Hi there, judging by how quick off the mark you are, I guess you're used to wikis. If you plan to stay here you should probably glance through Entry layout explained, our format guidelines, and our Criteria for inclusion. If you need more help, you wil probably find it in the Community portal. Otherwise, feel free to use my talk page. See you around. Conrad.Irwin 20:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC) P.S. You might consider adding a {{Babel}} box to your user page.Reply[reply]

hinder Edit

Happy New Year! When you have a moment, could you please add Polish translations to the entry for hinder? Do watch out for edit conflicts, though, since I'm asking several folks for help with this. --EncycloPetey 20:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kashubian, Slavic etc. Edit

I'm very happy to see somebody else contributing to obscure Slavic languages ^_^. Seriously, as the only regular Polish contributor here, you might be interested in Appendix:List of Proto-Slavic nouns and other lists occupying the same category. I thought of adding a Kashubian column to those lists, but since there was nobody around interested in it, and English resources on Kashubian are really thin on the Web, I've decided to let go of the idea. However, if you're interested in populating those, feel free to add it, or let me know and I'll make space for it. There's plenty of Polish entries in there that are empty and need checking anyway.. You can copy/paste Proto-Slavic/PIE forms in etymologies of Polish entries if you like, most of those I've double-checked. You just need to use lang=pl for the parameter of {{proto}}. Cheers! --Ivan Štambuk 21:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

reflexive verbs Edit

Like bać się - reflexive particle should generally be omitted, and the reflexive sense should be indicated with context label {{reflexive}} (just like we have {{transitive}} and {{intransitive}} for transitivity, {{pf}} and {{impf}} for (im)perfectiveness etc., and when you think about it, "reflexivity" is just special case of transitivity). I presume that in Polish (like in other Slavic languages), there are verbs that have both usual and reflexive meanings, and that there are reflexive-only verbs. For the latter ones, I've practiced moving {{reflexive}} directly into the headword line, so that it isn't redundantly repeated in the meanings list. *bojati sę is just like that - it was already reflexive in Proto-Slavic! --Ivan Štambuk 14:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appendix:List of Proto-Slavic nouns Edit

Hi! I left a comment on the talk page about splitting the list due to technical difficulties. Since the suggested copy/paste method would ruin edit history, and you are one of the significant contributors to it, I'd like to ask you for feedback on the suggestion. --Ivan Štambuk 11:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

pornograf Edit

I saw that you added the translation to the pornographer article, thank you. :) Could you tell me the plural form of the word pornograf in Polish, so I can add it to the pornograf article? — [ ric ] opiaterein — 17:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hsb.wikt Edit

This is not in the list of wiktionaries on Meta, is being fixed. And then Interwicket will add them too. Robert Ullmann 17:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI: this has been fixed; current run will add any incorrectly removed or missing. Robert Ullmann 11:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A favour? Edit

Could you please double check [1]. It seems a fairly radical change, though I'm sure it's fine. Conrad.Irwin 14:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Layout of templates Edit

There should be as few different layout templates. That has recently been a hot topic in the Wiktionary:Grease pit, quote:

Any given language with complex cases should have:
  • a small number of layout templates, one for each table design
  • a reasonable number of templates for regular declensions/conjugations, that use the layout templates
  • one or several templates with a (largish) number of parameters for irregular inflections, that use the layout templates
  • in some cases templates for specific verbs (where there a just a few irregularities) are useful
Under no circumstances whatever should the table syntax be in individual entries. It becomes utterly impossible to maintain. (Suppose you want to change the colour scheme? Suppose you want to change the name of a particular case to point to a glossary entry instead of main namespace; or to a page for that case for that language? Or any of a dozen other things that should be consistent? If someone has subst'd or pasted the table syntax into a bunch of entries to make changes, you are screwed.) Robert Ullmann 17:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Polish is doing rather well with respect to that guideline. But there is absolutely no objective reason why adjectives should be yellow and ordinal numbers purple. They follow exactly the same declension pattern. So the place to change is {{pl-decl-adj}}, not {{pl-decl-ordinal-1-5}}. Feel free to change that to your favourite layout, for example that of the ordinal numbers. -- Gauss 16:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok ok. Maro 17:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wiedzieć Edit

Hey! Could you check the pronunciation of wiedzieć and powiedzieć? I was looking at it, and it says /ˈvjɛd​͡ʐɛt͡ɕ/. But everywhere else the IPA transcription of dzi is /d͡ʑ/, not /d͡ʐ/. Doesn't the letter i imply the palatalization of dz?

Oh, and what about the first syllable, wie? Shouldn't it be /wʲe/, instead of /wje/? Or there really is a semivowel in the pronunciation (instead of just a palatalization of w)?

~> SilvioRicardoC 14:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are two theories about pronunciation of palatalized labial consonatns. One is called "wymowa asynchroniczna" (sorry I don't know equivalent in English, translation of this is "asynchronous pronunciation") and "wymowa synchroniczna".
Wymowa synchroniczna:
biały: /ˈbʲawɨ/, wiara: /ˈvʲara/
Wymowa asynchroniczna:
/ˈbjawɨ/, /ˈvjara/
In book which I use (Phonetics and phonology of modern Polish language), they say that most of Polish language speakers realize asynchronous pronunciation, with palatal approximant after the labial consonant. But I think both can be consider as correct. Maro 19:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and /d​͡ʐ/ in wiedzieć was a misspelling of course, should be /d͡ʑ/. Thanks. Maro 19:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ręka Edit

Please see w:Polish phonology regarding ę. Everything I've read says that it is a nasal vowel, not a vowel and consonant. --EncycloPetey 18:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see anywhere on this page "rɛ̃ka" but there is "rɛŋka". Look at the 4th paragraph: "Before all stops and affricates, nasal vowels are pronounced as an oral vowel + nasal consonant...". Maro 18:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks. I hadn't known before that the sound was affected by the type of following consonant. That does explain some of the vowel spelling oddities I've seen in medieval Polish documents, though. --EncycloPetey 18:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hass Edit

I’ve deleted hass, but what about pl:hass on Polish Wiktionary? And also it:hass, la:hass, lt:hass, nl:hass, and ro:hass? —Stephen 17:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PL Wiktionary created the entry and other copied it... Ok, I'll try to do something. Maro 20:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I believe it is a bad idea to use these, like you started a few weeks ago. (1) Hardly any dictionary uses them. I suppose there is at least one dictionary which does, otherwise you wouldn't do it. (2) It is neither used nor explained on the page linked for explanation. (3) It is displayed badly in several browsers (similar to s␣ or even s?). (4) It does not convey additional information because every written 's' corresponds to a '' in Polish, except of course if it's entirely different, as 'ʂ' or 'ɕ'. We're getting here into subtle distinctions between phones and phonemes. (5) makes the IPA look more unfamiliar and possibly alienating to our readers, and suggests that Polish pronunciation is even more complicated than it is in fact, in particular already for fairly simple words. -- Gauss 21:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(1) Yes. But English Wiktionary could be first. (3) Affricates (i.e. letters with a tie bar) are also badly displayed in some fonts (primarily in the Arial Unicode MS, one of the most popular fonts with IPA symbols), but we use them. (4) Yes, every written 's' corresponds to a voiceless dental fricative, but there are two "n", "t" and "d" - dental [n̪ t̪ d̪] and alveolar [n t d] in Polish phonology.
If there are symbols for these sounds in IPA why don't we use them? Maro 22:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we're going to use these, then there needs to be a page on Polish phonology here that explains the symbols we use for Polish. I'm not fond of the tie-bars either, but I can understand the problems in West Slavic languages of communicating the different sounds. I suggest that you start a Wiktionary:About Polish/Pronunciation with everything laid out. That would provide a focus for discussion. --EncycloPetey 22:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I'll try to write the Pronunciation guide. Maro 17:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being nonstandard is never a good idea for someone (like us) who wants to be understood and read. If you insist on continuing on that path then there is no way around the proposal of EncycloPetey. -- Gauss 00:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old Polish Edit

The problem is that Old Polish does not have an ISO code (yet), so the question is whether to assign it our own pseudo-code (to be used with templates such as {{term}}, {{t}}, {{etyl}} etc.), or to simply treat as as ==Polish==, but with special context label e.g. (Old Polish) for categorisation.

How much different is Old Polish from modern literary language in terms of phonology and inflection? Does it merit being treated separately, or just as a sub-project of ==Polish== ? --Ivan Štambuk 09:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it merits being treated separately. For example, for ręka I had to create a separate entry for Old Polish to show the dual forms. I coudn't do that at ==Polish== section.
For words that can be found in Polish dictionaries I can just mark as {{archaic}} under ==Polish==. So for example you can find kłobuk in dictionary (but with different meaning), but you won't find czędo or owien.
I don't think we need an ISO code for it. There are only few OP words so we can link manually (eg. [[word#Old Polish|word]] instead of {{term|word|lang=xxx}}). Maro 13:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your input. Old Polish is already proposed at Wiktionary:Languages without ISO codes, so we can assign it Wiktionary pseudocode of something like pl-old to be used with templates (with only a few entries now, there's no real rush for that tho). --Ivan Štambuk 00:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:pl-decl-noun ‎ Edit

Why did you reverse the changes to this template? --Kasjanek21 19:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did YOU change the template? Maro 21:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason is simple. Some templates should be changed after some YEARS to make the wiktionary particular elements look similar in colours and styles and the template I changed looks completely different from the rest of wiktionary, doesn't it?? --Kasjanek21 09:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dla każdego języka są przecież różne szablony. Nie mamy żadnego standardu jak powinien wyglądać szablon deklinacyjny/koniugacyjny, każdy język ma inny. Choć niektóre są podobne. Ten szablon też robiłem na podstawie innego, już istniejącego. Nie twierdzę że szablony się nie powinny zmieniać ale myślę że takie zmiany powinny być poprzedzone chociaż jakąś dyskusją. Jednemu się podoba taki kolor, a drugiemu inny, i co zrobić? Maro 17:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe you are right, but the discussion does not mean reversing other user's working changes. Each language has its individual template; some templates are similar -- you're right again. But there is a rule, that the more templates, styles, colours you use in ANY document, the less professional and clear the document looks and thus it is more difficult to navigate through it and to use it, in general. The template which is in use currently is, again, completely different in style from the whole remaining page layout at Wiktionary and other Wiki projects. Therefore, the templates should be gradually brought to a uniform look. --Kasjanek21 17:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unnecessary redirects Edit

Hi Maro. How are you locating these unnecessary redirects? It might be possible to delete them in a single batch. Equinox 21:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Connel MacKenzie/Wantedpages. But I first correct pages linking to them. Maro 21:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletions Edit

Before you nominate a redirect for deletion, please be certain that all links to that page have been corrected, if the link is incorrect. --EncycloPetey 21:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know. Maro 21:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But you haven't been doing that. --EncycloPetey 21:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which page do you mean? Maro 21:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are quite a few I've noticed. The most recent I can remember is Pays, but they are being deleted. That makes them harder to track down. --EncycloPetey 21:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also Reb. --EncycloPetey 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, I corrected links immediately after marking {{delete}}. Actually there was one link, because the "Pays" in Pays de Galles shouldn't link to pays, should it? It's a French word. But what about "Reb" in Johnny Reb? Should it link to reb? Maro 21:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, sorry, I was thinking Reb it's a proper noun or sth and should be capitalized. Maro 21:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "Pays" in Pays de Galles should link to pays, becuase that is also a French word meaning "nation, country". The "Reb" in Johnny Reb should link to reb, which is an abbreviated form of rebel. --EncycloPetey 22:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plurals of Polish proper nouns Edit

User:Pluralis4ever has been adding plural forms of Polish country names. This seems odd. but I don't have the knowledge to say definitively whether they are OK. Could you have a look? --EncycloPetey 21:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warsovian Edit

Hi. I request a Polish translation for Warsovian. Thanks --Jackofclubs 19:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wszechświat Edit

Is there a separate everyday word for "universe" in Polish? --EncycloPetey 22:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've changed the definition. Maro 22:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, what is the everyday word for "universe"? You've marked it with a context tag, which suggests restricted use to only astronomic situations. It might be worth linking the other word in a See also section. --EncycloPetey 23:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everyday word for "Universe" is also "wszechświat". If the context tag is wrong, I will remove it. Maro 23:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jolanta (i Madga) Edit

Cześć! :-) Thank you for taking some time to complete the declension table of Jolanta! I'll appreciate it if you can verify the table of Magda too. Pozdrawiam z Argentyny, --Ignacioerrico 00:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Poker card game Edit

Hi Maro! Could you please add the Polish translations for words and expressions in connection with poker? I found an incorrect one here, and many are missing. I think all except kolor. Thanks in advance. Ferike333 16:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which words and expressions do you mean? Please put a template {{trreq|Polish}} on that page you want see Polish translation.
And why do you think that translation in royal flush is incorrect? Maro 19:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cornishman, Cornishwoman Edit

Cool, I'm surprised that Polish even has words for these! Equinox 22:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

imperfective and perfective forms Edit

Hello Maro, is there viability, to easily create a list of Polish imperfective and perfective verbs? Maybe, we can have a category like Category:Polish imperfective verbs for each? --Volants 12:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you mean? Do you mean a category such as Category:Czech perfective verbs/Category:Czech imperfective verbs added by inflection template? So it can be easily done in {{pl-verb}} template. If you need such categories feel free to add it in the template. Maro 21:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this is exactly what I meant. I played with this pl-verb template, copied from [[temp|cs-verb}}. I hope it has worked. There's an error with the categories, but I will try fixing it later. And there might be some useful tools with the Czech part of Wiktionary, which can be adapted for the Polish part. --Volants 12:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ciało Edit

Hi. Is the locative singular correct - ciele. Or should it be ciale? --Volants 12:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ciele. Maro 20:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Index:Polish Edit

Hello again. Sorry to bug you again. I have requested Conrad.Irwin to have Index:Polish created. He asked here about the order of the alphabet, please could you give him an answer, as I will probably make some mistakes with this - I'm not 100% with the Polish alphabet yet. I believe, that some letters aren't appearing at the beginning of words, and some have digraphs or something. --Volants 13:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The order is correct. Letters that aren't appearing at the beginning: Ą and Ń. See also: Appendix:Polish alphabet. Maro 20:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

jaworznicki Edit

Cześć, chcę powiedzieć że słowo "jaworzniański" nie istnieje. Stosuje się TYLKO i wyłącznie formę "jaworznicki" dla określenia przymiotnika od Jaworzna. !!!

Obie formy są poprawne. [2]. Maro 15:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nie jest to prawdą. Takiej formy się nie używa.

baby party Edit

Hi Maro. What's the Polish term, referring to a party for a new baby? Something connected to a navel? --Volants 13:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's "pępkowe". Maro 23:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Polish given names Edit

If you's like, I could help with name creation for some of the most common (traditional) Polish names, but only if you'd be willing to add the declension tables and/or pronunciation. --EncycloPetey 18:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I actually add only the most common names, from this list. Maro 18:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My interest is in Medieval and early Renaissance names, especially Polish and Hungarian. There will be some overlap in the list of names, but there are also some Polish names that have become less common or disappeared since then. I ask for your help because I know a number of people who would love to be able to look up the pronunciations of these names. I can make a guess at the IPA, but I've almost never been around native speakers, and so can't always get the stress and IPA correct for Polish. If you'd be willing to help me, I could make a list for you as I go, so that you can visit the pages and add pronunciation whenever you have time. Note: I'll be stepping away from my computer soon, and may not be back for a few hours. --EncycloPetey 18:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am going to end adding names from this short list today, but if you have other than those, feel free to create entries and I could help you with pronunciations. Maro 19:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've started a list at User:EncycloPetey/Names (pl). Some of these exist, and just need the IPA. Others do not exist (yet). Please note that I own a copy of the Słownik Staropolskich Nazw Obobowych, so I can add medieval citations for early spellings of Polish names. I can often add the earliest known citation in Polish, but some of the SSNO's citations are from Latin. I will also try to work with Ivan to get proper etymologies for all the entries that are created as a result of this collaboration. I'd like to see this grow into a model for how personal name elements ought to be done on Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey 05:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

potrafić Edit

There are some comments at the talk page and the feedback page, which I was hoping you could use to amend the entry (if there is sth wrong at all, I have no proficiency in Polish :) --Ivan Štambuk 17:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've seen it :). Maro 19:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Polish plurals Edit

By all means, yes, please clean it up. That category has no real meaning. --EncycloPetey 15:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Maro 15:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

nieoficjalnie Edit

Is this word formed from the prefix nie- by chance? Razorflame 16:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. Maro 21:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question Edit

Do you know of any good online sources for lists of Polish words that also list their English counterparts (and is reliable)? I need resources for Polish for another website I belong to, so if you could help me, that would be great! Thanks, Razorflame 18:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiktionary? ;)
No, sorry, I don't. I don't use online dictionaries at all. You can search google for something like "słownik polsko-angielski" or "słownik angielsko-polski" but I can't recommend any and I don't know if there are good ones. Maro 18:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks for the help anyways. Razorflame 18:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Polish comparative/superlative declension Edit

Caesc Maro. Please can you tell me, czy comparative and superlatives in Polish all have regular declensions. I added declension to drozszy, taken from lepszy, and I think it is OK. I will add declension to other comparative and superlative forms, if they all have regular declension. pa pa. Thanks --Volants 13:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I think so. Maro 19:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

dwa Edit

Please note the enhancements I have made to the entry for dwa. If I have made errors, please correct them. You might also wish to make similar enhancements to other Polish numeral entries, as I have been doing for the Latin numerals from ūnus (I) to decem (X). I consider the low-value numerals to be core vocabulary, and am trying to enhamce the Latin entries until they are among the best entries on any Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey 20:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know that Polish cardinal numbers are in very bad condition :). I am going to get to work on them soon (next week?). Some are still missing and all of them lack declensions (I must create a separate template first). Maro 22:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may find some of the Appendices on PIE numerals helpful. Some of them already list the Old Church Slavonic forms, which would make it easier to create good etymology sections. See Appendix:Proto-Indo-European *óynos for an example. --EncycloPetey 22:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pronunciation of Cymraeg Edit

I have replied on my talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

check Edit

Hi. I know next to nothing abiout Polish, but this recently added translation appears to be in the genitive. Could you check it? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. Maro 16:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, but you did not fix it to nominative, you just reverted to the wrong, unilaterally proclaimed designation of the country... Why have you not changed it to nominative? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oddawać Edit

Please can you check that the conjugation of oddawać is correct (I've copied from dawać --Volants 10:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

maple Edit

I think it may make sense to keep attributive-use translations whether or not there is an adjective section. Perhaps the adjective translations should be merged into the noun translation sections and appropriately marked. I strongly suspect that for many languages the adjectives required to cover the attributive use of nouns in English are not provided routinely because the Noun heading seems to not give explicit warrant to do so. I will open a discussion at WT:BP on how to encourage the provision of such adjective translations. DCDuring TALK 18:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I woudn't mind a separate translations section, but not under ==Translations to be checked==. Maro 18:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why not? It seems as if they need to be merged into the individual translation sections for the noun. Where else would they go until someone knowledgeable did the work. Deleting the work seems destructive of the effort that went into the translations. DCDuring TALK 18:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So how should have I checked the Polish translation? "The translations below need to be inserted into the appropriate translation tables" There wasn't appropriate translation table, so I removed the translation. If you think there should be a translation table for an adjective, please revert. Maro 19:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is always a presumption that, if a translation table is omitted for a sense, an editor who sees the need for a translation should insert the table required. We don't normally add translation tables without adding some translations or at least translation requests. DCDuring TALK 19:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

socjalizm Edit

Please could you expand this etymology out (hopefully you clicked on this link [3] where it shows Mglovesfun (talkcontribs) expressed that it does not come from socialis). There is obviously something missing from the etymology and currently it reads like it comes directly from socialis, which is apparently incorrect. Caladon 08:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the etymology I found in my etymology dictionary. You can also find it here. Maro 18:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd have said it doesn't come directly from socialis but from *socialismus. There's a stage missing there. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote on formatting of etymologies Edit

There is the vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Deprecating less-than symbol in etymologies, which would benefit from your participation, even if only in the role of an abstainer. Right now, the results of the vote do not quite mirror the results of the poll that has preceded the vote. There is a chance that the vote will not pass. The vote, which I thought would be a mere formality, has turned out to be a real issue. You have taken part on the poll that preceded the vote, which is why I have sent you this notification. --Dan Polansky 08:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Audio files Edit

You can search pl:Specjalna:Wkład/Beau.bot (or rather [4]) for edit comments containing "Plik:Pl-". -- Gauss 23:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your new list is much better, though. Is it ok if I remove every item which has already a link to the pronunciation file? -- Gauss 20:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. This list should be empty. I was going to remove some of these, but don't have much time today. Maro 22:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

rfp Edit

Hi, would you have a look at [[template talk:rfp#lang=en]], please?​—msh210 (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Polish (gender) Nouns Response Edit

Hi, have a look at my response on my talk page. Thank you. --Lo Ximiendo 22:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

verb forms Edit

Hello Maro, I see that you are another Polish-language user. Recently I've been looking at introducing more Polish verb forms into Wiktionary, as I believe they would be worthy additions here. I've made a few lists which I've housed at User:Pofficer, and there are probably a handful of mistakes as I haven't thoroughly checked all of them. If you spot any glaring mistakes in there, let me know and I can correct them. Eventually, I'd like to create articles for all the Polish verb forms, and then work on noun and adjective forms too, but this is a long-term project which might never be realized due to the large scope. --P.officer 23:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks OK for me.
Of course I didn't check all of the words in all lists, but I trust they're correct :). Feel free to ask if you have any other questions later. Maro 20:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS. Please add {{attention|pl}} for each entry you are creating without declension or conjugation. I will add them later. Maro 20:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

obiecywać Edit

Is this conjugation correct? --Pofficer 08:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct. I added missing passive participles. Maro 17:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:pl-decl-ordinal Edit

This only shows for the singular. That's not right surely? How about for things like "the fifth dogs" or "the ninth apples"? --Pofficer 17:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My mistake. There are plural forms, but only "non virile" (niemęskoosobowe) and they are used mainly with pluralia tantum nouns. Maro 17:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

można and warto Edit

These are probably not particles. Can you please double-check. --Rockpilot 12:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, these are verbs. Maro 18:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

admin Edit

Hello Maro. I would like to nominate you for adminship. You've been here for almost 4 years now and seem polite and level-headed. If you accept the nomination I'll start a vote for sysophood. --Rockpilot 21:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I accept the nomination. But do you think that anyone would support me? Maro 19:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2011-10/User:Maro for admin is the page, and please read the admin guide page. --Rockpilot 08:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maro, your vote was adopted, you are an administrator. Add your name to WT:Admin. Also see Help:Sysop tools. —Stephen (Talk) 04:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Stephen! Maro 21:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

aalborski Edit

There's a discussion on this word here. Perhaps you would like to contribute. --Hekaheka 18:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiktionary:Votes/2011-10/Categories of names 3 Edit

Because you voted in Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Categories of names, I'm informing you of this new vote.​—msh210 (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing Czech declension Edit

I don't think that a missing Czech declension is a good reason for tagging an entry with {{attention|cs|declension}}. --Dan Polansky 11:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Czech terms needing attention says This category lists Czech terms that have incorrect formatting, are missing parameters from templates, or are missing other information. A word appearing here does not necessarily mean there is anything wrong with the entry, only that it may be improved. Maro 19:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By that token, each entry that misses at least one class of information would be put an attention tag on it. These classes of information include pronunciation, etymology, synonyms, antonyms, related terms, translations, anagrams, etc. As a result, we could tag almost all Wiktionary entries. So again, I think it a poor idea. However, I admit that the category description is misleading; it can be found at Template:attentioncat. Going by category descriptions can be tricky; it is better to think about the meaningfulness of what one is doing. --Dan Polansky 07:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have I done something wrong? Maro 17:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Etymology of szuler Edit


I have some doubts about the etymology of szuler. Also, please see: User_talk:Atitarev#Czech šulař and User_talk:Dan_Polansky#Etymology of_szuler. --Anatoli (обсудить) 09:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{Han char}} Edit

Your edit of this template messed up the categorization of some 30 Han character entries, I think. Perhaps some right curly brackets are misplaced. DCDuring TALK 15:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Thanks. Maro 21:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was 21,400 entries, not 30 ;-). Sorry for messing up. Maro 21:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. "Messing up" happens. Only 30 or so made the uncategorized list I was working from. I messed up my marking the first 6 on that list with {{attention}} before realizing the pattern. DCDuring TALK 14:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

drzwi Edit

Is there any particular historical reason why Polish uses a plural for this? Does a singular form exist? Ƿidsiþ 13:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is unclear why is it plurale tantum. Singular form doesn't exist. Not only in Polish it's plurale tantum. See Czech dveře, Slovak dvere, Ukrainian двері. There is another plurale tantum for "door, gate" in Polish: wrota and also in other Slavic languages: врата. Maybe there is a relation to wrota? Some gates (portals, doors) have two parts, left and right, so this would explain why врата/wrota has no singular form.
Here is the same question in Polish: [5]. Maro 23:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

cerapter Edit

Noticed this got deleted, was curious what content was on the page. I have seen some usages that imply this may be a synonym for alicorn or unipeg or pegacorn. A citation I've seen is here:

Alicorn the Unicorn's Horn. Some modern authors claim that the Alicorn is a term for the species of flying unicorns from the Latin words ala meaning "wing" and cornu meaning "horn," however, the ancient writers used the word to denote the actual horn of the Unicorn which purports to have magical healing powers when the tip is dipped into a body of water. In this respect the term alicorn may find it's roots in the Latin words alima meaning "of the sea" or alere meaning "to nourish" or even alius meaning "other source or knowledge" and, of course, cornu. (See: Cerapter, Unicorn).
Cerapter the Winged Unicorn. The Greek name for a flying unicorn (Latin: Alicorn) combining the Greek words ceros meaning "horn" and pteros meaning "wing." (See: Alicorn, Unipeg).
Unipeg, a Flying Unicorn. Also called a "pegacorn." This is a coined word some have used to give genesis to a species of flying unicorns combining the Greek name of Pegasus and the Latin word Unicorn. Generally it is not appropriate to compound Greek & Latin words together, but if it becomes accepted into the general language it is adopted, no matter the form. Conventionally it is more appropriate to call a winged unicorn a Cerapter (Greek) or an Alicorn (Latin). (See: Alicorn, Cerapter).

Not sure what the date is for it though. Will go look for some other sources. Do you know how many sources we'd need before it'd deserve a page? Y12J (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to create this page with a proper defintion. The page I deleted had a random string without any sense. Maro 20:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Namespace checks Edit

Your revision of {{ca-noun}} didn't work, see diff. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wasn't namespace check. I was probably removing this template from the category Catalan nouns lacking gender. Maro 18:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I meant it should have been a namespace check, not includeonly. Oh, and thanks for all the hard work. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

grc-verb Edit

I'm sorry to be so abrupt as to simply revert your edits, but please, could we just wait on this? For starters, the new version shouldn't have spots for all the principle parts. That's the whole point. Second, as you've got it set up, it states the present twice, which just looks silly. I appreciate your efforts in this, but we're simply not ready for that step yet. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

reply. Maro 12:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me as well. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

trzeba Edit

Hey, my friend. Can you please look at trzeba for me? --Yakky snacks (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. Maro 20:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{bxr}} Edit

See WT:LANGTREAT: Only the macrolanguage Buryat is treated as individual language. Thus, only {{bua}} should be used. -- Liliana 18:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

bxr is in common use in Wiktionary, whereas bua is not. This page has many illogical information. "Only the macrolanguage Buryat is treated as individual language." and "Only the macrolanguage Persian is treated as individual language." - but we have Category:Tajik language. Another: "Both Serbo-Croatian and its subdivisions are treated as individual languages." - we don't have Category:Bosnian language though Bosnian is an individual language... Maro 18:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of the uses of {{bxr}} are due to copying from Wikipedia, which uses the bxr code. However Wikipedia has never been a reason to keep codes, we don't have {{zh-classical}} either. -- Liliana 18:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template talk:pl-conj-ai Edit

Please take a look at Template talk:pl-conj-ai. Esszet (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Edit

Rather than talk on someone else's talk page, we can talk here :) Hi! Razorflame 00:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, let's talk. Tell me about your life between 6 July 2011 and 15 June 2012. Maro 00:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing special :) Razorflame 19:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

zupełność Edit

Is this the correct translation for completeness? I pulled it off of the Polish Wikipedia, but I want to run it by you before it gets added to the translation table for completeness. Thanks, Razorflame 01:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it is. I added the translation. Maro 14:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pech? Edit

Czy biernik na tej stronie jest poprawny? "mieć ogromny pech", czy "mieć ogromnego pecha"? -- 20:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chyba jednak poprawnie jest "pecha". Poprawiłem. Maro 20:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:One Edit

It seems to me that one of my posts at Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Category:One could affect your vote, given you wrote this: "Category Five has only one page in it and One has two entries." Meanwhile, one user has filled the other categories with members. Here is the post: diff. If I am wrong, sorry for posting this notice. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I won't change my vote to "Keep". I'm not a sympathizer of such categories, but I think it's better to have few categories with ~50 entries than 50 categories with one entry. Maro 21:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

jakoby Edit

Why is that a particle and not an adverb? --WikiTiki89 16:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The same as chyba. Polish dictionaries classifies it as a particle. The definition is something like "It expresses doubt as to the veracity of what someone says". Maro 16:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Russian dictionaries classify якобы (jákoby) as a particle also, but we still classify it as an adverb because it functions exactly like an adverb. I think we usually reserve "particle" for words that don't seem to fit into any part of speech. --WikiTiki89 16:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe in English it functions like an adverb, because English doesn't have particles like Polish has. In Polish adverbs and particles are different parts of speech. "Jakoby" doesn't mean "allegedly", this is only the nearest English word. Particles in Polish don't have their own meanings (like adverbs have), they only modify the sentence (or word), usually emphasize. Maro 16:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it's the same in Russian. Now that you mention it, I'm starting to agree with you. But that would mean we would have to change the way we handle parts of speech in Slavic languages. --WikiTiki89 17:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every language is different. I don't know how it works in Russian (or other Slavic language). Maro 17:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can tell you that it does work the same way as in Polish. --WikiTiki89 19:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re-adding file link on Template:audio Edit

Why? (Also see Template_talk:audio#.28file.29_link.) --Yair rand (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formatting translations Edit

Hello. Please note that we use the {{t}}-family templates to format translations. Instead of adding a bare link, please use a template, [ http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=lantern&diff=19279672&oldid=19279602#Englishlike in this change]. Thanks. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's quicker to write [[translation]] than {{t+|pl|translation}}. Maro 17:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's even quicker to use accelerated translations via the translation tool, no edit summary required and all the formatting is added automatically. [[translation]] {{m}} is not quicker than + an {{t+|pl|translation}}. I'm joining the request :). {{t}} is standard.
From WT:ELE:
  • Do use the {{t}} template for each translation. This will create a link to that word in this Wiktionary and a small link to the Wiktionary for that language. References for the translation should be on that other page rather than in the translation list. If you think {{t}} is too complex, simply enclose the translation in square brackets.
Linking to the Polish Wiktionary is important, IMHO, and it makes all translations for each gloss look aligned and professional. I don't think {{t}} for Polish is too complex, as you don't have to worry about transliteration or script formatting and you still need to add gender info in curly brackets. With the tool, you just need to tick masc. fem. or neuter boxes. Besides, many editors, including me, spend their time fixing translations to use {{t}}. Polish, German and some other languages stand out as not using {{t}}. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just wanna point out: it's even quicker not to add any translation at all, but it is not better. Quicker is not always better and leaving work behind for other people that you could have easily done yourself is definitely not better. --WikiTiki89 00:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1) I think {t} is too complex, so I simply enclose the translation in square brackets. That's one of the reasons.
2) Second. This [[translation]] IS quicker than {{t|pl|translation}}.
3) If there are other sections/languages for this word, for example short words with Latin letters, I usually use {t}.
4) The only differences between these two are: it links to a Polish section (so if there is only one language section in a page, it doesn't matter if it links or not), it adds link to a Polish Wiktionary, which are in most cases dead. I don't think the link to other wiktionary is so important to an English speaker. So if there is no other section, or even the link is red, and link to other wiktionary is red, it doesn't really matter whether one uses {t} or not.
5) Tbot and his friends like to add {t} templates. Maro 02:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong. You shouldn't be opening the edit window at all, because the translations window allows you to type in pl in one box, the translation in the next box, and click a checkbox for gender. Tbot (which by the way doesn't exist any more) and its replacement bot do not add {t) templates. Humans do. You are basically wasting other humans' time because you do not think correct linking is important enough. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have this feature. Maro 17:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Enable Javascript. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gdzie odeszłeś? Edit

Gdzie odeszłeś? Czy obraziłeś się na naszą prośbę? Pojechałeś na urlop? Potrzebujemy twoje redagowanie. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. Sorry, I was very busy in January and didn't have even a minute for Wiktionary. Sorry for not answering the message above - when I read it I was too tired to write a sentence xD. Maro 02:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiktionary:Votes/2012-12/New favicon Edit

Hello. This is a message to inform you that the options in this vote were modified after you cast your vote, and it is now possible to oppose a certain favicon. Your input is welcome in my honest attempts to have this vote best convey the community's wishes and, of course, to avoid allegations of holding a fraudulent vote. Thanks —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

szpargał Edit

Cześć. Rosyjskie słowo "шпаргалка" chyba pochodzi z polskiego "szpargał". Czy to słowo istnieje? Co to znaczy - "papierka"? Czy warto utworzyć artykuł? (Proszę poprawić i wybaczyć moje błędy). Привет. Русское слово "шпаргалка" кажется происходит от польского "szpargał". Существует ли это слово? Что это значит - "бумажка"? Стоит ли создать статью? (Прошу исправить и извинить мои ошибки). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 06:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it exists. You can create an entry if you want, but I don't know if there is an English æquivalent; it means "scrap of paper" but not only paper, it can also mean "unnecessary thing" (left somewhere). Mainly used in plural (szpargały).
"papierka" is the genitive singular of "papierek", which is "a small piece of paper". Maro 13:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dziękuję, zrozumiałem. Nie utworzę artykuł bo nie wiem dokładnego znaczenia i używania. :) --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 14:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reverted edits by Lo Ximiendo Edit


I wonder why you're reverting some good edits of Lo Ximiendo. You also seem to dislike declension (e.g. {{pl-decl-noun-masc-inani}}) and other templates, like {{l}}. I've checked a couple of declension templates, which seems to produce the same result but more efficiently? Why is that? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, maybe because, as you noticed, such edit changes nothing. Everything is almost the same, the result is the same. If so, why did SHE changes it? It's illogical for me.
BUT! It actually changes. The forms generated automatically are not visible by the search engine, unfortunately. Forms entered manually, using {pl-decl-noun} are visible.
I do use automatic templates for new entries, if it's possible, to save the time, but I don't change these declensions entered manually before creating the templates. This helps people who are looking for some forms included in the declension table (eg. "biurami"), but without its own entry. Maro 21:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry you had to wait for the answer, I was in real life for a moment ;). Maro 21:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:mul-proper noun Edit

If you are still interested, see Template_talk:mul-proper_noun. DCDuring TALK 00:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

? I don't get it. Interested in what? I haven't even edited this template. Could you remind me? Maro 21:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Global account Edit

Hi Maro! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, DerHexer (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal to de-sysop/de-checkuser Connel MacKenzie Edit

Since you participated in the the 2012 vote to de-sysop and de-checkuser Connel MacKenzie, you may wish to participate in the current discussion of this proposal. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How we will see unregistered users Edit


You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)