nl|foo}} have stopped linking to nds.Wiktionary, that is a bug, and will be fixed.
- -sche (discuss) 18:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

A guide to changes in lect treatmentEdit

I'd like to finish and archive a bunch of RFMs and RFDOs that pertain to language treatment, but I seriously still don't know everything I have to do. I know to deal with the langrev, the template, the category, entries, and translations, and Module:languages, but should I be adding notes to WT:LANGTREAT? And is there anything else I've forgotten? And with Lua, how do we find all the uses of the code - script errors alone?

So that you don't have to do all the future langcode work, perhaps you could write a guide on how to add a new language or delete an old one (covering both hyphenated and ISO codes, in each case). I suggest WT:Guide to lect treatment or WT:LANGTREAT/Guide or something similar. Thank you! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a great idea; I'll see what I can do; other knowledgeable people, like Liliana, can feel free to help out if they're reading this. :b
A few quick observations:
There is AFAIK no longer any easy way to find uses of language codes prior to deleting them, but one can search a database dump for them. I used (\|foo\||\=foo\|) to look for the Pashto codes, and then more elaborate regex for pst when I noticed that a lot of entries contained it not as an invocation of Pashto but as a parameter in Latvian inflection templates.
LANGTREAT should be updated whenever mergers or splits occur, yes. It's currently woefully incomplete. Updating it to cover the various dialect-continuum mergers and other changes that have already taken place over the last year or two is on my to-do list, but feel free to beat me to it. - -sche (discuss) 09:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, that's definitely annoying re eliminating code use. As for the rest, I await your instructions. :) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I've put together Wiktionary:Guide to adding and removing languages. Let me know if anything seems to be missing from it. - -sche (discuss) 09:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
PS, I'm not really satisfied with the name I ended up using, but "Guide to lect treatment" sounded too similar to "Language treatment"... and the page seems to cover territory too different from WT:LANGTREAT's to just merge it into that page, which possibility I also entertained... - -sche (discuss) 09:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not bad, but it could use clarifying, so that people other than me can use it. "Change the langrev" isn't a helpful phrase on its own; it should give an example of what to change it to. Similarly, if we create {{alv-foo}} and then decide to delete it we don't have to edit LANGTREAT, but if we do the same thing with {{foo}}, we do (because we're rejecting an ISO code). That kind of nuance should be detailed on the page. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Looks better, maybe something about adding and deleting langfamily codes as well... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Native American translations of native American speciesEdit

I was thinking of including some translation requests in entries for native American species. French and Spanish are of general value because there are populations of speakers. Native American languages would also seem reasonable to add. I would not want to have a vast number and I would want to try to limit the requests only to languages with some interest among contributors and where the pre-Columbian territory of the speakers OR their current location coincided with the range of the species.

Which languages do you think are worthwhile? I know that Stephen Brown does Navaho. Someone has been doing Cherokee. But I am interested in species and languages that are for the northeastern US and adjoining Canada. Virginia and Carolina would be as far south as I would wish to go and not west of Minnesota.

Please don't hesitate to say if you think the whole idea is wrong-headed. DCDuring TALK 00:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. I have access to materials on most of the Algonquian languages and on many Siouan-Catawban languages, in particular Abenaki, Cree, Ojibwe (which Stephen is also knowledgeable of—much more than I am), Lenape, Malecite-Passamaquoddy, Mi'kmaq, Catawba, and Sioux/Lakota/Dakota (which I think Stephen is also knowledgeable of). The area you're interested in the species of is basically the same area I'm interested in the languages of, so I should be able to fulfil most requests for translations. :) - -sche (discuss) 02:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, I will get some idea of their geography and go from there. I am going to do it for English vernacular names for species, but that might lead to genus other level names if they use compounds to name more specific things. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Looking at Roger William's Key to Narragensett, it seems likely that we could get some words for plants, animals and seafood, but I'm not sure about the level of specificity. We can make some conjectures. I'm not sure that translation requests would be the right tool for the job. DCDuring TALK 01:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you think it'd be better to just make a userspace list of words you'd like translated? It'd be easier for me to find all the requests that way...but harder to keep track of which terms had already been translated into which languages. So requests may be better after all. - -sche (discuss) 01:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I think I just have to adjust my expectations to the likely low level of precision and low coverage in our knowledge of the names of plants and animals in these languages. If the languages of the native peoples of the northeastern US have 10,000 or even 50,000 known words, then the chance that the word for American winterberry or any of its synonyms will be knowable will be low. Though one might think that there might have been a great deal of detailed knowledge about flora and fauna, it couldn't possibly be Linnean in quantity and probably not in the degree of differentiation among species. DCDuring TALK 08:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I imagine Native American languages distinguish species about as often as English (which calls several things "oak" and several things "pine") or French (which calls several things "cytise"), but you're probably right that the number of words in the references we have access to will be small. I checked dictionaries of Abenaki, Ojibwe, Cree, Lenape and Catawba for the plant you named and a sample of states' official plants; here are the results:
Only Abenaki has a word for the common/American winterberry aka the black alder: chegwalimenakwam.
Maine's white pine is goa in Abenaki, zhingwaak in Ojibwe; Cree, Lenape and Catawba have words for 'pine' but I can't work out if they distinguish species.
NH's purple lilac is ᓃᐱᓰᓴ ᑲ ᐋᐧᐱᑲᐧᓀᑭᕀ (nîpisîsa ka wâpikwanekiy) according to Alberta Elders' Cree Dictionary; other languages lack words for it, likely because it isn't native.
MA's mayflower, CT's+PA's mountain laurel, MD's black-eyed susan and WV's rhododendron aren't in any of the dictionaries I checked.
RI's "violet" is an example of an English word that doesn't differentiate species; Lenape, too, has a generic word kishkikwentis (violet); Abenaki calls the dogtooth violet minôbowigek ((that which) is purple).
New York's "rose" is another example of indistinct English; nonetheless, I can't find a word for any of the species in any of the dictionaries I checked.
DE's peach is not native; Abenaki calls a peach (fruit) by the English loanword biches and calls a peach tree bichesakwam; Ojibwe miishijiimin is sometimes said to refer to a peach, other times to refer to other small, reddish berries/fruits; I suspect ᒥᐢᑕᐦᐃᒥᓂᐢ (mistahiminis) is similarly vague; Lenape uses pilkësh; Catawba uses ye (peach tree), tri ye, turi ye (peach (fruit)).
VA's and NC's plant is the Cornus florida dogwood; Abenaki has a word makwakwsek (little red stick/tree) for the Cornus sericea dogwood; Ojibwe likewise has a word for the sericea, miskwaabiimizh/miskwaabiimag, but not the florida; Lenape has tuwchalakw (dogwood).
SC has both the goldenrod and the yellow jessamine/jasmine; Lenape has wisaòtaèk (Solidago canadensis).
So, yeah, there are a lot of lacunae. - -sche (discuss) 23:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
That's a bit better than I thought. BTW, the most common English vernacular name for Cornus sericea is the red osier dogwood, soon to be planted on my property. See osier. Domestic American roses would not have been more striking than a number of other flowers and have few practical uses. persimmon, pawpaw, squash, walnut, hickory, acorn, maize, perhaps blackberry, raspberry, huckleberry, and blueberry; clam, oyster, shad, several kinds or furry animals, many kinds of birds, and many kinds of trees would have possibly been more significant. I think I will do a little research on the uses native Americans made of the plants and limit my requests to those. I'll try to get distribution maps, a good picture, and some information about use, if appropriate, onto the page. The WP articles, already linked, usually have some mention of such use. It might give someone familiar with contemporaneous reports a clue about possible modern names for the plants that were being used.
BTW, there is a recent history book of the Munsees which I will be borrowing and a brand-new book by the same author about toponyms in the NY metropolitan area, which I discovered as I began to populate Category:Native American toponyms (New York). WP has w:Toponymy of New Netherland. I am not sure about how anyone can reconcile these etymologies, of varying quality, with the best current linguistic work. DCDuring TALK 01:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I've started fleshing some of those entries out. Abenaki has different words for "red/black oak acorns" vs "white oak acorns". Acorns were quite significant; acorn flour was a staple food/ingredient. I made some, once... it took a lot of work to crack all the acorns open, grind them up and leach out the tannins, and the end result was altogether bland. - -sche (discuss) 04:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Squirrels prefer white-oak acorns, resorting to the others as necessary. I assume there is a reason applicable to humans as well. That is the kind of distinction I would expect would be made, whether or not we have a record. Is it possible to infer different words for the trees from the acorn words? For the languages with living speakers they might at least have kept a broad brush version of their traditional way of living off the land and the vocabulary required. They must have eaten some leaves too. I wonder from what plants. DCDuring TALK 04:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
BTW, white oak and red oak are also families, so there will necessarily be some ambiguity as to whether the species Quercus alba or the subgenus or section was intended, as is often the case with the English white oak. DCDuring TALK 04:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This book looks like exactly what I am looking for, at least for plants. DCDuring TALK 21:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    It does look like a great reference! PS, if you're interested in placenames, this site has a pamphlet on Mohegan placenames in CT. - -sche (discuss) 22:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • on Ojibway plant taxonomy at Lac Seul First Nation is available as a pdf. DCDuring TALK 20:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    Oh, that's useful, thanks! - -sche (discuss) 01:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

abe-noun, unm-noun, etcEdit

Do you want me to create these? If nothing else, they can greenlink plurals for you, and also we can do things like categorising entries which do not give their animacy, etc. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That'd be great! I'll get back to you on how they should function. - -sche (discuss) 19:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
An Abenaki template should handle a noun's animacy and its plural. (It might be worth adding support for diminutives later, but at the moment I expect it'd be too much bother.)
Animacy could be the first unnamed parameter, with five possible states: a (animate), i (inanimate), a-i (animate and inanimate), - (for words that have no in/animacy), and ? (for cases where animacy isn't clear). IMO, nothing should be displayed if one of the last two settings is used.
Pluralisation is more complex. Animate nouns form their plurals by adding one of four suffixes; inanimate nouns add one of four different suffixes, as explained in [[-ak]]. Words that end in w sometimes have this w suppressed by some of the suffixes. Perhaps the most sensible thing to do is have the template accept the word's stem (which will be either the singular form or the singular form minus w) as the second unnamed parameter, and the suffix as the third unnamed parameter, so that words can be categorised by which suffix they use. If the second unnamed parameter is set to - or ?, my preference would be that all mention of pluralisation be suppressed. If you're feeling industrious, you could make it so that if the second parameter is blank and the third is filled in with a suffix, the template understands that the stem is (as it will be in most cases) the singular form, i.e. the pagename. If something other than - or ? is set as the second parameter and nothing it set as the third parameter, the template should ideally add the entry to a cleanup category.
If it helps you to know this: it's never possible to know a word's plural but not its animacy (though it is possible to know its animacy but be uncertain of which plural suffix it takes), so any time the plural is set to ?, the animacy will likewise have been set to ?.
Putting animacy and pluralisation together,
on [[sips]], {{abe-noun|a|sips|ak}} and {{abe-noun|a||ak}} should display something like sips (animate, plural sipsak) or sips a (plural sipsak) or something similar, depending on whether or not animacy should be inside or outside the parentheses, and whether it should be abbreviated or spelt out
on [[sôglamalsowôgan]], {{abe-noun|-|-}} should display sôglamalsowôgan
on [[chôls]], {{abe-noun|a|?}} should display chôls animate or chôls (a) or however un/parenthetically and/or un/abbreviatedly we decide to display animacy (the same as sips, in any case)
on [[foobar]], {{abe-noun|?|?}} should display foobar
If all of this sounds too complex (especially the {{en-noun|?}}-like suppression of everything but the bold headword), don't feel like you have to do it. I can probably adapt {{de-noun}} (which seems structurally quite similar) sometime when I have time. - -sche (discuss) 20:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
PS If you think the template should function/display differently, let me know... - -sche (discuss) 20:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like fun! Two things I disagree with: Why are we supplying both animacy and plural if one can be predicted from the other? That seems stupid. Secondly: Why supply it with the stem? The stem is always predictable, right? So I don't see a reason to type it in. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The stem is usually the singular form, i.e. the pagename, but if the singular ends in w, the -o(k|l) suffixes unpredictably (sometimes, but not always) suppress the w. Also, if a word ends in d/t, -ik changes it to j. There may be a few other cases where the stem also changes. Perhaps the stem should be a named parameter, with the template assuming that the stem is the pagename unless it's been explicitly set to something else. The stem will be identical to the singular ~6/8ths of the time.
If a plural is specified, animacy can be determined from it. But it's possible to know the animacy of something (e.g. because it refers to an animal) and yet be unsure which plural suffix it takes. If you want to make it possible to leave the animacy field blank when a plural suffix has been supplied, OK. - -sche (discuss) 21:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
OK. But it really doesn't matter how often stem = singular, but how often the stem can be predicted based on its morphology and the plural suffix being used. Remember, with Lua, predictable stuff like blah(d|t) + ik = blahjik is something that we can do automagically. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Another way of doing things would be: have the module handle regular plurals as described above (pagename + the supplied suffix, with the changes like d+ik = jik), and then instead of allowing a stem different from the pageame to be set and combined with a suffix, allow for the entire irregular plural to be specified. This would be similar to {{en-noun}} (which can handle either {{en-noun|es}} or {{en-noun|irregular-plural-specified-in-full}}) or {{en-verb}}, which processed e.g. {{en-verb|mak|ing}}, but also allows {{en-verb|irregulars|irregularing|irregulared}}. - -sche (discuss) 05:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Ach, I forgot about this. I was looking it over again, and to be honest it looks like a horribly complex operation in a language that I know nothing about. I feel like you would be better off getting somebody else to do it. (Although, if nobody does it in a little while, I'll try to attack it, since it is indeed within my abilities AFAIK, just barely though.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll see if I can just adapt code from the English and German noun templates. - -sche (discuss) 21:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Multi-line quotationsEdit

re diff

Do you really format verse quotes with a separate #*s per line? If so, we've been silently editwarring, because I've always been doing it with <br /> and have been changing it if I find it - <br /> seems a lot more streamlined to me. WT:QUOTE is moot on the subject, though. Hyarmendacil (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been under the impression that wiki markup was preferred to HTML markup, though they do seem to produce the same results. We could see if anyone else has an opinion in the BP? Note that there's at least one other format:
  • Breaking the / poem's lines / with slashes,
  • while still sometimes / breaking / multiple verses / onto multiple lines...
- -sche (discuss) 01:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I dislike that one the most, and it doesn't work for Egyptian anyhow. We might as well ask at the BP, though we might not get a consensus out of it. Hyarmendacil (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

AllahEdit

If it helps, I pronounce /ˈælə/, I can probably find something on YouTube with the same pronunciation if you really want me to. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Huh, wow. Dictionary.com lists that pronunciation, too. I've re-reworded the qualifiers accordingly... though it still sounds weird to me... "Ally, don't worship Allah in the alley!" - -sche (discuss) 00:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

IndividualsEdit

Since all biblical characters are individuals, isn't it simpler to make Category:Biblical characters a subcategory of Category:Individuals? That will save you from editing 1400 entries.--Makaokalani (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

We could do that. It's worth noting that some of the entries in Category:Biblical characters refer to gods, which should IMO go in Category:Gods instead, though. (I did put them into Category:Gods when I edited them, but left them in Category:Biblical characters...) - -sche (discuss) 02:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

God of this worldEdit

Hi, where is the RFD discussion for the idiom "God of this world"? Please post it on my talk page. Thank you WritersCramp (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

nonsenseEdit

[1]

[2]

Care to explain? --Æ&Œ (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

When deciding how æ-terms should be classified, I try to check Google Books for evidence of modern usage. I may have made a mistake here, or Google may have digitized more books in the time since I checked (this has happened before). In this case, I probably noticed that many of the 'modern' hits were actually unupdated reprints, or quotations, of older works. But there is enough modern usage that you were right to switch the entry back to {{alternative spelling of}}. - -sche (discuss) 18:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Unusual entriesEdit

Hi, I know you 'collect' unusual entries. Here's one thing I've not seen before, putting 'etc.' inside a derived terms and a related terms section. Super weird, like putting 'you already know what this means' as a definition. Here's the diff. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

̶s̶̶c̶̶h̶̶r̶̶i̶̶e̶̶f̶̶s̶̶t̶̶a̶̶n̶, ̶s̶̶k̶̶r̶̶i̶̶if̶̶s̶̶t̶̶a̶,̶s̶̶c̶̶h̶̶r̶̶i̶̶e̶̶w̶̶s̶...Spelling standards for Low German.Edit

Ahoy. Please refer to this, leave a comment and maybe distribute it to people you know might have an interest in this. We can do it!

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Stardsen#Low_German Korn (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

on (nds-nl)Edit

Hi -sche, I have started working a bit on the nds wiktionary, and while browsing on this en wikt I encountered this: on#Dutch_Low_Saxon. I am a (near) native speaker of nds-nl (esp. Achterhooks), but I have never heard this word being used in the sense of and. Could it be it is assigned incorrectly to nds-nl after splitup of nds, or is it really a known word in nds-nl? Droadnaegel (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It's one of a large number of variants I've seen, though its shortness makes it hard for me to find using Google Books Search. If you'd like to make another spelling the lemma, and make on soft-redirect to it the way un currently soft-redirects to on, be my guest. :) - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it is a matter of spelling. I have my doubts that on exists as and at all in the Dutch variants of Low German. It may be present in the German variants. So I would prefer deletion of the entry instead of a redirect. I did some research and have not found it in the databases I know of. I also have a list of all words on the nds-nl wikipedia (generated by myself), and for act (Achterhooks) and twe (Twaents) there are 6000-7000 occurrences of en, and none for on. I think it better to have less info than incorrect info, so unless the word can be attested, it may be better to have it deleted (for Dutch Low German). On- as a prefix (meaning not) definately does exist though, like in onnatuurlik, comparable to un- in unnatural. Droadnaegel (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I've submitted the term to WT:RFV. If no-one bothers to find evidence of its existence, it'll be deleted. Cheers! - -sche (discuss) 01:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, User Draodnaegel has asked me to pitch in. I'm a moderator of the Dutch Low Saxon wikipedia, and I have to agree with user Draodnaegel here. I have never encountered any ocurrence of "on" for "and" in Dutch Low Saxon texts whatsoever. In German Low Saxon texts, however, they write "un" for "and", which, when written phonetically, sounds like "oon", which in turn in Dutch spelling might be written as "on". This is however pretty far-fetched and very unlikely. As far as I know, "and" is "en" in all Dutch Low Saxon varieties, with a very clear -e- sound. --Woolters, 195.64.76.186 10:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Poor behaviorEdit

Your flippant edit summary in diff made after you have proceeded without consensus is no more appreciated than you elementary lack of understanding of copyright law (diff) or your creation of himand to prove a point for the purpose of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/Overturning_COALMINE; indeed, "himand", deleted later, was fallaciously used by another user to create a false alarm in that vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I for one find your hounding of -sche over his/her generally excellent editing history far more troubling than -sche's dry sense of humour. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, both of you. Sorry for not seeing this sooner. I've been busy in real life and over on Wikipedia. PS (this is, I suppose, mostly a note-to-self) our LOP-list of made-up pronouns is missing "v" and "he/r". - -sche (discuss) 04:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

3.5MEdit

How did you determine the date for this milestone announcement? Because according to on-wiki stats, it was on the 11th or 12th. - dcljr (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I dyslexified the date. :b I was using the date SemperBlotto listed here, but as you can see, he actually calculated that it was the 11th day of the 9th month, rather than the 9th day. I'm going to switch that page to use month names! When I ran my own calculations I found a very different entry as the 3,500,000th, though: obaemulabimini, created on the 16th of September. I calculated it by noting the NUMBEROFARTICLES some time after we passed the milestone (when the count was 3,513,686), then going to Special:NewPages and counting 13,686 pages backwards (using &limit= to speed things up). In general, if some pages were deleted between when one person counted and when another counted, that could explain a discrepancy, but I'm not sure that's a sufficient explanation for the large discrepancy in calculations seen here. Hm... - -sche (discuss) 04:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the NewPages technique only works well very soon after a milestone is reached. Not only page deletions but also adding a wikilink (internal, of course) on a page that doesn't have one or removing the only wikilink on a page also changes the article count. (For that matter, not all "new pages" in the main namespace automatically increase the article count, since they have to have at least one wikilink to do so.) Unfortunately, it's so hard to "synthesize" all that info into a correct date that I never really try that hard. When in doubt, I just opt for the later end of the possible date range, since it's better to be a bit late than too early. I would have reported the 12th if I had changed the page myself. But since SB reported the milestone 3 minutes after his bot created the entry in question, I'll assume he knew what he was doing. [g] Thanks for making the change at Wikimedia News. - dcljr (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

User:-sche/ruEdit

This is showing in Category:Russian headword-line templates. Are you still planning to use it? Or can it go? —CodeCat 21:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It can go, I think. Its purpose was explained here. - -sche (discuss) 01:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

icitteEdit

Re: "it's not eye dialect if it's pronounced differently, now is it?" Even if the original word (ici) is also sometimes pronounced like that? --WikiTiki89 16:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the pronunciation [isit] used in standard French, or only (as fr.Wikt seems to think) in the same dialects that also use the written form icitte? If the latter, it seems like we'd be going around in a circle to say the spelling is based on the pronunciation that follows from the spelling (that follows from the pronunciation that follows from...). Maybe it's better to describe it simply as a variant of ici? - -sche (discuss) 17:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not used in "standard French" (French French), and probably not used in standard Quebec French, but it is common colloquially. I think it's similar to English contractions in the sense that very often when we read aloud a sentence containing "do not", we read it as "don't". Also, I think it's very rare for the spelling to come before the pronunciation, so I don't see any circular logic anywhere. --WikiTiki89 17:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
How's this?
By the way, many of our entries that describe something as "eye dialect" (including, apparently, this entry) use a sense of that term that failed RFV, which strikes me as another reason to avoid the term. - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I guess you're right. I basically learned the term "eye dialect" by reading our etymologies.
Re: Quebec pronunciation of icitte. The /ɪ/ in closed syllables is one of the most distinctive features of Quebec French phonology. If you'd been there, you would have heard it. --WikiTiki89 22:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Coriandrum sativumEdit

At [[Coriandrum sativum]] I have put (temporarily) both the translation table from coriander and a copy of the "vernacular names" table from Wikispecies. Our translation table includes more languages, theirs has more terms per language, even having Chinese parsley, the redlink for which I just blued.

The language with by far the greatest number of vernacular names is German. Could you give me your assessment of these? Are they valid? common? specialized?

I am considering bringing over many of their vernacular-name tables to enrich our coverage of taxa. They have nearly 61,000 of them. I also expect that the entries with these tables that we don't have are probably the most desirable of the taxon entries that we could add from their million entries. DCDuring TALK 19:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The general term is Koriander. Echter Koriander is an unambiguous designation, used in reference works. Gartenkoriander is another disambiguator; to me, it seems less formal (and therefore more common) than Echter Koriander. Those three are the only translations I would include in a trans-table.
Gewürzkoriander is another disambiguator. Arabische, Asiatische and Chinesische Petersilie are about as uncommon relative to Koriander as the circumlocution Chinese parsley is to coriander in English. Indische Petersilie is a variant I hadn't heard before.
I hadn't heard Gebauter Koriander before; it seems to be an obsolete technical term. Wanzendill could be rendered into English as "bug-dill" (a reference to the foul smell of unripe coriander; cf. the suggestion that coriander itself derives from a Greek word for bedbug), for which reason I expect it was a general term (and may still exist in some dialects), even though the only place I can find it used is in reference works from two- and three-hundred years ago.
Kaliander is a southwestern Upper German dialectal variant of Koriander; Koliander is another Upper German dialectal variant. Kalanner and Klanner are northeastern (Low) German dialectal variants.
Wanzenkraut, Wanzenkümmel, Schwindelkorn and Schwindelkraut often (and in some cases primarily) refer(red) to other plants, when used at all. - -sche (discuss) 22:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I conclude that the yield of valid terms is relatively high, but not suitable for fully automated population of a translation table.
This raises the question of whether we have a suitable home for the large-scale import of these tables or their data. The table template could be Luacized to conform to our language-name display and the terms should be wrapped in {{t}} or {{l}}. The talk page for the Translingual entry is a possibility. Another approach would be for me to process the table into language-specific lists of vernacular names with the associated taxonomic name and English name(s) (if any) for each non-English language. Each such list would make a subpage (possibly with subpages) of the corresponding requested entries page.
It is a shame that we do not allow translation tables on Translingual entries as they would be a resource to both Wikispecies and Wikipedia. Both of them are a greater linguistic resource (ie, etymologies from WP; translations from both, but esp Wikispecies) to us than we are to them. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Translations tables exist in translingual entries (de facto), whether they're supposed to be there or not (de jure).
I wouldn't (automatedly) populate translations tables with vernacular names from Wikispecies; too many of the vernacular names Wikispecies provides are too obsolete or rare to merit mention in a trans table, IMO; others are polysemous and more often reference another plant; others are limited to "dialects" (which we sometimes treat as separate languages, as in the case of Alemannic German and Low German); others don't meet CFI.
Automatedly importing the data into the Transwiki namespace or onto talk pages seems like a reasonable idea. - -sche (discuss) 00:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this entry is at all typical, especially the German section, which contained more terms in one language than I'd ever seen in a Wikispecies entry. But I thought it might illustrate in a compact form some of the range of problems that we might face in trying to use this.
That a term doesn't make a good translation doesn't mean we shouldn't have it (Remember our slogan!).
I don't think the transwiki process is right because we are only interested in a portion of the entries. The transwikied pages would languish, each page typically needing attention from multiple translators. I was thinking of using Perl or Python to extract from the wikispecies XML dump (smaller than enwikt's) just the page name and the table of vernacular names. That in turn could be processed into lists by language or language code. {{VN}} has fewer than 400 of them, some of which may not be used in entries. Then I could eliminate the names that already have definitions in the appropriate L2 that contain the taxonomic name. That would leave two lists: redlinked vernacular names and blue-linked ones that didn't include the taxonomic name.
I suppose that I could just put the language lists in my own user space. That won't risk upsetting anyone. And I could have links to the language-specific redlink pages from the entry request pages. The blue-linked ones raise definition style questions.
Thanks especially for the specific analysis of the German terms. Any further thoughts would be appreciated. I will move this to my own talk page unless you object.
Also, I have not forgotten about the US native species-native languages notion, but I don't have any good lists. I was a little disappointed in the ethnobotany works that I found. I was also unaware of how many of the languages are extinct and have insufficient records to support species/genus-specific translations. And there are the migrations that have moved tribes into environments with a completely different set of species. DCDuring TALK 01:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
re "Remember our slogan": Of course; to be clear, I agree that we should have entries for any of the terms which are attested. In this case, that's many of them, though the dialectal terms and the various parsley circumlocutions are iffy, and one would have to do a careful search to see which senses of the polysemous terms meet CFI.
I should work some more on Native American plant names myself. I started adding some terms for Novemberish plants about a week ago, but quickly got distracted.
You could ask in the BP (or GP?) whether others would mind the vernacular name data being imported onto terms' talk pages. Wherever the info ends up, I do think it'll be useful. - -sche (discuss) 02:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I can follow the example of others who have pages and pages of such lists in user pages. If it subsequently seems there should be another location, that'll be fine. For now, I will keep the one example in principal namespace and see if it gets any comments while I work on the technical side. At least there can be a home for whatever I'm able to extract. Some of Pengo's somewhat similar subpages (specific epithets) have been around for years already.
Thanks again. DCDuring TALK 03:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Special:AbuseLogEdit

Hi -sche, at Wiktionary:Feedback#Special:AbuseLog I'm dissing one of your filters. I would appreciate it, if you would defend it. Testing it in tag-mode for a while, would have shown you how it failed. Your filter had tens of false hits a day on a new "archiver" (User:Rotlink, but your filter would block any new global archiver). It blocked me and other non-pseudonyms, it broke {{unblock}}. --80.114.178.7 22:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

retoromaaniEdit

I reverted your edition Romansh > Romansch, because Romansh is the form used in ISO 693-3. It is also more popular in Google search and is the one used in English Wikipedia as the preferred one. Perhaps en.Wikt should reconsider its practice of preferring the term "Romansch"? I also added a usage note explaining why retoromaani should not be translated as "Rhaeto-Romance" into English. ---Hekaheka (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I like to see Wiktionary use languages' most common names... in this case, though, I'm not sure which one is more common. Raw Google counts are notoriously unreliable (WP has a decent explanation of how/why). The story on Google Books is more complex; the raw (unsmoothed) data suggests that the two spellings are about as common, except that Romansch enjoyed an ~80 year period of higher popularity, whereas Romansh spiked a couple of times (once in 1860, once in 1980). (Smoothing the data makes more apparent their waveform-like tendency to alternate which one is on top.) Given that, I wouldn't go to the bother of changing the names.
At [[retoromaani]] the question is then, what is best?: To link to an alternative-form-entry, so a reader clicks on it, and then clicks again to get to the English entry where the content is? To link directly to the entry with the content? To link to several entries, one of which has the content and the rest of which are soft-redirects? Option 2 gets the reader to the English entry the quickest... - -sche (discuss) 07:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree on the principle of using the most common term. I also admit that there's uncertainty about Google's reliability, but the ratio "Romansh language" to "Romansch language" is pretty convincing 15 to 1. Also, I would not belittle the fact that ISO uses the form Romansh. The fact that en.Wikt currently uses Romansch may be based on only one person's preference. It should also be noticed that the Swiss use Romansh, at least on this official site [3]. Probably the best place to solve the preference between Romansh/Romansch would be the Tea room. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've started Wiktionary:Tea room#Romansch.2C_Romansh. - -sche (discuss) 15:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

When you removed the commas . . .Edit

When I'm editing a module, I see a little checkbox that says "Allow saving code with errors", and unless I check that, it won't let me save the module with script errors. (I still have the "Save page" button, but when I click it, it won't save.) Do you not have that checkbox, or did you click it by mistake, or did it not detect the issue, or . . . ? —RuakhTALK 07:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I clicked "save", and it said the code was not saved because it had an error, which it identified as there not being as many closing brackets on line 13019 as were expected to correspond to the opening brackets on line 13017. I may be misremembering the exact numbers, but at the time I checked the lines it mentioned, and found that there were in fact sufficient brackets present: as many }s as {s in that particular m["foo"] = section. So, I told it to save the code even with the 'error'. (I shouldn't have done that.)
I then checked the diff, at which point I saw the commas go missing, and re-added them. (How they went missing in the first place is a mystery.) I hadn't previewed the diff before saving that because that operation is prohibitively slow on my computer, since it combines the already slow operations of loading the page in the edit window and checking the difference between two revisions (see Wikitiki's GP post).
I didn't notice any outbreak of script errors, because I continued adding family info to various languages, and so didn't open any page besides Module:languages until much later (whereas I fixed the problem within five minutes). I'm actually slightly put off by that; if I broke as many pages as the GP implies, I'd like to have noticed. - -sche (discuss) 15:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Slight objection to "can do without"Edit

I responded to the discussion, with a slight objection. Please respond. Tharthan (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of 'Vampire'Edit

I saw you reverted my edit on the possibility that the origin of the word 'vampire' might actually be Albanian 'dhampir'. I think this is a very real possibility, considering: 1) the Albanian-Romanian historical proximity, 2)Abanian-Romanian common words and phonetic rules in loanwords, 3)the very detailed and thorough etymology 'dhampir'. Robert Elsie is not a linguist and what he thinks about the etymology of dhampir is frankly irrelevant. In fact, it is phonetically impossible for dhampir to be derived from Slavic *ypir (what does this word mean in Slavic anyway?), while the term was spreaded in the world through Romanian vampir, which reflects perfectly Albanian dhampir (Alb. th/dh>Rom.f/v-z, cf. Alb. thërrime 'crumb>Rom.farima 'id' etc)Etimo (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

MonoEdit

I saw this edit and I think that it is a bad idea to use names of political entities in language names. Could we not have called them "Mono (America)" and "Mono (Congo)"? --WikiTiki89 22:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a thought-provoking question.
I don't agree that using country names is a bad idea, or more accurately, I don't think using "Congo" would be better. And FWIW, using country names has been an en.Wikt practice (copied, it seems, from Ethnologue) for a long time — since before I started editing language names. We have other lects disambiguated as "(Ghana)", "(Central African Republic)", etc, and I documented the practice in WT:LANG.
It's not the first choice, of course: that's "use an alternative name, if one is attested".
But it's also not the last line of defence against having two languages with the same name: if, as sometimes happens in Indonesia and in Africa, two lects share both a name and a home country, they can be disambiguated by their respective families.
You've prompted me to wonder if we shouldn't make "disambiguate by family membership" our second go-to (and use "disambiguate by home country" third, i.e. swap the order of the two). In fact, we could even consider whether or not using family disambiguation would be preferable to using alternate names as a first go-to. (Maybe not, since it would mean a lot of languages would have trailing parentheticals.)
Even if we don't decide to make family membership our second go-to, we should decide how we want to present it. We currently have an "Austronesian Mor" (contrasted with a "Sepik Mor"), but also a "Mari (Austronesian)" contrasted with a "Mari (Sepik)". Both are my doing (whoops!), because I had forgot about the Mors when I named the Maris, and was following the model of the parenthetical country names. - -sche (discuss) 23:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I do like the idea of using names like "Austronesian Mor" instead of "Mari (Austronesian)", so maybe we should do that more often. But I still think that if family names are not enough, we should not use country names for diambiguation at all, but rather the name of the region. Countries change all the time, while regions stay where they are. I certainly hope that "United States of America" won't change any time soon, but if it does, the name "Mono (America)" would still be valid. As for the Congolese one, maybe it could be "Mono (Africa)". Do you think this would be a WT:BP discussion? If so, I will probably wait until after Thanksgiving before bringing it up there. --WikiTiki89 23:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've started Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2013/November#Distinguishing_languages_which_have_identical_names:_first_by_country.3F_by_region.3F_or_by_family.3F. I apologise if you had been planning to and I pre-empted you. - -sche (discuss) 23:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
No, it makes no difference who starts it. --WikiTiki89 01:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

BahnaricEdit

What is this? I have never heard of that family before. -- Liliana 10:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

And I don't know why my recent edit removed them. I must have accidentally edited an old revision. -- Liliana 10:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Bahnaric is a family of Afroasiatic Austroasiatic languages; overviews of it can be found in the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (volume 1, starting on page 487) and Wikipedia. Information on North Bahnaric and on the classification of Hre (hre being the language that brought the family to my attention) can be found Edmondson, Gregerson and Sidwell 2011 and Smith 1972. I hadn't heard of the family, either, till yesterday. :b
As for Ubangian, I didn't affiliate it with Niger-Congo because the scholarship cited by WP (even, notably, the scholarship that classifies it as Niger-Congo) suggests that no evidence to support Greenberg's initial placement of it in Niger-Congo has actually "ever be[en] produced" and it (per Dimmendaal) "probably constitutes an independent language family that cannot or can no longer be shown to be related to Niger–Congo (or any other family)." If it is to be reclassified as nic-, we'll need to move it into alphabetical order in Module:families and update the various languages in Module:languages that call on it under its old (qfa-) code. - -sche (discuss) 18:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you're confusing Afro-Asiatic and Austro-Asiatic. -- Liliana 15:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Oops, dyslexia strikes again! Thanks for pointing that out. - -sche (discuss) 15:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Protocol-relative URLs.Edit

Re: "the software knows which prefix to provide based on whether the user is browsing securely (https) or not (http), right?": Right, though to be clear, the "the software" in question is the Web browser or other user agent. If you view the HTML source, you'll see that the MediaWiki software just passes through the //... unscathed. (Sorry if you already understood that. To me "the software" sounds like MediaWiki software, but maybe that's just me.) —RuakhTALK 05:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. :) - -sche (discuss) 05:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Use of /e/ where /ɛ/ would be more appropriateEdit

I've always considered these to be quite different phonemes. /e/ is like a monophthong version of /ɛi/, whilst /ɛ/ is... erm... /ɛ/.

Yet I've seen quite a few times where /e/ has been used where /ɛ/ would have been more appropriate. I can't recall any off the top of my head, but I am certain I've seen instances.

These weren't at the end of a word either, so I don't think it's a dialectual (yeah, I know it's "dialectal"; it's a habit) thing.

Any ideas? Tharthan (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, could you give me some context? What language are you talking about — English? In standard US and UK English, the closest thing to /e/ is /eɪ/ (which some sub-varieties realise as [e]), the vowel of "play" and "made". I'm not familiar with /ɛi̯/ in English, but it does exist in Dutch. Some varieties of English use /e/ where other varieties use /ɛ/, even in the middle of words; for example, the Australians pronounce "bed" /bed/ while the Brits and Americans say /bɛd/. Lastly, the 'e'-like vowel that occurs before the 'r' of words like "air" (and some or all of "Mary", "marry" and "merry", depending on the speaker) is difficult if not impossible to transcribe precisely using the IPA, for which reason you'll find all of /e/, /eɪ/, /ɛ/, /ɛə/ or /ɛː/ (and perhaps other things) in broad transcriptions of it (e.g. in [[air]], [[dairy]] and [[dare]]). - -sche (discuss) 02:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's merry, Mary, marry merger related, (though I did indeed notice the odd transcription style of those words and was going to eventually ask about that.)
In actuality, I think it's the instances of words like /bed/ where I would have expected /ɛ/. Actually, I had thought only dialects of Northern England and Scotland would use /e/ in such a situation. Tharthan (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

pocanEdit

Phytolacca americana, American pokeweed, pokeweed, poke, pocan is a common, edible plant found in much of eastern North America, probably extending into the midwest. Century 1912 speculated that pocan was of American Indian origin. I'd guess they're right. There are other possibilities, as it was a common food among slaves. If you could keep an eye out for it, I'd appreciate it. Other names are garget and scoke (See Talk:scoke.). DCDuring TALK 00:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. I've commented about scoke on Talk:scoke; see also my edits to scoke and skokeberry. - -sche (discuss) 02:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
For poke / pocan, there is the possibility that it comes from an Algonquian word like pagan/pacan. Most such words meant "nut", but Europeans did sometimes transfer Native American terms for certain things onto other, different things.
Also, I can find a few books (including the OED) which make the suggestion that poke and/or pocan derives from Powhatan, as Stephen has also suggested on his talk page. That would make the terms doublets with puccoon. - -sche (discuss) 02:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I defer to the judgment of you and Stephen. I've known the plant for some time and had been a bit annoyed at the notion that pokeweed was poke + weed with no further explanation of where poke came from. This is more satisfying and consistent with the often repeated, but fragmentary evidence, including the supposed synonym Virginia pocan. BTW, one source suggested that the supposed synonym coakum (+ other spellings) was from more northerly tribes (related to scoke?) and that there was a "Louisiana" synonym "chongras". DCDuring TALK 04:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

heyßEdit

Hi, are you sure about this edit, or was this supposed to go on heiß? Longtrend (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's a typo, thanks for catching it! I meant to list heyß is as obsolete spelling of heiß and heyßen as an obsolete spelling of heißen. - -sche (discuss) 19:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Categories for rhymesEdit

I think Wiktionary:Grease pit/2013/December#Rhymes categories again could benefit from your input. —CodeCat 18:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

SlovincianEdit

WT:LANGTREAT doesn't mention Slovincian. I was wondering whether we made the decision not to treat it as a dialect of Kashubian, or whether it just happened that way. I have no preference one way or the other, since I don't know much about it anyway. --WikiTiki89 16:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it just happened that way. I mean, both Slovincian and Pomeranian have exceptional codes, so someone made the conscious decision to treat them, Kashubian, and Polish as distinct from each other. But both codes were created by the same user who also created separate exceptional codes for the Pitcairn and the Norfolk varieties of Pitcairn-Norfolk, which subsequent discussions all agreed to re-merge, so it's possible (and indeed, apparently the case) that it was just that one use who got the idea that they should be split. There does not seem to have been any community discussion of Slovencian, Kashubian or Pomeranian, but Wiktionary:About Slovincian has been created. I have updated LANGTREAT to note that "in practice,..." they are currently distinct. - -sche (discuss) 18:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Data consistency checking moduleEdit

Kephir wrote Module:data consistency check which performs a check on all the data modules, and makes sure there aren't any discrepancies. There are some, so I thought you might like to know. —CodeCat 23:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Among other things, aus, sai, and cai ought to go, stupid geographic categories that they are. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
@CodeCat: thank you for the link. (And @Kephir, if you're reading this, thanks for designing that module!) @Metaknowledge: Indeed, and nai (which several things currently list as their family!). qfa-ame should also go, IMO, or at least be voted upon like Altaic and Zuni needs to be updated not to list qfa-ame as its family even if it is kept. (If qfa-ame is kept, we should reconsider having deleted Penutian.) I've been meaning to start Requests for Deletion, but I've been busy. Feel free to beat me to it. - -sche (discuss) 09:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others#Certain_geographic_language_families. - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Babel-autocreate-text-mainEdit

Can you rewrite it as: Users in this category indicate they have knowledge of the language $1. {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|MediaWiki|| [[Category:$1 language]] [[Category:User languages|$2]] }}

This is probably what was troubling the constant recreation of Category:$1 language because it appears nonempty in Special:Categories. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done; thanks for pointing that out! - -sche (discuss) 22:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Removing scriptsEdit

Some entries may specify a script with sc= even if no language has that script specified. When you remove the scripts, those entries will eventually trigger script errors. —CodeCat 14:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I checked for such entries. When they existed, I added the script code to the relevant language code rather than removing it. - -sche (discuss) 20:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

Original Barnstar Hires.png Barnstar
For your continuous work to improve coverage and consistency of languages, families and such. —CodeCat 03:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! :) - -sche (discuss) 06:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Dard etymologyEdit

I thought it was a bit odd to offload this to the talk page. As with any part of an entry, we sometimes have incomplete data that needs further massaging. In this case I imagine I had copied the root word(s) from Wikipedia. I'm doing it again right now with kachori; surely it's better to have something than nothing, and to put it in the right place where it will be seen? Equinox 23:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

On kachori, the etymology gives several words in specific languages, which it implies are etyma. (I say "implies" because it doesn't say "from Hindi..." so they might be cognates.) That's not problematic. On Dard, the "etymology" consisted of dard spelled in two different scripts, each of which is used by numerous (sometimes unrelated) languages... that's not helpful, IMO, because it's not even verifiable/falsifiable. Is the implication that Dard derives from Sanskrit, which is written in Devanagari? Modern Hindi/Urdu, which is written in both scripts? Persian? Konkani? Talysh? Or that it's cognate or related to a word in those languages? - -sche (discuss) 02:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I've re-added it, but with languages specified. (Can't be sure it's from either the Hind or the Persian word, but it's clearly related to them, so I've said that.) How's it look? - -sche (discuss) 02:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Periods at the end of sentences and consensusEdit

There is no consensus to have periods at the end of definitions and thus you should not be using automated means of adding the periods. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary "misc" suggest a nefarious action, and indeed, there it is. A bit like when you started demoting various spellings without previous discussion and consensus. I think you should desysop yourself. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Despite its name, AWB is not automated. I am using it to manually clean up various -meter and -metre entries, mostly by adding etymologies to the -metre forms and clarifying on the -meter forms that the -metre forms are nonstandard, but also to perform other minor cleanup operations as long as I'm there. AWB gathers all the -meter and -metre entries in one place, which is the only reason I am using it rather than Firefox or another browser. - -sche (discuss) 21:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The fact that I am performing several manual cleanup operations at once is the reason I supplied a general edit summary. (Had I been using Firefox, it's possible I would have followed the common practice of simply not supplying an edit summary at all for self-evident cleanup, but AWB requires one.) - -sche (discuss) 21:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
WT:AGF. —CodeCat 21:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
@-sche: You are mass adding periods to the end of definitions without there being a consensus for that; what specific means you have chosen for mass adding is of less importance. Was it your intention to be adding the periods, or was it not? What prevented you from using a meaningful edit summary, anyway? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
And what that action is questioned by me, you continue. No, I am not assuming a good faith; this is blatant bad faith. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Responding to a misplaced response above: What makes you think that adding a period is "self-evident cleanup"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Because so many of us do it, probably. DCDuring TALK 21:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you know, DCDuring, that countless editors prefer definitions without periods, and that editors removing periods had to be stopped, and pointed out that there is no consensus for removing periods? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About German Low GermanEdit

A while back, you moved Wiktionary:About Low German to Wiktionary:About German Low German and changed a bunch of entries' headers accordingly; but Wiktionary:About German Low German still says to use ==Low German==, and in general it uses "Low German" in various places where it should use "German Low German". Could you update it? (I started to do it, but then discovered that for many cases I wasn't sure whether they were supposed to be updated. For example, in the section on subdialectal differences, I wasn't sure if "the dialect continuum which is Low German" was supposed to include Dutch Low Saxon or not.) —RuakhTALK 06:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, I think. Thanks for pointing that out. - -sche (discuss) 06:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! —RuakhTALK 07:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Language code templates causing script errorsEdit

Can all of them be deleted? —CodeCat 16:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes; thanks for pointing that out. - -sche (discuss) 19:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
There are a few more now. —CodeCat 23:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

ErrorsEdit

By reinstating the original sitation in Module:links, you also made it trigger errors again, but they're still hidden so you see a void. The actual hiding of errors was done in MediaWiki:Common.css, so if you want it to show "script error" again you need to undo that. —CodeCat 21:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Conundrum (Please help!)Edit

Sche, this issue has been bothering me ever since I first became a linguist and became cognisant of its [the issue's] presence. Might you be able to help explain it to me?

My pronunciations (and the pronunciations held by everyone else I know in my area) of /u:/-type words seem to be quite different from the pronunciations listed on Wiktionary (and anywhere else I've checked, for that matter). Now, I'm not attempting to have the IPA transcriptions be changed or anything of that sort, I'm merely hoping that you might be able to explain these inconsistencies to me.

My pronunciations of the words "dew", "new", "newt", "knew", "sue", "lieu", "flute" and "lewd" (seem to) have the diphthong /ɪuː/. My pronunciation of the words "few", "pew", "mew", "feud" and "cue" (seem to) have /jɪu:/. My pronunciations of the words "rebuke" and "puke" have /ju:/. My pronunciation of the words "who", "mood", "food", "boot", "poot", "coup", "aloof", "rule", "tool" and "loot" have /uː/.

Yet my pronunciation of the word "you" seems to be /jɪu:/ when stressed, /ju:/ when slightly unstressed and mid-sentence, /jɪ/ when mostly unstressed and /jə/ when completely unstressed. Similarly, "to", "too" and "two" are /ɪu:/ when stressed, /u:/ when immediately following a another word (that may be stressed or partially stressed) [i.e. twenty-two is /twɛnˈtʰi.tʰ(ɪ)u:/ when stressed, /twɛnˈtiˈtʰu:/ when partially stressed, and /twɛnɾi'tu:/ when completely unstressed], /ɪ/ when mostly unstressed, and /ə/ when completely unstressed. My pronunciation of the word "mute" fluctuates between /juː/ and /jɪu:/, tending towards /juː/. My pronunciation of the words "rude" and "prelude" fluctuate between /u:/ and /ɪu:/, tending towards /u:/. My pronunciation of the words "dude" and "nude" fluctuate between /ɪu:/ and /u:/, tending towards /ɪu:/. My pronunciation of "shoot" and "chute" seem to fluctuate between /ʃɪu:/ and /ʃu:/ at unclear intervals.

So, might you be able to explain this huge pronunciation conundrum? If you can't explain the stuff I said in the fourth paragraph, can you at least explain the four way distinction I talked about in the third paragraph?

[NOTE: Before you ask, I'm not confusing /u:/ with /ʊ/ or anything like that. "Roof" for me has the same vowel as "who", and "who" for me doesn't have the same vowel as "wood" or "hood".] Tharthan (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I may not be the best person to ask about the peculiarities of English dialects' pronunciations; I'm sorry; you might instead solicit the input of native speakers in the Tea Room. But the phenomena of yod-dropping vs yod-retention are at work. Elision of /j/ before /u/ after /tʃ/, /dʒ/, /j/, /ɹ/, /l/, /s/, /z/, /θ/, /t/, /d/ and /n/ is common in many varieties of American English, per WP, which is probably why yods are missing in those circumstances from the pronunciations Wiktionary marks as US/GenAm. (Some entries note that words can either have yods or drop them in the US, e.g. eschew, but it seems the default practice is to simply omit the yods.) In contrast, yod-dropping after /l/, /s/, /z/ and /θ/, and especially after /t/, /d/ and /n/, was formerly nonstandard in England. The speech of New England is similar to that of England, which may explain why you don't drop the yod* from "dew", "new", "sue" and "lewd".
*Or the yod-like vowel. The distinction between /Cjuː/ and /Ciu/~/Cɪu/ is not always easy to make.
WP also notes that there are some accents, such as Welsh, where pairs like chews/choose, yew/you and threw/through are distinct, with the first member having [ɪu] while the second has [uː]. Out of curiousity, are those pairs distinct for you, or homophonous?
Regarding the pronunciation of "you" as /jɪ/ vs /jə/: the distinction between unstressed /ɪ/ and unstressed /ə/ is also grey, and that unstressed /ɪ/ would reduce to /ə/ is unsurprising. Some dictionaries, e.g. the OED, recognise that some speakers pronounce words with a vowel that fluctuates or is intermediate between the two, which they transcribe /ᵻ/; (some of) our entries use /ɨ/ for much the same purpose.
Regarding the pronunciation of "you" as /jɪu:/ vs /ju:/: perhaps when speakers give a word particular emphasis, they introduce elements to the pronunciation that would not otherwise be there, such as the intrusive /ɪ/, or perhaps yod-dropping vs yod-retention is at work (recall that yods are sometimes dropped between /j/ and /u/).
The variation between "/ɪu:/" and "/u:/" in "rude", "dude", "nude" and "prelude" sounds like more yod-dropping vs yod-retention (you sometimes drop the yods and sometimes don't). - -sche (discuss) 21:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
"Chews" and "choose" are distinct for me in the way that you described, as are "threw" and "through". "Yew" and "you" are not distinct, however. Tharthan (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually I think [ɪu:] is a common realization of the /uː/ phoneme usually after alveolars or dentals, even with no yod-dropping (for example, in words such as soon). After labials or velars (in words such as pool), this is less common. --WikiTiki89 22:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. It's good to hear that I'm not the only one. Though I pronounce soon as /suːn/, not /sɪu:n. Tharthan (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

koqEdit

Currently the koq language code incorrectly contains the same information as the kfe language code (both called Kota). It seems that koq should refer to a language in the Bantu family spoken in Gabon. See Module talk:languages/data3/k. --WikiTiki89 23:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Disregard that, there was no issue. --WikiTiki89 00:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are there two packages and what to do?Edit

Do I have to combine the core package and the compat package together? --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

What is this in reference to? - -sche (discuss) 08:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please purgeEdit

Please purge Special:UncategorizedPages. --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the authority / ability to do that, but it will happen at some point. (I'm not sure if the devs do it or if it's set up to happen automatically.) - -sche (discuss) 19:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Mioko languageEdit

Challenge: figure out what the hell Mosel (1980) is talking about when he mentions the (unattestably named) Mioko language. It's something very closely related to the many-named languages {{ksd}}, {{rai}}, and {{lbb}}, but I think he's a reliable enough source to assume that this language, whatever it may be, actually exists. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, it appears to refer to an island mentioned in the Wikipedia article for the Duke of York Islands, but I still can't identify it with an ISO code or Ethnologue entry, or even prove its existence/identity. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the use of placenames as language names is a bane of students of Oceanic (region) languages (regardless of whether or not that's what happened here—I can't offhand tell). If it's an Oceanic (family) language, it's probably not the Miyako language. Hmm... Ethnologue lists Mioko — and Molot, which she (Mosel) also mentions in proximity to Mioko — as dialects of Ramoaaina. - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
That makes sense, given the alternate name 'Duke of York'. So now the policy question: whose lead shall we follow? Oh, and thank you not only for Mosel's book but for correcting my rather sexist assumption about Mosel (should've looked at the first name). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I am rather conservative about splitting languages, it seems. My inclination is to keep Mioko and Molot under {{rai}} for now, particularly because I don't see that anyone has actually taken the position that they are separate languages (has someone?). In listing rai’s dialects, Ethnologue says Makada is "very different, possibly not intelligible to speakers of other dialects", but it doesn't say that about Mioko or Molot. And Mioko and Molot words make their way into Mosel's comparative wordlists, but it's not unusual for dialects to make their way into wordlists where they have distinct terms. I could compare Danish foobar to Hamurgisch fubar and contrast it with Low Prussian kazoo (and compare that to Polish kazu) without implying that Hamburgisch and Low Prussian were separate languages. Entries can use {{context}} and etymology sections can use "from Mioko {{etyl|rai|foo}}" so that no information is lost.
You're welcome / no problem. Actually, that reminds me that I need to upload all the Cimbrian material I acquired (for my use and for others')... ugh, that's gonna take forever. - -sche (discuss) 05:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"bear" Usage notesEdit

Thanks; see User_talk:Wikitiki89#"bear", specifically the last entry (Thnidu (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)). --Thnidu (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

roa-ptgEdit

Do you think we should rename this code to roa-opt to match the others? —CodeCat 21:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings on the matter, if other people think it's better to let sleeping dogs / assigned codes lie, but yes, my weak preference would be for it to be renamed; as it is, "ptg" doesn't indicate that it applies to Old rather than modern Portuguese. Let's ping our Portuguese editor and see what he thinks. - -sche (discuss) 22:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
No strong opinion. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you made a mistake here...Edit

diffCodeCat 14:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed; thanks for catching it. That was a manual error rather than the result of [what would thus have been faulty] search-and-replace regex, and it can't have happened on many pages, in part because there were not many pages that used {{cx|obsolete}}+{{alternative spelling of}} to begin with. When the next dump comes out I'll check for any other instances of \{\{(context|cx)\|obsolete (spelling|form) of. - -sche (discuss) 18:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I found it because it caused a hidden script error, so I think this is the only one. —CodeCat 18:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

roa-ptg to roa-optEdit

Do you think you could do this move? You seem very experienced with working with language codes, and I don't really know how to track down all uses of a code. —CodeCat 03:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I can track down all the uses — it's simpler in this case than it would be with a code like "de"; the string "roa-ptg" isn't used anywhere except as a language code, so I can just search a dump for all pages which contain it. There are 2444 uses, most of which are in the main, Appendix and Category namespaces: User:-sche/roa-ptg. I don't foresee any problems if you have Mewbot update those to replace roa-ptg with roa-opt. (2400+ is a bit too many for me to do with AWB.) Then there are a lot of categories like Category:roa-ptg:Sound that incorporate the code into their names and will need to be deleted and "moved". There are only 26 pages that use the code outside those three namespaces; I updated all of those by hand just now. - -sche (discuss) 04:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
You think that if I just do a text search for "roa-ptg" then that should be ok? There would not be any false positives? —CodeCat 21:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I can't think of circumstances under which "roa-ptg" would be used other than as a language code... maybe as part of a link to a Google Book? To be careful, you could search for |roa-ptg (as in {{l|roa-ptg|foo}}, {{head|roa-ptg|noun}}) and =roa-ptg (as in {{term|foo|lang=roa-ptg}}), and then see if there were any pages left that used roa-ptg not preceded by | or =. (To be even more careful, you could also add that the instances had to be followed by either | or }.) - -sche (discuss) 21:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I have a library that can parse wiki source code into templates and such, so it lets me go through all the templates, and change parameters. So I could just say "if template name is l, and parameter 1 is roa-ptg, replace parameter 1 with roa-opt". Of course, that means that you need to consider in advance which templates it should fix, which is hard in this case. Normally, when I fix template parameters, I use tracking categories, so that the category is automatically updated as the bot goes through the entries. But with a manual list like the one you generated, that's not possible. So I'm not sure how to check when I actually caught and fixed all instances of roa-ptg. —CodeCat 22:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, I have updated User:-sche/roa-ptg so that it now lists all pages which contain (\||\=)roa\-ptg(\||\}). I updated by hand the few entries that were on the first list but not the second; they were uses of {{roa-ptg-noun}} or the nonexistent {{l/roa-ptg}}. On the remaining pages, you can just perform a simple replacement of all instances of roa-ptgroa-opt, or if you want to be careful, you can make four replacements: |roa-ptg||roa-opt|, |roa-ptg}|roa-opt}, =roa-ptg|=roa-opt| and =roa-ptg}=roa-opt}. At that point, the only remaining instances of roa-ptg will be in the pagenames of the staggering number of Old Portuguese topical categories, which will have to be "moved". - -sche (discuss) 22:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and replace {roa-ptg{roa-opt. (I'm not sure why so many uses of {{roa-ptg-noun}} didn't show up in my previous searches...) - -sche (discuss) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I made the four replacements you gave originally. I haven't changed the template names yet, nor the topical categories. I suspect many of the old topical categories will be empty now, though, because the changes I made already probably included a lot of categorising label templates too. —CodeCat 01:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I've moved all the templates I could find — the templates themselves, not the uses of them (which still work, thanks to redirects). I started to fix the uses of them with AWB, since there were only ~160, and in doing so I noticed another replacement that can be made: :roa-ptg:roa-opt, to update the topical categories in the entries. Since I can review each edit before I make it in AWB, I'm using regex that replaces all instances of roa-ptg (regardless of preceding or following characters), and I've yet to find a false positive, FWIW. - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

As of now, the only pages that the site search finds containing "roa-ptg" are 15 main-namespace pages, which I just updated, 6 other pages, which I also updated, and various topical categories. :) - -sche (discuss) 07:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Bot mistake?Edit

In diff your bot used an invalid language code. It also added "m-f" as the gender which doesn't make any sense. "Masculine Feminine" isn't a gender that I know of, in the same way that "Masculine Plural" is. —CodeCat 01:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I (manually) incompletely changed {{roa-ptg-noun}} to {{head|roa-opt|noun}}. Good thing that causes a script error; it makes it easy to find! I copied the "m-f" bit from another entry, which had "{{roa-ptg-noun}} {{g|m-f}}". Should "m-f" be a shortcut for "g1=m|g2=f" (or, put another way, should it display "m, f")? - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
It should be g=m|g2=f yes. Shortcuts would complicate the logic of the module, I don't think it's worth it. —CodeCat 02:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

mwparserfromhellEdit

Have you ever tried this for your bot? It's very useful because it more or less eliminates any danger of mis-parsing code. —CodeCat 21:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've never tried it, but I'll bookmark it; thanks! I don't do many fully automated things with User:-sche-bot, though (for which reason, I've lately wondered if I should rename it User:-sche-AWB... but that's probably not worth the bother). - -sche (discuss) 02:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Fraktur scriptEdit

I don't think this makes much sense. It's a typographical variant of the regular Latin script, not a separate script altogether. If we really wanted to be consistent about this, we'd need a separate script for Old English, Uncial script for Irish, Carolingian minuscule for Old High German, Old French and such, Roman cursive for Latin, and so on. —CodeCat 01:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

But compare Cyrl/Cyrs, Grek/polytonic, Hani/Hans/Hant, etc. --WikiTiki89 02:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
In each of those cases, they're mutually exclusive. Languages don't have more than one in each group. -sche on the other hand recently added Latf alongside Latn as one of the scripts for German. I think that's completely pointless. Script detection doesn't do anything because they're encoded the same way, so the only useful addition that Latf would give is on Category:German language. And that page currently lists Latin twice thanks to this change. —CodeCat 02:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
In the case of Cyrl/Cyrs, that seems to be due to our decision to (rightly or wrongly) exclude modern and Cyrl-script Church Slavonic from the code cu. In the case of Hans/Hant, it is only because there exists the third code Hani that includes within it the first two. Re Category:German language, that is because whoever added Latf to the module failed to give it a distinct name; I have fixed that. The point that Latf is encoded the same as Latn is valid... but then, as Wikitiki points out, the same is true of Cyrs and Cyrl, leading to situations like the OCS headword line and the Russian headword line looking different on [[а]]. (If someone proposed deleting Latf and Cyrs, I'm not sure I'd oppose it...) - -sche (discuss) 05:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
It's also due to inadequate font support for many of the characters in Cyrs. We need to use special fonts for older Cyrillic languages that are fine for that purpose but would look ridiculous if used for modern Cyrillic languages. --WikiTiki89 06:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Do those have ISO script codes? Fraktur does. Were those contrasted with Latin script as if they were different scripts? Fraktur was, hence Bismarck famously rejected gifts of books written in Latin script, saying „Deutſche Bücher in lateiniſchen Buchſtaben leſe ich nicht.“ And (although I don't necessarily agree with this!) several of our German entries do have usexes and citations which are explicitly in Latf. - -sche (discuss) 02:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Off topic question: How much exposure does the average modern German speaker have to Fraktur? Is the average modern German speaker able to read Fraktur easily? --WikiTiki89 02:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
People can read Fraktur. Books aren't normally printed in it anymore, but plenty still exist on library shelves from the era when they were, and even if you don't read them (most people probably don't, I'm probably an oddity in that I do — often over the course of citing things on RFV), many pubs, apothecaries, newspapers, etc write their names in Fraktur. (I get the impression this is also true in the UK and US.) And most Fraktur letters are similar enough to their Antiqua equivalents that they're hard to misunderstand. People do mis- and disuse long s, though.
Really, Sütterlin is what people have trouble with... - -sche (discuss) 05:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
It's also easy to confuse the b's, v's, and h's, and ligatures are sometimes hard to parse. I was just wondering if Germans generally have less trouble than I do reading it. (It's not that I can't read it, it's just that it's harder.) --WikiTiki89 06:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: jewingEdit

Although the lemma notes the offensiveness of the term, I think it would be prudent to include it here also, since someone may look up the gerund without going to the lemma. bd2412 T 18:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Our current practice is not to do that, because it wrongly conveys that the inflected form is more offensive than the lemma, and/or that "jewing" is an offensive present participle of "jew", as opposed some non-offensive present participle of "jew". Compare "boughten" and "laught", which correctly describe themselves as archaic/obsolete past participles of "buy" and "laugh", because they are more archaic/obsolete than "buy" and "laugh", and there are past participles of "buy" and "laugh" that are not archaic/obsolete ("bought" and "laughed"). Compare also Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2011-08/User:Mglovesfun for desysop, where Stephen notes that the words that sparked the vote "were already appropriately marked as Croatian on the lemma page (kolovoz). It is not usual to insert dialect tags on form-of pages" if the form-of is merely as restricted as the lemma/whole paradigm. If someone looks up the gerund, they have to go to the lemma to see the word's senses, and are presented at that time with information on which of those senses are offensive (in this case: all of them). Of course, if someone adds a ===Noun=== section to jewing, any offensive senses that it has should be so marked... - -sche (discuss) 18:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I am of the opinion that marking offensive derivations as offensive is a bit more immediate than noting their other contextual characteristics. bd2412 T 19:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
(I apologise in advance for the verbosity of what follows...hopefully it spells out my thinking on the matter...)
I think the offensiveness/obsoleteness/etc of some information, such as one or more senses (even all currently attested senses) of a word, should be indicated in the place where that information is. In the case of jew (bargain), the offensive senses are stored in the lemma entry, [[jew]], so that is where the tag "{{cx|offensive}}" belongs. The information that "jewing" = "the present participle of jew" is not what is offensive — there is not another present participle of "jew" that one can use instead to avoid giving offence — it is the use of "jew" to mean "bargain" (which happens to be the only verb-al use of the word that exists) that is offensive.
Similarly, the information that "abstruding" = "the present participle of abstrude" is not obsolete — there is not another present participle of "abstrude" that is not obsolete — it is the use of "abstrude" to mean "push away" (which happens to be the only use of the word that ever existed) that is obsolete, so [[abstrude]] is where the tag "{{cx|obsolete}}" belongs.
Noting that the use of "jew" to mean "bargain" is offensive may well be more important than noting that the use of "abstrude" to mean "push away" is obsolete, but I don't think the note should be made in a different place in one entry vs the other. As I said, putting an "{{cx|offensive}}" tag in jewing would convey incorrectly that the information that "jewing" = "the present participle of jew" was something that was offensive.

Contrastively, the information that "laught" = "the past participle of laugh" is obsolete. There is another past participle that is not obsolete, and the word "laugh" is not obsolete. Following the above-mentioned principle (that the obsoleteness of some information should be indicated in the place where the information is), the information that "laught" is obsolete is correctly stored in the entry [[laught]] (and also next to the mention of laught in [[laugh]]).

It might also be useful to consider terms with multiple senses, only some of which are offensive/obsolete/etc, e.g. eggplant: is the information that "eggplants" = "the plural of eggplant" {{cx|sometimes|slang|offensive}}, because one sense of eggplant but not another is slangy and offensive? Or should we have two senses at [[eggplant]], one "# {{plural of|eggplant}}" and the other "# {{cx|slang|offensive}} {{plural of|eggplant}}"? No, the information that "eggplants" = "the plural of eggplant" is not restricted to any context (such as slang, or offensive speech); all countable senses of eggplant have eggplants as their plural. It is the "black person" sense of eggplant that is offensive. - -sche (discuss) 21:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I get what you are saying, but there is no inoffensive meaning of "jewing". I would not want to give the impression that "jew" is offensive but "jewing" is okay (the circumstances where this can occur are imaginable, as it is considered more offensive, for example, to say "that man is a Jew doctor" than to say "that man is a doctor and a Jew"). bd2412 T 22:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
If I may butt in, I totally agree with -sche here. But on a separate note, I don't like the way we represent the term jew as offensive. Firstly, it didn't used to be offensive—the OED says "These uses are now considered to be offensive." (my emphasis). Secondly, even today not everyone would necessarily consider it offensive, Jews and non-Jews alike (in fact I often get the impression, perhaps wrongly, that non-Jews are much more sensitive to these kinds of words than Jews). But this can lead us into a wider discussion of the offensive context tag. Whether a word is considered offensive depends on the time, the place, and the specific person. It may be difficult, but I think we should include more detailed information about things like that. --WikiTiki89 22:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I frankly don't see how using "jew" to mean "defraud" or the like could fail to be offensive. bd2412 T 22:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
You're just furthering my impression that non-Jews are more touchy about this stuff. But anyway, that's not the point. The point is, offensiveness varies across time and place and we should try to cover that. --WikiTiki89 22:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know to what extent this is comparable, but in German, Zigeuner is no longer used by sensitive speakers (the people who one might derogatorily call "PC"), and several Roma groups have denounced it in very strong terms, but individual Romanis still describe themselves as Zigeuner. (Our entry on Zigeuner only mentions the first half of this because I could not find a source that documented second half.) Likewise, in English, Gypsy is not used by sensitive speakers, and is denounced by some Romanis, but is still used by other Romanis (and by plenty of speakers who are simply ignorant of its potential offensiveness). Gypsy describes itself as {{cx|sometimes|offensive}}. Both terms have extensive usage notes. - -sche (discuss) 19:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Descendants of Proto-Algonquian entriesEdit

These are all using {{term}}, but they should use {{l}}. Could you work on fixing that if you have the time? —CodeCat 21:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

One links to predecessor terms in Etymology sections using {{term}}, why can't one link to descendant terms using {{term}}? I don't see what difference it makes which template is used. - -sche (discuss) 22:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
{{term}} is optimized for use in running text. {{l}} is optimized for use in lists. Currently, that only manifests itself in italicization of the term (if it is in the Latin script) or its transliteration, but it is undoubtedly possible that there could be other things added to them as well in the future. --WikiTiki89 22:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

waterEdit

Don't forget to use the preview button before saving your edits. I know it may be annoying on a large page like water, but I noticed you misspelling templates ({{qualifer:less commonly}}[sic]) and using templates that no longer exist ({{t-SOP|...}}). If you don't check your own edits on such a large page, there is a good chance mistakes like that will go unnoticed for quite a while. --WikiTiki89 00:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching those mistakes. I had forgotten about t-SOP's deletion. - -sche (discuss) 01:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

List of headersEdit

I could probably clean up all the misspellings by bot, with much less effort than it would take you to do them all manually. I'd just give it a list of bad headers and their replacements and tell it to go through all the entries listed under "not recognised", and it would weed them all out. So it may be better if you focused on headers that are not misspellings? —CodeCat 02:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. :) You could probably bot-fix certain of the "wrong-level" headers, too, like L3 Antonyms (just up it to L4). - -sche (discuss) 03:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
It's more efficient, but less effective as the multiple other problems often in the entries may remain unnoticed for quite a while. DCDuring TALK 03:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I would not try to automatically fix things like antonyms. Often they're just at the end of the entry, without regard for what sense or part of speech they should go with . DTLHS (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

ISO codesEdit

Where can I find a full list of all current ISO language codes, preferably all on one page? --WikiTiki89 04:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the list of current ISO codes I've been using to find out which ISO codes we're missing. (And here is their not-entirely-complete list of retired codes.) I don't know what you plan to do with the data, but note that it wouldn't be a good idea to automatedly import "missing" codes, since in many cases they are codes that have been intentionally excluded. Hope that helps, - -sche (discuss) 05:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I just wanted the convenience of searching through them with Ctrl+F. --WikiTiki89 05:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

SilberfolieEdit

Does this mean real "silver" "foil", or just silver foil made from aluminium. (I'm pretty sure that Silberpapier means the aluminium product silver paper. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It has both meanings. You can wrap a pita in Silberfolie made of aluminium, or you can "gild" (err..."silver") something in a thin layer of Silberfolie made of silver. Silberpapier likewise has both meanings. google books:"silver foil" gild suggests that "silver foil" also has both senses, and google books:"silver paper" gold OR gild suggests that "silver paper", in addition to meaning aluminium foil, can also (rarely, and possibly SOP-ily) refer to a certain Oriental product — apparently paper which has been coated in a thin foil of silver. - -sche (discuss) 19:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I have never heard of "silver foil" referring to aluminum foil and would have always assumed it meant real silver. In the US, aluminum foil is generally known as tin foil. --WikiTiki89 23:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

SardinianEdit

Your proposal to merge the Norwegians made me think: do you think that we should continue to keep Sardinian divided? I thought that these were dialects, and I don’t think we are supposed to treat dialects as independent languages. --Æ&Œ (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, our treatment of Sardinian is weird.
There is quite a difference between the case of the written standards of Norwegian, which have existed since only the late 1800s / early 1900s, and the case of the dialects of Sardinian, whose predecessors have been separate from Italian's since the first century BCE and which may have started to distinguish themselves from each another only a little later than that. There is, however, an amusing parallel between our granting of codes to Norwegian and (only) two of its 4+ written standards, and our granting of codes to Sardinian and (only) two of its 3+ dialects (not counting sdc and sdn, since there is disagreement over whether they are Sardinian, Corsican, or independent languages).
There does seem to be general agreement that src and sro are mutually intelligible. WP says they "differ mostly in phonetics, which does not hamper intelligibility among the speakers". Roberto Bolognesi, in his Phonology of Campidanian Sardinian, does assert that "is only for the Campidanian area, as already recognized in Wagner (1951), that it is possible to speak of a uniform variety of Sardinian and of a general mutual intelligibility of the different dialects". Nonetheless, the variety that is an official language of Sardinia is one that unifies the two dialects, and moreover, (you must already see this, I'm just saying it so I can copy and paste this comment into any discussion about unifying Sardinian) we ourselves already unify them: we have a Category:Sardinian language with most of our Sardinian entries in it, we just also have a Category:Campidanese Sardinian language with 36 entries and a Category:Logudorese Sardinian language with 13 entries.
Do you think the topic of merging Sardinian should be raised now, or would it be better to wait until some of the other major lect-merger discussions we're having have been resolved? - -sche (discuss) 19:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I’m not exactly sure if I am understanding you when you say that they’re already unified; I’m assuming that you are refering to the hypernymous code (sc) much like we have Norwegian no. I would feel more comfortable if we postponed the Sardinian debate since I’d rather we focus on problems individually. --Æ&Œ (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm referring to sc. I think the fact that we already have most of our entries using sc shows that we de facto accept that Sardinian is possible to unify (rather than taking Bolognesi's view and baulking at the idea of a unified Sardinian the way we baulked at e.g. the idea of there being a unified "Berber" language). We're just being "schizophrenic" by also having dialect codes. Waiting till the other discussions resolve is my preference as well, so, great. - -sche (discuss) 20:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

JA phonetics shiftsEdit

I noticed this edit, changing ">" to "from". As introduced to me at Wiktionary by User:Bendono's edits, this is meant to convey "this older reading became this other reading", so "[kɨ] > [ki]" is meant to convey "[kɨ] became [ki]", kind of backwards from your edit. I'm not sure what the best notation would be, and I'm tired enough that my brain's not fully firing on all cylinders; I'd appreciate it if you could rework that phrasing as you see appropriate. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ha, wow, this is exactly why words are better than greater-than-signs: some of the places on en.Wikt that I've seen people write ">", they've meant "from", other places, they meant "to". (Words are also more helpful than ">" to screen readers.)
So many etymologies contain phonological information of that sort that someone (possibly me) should design a template for them, firstly to automatically apply the class that is currently applied by {{IPAchar}}, and secondly to standardise whatever wording we decide to put around and between "[kɨ]" and "[ki]". Perhaps the template could take readings as numbered parameters, and {{ja-reading-etymology|kɨ|ki}} would display The phonological evolution was from [kɨ] to [ki]. And if a third parameter were supplied, {{ja-reading-etymology|kɨ|ki|ke}}, it would display The phonological evolution was from [kɨ] to [ki] to [ke]. And so on. Would that be a good wording? - -sche (discuss) 05:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Where have you ever seen ">" meaning "from"? --WikiTiki89 07:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I have AWB set to point it out to me whenever a page I'm on uses ">" or "<". I've encountered maybe ~500 instances of those characters (not counting uses in HTML tags), of which there have been maybe a dozen that had "[newer language] [word] > [older language] [word]" in their etymologies, which have been the most unambiguous cases of ">" = "from". I've seen about as many entries with "<" for "to". Using "greater than" to mean either "from" or "to" is such a strange idea to begin with that I wouldn't even try to guess whether such uses were intentional or the result of someone's finger slipping and typing the wrong one of the two. I don't feel like tracking down specific examples at the moment, but I'll let you know next time I see one. (And BTW, that's not to speak of the variation between entries that present their etymologies in the format "[current form] [some terse symbol or word, typically either ">" or "<" but sometimes "←", meaning "from"] [older form] [terse symbol] [oldest form]" vs those that use the format "[oldest form]" [terse symbol or word meaning "to"] [older form] [terse symbol] [current form]". That variation can itself lead to confusion, particularly when — as in the case of numerous Finnish etymologies — the "[current word]" is omitted, and the string just starts or ends with ">"/"<"/"←"/"→".) - -sche (discuss) 08:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The only way I've ever seen them is "<" = "from" and ">" = "to". It may be a strange idea, but it is widespread in historical linguistics. --WikiTiki89 09:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

LukewarmerEdit

Hello, I've been trying to mark lukewarmer for deletion because of the discussion taking place at w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lukewarmer. However the edit filter won't let me. It would be awesome if you could delete the page yourself. Thanks, Jinkinson (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. - -sche (discuss) 17:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A requestEdit

Based on this piece of comment, is it okay to make Perfective Counterpart and Imperfective Counterpart headers? --KoreanQuoter (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't. It doesn't seem necessary to add a new header just for that: if a word has only one or two perfective/imperfective counterparts, they could just be listed on the headword line; if there are more (or even if there are only a few), they could be listed in the ====Synonyms==== or ====Related terms==== section, whichever is appropriate. If you want to list them on the headword line, the current {{ru-verb}} templates could probably be expanded to accommodate that; you could ask about that in the Grease Pit. - -sche (discuss) 19:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

protestantEdit

You can't call protestant a capitalisation, it's the exact opposite; the uncapitalised form of Protestant. In my opinion that template doesn't apply in this situation, and using it leads to confusion. I have come across this paradox elsewhere, but I can't remember where. Donnanz (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That's like saying that you can't call a nanometer a length because it's not long. --WikiTiki89 18:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
What's a nanometre got to do with it? Donnanz (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Because we use "capitalization" to mean some sort of measure of how capitalized a word is, and not capitalized at all is one possibility. The word "length" is another example of how we take a biased word and use it as a neutral term for a measurement. We don't have to switch to the word "shortness" when talking about nanometers. --WikiTiki89 18:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia's w:Capitalization (disambiguation) oddly does a better job of defining "capitalization" than our entry: one of the things it refers to is "choice of case in text", and one choice of case is "lowercase". This is the sense used by the template. As I noted in my edit summary, the template is regularly used for variations in capitalization in either direction. If you look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:alternative capitalization of, roughly half of the uses of it are on uncapitalized pages, soft-redirecting them to capitalized pages, and the other half are soft-redirects in the other direction. - -sche (discuss) 18:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you expect the man in the street (i.e. average user) to understand this inflexible philosophy? I, for one, do not. It's rather daft in situations like this. Donnanz (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The only "inflexible philosophy" I see is your philosophy that "alternative capitalization of" has to mean "alternative form written with an uppercase letter of". "Choice of case (whether ALL CAPS, CamelCase, Sentence case, or all lowercase)" is a regular meaning of "capitalization" in English. I've expanded our entry on capitalisation accordingly. - -sche (discuss) 19:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
My ""inflexible philosophy"? Huh! I know my interpretation of "capitalisation" is correct; the statement "Choice of case ...... or all "lowercase"" (sic) is WRONG (that's capitalisation for you). I see I'm not going to win this argument, but I hope you have a light-bulb moment one day. In the meantime, I have better things to do. End of argument. Donnanz (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Condensed version of your comment: "I don't have an inflexible philosophy, I'm just right and you and Wikitiki [and all the books that use 'capitalization' to mean 'choice of case'] are wrong!" lol. - -sche (discuss) 20:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Correct. Donnanz (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
This may actually be an American thing. Compare definition 4 in the Collins English Dictionary to definition 5 in the Collins American English Dictionary. --WikiTiki89 20:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I find I'd be inclined to follow Donnaz's usage. To me capitalization in "His capitalization of the letters is wrong" is equivalent to "That he capitalized all of the letter is wrong". I could accept the other meaning as a possibility, but it would not be my favored interpretation. DCDuring TALK 20:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
How about (discussing e.g. a student's paper) "her capitalization is all over the place". To me, that implies that her paper contained things like "the Russian armed Forces attacked budapest with Tanks and planes", not usually (and certainly not exclusively) that it consisted of "THE RUSSIAN ARMED FORCES ATTACKED BUDAPEST WITH TANKS AND PLANES". - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I was just about to add a comment on that. There are situations in which I could accept the meaning as "choice of orthographic case", but I would interpret "her capitalization is all over the place" as "her use of capital letters is inconsistent." Note that this interpretation would probably not lead to not getting the point intended. I think that my English has a narrow construction of words derived from the orthographic sense of capital and capitalize. I wouldn't say "Her capitalization is wrong." if she failed to use any capital letters and would not give that interpretation to someone else's utterance of that sentence. DCDuring TALK 21:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The sole definition of capitalization at MWOnline is "the use of a capital letter in writing or printing", completely in accord with my idiolect's usage and interpretation of the word. DCDuring TALK 21:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:-sche/ekEdit

Can this go? —CodeCat 20:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to keep it as a model of how entries would look if we gathered citations from all stages of a language's development onto one page. That's something that is not done at present except partially for English, where somewhere between 50–100+ entries include Middle English (but AFAIK never Old English) citations.
As an aside, I wonder how hard it would be to find all the files like File:Ég.ogg (with no langcode prefix), and find what langcode refix they should have, and [have Commons admins] move them...
- -sche (discuss) 21:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Not too hard if we add some code to the template we use to add the files to entries. It could check the parameter to see if it begins with the given language code, and categorise it if not. —CodeCat 21:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Great, especially if it could categorise (or a list could be made) based on which prefix was missing. I think Commons has tools for moving things in batches, e.g. "move all these 200 files to have a de- prefix". - -sche (discuss) 22:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't really know anything about how audio files are handled on Wiktionary, though. Which templates should this be added to? —CodeCat 23:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Just {{audio}} for now. There are probably some other templates used to display audio files (some are listed here), and there may even be some bare links, but those can be tracked down later; I think {{audio}} is the most commonly used template. - -sche (discuss) 03:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Shortcuts to templatesEdit

I've updated {{shortcut}} so that it can be used easily to indicate shortcuts for template names. The parameters can optionally include "Template" as part of the name, the template strips it out anyway. See {{context}} and {{label}} for examples. —CodeCat 23:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, good idea; thanks for doing that. :} - -sche (discuss) 01:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

prijsgevenEdit

The noun is really just the gerund of the verb. I wanted to remove the entry altogether as our verb entries generally don't include the gerund, but it has a quotation that I didn't want to remove. So I did diff instead. It looks kind of odd though, having a form-of definition pointing to the same page. What do you think? —CodeCat 02:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

To whatever extent that the gerund is considered a form of the verb and doesn't have distinctly nounal features like a plural (like English gerunds or would-otherwise-be-gerunds sometimes have), the quotation could be placed under the relevant verb sense and the noun section could be removed. The translation could be amended to "the disclosing of our DNA". If the noun section is to be retained, I think it would be helpful if the same terminology were used in it as in the verb's conjugation table, which means either the verb's conjugation table could be adapted to label the gerund as such, like "infinitive (and gerund)", or the template used to define the noun could be adapted to use the same label as the conjugation table, like "gerund (infinitive) of". - -sche (discuss) 02:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Dutch gerunds are certainly nouns. They don't have plurals, but they do have gender. It's the same in German. —CodeCat 03:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Then why do you want to remove the noun section? - -sche (discuss) 03:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Because all verbs have a gerund and it's always identical in form to the infinitive. So it would imply that we'd always have a noun section on the same page as verbs. I'm not sure if that's practical. —CodeCat 03:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
All German verbs can be substantivised, too. It happens that they get capitalised as part of the process, and Wiktionary puts different capitalisations on different pages... would it be consistent to exclude Dutch gerunds because they don't get capitalised? Substantivisations also inflect nounally in German, as in des Schwimmens — but then, Dutch gerunds also inflect nounally, or did in the past, right, as in willens en wetens? Also, it's only in theory that all verbs can be substantivised; in both Dutch and in German, there are probably cases where a verb is attested while its substantivisation isn't. (Strictly in theory, even the reverse could be true: there could be three citations of a gerund and only two of its verb.) So, Dutch gerunds could be allowed but not made a high priority. Or, if not, then as I said: to whatever extent the gerund is subsumed into the verb, quotations of it can go under verb senses. - -sche (discuss) 04:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

ReversalEdit

Hi,

Your reversal and the summary don't make sense to me. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад)

I was looking at the edit backwards, I apologise; Wikitiki clarified that in his subsequent reversal of my reversal of your reversal of the IP's removal of the links. - -sche (discuss) 21:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

aWaEdit

Wiktionary:Sandbox/aWa is a page specially designated for testing. And you could have just asked me about adding archiving capability to Wiktionary:RFM unresolved requests subpages… Keφr 05:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that sandbox, but it's alright, I was doing a "real conditions" test of the archival of a section that didn't contain a pagename in its header to a manually-supplied 'target' talk page. When I archived the discussion which ultimately ended up here, the archiver initially put it here. I was testing whether that was because of a bug in the archiver or because I accidentally copied the whole string from the top of the page I wanted to put the discussion (having navigated to to be sure of what it was called), as opposed to just the pagetitle. It turned out to be the latter. - -sche (discuss) 07:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

GarifunaEdit

{{en-noun}} doesn't support pl2= anymore and hasn't for a while now. Just letting you know. —CodeCat 18:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I actually worked on some Garifuna stuff for Wikipedia. Are there any entries for Garifunan words on here? Tharthan (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

CatholicEdit

Hello. I note your reversion on "Catholic", but don't agree. You may not be much aware of Christian Orthodoxy or its relation to Roman Catholicism, but both churches lay claim to catholicity. This is one result of the East-West schism which separated them in 1054, which may seem like a long time ago, but the ramifications are still very much alive. The Roman church came to be known as "Roman Catholic" specifically because of this claim to catholicity, and chose that name as part of establishing its claim. What you may not know is that what we know here in the west as the "Eastern Orthodox Church" also calls itself officially the "Orthodox Catholic Church", for much the same kinds of reasons. That knowledge is simply not widely known in the west. Even in the east, the title itself is not unduly emphasized. Instead, the teaching of the church as to its catholicity is made more prominent. But the counter-claim to the Roman church is just as firmly established. For "Catholic" then, with a capital C, it is indeed used as an adjective in modifying references to the Orthodox Church.

I think the official church title is enough to establish the capitalized form in relation to eastern orthodoxy. Other orthodox church references in English can probably be found, but Orthodoxy is spreading in the west only in more recent times, from areas that don't historically speak English so much, and rules of capitalization vary in other languages. Translations from original documents in other languages may or may not be done by people who are fully aware of such specific English usage.

I would argue that the entry ought to be changed back to something similar to what I had put there. What do you say? Evensteven (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know "as opposed to" means "contrasting with" and has nothing to do with their opinions. --WikiTiki89 18:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
No argument there. And "in contrast to" also has the same meaning. But it's a fact of human psychology that how something (including a wording) is interpreted can sometimes be subject to association: "opposition" in this case. The wrong association can sometimes result in misinterpretation, and non-native speakers of English (or the less fluent) are more subject to this kind of difficulty. "Contrast" or "differentiation" are more neutral, less likely to get there. It's not about being incorrect; it's about being helpful. This is a totally different issue than "Catholic" in reference to the Orthodox Church, however. Evensteven (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I imagine citations (passages from books that use the term "Catholic" in its various senses) will do more than anything to establish what senses the word has. It'd be particularly useful to see under what circumstances (C|c)atholic is used, with a particular meaning, in a way that actually contrasts with other possible meanings. (Uppercase "Catholic" in the sense "Roman Catholic" contrasts with e.g. "Protestant" when people speak of "Protestant England passing anti-Catholic laws", laws directed against the church that follows the Pope/Bishop of Rome, not specifically against e.g. Orthodox churches.) The inclusion of "Catholic" in the name of Orthodox churches that claim catholicity is easy to see as merely an instance of honorific capitalisation, in the absence of evidence that "Catholic" is used by itself to mean (or include) the Orthodox. Compare the inclusion of "Holy" in the names of churches — it doesn't mean "Holy" with a capital "H" means "sacred", it means "holy" (like "catholic") has one of its usual meanings, and was given honorific capitalisation as part of a Proper Noun/Name of an Important Thing. - -sche (discuss) 00:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I edit mostly on Wikipedia, and don't know what your standard ways of looking at things is. As I said, the official title of the eastern church is "Holy Orthodox Catholic Church", capitalized "Catholic" because it is part of the title, hence a proper name. That is seen, of course, in formal references. Outside that context, Catholic is not generally used (although nothing would prevent it). Then, it's Orthodox Church, or perhaps Eastern Orthodox Church. The one other instance of a capitalized Catholic that I see normally lies in the phrase from the Nicene Creed, "one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church", when the Orthodox church is identified as being just that. I would argue that's not an honorific or a proper name, but a reference to its catholicity. I see both these types of usage in Timothy Ware's The Orthodox Church, chapter 16, The Reunion of Christians, pp 315, 330, Penguin Books, 1991. (Note the edition is not the more recent 1993 one, with revisions, but both are current in use.) Ware also quotes an Anglican, Bishop Ken the Non-Juror, as saying "I die in the faith of the Catholic Church, before the disunion of east and west", p 325. Here the Catholic reference is again clearly to catholicity, and it was taken in a context where the Bishop was expressing his affirmation as an Anglican to catholicity, and his connection to Orthodoxy as a result of it. That usage can cut a number of ways, but it is not in this case separated from Orthodoxy either. I don't know if these quotes are retained in the 1993 edition of Ware, but if they are, the page numbers and placement in the volume might be different. The 1991 edition also has many references to "Catholic", alone and with "Roman", meaning the Roman church, in the common abbreviated uses we tend to see often in English. Frankly, it's not that many books on Orthodoxy that tend to mention other churches in multiple contexts like this one does. And "Catholic" definitely tends to be restricted in context with respect to Orthodoxy to just the title, and to affirmations of catholicity.
One more thing I can attest to: that the usage is notable among Orthodox. Both uses I mention are the guarantor of official recognition on the part of the church itself that it identifies with being "Catholic". Secondly, not all rank and file Orthodox, especially in more isolated regions, actually know this about the Orthodox church. It has been surprising to me how often the WP article on the "Eastern Orthodox Church" has been edited to reject the "Catholic" label, by strongly anti-Roman Orthodox. A number of those have even rejected official pronouncements from reliable Orthodox sources, saying that "Catholic" cannot mean anything but Roman Catholic. One was asked by another editor if he said the Nicene Creed in services. (If he doesn't, he doesn't go to Orthodox services; it's in virtually all of them). The WP article is burdened by proofs. I suspect that some of that controversy can also spring from lack of expertise with English, as references to Orthodoxy are found in English much less than references to Catholicism, and the latter may be all some of those more isolated Orthodox have ever seen in English.
In any case, the Orthodox church takes its catholicity very seriously, though an Orthodox attitude on that point does not get so emotional when confronted with rival claims. (It talks regularly with Catholics, Anglicans, and others about ecumenical issues, and this one comes up all the time.) Whatever the sensitivity of an individual, reference to these matters in English is as common as might be expected in relation to the frequency with which these matters come up in English, and are quite notable there. In addition, English Wiktionary is (I am sure) referenced quite often by speakers (principally) of other languages, in other nations, and I would imagine that Catholics and Orthodox alike in those locations would reference this particular entry more often than the general populations.
You know my opinion fairly completely now, and have one explicit source that gives all the senses I have seen in English. I'll leave it to you Wikitionarians to decide what to do next. Just don't make the decision based only on conformity with the way things are normally done on Wiktionary, because this item has its own peculiarities that should be taken fully into account. I think the significance to readers may alter the normal balance point. Oh, and if you've been wondering, no, I'm really not trying to push some anti-Catholic point of view, just trying to expose a smaller-scale but important usage. The existing material relating to the Roman church is clearly correct and suitable in its essence.
Thanks for listening. Evensteven (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
One more thing. "Catholic" within the title to both Roman and Orthodox churches are in fact references to catholicity also. Note above the Anglican's use of "Catholic", capitalized, to highlight catholicity. The capitalization in the titles might be thought to come from their being in titles, but the capitalization for reference to catholicity is retained in all contexts. Use of "Catholic" as in Roman church can be seen as taken wholesale from the title, but it can also be seen as reference to catholicity. The origin of the capitalization is not clear, as usage is mixed. Capitalization is a mixed art in English anyway. Look at most 18th century documents. Evensteven (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
A Wiktionary question for you. - Would it have been better of me to create a discussion page for the "Catholic" entry when raising this whole question? That's what I would have done on Wikipedia, but I note that most entries have no discussion page already. I hesitated, not knowing if that's as much a part of the working culture here. I expect to drop in on Wiktionary from time to time, and would like to establish my bearings a little better. Evensteven (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
See the edit notice. Keφr 14:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Last modified on 17 April 2014, at 21:15