Open main menu

On Proto-Norse ᚴᚢᚦEdit

Hi, I noticed you added a Proto-Norse section to ᚴᚢᚦ using the Skåäng Runestone text as a citation. However, judging from that Wikipedia article, the Proto-Norse part of that inscription consists only of the Elder Futhark harija leugaz; the rest is said to have been added in Younger Futhark during the Viking Age and thus would represent an Old Norse text, thus not counting as attestation for Proto-Norse. (A 6th century Swedish text representing a Christian burial would hardly be expected anyway: Scandinavia was still solidly pagan in that period.) If my thinking is indeed correct, my next question would be: are there any attestations of the term that are indeed from the Proto-Norse era which might be used to support a Proto-Norse entry? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mnemosientje: That's a mistake on my part; I'll convert it to just Old Norse. Anyways I did a quick search through the Runenprojekt database, which only has Proto-Norse inscriptions, and the only things relating to "god" were from *ansuz. Julia 21:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Alright, that solves it. Thanks for checking! — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Jacob etc.Edit

I think derivations from a name within one and the same language are usually treated as derived terms rather than descendants, just like how other words are treated (diff). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Admin II: electric boogalooEdit

Now you and I both know that "I definitely won't have any time for Wiktionary" was a big lie. Would you like to go for it again? Equinox 15:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Equinox: Not a lie per se, just underestimated my ability to procrastinate via Wiktionary and still get my schoolwork and everything else done. Anyways I’d like the admin tools, so I’ll go for it. Julia 18:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Cool. A new vote is here: Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2019-07/User:Julia_for_admin. Please sign/accept it. Equinox 04:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations! You're now an admin. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


I've undone your bad edits here. 1. Don't add blank levels in descendants trees. 2. Don't add add cardinal branch levels to derived terms (|der=1) in descendants trees. --{{victar|talk}} 02:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Victar: I feel like blank levels are common practice. How is my edit any different than the trees at *xšwiptah, *ȷ́ʰánuš, *grā́mas, etc.? Julia 04:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I can't speak for other languages, but I can tell you for (Indo-)Iranian, that is wrong. Please desist. --{{victar|talk}} 04:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Re: *xšwiptah, adding blank levels is fine when it groups two descendants together. What you did was made a gratuitous line of ancestors for a single descendant. --{{victar|talk}} 04:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Cimbrisch-deutsches WörterbuchEdit

Hi Julia, are you aware of this: ? Looks citable to me (even though I haven´t yet figured out the language codes they use). --Akletos (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Akletos: Thanks for this, I didn't know about it. And the "Sprache" column seems to be for the three main dialects: Luserna, Sette Comuni, Thirteen Communities. Julia 01:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation; now I understand... Perhaps somenone can create a reference template that links to the respective lemmata. Would it be ok if I created some Cimbrish entries based on this Wörterbuch? What about the diacritics? They use e.g. acute and grave accents that are sometimes the only difference between two dialects; should they appear in the wkt entry, too? But I don't want to interfere with your work, so feel free to decline. --Akletos (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Akletos: Yeah I don't own Cimbrian lol. Also I can make a reference template. Regarding the diacritics, I would just go off what's given there. For the source I'm working with now (Martalar) I remove the graves on ⟨i⟩, ⟨a⟩, and ⟨u⟩ because they're just a dictionary spelling to indicate stress (there's a pronunciation guide at the beginning). Julia 15:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Akletos: Template is here: {{Template:R:CDW}}. Julia 15:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Vadalism by an IP userEdit

@Julia Since your an admin could you help in stoping this IP user "", (s)he been adding images without any sense to random pages. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Holodwig21:   Done, thanks. Julia 03:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Julia Your Welcome! but he seems to have returned unfrotunately, this time with "". 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I realize that idiots like this are annoying, but you should never do an indefinite block on an IP. The most I've ever done is a year, and even then only when there's a stable history of similar edits proving that the same person has been using that IP address for longer than the period of the block, and that no one else has.
Also, you can do a range block by adding /nn at the end of the IP address, where nn is the number of bits your range has in common. You can click on the whois link at the bottom of the contributions page to get an idea of how large a block the ISP has allocated. In this case, it looks like /17 covers it. The system won't let you use a suffix smaller than /16 for the 32-bit IPv.4 address space (I don't remember the number for the 128-bit IPv.6 address space). With IPv.6 addresses, the normal way the ISPs allocate addresses is to give one account 64 bits, so for most ISPs I do /64 as a minimum. There are exceptions such as AT & T Mobility in the eastern US, where it's completely random and you shouldn't do range blocks. When I've looked at that range with the checkuser tool, I've seen a vandal edit from an IP address one week, and a completely unrelated logged-in user editing from it the next. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the IP info. Also I'll be sure not to do indefinite on an IP in the future. Julia 04:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleting TemplatesEdit

When you delete something like Template:etymtree/la/candela, you should first look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:etymtree/la/candela and fix any entries that use the template. That way we don't have ugly module errors like this to annoy and alarm site visitors, and you avoid getting nagged by those of us who patrol CAT:E. Grumpily, Chuck Entz (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


Hi ! By removing so much of the etymology, we are losing some of the term's categorisation. Is there possibly a way we can pare it down while still leaving some of the derivation in tact ? Leasnam (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Leasnam: Yeah there's no perfect way b/c you either lose categorization or have a bunch of redundancy. I edited it a bit and think it's a good compromise. Let me know what you think. Julia 22:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


I've noticed that you've removed "in turn from {{inh|enm|gem-pro|*bazją}}" from berye. While it could be seen as redundant as that information is already on beriġe and berry, it's useful to have that information on there as it adds berye to the appropriate categories (Category:Middle English terms inherited from Proto-Germanic and Category:Middle English terms derived from Proto-Germanic). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hazarasp: I started a discussion about this here, if you want to comment. Julia 15:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Descendants formattingEdit

Hey Julia, a few comments:

  1. I think I've mentioned this in the past to you -- maybe not -- but {{desc|lang|-}} should be employed rarely and in only special cases. For instance, when we don't reconstruct languages, like {{desc|hyx-pro|-}}. We do, however, reconstruct Gaulish, and by doing {{desc|cel-gau|-}} in this entry, you removed it from the Gaulish term requests category.
  2. Please add |bor= and |der= to the end of {{desc}}, as intended, with the lang in |1= and lemma in |2=.
  3. Please use {{see desc}} for extra-familial borrowings on Germanic and Celtic entries, like with Frankish and Gaulish borrowings into Latin. Because we use {{desctree}} on PG entries, if we have all the Latin borrowings with their descendants, it makes the list very unwieldy.

Thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 16:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Victar: Re:
  1. I do use {{desc|lang}} 99% of the time (I added the term requests in the previous edit and then reverted it b/c I don't know much about Gaulish and there wasn't a term request before). I didn't know the definite criteria for using it or not though, thanks.
  2. I do this because it's easier to copy-paste and distinguish borrowings visually when editing. I didn't know it mattered; does this go for just this template or should you put all named parameters at the end?
  3. (+ etymology ask below): Noted.
Thanks you! Julia 22:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, generally in every template, lang should be |1= and term should be |2=, at least that's how we standardized them. Thanks, Julia. --{{victar|talk}} 22:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleting etymologiesEdit

Hey Julia, I'm all for concise etymologies, but I think you're being overzealous with some of your deletions. --{{victar|talk}} 16:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

World Loanword DatabaseEdit

As I think you've noticed, they have an odd system where they include any suggestion and then rate it for plausibility. Anything on the low end of their plausibility scale is unfit for Wiktionary. Anything on the definite end can be included as usual. As for something in the middle, like tambiko, I would generally not include it, but if I felt there were some reason to do so, I would include a weasel word to match the source ("possibly", "potentially", etc). Could you revisit your WOLD-based edits to do this? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: All are 1's (clearly borrowed) but tambiko, which I edited. Julia 20:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Great, thanks. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Julia".