User talk:Mglovesfun/Archives/5

Also vs. See also

{{also}} is for very similar page titles, while the header ====See also==== is for topically related words. Cheers. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

possessive adjectives are the same as possessive determiners. I'll change both articles to indicate they are the same thing. possessive adjectives on Wikipedia.Wikipedia Facts707 18:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Then that's the ====Synonyms==== header. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

chauvessouriz

old French or Old French? looks more like fro to me than fr. --Rising Sun talk? 03:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Unsure. The French Wikisource gets two hits for this, both before 1600 which would put this as Middle French. Possibly best to mark as "archaic" rather than obsolete. All the Google Book hits are from recent works quoting older ones, which doesn't help much. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's obsolete. "Archaic" would imply that it's still in limited use as an archaism (like English "thou"), which I don't think is the case. —Ruakh_TALK 14:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I added this when I read it in Montaigne; I think of him as Middle French but it might be more helpful to consider it obsolete "normal" French. Ƿidsiþ 14:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

sorry

i didn't know it--Zoologo 19:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Question re: where to discuss potential user block

Hi MG

Got a question for ya. Tooironic and I are having issues with 123abc (his IP incarnations)'s edits. We are considering blocking him as he's extremely defensive and stubborn about it. I'd like to know where we can raise this issue? Tearoom, Beer Parlour? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 04:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This already came up on the Beer Parlor and there were no objections. I think you should go for it. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

pooper

Why the revert at party. Don't you love fun anymore? --Rising Sun talk? 11:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The template {{Wikisaurus-link}} is being deleted. I just put a link under "see also". Mglovesfun (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

k thx --Rising Sun talk? 11:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Appendix:Old_French_verbs

Just seen this. Really nice work. I started something similar about a year ago, and found it so complicated I gave up. Nice one! Ƿidsiþ 11:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I got it from a book which I still have if I can find it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have quite a few OF grammar books, but sadly, they don't seem to agree on much.... Ƿidsiþ 11:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well it was a language spread over hundreds, maybe thousands of miles over about 500 years. The absolute best we can do is give a general overview. In the same way that some words have at least 30 attestable spellings, but including all 30 seems like overkill. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I've asked you already, but is there scope in training DRB to make fro verb forms? --Rising Sun talk? 11:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a bit dodgy as spelling isn't fixed and therefore some conjugation forms will by hypothetical rather than actually in use. It's not impossible, but problematic and of debatable value. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Inflected words in translations

Thanks. I figured that since there were options in there to add feminine/plural terms, they were meant to be used Gssq 15:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's more for things like {{t|fr|maison|f}} and plural only words like {{t|fr|obsèques|f|p}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

oursin

amha le TLFi se trompe en en faisant un composé ours+in

peux-tu repasser derrière moi et tout effacer ou rajouter de gros bémols précautionneux dans la section étymologique ?

merci

--Diligent 08:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes ours + -in seems unlikely for oursin as it has nothing to do with bears. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

doubt

Hellu Mglovesfun, I have a little doubt. Do we use ' or ’ for pagenames and content? 's uses ', but I recently edited presqu'île (look at homophones and hyphenation) and I don't know which I must use: its alternative spelling is currently presqu’ile... :S Pharamp 14:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We use the standard (straight) unicode apostrophe. Someone should probably tell Diligent. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw your work on recent changes :) :) thanks! I will tell him so. But why the plural of presqu'ile is green now? O_O Pharamp 14:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

IRC

Halló, would you please contact me on IRC as soon as you can? I need to fully comprehend a big matter. Thanks :) Pharamp 20:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This edit to depart

That's not actually a rule. It's more like an ongoing debate. Rearranging pages like this kind of begs the question. Ƿidsiþ 13:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I found it a bit misleading, I was starting to think the meaning "to leave" wasn't in our entry, until I found at the bottom of the page. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue is whether we have any reason to believe that people would find more benefit from en.wikt from having no historical sequence to the senses than from having obsolete (often earlier) senses first. The matter quickly becomes which of the current senses then comes first: the most common? Do we group senses by "relatedness"? I would rather have obsolete senses concealed under a show-hide bar (hidden by default, but selectably shown by user preference) than have the senses out of the order of their development. The tags (or the end-of-line dating information) provide the information that should allow a moderately diligent user to focus on the current meaning. If it does not perhaps we could have a pale yellow background for the senses that are very common either in an absolute sense or relative to the other senses on the page. Calling User:Bequw. DCDuring TALK 16:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My first thought was to have the most common meanings first. However sometimes in entries you see (original meaning) and I tend not to move them to the end, for pretty obvious reasons. I also think it's far more important to have all the correct meanings, no matter in what order. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's a massive issue, which all dictionaries face up to at some point. However, almost all of the big ones in any language eventually end up going with historical ordering, despite the initial awkwardness on entries like this. I understand why people who aren't used to it don't like it. For me though, I look at the Etymology and see that the Latin means "to separate", and then I look at the first English meaning which is "to leave", and I think "eh? How did that happen, then?" so historical ordering makes more sense to my brain. And I think it makes a lot more sense when you start getting really thorough coverage of a word's development. Ultimately though we do need some way, as DCD suggests, of drawing people's eyes to the common modern use. I'd like some system whereby definitions which are tagged "obsolete" appear automatically greyed-out in some way, so that if they're at the top people can still ignore them easily if they wish. Ƿidsiþ 16:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ya that's the (very valid) counter argument. Feel free to 'revert'. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Salut Martin. Sur le wiktionnaire français, tout le monde s'interroge pour savoir quelles raisons t'ont poussé à agir comme ça envers Béotien. Plusieurs messages t'ont été laissés, sans aucune réponse de ta part. Je ne crois pas que ce soit une bonne idée de faire la sourde oreille comme ça. Il t'est offert la possibilité de te défendre et de t'expliquer. Ne laisse pas passer cette chance. Chrisaix 12:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong

These French entries do a wonderful job of contradicting each other. One's masculine, one's feminine and one has no gender; one is listed as a country, and another as a city. Which is right, if any? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's not a country. It's a city. And pretty much all "villes" are grammatically feminine in French, I think. My colleagues here just had a brief argument about this, but they reckon it is feminine. I'm not sure about the spelling, but French Wikipedia uses two words just like English. Ƿidsiþ 13:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • They usually have no gender at all. BTW where do you work, the foreign office or something? I can imagine you doing that. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Ha. Nowadays I'm a TV journalist, I work for AFP right now. But on topic, what does "no gender" mean? If you give it an adjective it's gotta go one way or the other, surely? Ƿidsiþ 14:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi :) Well, the grammar textbook of my mother (in Italian) says that generally the French names of villes are masculine, with some exceptions and a few "tricks" that could help to discover the real gender. For exemple:

• we say "Le vieux Turin est magnifique": Bordeaux and Paris are masculine. In the city center of Nice, we find Vieux-Nice on the roadsigns.
• we can look at the article before the noun: fr:Le Havre is masculine, fr:La Rochelle is feminine.
• some villes ending with a tonic vowel (not an e muette) accept both forms: Paris est beau/belle.

There are other little things, like usually the names ending with a mute syllable (Rome, Bruxelles) are feminine (but as I wrote before, not Nice :S contradiction!). Saint/Sainte also determine the gender. Moral of all this: some are masculine, some are feminine :) But I think Mglovesfun is right, they have no gender at all (it doesn't make much sense to assign a gender to a city), but it is needed for according the adjectives and the past participles. We have to check every ville each time, and write a good appendix for explaining everything maybe. Pharamp 14:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, we should concentrate all the content on Hong Kong and mark the other ones like alternative spellings. Same thing should be done in the English sections I think... Pharamp 14:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. So....do you agree HK is feminine though? Ƿidsiþ 14:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia uses the feminine, but I didn't check the whole page. For now, it's feminine for me, but if we find a valid source which uses the masculine, we should put the two forms. We could also put something under "Usage notes" with a new template, like Template:fr-note-É. Pharamp 14:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say masculine, I don't think you would say la vieille Hong Kong (but I'm not sure at all). Anyway, Wikipédia uses the feminine gender because, in many cases, using the name of a town may be considered as an ellipsis of la ville de (Hong Kong...). SImilarly, Paris is always masculine (you cannot say la vieille Paris or 20 ans après, j'ai retrouvé une très belle Paris, the only correct sentences are le vieux Paris and 20 ans après, j'ai retrouvé un très beau Paris, but feminine adjectives are often used nonetheless in sentences such as Paris est belle because of the ellipsis. Lmaltier 18:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

On the ellipsis issue -- this is what I was getting at earlier. This is surprisingly confusing. Ƿidsiþ 16:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Google hits: 160 for "le vieux Hong Kong", 6 for "la vieille Hong Kong". Lmaltier 19:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we really need a good appendix so. Let's write it! Maybe in Appendix:Place names in France? Pharamp 16:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

third base

[1]: are you sure? I've never heard it in plural, and a quick Google search for the plural yields hits of the form "first and third bases" rather than plurals of third base. I won't go so far as to say it doesn't exist, but at the very least I don't think the inflection line should state without qualification (perhaps not at all) that it's countable.​—msh210℠ 19:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its uncountable; just rare in the plural. Two different fields would have have two different third bases right? It's not a case like gasolene. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd say Joe Doe (in Chicago) and John Roe (in New York) both stood on first base, not "first bases". Perhaps it's a proper noun?​—msh210℠ 19:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Note also the first forty (at least) hits for google:"a first base and|or|but|when" (trying to eliminate "first base [noun]" by having a conjunction follow, and testing countability with a) have none in this sense of first base that show countability: they're either some other sense of first base or of the form "a first base or third base coach".​—msh210℠ 19:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This would be a good moment for you to come on IRC. Yes, point taken. I still maintain it's not a mass noun, maybe just a singulare tantum. Which seems odd to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, per our (brief) IRC discussion, I've modified the singulars' entries' inflection lines to {{infl|en|noun|head=...}} {{singulare tantum}}. I've not deleted the plurals, nor (as of yet) requested verification of them, though I really doubt they exist.​—msh210℠ 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Gasoline/gasolene is usually uncountable, but is also countable. See the entry for gasoline. DCDuring TALK 20:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

luí

Hi, what luí was at the stage you deleted it was a substed-in version of User:Angr/Entry template, a template I use when starting articles so I have everything ready to be filled in. I then go back and make a real entry of it (e.g. the current version of luí). Sorry for any confusion! —Angr 15:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, User:Angr/Sandbox is a good place for this sort of thing IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's true too. Usually I get it filled in and saved before anyone notices though! :) —Angr 15:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

62.171.194.xxx

Hey there Mglovesfun. I noticed two blocks from this range in a short period of time. I would like to recommend that you block the range as well as these two IPs to prevent any further disruption from this range. I think that a week long range block should cover any vandalism from this range for the duration of the time that this range might attack the English Wiktionary. It is up to you, though. Cheers, Razorflame 15:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

augmentacion

Hi there Mglovesfun. Since you are the person to go to for Old French words, I was wondering if you could add this one? It is a redlink in the Etymology section of augmentation, so I think an entry for this fro word could be useful :) Cheers, Razorflame 19:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be augmentation AFAICT as -acion isn't really Old French, but sounds right for Occitan. It's kinda hard to find individual words, and in this case I'm gonna get loadsa Modern English and French hits for it. But hey, it costs nothing to try. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

cabouche

Hi there. I came across this word in a strange text - it may be a slang word for "head". I was wondering if it was Old French (like modern French caboche). Any ideas? SemperBlotto 22:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

-ou- is typically Modern French, like bouche (French) boche (Old French) and buche (Anglo-Norman). But basically, no. What text is it? That's the obvious question for me to ask. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a typewritten Latin/English word list - showing brief definitions of Latin words, along with lists of English words derived from them. I can't remember where I got it from. There are spelling mistakes - I'll just ignore it. SemperBlotto 08:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

visste

Hello, I noticed you deleted the entry that I created several hours ago. I am not sure why it was deleted. I know it was short, but the translation still stands and the content was different than the other word I linked to. I do not know if the word "veta" is related to this sense, but at least people will be aware that the word of the same spelling is listed on another article, and make adjustments if they know more about it. The translation stands on a raw google translation and in many search items. I can provide links to some translated usages in the reference section. Finding 3 sources on published media might be difficult, but I hope I can establish that the translation is plausible and recruit assistance for any further verification that might be needed. Any help/opinion on the matter would be greatly appreciated. If there is anything else I can do to make the article stand please let me know.--Anthonzi 08:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well it needed a lot of cleanup, I've made a start but since I don't know any Norwegian it's still lacking. Is it a 'simple past' or a 'past participle'? Also which Norwegian is it? Norwegian Nynorsk, Norwegian Bokmål or Norwegian, it's much better to be consistent about it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

dead men

I'll have to wait for my next visit to the library, but I'm pretty sure that "The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea" has it as plural only. SemperBlotto 11:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to revert if I'm wrong, I just noticed it didn't have the [[Category:English nouns]] and tried to fix it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

escrin

But don't you think we need to distinguish natural descendants from borrowings in some way? Ƿidsiþ 13:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No? Should I? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Er – yeah. In my view it's crucial. You should be able to look at a Descendants section and make comparisons between daughter languages to see how a word has developed in different areas. That is confused, to say the least, if you also have borrowings. The example I usually give is Latin parabola, which developed in Spanish as palabra (“word”), but was also borrowed back later as parábola (“parabola”). The same situation arises quite often with French – you end up with doublets, and that's only instructive if we make the difference very clear. Most etymological references don't even bother showing borrowings for exactly this reason. Obviously, dealing with OF, an English word can only be a borrowing, but I still think we should distinguish them in some way. Ƿidsiþ 13:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(side tracking somewhat) I feel the same about some of our Ancient Greek derivations, when the words are first attested in say, 1850, they obviously are constructed using parts of Ancient Greek words, but not comparable to words that passed from Ancient Greek > Latin > Old French > Middle English > English (phew).

So, I tend to think if the word passes directly from Old French to Middle English, it's a natural derivative, but if its reborrowed later on, like a lot of English -logy words, then it's better off shown as an affixed form. Does this help any? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well it makes sense, but unfortunately it isn't what's considered a "natural derivative" by etymologists. Natural descendants should show the workings of (more or less) established and regular sound changes. Once a word has been borrowed into Middle English, its development into today is the same as other words with the same sounds, and that is pure etymological descent. But the change as a word is borrowed from OF to ME is something totally different, and has to do with various other (and much more random) ideas about which "French" sounds can be easily adapted into English phonology. It doesn't really matter so much in this case, but when it comes to French borrowings from Latin it's very very important to distinguish them from natural descendants. Ƿidsiþ 13:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I wouldn't bother putting brackets round (English), but if you want to I won't remove them. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Romanian sorting

Who told you that Romanian letters with diacritics should be sorted as their plain counterparts? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, nobody, but we do that for other languages. What is the sort= parameter for, otherwise? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

For sorting as the words would be sorted in a regular dictionary. So that ş and ă come after s and a where they belong. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

IPA shizzle

One straight forward, one not so

1. Home come the IPA for mue is /my/ but for mué it's /mɥe/. It doesn't feel like that sound changes.
2. A book I was reading says that the final 'e' in words like porte in Old French is an e with a small circle under it (I don't know where to find it, sorry). What does that sound like? I'd always imagined it as a very short -e, like the pronunciation of mouche in the South of France (/muʃə/?)

Mglovesfun (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

1. 1. That's totally normal. When /y/ becomes a semi-consonant (or "liquid") it's written as /ɥ/ -- exactly the same as the way /u/ becoming /w/ (eg boue / bouée).
   2. In the French tradition, "e with a small circle under it" is an old-fashioned way of transcribing schwa /ə/. Ƿidsiþ 13:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

generalism

Hey there. I cannot find a definition for this word. Do you think you could try to come up with one? Thanks, Razorflame 23:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Bug in your edits

[2] Conrad.Irwin 15:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a bug, we just don't format entries like that anymore. Or do we? Seemed a shame to waste a second edit just to remove one word. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

WT:ELE doesn't seem to mention it at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at the output? Conrad.Irwin 16:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That's called stupidity. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

media historian vs. mass media

Hi Mglovesfun, ich habe gelesen, dass du auch Deutsch studiert hast. Ich kann halbwegs Englisch, verstehe aber ein Detail nicht. Wieso gilt "mass media" (Massenmedien) als ein Wort, "media historian" (Medienhistoriker) aber nicht? Ist das reine Konvention oder gibt es eine Regel? Jannis, 19.3.2010

I just meant that media historian is sum of parts, historians can be specialists in all sorts of things, so I changed the link for [[media historian]] to [[media]] [[historian]] to avoid red linkiness. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"talk about" . . .

We haven't got an entry for that yet. Talk about being incomplete! SemperBlotto 14:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

archaic verb forms again

Hi Gloves. Are there any pages/templates here that I can use for reference when creating these archaic forms? I've had a quick look around for attestation, and feel it would be a useful string to the bot's bow. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 12:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've set up an amateurish Template:fr-conj-er (archaic). Anything else to add there? --Rising Sun talk? contributions 12:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I just tried with parler. I think it might justify a templates such as {{fr-verb-form-arch}} or, probably better, something like {{fr-verb-form|arch=1}} for archaic verb forms, otherwise the archaic verb forms will swamp all the archaic words and make them impossible to find the the [[Category:fr:Archaic]]. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

parlât or parlast? Hmm. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the swamping of ladite category, maybe it's better to put them into a separate one - [[Category:French archaic spellings]] or [[Category:French archaic verb forms]] perchance? --Rising Sun talk? contributions 12:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

See parlast. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

jupette

...isn't the same as a minijupe (I don't think). A jupette is a "short skirt" -- not quite the same as a miniskirt. Ƿidsiþ 11:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe you, I was going by w:fr:minijupe which says "also called a […] " Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Question categories

Hi Mglovesfun, What is the point of adding answered questions to these categories? [3]. Conrad.Irwin 22:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, how can my answer be satisfactory since I don't speak Dutch? But if (when?) it is, yeah that entry should be detagged. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Giving an answer seems to have been a waste of time then... (As you know, I am highly skeptical of the whole {{question}} set of categories, if a question needs dealing with, the discussion fora are the place to do it, otherwise, it really doesn't matter) Conrad.Irwin 22:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You have good reasons to be skeptical. I think it could work, but it doesn't work as such right now. Basically, every language is severely lacking in editors, not least English! If we had Wikipedia levels of contribution, I think it would work. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that explains a lot. I've no problem with using {{attention}} when things need actual action, but seeing as the question category is mainly going to be Special:AllPages/Talk:, perhaps it's time to ease off on it (until we do have a few thousand times as many editors, of course). /me is sure the welcome template says "don't assume Wiktinoary is like Wikipedia" :p. Conrad.Irwin 22:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

boning

I can understand eliminating the separate "sense"; but why did you delete the quotation, rather than move it to the appropriate location? --EncycloPetey 17:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought of that. I'm near the end of a batch of AWB edits, I was gonna retrieve it from the history after that - I suppose you've already done it now, if not I'll do it in about three minutes. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Teabagged

Someone was trying to add the term to the teabaggin article at wikipedia. I decided to move it over here since the definition of the slang has nothing to do with oral sex. Here are a few articles that discuss being teabagged (or tea bagged/tea-bagged).[4][5] Any thoughts on the best way to include it?Cptnono 01:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Both of those are for tea-bag, which seems to meet our criteria as that's already two valid citations. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

simplificar

should this be simplify not simply? --Rising Sun talk? contributions 17:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, you could have just changed it. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Medieval vs Mediaeval

Thanks for doing the work to resolve the problem, apparently in my preferred way! I lost my temper and couldn't see straight when I made my changes, then realized what was involved, which, in turn, made me go to bed and forget about the problem, which I might have felt compelled to take to BP, where it would have risked becoming contentious. The numbers clearly bear me out, indicating that mediaeval is quite uncommon, even in the UK (BNC, even in "Medi(a)eval Latin"). DCDuring TALK 11:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Vote - small change

I've just made a minor edit to your vote, so revert me as you see fit. --Dan Polansky 11:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I won't Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed "compounds"; again, revert me mercilessly. --Dan Polansky 11:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Unlikely - you're too good. Just a thought, should we close the vote for another 24 hours, then reopen it? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A good idea. Then I could propose some more minor changes without bad conscience. --Dan Polansky 12:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, the more changes proposed, the higher the likelihood that people will oppose them. Maybe I should resist the temptation now; the vote looks good. --Dan Polansky 12:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Medieval Latin categories

Please stop creating these for the time being as there is a problem with spelling consistency. See DCDuring's talk page. 50 Xylophone Players talk 12:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm, what is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Nvm, it looks like you've (or someone else has) cleaned up the problem, right? 50 Xylophone Players talk 12:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

...for removing that vandalism. what was the story with that BAMF character? --达伟 17:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Not the faintest idea. Don't worry, it has happened to me too. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

ex novo

While that seems sensible, why tag ex novo as Italian, since it is used in English (under way rather than for ex-novo initiatives as would be the case in Tyne and Wear, [6]), Spanish (regir la materia tributaria, y concretamente la creación ex novo del tributo y la determinación de los elementos esenciales o configuradores del mismo, [7]) and French (les espaces naturels fragmentés, surtout moyennant la création ex novo, ou la restauration, de milieux plus ou moins complexes, [8]), to check just the first three languages that come to mind? Λεξικόφιλος 08:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Two (disputed ways) of doing this, either add a section for each language, or use ==Translingual==. You could compare cf. or i.e. or e.g. which are also quite "translingual". Mglovesfun (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I guess a better analogue would be ad astra or homo homini lupus, as abbreviations lack a clear link to the original language and need to be expanded for the source language as well. And these are tagged as Latin.

BTW, I'd appreciate it if you could answer in my own talk page, so I wouldn't need to keep tabs on yours to see whether there's been an answer. Cheers, Λεξικόφιλος 11:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

Nope not him. Good luck with your witch-hunt -:) WritersCramp 11:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Stalking

Stalking people is frowned upon. Please stop stalking me through "my contributions" if it continues, I will report to an administrator. WritersCramp 11:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find reading people's contributions is not only allowed, it's advisable! Especially when it's a new user than doesn't know about Wiktionary formatting. Explain how you consider this "stalking"? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You're making the classic mistake of taking cleanup/deletion/verification debates personally instead of seeing them as maintenance of the wiki. This is not about me, or about you, it's about the Wiktionary. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. It is everyone's job here (including administrators) to make sure that everyone's contributions are in line with Wiktionary policies. Instead of taking the deletion/verification processes personally, see them as a chance to improve the project as a whole. After all, no one owns any one entry; every contribution is open to democratic revision. ---> Tooironic 03:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Deleting valid categories, even if they are empty, seems a somewhat pointless excsersize (blah I can't spell it). Conrad.Irwin 22:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. I certainly see no reason to keep them, or restore them while still unused. I don't think anyone clicks on a category hoping or expecting it to be empty. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

florete and fleurette

Can these two words mean floret? Thanks, Razorflame 00:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

u / v

In Latin maybe. But in English these are different letters, and vp is a valid obsolete spelling of up. At any rate this is how the OED treats things. It makes sense, for people looking words up from older works. Consider: would you know what yuie meant at first glance? Wouldn't you expect to be able to search for it? Ƿidsiþ 11:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

United States of America

I'll preempt any incoming messages, by saying that per SemperBlotto Dan Polansky et al. I'm trying to get rid of the amazingly farcical "attributive use rule". I clearly don't want this to fail, but according to our CFI, it does seem to pass anywhere! Mglovesfun (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

mask

Hi, I reverted this edit, apparently some bug deleted more t's than needed. --Thrissel 14:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's called me being an idiot, not AWB's fault. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

These things happen to everyone... ;-) --Thrissel 14:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:raising

Hello! What does "raising" mean in this text:

SICINIUS

   'Tis this slave;--
   Go whip him, 'fore the people's eyes:--his raising;
   Nothing but his report.

William Shakespeare "Coriolanus" Act IV, Scene 6.

Thank you Igor Skoglund

No idea. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

devenir chèvre

I followed the template I saw on other French idiom pages. I would have changed it after a comment but some other admin apparently blocked me from editing. And I don't see how that would warrant being banned for Vandalism. — This unsigned comment was added at 1st April 2010.

Misunderstanding. He just undid his own edit. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

quiser

Thanks for fixing it. --Daniel. 22:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Attributive-use rule

I am planning the following vote:

Replacing the attributive-use rule of CFI with the following text: "This section regulates the inclusion and exclusion of names of specific entities, that is, names of individual people, names of geographical entities, names of mythological creatures, names of planets and stars, etc. ¶ Many names of specific entitites should be excluded while some should be included. There is no agreement on specific rules for the inclusion of names of specific entities." The attributive-use rule of CFI reads: ... .

What do you think? Do you see any problems? --Dan Polansky 10:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I was gonna ask you (personally) to start a vote this. I'd sooner get rid of the entire attributive use rule rather than add this on the top. I genuinely don't understand that rule, and unless we can find who wrote it, I see know way to find out. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

But this should replace the rule rather than add to it. We do not want to include all proper names, do we? --Dan Polansky 10:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No we don't. I just think we need to come up with something that can pass a vote - this may not be it. Oh, Happy Easter (if you celebrate that). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

-

Happy Easter (I don't celebrate it, though). I do not know what the proposal should look like in order to pass a vote. I think my proposal fairly states what the community consensus is. Placename-exclusionists may oppose it anyway, because their minority opinion is now unfairly enforced by being present in CFI.

Finding who wrote the rule is easy: it was a guy with almost no contribution to namespace: see this diff. All further edits were minor tweaks of this edit containing a grammatical mistake. --Dan Polansky 10:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:gay

(from Facts707 talk page): Three letter code = language code. {{top}} and {{mid}} are to be deleted for the same reason. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. There is no mention of the Gayo language at either Gayo or Template:gay. I will update those.

And there is a Category:War although Template:war goes to the Waray language.

I will come up with something else ("gay culture" or "homosexual"?). Also Template:warfare might be useful. Facts707 00:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Maybe there's a better name than just "Category:Gay" anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)