Formatting issuesEdit

Please add the “(Common to all varieties [] )” text under a ====Usage notes==== header following the definitions, and add ---- between language sections. — Ungoliant (Falai) 09:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate the guidance.--A12n (talk) 10:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to send me a message if you have any question. — Ungoliant (Falai) 10:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Instead of ====Variant form====, you should use ===Alternative forms=== before the part of speech heading (see [1]).
I recommend reading WT:ELE, which explains our formatting standards. Despite these minor formatting issues, we are thankful for your Fula contributions so far. — Ungoliant (Falai) 10:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Will take another look thx. Sometimes I wish MediaWiki had a kind of pop-up or pull-down for editing help. Will move User:Mglovesfun's comment to new section, and respond and comment shortly in general on the possible implications/issues with seriously expanding Fula content.--A12n (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

New entriesEdit

Hello. You don't need to put "new" in the edit summary box for a new entry. If you leave it blank, the new page's content will be shown instead, which is more useful to see in Recent Changes. Equinox 14:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I got used to that in another context - will adjust.--A12n (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Question re Fula entriesEdit

What do ɗi and ɗe mean? Remember where possible we write in English. If there is no English for these then we may need to link to the entries ɗi and ɗe (which we don't have yet). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Ɗi and ɗe are class indicators (that serve as articles or indicatives). Kind of like gender in French or German, but there are some 26 of them. They should indeed have entries, and their own subcategory, but haven't gotten that far yet. These noun classes and their indicators exist across the varieties of Fula.
This is but one aspect of expanding listings for this language to consider. Another one is verbo-nominal (or nomino-verbal) roots (also mostly pan-Fula), and on which the lexicon is built - how best to integrate those as an organizing and access aspect of the material? As separate entries listing derived forms (nouns, proper nouns, verbs, adjectives)? Yet another is the diversity of the language, which in my opinion does not require treatment of each variety as a separate language (there would be huge overlapping), but rather needs leveraging of "alternative forms" etc. such as I've begun experimenting with.--A12n (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
You should start a discussion at WT:RFDO requesting the deletion of the language codes fub, fuh, fuq, fuv, fue, fui, ffm, fuc and fuf, as the existence of these indicates that they are to be treated as distinct languages. — Ungoliant (Falai) 13:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. This is not a new issue - though it is here. Problem is that the varieties of Fula both are and are not distinct, and that's a longer discussion. On the level of words there is considerable overlap and I think it makes sense to approach the lexicon from the point of view of sameness/similarities. But for the different usages or unique items, it would seem to me to be worth having the separate reference codes to organize. What I think I'm suggesting is adapting the current approach, not making a major break from WM policy wrt the use of ISO 639-3. Ultimately could go to WT:RFDO as you suggest, but it would be ideal to have more people with knowledge on the language before doing so. In the meantime, will try to build the case.--A12n (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Chinese entriesEdit

The main content is contained on a page titled in Traditional Chinese; the Simplified Chinese is a redirect (see 煠熟狗头 vs. 煠熟狗頭). Additonally,page creation can be speeded up with the usage of {{zh-new}}. —suzukaze (tc) 17:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and suggestion.--A12n (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)