Kibi78704 (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


EtymologiesEdit

Hi, when you use {{etyl}}, please only list the language code of the second parameter if the entry is actually derived from the other word. If the word you're mentioning is just a cognate, put a hyphen (-) as the second parameter instead. For example, a Scottish Gaelic word derived from an Old Irish word can say it's "from {{etyl|sga|gd}}", but a Scottish Gaelic word that's cognate with (but not derived from) a Welsh word should say it's "cognate with {{etyl|cy|-}}". That way the word won't be put in Category:Scottish Gaelic terms derived from Welsh. Thanks! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry! I misunderstood the template. Kibi78704 (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for cleaning up dubh; I have cleaned up ainleag. Thanks for your patience. Sorry, again, for the misunderstanding. Kibi78704 (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

TOC for Scottish GaelicEdit

It turns out that the module looks for {{gd-categoryTOC}} and uses it if it exists. I created the template and copied the contents from {{ga-categoryTOC}}. Enjoy! Chuck Entz (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Kibi78704 (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Topical categoriesEdit

Just some friendly advice on topical categories from someone who spends a lot of time working on them: finding the right one can be rather tricky, so I often check similar entries in English, which has the most complete coverage, to see what they use. There are many cases where a category was first created with a name that might not seem to match the others, such as Category:en:Pigs instead of Category:en:Suids. Unless it's seriously deceptive or otherwise wrong, we don't bother to change it.

Not that you should simply copy them, because English has a huge vocabulary with different categorization needs than one like Scottish Gaelic: there may be hundred or even thousands of entries in an English category, so I may create a number of narrow and esoteric subcategories to keep it manageable. The same category might have just a handful in Scottish Gaelic.

Topical categories should be viewed as a navigational tool so users can find terms that share something with the term in question, not as a classification. If there are only going to be one or two terms in one of these narrower categories, you'd be better off just adding a "See also" or a "Coordinate terms" section to the entries in question. Either that, or use broader parent categories: "fish" instead of "cyprinids", for instance, if there's only a term for, say, a minnow and a term for carp in the whole language.

Also, I find the HotCat gadget extremely helpful. It has a feature that gives a menu of all the categories that match what you've typed so far, so you can type "Sui" and it will show you everything that starts with "Category:Sui", or "gd:Sui" to see everything that starts with "Category:gd:Sui", so you can check different possibilities before you add them.

If all else fails, feel free to ask me- especially if you see a possible hole in our category coverage. Adding new categories to the modules is easier than it looks, but that's not saying much. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, @Chuck Entz! I appreciate the tips, and the explanations.
I do have HotCat enabled, but have rarely used it as I have been working mainly on gd:wict and gd:wikipedia for the past several months where it is/was not available.
I added Category:gd:Suids, as you suspected, because it seemed compatible with the existing subcategories in "Category:en:Even-toed ungulates" and "Category:gd:Even-toed ungulates". I started to delete it, but left it as is knowing it would show up on a "bad category name" category.Kibi78704 (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Seadorna-‎Edit

You said you were uninterested in an explanation of how the templates work, but I'm hoping we can still discuss what is and isn't appropriate for entries at Wiktionary. I'm not sure that this is actually a prefix, and if so, what it means. An element used in a taxonomic name is not necessarily going to be an affix, but often is more appropriate in the etymology of the entry itself. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge
Just delete it.
You are not interested in the reasons why I created it; I believe that you just want to exert control and establish dominance.
The last time I had such a "talk" with an English Wikitioneer was such a humiliating exercise in patronization that I do not wish to repeat it. Ever. Someone reverted a day's worth of work without discussion, scolded me like a child, forced me to humiliate myself, then realized I was right all along and wanted me to redo all that he had reverted.
No, thank you. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
I really don't wish to interact with someone who comes out with nuclear devices because they have subjectively decided that a template I chose is wrong... then stalks me.
It is obvious to me, from a just few sentences, that I nothing I say or do will appease you, that to you, I am wrong, and that is that. I cannot win. From a few sentences, I already know that, to you, there is one way and one way only: your way. No compromise.
I was adding etymologies to relieve stress; now I'm having a panic attack. Thank you very much.
I quit working on the English Wikipedia and Wictionary many years ago because of unpleasant (mostly male) people who are rude, overbearing, and territorial. I should never have come back here; I should have stayed in the Scottish Gaelic Uici world where it is nice and peaceful, where people are kind and cooperative.
Thank you for reminding me why I left the English Wikipedia and Wictionary world. So long, and thanks for all the fish. Kibi78704 (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
With all due respect, that can be used to get away with anything: "go ahead, lock me up- you're not interested in my explanation of why I robbed that bank. You don't care about anything but asserting dominance." If someone from the US goes to England and starts driving on the right side of the street, I think there's a good chance they'll get pulled over and talked to in a very non-nurturing manner- if they don't cause an accident first. Some things here are rather arbitrary, but it's necessary to be consistent when you have literally millions of entries- synchronizing them after the fact would be a massive headache. In my experience, Meta is only concerned about the quality of the dictionary- dominance has nothing to do with it. Yes, he was rude, but you seem to be playing passive-aggressive guilt games (perhaps not intentionally, but that's the result). Any chance we could just talk about what's best for the entries?
By convention here, we only use a hyphen at one end or the other of an entry name to show that the term is a prefix or a suffix (the {{affix}} template is designed to take advantage of this). That means you're saying (whether you meant to or not) that Seadorna- is a prefix. It seems to me, though, that -virus is the affix here: it gets added to pretty much everything with that taxonomic rank. Seadorna is what the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature calls an "arbitrary sequence of letters" : it was made up just for the taxonomic name, and you will only see it with one taxonomic suffix or another tacked onto it. It's sort of like a cranberry morpheme in English. As Meta said, I think the best way to handle this would be to explain the origin of "seadorna" in the entry for seadornavirus without actually linking to it, and follow it with {{suffix|mul|-|virus}}. I suppose you could also do {{affix|mul|sedorna|-virus|t1=Acronym for South eastern Asia dodeca RNA virus}}, but that seems like stuffing a lot of text into a small space.
Also, seadornavirus is lowercase, so it doesn't make sense to have an entry for part of it capitalized. Most other references capitalize all their entries, but they don't have to deal with different capitalization standards in different languages like we do (Hand is German, hand is English). Chuck Entz (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz
Hello, Chuck. Could you please introduce yourself and tell me why you are involved in this conversation before we go any further? Thank you.
Kibi78704 (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Apparently @Chuck Entz and @Metaknowledge are done with this conversation?
I now know that Chuck Entz is a Wiki Administrator; I was not previously aware of that. I now know Meta is a sysop; I was not previously aware of that, either.
Not that it apparently matters anymore, I will state my case. I didn't before because I felt that it would fall on deaf ears. I felt anger, fear, and defeat before we began this interaction because of previous encounters in en.wik*.
According to multiple moderately creditable sources (e.g., ScienceDirect; ViralZone, etc.), Seadornavirus is a genus. Last time I checked, the convention is that the name of a genus is capitalized. It is my understanding that the name of a genus is a translingual lemma, and it was my intention to create a translingual page for the genus called Seadornavirus.
According text at Wiley eLS, it appears that the term seadornavirus (lowercase) refers to the group of viruses as opposed to the genus proper. This is a subtle difference that is a new concept to me. I am not clear as to the language of a noun that describes the set of viruses within a genus; in Wictionary, seadornavirus is currently defined as an English lemma. This does not seem correct to me, but I am not prepared to argue about it.
The crux of the creation of the prefix "Seadorna-" page is that in addition to the nonexistent genus page, I mistakenly thought there was a subfamily whose name began with the same sequence of letters. I realize now that I am thinking like a software engineer and not a lexicographer – software engineers like to define things in one and only one place, but not necessarily so for lexicographers. Moreover, the subfamily is actually "Sedoreovirinae" (rather than "Seadornavirinae"), according to ViralZone.
BTW, there are a few places, including Wikipedia, that made the same typographical\lexical error that I did:
The fallacy (described above) in my understanding at the time led me to conclude, erroneously, that this set of letters constituted a prefix. I created the prefix page so that I could establish the definition in a single place and link to it rather than explain the acronym in both the page for the proper noun, the genus name page (that does not exist yet), and in the common noun and in the incorrect subfamily name.
I am willing to concede that "Seadorna-" is not a proper prefix, and will happily request that the page I created be deleted. As it's been a while since I requested a page to be deleted, I need to research the proper procedure.
Kibi78704 (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I have deleted the entry per your request. Are you okay with me explaining our conventions on template usage, entry formatting, and more? As Chuck noted, we have very strict standards by necessity, given the immense number of pages we have to upkeep. The entries you have created so far contain some inconsistencies with respect to these standards. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Now that I know you are an officer of Wiki, yes, I would like that very much. I thought you were just a user on a power trip.
Believe it or not, I was trying to follow the rules as I understood them. I would love to correct the inconsistencies.
Thank you for deleting the page.
Kibi78704 (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Here are some things to start out with, based on what I've seen in your contributions thus far.

  • Etymology templates. The template {{langname}} simply gives the name of a language. However, the template {{der}} gives that, along with allowing you to specify the etymon, and furthermore categorises the entry based on its etymology. It is the main replacement for {{etyl}}, which is being phased out, although it is perfectly fine to leave it alone in entries, as it isn't actively doing any harm. Only {{der}} is usually appropriate in Translingual entries, but for natural languages, we try to specify between inherited and borrowed terms with the templates {{inh}} and {{bor}}.
  • Etymologies of subfamilies, families, and the like. These are standardly based on the type genus with a suffix that is associated with the taxonomic rank; further etymology goes on the page for the genus. See Shamosaurinae for an example.
  • References. These should go at the bottom of the entry, even when they pertain to a section higher up, like the etymology. It is worth being extremely careful about what resources you rely on and reference, because this is what underlies the credibility of Wiktionary itself. I saw that you have referenced DinoChecker.com, which is very poor source for etymology. It is frequently the case that no online source will have the etymology of a taxonomic name in a fully correct or orthographically acceptable form for Wiktionary, and it is critical that you ask for help or abstain from adding such etymologies if you cannot ascertain whether your source is good.

This is a rather large dump of advice, so I'll leave it at that for now. Feel free to ask questions if you need clarification on any of these points or about any other standards on Wiktionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge

Gotcha. Thanks. It all makes sense - except for these questions:
  • Re: References on pages with multiple languages. Do the references go at the bottom of the page or at the bottom of the section for the pertinent language?
  • Should I remove the etymology based on DinoChecker if I cannot find a more credible source?
  • I saw a pseudo etymology for w:en:Sedoreovirinae that I am 99.9% sure is incorrect. It says "sedo = smooth", which is not true; "seda" means "silk" in several languages, and means smooth or silky when converted to an adjective in some - like Spanish (e.g. sedosa|sedoso); "sedo" means something else entirely in any language.
I suspect the true etymology for "Sedoreovirinae" is an acronym for southeast Asia dodeca respiratory enteric orphan, but I haven't found a source to confirm or deny it. Yet.
  • Should I research the etymology and fix it in both Wiki and Wict?
    • Or put this information on a discussion page for the Wiki entry, but create the Wict etymology?
  • Should I leave it as is on Wiki, but create a well researched etymology on Sedoreovirinae?
  • Some other combination?
  • May I extrapolate from your discussion about etymologies on taxonomy pages and say the rule is to write a more detailed etymology on the leaf node\smallest|shortest lemma; then link to that lemma in etymologies for (strongly) related lemmas? (Does that make sense?)
  • BTW I did fix the typo on w:en:Kadipiro_virus concerning the subfamily name.
Thank you for taking the time to teach me this. I'm truly sorry I freaked out - I think my PTSD kicked in.
Kibi78704 (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Responding to each of your questions in turn:
  • Each language has its own entry, so the references for that entry should go at the bottom of that language's section.
  • This etymology appears in Virus Taxonomy, which is a publication of the ICTV. This is a very reliable source, but it is true that the etymology as it stands does not make sense from the point of view of the Latin. Many etymologies of taxonomic names contain such errors, because very few scientists know Latin nowadays, and they use a dictionary without any consideration for part of speech, etc; I have added the etymology
  • I am not an admin on Wikipedia, and what you do there is not my primary concern. In the interest of disseminating accurate information, I will of course ask that you do not insert guesswork on any wiki.
  • Your extrapolation is correct, and is a framework we follow for most etymologies, although very loosely, as different languages have different standards for what they like to show. This dictionary being in English, we generally allow English etymologies to have more complete (redundant) detail, but it is always unnecessary when it is simply a concatenation of other words or morphemes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge

OK, Thanks.
  • Should I remove the etymology based on DinoChecker if I cannot find a more credible source?
Kibi78704 (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)