Mahagaja

• /Archive 1 (January 2007 to January 2012)
• /Archive 2 (February 2012 to May 2012)
• /Archive 3 (June 2012 to May 2013)
• /Archive 4 (June to August 2013)
• /Archive 5 (September 2013 to February 2014)
• /Archive 6 (March to July 2014)
• /Archive 7 (August to September 2014)
• /Archive 8 (October 2014 to April 2015)
• /Archive 9 (May to November 2015)
• /Archive 10 (December 2015 to March 2016)
• /Archive 11 (April to August 2016)
• /Archive 12 (September 2016)
• /Archive 13 (October to November 2016)
• /Archive 14 (December 2016)
• /Archive 15 (January to April 2017)
• /Archive 16 (May to September 2017)
• /Archive 17 (October to December 2017)
• /Archive 18 (January to March 2018)
• /Archive 19 (April 2018 to February 2019)
• /Archive 20 (March to December 2019)
• /Archive 21 (January to February 2020)
• /Archive 22 (March to July 2020)
• /Archive 23 (August to September 2020)
• /Archive 24 (October 2020 to March 2021)
• /Archive 25 (April 2021 to January 2022)
• /Archive 26 (February 2022 to January 2023)
• /Archive 27 (February to November 2023)
• /Archive 28 (December 2023 to February 2024)
• /Archive 29 (March to November 2024)

BP talk-page redirects

Hi Mahāgaja. Thanks for deleting those five BP talk pages I tagged. 0DF (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

-aí

I get that pos=adjective is to categorise it correctly. But I also want the link to lead to the correct suffix via etymid. Does id=adjective interfere with pos=adjective? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Caoimhin ceallach: Having both |id=adjective and |pos=adjective puts the entries in the redundantly named CAT:Irish adjectives suffixed with -aí (adjective). The only reason I prefer using |pos=adjective is that CAT:Irish adjectives suffixed with -aí already exists and has 20 entries in it. If we want to use |id= to link to the right suffix, that's fine, but then all 20 adjectives need to use it. And then they shouldn't use |pos=adjective, because the category should be named CAT:Irish terms suffixed with -aí (adjective). Once all the terms are switched over, we can delete (or rename) the existing category. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I see. I'm just looking at how it's done here Category:English_terms_suffixed_with_-er. Are the Irish categories currently set up consistently using the pos-parameter? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I think the only other one that uses it is -ach, which is divided by part of speech into CAT:Irish nouns suffixed with -ach and CAT:Irish adjectives suffixed with -ach. The difference there is that the noun-forming -ach and the adjective-forming -ach are etymologically the same suffix, so I didn't make separate {{etymid}}s for them. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

bandle

Hi. Can you check the etymology for bandle? I don't think the Irish is right. 2A02:C7E:2069:C800:742A:66C8:9B14:8272 08:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Guaraní

Hello, I'm not quite sure where to ask about this, so I ended up coming to your talk page. I have two questions, if you don't mind: 1) Is there a way to automatically move all Guaraní entries to Paraguayan Guaraní, or is some kind of consensus needed for that? There aren't many editors, but I can assure you that most, if not all, Guaraní language entries are verifiable in Estigarribia's grammar or Krivoshein's dictionary for instance. I created some of them—certainly not the majority, but a considerable number—and if I could, I would have created them under "Paraguayan Guaraní". "Guaraní" is a generic term that includes more than one language, with different orthographies and varying degrees of mutual intelligibility (Classical Guaraní, Mbyá Guaraní, Paraguayan Guaraní itself, Kaiwá (Guaraní)...). And 2) It seems to me that the diacritic in "Guaraní" is entirely unnecessary. In Guaraní itself (Paraguayan), it isn't used. I imagine this would require consensus, but where should I seek it? Thank you, RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@RodRabelo7: Hi, for your first request I would ask at Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits and for your second request at Wiktionary:Language treatment requests. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Aberdyfi

Please be advised that “Aberdovey” is superseded and considered obsolete. “Aberdyfi” is used in all official contexts (see Wiki page, and the long discussion there) 2A00:23C7:21B4:FD01:E579:F9E1:D2B6:1190 12:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

me daza

As the resident Irish expert, can you shed a light on this phrase's origins? Jin and Tonik (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like anything I know in Irish. The Dictionary of Cork Slang thinks it might be from deas (“nice”), but that doesn't explain the me part. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Rómáinis

How is the Irish term Rómáinis pronounced? -- Apisite (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I've added my best guess. I've never heard the word pronounced, and it's not included in {{R:ga:IPD}}, but it's probably pronounced the way it's spelled, modulo the various dialects. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Your reverts on 𐰾𐰋 and 𐰢𐰭𐰃

Neither seb- nor meŋi is attested anywhere. I don't mean that they are not attested in one particular source, they just simply do not exist. Why wouldn't this be "not a reason for speedy deletion"?

AmaçsızBirKişi (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

^ I should make it clear that that is the case for Old Turkic, not Old Uyghur. Both of them are attested in oui, but not in otk. Quotes there are not in otk. It's comparable to using Shakespeare for Old English, if that makes sense.

AmaçsızBirKişi (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@AmaçsızBirKişi: See WT:DELETE. "Neither of these terms is attested anywhere" is a reason to take something to WT:RFV, not a reason to delete it without discussion. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

There're not many Old Turkic editors (nowadays), in fact, you can only see my name in the edits in the last 30 days section. Who am I going to discuss this with?

And there's nothing to discuss, really. Someone just created these entries a priori, and since they just don't exist, what can I do except just tag it for delete?

I'll create both of those entries for Old Uyghur namespace where they belong, or should I just move those entries?

AmaçsızBirKişi (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Changing them to Old Uyghur (by page move if the orthography is different, otherwise simply by rewriting the content) seems like a good idea and neatly sidesteps the issue of deletion. If a page move is involved, you can then tag the redirect for speedy deletion as an unwanted redirect (which is a valid reason for speedy deletion). —Mahāgaja · talk 16:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, got it. Thanks for the heads up!

AmaçsızBirKişi (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Choctaw

Hey, I've seen some of your edits in Choctaw and hope you keep it up. There are some important considerations that I think you should be aware of.

Line Below Diacritics

I see you moved entries using underline formatting to respective entries with a̱, i̱, o̱, u̱. I support replacing the formatting with the line below diacritic. However, I have concerns about using the line below in the entry. My original approach was to emulate the way Latin entries handle macrons. The macrons are not part of the entry but only the headword. You can see an example here: locutor. This is how all Latin entries are handled.

The reason is technological limitations. iOS and Android have Choctaw keyboards, but Android's keyboard is missing u̱. I'm not sure about iPhone. Microsoft does not have a Choctaw keyboard layout. These particular letters aren't available on any keyboard layouts.

Another consideration is that formatting is often used for the line below (for example, the Choctaw translations on Choctaw Nation's Chief's Blog https://www.choctawnation.com/news/chiefs-blog/encouraging-the-use-of-the-chahta-language/). So if you copy and paste directly from the blog, you may not be able to find the entry.

A lot of entries that you moved that don't automatically redirect are impossible to access without special effort. To make these entries accessible, I see only three options:

1. Take the Latin approach
2. Add "see also" links
3. Add "see also" links as well as create entries with text to the effect of "Missing line below spelling of X"

I feel like #2 is too subtle and shouldn't be the only way to access Choctaw entries with diacritics. This approach is mostly used with languages that have more accessible inputs. This should be a secondary way to access the entry, not the primary way. To be clear, I'm largely concerned with accessibility of Choctaw themselves. It is not common for Choctaw to use non-English keyboards. Hence even the Chief's blog uses formatting and v's instead of diacritics and ʋ.

Spelling Variation

This edit where you moved howa to hu̱wa based on Choctaw Nation's dictionary. This was not necessary. Choctaw has several active orthographies. I made this appendix comparing them: Appendix:Choctaw orthography. The ho̱wa spelling is what's labeled as "CBTC" which is the predominant orthography used by the Mississippi Band of Choctaw today. The orthography labeled "Mississippi" is still in use, but mostly in school materials on the Mississippi reservation. The CBTC orthography is most commonly used officially and informally. You can see the orthography in use here: https://choctawculturallegacy.com/childrens-stories/ There is unfortunately not yet any publicly available Mississippi Choctaw dictionary on the internet. Choctaw Nation in Oklahoma uses the traditional spelling.

Choctaw's various spelling systems as well as the spelling variations within these systems has been one my biggest challenges with incorporating more Choctaw vocabulary onto Wiktionary. A lot of entries have to be duplicated. Kmack (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kmack: I almost never edit Choctaw; I did some page moves back in 2023 because I encountered this entry in this condition in which the underline diacritic was realized by formatting a letter as underlined using <u> </u>, which is absolutely not acceptable. If you want the underline diacritic in Choctaw to work like the macron in Latin, then you still have to use the "combining macron below" (U+0331) in displays but not in page names, so that {{l|cho|aka̱ka}} points to [[akaka]] because the language module has provided diacritic stripping. However, the reason for diacritic stripping in Latin, Old English, and other languages is not because of technical limitations, but because the diacritics are generally used only in scholarly and pedagogical material, and not in regular text intended for native or fluent readers. So the question for Choctaw is, is the underline diacritic used only in dictionaries, language-learning materials, etc., or is it also used in books and newspapers and websites intended for people who already know the language and are simply reading content in it? —Mahāgaja · talk 06:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Mountain Jew

Hey. Please add Mountain Jew to the Derived terms of Jew. It is protected against non-admins like me Vilipender (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done —Mahāgaja · talk 08:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)