Last modified on 13 December 2014, at 05:18

User talk:Ready Steady Yeti

Return to the user page of "Ready Steady Yeti".

See also: Database 1, Database 2, and Database 3

This is my new talk page!

Two Danish WordsEdit

What do at gælle and muffe mean in Danish? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

And hi, BTW. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
So at gælle means to gill? From what someone told me, I think muffe has many different meanings. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I talked about the word muffe with Sarrus (talkcontribs). --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

SpacingEdit

When creating entries, could you please leave an empty line between the language header and the first level 3 header, and between the headword line and the first definition? Thank you. —CodeCat 12:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Unattested musikvideoinstruktørEdit

I have sent musikvideoinstruktør you created to WT:RFV, since it appears unattested. Please do not create unattested entries. Existence of a would-be word on the world wide web does not suffice for attestation; the term has to be found in in permanently recorded media, as per WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a real word. trust me. See it's Danish Wikipedia article. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you avoid the argument by proving that it's a real word, with quotations. I see one quotation on the Google Books search that Dan Polansky linked to at RFV; I'm sure you can find two others from durably archived sources. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I got one from a news site. Now I need one more for it to be attested, but I have to go. Please, give me time. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry, words at RFV are always given at least 30 days (in practice, usually much more) before they're deleted. No need to be stressed about it. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Equinox and I found three references (thank you Equinox). Does that mean it is now attested? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
FYI, in diff, I have deleted a quotation that you have added, since it was not durably archived, as required by WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
How is it not attested? That is a news site. Or at least it is a mirror site of a news site. It is permanently archived information because it is from the news. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

More about spacingEdit

It does no good to remove blank lines at the ends of sections. Whenever a section is edited, the wiki will insert the blank line back into the entry. It is a waste of time to remove them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This is what an entry should look like in the editor window. If you think this should change, then please start a discussion with the community first. This spacing of information has been the norm here for a very long time now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it a must, like must I do that? Or is it just highly recommended? Because I hate spacing. It hurts my head to look at it. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Are you are whether it is OK for you to alter everyone else's work to fit your own preferences without asking them? If you want to propose the change to the community, you can. However, it makes editing for everyone else much more difficult. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
There are lots of things to hate in this world, but spacing is not one of them. Keφr 17:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I noticed you're still not adding spacing between lines, like at cummingtoniet. Could you please do this? —CodeCat 22:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"This entry has a template problem that needs to be fixed."Edit

We have {{attention|da}} for marking anomalies. Use it wisely. Normally it is hidden when viewing a page, but you can display it by adding

.attentionseeking {
	background: yellow;
	font-size: smaller;
	padding: 0.1em 0.3em;
}
 
.attentionseeking:empty::after {
	content: "[ATTN] " attr(title) " [ATTN]";
}

to your common.css. Keφr 20:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

strong verb classEdit

Hi Ready Steady Yeti! Why do you think it is senseless to categorize Danish strong verbs by their verb class? I think even in modern Danish there is enough similarity of verbs in the same verb class to categorize them, e.g. if you take skrive and drive from class 1 they follow the same pattern:

  • skriv, skriver, skrev, skrevet, skreven, skrevne, skrivende
  • driv, driver, drev, drevet, dreven, drevne, drivende

--Bigbossfarin (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry. I did not realize what a strong verb was. I thought it was something that only Germans used but I was mistaken. I will be more careful next time. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
w:Germanic strong verb might be helpful. —CodeCat 14:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me.Edit

Why do you think a user whose only contribution was System: ✯✴ƐŔFΛИ ƇƱƬƐ✯✴ ought to be welcomed? Keφr 19:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Because they need to know all that stuff so they don't do that again especially. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
These aren't people who are making mistakes because they don't know any better, they're people who are deliberately causing damage- people who wouldn't follow the rules even if they knew what they were. Do you honestly think that someone who writes "pooop" in an entry is unaware that they're breaking the rules? You said you were going to stop, but you just did it again today. Please stop for real this time. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
What if they had at least 10 good edits? Is that when I should welcome them? (I'm sorry, I did not realize the user was vandalizing pages, I did not know what the edit really meant, but it didn't exactly look like a useful edit.) Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that would be fine. Personally, I have no real fixed condition when I think a welcome is appropriate. Usually I welcome people when I see they want to stay here for a bit longer than a day (edit in a few "runs" in a week, they write at least one non-rubbish entry), and seem kind of lost despite having good will. I often also put some personal message explaining our practices, apart from the canned template. Keφr 15:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
STOP welcoming vandals. We need them to get the fuck out, not to be welcomed. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay I will stop. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, I think people who make just one constructive edit should not be welcomed immediately either. I visited some niche Indic-language Wikipedias a few times, and I was welcomed without even having edited anything. Personally, I find this rather intimidating. Give them some time. Keφr 07:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

anagramsEdit

Hi,

Note please that anagrams (in one language) should be listed on one line with commas between them, not on separate lines. Thanks!​—msh210 (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Then why did the bots import them all on bullet points? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what bots you refer to or when they did so; perhaps it was before we standardized on an inline list.​—msh210 (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Translations instead of definitionsEdit

You can use glosses. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Why no definitions? I can understand words that can be directly translated from one language to another, but words such as babybio in Danish do not have an English word to replace it. Plus, I believe all definitions should have the first word capitalize and end in a period in all circumstances. It makes us look more professional. Why do you want us to look bad to people who come to this site? Please note that such entries like this may look extremely childish to people who come here to look for definitions. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Words without precise English equivalents can and should have full definitions. As for using sentence case in all definitions, please stop doing that. It is a controversial issue, but the last discussion we had seemed to favour using sentence case for English definitions and non-sentence case for foreign-language definitions. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Remember this moment because I do not expect to tell you this ever again: I kind of agree with you here. I think this practice is rather stupid. One-word translations are especially bad; they suggest that words in disparate languages are equivalent and there is no loss of meaning and connotation. This may be true of most Latin/Greek derivations in Indo-European languages, but not so often otherwise. But usually I just put a handful of translations in one definition line, which nobody complained about yet, and I think it conveys the idea of "something along those lines, but none of these words convey this meaning exactly" well enough. And I never actually inquired others about this. So I think there is some room for discussion here, as opposed to doing a dramafest. Keφr 15:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the dramafest, but I thank you for the agreement. I think this discussion should be continued. Do you mind moving this discussion from my talk page to a proper discussion page, somehow? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Keφr, I think that one‐word translations are acceptable so long as there exists a context tag to accompany them, therefore bypassing any ambiguity. See [1] or [2], which are entries that I worked on. By the way, the common practice in Wikcionario is punctuation for all definitions. --Æ&Œ (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
There are editors who would vehemently disagree with you about always having an initial capital and final period. I see just as many IPs removing periods as I see putting them in. This is one of those stylistic differences of opinion that could escalate into edit wars if overdone. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I think all full definitions merit sentence case and full stops, but we have consensus on that at most for English. Many non-English L2s are deficient in that they use highly polysemous words as definitions, without any clarifying glosses. (Other deficiencies include using archaic, obsolete, dated, rare, and uncommon English terms as definiens when another English term exists, eg, rigidness instead of rigidity.) DCDuring TALK 17:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

diffEdit

Was this meant as a joke? I cannot tell, really. If you meant to actually request a translation, type {{trreq}} as the word (yes, the template transclusion syntax, with the curly brackets). This is documented at WT:EDIT. Admittedly not the best interface, but nobody got around to change it. Though supposedly you are da-3, I imagine you would know the translation already… Keφr 18:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

da-2 Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

HelloEdit

Hi,

I am Jagwar, a Malagasy native speaker and main author in the Malagasy Wiktionary. A while ago I added 3000+ Malagasy language entries to the English Wiktionary. On your user page you've wanted someone to help you for Malagasy entries. Feel free to get in touch with me either in my talk page on this Wiktionary or in my talk page in the Malagasy Wiktionary.

Best regards, Jagwar (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The {{l|en|word}} stuffEdit

Hi. I get the idea that this links to the correct language, even if the word exists in other languages, but it makes the markup very convoluted and unreadable. I don't think it's the best idea to use this, in simple definitions. Equinox 22:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Why not? It couldn't hurt anything could it? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
It makes the entry more confusing to edit for future editors. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The advantages of linking to the correct section outweigh the disadvantages of using a template instead of plain links. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. Worth a vote, because the "context" stuff was bad enough, and having this extra junk around every link in a definition would be terrible. Equinox 23:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
This “extra junk” prevents unnecessary scrolling. If you enjoy that, you can scroll down and up again every time you load a page. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Does this mean you, Ungoliant, are supporting the {{l|en| {{l|da| thing? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I always use this type of link myself (actually the ones with a slash when they exist, like {{l/en}}). — Ungoliant (falai) 23:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I know what it does. I'm saying in my opinion the markup is more important. Or best of all, why can't we have it default to the wiki language (English) instead of making editors type out that junk every damn time? It's awful. Equinox 23:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
That is a good point. Why don't we bring up what Equinox just said in the Grease Pit. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Who said anything about making users type it? If you don’t like typing it, don’t type it. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
But why don't we bring what he just said up? I think the default thing is actually a good point honestly. Then I'd have less typing to do. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
This would mean that all the derived terms, related terms, synonyms, etc. in non-English entries would link to English. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, and then we'd have to find a way to link to other languages too so that wouldn't even fix anything. You're right. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Not true: I misspoke, though. I meant that the default language for any simple square-bracketed link should be the language of its containing subsection. Okay? We shouldn't have to repeat the language code every time we put a link anywhere. Equinox 01:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Ungoliant, "if you don't like typing it, don't type it" doesn't make sense if I am gonna have to deal with this forest of brackets when editing any existing entry. We should assume English when linking from an English subsection of a page, unless otherwise specified. I don't know about you, but I get sick enough typing "lang=en, lang=en, lang=en" all the time without even more junk. I will raise this in Beer Parlour. Equinox 01:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, maybe you're not as much of a perfectionist, but I most certainly like things to be very complex, although to the point that I understand them. So we're all different here. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 01:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Complexity and perfection are by no means the same thing. "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." — Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Equinox 01:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
— on which note: wouldn't it be nicer to have the system automatically capitalise every definition, rather than the messy [[dog|Dog]] stuff that we have to do now? Think long-term, and think about how much time editors will waste typing, and think about how computers are supposed to save people time, not take away more of it. Equinox 01:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
It might be nice, but I doubt WMF is going to expend the resources to customize things for us. As it is right now, the WM software has no clue what a language section is, so it's not going to happen any time soon. Templates aren't any better. Modules would have to import the whole page and parse the sections manually, which has to be pretty expensive. The only way I could see it working would be javascript to change the links on page load- and that sounds like a lot of overhead to add to our already overloaded system. I could be missing something, because I don't know that much about the nuts and bolts- but I doubt it. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the JavaScript solution could be a jQuery one-liner. So not a huge burden. I am not sure if it would be undesirable in some circumstances, though.
Also, Yeti, your signature just inspired me to write the entry for oczojebny. Please tone it down. Keφr 08:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

OvercategorizationEdit

It's bad enough adding dozens of placenames (diff), but it's simply outrageous adding categories for all of them. Remember that categories are for navigation, so that people can find other entries that have the category criterion in common. There's only so many categories you can put in an entry without losing the forest for the trees. There's no structure to the category listing, so you have to wade through Iowa County, Wisconsin, North Dumfries (Ontario), Highland Township (wherever that is), Cloud County (Kansas, I presume), etc. to find states, provinces and countries.

You have a definite tendency to take a simple idea and overdo it to the point of absurdity or even insanity. Please give it more thought and stop running things to death. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

overEdit

There were few issues with your edit to that entry:

  • do not add etymologies if you’re not familiar with it. Old Norse can’t possibly loan a word from English that was born after its death;
  • when entries have multiple etymology sections, the POS sections become subsections of its etymology (i.e. there’s one more equal sign in their headings and subheadings);
  • when you add notes to other editors like that “And there are way more [] ”, please use <!-- And there are way more ... -->, because it’s not something readers need to see;
  • {{l}} has a third parameter which changes the text displayed. For example: {{l|en|herb|herbs}} displays herbs but links to herb;

Cheers. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

qvindeEdit

https://www.google.com/search?lr=lang_da&hl=it&tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=qvinde&tbs=,bkv:f,cdr:1,cd_min:01/gen/1880,cd_max:31/dic/1920&num=100&gws_rd=ssl

You were saying? --Æ&Œ (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

But these were all capitalized. I say just use an alternative form that is capitalized instead of this dumb "qvinde" made up form. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
If it was my misspelling of Qvinde, why didn’t you correct it? --Æ&Œ (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Were you the person who made this alternative form in the entry? Also, I had made a mistake again. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 15:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

fonner, fonnestEdit

Hi. When you tag a page with RFV or RFD, you have to start the discussion too. Where it says "A user has added this entry to requests for verification", there's a little + plus sign at the end. Click it to create the discussion. Otherwise, the entry simply won't appear in RFV/RFD and will go ignored. Equinox 19:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me!Edit

I'm going to be gone for 6 days. I will not be having any activity whatsoever starting this Sunday (tomorrow) and ending next Saturday (July 5th). I'll miss you guys! And I'm very busy today too. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 15:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm back but won't be very active until July 8th starting at night in eastern standard time. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 15:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

BabylonienEdit

If you want a word added, go to Wiktionary:Requested entries and submit a request on the page for the appropriate language. Creating a dummy entry with bogus things like "error" for the part of speech is a really, really bad way of doing it. If you know almost everything needed for the entry, it's sometimes okay to add what you have and put {{attention}}, {{rfdef}}, or whatever so that someone who knows the language can finish the entry- but creating a language section with no actual content beyond the language name and the name of the entry just creates confusion and clutter for people using the dictionary. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding translations in languages you do not knowEdit

Seriously, stop that. I am not sure where you got these translations at platform game from, but one of them, while not completely wrong, sounds quite awkward, and I suspect five other of these of being similarly inappropriate. Stick to adding what you know for sure, or at least consult a real dictionary (Google Translate does not count), and preferably do both, because even native speakers make mistakes. Got it? Keφr 19:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention most of them were missing genders. —CodeCat 19:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I get them from Wikipedia's articles. And I already know for sure all of my Danish translations are accurate when I add them. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 19:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Who are you?Edit

Hey. Are you an old user with a new nickname? Apparently you know about my identity, and I'd like to know a little about yours. --Type56op9 (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Everyone here knows about you. Are you kidding? And I've only been here for about 6 months. I just found a page you deleted and clicked on your account and found out a bunch about you.

You deleted the main page??????? That's funny you have to admit!!! Hahahaha, but it probably pissed a bunch of people off. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 17:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, with at least 5 different accounts. --Type56op9 (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Empty CategoriesEdit

Just so you know: categories with nothing in them show up in a maintenance category, and are routinely deleted. The only ones that don't normally get deleted are tracking-, attention- and request-type categories, which are, by nature, empty most of the time. I suppose one could make an argument for having categories in a form that can be restored whole by an admin when needed, rather than creating a new one from scratch- but it may be a nuisance for the people who keep the maintenance category clear. I spend a lot of my time creating categories, but I try to avoid creating empty ones whenever possible. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

musikvideoinstruktørEdit

Don’t close an RFV like that. If it exists, add citations.

On the subject of citations, look at these: [3], [4]. Are they using this term? If so can you add them to the entry? — Ungoliant (falai) 22:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, the first one is already there. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

{{#invoke|pedialite|create}}

I made my own wiki websiteEdit

My wiki, EVERYONE PLEASE LOOK, (: YAY! I'M SO HAPPY!

But I need help making templates, such as infoboxes and stuff so could someone please help me with that? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you seen this one? [5] They seem to have collected quite a lot of info already. Equinox 12:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
That Wikia wiki is not at all nearly completed, needs a shitload of work still, and I don't really like Wikia's software anyway. This wiki that I have is intended to have more than one thousand articles. Look at the articles on this wiki, they look very incomplete and pretty unprofessional. I was, at a time a contributor to this wiki, but I quit because I didn't like Wikia, and I resolved to make my own website wiki. This wiki is a reform of the Wikia wiki, recording every episode, book, DVD, and every character, location name, etc., from all of this. Mona the Vampire in particular has a lot of minor characters, like a ridiculously large amount of minor episodic characters. This is the reason I feel this wiki is very important. The reform is that I have admin rights on the wiki, since I seem to be the one of them who writes the best in English, and that I don't have to deal with Wikia's laggyness, and to make a complete wiki on an actual website. I'm going to tell Marc-Antoine Gagnier (the guy behind the French wiki) as soon as I get the interwikis up and working.

Anyway, enough about the reform, I stayed up all night long on this wiki because I was having so much fun on it, and I love Mona the Vampire, and I hope this wiki can achieve my goals, but it's a lot of work yet. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 18:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

RFPsEdit

Hi. Do you genuinely need the pronunciation of terms like "bunny girls"? These requests can clutter up the page a bit so I wouldn't recommend creating too many unless you need them and plan to come back. Equinox 20:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Do all Wiktionary entries technically need pronunciation info? Is that part of the system? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 20:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Technically, yes, but there are millions of pages without pronunciations and very few people providing them. You really need to limit yourself to a few important ones, or people will be intimidated by the sheer number of requests and even fewer will be done. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I would add that inflected forms such as plurals should be the last place to put rfps, unless there's some indication that the pronunciation can't be easily predicted from the pronunciation of the lemma. Likewise with phrases vs. the words that make them up. It seems silly to have more information on the pages that people are least likely to go to. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, pronunciation goes after etymology. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't get it: why are you asking for pronunciation on "caramel apple" when we already have them for caramel and apple? You could just copy it across. Equinox 23:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

alexipharmacumEdit

Apologies for rolling you back, but there is no pronunciation of an obsolete word. (I mean, it might be possible to say how the word was pronounced at various points in history, but generally we don't do this.) Ƿidsiþ 07:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

PronunciationEdit

I just went through about 100 entries or more just now and added pronunciation requests. Why doesn't Wiktionary have all of these pronunciations? Couldn't there possibly be bots that did some of this? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 03:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That would prevent people who need a pronunciation/etymology soon(ish) from requesting them. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
A request for pronunciation is a request to take care of the requested entries before others that aren't tagged. If you put requests in all of the entries, you make the requests meaningless, and we might as well delete the template- no one is going to even look at a category that contains millions of entries. If you keep this up, you'll destroy the whole request process and none of your requests will get the results you want. You have to prioritize and only do important ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, bots have to get their information from somewhere. There's simply no way a bot can figure out a pronunciation from the word itself (exhibit A: wind-verb vs. wind- noun, exhibit B: wound- past tense of wind vs. wound- noun). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at where the requests go: Category:Entries needing pronunciation by language. Then try to figure out how someone is going to decide which ones to do first- no one can do them all anytime soon. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

All those templates you just createdEdit

Why did you create them? We have {{inflection of}} already. —CodeCat 17:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

For ñaña. It's easier for me to just say "____ singular of". I don't think they should be deleted because someone else might want to use those too. It wouldn't be harmful to keep these templates. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 17:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Please stop creating these templates. There are too many of them now and most will never be used again. Like I said, use {{inflection of}}. Or create a template specific for Quechua. —CodeCat 01:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
My template knowledge is very dull. I can't just create a large template like that! Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 01:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
But creating tons of special-purpose templates is not the answer. We had another user a while ago who created literally dozens of templates for every random possible combination of Turkish verb and noun inflection. It was incredibly aggravating to clean it up and we're still not done a year later. Don't be like that user. —CodeCat 01:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
What I don't understand is, why do we need to clean it up? Sure, I get one reason, it may clog up search results. But that's not a huge problem. We should just leave those be. I don't know how to use template:inflection of to do the rest of the Quechua nouns. I could've used inflection of for the ones I already did but what about ALL of the possessive forms? How am I going to do that with any templates? That's why I only did the basic forms. (Gosh, how does anyone even speak Quechua? That stuff is so complicated!!!) Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 01:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Because if we had to have separate templates for every possible type of inflection in every language, there would be hundreds of them, maybe even thousands. Clearly that is not a desirable situation, so it means the number of templates should be limited. —CodeCat 01:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
We should contact someone who speaks Quechua about expanding our database of the Quechua language. Because I don't know where else to go as far as adding verb and noun entries. I'll do that sometime tonight. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 01:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The biggest problem is that if you need to change anything, it will have to be changed in every single template, one at a time. You may not think they need to be changed, but there might be changes decided on in the future that would affect all entries, and the entries with your templates would then no longer match any other entries.
As for not knowing Quechua well enough to do things without making templates: why on earth are you editing in Quechua, then? You should never edit in a language where you don't at least understand the structure of the language. You could be doing an incredible amount of damage by adding misinformation and not know it. If Quechua is like any of the North American Indian languages I've worked with, it's completely different in ways that only a fluent speaker or a linguist can understand without extensive study. For instance, several South American Indian languages use different affixes depending on whether the speaker has personally experienced something or learned about it from someone else (In my experience, there's not a huge difference in complexity between most languages, it's just expressed in different ways, whether by word order, vocabulary, particles, prefixes/infixes/suffixes/endings, or some combination. Native speakers all learned to speak these languages as babies, after all). Eventually, someone who knows the language will come along and do it correctly, but until then, it's far better to leave languages untouched than to add misleading or downright wrong information.
As an example, I've added hundreds of entries in Cahuilla (see Category:Cahuilla language and WT:ACHL), but they're almost all nouns. Why? because I spent dozens and dozens of hours studying grammars and dictionaries of Cahuilla over many years before I felt comfortable that I knew the grammar of nouns well enough to avoid mistakes. Verbs are another matter entirely. Mind you, I have a degree in Linguistics, and took a class in American Indian languages at UCLA taught by w:Pamela Munro- and I still don't feel ready to do verbs in Cahuilla yet. Please don't be the fool who rushes in where angels fear to tread! Chuck Entz (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying. However, the inflection template told me literally everything I needed to know. I also now am expanding my interests to cover a large amount of languages.
I also have an interest in linguistics. This is part of the reason I'm on this site. However I'm still in high school, I study languages quite often in my free time, and know most of the "linguistics" that I know from using this site, such as learning about singular/plural, masculine/feminine, nominative, accusative, cases, verb forms, adjective forms, noun forms, and genitive cases, etymologies, the IPA, and a lot of stuff like that. I'm not ever going to say I'm an expert; I only know a little bit, especially compared to people like you who have a linguistics degree (which I'm actually considering for the future).
Anyway, also, I have a question to ask you about your talk page about that, since you told me about your linguistics degree. It'll come in a second.
Anyway, also, I need to use the site to learn much more about wiki editing, since I am planning a massive wiki website debuting sometime next year.
Anyway, so my point is, I'm extending the entries I create to include lots of Latin-based language, since I seem to understand their system very well, especially if they're similar to Spanish or French. Even languages such as French may be hard to speak, but it's easier to understand the linguistic concepts. Especially languages similar to Spanish or French, such as Italian, Portuguese, Catalan, Galician, I could create entries for those because they are all so similar and easy to read. Okay, fine, I'll give up on Quechua for now. But all I wanted to do was help out. That's all I ever want to do here is help out, to be honest. I'm not really trying to pester anyone with these entries. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

BullyingEdit

I wouldn't get too worked up about User:Dan Polansky if i were you. Over the past few weeks he's managed to anger multiple editors here. For instance he's been abusing me for years now, and i'm almost on the verge of quitting this place for good. He has also managed to bully User:Romanophile recently. I'm not sure what it is but i get the sense that he's suffering from some sort of superiority complex and tries to patronize others in order to maintains some sort of hierarchy on Wiktionary. There are times when his outbursts seem slightly reasonable since it has the goal of constructive criticism. But there are other times where his outbursts cross the line into irrationality and personal attacks. Off the top of my head i can think of six editors (plus you) he has done that too. If he keeps it up I get the feeling he's going to create more adversaries than he can handle and he will end up on some sort of noticeboard where his behaviour will receive the scrutiny of wiktionary editors as a whole. Zeggazo (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems that my prediction about "creating too many adversaries" has come true.Zeggazo (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

InterwikiEdit

As for diff, we have bots to add interwiki. There is no need to spend human time and attention in adding them manually. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Often times, these bots do not work properly, for instance, I know a Danish entry that was not added for over 2 years. So when I create an entry, I always add the interwiki, just in case it never gets added like that one that I was talking about. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 14:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Special:Diff/29180273/29182411Edit

To answer your question: highly doubtful. DP's tendency to invoke the liberum veto so frequently and without even trying explain himself at all is quite unique (PBP, on the other hand, refers to Wikipedia's rules he misconstrues as applicable here, which is just as annoying). Besides, you have been not been here for very long, which other user could it be that you are supposedly reminded of? I suggest you keep such speculation to yourself when you have no compelling evidence. This is really bad form, to say the least. Or libel, to say the most. Keφr 18:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I reverted the edit. I am, just being honest here, kind of pissed at him for trolling at my discussion and making fun of users who try very hard here to help improve the site. I think most of us "active" members here are trying very hard to improve the project, and though Dan Polansky may have been also working hard on his part, it was very offensive for him to blatantly shun the hard work of others. Though I may be clumsy sometimes, I am trying very hard to improve the project, even with my ideas that may not be as good as what others expect. I can say the same thing for users like User:Eirikr, who Dan Polansky also flamed, for he also clearly is here to work on the project and to contribute to Wiktionary, which he has worked hard on and he must be respected as such. I don't really like pointing fingers at people, since I make a lot of mistakes too, so I won't say anything more about this; the situation has been handled. Thanks for your time. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 18:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

recessivEdit

What's the point of putting an entry in that doesn't record as a Danish adjective or lemma? Donnanz (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. It categorized as an adjective and as a lemma. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 15:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, I see it's recording now. When I first looked it wasn't. Apologies, false alarm. Donnanz (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
It was because of the edit to {{da-adj}}, which I just undid. —CodeCat 15:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Danish stykkeEdit

I've been wondering what stykke means in Danish. Even though Danish and the Norwegian languages are related, I'm not sure if I could trust the latter for translations as cognates. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

piece, chunk, bit. If it means something in more than 2 other Nordic languages that are similar, you can go ahead and assume it means the same in Danish. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 03:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
It may mean several other things, too. Although the above user isn't enirely wrong I would advise against using his or her suggestion as a rule of thumb. It takes more than a rudimentary knwoledge of a language to make that sort of recommendations.
- Teodor (dc) 23:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

MockbaEdit

Hi, What is wrong with redirects? "MOCKBA" (capitalised) looks exactly like МОСКВА and "CCCP" looks like СССР. When people see these Cyrillic words, they assume it's in Roman letters. Redirects help them find the right terms. I can see no conflict here, unless there are words in other languages. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Spanish pluralsEdit

Hi RSY. So you know, we don't use Category:Spanish plurals anymore. Instead, and I don't know why (nor do I necessarily agree with it), we categorise them in Category:Spanish noun forms. --Type56op9 (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

EtymologiesEdit

[6] -- absolutely not true, and I'll thank you not to mess up my entries with your "From". Take it to a vote if you must. Equinox 14:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute. "Your entry", you say? Take a look at diff. Anyway, why would any Wiktionary users own any entry?
Also, there is no rule stating if it is wrong or right to add "From" at the beginning of an etymology. It just looks more proper in my opinion when you do add "From" to the beginning. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 14:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
If it's "in my opinion" then don't you dare say that it "must always" be done in an edit summary. You know you are in the wrong here. Equinox 22:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I had actually believed before that it was a rule, until you said otherwise, so now I say it is my opinion. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 03:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of contentsEdit

Hello, can I ask you why did you do this [7] ? -Nikolas (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Because I made the topic and no one was responding so I don't think anyone really cared too much. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 01:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
It was also completely off-topic, so it was subject to removal on those grounds alone (not that any of us would do so).
The only way there might be a problem with removing an un-responded-to topic such as this would if there were a dispute about it and you were trying to hide the evidence. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

ze, ziEdit

Where are you getting these Spanish forms from? Modern Castilian orthography dictates that z should never precede e or i, only c may. (Yes, there are a few exceptions, but they’re not native formations.) You may want to reconsider your creations. --Romanophile (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I'll stop making such forms for now. Why don't we investigate this in RFC? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Use {{rfinfl}} next time. — Ungoliant (falai) 05:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)