2014–2019 · 2020–2024


What does “2020–2014” mean in the title of Archive 2020–2014 (the page contains 2020 discussions, although “2014” is also in the title of 2014–2019)? J3133 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Oops, typo on my part. It's supposed to say 2020–2024! Thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

outcant and Pope's DonneEdit

Discussion moved to Talk:outcant.


Discussion moved to Talk:volley.

Trains IllustratedEdit

Trains Illustrated was renamed Modern Railways from the January 1962 issue. The publisher was, at that time, Ian Allan Ltd, with the address at Craven House, Hampton Court, Surrey. The editor then was G. Freeman Allen (note the difference in spelling). The business later moved to Shepperton, a few miles away. Ian Allan died a few years ago, but Modern Railways is still published, but under new ownership. DonnanZ (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Donnanz: mmmm, OK? Not entirely sure what you're driving at, I'm afraid. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I noticed your edits to the quotes I added to fogman and draw a veil over, and I thought you might appreciate some background information. I first bought a copy of Modern Railways in 1963 (or was it 1964?). DonnanZ (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Donnanz: ah, OK. Thanks. Yes, I noticed you make quite a number of edits to rail-related entries! You've probably just been notified that one of your nominations, bogie, is appearing as WOTD on 16 January 2021. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:RQ:BFCT againEdit

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Beaumont Fletcher Comedies and Tragedies.

WOTD questionEdit

Do you think puellile / puelline would be an interesting WOTD? J3133 (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Not? J3133 (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@J3133: sure, puellile seems fine. Puelline doesn't appear in the OED so it would need verifying quotations. Anyway, we should only feature one of them as they are identical in meaning. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I did not intend to suggest featuring both; rather, to mention the alternative form (which I created on 10 January with 6 quotations (re “would need verifying quotations”)). When would puellile be WOTD?—on Girls’ Day / Hinamatsuri (3 March) perhaps? J3133 (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@J3133: sure, please nominate one of them for 3 March at “Wiktionary:Word of the day/Nominations. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that I nominated “puelline” instead of “puellile” (a mistake; I said “When would puellile be WOTD”). Can it be changed now? J3133 (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@J3133: aargh. Shall we just leave it at puelline since it's already been set? — SGconlaw (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Puellile has nine times as many Google results as puelline and appears in a major dictionary; it would be better to change, if possible. J3133 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@J3133: well, we also feature less common words, so that's not really a problem. Also, at the moment puelline is a more complete entry as it has more quotations. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Then if I added quotations to puellile? J3133 (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Puellile now has more quotations. J3133 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@J3133: *Sigh*, OK. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@J3133: I think the 2017 quotation should be removed or replaced; the author clearly didn't make up the word himself. Also, note that an editor expressed a problem with the 1908 quotation on the talk page (I think it's OK, personally). — SGconlaw (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Why does it matter whether the author made up the word himself or not if it is a use of it? The claim can be removed from the quotation. J3133 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@J3133: yes, perhaps just remove the footnote as it may be confusing to readers. But if a better quotation can be found (from a less clueless author), I suggest using that instead. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I see you have access to the images at

entry2 (used in the 1891 quotation) does not work. J3133 (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@J3133: OK, fixed. I applied for access to from the Wikipedia Library Card Platform; you might want to do so as well. It's very useful for print newspaper content – just remember to use the clip function as clips are viewable by everyone, while URLs to the entire page are only accessible to subscribers. I tried looking for the 1891 quotation in The [Manchester] Guardian (the most obvious Guardian newspaper) on, but could not find it. It must be from some other Guardian (perhaps the one referred to in the Wikipedia article "w:The Guardian (Anglican newspaper)"?). — SGconlaw (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:RQ:Spenser FQEdit

I keep on forgetting that Template:RQ:Spenser FQ has been deleted. Can you recreate it please as a redirect? Alexfromiowa (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Nah, don't worry. I made Template:RQ:Spenser F as an alternative. Happy editing! Alexfromiowa (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@AlexfromIowa: please avoid creating unnecessary redirects that are difficult for other editors to understand the meaning of. {{RQ:Spenser Faerie Queene}} is not that hard to type. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
As long as we're keeping Template:RQ:Mrxl SqrsDghtr, I'm gonna defend Template:RQ:Spenser F. Alexfromiowa (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@Alexfromiowa: there's no reason to retain redirects like {{RQ:Mrxl SqrsDghtr}} either; they were created quite long ago when I renamed all such quotation templates with more understandable names, and I was not aware that there was a way to request for uses of such templates to be replaced. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, my defence is weak now. Do as you wish with my abbrv's tmplts. Alexfromiowa (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:RQ:Bacon InquistioEdit

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Bacon Works.

Template:RQ:New International VersionEdit

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:New International Version.

Template:RQ:Shakespeare Twelfth NightEdit

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Shakespeare Twelfth Night.

Template:RQ:Buk BaibelEdit

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Buk Baibel.

Template:RQ:Shakespeare LocrineEdit

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Locrine.

Template:RQ:Beaumont PsycheEdit

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Joseph Beaumont Psyche.

[] Edit

Please explain reversion to the inferior [...] markup: [1] Equinox 17:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Equinox: is there some reason for using the template when the tooltip feature is not employed? Otherwise it just seems to be an unnecessary transclusion of templates on to the page. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
When it's a template, the system recognises it as such, and can understand that this is elided text. If you write "[...]" then there is no way for the system to know that the cited author didn't in fact write "[...]" in their book. Do you specifically avoid it because you think it has a performance penalty? Please don't. Equinox 11:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@Equinox: what isn't clear to me is what it means for the "system" to "recognize" the template. Well, yes, I thought there was no reason to use a template if it wasn't serving any particular purpose (such as creating a tooltip) as it would add to the transclusions on pages. I suppose this would only be critical on very large pages, though. I take your point about the possibility of distinguishing between an elision inserted by an editor and one in the original text, though I have to say I have yet to encounter the use of a bracketed ellipsis in original texts; most of the time the ellipses are unbracketed, and I would reproduce this with " …". — SGconlaw (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Any kind of automatic processing of the text should be able to understand that it's seeing an elided portion, and not an actual "[...]" that someone typed with brackets and dots. As we progress into the future, we will do more and more automatic computer-based work. What else do you need to know? You need to use the form that I have shown you. If you don't understand this, ask on one of the discussion pages. I'm trying to be nice so far. Equinox 23:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@Equinox: well, thank you for at least explaining how the templates distinguish between ellipses inserted by Wiktionary editors and those already in texts. That is a reason I find convincing. General statements suggesting there will be more "automatic processing of the text" and more "automatic computer-based work" without explaining the purpose that such "automatic processing" is supposed to achieve is, frankly, neither convincing nor helpful. And everyone is a volunteer here; there is no need to treat people condescendingly. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Writing HTML junk like & nbsp; is also very unhelpful. Equinox 23:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@Equinox: Not everything is supposed to wrap (e.g., ⟨/⟩, a medieval form of the comma). If it would not be written in HTML, one cannot tell it ( ) apart from an ordinary space. See w:MOS:NBSP for more uses (also for en dashes: w:WP:MOS § Punctuating a sentence (em or en dashes)). J3133 (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@J3133: What the fuck are you doing here? Congratulation, we think you are very clever for knowing about a mediaeval comma. Fuck off. Equinox 06:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@Equinox: kindly point to some policy stating that HTML is "unhelpful" or not to be used. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I have explained why it is counterproductive and harmful to the project not to use it, and why it's useful to use it (meaningful to the machine). You can continue out of pure spite but I will see this as vandalism. Have fun. You seemed so cool otherwise. Equinox 06:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@Equinox: er, no, I accepted your explanation and now use {{...}}. What exactly are you referring to? — SGconlaw (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
A disgusting reply from someone who clearly knows nothing and expected me to do nothing while you are attacking Sgconlaw. J3133 (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Also no, knowing about a mediaeval comma does not make you very clever (nor does throwing a fit because someone provided points). J3133 (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Sgconlaw, sorry to pop up out of nowhere. It's true that I ignore my talk pages and responses for a long time, so sometimes I reopen long-ago discussions. At least I got to make J3133 super salty. Equinox 07:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@Equinox: OK. Seriously, you might try dialling it down a notch. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:RQ:Byron LaraEdit

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Byron Lara.

Swift templatesEdit

Hi. Thanks again for deleting the useful redirects. Perhaps you'd like to do something with Template:Jonathan Swift quotation templates next. Oxlade2000 (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Oxlade2000: *Shudder* — SGconlaw (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I know, right. To make it even more fun, there are more that aren't in there, and will be even more in the near future. Oxlade2000 (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
No need to be swift (or Swift). Please take time to do things right. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, SG, listen to Chuck ... Oxlade2000 (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Don’t think that was aimed at me … — SGconlaw (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

ParserFunction errorsEdit

I haven't been checking these for a while, and there are now quite a few of them. Here's a table of all the ones related to quotation templates, with selected information to show where the problem is (I've omitted text and passage parameters unless relevant to save space):

Entry Template Error snippet
bless {{RQ:Milton Poems|Il Penseroso|40|pageref=n53}} Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"./mode/1up page 40
blow {{RQ:Milton Poems|Il Penseroso|43|pageref=n56}} Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"./mode/1up page 43
decent {{RQ:Milton Poems|Il Penseroso|38|pageref=n51}} Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"./mode/1up page 38
desire {{RQ:Tennyson Idylls|Lancelot and Elaine}} Expression error: Unrecognized word "lancelot", in Idylls of the King
discage {{RQ:Tennyson Idylls}} “Expression error: Unexpected < operator.”, in Idylls of the King
disfame {{RQ:Tennyson Idylls}} "Expression error: Unexpected < operator.”, in Idylls of the King
dishorse {{RQ:Tennyson Idylls}} “Expression error: Unexpected < operator.”, in Idylls of the King
dislink {{RQ:Tennyson Idylls}} “Expression error: Unexpected < operator.”, in Idylls of the King
enchaired {{RQ:Tennyson Idylls}} “Expression error: Unexpected < operator.”, in Idylls of the King
gaudy {{RQ:Tennyson Idylls}} “Expression error: Unexpected < operator.”, in Idylls of the King
inrunning {{RQ:Tennyson Idylls}} “Expression error: Unexpected < operator.”, in Idylls of the King
javelin {{RQ:Tennyson Idylls}} “Expression error: Unexpected < operator.”, in Idylls of the King
lowing {{RQ:Milton Poems|Nativity|11|pageref=n24}} Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"./mode/1up page 11
lull {{RQ:Milton Poems|Arcades|54|pageref=n67}} Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"./mode/1up page 54
mere {{RQ:Tennyson Idylls}} “Expression error: Unexpected < operator.”, in Idylls of the King
pied {{RQ:Milton Poems|L'Allegro|33|pageref=n46}} Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"./mode/1up page 33
poach {{RQ:Tennyson Idylls}} “Expression error: Unexpected < operator.”, in Idylls of the King
prim {{RQ:Swift Baucis and Philemon}} Expression error: Unexpected > operator., “Expression error: Unexpected < operator.”, in Expression error: Unexpected > operator., Baucis and Philemon; a Poem. […],
pudding sleeve {{RQ:Swift Baucis and Philemon}} Expression error: Unexpected > operator., “Expression error: Unexpected < operator.”, in Expression error: Unexpected > operator., Baucis and Philemon; a Poem. […],
resort {{RQ:Milton Poems|Il Penseroso|40|pageref=n53}} Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"./mode/1up page 40
ring {{RQ:Milton Poems|Il Penseroso|39|pageref=n52}} Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"./mode/1up page 39
scramble {{RQ:Milton Poems|Lycidas|62|pageref=n75}} Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"./mode/1up page 62
shifter {{RQ:Milton Poems|On the Univerſity Carrier [] |28|pageref=n41}} Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"./mode/1up page 28
shrink {{RQ:Milton Poems|Nativity|10|pageref=n23}} Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"./mode/1up page 10
skid {{RQ:Dickens A Tale of Two Cities}} Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities, book Expression error: Unexpected <= operator.,
sparse {{RQ:Spenser Fairy|1|1|They began properly to Sparse pretye rumours in the North}} Expression error: Unrecognized word "they"./mode/1up page They began properly to Sparse pretye rumours in the North:
stage {{RQ:Milton Poems|Passion|16|pageref=n29}} Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"./mode/1up page 16
stay {{RQ:Milton Poems|Another on the ſame|29|pageref=n42}} Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"./mode/1up page 29
stem {{RQ:Milton Poems|Arcades|55|pageref=n68}} Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"./mode/1up page 55
swinge {{RQ:Milton Poems|Nativity|9|pageref=n22}} Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"./mode/1up page 9
trip the light fantastic toe {{RQ:Milton Poems|L'Allegro|page=31|pageref=n44}} Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"./mode/1up page 31
twine {{RQ:Milton Poems|Nativity|11|pageref=n24}} Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"./mode/1up page 11
unpreach {{RQ:Defoe True-Born Englishman}} part Expression error: Unexpected <= operator.
upstart {{RQ:Tennyson Idylls}} “Expression error: Unexpected < operator.”, in Idylls of the King
wherwith {{RQ:Milton Poems|lines=1–2|page=16|pageref=n29|poem=Passion}} Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"./mode/1up page 16
whet {{RQ:Milton Poems|L'Allegro|page=33|pageref=n46}} Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"./mode/1up page 33
wild {{RQ:Milton Poems|page=58|pageref=n71|poem=Lycidas}} Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"./mode/1up page 58
woo {{RQ:Milton Poems|Il Penseroso|39|pageref=n52}} Expression error: Unrecognized word "n"./mode/1up page 39

There are two basic problems: {{RQ:Milton Poems}} being given non-numeric pagerefs that it doesn't know how to handle, and other templates not being given mandatory parameters to allow finding the passages in the books.

Maybe we need some kind of intermediate template so WF can give what useful information he finds without having to bother with the full details. As it is currently, the entries are left in a broken condition- with no request category to let people know that the job isn't finished. Sure, there's Category:ParserFunction errors, but that's an emergency maintenance category that shouldn't be used for such things. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: thanks, this is helpful. I think it is generally a legacy problem as I now try to program the quotation templates so that they don't throw ParserFunction errors. The errors generated by {{RQ:Milton Poems}} was due to an update to the template; I've asked Benwing2 to do a bot replace. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • WF has generated some more errors since then :) These ones are from the use of Template:RQ:Chapman Iliad, which was deleted by you and I imagine you're going to delete again soon, protect it from recreation, and then do the same with a similar template redirect like Template:RQ:Chapman Il. Oxlade2000 (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


I understand that this will not be as controversial in the English-speaking world as some previous political WOTDs, but I think that this too is the kind of political subject area that is best avoided in the future for both WOTD and FWOTD. It's also a rather rude way to mark the birthday of a living person, even if you have a very low opinion of his ethics. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: there was actually a whole discussion on this at “Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2021/January#"Schröderization" as WOTD?” but no one seemed to think it was an issue or even that it was worth bothering about (only Jberkel commented). — SGconlaw (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I missed that discussion, else I would have commented sooner. Anyway, you can leave the WOTD set, but my suggestion is that such senses related to living people, and arguably extending to similarly negative senses that involve the recently deceased, should not be used looking forward. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo: which is why I thought it would be appropriate to have a discussion, but it didn't seem that editors felt very strongly about the issue. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:RQ:Thomson DrEdit

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Thomson Works.


Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Wordsworth Poems 1815.

new audioEdit

I audio'd up a few future WOTDs - in case you wanted to put them in the fancy WOTD template. Yah, some of them are grainy as fuck, but hey, better than nothing, right? (or is it actually worse? because people might think "huh, I have been saying this word wrong all those years, without the graininess that that dude included" and them jump of a cliff in sheer desperation.) Seriously, I know a guy who attempted suicide because he was saying quinoa wrong, very funny story. He was, coincidentally, a grain farmer. In the end, he survived the fall, and I have never had the heart to tell him that he puts the stress on the wrong syllable of sorghum. Maybe I'll add an incorrect audio to that page, just to save his life, you know. He'll come along, check Wiktionary, which will soon be number 1 dictionary on the web, and be satisfied once again. Oh Pedro, how much I love you! Yellow is the colour (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Yellow is the colour: ha ha, thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

{{cite-meta}} changesEdit

Yo, where is the discussion to move the date in {{cite-meta}}? I really hate it. --{{victar|talk}} 02:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

There had been various complaints over the years which led to the creation of {{R:Reference-meta}} (now redundant), and there was also a formatting issue which led to a redundant space appearing after the date in some cases – having the date where it was made coding quite complex. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you need help moving it back? Is that your reasoning for moving the translator too? @Erutuon. --{{victar|talk}} 04:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
There was also suggestion that the translator should be credited up front as the person who actually composed the English text, and I generally agree with that. On balance, it seems to me that putting the publication date after the publisher creates less controversy. I would be inclined to leave the changes in place. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Seeing as this was a personal decision and not made with any previous discussion, I've reverted your edits. The template format as is is in keeping with academic and publishing standards. I also believe all references should be dated, which appears to be another change you made. I recommend you start a discussion in the Beer Parlour with of proposal first before instating them again. --{{victar|talk}} 10:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
All right, I’ll do that. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for hearing me out and doing that. --{{victar|talk}} 11:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Few questionsEdit

Hello, I had a few questions regarding quotes.

  • If I want to say a quote was written anytime up to 1200 CE, and if I want to express that in terms of century rather than a year, then what should I say? a. 13th century or a. 12th century? I am really confused about it.
  • Also, can the word ‘century’ be abbreviated to ‘c.’ ?— it looks so unsightly to see the whole word displayed (in bold).
  • Lastly, if the meaning of a particular word be uncertain then how can I indicate it? I think (?) is a goodun— if I use it then should I put it just beside the word in question? And if so then with or without any spacing to avoid ambiguity? May be it would be nice to have some template that would display a dotted line beneath the word and a (?) sign after the word.

For reference, you can see the quote in this entry. Thank you for your attention! -- dictātor·mundī 17:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @Inqilābī:
  • There is some ambiguity about this. Some people would say that the 13th century means 1201 to 1300 C.E., whereas it is also common nowadays to regard 1200–1299 as the 13th century (see "w:Century"). Because of the ambiguity of when the new century starts, I would suggest stating "a. 1200" instead of trying to use the "12th/13th century" form.
  • Depends on the context, I think. If you are using {{defdate}}, we generally abbreviate century to c. However, in other contexts it may be better to spell it out to avoid ambiguity, as c. is also often used to mean chapter or circa.
  • Yes, I suppose it is fine to use a question mark to indicate that the meaning of a word is unclear. My preference would be to put it in square brackets, since those are generally used to indicate editorial insertions into a text. If you are going to put it on the same level as the text, I think leave a space between it and the text. An alternative may be to make it a superscript, like this[?] in which case no space is needed. Maybe we should create a template like {{sic}} to achieve this effect (I'm not entirely sure how we would add a dotted underline to the word after which it is placed, though).
SGconlaw (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. I would like to make the following observations:
  • 1201-1300 C.E. for the 13th century is the standard practice as far as I know. Those who celebrated new century/millennium in 2000 were criticised by many, for example. I am hearing for the first time that 1200–1299 for the said century is acceptable; it might be common but it is erroneous. Nevertheless, I like your suggestion of using the year instead. By the way, is using a. --th century rare or even nonexistent? I ought to use the standard notation… Again however, if I follow the standard practice of counting the 13th century until 1300 C.E., then what should I write?— a. 13th century would mean “before the 13th century”, i.e., “before 1201 CE”, right? (This was actually my original question.)
  • Using ‘c.’ in quotes could lead to confusion with other abbreviations, of course. But also it’s written following the century (13th); whilst circa is written before the date, and ‘chapter’ farther away… Notwithstanding, since circa & century are quite closely related with regard to date, I agree it would be wise not to use ‘c.’ for century. Still writing out the whole word looks kinda bad; so what about using other abbreviations, ‘C.’ or ‘cent.’?— both valid ones. [I wish we used the native word yearhundred instead of its Latinate equivalent so that we could have a standard abbreviation ‘yh.’. Latinisation has been a curse to English as so many common terms begin with a c.]
  • All that I can say is that (?) seems to be a standard symbol. That Old Bengali quote you saw— it was copied from {{R:ODBL|1|262}} where the author used the same symbol; hence I picked that up. I have no idea if [?] does serve the same purpose, nor am I sure if using a superscript symbol would be nice, as some other thing may be suggested by it (like, readers may think of some hidden gloss, a font, or the like). I am in favour of a dotted underline seeing that it has the potential to show connexion to the word better than elsewhat. And I thought of it because a. and c. already appear underscored with a dotted line when used in a quotation templet. Would be worth a shot. Alternatively, if this idea be not feasible, then we can put an asterisk at the end of the word, as WORD* to indicate that the uncertainty of the meaning.
-- dictātor·mundī 01:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@Fay Freak: Could you give us your ideas on these? Thanks. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
1. a. 1200 2. probably also what Sgconlaw says; this is too trifling to have decided a preference. I guess I mostly spell it out. 3. I don’t know. The same problem arises when I transcribe a song but do not understand a segment, as on mickey (membrum virile). Then I also want to indicate the length of the segment. Sgconlaw likes to use |footer= for notes. A similar issue is manuscript variants, sometimes one could peruse a whole apparatus for a quoted text. Fay Freak (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

More ParserFunction errorsEdit

I don't know if you were aware, but the bot run that substituted the Tristram Shandy templates last week left 15 entries with ParserFunction errors due to their not having volume numbers specified. There are 5 two-letter entries there as a side effect of "out of memory" errors, but everything else is because of the bot run. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: that’s odd. Let me check. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: OK.   Fixed. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Invisible Module Error at Wiktionary:Quotations/Templates/English G–LEdit

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Hall Works.

Quick message before I get blocked againEdit

Hi SG. During Equinox's recent (and pretty epic) mass-delete of pages WF created, a few quotation templates were destroyed in the process. You may or may not want to recreate them. TVdinnerless (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@TVdinnerless: ah, OK. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)