User talk:DTLHS
WT:ES#saltchuck
Please see this discussion. Thanks! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
DTLHS?
Differentiate The Left-Hand Side?
Don't Tease a Lady about Her Size?
Deflects Tournament Lances and Heraldic Shields?
—RuakhTALK 12:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Nadando
Do you have access to this account anymore, or not? If not, I'd like to propose removing its sysop rights and (if you like) granting your current account sysop rights. (Though if you can't actually prove you are Nadano, I suppose some people might want to wait until you've used your current account for more than just a few weeks before empowering it.) Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 04:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have no access to the account and I don't want sysop rights. DTLHS (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Your bot and indexing
So, I keep deleting and redeleting and redeleting a bunch of indices, like Index:Proto-Greek, and all the non-deletion edits seem to be done by your bot. Can you explain what's going on (i.e. why they keep getting created and tagged with {{d}})? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, it uses a rather crude comparison to try and detect which pages have been emptied between runs. I'll try to prevent that from happening again. DTLHS (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thank you. By the way, this proto-indexing is really awesome, but a bunch of living languages need indices too. Currently a few (like Italian) are upkept by User:Conrad.Irwin and a few (like Telugu) are upkept by means of manual hacks, but for most languages they are non-existent or woefully incomplete. Just a suggestion if you ever feel like exanding :) --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Can your bot handle proto-forms being called by an {{etyl}}/{{recons}} combination? For example, please see גע־#Etymology. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe?
{{proto}}makes indexing easy since all of the information is contained in one template. If we move to using{{etyl}}with{{recons}}I won't be able to match the term ("ga-") with the categorizing template (etyl|gem-pro|yi) without guessing. DTLHS (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC) - Actually, I'm going to change "maybe" to "no". This format (with the split between source language and source term) is the reason why it's impossible to generate any kind of structured data from Wiktionary etymologies in their current state. DTLHS (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think that User:CodeCat strongly favors the split approach, so I think now might be the time to inform her of this problem, if you're interested in doing so. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- The indexes don't really need the
{{etyl}}template, do they? I mean, is it relevant for an index that a certain Proto-Germanic term is the origin of an English word? —CodeCat 17:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)- Is it relevant? I guess that depends what you think the index is supposed to accomplish. I now can't distinguish between mentions of a reconstructed term and actual derivations. I started the project with the goal of showing etymological relationships, but now that that's no longer possible I could move into a more general approach. DTLHS (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh! I never realised that. I always used the indexes as just an easy way to see which reconstructed terms are being linked to. It has been very helpful in finding variant forms and fixing them to link to the entries we already have. For example if we have *-mn̥ and someone provides a link to *-men- instead, it will show up in the index so it can be spotted easily. It has also helped me find entries that do not use the canonical spelling for reconstructed terms (like ð instead of d in Germanic, or gh instead of gʰ). But in any case... I don't think things are as desperate as they seem. In almost all cases (like 99.9%) if the
{{recons}}template indicates a derivation, it is immediately preceded by{{etyl}}, or occasionally by one or more additional{{recons}}s preceded by{{etyl}}. So a derivation always has the format {{etyl|src|dst}} {{recons|word1|lang=src}}, {{recons|word2|lang=src}}... (both templates have optional parameters of course). If you could detect this, then it would be trivial to extend your bot to other reconstructed terms like in Vulgar Latin, and even attested languages that use{{term}}instead, like Old English (since the format of{{recons}}is identical to{{term}}in every way). —CodeCat 18:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)- Like I said, maybe. I'm skeptical that anywhere near 99.9% of etymologies can be assumed to follow that format, but I'll have to do some analysis to tell for sure what kind of quality I could get. Expect something later next week (no sooner than the 17th). DTLHS (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh! I never realised that. I always used the indexes as just an easy way to see which reconstructed terms are being linked to. It has been very helpful in finding variant forms and fixing them to link to the entries we already have. For example if we have *-mn̥ and someone provides a link to *-men- instead, it will show up in the index so it can be spotted easily. It has also helped me find entries that do not use the canonical spelling for reconstructed terms (like ð instead of d in Germanic, or gh instead of gʰ). But in any case... I don't think things are as desperate as they seem. In almost all cases (like 99.9%) if the
- Is it relevant? I guess that depends what you think the index is supposed to accomplish. I now can't distinguish between mentions of a reconstructed term and actual derivations. I started the project with the goal of showing etymological relationships, but now that that's no longer possible I could move into a more general approach. DTLHS (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Also, maybe more relevant is that not all reconstructions are listed as etymologies of others. For example, the
{{proto}}template allowed you to set lang= to empty, to indicate that it's merely to provide a link, rather than establish any etymology. If your bot could handle that case, could it not do the same here? —CodeCat 17:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- The indexes don't really need the
- I think that User:CodeCat strongly favors the split approach, so I think now might be the time to inform her of this problem, if you're interested in doing so. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
NadandoBot.
Would you like NadandoBot to be renamed to something more DTLHS-y? —RuakhTALK 12:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nah, the old name is fine. DTLHS (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Fissipedia
Why is that not a synonym? I didn't add it as one, so I don't care, but someone thought it was. If it is obsolete, then it might need some indication, but the flux of taxonomic terms seems considerable.
The general question of how to present older taxa and those with disputed circumscription is important for this class of entries. We need to present not just the "latest-and-therefore-best" sense, but the others as well. We need to favor the current ones in some way, even when they are not the most common in use. We have {{defdate}} available for marking when a new term, more correct by current understanding came into use. DCDuring TALK 13:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- To be clear, you're talking about diff this edit where I added Feliformia as a synonym? I removed it because from what I can see they are not synonymous- Fissipedia has (had) several families that are not in Feliformia. I apologize if this isn't what you meant.
- I agree with you about the importance of older taxa- I think that a comprehensive resource for obsolete synonyms and reclassifications would be hugely useful. I don't think that our current structure facilitates that when dealing with historical meanings in complex classification schemes. DTLHS (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- No problem about Fissipedia. I hadn't realized it was your addition.
- Our existing structure, using
{{taxon}}seems OK for valid current taxa. The difficulty is that each taxon is principally defined relative to its parent. For an invalid taxon that relationship is inherently problematic. For the older ones a large portion of the system may have changes so that the parent name is also obsolete. - Extinct taxa have their own challenges as their relationship to the structure of the living taxa seems quite problematic and subject to change as well.
- Even for current taxa there is a constant interposing of additional layers.
- For now I am hoping to categorize our taxon by their level (lost of progress, see Category:mul:Taxonomic names, get the etymology right, get images, and eliminate redlinks. I had started Wiktionary:Taxonomic names, but the most urgent tasks don't really require any votes or much expertise. Doing the urgent tasks is increasing my lexicographic knowledge about taxa a bit, but hardly at all my biological expertise. DCDuring TALK 05:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
WT:GP#Dump analysis request - Yiddish
No pressure, but if you're able to do it, I'd really appreciate it. If not, or if you don't want to, I understand. Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. To be clear, you're asking for pages with
א פ װ ױ ײin the title, excluding pages with{{yi-unpointed form of}}and excluding entries withאַ אָ פּ פֿin the title? DTLHS (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)- Almost. All right except that
אis OK if it is in the beginning (i.e. rightmost edge) of a title and immediately followed by either of the following:י ו. Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC) - In my defence, the reason that I keep typing < and > backward is that I'm switching between Hebrew and English keyboards faster than I'm typing, and the right-to-left equivalent is coming out :) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Almost. All right except that
Well, I only found 14 entries:
I'll check my code, I don't know if you were expecting more. DTLHS (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, there is something wrong with your code, but there is also something wrong with my instructions. I forgot to say that
ײַis one of the exceptions (i.e. it's also OK). I'm not sure why you only caught some pages like that, but not others. In any case, at least a few of these aren't false positives, so I'll fix them. Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
handle#Etymology 3
In this revision, as Nadando, you added an etymology for the nickname sense. It seems implausible and I can find no mention of it at Google Books, Scholar, or at the OneLook references. Where did you find it? Why do you believe it? DCDuring TALK 04:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
deletion templates
From a procedural standpoint you are correct about the RFV. I will use this tag in the future. On the other hand, the references I removed from those words pointed to blank pages. Would you agree? Kultur (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, because they could be valid entries some day. Red links in related terms sections are not a problem. DTLHS (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)