User talk:Daniel Carrero/2016

Votes on EL

Hey. I think all of them need to be renamed to something more comprehensible. This one-word vote is an example. For future users ya know.--Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, that could be a good idea. But only a few of those didn't start yet and I wouldn't want to rename them after they already started.

I chose the name "language" because it's the language policy. It's the explanation of "language" in all entries. A longer name could be "Entry layout: Language section", I think. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I won't rename them unilaterally, but you can create a discussion at WT:RFM about that to see what others think. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Vote guy

Hey, vote guy. As you changed all the voting system, can you deal with putting Wiktionary:Votes/2016-01/Uncle G for de-sysop on the vote page, please? I'll add an extra beer to the invitation.--Stubborn Pen (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:sort:一/ja

Is Template:sort:一/ja a project that got anywhere? —suzukaze (t・c) 05:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I probably just created that one template, but I think it's obvious I had some kind of "auto-sorting of Japanese kanji" in mind. Which would be the work of a module nowadays. I took the liberty of deleting that template. The full contents of the template were: "一00". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Reordering L3 headers

(@-sche, as I believe this is of interest to you.) I think that a major long-running criticism of Wiktionary is how difficult it is to find the information one is looking for. A good way to deal with this would be colour-coding, which some other language Wiktionaries use to some degree, but I expect that'd get a poor reception among Wiktionarians here, so a less aggressive approach would be to push Alternative forms (and maybe Pronunciation) after the definitions except when sorted by multiple etymologies where those sections apply to all etymologies, or something along those lines. I'm not tied to any single approach, but I think that we could make great strides in user-friendliness by thinking about how to push the information people want most to the top. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Angr (IIRC) has pointed out that one difference between how we present etymologies vs how other dictionaries do is that ours have big headers that take up a lot of space. A reason for putting alternative forms at the top of entries is to confirm to people that they've reached the right word, when e.g. they spell it kinnikinnik but our main entry is kinnikinnick, or when there are UK vs NZ vs etc differences... but the "Alternative forms" header usually (not at kinnikinnick, but usually) takes up more space than the one or two alt forms themselves. There's wasted space to the right of all the headers. Other online dictionaries tend to fill that space, e.g. putting inflection info that we put on the headword line next to the POS declaration, or putting pronunciation info there. If we could do that, resulting in an appearence like this, it might be an improvement, separate from any re-arrangement of headers. It would require us to eschew ===This type of header=== for those sections, though. De.Wikt does eschew ===These=== for unimportant headers — though they leave all the empty whitespace to the right of the pseudo-headers — so we know it's doable and doesn't make entries too hard to edit.

We could also streamline pronunciation sections by making the IPA the link to the audio file. One entries that had only a few pronunciations, the pronunciation section could fit on a single line. This is how other online dictionaries do it.

I don't like the idea of colours, unless you mean only to colour all the POS headers with the same neutral colour like de.Wikt does. Using different colours for different sections would be an accessibility issue (for colourblind people), and colouring the entire section would be visually unpleasant / distracting (garish), in my view. - -sche (discuss) 07:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I like how French Wiktionary formats their headings. —CodeCat 15:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comparing between the POS header styles of dewikt and frwikt, I like the latter more. I'd probably support using that format here.
• I support placing "Alternative forms" after the definitions. One reason is: "Alternative forms" are very similar to "Synonyms", to the extent that I've seen occasionally the same word linked in both headers in the same entry.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Overall, the French style seems better than what we do, I agree. The reason I'm leaving this here is (as usual) laziness; I care about this issue, but I don't know how much effort in BP discussions or polling will be necessary until a vote on it can be created, so I am not especially eager to get the ball rolling on that myself, and I'm hoping one of you will do that soon. By the way, another idea that has been floated before is autocollapsed etymologies, but I'm not sold on that yet. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Vote templates

I hope you understand what I did in these three edits and why I did it. --WikiTiki89 16:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, thanks! --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

propose a vote to rename (1) i -> q; (2) italbrac -> qualifier q; (3) qualifier -> q?

Hi, since you've been proposing lots of votes lately I wonder if you'd be willing to propose another one along the vein of the {{term}} -> {{m}} and {{cx}} -> {{lb}} change. This was originally suggested by User:CodeCat but I agree with the gist of it. Basically, {{i}} and the longer-form {{italbrac}} are synonyms for {{q}}/{{qual}}/{{qualifier}}, but have sub-optimal names because the names suggest a specific formatting convention (italics + paren) when they really are intended to have a sort of semantic function. So I'd suggest a 4-part vote:

1. Vote to bot-substitute {{i}} -> {{q}}
2. Vote to bot-substitute {{italbrac}} -> {{qualifier}} (or to {{q}} if part 3 passes)
3. Vote to bot-substitute {{qualifier}} -> {{q}}
4. Vote to bot-substitute {{qual}} -> {{q}}

I imagine (1) and (2) will pass easily; I'm not sure about (3) or (4) since some people have voiced objections to the shorter names and there are already bots that try to rename {{i}} to {{qualifier}}.

Benwing2 (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I don't mind creating the vote page for this. Should we create a BP (or maybe a GP) discussion right now to get feedback from other people? Are there any other discussions about this move? If the answer is yes, then I should link to the discussions from the vote.

I'd like to get one thing out of the way: I don't know if other people would rather use RFM than a vote. IMO, a vote would be the better option in this case, because this change involves a major template. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

User:CodeCat posted recently suggesting something like this: See Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others near the bottom (don't know how to link to a section containing brackets in it). I also just posted to the bottom of Wiktionary:Grease pit/2016/February about not having bots make changes like this until we get consensus. Benwing2 (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I edited the discussion title because I found it hard to link to it using the original title. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikisaurus and link parameter

Years ago, you wanted {{ws}} and {{ws header}} use link= parameter while I insisted on hyperlink= parameter. Given recent trends in short template names supported by a supermajority in Wiktionary:Votes/2015-11/term → m; context → label; usex → ux, and given how easy to understand link= seems to be:

Switching {{ws}} and {{ws header}} to link= (while keeping hyperlink= for compatibility with old page revisions) seems to be in order.

What do you think? Would you change the templates to support the short link= form? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: Sorry, I left your message unaswered for quite a long time.

Regardless of what my opinions were years ago, what I think now is this:

Yes, in my opinion "link=" is much better than "hyperlink=". But I'd rather use {{ws|word|link=-}} with an hyphen there, to make it clear that the parameter "link" is doing something. To someone unacquainted with the template, it is not obvious that the "link=" (or "hyperlink=") in {{ws|word|link=}} has any meaning.

Yes, I would change the templates to support the short link= form and would keep hyperlink= for compatibility with old page revisions.

What do you think about using "|link=-" with the hyphen?

In order to prepare for the change, I populated Category:ws header unlinked and Category:ws unlinked with the pages that are going to be affected. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I prefer link= without hyphen; the empty value of the parameter stands for "no link" quite well, IMHO. However, if other people prefer hyphen, I admit that it seems to be a matter of taste. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done, albeit admittedly 9 months after you asked it.

• I edited {{ws}} and {{ws header}} to accept link= (empty) meaning "no link".
• Both templates still accept hyperlink= (empty) meaning "no link", for backward compatibility.
• I updated their documentations to mention link= instead of hyperlink=.
• I edited all Wikisaurus entries to use link= instead of hyperlink=.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. The waiting payed off :). Ask and ye shall receive. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Redlinks categories

What's the point with this, apparently new category: [1]? It is empty, although there must be thousands of Finnish-to-Finnish and English-to-Finnish redlinks. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Now the page lists läheltä although I see no redlinks in the entry. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems that parempaan is on the list because "parempi" is put last in the template line, i.e. like this:

{{fi-form of|case=illative|pl=singular|parempi}}

If one changes the line to this format:

{{fi-form of|parempi|case=illative|pl=singular}},

the word parempaan will disappear from the redlinks list. This is an unnecessary and probably unintentional feature. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why Abyssinian is listed. No Finnish redlink there. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Likewise with aardvark and viitisenkymmentä. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hekaheka:

• When you saw any category like Category:Finnish redlinks with terms appearing or disappearing, it was because I was testing Module:redlink category and Template:redlink category to see if it was possible to populate all redlinks categories at once.
• I checked the code of {{fi-form of}} and I don't think the order of parameters should change whether an entry is categorized in Category:Finnish redlinks. That template uses {{m}} to link to your example word "parempi" and that always makes the redlink to be categorized if "parempi" is a redlink. Probably the entries just appeared and disappeared when you checked because I was coincidentally fiddling with the redlink template/module at the time.
• At some point I made a mistake that caused entries like Abyssinian, aardvark and viitisenkymmentä to be categorized too, but that was quickly fixed.
• Turns out if I populate the categories for all languages, it causes module errors in about 200 entries (as far as I know) with many links, like language, water and eye. Apparently I can populate a few categories without generating any errors, so I populated only Category:Portuguese redlinks, Category:Italian redlinks and Category:Russian redlinks. I deleted all other categories.
• Do you think you would use Category:Finnish redlinks? I should probably be able to populate it too, but I'd prefer doing it only for languages that I suspect someone will use the categories. :)

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to populate or empty any redlink category, just add/remove the language code from Template:redlink category. But for any language code you add, I'd check for any errors afterwards in CAT:E. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying populating Category:Finnish redlinks. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I would probably use the Finnish redlinks category. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad to know. I already populated Category:Finnish redlinks and it didn't cause any module errors. Feel free to use it and its subcategories. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you please limit this to mainspace entries (or at least exclude the Appendix namespace)? It seems like a waste of resources to do this for Swadesh lists. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: It's limited to mainspace entries already. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I was mistaken about the module being invoked, but still: if you view the html source for Appendix:Slavic Swadesh lists you find this:

Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template)

100.00% 10871.175 1 - -total

94.64% 10288.668 3402 - Template:l

14.74% 1602.139 3402 - Template:redlink_category

6.77% 735.935 327 - Template:isValidPageName

1.96% 212.786 1 - Template:Swadesh_list_family

1.47% 159.633 3 - Template:Swadesh_list_family/langs

0.40% 43.932 1 - Template:Swadesh_list_family/fams

0.20% 21.733 301 - Template:l/sh/Latn

0.20% 21.658 301 - Template:l/sh/Cyrl

0.13% 14.661 1 - Template:wikipedia

Note that {{isValidPageName}} is called 327 times, which is, coincidentally, the number of instances of {{l|ru}} in the wikitext. Given that this is the wrong namespace, that should be zero. The namespace test should be before the language code test and the isValidPageName test, since it's much simpler, uses less resources, and failing it means everything else is irrelevant. I'm sure that, if you did that, the 14.74% of execution time figure for {{redlink_category}} would drop dramatically. Given that the figures for the {{l}} and {{redlink_category}} overlap, that should mean the 94.64% for {{l}} should drop, too. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right. I fixed {{redlink_category}} to make the namespace test go before the language code test and the isValiePageName test as you said. Now the transclusion expansion time report of Appendix:Slavic Swadesh lists is this, after a null edit:

Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template)

100.00% 12223.118 1 - -total

94.57% 11559.225 3398 - Template:l

6.74% 823.886 3398 - Template:redlink_category

1.71% 208.948 1 - Template:Swadesh_list_family

1.28% 155.908 3 - Template:Swadesh_list_family/langs

0.33% 40.731 1 - Template:Swadesh_list_family/fams

0.22% 26.701 301 - Template:l/sh/Latn

0.22% 26.536 301 - Template:l/sh/Cyrl

0.20% 24.241 1 - Template:wikipedia

0.14% 16.508 1 - Template:lang

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Vote timeline

Hi Daniel, don't forget to do this. This, that and the other (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot completely! Ok, thanks! --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

traduções

Como diz‐se egg roll? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 09:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really sure, I don't recall hearing that food name often in conversation or reading it in written Portuguese. Most likely, people here in Brazil would just use "egg roll" or sometimes translate it like this: "rolo de ovos". Some Google searches seem to confirm this. None of these two are citable from Google Books, but you would make yourself understood using them nonetheless. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Não comem‐se no Brasil? Achava que muitos asiáticos emigravam aí. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 10:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, there's, this one: spring roll = rolinho primavera (mind the diminutive) (no doubts about it; also, it's citable on Google Books)

Next time I go to Liberdade (district of São Paulo), I can check out if they use any other name for egg rolls that I didn't mention out of ignorance. Probably next week or so. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

w:Egg rolls are a Chinese-American invention. I'm not sure they know about them in Asia. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: When did Brazil move to Asia? --WikiTiki89 14:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It hasn't, but Asians have moved to Brazil (in Beginning Mandarin at UCLA 3 decades ago, I sat next to a Chinese girl from South America, so it's not a new phenomenon). Romanophile expressed surprise that egg rolls apparently aren't eaten in Brazil, since they have a significant Asian community there. My point was that Asians might not be familiar with egg rolls, unless they're familiar with US cuisine. Not that long ago, a restaurant opened in China that was the first to serve American-style Chinese food, and it was quite a revelation to the Chinese. Some of the foods we associate most with Chinese food in the US like chop suey, egg rolls and fortune cookies are American inventions. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

affix vs prefix/suffix

Hi ! I notice that you've been using the affix temp over prefix/suffix...is there any particular reason for it ? Leasnam (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, {{affix}} is better than the other two because:

1. It uses the actual entry name with the hyphen at all times (like bi- instead of bi for the prefix).
2. It does everything {{prefix}} and {{suffix}} do, plus it accepts interfixes like -i-.
3. If I want to just say "-er" without specifying the previous parameter, I can choose between {{suffix|en||er}} and {{affix|en|-er}}. The latter is simpler, because I don't have to use the 1st parameter as an empty parameter. I can simply use "-er" as the 1st parameter and the template recognizes that it is a suffix because of the hyphen.
4. Apart from {{prefix}} and {{suffix}}, don't get me started on {{confix}} and {{infix}}. Using a single template, I don't have to remember the differences between all of those or have to choose among them. (that said, {{affix}} can't be used as a replacement for {{circumfix}})
5. {{prefix}} and {{suffix}} allow "lang=en" and {{affix}} does not. I like to remove the "lang=en" from affixes, so I'm glad to go all the way and replace them by {{affix}} in the process.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Thank you ! Leasnam (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Entries like /* */

Hi. These are not in human languages so I don't think we can include them. The APL symbols I added were deleted, for instance, and we don't include programming keywords unless used in English. Equinox ◑ 09:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

(I fixed your title.) That's okay I guess. I saw some older entries like -- (decrement operator) and $ (a bunch of random programming stuff) so I guessed it would be nice to create more entries like these. For reference, all related entries should be at: Category:mul:Programming and Category:mul:Computing. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Some programming language operators have made their way at least minimally into human language. The ones that have not should be deleted, in my opinion. It's quite possible that some people humorously use comment notation in written human communication, but it has to be attested before we can include it. --WikiTiki89 17:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

niiice

Do you think that we should just create a template for elongated forms? Kind of like {{altform}}. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 05:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sure. I created {{elongated form of}} now.

For the record, I dislike the fact that some alt form templates that used to end with a dot by default don't end with a dot anymore. In my opinion, it would be better if all definition templates (including "abbreviation of", "plural of", etc.) started with a capital letter and ended with a dot by default. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

How do you see entries like smaaart, niiice, etc. actually helping any real human being with the English language? Okay, if there's a pure robot/machine that knows nothing, and wants to check what a word is, this might be useful. But for a learner, imagine a learner seeing this and thinking "oh, so niiice is an English word that I can use!"; this will make them write weird, strange English and fail essays. I don't know the correct solution here, but I feel we should be explaining somehow (WikiGrammar, a new project?) "you can repeat a letter to suggest a long, extended vocal pronunciation" rather than creating entries for every possible case. It's a bit like "leet" hackerspeak: you can write d0g, b0g, w0g for dog, bog, wog, but this is done by a rule from the original spelling, and they aren't usefully separate words. Equinox ◑ 05:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

For reference, arguments about whether we should have entries like these in the first place are at Wiktionary:Votes/2014-01/Treatment of repeating letters and syllables. (passed 10-3-1, you supported the vote) Anyway, I'll stop creating these entries for now, but I'll finish moving the existing entries from Category:English elongated terms to Category:English elongated forms. That vote is evidence that people want entries like these, but if Wiktionarians change their mind and decide they don't want these entries anymore, personally I should be fine with that, too.

About the problem of a learner thinking "oh, so niiice is an English word that I can use!": I added a comment "(nonstandard, for emphasis)" in all entries that use {{elongated form of}}, including niiice. It's just an idea, I can remove that comment if people don't like it, but at least that learner is less likely to commit a mistake based on that entry. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I should add, it feels to me that niiice has some non-obvious difference in tone or usage from nice but I wasn't able to put into words in the entry. Certainly suuure and riiight are usually sarcastic, and this fact should be mentioned somewhere. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. But I think the difference is more in pronunciation than in spelling. I mean, you already know the word nice; you say it in a drawn-out, sarcastic way (step 2); and then someone tries to write down what you said, to capture the sarcasm (step 3). I feel as though some of this stuff is... I wanted to say grammar, but it's not. Let's say "extralexical". The wiki family does have a gap for something that would tell us about grammar rules (French ne...pas, English inversion [should he wish to do it], etc.) and stuff like snowclones, but it doesn't seem to fit in mainspace. I suppose appendices are as good a place as any, for now. Equinox ◑ 01:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Another thing one could reasonably say is that, when any word is pronounced in a markedly strange way, that might be a sign of sarcasm (at least in English, or some Western cultures). I think it was the comedy The Fast Show where a person had a naturally sarcastic voice and his own (foolish) opinions were constantly interpreted as ironic and therefore excellent. Equinox ◑ 02:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the notion that "when any word is pronounced in a markedly strange way, that might be a sign of sarcasm (at least in English, or some Western cultures)" is not obvious and could be mentioned somewhere, you're aware I created Appendix:Repetition, which I'd hope could serve at least as a stub. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• We're not paper, and they are words, after all. No reason not to let him create them (but they should be templated so we can keep track of them, of course). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

  My feeling is that sometimes Daniel wants to create entries for things that can't be properly captured that way, like the repetition, or (making up an example here) the fact that saying something really loud might mean that you are angry. I think Appendix:Repetition is much better than creating a zillion entries for shiiit, maaan, hooouse, etc. but I also find myself wondering who is going to find and/or use something like Appendix:Shouting. The NOTPAPER rule is only valid as long as the search/navigation facilities are good enough to avoid what you don't want! Equinox ◑ 02:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

  I think it was good that I created a few entries like these. Not only they were accepted by vote (and I checked that all of the entries to see that they are very easily citable), it started some discussion about it. No need to rush, let's see what you want to do with these entries. As mentioned in that vote, that list could sure be theoretically expanded into a gajillion (finite) number of "elongated" entries. Maybe less entries than one would think. Like: "cuuuter" looks unciteable, but "cuuutest" is clearly citable. Figures. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

On the topic of things that aren't actually "entries", I've been meaning to create Appendix:Superscript and Appendix:Subscript for a while now, but never got around to it. I'll try and do it now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

®

Not a huge deal. But consider the normal-sized copyright sign, "© 2016 D.Carrero", versus the typically small and upper-right reg-TM sign, "Wiktionazi^®". I've put superscript markup there! But on real objects and products, you don't see it the same size as the rest of the text, do you? It's small and upper-right. I think it's just like TM. Equinox ◑ 02:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I just quickly looked at how ® renders in my screen as non-superscript and didn't think twice before removing it from that page. Yeah, not like a huge deal as you said, but I'll put it there again, maybe between . --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

antecorax

What do you mean by using {{also|Cochlidium}}? This is a nonstandard use of the template. DTLHS (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. I copied cochlidium into antecorax and forgot to remove {{also|Cochlidium}}. Now I removed it. Thanks for showing me that. :) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

acreditavelmente

Do you have any sources for this word? Judging from Books & Groups, it’s extremely rare. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 01:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually not, so I deleted the entry.

"Can you act believably like you were drunk?" = "Você pode agir como se estivesse realmente bêbado?" --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Wanted entries

Why this page instead of Wiktionary:Requested entries (English)? DTLHS (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

No reason. I've been using WT:WE for requests of redlinks in multiple languages (mostly English), except I've been using WT:RE:pt for Portuguese requests that may or may not be redlinks. As far as I'm concerned, I could have used WT:REE, maybe I just got used to WT:WE. If anything, it's easier to add new words at the bottom of WT:WE than placing them in the alphabetical order of WT:REE, and WT:WE seems to have higher visibility since it's linked from the "active list" in the recent changes and the watchlist, and sometimes words I added appear on the "active list" itself. (I added strict construction to WT:WE.) Plus I introduced the idea of having multiple pages like Wiktionary:Wanted entries/en so it should be easy to see the English requests only. I don't know if I should be using WT:REE because of the {{REEHelp}} template. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

cotarnine

I think you broke the ety. The claimed "anagram" isn't one! Equinox ◑ 09:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fixed now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

halfdemon etc.

If the hyphenated form is hugely more common, as I suspect, it would make sense to have that as the main entry, and the very rare hyphenless form as an alt form, marked "rare". Equinox ◑ 12:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

gambler

Why did you revert my edit here? ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I misclicked and reverted your edit by mistake, sorry. I un-reverted it already. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, no worries. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

bor with nocap

I'm curious what changes you're planning to make with this category. Personally, I think it would be better to replace instances of nocap with notext, adding the text manually into the entry where necessary. What do you think? —CodeCat 14:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I personally think that {{bor}} should be changed to work just like {{inh}} and not display any extra text. --WikiTiki89 14:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but this change is a necessary first step towards that. —CodeCat 14:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a half step, when you could just as easily take a full step. --WikiTiki89 15:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) In my opinion, replacing instances of nocap with notext, adding the text manually into the entry where necessary, could work as a step in the direction of removing the "Borrowing from" text altogether from the template. I saw your comment in WT:RFM#Template:borrowing and I support and agree with it: "We could get rid of the text from the template altogether, and add it manually to the entries instead. Then it would work like {{der}} and {{inh}}, which don't include text either." I consider it an annoying inconsistency that {{bor}} currently returns "borrowing from" while {{inh}} and {{der}} do not return "inherited from" and "derived from", respectively. In fact, I've seen many entries, with code like "{{bor|it|en}} and {{der|it|fr}}", which apparently means "borrowed from English and French" but the second template was {{der}} (or {{etyl}}), likely to avoid showing up "borrowing from" twice or the need to use "notext=1".

That said, I believe Category:bor with nocap is important, because I'd like to know what are the entries that use "a borrowing from". In most other cases, (that is, when you just use {{bor|xx|yy|word}}, and it is not in the middle of a sentence), I believe "Borrowed from X" is the best option. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The text should be changed to "borrowed" once that is possible, and the nocap= parameter removed. —CodeCat 15:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

There seem to be a fair number of (mostly Latvian?) entries that use nocap= just so that they can say "A borrowing" instead, which is rather silly. A bot could remove the text in front and the parameter, so that it just says "borrowing" instead. Would this be ok? —CodeCat 15:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, your idea looks good to me. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

antecedaneous

What is this -ane- component you put in the etymology with a red link? Are you sure this is the right ety? Equinox ◑ 13:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I reverted my edit. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The same for freakazoid. You can't just break up any word into recognisable pieces, and treat the rest as fragments. The ety has to show how the word was actually formed. Equinox ◑ 14:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

OK. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Module:auto cat

I think this is a bit of a misuse of the module. It's specifically intended just for selecting the right template and providing its parameters. You've instead made it into a real category template, so that there is no "real" template that this can forward to. —CodeCat 20:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not finished with the code for letter categories yet. Should I create something like Template:letter cat (together with Module:letter cat) and make Template:auto cat provide the parameters to the letter template? That could be done, but it feels to me like an unnecessary duplication. In the long term, I think it would be nice deleting {{poscatboiler}}, {{charactercat}}, etc. (like {{affixcatboiler}} and a few others were deleted in the past) IMO, we don't need the other templates if just {{auto cat}} is able to do all the work. I don't mind creating a separate module like Module:letter cat to avoid clutter in Module:auto cat, though. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was getting at. There's not so much duplication if you realise that in some instances, we can't use {{auto cat}}. For example, with {{suffixcat}}, if Latin needs macrons on the term, they have to be provided manually and can't be deducted by {{auto cat}}. —CodeCat 21:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd still like to reiterate my request. Module:auto cat is not supposed to implement any templates, merely select them. Can you please move the code somewhere else? —CodeCat 14:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I moved the code of the Unicode blocks categories to Module:category tree/blocks. If possible, I'd like not to use a middle man template in this case, because we won't ever need to place parameters manuallly for Unicode block categories. We'll always be able to use {{autocat}}. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Letter categories

The idea as such is pretty good, but are we going to end up for thousands of categories for all of the Chinese characters too? Also, you may want to modify {{charactercat}} to categorise it in there somehow, but again you'll end up with thousands of them. See Category:Japanese terms by their individual characters... —CodeCat 23:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that the idea as such is pretty good. But I feel that what I'm currently doing is different than what {{charactercat}} is doing. We can still use {{charactercat}}, but it would have to be adapted somehow.

I created {{charactercat}}, CAT:Japanese terms by their individual characters and CAT:English terms by their individual characters a few years ago. As I know you're aware, they are about categorizing entries that contains certain characters. And the Japanese version already has 4,264 subcategories.

Today I created these categories: Category:Aa, Category:Áá, Category:Bb, etc. They are about categorizing appendices listing the letters of a certain language, like Appendix:Letters/English, Appendix:Letters/Portuguese—and possibly Appendix:Letters/Dutch in the future.

As it stands, we have:

• CAT:English terms spelled with É => contains entries like café and fiancée
• CAT:Éé => contains Appendix:Letters/Portuguese and Appendix:Letters/Spanish

I'm still trying to figure out what would be the best category tree. CAT:English terms spelled with É should probably be a member of CAT:Éé. Also it's inconsistent using "É" in one category and "Éé" in the other. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Grammar in WT:EL

Hey. I'd change "If someone tries accessing the entry with incorrect capitalization, the software will try to redirect to the correct page automatically." to " If someone tries to access the entry with incorrect capitalization, the software will try to redirect to the correct page automatically.". Wanna change it for me? --Turnedlessef (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, WF.  Done --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'd try to get the following bits deleted...

It is almost always in a level two heading

• Almost always? Surely always?!?!

...it seemed to make sense when it was first chosen...

• It's confusing.

References are becoming more important as we strive to improve the reliability of Wiktionary. While we may be lax in demanding references for words that are easily found in most paper dictionaries, references for more obscure words are essential. References may be added in a separate header of adequately chosen level or added directly to specific senses.

• Not true, we prefer citations, surely?

...with the possible exception of “References”

• As above

And get stuff added here:

For audio pronunciations, upload the Ogg file to Commons and link here using Template

audio or the cool new way that has recently appeared.

I got bored after that. --Turnedlessef (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed the "almost" about languages. But I didn't do the other edits. Frankly, WT:EL is a mess and in my opinion you correctly listed some wrong rules or otherwise confusing/annoying statements. You did not specify if you expected me to edit WT:EL right now or if you expected a vote, but anyway I guess we need a vote to write the "right" text. Last time I tried to edit a large portion of WT:EL without a vote, this discussion was created, to ask EL to be restored to the previous version: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/October#Restoring WT:ELE.

I actually created a vote (Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Remove "The essentials") about removing the whole "The essentials" because IMO it's just a small, out of date duplication of "Language" (voted here), "Part of speech" (voted here) and "References" (voted here). I created votes to try and improve these three separate sections because I'd like to say: "we already have good sections for the contents of 'The essentials', so let's kill it already." (or maybe edit "The essentials" somehow if people want) I didn't start the vote Remove "The essentials" yet because I have 4 votes listed in {{votes}} at the moment. (one of those is going to end today) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

What it really should be condensed down to is one single line of something like "make sure the entry follows more or less that of whatever ideal page." --Turnedlessef (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd probably support having some sort of condensed intro, but I oppose linking WT:EL to an "ideal entry" until further discussion. People might disagree on what constitutes an ideal page and it might not be ideal forever; it would probably need constant checking to see if it's still good. (Like, the page may have good formatting at the time but in 10 years it may not have some new templates that most other entries are using: an "ideal" page would use {{etyl}} at some point, today I'd prefer {{der}}. Also, we can't guarantee it's not missing senses, languages, quotations, images for multiple senses and pronunciations for multiple dialects, which are not layout issues but in some way they make the entry less worthy of being called "ideal".)

See WT:EL#Additional headings. "Additional headings" is a large section that does not contain what the title promises, but it does have a large "typical entry", which I think qualifies as our "ideal page", even though it has a few painful mistakes that ought to be fixed. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked, any word that has been in WOTD is typically a pretty good entry. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

pois não

Could you explain the logic behind this phrase (for both meanings)? It seems a bit counterintuitive. --WikiTiki89 20:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89:  Done, I think. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm still confused: pois does not mean "how". --WikiTiki89 15:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89: I'm not 100% sure. Explaining the logic behind "pois não" feels a bit nonsensical even to me as a native speaker, even tough I know it is a real, common expression. I tried looking up its origins on the internet. I feel that "pois" should be interpreted as "so", as in the beginning of a sentence: "so, ..." I updated the etymology to reflect that. I'm not sure I can improve the etymology further. @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, would you change anything in the etymology of pois não? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

picanha

Hey. picanha is just rump steak, right? --Allkokf009 (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Allkokf009: Yes, apparently. I'll believe what w:Picanha says. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

dot and dash

Can I create dot and dash patterns as Morse code? Is there any discussion what symbols to use with this? (There are many variants of dot and dash in Unicode.) --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea, but we need to see if other people are OK with it. I created this discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/August#Proposal: Creating entries for Morse code characters. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

flood#Portuguese

The current pronunciation says /ˈflɐd͡ʒ/, but shouldn't it be /ˈflɐd͡ʒi/? (also @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV) --WikiTiki89 12:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89: My IPA skills are not very good, but I'd say the correct pronunciation is: /ˈflɔ:di/. Correct me if I'm wrong, @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV.

I'm a native speaker from São Paulo city, in São Paulo state, Brazil. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89 Both /ˈflɐd͡ʒ/ and /ˈflɐd͡ʒi/ are used. I’ve never heard /ˈflɔ:di/. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: Just to clarify, is the final /i/ ever dropped in words that actually have a final -e, like cidade? Or is the lack of final /-i/ an actual distinguishing factor between these sorts of loans and native words? --WikiTiki89 11:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not a native speaker but I've heard people say e.g. [sɛt͡ʃ] for sete in place of normative [ˈsɛt͡ʃi]. AFAIK this is a casual pronunciation, and I imagine the same applies to final [d͡ʒ] vs. [d͡ʒi]. I doubt this has anything to do with native words vs. loanwords, but applies on the pronunciation level, regardless of spelling. Benwing2 (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

usex

{{usex}} is currently a redirect to {{ux}} :o is it not suppose to be listed because it's deprecated, or... ??? -Xbony2 (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not see that {{usex}} was currently a redirect to {{ux}}. I reverted your edit, then reverted the edit that make {{usex}} be a redirect to {{ux}}. Ongoing discussion about it: User talk:Dan Polansky#Template:usex. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Brazilian pronunciation

Daniel, what is the Brazilian Standard Pronunciation of the geographic name, Rodrigo de Freitas, which is a lagoon in Rio-de-Janeiro?

Is this correct: /ʁo.ˈdɾi.ɡu d͡ʒɪ ˈfɾej.tɐʃ/ ?

I am especially unsure of the final -s (-s or -ʃ). Thanks. —Stephen ^(Talk) 06:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker but I'll venture to say that the pronunciation of the final -s will probably depend on where the speaker is from. Rio speakers will say /ʃ/ whereas most others will say /s/ (probably regardless of the fact that the place itself is in Rio). In other words there isn't a single Brazilian Standard Pronunciation. Benwing2 (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

BTW I hate the use of /ʁ/ for Brazilian Portuguese. I have never ever heard [ʁ] used for this sound, which AFAIK is always pronounced unvoiced (except maybe preceding a voiced obstruent) and should be written /χ/. I know that this is sort-of kind-of supposed to be a compromise between standard [χ]/[h] and the [r] used by some speakers (and the [ɹ] used in syllable codas by some other speakers) but IMO it does a poor job of this. Benwing2 (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I tend to take IPA with a grain of salt. Mainly I use it for letters that can have multiple pronunciations (that I probably already know), and I just need a way to see which pronunciation is needed for a given word. As for Portuguese r, /ʁ/ seems to be the usual choice. See w:Portuguese phonology. Even though the IPA for r in many words is ʁ, the actual pronunciation varies. —Stephen ^(Talk) 20:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Well [ʁ] is the most common pronunciation in Portugal (other than in the North), but like Benwing, I rarely hear that from Brazilians (but I wouldn't quite say never); I usually hear [h] from Brazilians. --WikiTiki89 21:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It is correct that Rio speakers will say /ʃ/. See this video, at 17s the speaker says Rodrigo de Freitas with /ʃ/. Other words such as "estão" and "vocês", he also speaks with /ʃ/. That is Rio accent.

I think /ʁo.ˈdɾi.ɡu d͡ʒɪ ˈfɾej.tɐʃ/ is correct Rio accent, but you may want a second opinion. São Paulo speakers (like myself) will say /s/. I believe I would say: /ˈfɾej.tas/ (instead of /ˈfɾej.tɐʃ/). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I know there are different dialects in Brazil, and the accents in Rio, São Paulo, and Brasilia surely must be acceptable pronunciations. —Stephen ^(Talk) 18:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for guidance

I simply want to mark English words by the number of syllables so it will be easier to teach friends who are learning English. Apparently boldly creating the categories is not the way to do it, as they were deleted in less than a day. (I don't know why there wasn't a Request for Deletion, just a bold deletion.} How do I accomplish what I want to do ? — This unsigned comment was added by Bcent1234 (talk • contribs).

@Bcent1234: Please sign your messages with four tildes: ~~~~.

The method you used to populate English syllable was generating faulty results. The method works to populate Portuguese and Spanish categories, but not English. Therefore, the other editor was correct to revert your change without creating a discussion first. Please don't take it personally.

I'm the person who created that Beer parlour discussion in February; I am interested in populating English syllable categories. To accomplish that, I'm thinking of editing the IPA module (Module:IPA), which may not work, or create a new template. But I don't have time right now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Module:IPA

Curious what you're up to with that test category. I hope you're not to remove all cases of "lang=en", because I prefer explicit language codes and no exceptions for English. —CodeCat 21:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat: I am interested in testing to see if, in principle, we can populate English syllable categories using the IPA module. (It may not work, and I would revert my edits.) I stopped in the middle of the work; I don't have time to spend on Wiktionary at the moment.

You may rest assured that I don't intend to remove all cases of "lang=en". I prefer explicit language codes and no exceptions for English, too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If possible, it would be better to use a (pseudo-)userspace module (such as Module:User:Daniel Carrero/IPA) for testing, rather than the live IPA module. --WikiTiki89 20:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

How would that accomplish what Daniel is trying to do? —CodeCat 20:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

How would it not work? Pretty much anything can be made to work that way. But I can't explain exactly how without knowing exactly what Daniel is doing. But it seems to me that he could take a sample of English IPA transcriptions and attempt to syllabify them without messing with the live IPA module. --WikiTiki89 21:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a tracking category. Its purpose is to track and analyse existing use of a module/template. You can't do that with a userspace module. —CodeCat 21:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not a tracking category. Or if it is all it's tracking is when the language code is "en", which is the same as Category:English terms with IPA pronunciation. --WikiTiki89 21:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I was able to successfully populate categories for English entries with 3 or more syllables. (not counting English entries with a space or hyphen in the page title) I apologize because my edits caused module errors to appear for a moment, but I fixed the problem already. I used Module:Sandbox for some tests per Wikitiki89's suggestion. I used Module:IPA directly for other edits and tests. I probably could have used the module sandbox more. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

When you two looked at the code of the module, I had added a category that was tracking when the language code is "en", which is really redundant to Category:English terms with IPA pronunciation. But my intention was to use multiple tracking categories for different purposes, that are subsets of that one. For example, one category for English terms that use {{IPA}} without any syllable marker. I created and removed a few tracker categories quickly. But I just named them with variations of "Category:Daniel Carrero's test category". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

For the future, maybe you can name your personal categories the same way we name personal modules: Category:User:Daniel Carrero and "subpages" of it. —CodeCat 00:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I don't mind either way. I've been thinking of creating a shortcut. I could have Category:User:Daniel Carrero and CAT:U:DC or something. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

That might confuse people, since DC would be a logical abbreviation for DCDuring. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I could use CAT:U:DCAR or something. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think any shortcut should be necessary. This isn't something that a lot of people are going to have to type very often. --WikiTiki89 14:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Many of the entries in Category:English 2-syllable words are definitely not 2 syllables. DTLHS (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

And I realize this is probably a problem with the entries and not the module, but I question the utility of these categories unless someone is willing to go through all of them and fix any problems. DTLHS (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is with the module as far as I can tell. The IPA transcriptions I see are perfectly fine. --WikiTiki89 14:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This should absolutely not be live while it has obvious errors like 4x4 and abacinate listed as two syllables. Please disable and move to a test area. Equinox ◑ 14:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. In fact I've already asked Daniel above to use a test module. --WikiTiki89 14:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do as you asked and empty Category:English 1-syllable words and Category:English 2-syllable words. Ideally, if all entries had the correct IPA syllable markers, then all categories would be already populated correctly. The module is perfectly fine. I populated the categories because I wanted to, but that can be undone easily.

Can we populate separate categories for entries that are recognized as 1 and 2 syllables, and treat them as cleanup categories? We could name them Category:English supposedly 1-syllable words and Category:English supposedly 2-syllable words or something. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Why can't you just do this outside of the main namespace in a test module with a sample of the data until you get it right with that? You don't need any categories at all, just a module and a testpage. --WikiTiki89 19:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I already said what I think of this. The module is already perfect in my opinion, and I wouldn't change it except you guys don't want Category:English 1-syllable words and Category:English 2-syllable words populated with thousands of random words with 3 or more syllables. (which is sensible) I even added a conspicuous note in both categories, warning that if people want to see proper categorization, they must fix the entries first by adding proper syllable separators. This is a problem of the thousands of the entries lacking syllable markers, not the module. So I'm suggesting having separate (cleanup) categories for entries that are automatically recognized as having 1 or 2 syllables, because in fact they often have 3 or more syllables. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a problem with the module having incorrect expectations of the IPA transcriptions. We don't have to add syllable separators in English, nor should we, because English syllabification is not well-defined. I thought you were going to write a smarter module that could syllabify unsyllabified IPA. --WikiTiki89 19:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I suppose a smarter module would attempt to count vowels and digraphs? Do you actually think it would be possible? Saying: "English syllabification is not well-defined" makes it sound that even a smarter module would be completely hopeless. Either way, what I suggested still stands. We could have these empty categories: Category:English 1-syllable words and Category:English 2-syllable words (and possibly Category:English 3-syllable words), and Module:IPA could populate separate hidden categories with all the obvious mistakes. alchemist is mis-classified as an 1-syllable word. A cleanup category would make it easier it to be found and re-classified as a 3-syllable word. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

How would the module know which ones are mistakes and which ones not? I oppose having any of this code in the live module until we know it works. As for syllabification, the least-defined aspect of English syllabification is to which syllable a consonant belongs, which is irrelevant if what you are doing is counting syllables. It is of course possible to try to count the vowels and diphthongs, but it's not something you're going to get right on the first try, which is why I'm urging you to use a test module and create test cases. The other tricky thing, which we've already discussed is ambiguous cases like file and filing, which you had mentioned you wanted to categorize as both. --WikiTiki89 20:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If in the future I decide trying to make the module count vowels and digraphs, then yes, I'll use a test module. Making a smarter module was not my idea, though. I was just basically going to count the "." in each entry, which is why I had considered the module finished.

Re: "How would the module know which ones are mistakes and which ones not?" -- see my answer from 19:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC). I just said I was going to change the category names, not that the module would be able to recognize right from wrong somehow. I already started to populate the Category:English supposedly 1-syllable words and Category:English supposedly 2-syllable words. Feel free to suggest different names for these categories.

Even if it's impossible to separate syllables accurately for many English words, there are many other English words like alchemist that currently have no syllable markers and would benefit if someone added the markers. That's one reason why having the "supposedly" categories is useful, in my opinion.

About file: my idea was to categorize it in a separate category named Category:English 1- or 2-syllable words. I mentioned we could use a separate template for that, like possibly {{syllables|fi?le}} (1 or 2 syllables), as opposed to {{syllables|fi-le}} (2 syllables). Still if we can do that using only {{IPA}}, the separate template would just duplicate content.

If all English words had syllable markers, then file could have {{IPA|/xxyy/|/xx.yy/|lang=en}} to show both separations of syllables. The module would then categorize it into both Category:English 1-syllable words and Category:English 2-syllable words; but the module could be changed to categorize the entry into Category:English 1- or 2-syllable words instead. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I oppose having "supposedly" categories or any other name for these categories. If the content of the categories is not correct, then they are not ready to be live. Why would alchemist benefit from syllabification? The whole thing I'm trying to say is that syllabification is a mostly meaningless concept in English. {{IPA|/xxyy/|/xx.yy/|lang=en}} is simply wrong, because it's not as though there are two distinct pronunciations of file, but that the same pronunciation of file can be counted as either having one or two syllables. --WikiTiki89 21:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Would you agree with having {{syllables|fi?le|lang=en}} (1 or 2 syllables), as opposed to {{syllables|fi-le|lang=en}} (2 syllables)? Do you think it should be shown in the "Pronunciation" section or should it only categorize the entry without displaying any text?

"Why would alchemist benefit from syllabification?" -- @Bcent1234 asked for it and is willing to add syllabification in entries. Is that a service we cannot provide? It bothers me that some entries have the separation of syllables and others don't have it.

I wonder if, in English-speaking countries, kids in English class in are taught to separate syllables, and if Wiktionary could help with it. In Brazil, any Portuguese textbook for a given age has exercises to group words into: "proparoxítona", "paroxítona", "oxítona", "monossílaba", "dissílaba", "trissílaba" and "polissílaba" and dictionaries often separate syllables of all words. Visit http://michaelis.uol.com.br and search for an English word; it will show the separation of syllables. (it counts "file" as having only 1 syllable) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Who would add this {{syllables}} template and what would it do? If all it does it count syllables, why not just manually add categories? If there is a meaningful syllabification, it can be shown in the IPA transcription, but it is not guaranteed that we can do this for every word. In my school, we were not taught to separate syllables. It is a useless skill when it comes to English (and other West Germanic languages), even though it may be useful in Portuguese and other romance languages (and in Russian and other Slavic languages). I'd imagine that if English schools were to do this, they'd use the orthographic syllables (i.e. hyphenation) and not the actual spoken syllables. The dictionary you link to is also just showing the hyphenation. --WikiTiki89 22:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

To complicate things further: Stephen G Brown has often pointed out that US and UK hyphenation rules at line breaks are different. Equinox ◑ 22:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Syllable categories

Thank you Daniel for creating the categories. I am going to need to learn IPA I guess to take care of words that seem to be mis-classified. Are you doing it with Lua code, or another way? I could read the code to find out what I would need to do to "fix" the IPA. Bcent1234 (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bcent1234: You're welcome. You don't need to learn IPA to help taking care of the mis-classified words.

Please see acceptableness as an example of an entry with correct syllable separation. The page has a "Pronunciation" section with a template called {{IPA}}, which separates syllables using a dot (.) character between all syllables.

Please try to fix aggregate. You can do this by adding a dot (.) between all syllables in the IPA template. When you find either of the two stress markers ( ˈ and ˌ ), please place the dot behind it ( .ˈ and .ˌ ), even though the entries would be categorized the same without the dot behind it.

There are thousands of entries that need to be fixed in Category:English 1-syllable words and Category:English 2-syllable words, so feel free to work on some of them if you are interested. Maybe the category names will change in the near future, because some people don't want to see live categories filled with so many obvious errors. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Daniel, I note that https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/no doesn't get categorized as 1 syllable. Is that because it uses a complex template instead of just IPA ? Bcent1234 (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The entry no is using a separate template called {{audio-IPA}}. You are correct, that template was not categorizing entries by their syllables, but now it is. The entry no should be categorized as 1 syllable now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acrid#Pronunciation and https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/adage#Pronunciation doesn't get categorized as 2 syllables. even though it uses the IPA template. I don't understand Bcent1234 (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I changed the category names for 1 and 2 syllable words in English. See Category:English supposedly 1-syllable words and Category:English supposedly 2-syllable words.

The older categories (Category:English 1-syllable words and Category:English 2-syllable words) are being automatically emptied at the moment; it will take some time before they are completely empty. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Can the hyphenation template outweigh the IPA template for categorization? (Cf. avoid.) I thought we were trying to keep periods out of the IPA template. I'm not sure why, I guess because they're ugly/clunky/whatever. Ultimateria (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I Bcent1234 (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC) asked a similar question and this is the reply from JohnC5:

That is unfortunately not the case for stress-timed languages. See the discussion here. —JohnC5 20:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

— This unsigned comment was added by Bcent1234 (talk • contribs).

Please sign your messages at the end of the message like everyone else. It makes it easier to read. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I signed in the beginning (after the word I) because I was copying the statement from JohnC5 for Ultimateria to see, but I guess you need to sign at the end, even if it makes things more confusing ?

Does the dash (-) in IPA mean anything about separating syllables? because https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/adduct#Pronunciation uses a dash, but the word is counted as a supposedly 1-syllable word. Bcent1234 (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

In that entry, the actual {{IPA}} template does not use a dash. There's another template using the dash. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If you pay attention, that's not IPA, but enPR. In enPR, syllables are indeed separated with a hyphen. --WikiTiki89 14:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. I know it was enPR. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That was a response to Bcent1234. But also, don't confuse templates with transcription schemes. If the enPR had been placed in an IPA template, it would still be enPR (though mislabeled). --WikiTiki89 14:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

In this entry, it says there are 4 syllables, but I count either two or three. What am I missing ? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ageism Bcent1234 (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

There were 2 IPA transcriptions in the same line. In this case, they need to be separated by the vertical line: |. I separated them properly now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't pay close enough attention, I'll try to look closer before bothering you Bcent1234 (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It's OK, feel free to ask questions. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

What am I missing with https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ahmed#Pronunciation ? It says it is 1-syllable, but I don't see a one syllable form. Isn't the faint colon ( ː) a marker for a syllable? should I put a period (.) after it ? Bcent1234 (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

What you describe as a faint colon is the symbol ː. It is the long vowel marker. It does not separate syllables. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

another that befuddles me is https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/almanac . I originally thought the problem was because the IPA symbols were in [] brackets instead of // brackets. I changed them, and it still thinks this is a 1-syllable word Bcent1234 (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't change [] into // or vice versa. I reverted your edit because of that change, but feel free to edit the entry again correctly. I fixed the problem that you were seeing. The entry has a few secondary phonetic pronunciations like this: [ˈæl-] -- they are repeating only the first syllable. They were causing the entry to be categorized into a 1-syllable category in addition to the 3-syllable category, but this was a mistake. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Module:character info

There are over a hundred entries in Cat:E that seem to be there due to your edits to this module. Please fix it. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

All right. These entries, like in this diff, have a seemingly useless hex value as the first parameter. The module is able to find the hex value of the character by itself, without using that parameter.

I edited the module so it can use the 1st parameter as the current character instead of using the long "codepoint" parameter. The useless hex value was undetected before, but now there are 100+ entries with module errors as you said. I'll let you know when I finish fixing them. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Cat:E still contains 9 pages with module errors that are not related to character infoboxes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

largura

Hi. Is largura really width in pt? coz in es it's length. --Q9ui5ckflash (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. If you Google this, you'll be able to confirm it: width in Portuguese returns "largura". See also this image: https://miquels777.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/hexaedro-largura-comprim-e-altura.jpg --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Syllables missing?

Has something happended so the syllable code is no longer working? I just tried to use the Category:English supposedly 1-syllable words and Category:English supposedly 2-syllable words to find 'problem' pronunciations, and they are both empty. I'm confused Bcent1234 (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bcent1234: Both categories were emptied 2 days ago per Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/September#Not working for two-syllable words?. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Since the code was removed, is there a process where I could run the code privately and set up a set of private categories that I could manage until I get the words marked up appropriately ? Bcent1234 (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You could write a script to analyze the database dumps? But that might be too much work. Don't forget that there are numerous editors who oppose systematically adding syllable breaks to all English IPA transcriptions. --WikiTiki89 20:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It appears all of the categories were emptied, not just the "supposedly" ones. Bcent1234 (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)+

Shortcuts to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

Was this change discussed anywhere? --WikiTiki89 14:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No, sorry. I think it's OK, because only a few pages used it. I mentioned it in the BP now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget that these shortcuts are not only for links but also for the search bar. So the number of pages that use it is only half the picture. Your comment about this in the Beer Parlour is out of place. Either create a new BP section, or let's just discuss here. --WikiTiki89 21:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I moved my comment to a new BP section. I'll reply there. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit Filter

I think your edit filter needs more work: the main source of the offending syntax is from substing gone wrong, and since you can't see substed text until you save the edit and then look at the wikitext, a very likely scenario is someone clicking "save changes" and having no clue why the system stops them- even if they preview the edit, they won't be able to see anything out of the ordinary. What's more, there will be no trace in the edit history for anyone who tries to help them- only the abuse log will show what went wrong, and most won't think to look there.

Please try to come up with an abuse-filter message to explain the error. Otherwise, you're going to be punishing good-faith contributors without giving them a chance to learn from their mistakes, and causing frustration at the Grease Pit when people try to troubleshoot an invisible, non-repeatable error. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand. For the record, we are talking about Special:AbuseFilter/56. It was my first edit filter. I tweaked it and now it shows the standard warning MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning and it does not prevent the edit to be published, but it tags the offending entry with "triple-braces" tag. Is that not enough? Coming up with a specific abuse filter message would solve this problem? I think I could create a separate template with: "Warning: This entry contains triple braces {{{ }}}, which are usually the result of an error when substing." --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it going to flag pages which have nested templates? For example there's nothing wrong with {{xyz|abc {{xyz}}}}. DTLHS (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Haha

Do you ever think that we need each other really. You're too inclusive and I'm too exclusive. Don't be offended when I go crazy occasionally. I shake your hand! Equinox ◑ 22:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds about right. I shake your hand, too! Please don't be offended at me when we are discussing something, either. I hope we can agree that we both want what's best for Wiktionary.

Maybe our opinions have some sort of yin-yang in them, because yes, I agree that I'm the inclusive one and you are the exclusive one, but (correct me if I'm wrong) you didn't seem to be very opposed to including map symbols, at least, (your actual quote was: "I haven't picked a side on this yet!") and I believe you created the APL entries before they were deleted. A few hours ago, I created a new BP discussion here in which I proposed converting a lot of single-character entries into redirects, which I believe was a more exclusive move than usual. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I think I still want to see things "in sentences". So seeing an icon on a map that says "this is an ancient monument", I agree that's a meaningful icon, but I don't think it's a "word" and I'm not sure it's dictionary material. But if the Michelin Guide includes the icon in a line of text, to indicate "the place we are discussing also has a monument nearby", I'm more "on the fence"... ramble... Equinox ◑ 00:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Half a year page protection? Seriously?

Any tenable reason for such a long protection? And any reason why you protected it in heavily disputed version?

Thanks.

— Danny B. 23:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Please talk to CodeCat or another admin, I don't care about the exact revision that stays, I just wanted the edit war to stop. Please discuss what you believe is true (not with me), instead of edit warring. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Why should I talk to other admin when it was you who protected it? Besides 4 native speakers claimed that the version pushed by CodeCat (who is not native, nor even basic speaker; and who is editwarring with 3 people at once - on normal project it would result in block already) is incorrect. I have even added the proof of it being incorrect. This is not how consensus is gained.
— Danny B. 23:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

We're still stuck at the "find a reasonable compromise" stage. —CodeCat 23:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

In fact we are stuck at "local people who don't know anythink about the given language think that they can override native speakers of such language just because they are local (or furthermore admins, so they can use their powers)". You did not come with any single intimation for compromise actually, you just simply mostly blindly revert without giving any reason while we provided bunch of them.
— Danny B. 23:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

In the edit history of tchýně, I saw you, Lenka64 and JAn Dudík edit warring with CodeCat, Chuck Entz and Dan Polansky. Sorry if I missed someone in this list of people. You and the other two people who seem to agree with you have not been very active on this project other than for inclusion of category interwiki links, and the three people who reverted you guys are trusted editors with a long history here. That's why I chose to keep this specific revision when I protected the entry. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

You forgot Mormegil, who is native speaker and put "proscribed" there.
Your reason is heavily discriminative, which is blatant breaching of basic WMF project policies - why do you think that someone who is local but does not speak the language is more trusted than native speaker? Besides JAn Dudík and myself are (or were) admins or bureaucrats on various projects including Wiktionary, Lenka64 was admin on Wiktionary. Mormegil is admin and checkuser on Wikipedia. So calling us (though indirectly) not trusted is heavily offensive.
— Danny B. 23:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I don't trust you, yes. Forgive me if that's offensive. My reason is: from what CodeCat told me in Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/October#Edit protect tchýně, your edits are based on following some authority, while we are a descriptive dictionary. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is offensive and I won't forgive it, because it does not have a reasonable rationale behind it. I can forgive something based on solid arguments, but this is not.
First of all, it would be correct by CodeCat to ping us in the post in Beer parlour, so we would know about that section there and could react. Second: none of the reverters ever mentioned to us the "descriptiveness" you mention now, fortiori pointed us to any relevant page where it is clearly and unambiguously described. Third: describing - at least in Czech - means to show the reality as it is. So the reality is, that the disputed spellings are incorrect and not considered as alternative. Paradoxically those, who use them, consider them rather correct spelling and the real correct spelling as misspelling, but nobody considers these pairs as alternatives to each other. The fact that somebody does not know or respect orthography of the language doesn't constitute his creations to be "alternative". Fourth: By keeping the "alternative spelling" instead of "mmisspelling" you (plural) are telling to people (mostly foreigners) that they can use such form. But that is not true. They are not supposed to, because those are not correct forms but misspellings both by definition and morphology. So you (plural) give heavily misleading information. And last but not least: Even hundred times repeated incorrectness won't become correct. Nobody can not change reality by pushing his/her POV which does not describe it. If you (plural) are OK with keeping factual mistakes on English Wiktionary, then it's your (plural) choice, but it devalues the English Wiktionary as a whole then.
In any case your (plural) behavior to de facto newcomers is very unwelcoming and instead of helping out with explaining and pointing to explanatory places you (plural) simply blindly revert without stating a reason or even protect. None of you tried to start the discussion on the topic as well, which would have been appropriate according to the gaining-consensus process. Shame on you, guys, really.
— Danny B. 00:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, sure. Whatever you say. You convinced me completely. To be honest, your TL;DR intimidated me. I think, when I was younger, I used to post too long discussions online with whatever I could think to prove that others were wrong. I believe in karma now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Abusing of admin rights

Well, until now I respected your actions, even though I did not agree with them. However, editing of the page after it is protected (with exception of technically related edits such as fixing broken links), fortiori to push your own point of view is clear abuse of admin rights and therefore I ask you to put it back to the state you protected it in or immediatelly resign on the adminship.

Thank you.

— Danny B. 23:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to say something earlier, but apparently I lost the text in my Ctrl+Vs somewhere in the middle of the edit conflicts: I kind of wish that CodeCat had her admin rights restored already, so she would be dealing with this right now, instead of me. Well...

I don't see any good reason to do as you asked. I think I asked you a bunch of stuff earlier: discuss what you want, wait for a consensus, don't edit war, cater to people who are trusted editors, respect the fact that we are a descriptive dictionary. If I didn't ask it before, I'm asking now. Please. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

No, you never asked before what you are asking now. And in any case it does not solve your clear abuse of admin rights.
— Danny B. 00:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Daniel Carrero: Just a piece of advice: You better not trust Danny B. Yes, he was a long time admin on cs.wiktionary but only because there were no admin vote rules and for the users it was nearly impossible to make him resign. And for the record, he was repeatedly and by many users asked to have his adminship confirmed or to resign but he blatantly ignored all such requests. After our community finally had admin vote rules and he was forced to confirm his adminship, he totally failed in doing so. He was never voted to be a bureaucrat and stays him only because we have no bureaucrat vote rules. He's admin and bureaucrat on other small Czech and Slovak projects were there are no admin/crat vote rules so he can't be dismissed... --Auvajs (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information and the link. Although I don't speak Czech, I used Google Translate on that page to be able to read it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, since Auvajs pulled the local dirt here, I have to put it in the context then:

1. At first, it should be mentioned that Auvajs is massive (talking about many tens) sockpuppetter on several projects, banned from the Czech Wikipedia because of that. Even nowadays he is still using various accounts.
2. Auvajs has personal antipathy to most of the admmins on Czech projects, simply because they are trying to enforce him to follow the rules which sometimes involves blocks.
3. Auvajs has been banned for trolling in the form of taking quarrels from one project to the other. The post above and his recent contributions are clear evidence of trying to do the same here.
4. Auvajs drove by his aggressive and offensive behavior many productive users off the project for good, which is also a reason why the confirmation he linked ended up such way.
5. None of his statements above about myself not being voted are true, which is easily provable by checking the history of the project as well as considering the simple and obvious fact that stewards would not promote someone not voted.

Anyway, none of the things mentioned above are relevant to the current disputes of whether some words should be called alternative spelling or misspelling, so I would actually kindly suggest to remove this part of this section completely to prevent deployment of totally irrelevant discussion.
— Danny B. 01:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Danny B.: You "forgot" to mention several facts:

1) I was using socks in 2006. And the cs.wp ban was for a month. In 2006. 2) You and your friends are repeatedly blocking people who oppose you or criticize you. On various projects. And you call it "enforcing to follow the rules" ? Pathetic. 3) I was banned indef by a friend of Danny B. on cs.wikisource after I posted a question to the local village pump if the site had any admin vote rules. If the site had admin votes rules they'd lose their rights so they banned me indef so that I couldn't make an effort to create them and they hold their rights forever. See meta:Requests for comment/cs.wikisource admins. 4) The truth is, most of Danny's supporters voted for him despite being long time inactive or very little active on the project. 5) So please provide evidence on the vote for you becoming cs.wiktionary bureaucrat :) --Auvajs (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Unlock Template:wikipedia

I've made a Lua version of this template and want to see if it works. Can you reduce its protection to autoconfirmed? —CodeCat 16:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat: If you just want to "see if it works" why can't you create a test template in your userspace? --WikiTiki89 16:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I changed the protection level to autoconfirmed. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it all works. The module should probably be autoconfirm protected too. What I did now was implement mostly a carbon copy of the existing template, but there is room for improvement. In particular, where the template currently has different named parameters to specify different types of page to link to, this could be automated so that the module extracts the page type from the name. —CodeCat 16:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I've converted {{slim-wikipedia}} over too. It was easy as it has the same parameters and works the same way, only the formatting is different. —CodeCat 16:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Can {{projectlink/Wikipedia}} be unprotected too? —CodeCat 17:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, done. Luacizing the pedia templates sounds good to me. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It's easy now that I have a "base" code, it can be shared easily by the other templates as I add them. There's a lot of duplication in these. —CodeCat 17:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you unlock {{hyphenation}} as well please? —CodeCat 16:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Post removal

Per diff, you removed a certain series of posts based on an email request by Danny B. Setting now aside that an email request is not transparent, that removal also removed posts by User:Auvajs. What makes you think such a removal is appropriate? Since to me, it seems inappropriate that posts of one user are removed based on an email request by another user.

To complete the picture, Danny B. is a non-consensual admin (as witnessed by his volume removals of images) making almost no substantive contribution on any project of Wikimedia foundations. Recently, we was desysopped from the Czech Wiktionary as per cs:Wikislovník:Správci/Potvrzení práv správce Danny B.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Admittedly, I'm not even sure if my removal of that discussion was appropriate. Apparently, it wasn't. After you sent me this message, I re-read some sections in w:Wikipedia:User pages (especially sections "Removal of comments, notices, and warnings" and "Deletion of user talk pages"), which is not our policy, but may serve as an additional reference. Apparently in Wikipedia, they would decline a request like that to remove a whole discussion from someone else's talk page.

Since you obviously seem to disagree with my removal of posts, I re-added the whole discussion again. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

(outdent) Let me rectify some misinformation about Auvajs. What is to be admitted is that many years ago, he used multiple socks to troll the Czech Wikipedia. Since then, he ceased and turned out to be a productive editor. Auvajs even nearly made it to be a Czech Wiktionary admin as per cs:Wikislovník:Správci/Žádost o práva správce Auvajs, with 8:5 result.

No one needs to be trusted. People should be supplying reasoning and evidence, not asking to be trusted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Questionable use of bor

You've got to stop adding {{bor}} where you don't know anything about the language in question. I don't really know what the best way to characterise a word in a creole language that derives from the main lexifier is, but it certainly isn't a borrowing per se. Just use {{der}} so you don't leave a mess behind. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe you are talking about distaem. I changed it to {{der}}. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I realised that I'm not sure if I've seen you in particular do that before, as much of the issue has been the fault of Embryomystic. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Wikitext style

Hey. Are you aware of this? --Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 06:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I believe these were the norms used by User:AutoFormat (active 2007-2010), a bot created by User:Robert Ullmann, a valuable editor who unfortunately died in 2011.

Wiktionary:Wikitext style was superseded by Wiktionary:Normalization of entries, which is our voted and approved policy concerning mostly whitespace rules, which affect only the wikitext of entries.

I went ahead and redirected Wiktionary:Wikitext style to Wiktionary:Normalization of entries now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Was there anything that NORM does not cover yet? --Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Short answer: Yes. Longer explanation: But WT:NORM was created as a result of this discussion from May 2015 with 13 polls, then one vote that failed on July 2015, but finally served to create this other vote that passed on September 2015. Later, it was revised by a few other votes, including this big one with 10 proposals, that ended on February 2016. So WT:NORM is pretty solid. Even if we find any inconsistencies between the old policy and WT:NORM, these discussions and votes are my reason to believe that we should, naturally, follow NORM.

Some things that were in Wiktionary:Wikitext style but don't exist in WT:NORM nowadays include deprecated practices like linking all language names on translation tables that are not part of a "TOP40" list of major languages, and using separate gender templates: {{m}} for masculine and {{f}} for feminine. The old policy also included this rule: "In general, if a definition is a complete sentence, it should start with a capital and end with a period. If it is a word, list of words, or a phrase, it should not." but this is controversial to say the least, so it was mentioned in the aforementioned discussions and was hence removed (also if we had a rule like this, it would be covered in WT:EL, not WT:NORM, because it affects how the entries are presented to our readers) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

AWB edits to character boxes

Hi Dan (if you don't mind me calling you that). Why all the recent AWB edits to entries' character boxes? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 08:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello. As I had proposed in WT:RFDO#Template:character info, my intention is basically deleting all templates like {{Egyptian Hieroglyphs character info}}, {{Combining Diacritical Marks character info}}, etc. The idea is using only {{character info/new}}, which fills most parameters automatically. From what I saw, apparently many pages didn't have the previous= and next= parameters filled, but {{character info/new}} fills that information automatically. A few had incorrect information like in this diff.

I'm also consistently placing all the charboxes as the first thing on the page, before {{also}} and before any language sections. When the charbox is above all language sections, like {{also}}, it appears no matter what language you are seeing if you have TabbedLanguages enabled. When {{also}} is above a charbox, there's a blank space above the charbox, which I'd like to avoid.

While I'm at it, I'm adding charboxes in pages that lacked them, like diff and diff. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Cool. I've responded at RFDO. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you please add the flood flag to not flood Recent Changes?

Thanks. Wyang (talk) 10:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Did it work? I went to Special:UserRights/Daniel_Carrero and checked the "Flood flag" option, but my new edits keep appearing in the recent changes, it seems. Let me know if I did something wrong. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not working. Your edits are still flooding Recent Changes. Can you log out of AWB and log in to resume the automatic edits, since AWB only records the user info at login? Wyang (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done: I did as you said, and the flood flag appears to be working now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

a source of streaming of audio/video

That sounds very odd to my ear. Equinox ◑ 23:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Allright. Maybe "of audio/video streaming"? I changed the entry now. Let me know if it still sounds weird. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Complete Wiktionary?

Hi, I'm relatively new to Wiktionary and I was taking my first look through the beer parlour. You mentioned that in Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/November#Favicon proposal that you wanted Wiktionary to be completed by the end of this year. Frankly, I'm kind of amazed and I just want to talk about it a little to get a sense of what completeness means. It's really cool that it could be complete! I've always just assumed that Wikimedia projects are an endless work in progress, but I guess everything has to finish eventually. How does one tell if Wiktionary is complete, and what happens when it is complete? Is it really realistic to finish before 2017? Icebob99 (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Icebob99: Actually, I was being sarcastic -- sometimes, people make jokes like saying "I'm going away from Wiktionary for a few weeks, please try to complete Wiktionary before I come back", but Wiktionary appears to be an endless work in progress, as you said. Setting aside the fact that new words and expressions are coined all the time, we would have to cover all words and expressions in all languages already created up to this point in time, with their etymologies, pronunciations, translations, etc. The entry water has translations in hundreds of languages, and basically all or most other entries should have translations in hundreds of languages too, I believe. Plus, all requests like "check current translations" and "clean up these entries" would have to be fulfilled too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like finishing before 2017 is a reasonable expectation then! Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome :) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Han script characters and halfwidth/fulllwidth characters

Why is {{character info/new}} sorting a bunch of "Halfwidth and Fullwidth Forms" characters into Category:Han script characters? —suzukaze (t・c) 16:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@suzukaze-c: Apparently, this edit caused halfwidth and fullwidth characters (from fullwidth "!" to halfwidth circle) to be recognized as Hani characters. I removed that edit now, and this fixed the categorization. I'm pretty sure that when we had separate full/halfwidth entries, this caused the {{head}} of these entries to be formatted as "Hani" automatically. The old entries were not categorized into any "X script categories" , because they did not have {{character info/new}}. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Latin script characters

Category:Latin script characters has a lot of characters that are not exclusive to the Latin script. They should be removed. --WikiTiki89 18:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Allright. Can you tell me what characters, or groups of characters would you remove from that category? :If anything, I'd like to keep punctuation marks, including the ones that are used in multiple scripts. I believe the entry for the comma (,) should be a member of both Category:Latin script characters and Category:Greek script characters, at least. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The entry for , should either be a member of (almost) every script category, or none of them (but perhaps a separate inter-script category). Latin and Greek are not special. This applies to the numbers, punctuation, various symbols and things, and probably any IPA characters and transliteration characters that are not used in any language's orthography. --WikiTiki89 20:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. I attempted to remove the characters you mentioned by editing Module:scripts/data. Did I miss anything? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's good, but I don't know whether removing these characters from Module:scripts/data might have unintended consequences. --WikiTiki89 17:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The entries affected (numbers, IPA, punctuation, etc) don't have the CSS class ".Latn" automatically applied anymore. But, ".Latn" is literally an empty class in MediaWiki:Common.css, and does not seem to provide any additional formatting.

If we create a new inter-script category as you mentioned, we may want to go all the way and create a new script-code and CSS class for inter-script. I'm thinking of using the code Qint, but I'm not sure how the categories could be named in a consistent way. Category:Transcript script? I can't think of any good names right now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think think they should be treated as Latin in the CSS, but not categorized as Latin characters. --WikiTiki89 18:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Etymologies

We have many etymologies that are variously incomplete or poorly formatted, but your edits are sometimes making them worse: [2]. Please be more careful. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Allright. Are there any other entries with problems like that? All my edits in etymologies with the "term cleanup" summary are supposed to improve the entries, and they are very similar. I replaced "etyl" by "der" and added "From" because the etym was starting with a language name. I forgot to add a "|" in that etymology, which would make "[term?]" appear because the Ancient Greek form was missing from the start and I don't speak Ancient Greek. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

When I left this message, I hadn't noticed that the single pipe was the only problem. However, it does show that you didn't check the entry after editing it. Basically, I see these edits as having a very marginal positive effect, but the risk of careless editing causing somewhat larger negative effects. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand. I believe that entry was a one-time mistake. I'm taking care to check all entries. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The new preferred practice is to use |t= for glosses, rather than a positional parameter. That way, these mistakes would not happen. --WikiTiki89 17:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"|t=" seems allright; maybe it also makes it clearer the purpose of that parameter, as opposed to using unnamed parameters, even though I don't like that it is one character longer than "||" (which is not much, admittedly). I kinda have the feeling you guys are treating me like I've been careless and messed up Wiktionary irreparably. That's one mistake in the middle of 17,400+ entries in the "term cleanup" project as of now. I was not careless. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It was a minor mistake, and I don't blame you (although you were equally careless when you went to try to fix it). I'm just trying to make sure everyone knows that |t= is the preferred parameter. The advantage of |t= is not in the number of characters you need to type, but in the fact that you can add and remove positional parameters without worrying about how many pipes are left. --WikiTiki89 18:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I support using |t= as the preferred parameter, per the advantage that you said. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wanted entries -- 出て来る

I just saw your recent addition to Wanted Entries. Generally speaking, in Japanese, if a verb in a group of verbs ends in -te, it's independent. 出て来る is just 出て (dete), the -te conjunctive conjugation of 出る (deru, “to come or go out, to exit, to move outwardly”), followed by 来る (kuru, “to come, to move towards the speaker”) → “to come out”. This is not a lexical item, but simply two words next to each other. This construction could just as well be 出て行く (dete iku, “to go out”), or 落ちて来る (ochite kuru, “to fall towards the speaker”), or 帰って拾って連れて行って見てもらって寝かした (kaette hirotte tsurete itte mite moratte nekashita), an extreme case of verb chaining that I actually heard from a native speaker, meaning essentially “I went back home and picked it up, took him with me, had him looked at, then put him to bed,” in reference to retrieving a pharmacy form and taking a young son to the doctor and then putting him down for his afternoon nap. Consequently, I don't think 出て来る merits an entry.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 05:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the explanation! That was very nice! :) I reverted my request from WE. I'll remember what you said. I'm slowly trying to learn Japanese. If/when I succeed, I'll become a trilingual person. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

beautyness

Did you see this line of TV dialogue in writing? Could it be beautiness? Equinox ◑ 12:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I moved that TV quote to beautiness, assuming it's more "standard" than beautyness, in the universal spectrum of standardness. (both are marked as "nonstandard", though)

Anyway, beautyness is citable from Usenet. I added 1 Usenet quote there. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)