User talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV

Return to "Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV" page.


Latin bookEdit

Hi, I saw in your user page you requested if somebody knows any book good for learning some languages. I think this one is good (maybe not exceptional, but..). It's all in Latin and explains oneself (but perhaps is better to have a teacher anyway). Tn4196 (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I’ll give it a shot. Unfortunately having a teacher is not an option since my free time is very fragmented.
BTW, I remember you also supported the inclusion of a Venetian Wiktionary. Do you happen to know a good, published Venetian dictionary using the modern orthography? — Ungoliant (Falai) 19:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Online I know and use this. There is the paper version of that dictionary and some vec. users use it, if you find it you are ok. Then, I speak a particular (different) and quite little dialect of the Venetian, so I have got another one. Tn4196 (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again. Part of my family are native Venetian speakers, so I always wanted to add some content. — Ungoliant (Falai) 13:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


What was that for? Keφr 18:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. I thought you were playing a prank on him. Keφr 19:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
He asked me to do it, but now that you mention, editing someone’s css would be a hilarious prank. — Ungoliant (Falai) 19:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

FWTOD 18 SeptemberEdit

Hey, are been rather busy in real life so have been taking an extended wikibreak; I haven't been able to find anything specially suitable for FWOTDs 1-year. I thought a few interesting ones were Maori tau, OCS лѣто, Nahuatl xihuitl and Scots gimmer. Only xihuitl has cites and pronunciation, though; so given that it's already the 18th where I am, it might be the only one suitable. Hyarmendacil (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Shit, I totally forgot about that! Xihuitl is great, I’ll go set it. — Ungoliant (Falai) 19:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


What are these for? They seem to be unused. Keφr 19:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The Portuguese verb conjugation module I’m working on. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Why does it have so many subpages? —CodeCat 20:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Because of irregular verbs. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


I just noticed your comment in the Grease Pit. Thank you for this! It's great, especially since it doesn't omit languages with <10 entries, which makes it possible to spot L2s that shouldn't exist or need to be expanded. - -sche (discuss) 05:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I’ll be keeping and updating it here. Watchlist it if you’re interested. — Ungoliant (Falai) 09:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, great! Once you update that page, would you mind if I made WT:STATS transclude it rather than the apparently no-longer-updated Wiktionary:Statistics/generated? - -sche (discuss) 21:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
My initial plan was to update STATS directly, but the GP comment had little response, so I decided to host it as a subpage. To be honest, now I prefer avoiding that, since those who oppose me being here will use any mistake I make (and they will undoubtedly occur in this page) against me.
But if the current statistics are to be replaced with mine, I might as well save them there instead of transcluding, otherwise others might avoid fixing mistakes in someone’s subpage. — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
If those who oppose you being here can compile more accurate stats than you, I encourage them to. Otherwise, compiling stats is inherently difficult and inexact, and no-one should get too bent out of shape about it. I calculated a different entry than SB did for en.Wikt's 3000000th entry (the entry I calculated and the one he calculated were by the same contributor and only five edits apart) and for en.Wikt's 3500000th entry (the entry I calculated and the one he calculated were by the same contributor, but were quite far apart). In both cases, I imagine the discrepancy was due to pages being deleted after he counted and before I counted. At one point, I worked out how many Swedish entries we had by manually adding up the entries in each POS category (aware that some entries would be in multiple categories). I got a number that was IIRC a few thousand lower(!) than what Conrad's bot had calculated. - -sche (discuss) 22:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking Glass BasicsEdit

For a pop-cap novilunar head-start, I had at least a public library-kept-up book about different-time-zone-range birds. Now, about the ctbusters themselves to ME safe yet also TAME like a HELL-SINGER O.V.A./Mangaka... --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Piras. — Ungoliant (Falai) 22:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
AND I came across this genuine secret. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
O que houve contigo, senhora Brown? Sempre foi uma editora seríssima. — Ungoliant (Falai) 22:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That was quick!Edit

Thanks I was about to do this (or something like it) myself. As you can see, I was just looking at the help documentation...Justin (koavf)TCM 01:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

That page happened to be in my watchlist. I wouldn’t call it a misspelling though. — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Right It's not a misspelling—it's just a variant orthography... —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi Ungoliant. When you userfied codecessor to me, you left its plural dangling in the mainspace. You probably want to userfy it to me as well. --Mokhov (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Moved to User:Mokhov/codecessors. Thanks for the heads up. — Ungoliant (Falai) 15:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi there!

Are you happy to patrol Recent Changes yourself now - I'm really not doing it any more.

By the way, have you noticed that when you block someone for a day, the actual block is for 7 hours longer?

Cheers. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don’t enough free time to keep up with every unpatrolled change, but now that you have stopped, I’ll try to spend more time on it. — Ungoliant (Falai) 07:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that all the remaining sysops (and there are quite a lot) should get together and decide who does what. If any of them don't actually want to do anything, all they have to do is ask me to desysop them (I'm still a 'crat). SemperBlotto (talk) 08:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I don’t think simply allotting responsibilities to people would last very long. What we could do is create some sort of page to coordinate patrolling efforts by, for example, listing promising beginners or anons per the language or theme they edit. This would encourage people to at least patrol edits in the languages they know well. — Ungoliant (Falai) 08:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

RE: UserboxesEdit

Oi, Ungoliant, tudo bem? Acabei de ver seu aviso lá na minha discussão. Faz bastante tempo que aquelas userboxes estão na homepage, por isto jamais imaginei que elas não fossem permitidas. Por mim tudo bem removê-las: embora eu preferisse mantê-las (por considerá-las "práticas"), não tenho nenhuma intenção de criar caso contra uma decisão da comunidade. O que a comunidade decide é regra.

Quando você deixou aquela mensagem na minha discussão, a primeira pergunta que me fiz foi "onde isso está escrito?", porque eu realmente nunca havia visto essa regra. Daí fui vasculhar Wiktionary:Policies_and_guidelines, userbox e Wiktionary:Index_to_Policies, mas não encontrei nada. Até que tive a ideia de vasculhar Wiktionary:Votes e foi então que encontrei Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-08/Babel_userboxes.

Como foi meio demorado encontrar essa regra, e tendo em vista que um usuário menos experiente possivelmente não conseguirá encontrá-la, minha sugestão é que, se porventura acontecer de você vir a se deparar com mais algum outro usuário utilizando userboxes, ao deixar uma mensagem de aviso na discussão dele inclua um link para aquela votação. Assim fica mais fácil o usuário/editor entender que se trata de uma decisão coletiva (e ler os argumentos que foram utilizados e que levaram a maioria a decidir contra a utilização de userboxes).

Ah: e obrigado por me avisar! Face-smile.svg Vou remover as userboxes... SMirC-cry.svg. Abraço.Sampayu 14:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


Hiya. I absolutely agree with replacing a list with a category, where it's equivalent, but there were some red links that you've removed by doing it. I think they should be kept as separate red links until someone either creates them or deletes them as unattestable. I'm going to restore them. Equinox 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Isn’t it better to add them to WT:REE instead, so if they are indeed unattestable they won’t be being listed by a mainspace page? But feel free, I don’t feel strongly about this. — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi: You undid my edit to the etymology of zoœcial, saying that since it was an alternate spelling of another word that it should not have etymological information. Is that standard practice here? I was just trying to fill a {rfe} request. What should I do if I find a similar request in the future? — E | talk 12:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's standard practice but not a policy recorded anywhere. The idea really is to get the reader to click on the bold blue link to get everything. One problem with adding an etymology is that someone will edit one page and not the other, then the pages say different things. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
In general yes. There are some exceptions, such as when the alternative form actually has a different etymology (these cases are rare since having a different etymology implies being a different word 99% of the time).
If you find an etymology request in a non-lemma entry, you can add the requested thing to the lemma and remove the request with an edit summary of “added to lemma” or similar. — Ungoliant (Falai) 12:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
@Mglovesfun: I did add the same ety to both zoœcial and zooecial but I understand how there could be confusion.
@Ungoliant: Got it. Thanks. — E | talk 13:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Fula entries & questionsEdit

Thanks for the pointers and edits on formatting entries. Have a couple of quick questions:

  1. Am beginning to enter letters of the Fula alphabet, but notice that not all languages have this - is there a policy in this regard? Would seem that if every language with a letter "a" had a few lines on that page, for instance, it would become enormous. (I had loading issues at one point.)
  2. I haven't yet been adding citations (but would use one in particular):
    1. Is this necessary/recommended?
    2. Does it suffice to enter into the citation page, or is it necessary to enter on the main page as well?

TIA for any info.--A12n (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

  1. It is acceptable to do so. I’ve actually raised the issue of the letter POS causing pages to become too large, but that discussion didn’t go anywhere.
    1. Fula is not a well documented language so it only needs a reference from a trustworthy linguistic source. But even adding a reference is not necessary, unless someone requests verification here. However, if you think adding references is not a waste of your time, you should do it. I recommend creating a template for the dictionary/source you are using if you plan on doing so (like {{R:Dicionário Mirandês-Português}}, {{R:Dicionário Mirandês-Português}}).
    2. You don’t need to add them to the citations page. Usually they are only used when there are too many citations.

Ungoliant (Falai) 13:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Obrigado. Will see about doing a template and being regular about citations. I guess Fula is not well documented per the criteria, but it has been the subject of a lot of studies over the years, mostly focusing on specific regional use, with greater or lesser discussion of the wider linguistic context. So it's kind of Balkanized - being spoken across several countries without a formal standard (unlike, say, Arabic) does not help. (FWIW, I personally learned the language in two areas - Maasina (Mali) then Futa Jalon (Guinea). The latter is somewhat of an outlier in the continuum (as is Adamawa in the east), but I did notice unexpected similarities with Fulfulde in Niger when there later.--A12n (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

at the timeEdit

Você pode traduzir‐o? --Æ&Œ (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Feito. (traduzi-lo). — Ungoliant (Falai) 11:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Você pode traduzir «no comment»? --Æ&Œ (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Foi. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Temos mais sinónimos para sanduíche? --Æ&Œ (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Desconheço. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Que significa ora bem? --Æ&Œ (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Parece ser uma expressão para abrir uma frase dramaticamente, mas não lembro de tê-la visto alguma vez. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

isso sim: bom português (para indeed)? --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sim. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Você pode dar‐me todos idiotismos com sim, meu amigo? --Æ&Œ (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
pois sim (emphatic positive responde)
pelo sim pelo não (in case we are wrong; as a precaution)
dar o sim (to accept a marriage proposal)
Ungoliant (falai) 22:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
What about porque sim, sim que, or que sim? --Æ&Œ (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Porque sim é um. Sim que não conheço. Que sim não é idiomático. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
[1]. --Æ&Œ (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

User talk:

Not Turkish directly, but Proto-Altaic in the sense of Euroasiatic:, Frontcover Joseph Harold Greenberg: Indo-European and its closest relatives. 2. Lexicon, Stanford University Press, 2002, p.23Xore6674 (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Eurasiatic is not well-understood enough to assert that two given terms from different branches are cognates. Hell, even its existence is disputed! — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you think it is worth to mention it as a short assumption at all? ... since both branches seem to be very similar. -- 19:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
No, we should not be listing these as "cognates" until there is scholarly consensus to do so. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edit at thirtyEdit

I corrected the US pronunciation of thirty per the discussion at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#.5B.C9.BE.5D or .5Bd.5D in thirty.3F.21. If you believe this was an error, could you explain why? Thanks. Also note that I am a native US English speaker, and have never heard the word pronounced in the US as anything besides θɜɹdi. Kaldari (talk) 09:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Didn’t you see my second edit? — Ungoliant (Falai) 10:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Appendix:Cockney rhyming slangEdit

"Many terms are based on popular culture, and so the cant is constantly updated according to changing fashions. The terms listed here are well-established."

This is incorrect.

"Many terms are based on popular culture, and so the list is constantly updated according to changing fashions. The terms listed here are well-established."

This is the correct version.

TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

How is it incorrect? — Ungoliant (Falai) 11:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
"cant" is not a noun. What is being described in the appendix is a "list" which is constantly updated. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes it is, see cant. Cockney rhyming slang is a type of cant and the appendix is saying that it often changes. — Ungoliant (Falai) 11:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you're saying. I still think list is more appropriate because a cant cannot update itself. I will accept the change though. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edit on Wiktionary:Grease pit/2013/NovemberEdit


Yes, I think that this rollback is an error. Why have you deleted my question? — Automatik (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Fuck. It was an accident, sorry. — Ungoliant (Falai) 15:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I have restored it now. — Ungoliant (Falai) 15:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. — Automatik (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


Você pode inspeccionar as traduções? --Æ&Œ (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

A trema é obsoleta. — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

sen jälkeenEdit

Well. OK, you've reverted my edit, which may even be justified, since it's hard to explain in three words. First of all, what was my motivation to change something at all? It was the original sentence (and now again after you reverted my change), which was in English translation: She has not gone out after she got married. There is the basic problem. We're under the ADVERB section, right? And what is after here? Not an adverb, but a conjunction!! (like "before" is one too). And it can't be denied in the sentence you reverted, "since" HAD the function of an adverb! See now? -andy 10:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is preferable for a term’s translation to match its part of speech, but the thing is, the new sentence was in bad English. Should it have a since, possible sentences include “Ever since she got married she has not gone outside.” and “She got married, but/and has not gone outside since”.
Thanks for contacting me, I hope this can be sorted out. — Ungoliant (Falai) 10:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Still no cigar for the former. "Ever since she..." is AGAIN a conjunction! The "since" must be last word in sentence to have an adverbial function. No buts. (Tricky huh? :p) -andy 10:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Duas coisinhasEdit

  1. A tradução de telekinesis em português é telecinêse??
  2. Não sei se é minha imaginação, mas acho que meu professor pronuncia "nh" como [ŋj] (por exemplo, minha é [ˈmĩŋja]). Conhece este fenômeno? (Ele é paulista.) [P.S. It might be [ɐ], not [a]. I never know.] Ultimateria (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
    1. São telecinésia, telecinética, telecinese (com /ɛ/) e telecinesia, o último sendo mais comum.
    2. Não sei responder com certeza, mas no meu sotaque também solto um leve /j/ depois do /ɲ/ (e é [ɲ] mesmo, não [j̃] como a Wikipédia que te fazer crer). — Ungoliant (Falai) 08:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Length in Greek etymologyEdit

In Ancient Greek etymological citations, length should always be indicated, just as in Latin, Old English and all other languages with distinctive vowel length. The conventions in Wiktionary:Ancient Greek romanization and pronunciation are screwed; whoever wrote that didn't know what they were doing from a linguistic perspective. Benwing (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You should start a discussion here if you think it needs to be fixed. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverting changes on "Crawl" pageEdit

Hey there. You have recently reverted my changes on the "crawl" page, and I believe you might be wrong on this. I am a fluent speaker of both Portuguese and English, and I am pretty sure "rastejar" does not mean "to move along the ground on hands and knees" as described in the page. The only correct word in portuguese for that case would be "engatinhar". While rastejar and engatinhar are words used for similar motions of the human body (I am obviously aware that some animals also "rastejam"), there are differences, even though these might be subtle. Maybe these two words are synonyms in one accent or two, but in standard portuguese there is a clear difference between the two. "Rastejar" would be to "move slowly with the abdomen close to the ground", while engatinhar would be "to move along the ground on hands and knees". I hope you understand the reason behind my change, and hopefully revert your own so as to avoid having misleading translations on Wiktionary. —This unsigned comment was added by Onomamashinee (talkcontribs).

You are ignoring the rest of the English definition: “ [] or by dragging the body along the ground.”
Look at the first quotation: “A worm finds what it searches after only by feeling, as it crawls from one thing to another.”
In this example the term crawls is correctly translated as rasteja, and it would be incorrect to use engatinha. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, the problem is, me and I believe other people use Wiktionary to find translations, and if they go straight to the translations part, they might read the descriptions on the translation box and get the impression that these two words are synonyms, since only the first part of the definition is being specified on the translation box. Probably a good idea would be to specify that "rastejar" and "engatinhar" are not synonyms, so as to make it clear that only one of them matches the translation box description. —This unsigned comment was added by Onomamashinee (talkcontribs).

OK. See this diff. — Ungoliant (Falai) 09:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Re-add sense "lime"Edit

One doubt: I was born and live in Mexico (having lived in several cities, included Mexico City and Guadalajara) 44 yaers ago, and never, never, never, never, never have heard or read anyone refer a lime (I mean all sesnses and etymologies) as "limón"; where did you hear or read such term with that sense? how many people? (Renebeto (talk) 07:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC))

Never heard it, but such a term must be RFVed before being deleted. — Ungoliant (Falai) 13:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for Foreign WotD nomsEdit

Thank you for nominating ábrándvilág as a foreign word of the day. This looked to me like it was not a real word, but it turns out it is, so you taught me something new. – b_jonas 22:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Any chance of recording a pronunciation for it? — Ungoliant (Falai) 22:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Foreign Word of the Day/2013/December 1Edit

Just letting you know; you'll have to do Wiktionary:Foreign Word of the Day/2013/December 1; it was vandalised and then deleted and it gives me a permission error when I try to recreate it. Hyarmendacil (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. It was vandalised twice! I wonder how those douchebags ran across that page specifically. — Ungoliant (Falai) 09:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Dictionary of 2011 Egyptian RevolutionEdit

How would I create this project on my userpage and manually link to the entries? Mary-Catherine (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Create a page like User:Mary-Catherine/Egyptian revolution dictionary and write the list of entries in it. — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


Am I doing it right? [currently trying to stop myself from adding Portuguese to the list of languages for 2014...] —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It’s right. I made two alterations: the {{eye dialect of}} template has a parameter for the name of the dialect, and, as is the case of many Caipira words, it is used in the rest of Brazil as slang. — Ungoliant (Falai) 09:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Obrigado. As for the definition, I suspect its use mirrors jermu; originally it meant "woman" with "wife/girlfriend" being a subsidiary use, but in slang the subsidiary and primary uses have flipped in frequency. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


Está demasiado tarde para converter monges‽ --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Pode ser daqui a duas horas? — Ungoliant (Falai) 19:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Seguro! Dormi excessivamente, assim estou tarde. --Æ&Œ (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Como diz‐se «plasma rifle»‽ --Æ&Œ (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Rifle de plasma. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

[Merry Christmas] to you too!Edit

Thanks for bearing the brunt of the FWOTD work. Hyarmendacil (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Loco 'n' LoucoEdit

Hi there, at my regional southeast accent loco as slang is spelled and speaked without u (not to say I consider it's the same way all the country, given louco spell being very formal and not transmitting the desired slanginess "shade"), Have I to everytime I include one slang include it as it's spelled and speaked usually as slang or have I to include it as presumably it should be spelled as a "formal" word? cause I thought loco as slang was slangily OK for inclusion and louco not that much. --Tchirruá (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Loco is a nonstandard spelling and the u is used even for the slang. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The spelling without u could be the nonstandard spelling of word louco for non-slang senses, however it is the standard spelling on slang use context (here resides the issue). As we disagree, and now seeing if I continue this conversation it will turn into a time consuming tiresome discution with nothing good coming out from it, a better providence is simply leave it as it is, no problem.
--Tchirruá (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Entries with Pronunciation n headersEdit

Do you have any ideas about what to do with all of these? They are the product of EP's insistence that Latin required headings of the form 'Pronunciation n', n being a small integer, and Ullmann's frustration with the departure from ELE. I think membership in the category removes it from AF's and Kassadbot's attentions. I haven't looked at them in a while, but I could not find an appealing way of eliminating the headers in many cases. The question came up on my talk page. We could just let it go as an unadvertised exception. DCDuring TALK 02:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV/missing translationsEdit

Hi there. Any chance you could create User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV/missing translations/es and User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV/missing translations/fr for me. Or tell us how to make it? (ideally the former...) --Back on the list (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Its theEdit

first time i've used google groups; i hope i cited Universal Unitarian correctly. Pass a Method (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The cite is valid, but the formatting could be improved. Try using {{cite-usenet}} or imitating its output. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


The edit was for a reason. Several of the entries are under the wrong heading. Yumi includes the listener, while nós is indifferent. kwami (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Which is why it was on both tables. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

coffin translationsEdit

Hey. Where'd you get these translations from? For the record, my wife claims it is ataúd, as in Spanish, but she's not a reliable source. --Back on the list (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

[2]. This site rocks. Best online Asturian resource.
Thanks. I hadn't used that one before. I usually use this one, but the search function isn't so good, and it's all in Asturian. --Back on the list (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
And how come your wife not a reliable resource? Isn’t she a native speaker? — Ungoliant (falai) 12:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, she's Asturian, but grew up almost predominantly on castellano (and sidra). --Back on the list (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
But she's lovely. --Back on the list (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Pt pagar.oggEdit

This is a file that DerbethBot and I have been having a super-slo-mo edit war over. It sounds to me more like Italian than Portuguese, so I've been reverting DerbethBot every time it adds the file back. Derbeth tells me there's no way to stop the bot from adding the file, and suggested I request its deletion.

Before I do that, I'd like confirmation that it really is wrong: I only have a very rudimentary grasp of Portuguese pronunciation, and I know there's quite a bit of regional variation, so I don't want to rely on my own judgment. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It is European Portuguese. If you want to be 100% sure, ask Liuscomaes (talkcontribs), who is Portuguese (or at least knows enough about Europen Portuguese to add loads of accurate pronunciations), but I don't see any reason to doubt it. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


Significam sapatos em português antigo? --Æ&Œ (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Não. Tinha o mesmo significado do hodierno. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

O que significa lenço em português antigo? --Æ&Œ (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Linho. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

O que significa sesta em português antigo? --Æ&Œ (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

O horário do meio-dia às três da tarde. Também é o feminino do ordinal sesto. — Ungoliant (falai) 05:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Your UndoEdit

Hi There, I was wandering, what did you mean by this edit: IWs must be the same spelling. --CONFIQ (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

What you added is called an IW (interwiki link). The correct IW would be [[he:esoteric]] (but the Hebrew Wiktionary doesn’t have that entry, so it shouldn’t be added yet). Don’t worry about adding them, we have bots that do that automatically. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


Hi there. The pages that you sent have all been processed. How can I generate another one? Or could you generate me another? IF there's going to be a huge load at once, I think it'd be better. --Back on the list (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Dump for MarchEdit

Hi again UM. I've been working my way through your Asturian page, and am nearly finished with it. Can you make me a new one please? --Back on the list (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

[3]. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey, it doesn't work. --Back on the list (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Add this code to your custom js. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
What does the latter do? --Back on the list (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
It makes the former work. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, I think it's cool now. Thanks a bunch! --Back on the list (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:BurzumesqueEdit

In return, can you help me with a definition for Nazgul (in its figurative use in English)? I'm pretty sure my citations pass WT:FICTION. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I can’t really think of how to word the definitions, but the 2007 and 2011 cites seem to be reminiscent of the Nazgul’s behaviour (getting something done violently, without regard for what’s in the way), while the 2012 one seems to be reminiscent of their appearance (covered in black).
There might be another sense: the actual creature. RPGs shamelessly copy Tolkien’s creatures so many pass the “independent of reference to that universe” clause. — Ungoliant (falai) 06:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I couldn't cite Huorn, but it looks like if it's achievable, it will only be thus because of RPGs. What do you think of google books:"Bilboesque"? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Bilboesque added, though sadly I couldn’t cite the Bilbo Baggins sense, due to a bug in Google Groups. — Ungoliant (falai) 07:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
That hurts a bit. I'm running out of LOTR terms that I can cite; tengwar and cirth don't seem to make it past WT:FICTION (although it's hard to say), but maybe some more of the names of the languages will, like Adûnaic (not sure how to apply the rules in a case like that). Sauron himself is up for grabs, in fact, and Sauronesque is almost there. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
There’s some hope for Uruk-Hai as a staple RPG creature. I’ll search for cites tomorrow if you don’t get to it first. — Ungoliant (falai) 08:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I can't get to it today. Incidentally, the word polyed comes up in one of your RPG citations and I haven't the foggiest what it means. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Abbreviation of polymorphed. Do you mind if I move this discussion to my talk page? It doesn’t have anything to do with Burzum or black metal. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course not. I like abusing the Talk: namespace, since nobody at Wiktionary uses it much anyway. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi. Regarding your revert. Each sense of term, or name, defines a different meaning of it. It doesn’t represent an individual referent, or some real entity.

Do we serve dictionary readers by listing 1,700 geographic locations called San José? Shall we also list all the guys named Bob in the dictionary entry BobMichael Z. 2014-03-11 04:34 z

Proper nouns do. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Your explanation is either incomplete, or I am misunderstanding it. Or are you implying that I should start adding many thousands of unique senses of the proper noun WalterMichael Z. 2014-03-11 16:55 z
No, the common practice is different for toponyms and names of people. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
We have never been entirely consistent about listing all the senses of placenames, or not listing them. Paris, for example, has only two senses, "the capital city of France" and "any place named after the French city"; Wonderfool's addition of a bunch of other Parises was reverted. And Abbeville has only "a town in Picardy, France" and "any of several towns in North America named either directly or indirectly after Abbeville, France". But other entries, like the diff of Odessa under discussion, do sometimes try to list all the Odessas.
Our approach to personal names is much more consistent: we never list the thousands of individual Walters, Bobs, etc.
Some discussion of both personal- and place-names exists on Talk:Victoria. - -sche (discuss) 18:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
So there isn’t exactly a common practice for place names. But I haven’t heard any argument that they are different from personal names. The only practical difference is that there are typically fewer specific referents, so it seems possible to copy an encyclopedic dictionary and try to list them. But this idea is a fallacy, and clearly breaks down when you consider that there are (purportedly) 1,700 places called San José.
Listing things, rather than defining terms is what Wikipedia already does, and doing so turns the dictionary into a gazetteer. There is nothing in our mandate to do so, and the redundancy harms the project. Michael Z. 2014-03-12 18:47 z
Then start a BP discussion to explicitly ban it, or RFD the definitions you want to get rid of. You can’t unilaterally decide that something is bad and start removing occurrences of it. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I’m trying to hold a discussion here. Why is it that you can unilaterally decide that something is good and start enforcing occurrences of it? Anyway, thanks for your time. Michael Z. 2014-03-12 19:45 z
I didn’t decide that. Individualising definitions of places that share a name has been the common practice for a while. I actually oppose including places that are too minor; to my chagrin, my nomination of Liberdade for deletion, which is merely a subdivision of a neighbourhood, was opposed. But in your edit, you even removed the definition line for the oblast, which makes as much sense as replacing the definitions of New York with “ [] city [] ; the surrounding state”. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
It’s not the dictionary’s job to evaluate how major or minor places and things are – we define the terms used for all of them. Wikipedia has notability guidelines for the subjects of its articles, but we are defining terms, not things. If we did decide to incorporate the function of an encyclopedic dictionary – and I think competing with Wikipedia is a losing game at best – then we’d have to adopt Wikipedia’s notability guideline, or create and implement a new one to argue over. Better to just link to Wikipedia, no?
I removed the separate definition line for the oblast (more commonly “Odessa region”), although I still mentioned it, because it shares the name of its city. A dryer definition is “denoting, or related to, the city of Odessa in Ukraine; or a place named after it” (the oblast’s name falls under the first part of this definition). A sense line represents a meaning of a term, and not one of the specific things that the term refers to.
The SoP term Odessa Oblast doesn’t represent a unique sense at all, nor do Odessa Military District, Odessa International Airport, Gulf of Odessa, Odessa harbour. “Odessa” in isolation means the city. Exceptions are examples of ellipsis (“Which oblast? Odessa.”). Michael Z. 2014-03-13 18:15 z
The details of my view about this are arguable. But the alternatives are to either start listing a bunch of things based on encyclopedic notability criteria (60 w:San Josés, and counting), or list all of them (1,980 San Josés, going by NGIA’s search). Neither is appropriate for Wikipedia’s partner dictionary. Michael Z. 2014-03-13 17:33 z

justapomos and othersEdit

These were added by Semper recently, and seem to be triggering script errors. Could you have a look? —CodeCat 23:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes of April fools pageEdit

About my change in that page, which was reverted by you, "primeiro de Abril" is definitely how the April Fool's Joke is called in portuguese, at least in Brazilian Portuguese. If you say "peixe de Abril" to any Brazilians whatsoever they will NOT understand you are talking about the April Fools' joke. Maybe "peixe de abril" is the norm in european portuguese, but it does not exist in brazilian portuguese. I would suggest leaving both "peixe de abril", if you are sure it is indeed used anywhere at all; and "primeiro de abril", the one and only way the joke is referred to in Brazil.

A própria piada é chamada de primeiro de abril? Não só o dia? Se sim, podemos readicioná-la. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sim, informalmente. De maneira semelhante ao inglês, onde a piada leva o nome do dia, o mesmo é comumente feito no português brasileiro onde as noções de primeiro de abril e da piada de primeiro de abril se confundem no falar informal. Embora eu deva concordar que, de fato, mais formalmente poderia se falar em "piada de primeiro de abril".

Readicionado. Também encontrei a variante primeiro-de-abril, mas não ouso colocar o contexto regional dessas expressões. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

concern trollEdit

I hope you're not calling me that. Just because I think things should be kept when others think they should be deleted doesn't make me a troll. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I am, but it’s not because you think it should be kept. — Ungoliant (falai) 11:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of the reason, it's inaccurate, and in any way, a personal attack Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it is very much accurate. Pissing Mglovesfun off enough to make him leave was an eye-opener for me. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Mglovesfun leaving is no fault but his own. He chose to get pissed off at relatively minor things, such as a few votes here and there that maybe altered the outcome of 1-2 entries. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I won’t bother trying to change your mind if that’s what you really think, but I will keep my eyes open for similar behaviour. What MG said in your talk page is all true. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
No, it isn't, because, among other things, Mglovesfun accused me of being insane and said all I ever do is vote in discussion forums, when in fact I've created over 100 entries. You've essentially said you are going to HOUND me, which is disruptive Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I never said I will keep my eyes open for similar behaviour from you alone, though I expect it will come up too. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi UM, can I have another Asturian dump please, like the one you put on that external page before? --WonderfoolatEaster (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a min. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
here. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Brilliant, thanks a lot. I'm not sure I'll have time to complete all of that work in my lifetime, though. --WonderfoolatEaster (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: Template:gl-nounEdit

Thank you very much. Regards. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Okey. But please use the template Template:reply to, for the notification arrives me. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

gratuitas, gratuitus, gratisEdit

I recognize the distinction you draw (and am happy to learn it). But for this relatively recently arrived contributor to Wiktionary the distinction raises a question: What is the conventional purpose and scope of a Wiktionary entry's "Descendants" section? For one thing, it is clear that English gratuity and gratuitous are cognate to Latin gratis. And for another, the list of descendants to which I added them—and from which you deleted them—comprises a collection that provides scarce information, essentially only "Here are a bunch of languages that have adopted, and occasionally adapted, Latin gratis."

So, is it typical to include only an entry's "direct" descendants? I can appreciate that there is a benefit to that approach. But it does come at the cost of missing the opportunity to convey a different type of very useful information, namely the web of materteral words and the richness of those semantic and historical interrelationships.―PaulTanenbaum (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the common practice is to include only the direct descendants of a word (direct in the lexical sense, not in the etymological sense; i.e. gratuity can be added as a descendant of gratuitas even though it came to English via Old French). Personally I think it’s good practice because it prevents unnecessary reduplication (gratuity would have to be included in the descendants section of all the Latin words that took part in the formation of the word gratuitas (gratuitas itself, as well as gratuitus, gratia and gratus). But if you feel Wiktionary would benefit from changing this practice, feel free to state your case at the Beer Parlour.
By the way, I’m glad you didn’t take this the wrong way. Beginners tend to make a hullabaloo whenever any of their contributions is questioned or undone. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


Neste modelo {{gl-noun}} adicionaste o feminino e o plural do feminino. Mais neste modelo {{es-noun}} não existe plural do feminino, só existe um segundo plural de masculino. Podes adicionar o plural de feminino em {{es-noun}} como em {{gl-noun}}. Saudações. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vivaelcelta: está feito. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Obrigado. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:es-noun 2Edit

Nas predefinições {{gl-noun}} e {{pt-noun}} ao escrever o feminino numa palavra masculina, já aparece automaticamente o feminino de plural, mais em {{es-noun}} não aparece automaticamente. Poderias consertar este problema? Saudações. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Já tentei, mas infelizmente não consigui. Talvez no futuro eu tente denovo, mas ainda há outras predefinição que preciso atualizar. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Last modified on 20 April 2014, at 21:09