Open main menu


Archived talk pageEdit

1 2


Please leave these. They categorize into Category:Entries missing English vernacular names of taxa and allow me to create lists of the most frequently "wanted" vernacular names, that is those that appear within {{vern}} on the most pages. See User:DCDuring/vern. Removing {{vern}} makes it less likely that I or anyone else using the frequency list will add the name. Feel free to add entries for such names. DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure, as long as someone is going down the list and correcting them. No one else is going to be, since you make it look like it's a new policy to change redlinks to wikipedia ones. — LlywelynII 18:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Correcting? It's not wrong to omit them. I insert {{vern}} whenever I find a redlinked vernacular name. There are a few users who follow my practice for new entries in their languages. As a result vernacular names used in definitions in their entries get entered before other vernacular names. Chinese, Cebuano, Tagalog, and Kikuyu are languages with contributors who use both {{taxlink}} and {{vern}}. DCDuring (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Capitalizing Arabic romanizationsEdit

Arabic doesn't use majuscules, and thus we do not represent them in our romanisations. For further information, see WT:About Arabic. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's an idiosyncratic and mistaken policy that seems unhelpful for our users but I don't edit Arabic entries much and it's certainly easier to just let the template spit everything out the same. Thanks for letting me know. Kindly remember not to delete other non-disputed aspects with your uncorrected reverts concerning particular points of an edit. — LlywelynII 21:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
This is done a lot in romanization in Arabic/Islamic/Oriental studies. So it's definitely not idiosyncratic, though I personally agree with you that it's a bad policy.


Good work on the page. I monitor Category:Requests for date and noted that you removed all the templates that placed the page there, but didn't insert content by John Locke (AFAICT). Do you think that these older authors are not worthwhile in general or just in this case and in similar? What considerations influence you? DCDuring (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. It's certainly not that I think old uses aren't helpful.
[Possibly unimportant explanation] I'm in favor of bringing over as many of the first instances of senses from the OED as possible; even when they're in Old or Middle English, it's an important part of the word's history that a really authoritative entry should include. Apart from those, though, my thought is that we should aim to include obviously important uses (Shakespeare at "rose" and "yonder"; Costanza at "it's not you, it's me") and very illustrative uses (e.g. the Fry quote I added to "intellectual" that captures how it's often a pejorative and how that's often out of annoyed inadequacy). Beyond that, sometimes there will be funny quotes or ones from a book more people should see.
[Germane bit] Locke is certainly important enough to cite and wise & interesting enough to cite often but that particular quote seemed a) to lack basic info about the quote b) presumably because it was just lifted from a public-domain dictionary c) which we don't need to slavishly imitate. d) As far as I know, this isn't a major quote in general culture or even Locke's works. e) It's ambiguous whether the quote appropriately fits the sense of proper or of assumed understanding and f) its grammar is so archaic/bad/unhelpful that an editor felt it necessary to add notes in a code comment. In any case, g) we had other, better cites already and h) the Locke cite omits the actual words under discussion and so communicates almost nothing except that he feels he has a grasp on which interpreters were sufficiently learnèd and which infra dig. i) Locke is important for his philosophy and political heritage, not his theology, which is what this passage was about. j) "Understand" is a very common verb and there's certain to be plenty of other options.
So all in all, thought it was better to just nix it altogether. If my understanding was somehow mistaken (maybe it's a famous or important passage to theologians?) or you just like it, feel free to add it back... but ideally with more content, links, and context so it's clear w/t/f he's talking about.
In any case, thanks for keeping an eye on things and being polite about it. — LlywelynII 13:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Evidence for readingEdit

Is there any evidence for this reading: 'Měngjiǎ'? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why you're asking me. My edit to that page had nothing to do with that pinyin. If you're just asking around, I think there are some templates you can put on the page to ask for usage cites to verify a point. You can look at {{fact}}. — LlywelynII 02:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, it's just a transcription of the sound kah (which is much closer to jia than xia, esp. given previous southern Mandarin pronunciations that realized j as k) and the four Shanghainese I just asked to read the name all used jia when they did. If there's some variant local pronunciation, they probably both need to be noted with an explanation. Also, fwiw, Chinese Wikipedia's article on the town doesn't note an unusual local pronunciation and also needs to have something added to its lead sentence if it's not jia. — LlywelynII 02:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
This article on an unrelated place does seem to prefer reading xia as a transcription of the same word but a) still includes jia as a common alternate reading and b) says that the original word can also mean "the canoes" (="a place storing outrigger canoes"), which seems like a more likely etymology than just "canoe" itself, which is what the entry has right now. — LlywelynII 02:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your great work! Because of your comments here, I took a little excursion to the so-called 'Mengxia Park' to figure what was going on with this pronunciation. The reason I contacted you was because it was you created the pinyin page for 'Měngjiǎ' ([1]). Later on, I realized that this IS the official form for Taiwanese Mandarin for the name [2]; [3]. As expected, no one in the area had any clue that the area might be called 'Mengxia Park'. They told me it was definitely 'Mengjia' in Mandarin, just like the Shanghainese you asked. I changed the name of that Wikipedia page to 'Bangka Park' because all the signs in the area use this spelling. Not sure what to think about 'canoes' etymology. I will read the pictures I took of the signs in the park and make more edits. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


Shouldn't this be an adjective? Definitely not a proper noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, absolutely. I had fixed the template but not the header. [Fixt.] — LlywelynII 04:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "LlywelynII".