User talk:Alumnum/2017

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Eirikr in topic Def template
Archives
2014  • 2015  • 2016  • 2017  • 2018

Pronúncia paroxítona de civil edit

Não é só cível que é assim? — Ungoliant (falai) 16:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Essa palavra é um tanto estranha. Tem a mesma etimologia de civil e parece ter sido criada especificamente para ser um sinônimo de civil em sentidos jurídicos. Artigos da Wikipédia, como este, e a maioria das páginas pela web só empregam civil mesmo e essa distinção também parece não existir em espanhol, italiano ou francês. Pode ser que, se empregado em termos jurídicos, /'si.viw/ seja uma pronúncia válida para civil, mas não tenho certeza. Sinceramente não sei o que fazer. - Alumnum (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Linking to items in definitions edit

Please don't use {{l|en}} to link to items in definitions. Definitions are always in English so this is meaningless. If you want to make sure that the links go to the correct section, then use {{def}}. This template encloses the entire definition text (but not any label that precedes). —CodeCat 17:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, does using one template or another make an actual difference? As long as the entries stay the same, I don't see any. - Alumnum (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
There is a difference between them. {{def}} does less extra things, it only modifies the links, which makes it lighter. —CodeCat 18:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Alright then. - Alumnum (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Dutch mistakes edit

I went through some of your recent edits of Dutch entries and noticed some mistakes you made:

CodeCat 01:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the explanations and tips. If you don't mind, I'd appreciate if you keep letting me know of future mistakes you notice me making. Additionally, I think I can justify some of them:
  • I originally intended to create edelachtbaar as it is (an adjective), but since it's a translation of your Honor I thought it was used as a pronoun.
  • The diminutive of afsplitsing is afsplitsingetje according to the Dutch Wiktionary, which I usually take as a reference for new entries. See here.

- Alumnum (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • I fixed the diminutive in the Dutch Wiktionary too. Maybe someone somewhere out there says it that way, but it sounds weird to me.
  • Usually edelachtbare is used as a form of address. But it's really just a substantivised form of the adjective (i.e. it's a noun).
CodeCat 11:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • haverklap is certainly not inherited from Middle Dutch clap.
  • sterten doesn't actually exist in Middle Dutch.
  • The two etymologies of rekken should be split into sections accordingly. Plural forms of nouns are categorised separately from other noun forms in Dutch.
  • röntgen is a unit of measure. An x-ray picture is röntgenfoto.
  • Non-lemma forms shouldn't have derived terms, as on gronde.
  • opper is not an independent word, so words can't be compounds of it, like oppermachtig.
  • hersen is not an independent word either.

CodeCat 18:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Category:Dutch words prefixed with weg- edit

Don't create blank categories. Either create them with the text {{auto cat}} or wait for a bot to do it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Def template edit

There's no consensus for the universal deployment of this template, and if there were, it would be done by bot. Because we have to manually mark each of your edits as patrolled, what you're doing is a waste of both your time and of the admins' time. Please stop. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please stop adding this template. There isn't consensus for its use. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

There isn't consensus for its use, but there isn't either consensus not to use it. Adding this template to entries does not harm anything, so I wonder who's really wasting their time. - Alumnum (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
There is consensus not to use it. The RFDO discussion was closed as "delete" and the template will presumably be deleted once it has been removed from articles. Stop adding it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Can you provide the link to that discussion? - Alumnum (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
It's very easy to search a wiki. Among the many tools are plain search, plain search limited by namespace (eg, Wiktionary: ), "What links here". You can follow any clue and find your way quickly. DCDuring (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
I didn't see any clear consensus here. And the consensus here is against "allowing automatic and semi-automatic edits to ensure that all definitions of English entries are within {{def}}", which is not the case here. - Alumnum (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
The consensus was evaluated by administrator DTLHS; it is not your call to make. Stop adding the template. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Do admins have a special power in determining what is the consensus? There were 4 votes for and 4 votes against; that is not a consensus. It would be if most users have agreed upon a solution. I'm not going to stop using the template. - Alumnum (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Chiming in with data.
From the discussion at [[Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Template:def]], I compiled the following results. Editors who said "delete or deprecate" are counted as "delete"; those who said only "deprecate" are counted as "deprecate".
Name Delete Deprecate Keep Notes
Dan Polansky Delete
Angr Keep
Ungoliant Keep
SemperBlotto Delete
sche Delete
Erutuon Deprecate
Chuck Delete
CodeCat Keep for now
Dixtosa Delete
DCDuring Delete
Granger Delete
PseudoSkull Keep
Suzukaze-c Keep for now
DTLHS Delete
Alumnum Keep
Totals 8 1 6 (of which, 2 are "for now")
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Return to the user page of "Alumnum/2017".