WelcomeEdit

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

  • Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
  • Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
  • If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
  • Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
  • You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Vininn126

Message from PUC I want to separate from the welcome messageEdit

Hello. Just coming by to say thanks for the Polish translations! PUC – 13:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

WtfEdit

Excuse me, what's that supposed to mean? I don't have to explain anything to you because I don't consider your opinion important. I create entries the way I'm used to and that I find aesthetically pleasing, and if you don't like it, all you can do about it is cry. Alternatively, you can go and report me to some overzealous admin, complaining that I was so mean to you. How sad :((((((( Care to at least leave your name at the end of your comment or is it beneath you? Shumkichi (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Oh, isn't it obvious? The English way is sloppy and unaesthetic, that's it. Oh, and I'm the rude one here? Look at the tone of your comment, you treat me like some bitch who can only complain and doesn't have anything substantive to add as if my contribution to the Polish lemmas didn't matter. Yes, my comments on your sloppy edits were supposed to sound mean to teach you something, not my fault that you took it personally instead of paying attention to the way you edit entries. All you had to do was to ask me your question without that assumption at the end, that's what pissed me off the most. Shumkichi (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Do you hate me so much because I'm a black gay woman? Shumkichi (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
      • You homophobe, all you have to do is to look at the way I, BigDom, Hergilei, or KamiruPL (or any other user who is active) edit our entries (we all have different styles but they are all aesthetic in my opinion, and the other guys do their job really well, so kudos to them). Is it srsly so hard to click on the "EDIT" in a random recent entry and copy-paste it? Why are people so dependent on other people and not on their own intelligence these days? Shumkichi (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

This is gonna be cringey, but here we goEdit

Hi. I just wanted to say sorry for how I treated you. I'm not an easygoing person and I can get really pissed off sometimes. Apparently, I got upset about something I shouldn't have. But the thing is that I misinterpreted your original message. Nevertheless, I shouldn't have been such a hothead. I feel really bad about the words I have written and I'm really sorry for them. Don't get me wrong, I still get annoyed when I see you make a very obvious mistake (like "=== Part of speech ===" or a wrong gender) xd But I can also see that you have learnt something and that you learn quickly, which is good. I appreciate your contribution to the Polish entries and I can see that you know your Polish, which surprises me. The only problem is that you still struggle with some technical aspects of adding entries but the more you create, the better and more professional your entries will be, or at least I hope so. I should have taken into account that you're new to Wiktionary and obviously less experienced. I'm going to take a break from creating entries anyway, so I'm glad that there is a person who's equally passionate about languages in general and willing to contribute (the Polish language has already surpassed Russian in being the most and best covered version here). So keep up the good work. Btw. the entries you've created made me realise how many BASIC words are still missing, and it's tragic. Just try to double check every entry you create, check on the Polish Wiktionary if a particular entry has an audio file there and copy-paste it, be careful about genders because they can be tricky, and I'd suggest that you copy-paste an actual entry, not a bare template, and with respect to the grammatical category of the word in question. Cheers, I guess. Shumkichi (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  • On what counts as a transitive verb, I think we agree; it's just the verb phrases like "zrobić (kogoś) w balona" that I find difficult to categorise (is this "kogoś" a direct object? Technically speaking, yes, but it refers to "zrobić" itself in terms of morphology, but in terms of the whole phrase as a single entity with individual meaning, it does seem to refer to the whole thing semantically; so you see my problem: Polish doesn't have phrasal verbs like English but I guess you could treat such phrases as transitive verbs, albeit very awkward ones). As for any database, I don't really know, but pl.wiktionary is generally very messy, with multiple users adding different audio files in a random way, and each file also has different filename extention (sometimes it's .ogg, sometimes .wav or .mp3, it's really annoying, because you have to change it manually here). Shumkichi (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

labels and categoriesEdit

Hi, just a heads-up that if you add a label using the lb template, you don't need to add the category at the bottom too (e.g. this edit). Like Shumkichi above, I also wanted to say thanks for your efforts but please do take a little more care sometimes. It's not a race and there's been a few occasions we've had to tidy up after you which, for me at least, is slowing down the rate of adding new entries myself. Cheers, BigDom 08:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  • :@BigDom Okay. Yeah, I'm sorry. And good to know about not having to add it at the bottom. I saw it a few times and wasn't sure. I probably saw some older posts.
  • No need to apologise. I really appreciate having another Polish editor around and I know you're still learning the ropes like we all had to once upon a time. There's nothing wrong with taking it a bit slower. Cheers, BigDom 08:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @BigDom the template worked like a charm! I used it on spowolnić‎ and it saved me a ton of time. Thanks a bunch, you're the best! Vininn126 (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

sestynaEdit

I added a link to sestyna, Polish for sestina. --Apisite (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Apisite I will get to that soon, thanks. Vininn126 (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

gemininated???Edit

Hi. In a recent edit you used the term "gemininated". Was this a spelling mistake? Indian subcontinent (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Indian subcontinent yes, my mistake. I updated it with the correct spelling. Vininn126 (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Ah, geminate, of course. I guess it's like Anna - I knew an Italian with that name who was always frustrated with people saying her name like in English, and not spending an extra half second on the /n/ sound. Indian subcontinent (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

-yznaEdit

Hi. I suggest that you read this discussion: [1], before anyone will niggle about it. Shumkichi (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

HyphenationEdit

I can see you've started adding hyphenation to Polish terms, I guess inspired by German or Hungarian lemmas. While it's good to do so, someone needs to create separate categories for terms with 1 syllable, 2 syllables, 3 syllables, etc., because as for now, even if you add hyphenation to an entry, it won't get categorised as N-syllable word because nobody has created the category for any hyphenation. Now, I'm not good at these technical categories, related to the language as a whole instead of individual words. Would you be able to do so? Also, we would have to add hyphenation to more than 50000 entries that lack it, lol. Shumkichi (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  • @Shumkichi You guessed it, Hungarian, been trying to learn. I can look into creating categories, and talking to people about that. And yeah, considering the fact that most haven't been added, it's something I have to chip away at. It's something that I'd like to do at least for now when I turn my attention to that later. At the moment I'm focusing on this rhyming thing (and we are trying to think of a way automatically add rhymes to the proper page, to make that process easier). Once that's done I'm probably going to look at hyphenation. Vininn126 (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Shumkichi Actually so turns out it was an easy fix. Erutuon went ahead and did some tinkering in some code. The syllabification is done automatically with the IPA template, and WingerBot will create categories based on that. However for combinations like auto, au is treated as a diphthong, so for words like nauka, we have to respell them in the template, which we already have to do. As to filling the categories with words, it might take months because the system basically has a line, but it's automatically done. Alternatively, I think we can make the categories, as Erutuon did https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Polish_3-syllable_words here (linking doesn't work). Vininn126 (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
      • @Vininn126 I forgot that there are still some very old entries missing IPA templates, not to even mention that there are many more that lack Audio templates. I guess there's no other way but just go through all the entries and manually add both templates where missing. Shumkichi (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

dokopać (class IX) conjugationEdit

Hi, just saw your message in the edit summary at dokopać. I don't know if the -ić template is the right place for these verbs but I don't mind having a go at creating a class IX template like I've done for the other classes. Cheers, BigDom 13:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

  • @BigDom Okeedokee. I might be wrong but I think the forms are the same, save the infinitive. If they are, it might be worth considering. Thanks Vininn126 (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Hmm, I think they're different enough to put separately. For example, the 3.s.fut is different (ends -ie/-je/-e rather than -i), also the past tense is -ał, -ała, instead of -ił, iła. The passive participle is also -any rather than -iony. Class IX also includes verbs like stawać/dawać which have the extra -wa- in the infintive but otherwise have the -ję -> -je -> -ją endings from this class. Shouldn't take me too long to knock something together. BigDom 13:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Argh, you're right. Ah well. Vininn126 (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Think that was simple enough - would you mind having a look at the examples here and see if it all looks right? @Shumkichi too if you're interested. BigDom 17:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
          • That is a thing of beauty, thank you much! Vininn126 (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
            • Nie ma problemu. They're ready to go now. BigDom 13:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
              • @BigDom I'll update some pages when I wrap up these rhymes. Vininn126 (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
                • Yeah, no worries I'm just going through some now and adding (reasonably common) missing ones where I find them. Good work on the rhymes, BTW. BigDom 13:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

pl-IPAEdit

Just noticed the voicing is wrong on zewnętrzny and wewnętrzny - is this something that can be fixed in the module or will we need to just do it manually? Cheers, BigDom 15:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@BigDom It should be something we can fix in the module. I'll ask my friend again. Vininn126 (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

-licyEdit

I was considering analysing it as "lico" + "-y" but a lot of adjectives in Polish poetry are based on this formula ("lico" is an archaic word that is known only from literature and proverbs, at least afaik) so I'm wondering if it can be considered an independent suffix. But maybe it's a little far-fetched. Shumkichi (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I experience the same problemy with a lot of other suffixes that are less morphological in nature, e.g. -nośny. I'm not sure there's really a consensus on these in the literature, and I tend to lean towards having them be built from pieces, rather than giving a whole new suffix, but I could honestly see it that way too. This is like the discussion with -letni, and there are a few others. Vininn126 (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

/v/ in multiword termsEdit

Hi.

I'm not sure why but whenever I add a multiword entry that involves a word in a noninitial position that starts with /v/, it automatically changes to /f/; but when it is the first word in an entry that starts with /v/, the pronunciation is correct. I tried to add the pronunciation for this term - [CLICK] - manually but /v/ still changes to /f/ no matter what I do. One of your friends knows how code works here if I remember correctly, right? Maybe they could help? Shumkichi (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that too. We added backwards voicing, and rz and w were causing problems since they don't determine the voicing of the cluster, so there were a few kinks. I already sent the problem over to him. Vininn126 (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

A paper on the phonemicity of /ŋ/ in PolishEdit

Hey, I just wanted to share an interesting article (in English) by a Polish phonologist who claims that /ŋ/ is a separate (but highly restricted) phoneme in Polish in certain environments: https://journals.pan.pl/Content/118300?format_id%3D1&usg=AOvVaw3C_cE_tVBtWmhxl9ab3D37 Most other phonologists seem to agree that the so-called nasal vowels have evolved to biphonemic clusters in every position (except for "ę" at the end of words which is completely denasalised): so Ṽ -> ṼN (or Ṽw̃ and Ṽj̃), and either /ŋ/ is a separate phoneme or there are two additional phonemes instead: /w̃/ and /j̃/, but they are never phonetically independent and always appear as the nasal part of biphonemic diphthongs.

I'm not sharing it with you just because I find it interesting. My point is that, perhaps, we should update the IPA template to better reflect the allophones of the underlying /ŋ/ (which is mostly correct now for the words spelt with "ę" and "ą"), but there are also problems with some allophones of /n/ (in other words, I'm saying that there's a phonotactical difference between the independent PHONEME /ŋ/, which appears in words that contain "ę" and "ą" as the second part of biphonemic oralo-nasal diphthongs, and the ALLOPHONE [ŋ], which is a positional allophone of /n/ before /k/ and /g/ in medial positions, and before /k/ in coda positions). Unfortunately, if you take a look at words like "bank", "marketing" etc., which all have a simple underlying /n/ and because of that are not spelt with "ą" or "ę", the IPA template realises them as /bank/ and /marketink/ even though they are phonetically [baŋk] and [marketiŋk]. It's annoying when I have to copy-paste the "ŋ" sign from Wikipedia or from English transcriptions to make the rhymes correct. Compare them with "pęk" or "sąd", which are correctly transcribed as /peŋk/ and /sont/, respectively. So you did a very good job with the instances of "ę" and "ą", but I think we should work on allophonic [ŋ] too to make our lives easier. Shumkichi (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey! This looks super interesting and it's something I've been pondering for a while. I was also just reading some Polish language papers on the retroflex series, so I'm in the phonetic mood. I'll have to read it a bit later as I've taken a trip to Wrocław for the week. Perhaps I'll be able to upload them to my tablet and read them on the way back. Vininn126 (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I'm jealous, Wrocław is definitely one of the prettiest Polish cities. Have a good time there. There's a reason why people call it WrocLOVE. Shumkichi (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
@Shumkichi Okay. I'm convinced. Considering that we already mark nasal vowels as assimilating with velar plosives, and upon hearing that people do in fact assimilate it in fast speech, I will update the module. I'll need some time to figure it out and there's probably gonna be bugs. Vininn126 (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

brakowaćEdit

Is there a reason why you're using "raw table code" I guess you could call it, for conjugation tables in verb entries you made? There already are templates existing which seem to give much more comprehensive conjugation information for verbs. You can see skończyć for an example. I don't know any Polish so I have no clue about what various different conjugations exist, but I'm sure with your level of fluency you'll know all about them and you should be able to find the various templates if you look in the right category. 37.110.218.43 10:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Because those verbs don't use those forms and only use the third person. The form "mdlę" doesn't exist. Check their entries in WSJP for more. Vininn126 (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I see, fair enough...though honestly if there are no 3rd person only templates then someone should create them. Using a template instead of the raw code is probably better since it'd probably reduce the chance of errors. 37.110.218.43 10:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, I've been discussing it with one editor, and started a discussion now with the others. I just didn't want those forms there. Vininn126 (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh yeah, that's cool. I noticed your comment. Hopefully someone can make a suitable template. :) 37.110.218.43 11:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

ahistorycznośćEdit

You listed historyczność as a synonym, but surely you meant antonym right? 37.110.218.43 11:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Dang you're fast. Yep. Vininn126 (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The moduleEdit

I think it doesn't work for "szankier" because of the presence of /ŋ/. It works just fine for e.g. "lakier". Shumkichi (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

AdminshipEdit

Hi there. You've been contributing prolifically and regularly and have a really good number of edits. You're experienced enough and I think would be a good candidate for adminship. What do you think? —Svārtava [tcur] 15:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds great! I'm in Vininn126 (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
And now you're an admin. Congratulations! Chuck Entz (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz Thanks! Glad to be here Vininn126 (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

RzeczpospolitaEdit

Hey, just wanted to let you know I removed your colloquial qualifier on Rzeczpospolita Polska (I also added the rzeczpospolita pronunciation to rzeczpospolita and Rzeczpospolita) as WSJP lists both pronunciations as correct. I also found a dictionary from 1937 (Słownik ortoepiczny. Jak mówić i pisać po polsku by Stanisław Szober) that claims the pronunciation with stress falling on the second last syllable is more common (it also says that for words like prezydent, p. 364), so perhaps we should put the following pronunciation first? Mazab IZW (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mazab IZW Sounds good. I'm okay with that if you want. We may want to add a qualifier to the audio recording saying it's the one pronunciation over the other. Vininn126 (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
@Vininn126 Alright, referring to your edit summary - WSJP listing only Rzeczpospolita pronunciation seems to be an oversight. According to Słownik ortograficzny z wymową by PWN (Wydanie II, 2017), both pronunciations are considered correct (for Rzeczpospolita, Rzeczpospolita Polska and rzeczpospolita) (though it lists the -pospolita pronunciation first). If you don't mind, I will keep both the pronunciations, but list the -pospolita one first. Mazab IZW (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Solar System tableEdit

Thank you for all your help.

"can you also please stop using the swp template" I will stop using it - although visually it is more pleasant, without littering link to the main page on Wikipedia. Is swp outdated? Or should I stop also using the wp template? I saw also something like: "Further reading:"   Vininn126 on the Polish Wikipedia.Wikipedia pl. I don't care where the link to Wikipedia is. So choose.

"can you please add the further reading and put all the categories into one argument? you don't need to use the topics template" What do you want as "Further reading"? Wikipedia? WSJP? PWN? OK. I will put all catrgoties into one.

The reason why I'm writing goes like that... Do you know what I need to do to change {{{Orcus}}} in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Template:table:Solar_System/pl into proper link for Orkus? Looking at all these defective tables is annoying, so it should be changed. But I don't know why page for Ceres works and for Orcus doesn't. Thanks for your patience.

@‎Caslonc Hi! So for wikipedia, it's just we use wp instead. it would make the pages more homogenous. And what i mean by the categories versus topics - you can merge the topics into the c template :) You don't need to use two separate templates. so instead of c|pl|Celestial bodies, topics|pl|Planets of the Solar System|Roman deities, you can just do c|pl|Celestial bodies|Planets of the Solar System|Roman deities as one thing :) (surrounded by brackets ofc). And then, for further reading, we just link WSJP and PWN most of the time at the bottom.

As for the table - I've asked about it on the discord. I agree with you, it's not pleasant to look at those broken links. Thanks for being willing to learn :) Vininn126 (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

taca --> collection plateEdit

Thank you for your help :) I've heard that it's called "offering plate". I've never heard of collection place so thank you for your correction. Though, it seems like there's such thing as offering plate :) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/offering%20plate Tashi (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

CongratsEdit

Hey, just wanted to quickly congratulate you for becoming an admin! You're doing an amazing job with moderating and editing Polish entries! Also thank you for all the tips you gave me :) Keep up the good work! Mazab IZW (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mazab IZW Thanks! It's my pleasure Vininn126 (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Administrators/List of administratorsEdit

Congrats from my end as well! :) Could you please enter yourself into this list? Fytcha (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha Congrats all around! bam! [[2]] Vininn126 (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered usersEdit

Hi!

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)

Created termsEdit

Hi. First of all, I'd like to thank you for your constant contribution and corrections that you make in my contributions. I really appreciate that! I'd like you ask you, do you know a tool or a special page where I could see all the terms that I've submitted so far onto the Wiktionary? I know there's such a tool on Wikipedia but I'm not sure about here. Tashi (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tashi Hey! It's my pleasure. Learning how to edit Wiktionary is a difficult task, it took me a while and I'm still learning new stuff. I see you're improving, which is good. You should check out the "contributions" button in the top right and you should be able to click "show only new pages" in the "search for contributions" box. Vininn126 (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Cheers! I clicked the "Contribution" tab and it turned out that there's "Entries Created" at the bottom of it which has all pages I've submitted so far :) Thanks again! Tashi (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Requests for Polish pronunciationEdit

Thanks for letting me know about this category. I have my own bot, which produces a lot of lists based on occurrences of a word in all wiktionaries, not just the English, or the frequency in Polish language, still I can record something from this category. However, I would like to notice that about 3000 words from this category have been already recorded: User:Olaf/requests for Polish audio Olaf (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Olaf I figured many of them already were - we've been working on a way to automatically add them to the pronunciation template that we have (as of right now the bot that does that is incompatible with it). And thanks for your lists, this seems very useful! Vininn126 (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Lingua Libre has its own bot, which can do the job: [3]. It uploads the audio files on four other wiki projects. Olaf (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Olaf The problem is it adds the audio in its separate template. On en.wikt we use an all-in-one pronunciation tempalte {{pl-p}}, which includes an audio slot. When the audio is added seperately, it breaks the standard layout of pronunciation. So the bought has to be taught to add it to the template, or add the audio seperately if the new template hasn't been implented on a page yet (I'd like send a bot to replace all {{pl-IPA}} with the new template but that's a different story...) Vininn126 (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I recorded some words and updated the list. Now it's over 4500 words recorded from the category. The rest of the category seems to be either archaic or dialectal (which I'm not sure how to pronounce) or inflected forms (which I'm not really interested in) or containing /r/ consonant which I'm not able to pronounce. So I believe I will finish here.
BTW, there are 6535 Polish lemmas (excluding surnames), that have no pronunciation recorded but are not listed in the category. Perhaps this should be done automatically in a template if a Polish word has no Polish audio? Or I may produce a list here and refresh it every day, just like my bot produces tens of lists on Polish Wiktionary and Lingua Libre? It looks very inefficient to maintain this category by marking the pages one by one manually.
Regarding the Lingua Libre bot, it has also a different problem - it's based on Lingua Libre only, so audio files from c:Category:Polish pronunciation are not uploaded by this bot. But it's by design, and still better than nothing. Olaf (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@OlafThanks for recording the rest! Yeah, I don't think anyone is really that interested in getting inflected forms recorded.
The category is now automated. I was originally marking it manually, but someone recently updated the {{pl-p}} template to automatically categorize any word without audio. And yes, it would seem that at least one regular audio recorder does not use LL. So that's something we'd still have to check for. Also, @Tashi has started recording audio on LL, you might be interested in having your bot check for their recordings for pl.wikt. Vininn126 (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
My bot is adding all the new pronunciation in all languages from Commons to pl.wikt every night, so Tashi's recordings are already added wherever the corresponding page existed, or will be added automatically once the corresponding page is created.
Well, the automated category which lacks 6500 entries sounds a little bit broken...
Perhaps you would be interested in recording something in English? I maintain a list on Lingua Libre of English words like cholesterol or neighbor that have no pronunciation on Commons. The list is sorted by the number of Wiktionaries having a particular word and refreshed every three hours. Olaf (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Olaf Well the list you generated on your wanted page is a dream. Using it now to update the pages that should have audio. As to recording English - I've considered it! I spend most of my time writing entries for Polish here, but I would like to sit down sometime and record a bunch of audio for English pages without audio. I'll probably use this list of yours sometime and do so, not sure exactly when. Vininn126 (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Anyway, thank you for your work on the Polish language! If you need the list to be refreshed, please let me know. Olaf (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

English recordingsEdit

Wow, thank you! All lists are automatically refreshed every three hours by my bot. The only reason for limiting them to 380 entries is the limit of 380 uploads per hour (?) for most users in Commons. So the new batch is already in place. During the night your recordings were also automatically added to the corresponding entries in pl.wikt. Olaf (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Olaf Good to know it's automatic! I'll add them everyone once in a while and let the bot do it's trick, it's like a well-oiled machine Vininn126 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

relational adjectivesEdit

Hi. I decided to spend a few hours cleaning up Polish relational adjectives. After pushing the changes, I realize I may have undone some of your work. In particular, I removed the text "of or related to X" in many places, to harmonize the use of the relational tag with the way it works in other languages (particularly Slavic and Romance languages). Basically, in my view something like this:

#: {{lb|pl|relational}} [[antifilm]], of or related to [[antifilm]]

doesn't really say anything more than this:

#: {{lb|pl|relational}} [[antifilm]]

The "relational" tag already links to a glossary entry explaining what "relational" adjectives are, and the translation in English will not normally have the text "of or related to ..." in it. My approach to this in Russian was to add a short usex when it seemed it might not be clear what's going on, e.g. if you have a relational adjective antymonowy (antimony), I might add a usex with the collocation proszek antymonowy (antimony powder), rather than trying to convey the sense using a dictionaryese definition like "of or related to antimony" or an uncommon English term like "antimonic". (For toponyms, similarly I often replaced uncommon terms like "Michiganian" with "of Michigan".)

After pushing these changes I noticed you added the "of or related to" text recently in the past few months, and I seem to have partly undone this in cases like abonamentowy and other words beginning with a. If you disagree strongly with these changes, I can see about how to undo them. (The author says User:WingerBot but the changes were all made manually, by loading all the Polish adjectives into a file and editing the file with a text editor.) Benwing2 (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Alright, that's something I wasn't too sure if I should be adding or not. I'm not really too torn up about it, as it was something I was able to "automatically" add, but I can easily get rid of that bit. Vininn126 (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Converting to Template:pl-decl-adj-autoEdit

I was thinking of doing a bot run to convert all uses of {{pl-decl-adj-y}}, {{pl-decl-adj-ki}}, {{pl-decl-adj-owy}} and {{pl-decl-adj-i}} to use {{pl-decl-adj-auto}}. Do you know whether this will always work? I notice I need to be careful with {{pl-decl-adj-ki}} because if the second param is specified, it is passed as |olddat= to {{pl-decl-adj-auto}}. (However, I suspect the majority of these calls are broken. For example, burundyjski has ki as the |olddat= param and bydgoski has bydgoscy as the |olddat= param when in all cases it should actually be a boolean. I don't know enough about Polish grammar to know under what circumstances there's an "old dative" with adjectives in -ki. Can you help?) Benwing2 (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2 That was actually the next thing on my list. The old dative is only used in certain prepositional constructions (po polsku, po aptekarsku, and does only apply to -ki adjectives. That should be the only snag with replacing them. Vininn126 (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
@Benwing2 At that that's the sort of thing that isn't with every adjective, and most major dictionaries don't even list it. Vininn126 (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

splitting multipart Polish linksEdit

I am doing a bot run to fix these now. My code issued 48 warnings (out of 1,158 pages needing fixing). You might want to take a look: User:Benwing2/split-pl-links-warnings. Benwing2 (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2 What's the next step? Vininn126 (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I already ran the bot to fix the multipart links; you just need to look over the warnings, which represent cases that the bot couldn't do automatically, and fix up manually the ones needing fixing up. Benwing2 (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
@Benwing2 Okay, I think I got them all. Thanks for all your help. Vininn126 (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Unglossing derived terms and imagesEdit

What’s the point of these kinds of edits? It’s very standard and helpful to have derived terms glossed, since aeons may pass before they are created, and people only need to look at the simples if we have lists of glossed derived terms, so actually we have completion just by listing derived terms, it’s the main dictionary content, thus seen—similar to the way printed dictionaries are consulted. جَوْز(jawz) contains every you need to about phytonyms constructed from it, and so the lists of nightshade and vervain are satiating for most people.

And the image part is very wrong: if a species is shown for a genus the immediate question arises is which species is depicted, if you read entries in a certain way. @DCDuring uses to add the taxonomical name if he sees such a thing. A name may also apply to very more distinct plants, as on قَيْقَب(qayqab), and كَحْلَاء(kaḥlāʾ), I find room for an example image for all. I can also kind of sneak in some derived terms into images of course as a starter, if there is a long list of derived terms not yet represented into Wiktionary. All messages you thwart. Fay Freak (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fay Freak As to the glosses - 90% of pages don't have that kind of information. Maybe we should be putting it, but I was trying to create a certain consistency. That particular one was related to some bad syntax that was on some pages (namely we were briefly putting {{l|pl|word, word}}. The other parts were more collateral, as I thought they might not have been good. (I've been working on the clean-up section). If you think those should be there, go ahead and put it back, I'm not too attached to it, aside from some of the bad syntax was there. If the image should be done a certain way, or if you think those glosses should be there, go ahead. Vininn126 (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Also, what do you mean by "All messages you thwart"? Vininn126 (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I mean the messages that readers do not get if you remove information. Fay Freak (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
That’s what I thought. You went through a lot entries, great work, and then derived the conclusion that all pages should and could look the same, and our providing information is the toll: words aren’t the same, they have different requirements, and people don’t look at the dictionary from this bird's-eye view, with so great an expectation of consistency, and put different requirements to various kinds of entries. And in that particular case I don’t even see bad syntax: as I have brushed above, that on marek was planful usage. Fay Freak (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
@Fay Freak thanks for the input - I've always been wary to edit pages related to specific species and such, there seems to be an exact way we do it that I haven't learned yet. Vininn126 (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I'd be happy to explain what I try to do in taxonomic name entries and vernacular name entries for taxa. I have somewhat different standards for more linked-to entries than for orphans.
One way we could achieve perfect consistency is by removing ALL content. But WT:ELE itemizes much permitted content that most entries don't have. As it is, the consistency argument is usually invoked to remove content that the remover doesn't like, for whatever reason, eg, esthetics, taxonomy aversion. If someone doesn't want glosses in images in "their" language, I have no problem with that, especially if there is evidence of a consensus among contributors in the language. I will eventually review the images of organisms and remove them if they do not fit the content. For example, if the definition is for a genus and we don't have a ready-made gallery of species, an image of the type species for the genus, or other appropriate image for the genus, I will add a link to the Commons category (if any) for the genus, if there isn't one already, and remove the misleading image. Removing {{taxlink|EXAMPLE|taxon}} just moves EXAMPLE back in the queue of taxonomic entries to be added. If enough of them are removed, I can start working on the taxa of organisms in my body, house, garden, park, county, state, region, country, continent and hemisphere. I would hope I could finish those on or in my body, house, and garden by the end of the year. DCDuring (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Polish lemma cleanupsEdit

Also @Hergilei I'm thinking of doing some cleanups on Polish lemmas similarly to what I've done on Russian, Italian, etc. Possibly some of them may be controversial so I'd like to run them by you first:

1. Convert English-linked definitions to raw links, e.g. {{l|en|[[interval]], [[gap]], [[distance]]}} becomes [[interval]], [[gap]], [[distance]]. Most foreign-language entries use raw English links in definitions and there's an informal consensus to do this going forward. In case the English-linked word is the same as the Polish lemma, it converts slightly differently, e.g. {{l|en|abdomen}} becomes [[#English|abdomen]] on the page abdomen. I have a script to do this.

2. Templatize categories, e.g.

[[Category:Polish words suffixed with -izm]]
[[Category:pl:Abrahamism]]

becomes

{{cln|pl|words suffixed with -izm}}
{{C|pl|Abrahamism}}

while

[[Category:pl:Biblical characters]]
[[Category:pl:Individuals]]

becomes

{{C|pl|Biblical characters|Individuals}}

The advantage of this, besides it being fewer characters, is that the terms sort correctly in their categories.

I have a script to do this, and currently it will automatically convert {{topics}}, {{c}}, etc. into {{C}}, although it could be made to prefer {{c}} or something else instead.

3. Use {{inh+}} and {{bor+}}. Essentially, From {{inh| becomes {{inh+| and From {{bor| becomes {{bor+|.

The advantage of this is, besides it being fewer characters, is it explicitly displays "Inherited from" or "Borrowed from" instead of just "From", which harmonizes the text with the categories (which also indicate whether the term is inherited or borrowed) and makes the derivational relationships clearer esp. to users who aren't intimately familiar with which languages can be parents of which others.

This can be done semi-automatically using find/replace in a text editor.

4. Use {{female equivalent of}} for female-equivalent nouns. Hence instead of (for entry abnegatka)

===Noun===
{{pl-noun|f|m=abnegat}}

# {{l|en|female [[sloven]]}}
#: {{syn|pl|niechlujka}}

the definition would look like this (assuming raw English links):

===Noun===
{{pl-noun|f|m=abnegat}}

# {{female equivalent of|pl|abnegat}}: female [[sloven]]
#: {{syn|pl|niechlujka}}

This will automatically categorize into Category:Polish female equivalent nouns.

This can be done semi-automatically with a script.

5. Convert raw quotes to use {{quote}}, e.g.

# {{lb|pl|intransitive}} to [[shout]] “[[Allah]]!”, especially as a [[battle cry]]
#* '''1901''', Henryk Sienkiewicz, ''Ogniem i mieczem'' (''With Fire and Sword'', trans. Jeremiah Curtin), vol. 1, chapter 10:
#*: Tatarzy, '''ałłachując''' coraz przeraźliwiej, zachęcali się wzajemnie; odpowiadały im krzyki kozaków: „koli! koli!“ i spokojny głos pana Skrzetuskiego, powtarzający coraz częściej komendę:<br /> — Ognia!
#*:: The Tartars, '''shouting "Allah!"''' with increased shrillness, urged one another on. The Cossack cries: "Cut! cut!" answered them; and the calm voice of Skshetuski, repeating faster and faster the command, "Fire!"
#: {{syn|pl|ałłakować|hałłachować|hałłakować}}

becomes

# {{lb|pl|intransitive}} to [[shout]] “[[Allah]]!”, especially as a [[battle cry]]
#* '''1901''', Henryk Sienkiewicz, ''Ogniem i mieczem'' (''With Fire and Sword'', trans. Jeremiah Curtin), vol. 1, chapter 10:
#*: {{quote|pl|Tatarzy, '''ałłachując''' coraz przeraźliwiej, zachęcali się wzajemnie; odpowiadały im krzyki kozaków: „koli! koli!“ i spokojny głos pana Skrzetuskiego, powtarzający coraz częściej komendę:<br /> — Ognia!|The Tartars, '''shouting "Allah!"''' with increased shrillness, urged one another on. The Cossack cries: "Cut! cut!" answered them; and the calm voice of Skshetuski, repeating faster and faster the command, "Fire!"}}
#: {{syn|pl|ałłakować|hałłachować|hałłakować}}

This provides more standard formatting and adds the page to Category:Polish terms with quotations.

This can be done semi-automatically using find/replace in a text editor.

6. In the longer term I'd like to redo the Polish noun and verb modules to make them more consistent, more thorough and easier to use, similarly to the current Ukrainian and Belarusian noun/verb/adjective modules (which were fairly recently written). But that will take longer than the above changes.

Thoughts? Benwing2 (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

(Notifying BigDom, Hythonia, KamiruPL, Tashi, Luxtaythe2nd, Max19582): as the other resident Polish editors. This would be a very big change. I'm personally okay with change one, but is there a reason to use [[#English|WORD]] over {{l|en|WORD}}?. </nowiki> I'm more than okay with change 2 (the categories). Change 3 - this one I have mixed feelings on in general. For the etymologies, I could go either way, and I know there was a whole big debate about using + or not, and I don't feel too strongly, I'm not sure if the other editors do. Change 4, I'm not the biggest fan of personally. If that were the case we should also use "perfective equivalent of" which we shouldn't always do, as sometimes the female/perfective forms have slightly different meanings. Change I'm a huge fan of. Change 6 is something I've been thinking about, too. As for nouns, I'm not sure how the process would look. Some nouns have a fleeting e that we need to show the module, at least for masculine nouns. Feminine nouns and neuter nouns _should_ be more automatic but I'm not sure, we might need to run the bot to find errors. As for verbs, we one way to simplify it would be removing the parameter after the verb class, so {{pl-conj-ai-am,asz|naciąga|pp}} becomes {{pl-conj-ai-am,asz|pp}}, as most should be able to look at the pagename. Some exceptions might be Class XI verbs. Unrelated, it'd be nice to update the Class V template to include an alt past form -nął vs -ł (like ucichnąć). Also, I have a potentially controversial change - updating derived and related terms to use {{col3}}? I'm not the biggest fan of this template or how it looks, but I know that a large part of the community prefers it. It would be a drastic change to the look of Polish entries, too. I at least want to mention it here to let other editors give their input on that. Vininn126 (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Just FYI, you can specify the past= parameter for verbs like ucichnąć. I added the functionality last year, although to be honest I'd forgotten about it too until reading this comment! I've updated the conjugation on that entry as an example. Cheers, BigDom 18:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@BigDom Well I'll be damned, good to know. Vininn126 (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I think changes 2, 3, 5 and 6 would be pretty nice to have. As for change 1, I pretty much agree with Vininn, but if that's what most foreign-language entries use then I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same. I don't really like change 4, and it also doesn't seem too necessary as we already list the masculine counterpart under the "Noun" header. Max19582 (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

2 and 5 feel like no-brainers. Agreed with Vininn about 1, is there some reason we shouldn't use {{l|en}}? I'm a fan of 3. 4 and 6 I'll have to think about once I've had some coffee. Hythonia (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

(Notifying Hergilei, Tweenk, Shumkichi, Wrzodek, Asank neo, KamiruPL): I guess for (1) I found it annoying dealing with all the wrapping of English terms when working with them, and the English term is always at the top anyway, so the only effect of the wrapping is to skip past the table of contents. But I will gladly defer to the community. As for [[#English|WORD]], that one doesn't need to be done. For (6), the fleeting e that appears or disappears in some nouns is handled in Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian by adding a * code in the declension param. In these languages, all of masculine/feminine/neuter can have this; for masculine and some feminine nouns it appears in the nom sg and not elsewhere, whereas for most feminine/neuter nouns it appears in the gen pl and not elsewhere. In general, the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian noun, verb and adjective inflection templates have only one template per part of speech, e.g. {{ru-conj}} and {{uk-ndecl}}. For example, for the Ukrainian noun бана́н (banán, banana), the template looks like {{uk-ndecl|бана́н<>}}; this specifies explicitly the position of the stress, while everything else is defaulted (by default it is masculine, inanimate, stress pattern a). For брат (brat, brother), it looks like {{uk-ndecl|брат<b.pr>}}; here, b means stress pattern b and pr means "personal". For мужчи́на (mužčýna, man), the invocation is {{uk-ndecl|мужчи́на<M.pr>}} which specifies the gender M explicitly since otherwise the noun would be predicted as feminine, and again pr for "personal". A slightly more complex example is за́єць (zájecʹ, hare), which uses {{uk-ndecl|за́єць<c*.anml>}}: stress pattern c, * for fleeting e (the nominative plural is зайці́ (zajcí), where the e has disappeared and the stress moved onto the ending), anml for "animal" animacy. The documentation on {{uk-ndecl}} gives lots of examples. For Polish, the issues of accent position and stress pattern go away, so it wouldn't be necessary to repeat the noun itself with an accent, you'd just put the stuff inside <...> unless you need to decline a multiword expression (which is also possible), so for mężczyzna you might just specify {{pl-ndecl|M.pr}}. For Ukrainian verbs such as чита́ти (čytáty), {{uk-conj}} looks like this: {{uk-conj|чита́ти<1a.impf.tr.ppp>}}. This means "class 1a" (where class 1 is verbs in -ати with first singular in -аю, and a is the stress pattern), imperfective, transitive, with a past passive participle. For Polish czytać, the equivalent might be {{pl-conj|1.impf.tr.ppp}} or whatever. I don't know if Polish has numbered verb classes like Ukrainian/Belarusian/Russian, if not they can be named, and it might not be necessary to specify explicitly whether the verb is transitive or not. Benwing2 (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
@Benwing2 Personally if you wanna remove it from the pages where it's not the same as the English page, I'm okay with that. If it's for pages that's the same as English, let's just leave it. For point 6, zbytek is a good example of how we deal with fleeting e now in masculine words, and feminine and neuter seems to handle it automatically. The noun declension template is mostly the same, you just replace the gender. Vininn126 (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
OK, thanks. It is true that the fleeting e can be handled automatically a lot of the time in feminine and neuter words, but at least for Russian there are various cases where it can't, as well as feminine/neuter words that can have two genitive plurals, one with and one without the fleeting e. Don't know if this happens in Polish. Actually, do you have a good reference on Polish conjugation and/or declension? Benwing2 (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
@Benwing2 I recommend this. Honestly, I think declensions are about as automatic as they can be given the state of Polish nouns. The main task will be replacing the old templates with {{pl-decl-noun-m-pr}}, {{pl-decl-noun-m-an}}, {{pl-decl-noun-m-in}}, {{pl-decl-noun-f}}, {{pl-decl-noun-n}}, with the appropariate tantum=s. As for verbs - they're all covered by templates, it's just we have a lot of them. Vininn126 (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
@Vininn126 OK. Thanks for the ref, I don't read Polish but I'm sure I can figure it out by analogy with Russian and with some help from Google Translate :) ... that's how I dealt with Zaliznyak's Russian grammar. BTW Zaliznyak's grammar not only describes how to inflect Russian words but lists every noun, verb and adjective in the language and exactly what its inflection is; is there an equivalent for Polish, or even better, an online dictionary that actually inflects words for you? Cf. this awesome resource for Ukrainian: [4] [5]. Benwing2 (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
PWN has an orthographical dictionary, WSJP, but also SGJP might the best for what you're looking for. Vininn126 (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Great refs, thank you!! Benwing2 (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
BTW, above I see you mentioned class XI and class V verbs, are these standard and do you have a reference on them? I looked on Wikipedia but there isn't so much info there. I am curious how they map onto the 16 classes of Russian verbs in Zaliznyak's analysis. (Russian class 1 would be Polish verbs in -ać with -aj- infix; class 2 would be Polish verbs in -ować I think; class 3 would be Polish verbs in -nąć maybe; class 4 would be Polish verbs in -ić or -yć; etc.) I see in the grammar book you linked some discussion on three classes of verbs starting around page 326 but that seems a different classification. Benwing2 (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
@Benwing2 He lists those but there are more "sub" classes that are more their own. In the print copy of WSJP you get FULL declension tables (I might email that to you later, if you want). Vininn126 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
That would be great, thank you. Benwing2 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, just chipping in as Vininn asked for my thoughts.

  • Change (1) I'm all in favour of. I'm sure the other Polish editors would tell you I've never really got behind the use of {{l|en|...}} in regular entries myself. As mentioned above the English word is nearly always at the top of the page anyway, unless there's a Translingual entry. As for entries where the English and Polish words are spelled the same, the [[#English|]] syntax is fine by me, I'm used to links like that from when I first started here 10+ years ago, but lately we have been using {{l|en|}} and I am very happy continue with that.
  • Change (2) is a no-brainer, although slight personal preference would be lower-case {{c}}.
  • Change (3) I personally like and fits in with our use of templates such as {{deverbal}} which includes the text. If other editors aren't keen though, no big deal.
  • Change (4) I'm leaning towards no, for the same reason I never got behind using a template for regular links like in part (1). Why use a template when simple [[]] links do the trick? However, the categorisation would be a bonus IMO, so I'm not completely against it.
  • Change (5) is definitely an improvement but still only looks half-finished; wouldn't one of the more specific templates like {{quote-book}} help to tidy up the auxiliary information too? Not sure how you would choose the right template automatically though.
  • Finally, change (6) I'm not in favour of at the moment. Given the examples from Ukrainian, the unified template looks horrendously complex to use. Not opposed to something in the future but it would have to be a lot more user-friendly to get me on board I think.

Hope this helps, BigDom 07:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

(Notifying Benwing2, Hythonia, KamiruPL, Tashi, Max19582‎, Hergilei): so they can be aware that further debate is taking place.

Change 1) I am in agreeance with BigDom. I think removing them from non-shared pages is fine, and it seems more people prefer the syntax {{l|en|...}} on shared pages.

Change 2) Already done, uppercase C was chosen. I'm sure we could switch it easily back to lower-case c no problem, but I don't think anyone here really cares too much.

Change 3) Okay, so I personally don't see the point of switching to the plus templates, but if y'all prefer it, that's fine by me. Hopefully we don't rekindle the war.

Change 4) Keeping as is, no change.

Change 5) In progress.

Change 6) Benwing is already looking at potential templates, I think we will have to see how they will operate. If they're more unified and easier to handle, great.

Change 7) I figure I should mention this: How does everyone feel about switching to {{col3}} and the like for derived and related terms? Personally I'm not the biggest fan of how these templates look, but they might be easier to handle than our current setup. Vininn126 (talk) 08:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Vininn126 I have no particular opinion of {{col3}} etc.; but it seems if they don't look so good we should try to fix that (unfortunately I am not a CSS expert). Benwing2 (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@Chomczurek065 Forgot to ping you, too. Vininn126 (talk) 08:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Alternative formsEdit

Hey, are alternative forms supposed to be on the top of the page, even when the forms don't apply to some of the definitions? Because for szogun, I'm 99% sure one can't say siogun or szogun for its colloquial sense, and it seems kind of confusing to have those forms at the top. Max19582 (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Max19582 I get confused by entry layout, too. [6]] Hopefully this holy scripture will answer our questions. Vininn126 (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@Vininn126 I think putting those below the etymology would make sense, as in this case they're meaning-dependent. Max19582 (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@Max19582 Okay, it seems this problem is pretty specific and is going to need more attention. Vininn126 (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

paręsetEdit

Hey, paręset, parędziesiąt and paręnaście are pronounced with the <e> sound. WSJP says the pronunciation is <paręset>, but I'm guessing the ę thing is just an oversight. Check out [7], [8] and [9]. Max19582 (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Max19582 I've heard both, but the person I asked to pronounce it was doing "careful speech". We might want to list both. Vininn126 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@Vininn126 I'm not really sure if that's a good idea, because a lot of people confuse careful and hypercorrect speech. Since pronouncing word-final ę is usually considered hypercorrect, I think it'd be the same case with parę- words. Max19582 (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@Max19582 Fair enough. Go ahead and revert. Vininn126 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

wtf indeedEdit

rei morto, rei posto (diff ~66004665) I just started reading Template:link to see if this is a bug or if I needed to set some parameter. The template documentation says "The template will automatically remove diacritics and punctuation from the page title" but offers no actual solution. I was about to change it to a flat link when I got an edit conflict because you already had. GMTA I suppose.   Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz Makes sense. Honestly, bare links should be used more on non-English pages, anyway. Cheers! Vininn126 (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Translation Tables at L3Edit

Per WT:TRANS, please nest Translation tables inside the POS section. See here and here (and probably many of the entries here) I have a bot that can clean these up so don't worry about undoing them yourself. Happy editing! JeffDoozan (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@JeffDoozan Will do, cheers! Vininn126 (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I forgot to tag you in this clarifying edit. If the part of speech header is surrounded by 3 "=" symbols (L3), like ===Noun===, then the Translation section should have 1 more (L4): ====Translations====. If there are multiple Etymology sections, then the part of speech header may by L4 so the Translations would need to be L5. Thank you for all of your work adding so many translations! JeffDoozan (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
@JeffDoozan Iiiii see. It needs to be nested. I thought you meant the position. Vininn126 (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

ArchivingEdit

Hey! You can archive multiple sections at the same time by pressing "archive" on all of them without clicking on proceed in between. It's more pleasant for those of us who have the page on our Watchlist ;) — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 21:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep! I was going through them individually at first cause I was trying to read em. Just archived a whole bunch ;) Vininn126 (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Colloquialisms categoriesEdit

Per the vote Svartava mentioned in the Beer Parlor these categories are unmerged now, are they not? 37.110.218.43 12:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It is a red link again. Vininn126 (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand, what is "it"? 37.110.218.43 12:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
The Polish colloquialisms - it was deleted in preparation for changes as far as I understand. I'm not sure why are you are asking me about this on my talk page otherwise. Vininn126 (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
(if you wanna go ahead and recreate the categories, be my guest). Vininn126 (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Ты чё переводы удаляешь?Edit

А? —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 178.121.43.158 (talk).

I just told you in the revert. Translations only go on English pages. It's in our guidelines, which I'm assuming you didn't read. Vininn126 (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Не читал, братан, не читал. Ну мог бы перенести в английское соответствующее высказывание, зачем удалять —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 178.121.43.158 (talk).
You should probably read them before editing, instead of making incorrect edits. If you wanna add those translations to the English pages, be my guest, but do not add them to other pages again. Vininn126 (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
А где их читать —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 178.121.43.158 (talk).
Check out the welcome message I left on your talk page. there are more but that's a start. Vininn126 (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Послушай, а для "(как) бабка надвое сказала" - нужно две отдельные страницы заводить для двух форм или как-то на одной оформить? TupaUchetka (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, you shouldn't use parentheses in translations, but you can probably just list the more popular form (you can see I didn't list all the alternative forms in the Polish translation) Vininn126 (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Чтоб я еще знал какая из этих форм в большем ходу. Но в целом я понял, спс TupaUchetka (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Category templates for PolishEdit

Since I am not familiar with these templates, may you tell me the reason why polish pages should using {{C}} instead of {{topics}}? --TongcyDai (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@TongcyDai One reason is consistency - we use that on all Polish pages. Another reason is it's a smaller, shorter template, fewer characters. Vininn126 (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for you reply! Just wondering, if consistency and template length are important, why should we not replace all pages using {{topics}} with {{C}}, and tell editors not to use the former anymore? Also, why is this convention only restricted in Polish, not all the languages? --TongcyDai (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
@TongcyDai That's a great question. In short - each language has its own community, and those guidelines are what we do in the Polish community. There has not been a website wide consensus for all languages as to this particular thing. Vininn126 (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I got it. Thank you for telling me this! --TongcyDai (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
@TongcyDai No problem. Glad to have a new editor so open to corrections. Keep up the good work, and happy editing! Vininn126 (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Passive participle of dotyczyćEdit

After searching Google Books, I found some, but not much, use of a passive participle dotyczony:

  • "z załączonymi 1[second digit obscured by Snippet View] dotyczonymi dokumentami", from a book from 1957, "Czyn zbrojny wychodztwa polskiego w Ameryce"
  • "wpisywano do drugiej kategoryi ksiąg wszystkie rodzaje spraw sądowych, ... prócz ... spraw dotyczonych długów i pożyczek, jak to już wyżej zaznaczono." from the preface to a history book from 1903
  • "Wraz z głównym raportem podano królowi spisany na gruzach zdobytych murów dokument, świadczący nader pochlebnie tak o sporządzających go jak i dotyczonym przezeń [i.e. przez niego]," from an essay on Stefan Batory's war with Russia published in 1862
  • "żądam złożenia kopii depeszy dotyczonych sprawy Polskiéj", from a translation of British parliamentary debates from 1861
  • "Dotyczone w niem [probably a typo for nim] mocarstwa przystały chętnie", from an essay in a magazine "Kółko Rodzinne" from 1860
  • "w dotyczonych 10 latach", from a law book from 1858
  • "prawidła i przepiſy, ... które Rządom kraiowym dotyczonym du [probably a typo for do] nayſciśleyſzego i naydokładnieyſzego zachowania podano." from a list of edicts of the w:Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria from 1805

(There were also some later examples that Google Books listed but its Snippet View wouldn't show.) This seems to satisfy the requirement of "use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year" in WT:ATTEST, but I'm not sure if that applies to specific uses of included words. - LaetusStudiis (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@LaetusStudiis Nice find. This seems attestable. If you want to change the template to have pp in it, and add this (possible as "rare"), that would be fine by me. We might want to add something like "usually intransitive". Vininn126 (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

RE: Archaic wordsEdit

From Słownik staropolski by A. Krasnowolski and S. Niedzielski. Michalite (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Michalite Also @KamiruPL I think we might need to do some clean up. Okay, you should stop. Old Polish is not the same as archaic Polish. Have all of your entries been this? Vininn126 (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Define "Old Polish". The scientific description dates its end at the end of 15th/beginning of 16th century. The Słownik staropolski by Krasnowolski and Niedzielski does not deal with the oldest works in Polish, in contrast to the Słownik staropolski by K. Nitsch, which only deals with that period, and only that one specifically. Michalite (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@MichaliteSo what date are they dealing with? Vininn126 (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Michalite Also what's the isbn, Google pulls up no results, I'd like to check it out for myself, we might want to make a reference template for it. Oh, Niedźwiedzki, not Niedzielski. Vininn126 (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
It generally runs undated, though the Introduction mentions "common parlance of the past centuries" as well as "written sources". I hence opted for archaic labelling when I'm unable to cross-check with Nitsch. The dictionary is available on the Polish Wikisource if you are having a hard time finding a more readable copy. Michalite (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
So the undated aspect really throws a wrench into the work. Turns out I have a copy on Google play, it was just the name that gave me bad results. I also have no idea how they made this dictionary. What are their sources, etc? It's hard to use it because we have no dates or sources, other than them. Vininn126 (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Michalite Also look at other Old Polish dictionaries - they all cite this dictionary, suggesting it's seen as Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Another anon to blockEdit

Please delete the λέλεγμαι entry and ban the anon...this trash obviously does not belong on Wiktionary. I'm guessing my attempt to ping you failed because I misspelled your name the first time. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Acolyte of Ice Done. Vininn126 (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Edition in "Portuguese - poeta"Edit

"poeta" is widely used as a two-genderd word in portuguese. 186.232.57.155 10:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

-liście and pl-pEdit

Hi there. I was just creating strzeliście this morning when I noticed something odd with the pronunciation template. Looking at the code now I can see it's designed to give alternate pronunciations when the word ends in -liśmy, -liście, etc. However, there are plenty of words ending in -liście that shouldn't show this alternative, whether lemmas like strzeliście and szkliście or non-lemma forms such as liście and soliście. Is there a way to make this functionality optional? Cheers, BigDom 06:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point. @Max19582 added the code, but perhaps there'd be an easy way to turn this off. @Surjection, could you help? We need to be able to turn of [10] the "local past tense suffixes" found at the beginning. Vininn126 (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Seems pretty easy to add. What should be the parameter name? — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 07:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe "lpt" for "local past tense"? Vininn126 (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

JFKGIEdit

Any idea what JFKGI stands for? Zero Google hits.

Unironically, "just fucking google it". it's on urban dictionary. You're either trolling or didn't actually just fucking google it. Vininn126 (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Please don't be a smartass. "just fucking google it" is JFGI, for which there is an entry, and of which I am clearly aware. What we are discussing is JFKGI, with a K in the middle. 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:F04E:5F9B:5D4:BCB8 22:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I misread, and thought JFGI was removed, all apologies. Not sure what it could be, in which case you are probably right to remove it. Vininn126 (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
QED. 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:F04E:5F9B:5D4:BCB8 22:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Re: WelcomeEdit

Thank you! MichaelTheSlav (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Re: DialectsEdit

Thanks for advice, I’ll make sure to read the linked page. When it comes to my last edit – this word is also used in Częstochowa and surroundings, and this is why I wanted to add it in the first place since I’m from there. I compared the entry with the one on Polish Wiktionary and hastly just copied the label, forgetting that Silesian is classified as a distinct language here. My bad! I added it back, just for Częstochowa. If something’s still wrong you can revert it, I’m still getting used to editing Wiktionary having previously only edited Wikipedia.

BTW, I remembered I have a book which is a study of colloquial speech of Częstochowa residents with transcriptions of speech, and I’m pretty sure I can find a few examples for dialectalisms from there, would that be an OK source to cite examples from? MichaelTheSlav (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@MichaelTheSlav Okay, that's fine. I'm not taking your edits in bad faith, obviously if you're from a region and they talk a certain way, it's harder to doubt. The quotes are best if they are used not in a sort of linguistic context, but if it's like a study or something and they are quotes of real people, I'm pretty sure that's fine. Vininn126 (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! The methodology of the study is described at the beginning of the book. According to it the people were asked questions about a variety of topics and their responses were recorded. They were not informed about the purpose of the study and care was taken to make the tone of the study informal, so that they speak their vernacular. The transcribed texts are mostly monologues of people describing various things and stories from their life. I think this would be good then? It’s not very easy to find examples of dialectalisms in other contexts, and this is probably better than a book f.e. where the author could imitate a dialect incorrectly based on stereotypes or cliches. MichaelTheSlav (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
@MichaelTheSlav Yeah! That's real, actual use. You'll want to get acquainted with {{quote-book}}. 3 quotes is ideal, but this should cover at least 1 for a lot of them. And yeah, dialectal stuff is usually a lot harder to document, it's sad. Vininn126 (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I thought I posted a reply to you here in the morning, but it seems I accidentally closed the tab before saving oops. So as to your question: in the book the texts are given in a phonetic transcription, so no punctuation or capitalization of any kind, just pauses in speech marked. But whenever lexical or grammatical forms are discussed in other sections they are written in the standard orthography for convenience (if pronunciation is discussed the transcription is kept obviously). AFAI can see this is the way dialects are usually transcribed. So in the examples I give I adapt the spelling to the literary standard, because I am giving an example of a lexical item, so pronunciation is not a concern here.
Also, I tried looking up the words in Słownik gwar polskich but I have to rely on online scans since it costs a fortune and I am a poor student, and it’s more difficult than I thought, and as I wrote in edit desc. the two terms I just edited seem to have a very widespread dialectal discribution (TBH, I had no idea „tera” is dialectal, I thought it was just a general colloquial variant). So wdo you think it’d be OK to just leave (dialectal) there, instead of listing everything? MichaelTheSlav (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
@MichaelTheSlav I believe I have the same dictionary. And I see, I was asking just for formatting. Vininn126 (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Greek IP at Grease PitEdit

I noticed your reversion of an IP at the Grease Pit yesterday (this morning my time). Some background: this is someone in Greece who is so convinced they know more than everyone else that they've been trying since at least 2015 to completely rewrite Wiktionary's coverage of English philosophy and physics terminology. The fact that it isn't their native language means nothing to them: as far as they're concerned, actual usage is all based on ignorance and should be replaced with stuff they made up. Their trademark is verbose definitions that don't make sense because they use their own meanings instead of what anyone else would understand. Just recently I ran across a revert by someone from Greek Wiktionary, with an edit summary making it clear that they're as fed up with this idiot as we are.

It got to the point that I finally wrote Abuse Filter 128 to lock them out of languages other than their own. That's why they post to the Grease Pit: the default abuse-filter message links there. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It seems some people just can't let certain things go. Vininn126 (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

rozmyślać template typoEdit

Hi, could you check out what seems to be one of your edits in rozmyślać? I can't make heads or tails out of the typoes (or some kind of mistaken paste error?) in {{preo|pl|nad|instrumental|means=on something}}. Kristian-Clausal (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

It was just missing a closing bracket, but you've never heard the syntax to ponder on something? Vininn126 (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Kristian-Clausal Fixed. Vininn126 (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I do not know Polish and I had never come across "+" in templates before. After trying to google for "preo" or "prep" or "preposition" templates I gave up. I will not bother you in the future. Kristian-Clausal (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Kristian-Clausal Here's a secret: in Wiktionary's search bar and type Template:+preo. You can do this with any template to learn more how to use it. Vininn126 (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

próćEdit

Ad [11] Have you visited those sites? WSJP just reads "Number of entries: 0. Not found." PWN reads: "Not found". PWN has a corpus, but the corpus doesn't contain this word. "WSJP is constantly updating" - ok, so we can add this link when (if ever) it is updated with this word. But at the moment there is nothing a reader can learn after following those links. Olaf (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Olaf Yeah, I know. It's a bit of a weird thing we do. I've discussed this with some of the other editors. It's a bit easier to have them now for when they eventually get to it. But the counter argument also makes sense. If you wanna raise this with some of the other Polish editors, sure. Vininn126 (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Is this policy described anywhere? Where was this discussed? (I don’t see anything in WT:About Polish) This seems really backwards to me. It’s IMO dishonest and misleading to list sources that do not contain any information about a given entry. I know it’s not the References section, but still I take dictionaries listed in Further reading of an entry as a statement that those dictionaries back this entry and information therein (and I think I’m not alone? as in, that’s the default for most Wiktionary readers?), while in fact they don’t. // Silmeth @talk 18:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@Silmethule It hasn't been much, it's a defacto rule that's been aruond as long I have been editing. I am not married to the practice. There has been a certain amount of pushback and it's probably worth it to bring it up somewhere. While I don't particularly love the practice, it has paid off on numerous occasion, as they are frequently adding words. Might be worth it to somehow scrape their recently added word list (which only lists a few each day) and somehow automate it. Vininn126 (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

A Priceless Bot FailEdit

I found this in the abuse filter logs and just had to share it with someone. First a little background: there's a spambot run by some idiot in Indonesia that tries to increase search-engine rankings for various sites by creating fake user pages that link to them all over the internet. Aside from the fact that we don't allow the type of user pages that the bot is trying to imitate, the whole idea of generating user pages by randomly combining names, places, personal details, etc. and trying to pass them off as something an actual human being would post is doomed by the programmer's ignorance and incompetence.

See Special:AbuseLog/1301108 for probably the goofiest example I've seen since the one about living in "a seaside town in northern Switzerland"... Chuck Entz (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It's the madlibs of spammers. People will try to use Wikis for anything, but I can this is something else... What the hell does it mean if your hobby is knapping? They just took a list of random-ass gerunds! Vininn126 (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
There actually are people who make stone tools as a hobby (see Knapping#Uses. The parts are pretty much all plausible- it's just the combination that's bad (along with some rather poor English). Chuck Entz (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Interesting! Thanks for sharing. Vininn126 (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Translations in global maximum, global minimumEdit

Hey! It seems like you've added translations that mean "extremum of the function" or "global extremum" to both of these. If that is the case, then it is wrong because extremum is a hypernym of minimum/maximum. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 11:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

You are right. I have corrected the translations. Vininn126 (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Parentheses and gloss templateEdit

Hi there. Just wondering about this edit as it seems quite odd to me. Why would there be a comma before a gloss, and is the binomial name really a gloss at all? My understanding is that the gloss template is meant to be used when there is a clarifying definition after the translation if needed as per WT:ELE. Other things in brackets which aren't glosses (e.g. binomial names, brief usage notes) just go in regular brackets/parentheses, or at least that's how I've always done it. Anyway, like I said, just wondering. Cheers, BigDom 11:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The comma is erroneous for sure. Good catch. As to the gloss, that's a fair question. Perhaps you are right, and I might not touch other translingual names. Vininn126 (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. Yeah it's not too clear in the ELE when to use the template and when not to, just the way I've always done it. Consistency is good though, so I'll try and remember to use it for short glosses too such as {{gl|fish}}. I think leaving binomial names in normal brackets is probably a safe bet though. BigDom 11:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Alternate forms of Polish imperativesEdit

According to WSJP orać (though not the derived words zaorać or zorać) has two imperative forms orz or órz (in addition to the colloquial oraj). Is there a way to include these different forms (orz, orzmy, orzcie and órz, órzmy, órzcie) in the first conjugation template on that page now, or do you need to add a separate conjugation template for each form of the imperative? - LaetusStudiis (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@User:Vininn126 the change you made to orać doesn't seem to do this correctly, since the template applies the suffixes only to the second form and thus lists the 1st person plural imperative as "orz/órzmy". - LaetusStudiis (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
You are right. I'm not sure the template has an altimp parameter (yet). For now we'll have to use two. Vininn126 (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

„maciora”Edit

Hi! In your edit yesterday you added that maciora comes from mać + -ora (is this even a suffix in Polish?), but as I myself added this form doesn’t come from any suffixation but from grammatical leveling. Maybe I could illustrate this. You can see the PS inflection here, and from that the Old Polish inflection looked something like this (modern orthography, omitting the dual and the vocative):

Sing Plur
Nom mać macierzy
Gen macierze macior
Dat macierzy macierzem (???)
Acc macierz macierzy
Instr maciorą macierzmi
Loc macierzy macierzech

Dat. plur. by regular sound laws should be as above, although I don’t know whether this is even attested, because later it was leveled to -am and yet later to -om. But as you can see this declension has three stems, the nominative mać, and two oblique: macierz- and macior-. Because this inflection is not only horrendous, but also this is one of only two r-stems I think, this was simplified, but to all three stems at once, so the word was split up and the meaning too. So I don’t think there is any case to be made for a suffix †-ora. The -or was part of the old oblique stem, whence it was extended to the nominative stem, and -a was added because feminines in Polish can’t end in a hard consonant.

Cheers! MichaelTheSlav (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@MichaelTheSlav We have one other word suffixed with -ora at the moment, which is kasiora [12]. This kind of grammatic leveling isn't something that Polish id often, but you should mention that in the etymology line. Vininn126 (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Translation requestsEdit

Hey Vininn. Don't hesitate to let me know if you don't like my translation request spam. It's not that I need these translations into Polish, I just have the Finnish and Polish requests as part of my copy-paste template for when I want to add a German translation. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 11:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha Nah, I was mostly just goofing around. It's some sort of inside joke between various editors to ask for only Polish and Finnish, seeing as Surjection and I deal with it. I complain, but it's not meant to be taken seriously. Cheers! Vininn126 (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I remember seeing some comments of exasperation some time back when I added a couple of dozen requests to some very technical vocabulary :') so I just wanted to make sure! Cheers — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 12:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

SpacerowaćEdit

Hi. Are you sure that "pospacerować" is the perfective pair of "spacerować"? For me it's the same like "pośpiewać", "pograć" - to do some activity for some time (BTW. This is also the PWN definition). When we look at the page of Russian гулять (imp.) we have погулять (perf.) - and their translations are: 'to walk' and 'to take a walk'. And "przespacerować się" means 'to take a walk' (PWN: 'odbyć spacer') in Polish. If you go to the page 'to take a walk', it will send you to 'stroll'. That's why I think that pair should be: "spacerować" (imp.) and "przespacerować się (pf.).

I have an additional question, can I show verbs with the reflexive pronoun, like "naspacerować się" (of course the page link is to "naspacerować") or "przespacerować się"? Are only the "spacerować" and "naspacerować" versions acceptable on Wiktionary? Caslonc (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Caslonc I also am unsure that pospacerować is the pair. It might be a verb without a perfecitve pair - przespacerować się would be a very odd pair. As to reflexive verbs - we tend to not show the reflexive particle on pages, and only in the definition line with the {{label}} reflexive. Vininn126 (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't insist on "przespacerować się". But "pospacerować" just doesn't work for me.
BTW. From when we have a rule that pairs of aspects have to be predictable? Pairs can be non-reflexive and reflexive, e.g. Russian стать (perf.) and становиться (imp.) 'to become'. Caslonc (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@Caslonc I've removed any perfective pair for now. And I'm not saying it can't happen, it happens quite a bit, but to me it's more an indicator that something else might be happening. Vininn126 (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Now that I think about it (I really forgot that there is "przespacerować" ;) ), it's better without any perfective: "Spaceruję. - Przespacerowałam się." but "Spaceruję 5 km dziennie. - Przespacerowałem 5 km." They can't be pairs - because one sentence need the reflexive pronoun and other not. I consider the topic closed. Thanks for your hard work and editing the page. Caslonc (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

stękaćEdit

If this is wrongly formated, please amend, but do not leave something wrong. Diligent (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Diligent It'd be worth it to check other sources and to see how we format Proto-Slavic entries to be sure which form to link to. I am unconvinced we use the forms always presented in that dictionary. Vininn126 (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Please delete my mistakesEdit

Hey, I just made a little mess with topic categories that needs to be cleaned up...I added a category to an Abkhaz entry, which is represented by langcode ab but somebody had used the code abq, which is for Abaza, in the {{syn}} template. As a result I wrongly created a "chain" of topical categories with the lang prefix abq, and as the lowest level one, Category:abq:Shrikes, is empty of course the whole lot of abq topical categories up as far as and including Category:abq:Animals should be nuked. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Acolyte of Ice Should be taken care of. Vininn126 (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Nice, thanks. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Polish Translation of the Term circumambulationEdit

The Polish edition of Wiktionary translates the term "circumambulation" as okrążanie. What do you think? Apisite (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Apisite That's also fine - literally "encirclement, lap (e.g. around a race track)". There's no specific term for the ritualist connotation AFAIK so I went with a general "walking around" gerund. We could probably list both. Vininn126 (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

CollocationsEdit

Hi there. I like the addition of collocations such as this, but I was just wondering whether there might be any copyright issues with borrowing WSJP's lists wholesale like that? Obviously they are common collocations but I would think that the specific choice and ordering would definitely be within the realms of intellectual property. I had a quick look around but couldn't see what license (if any) they were using, just a generic copyright notice (also don't know what copyright laws are like in Poland). Just a thought anyway. Cheers, BigDom 09:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@BigDom You raise a legitimate concern, I believe. I wonder what a solution could be? There is also concern for things like using synonym lists, IIRC. I have been trying to avoid this by changing it around some by adding a Doroszewski word and such when appropriate. Vininn126 (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@BigDom Following this further - I do frequently change them a little - remove some, add some, or get my own from NKJP, like on boazeryjny, but you are probably right I shouldn't really ever do each and every one, just to be safe. Vininn126 (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, been out for the day and just got back. Yeah it's a tricky one, I don't think there's anything wrong with using a few, especially if they're very commonly used because this kind of information is really useful for readers/learners, but we should probably avoid overdoing it. Cheers, BigDom 18:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
As to overdoing it - I have been wondering about the format. On some pages it's rather cluttery. It might be best to have them collapse like some nyms, or to have them collapse after a certain amount. Vininn126 (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, collapsing would be great if possible. How many were you thinking, 5, 10? BigDom 05:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking 3 :P I've been trying to bug one of the programmers to implement that, but it's slow goings. Vininn126 (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@BigDom Just to inform you, I've taken to scraping collocations from NKJP. They aren't as complete but we can work on it with time, and with large ones I add them in a box. See afirmacja. I was wondering, though, thing I should add the {{R:pl:NKJP}} template to references when I do this? (I made it for some etydating, and I tried getting the template to allow for a link, but the links they produce are weird). Vininn126 (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Looks good to me, much tidier in the box (although on the flip side, obviously less visible). I guess a reference would be preferable but if it's too difficult to link to an individual word then it's no big deal. BigDom 14:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The issue is that the reference is just a link to the corpus in general. I've had to do that with dating before, too. I guess I'll start leaving it under references. 14:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC) Vininn126 (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

CognatesEdit

It's standard practice to remove cognates once the proto page is set up. All the cognates can now easily be found, so there's no point in highlighting just one cognate (or alternatively, listing them all on multiple pages). Hergilei (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Has it been? Talking with other editors I haven't heard that. If it is, could you link me to the discussion showing that? Again, I'm not against removing them, I've never found them the most useful, but I've heard different things from different editors. (This might be worth a BP discussion). Vininn126 (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@Hergilei I have started a Beer Parlor discussion. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Vininn126 (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

bepisEdit

i can't be angry at you (but only you!!!) so i'll drop it this time and stop arguing UωU Shumkichi (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

<3 Good boy. Vininn126 (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

grasz w huia4????????Edit

;___________________________________________; btw. I recommend this channel, it's full of awesome nationalist songs :pleading_face: :thonk: :winin126: Shumkichi (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

🤔 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBi-LmIsTKc&ab_channel=FaryaFaraji Vininn126 (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
That’s grand. I am finally in the mood to sleep now, towards a productive day tomorrow. ヽ༼。> ل͜ <。༽ノ Fay Freak (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

collocation templateEdit

t:coi, which you changed my use of t:uxi to, doesn't have any documentation now; do its parameters work the same way as with t:uxi, or are there significant differences in their use that I should be aware of? - LaetusStudiis (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It's more or less the same. One thing that's different is that if there are many, they are put into a box, e.g. błysk (if you see a page with a ton of them don't be afraid to convert it into a box). Vininn126 (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit warringEdit

Please ban this idiot who won't quit vandalising the alop entry, as per my post at WT:VIP Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

👍 Vininn126 (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
For IPv6 addresses (the long ones), you need to append /64 at the end of the IP before blocking. Otherwise, it doesn't really do anything, see mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 11:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Vininn126 (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh, it's really that simple? I had always wondered about range blocks but never got around to asking for an explanation. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Now they are either engaging in block evasion or another person is doing the same thing...please block this IP and protect the alop entry. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Specific blocksEdit

In case you were unaware, you can block an account from specific namespaces or pages without blocking them from everything. For someone who is causing problems on RFV, RFD, BP, etc., simply blocking them from the Wiktionary namespace would suffice. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I am, please see my response on his talk page as to why it was a global block. Vininn126 (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Old Polish IPAEdit

I understand that pronunciations of extinct languages might not be exactly accurate, but also at the same time many extinct languages have reconstructed pronunciations here, so I thought adding Old Polish one could be interesting too. Kapki555 (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kapki555 This is a wider issue that involves more than just the Polish community. While I think Old Polish pronunciation is mostly reconstructible (however there are also issues with Middle Polish), there's also the issue of providing IPA for extinct languages in general. There have been Beer Parlour discussions about this, and frankly, the issue deserves more attention than what my talk page can deliver. Vininn126 (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, I haven't looked into any discussions about it, but alright, I understand that it might not be as simple as I thought. Kapki555 (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
@Kapki555 I'll try to find the conversation for you. If you are interested, please participate! Vininn126 (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Sure, thanks! Kapki555 (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
@Kapki555 here you go! Vininn126 (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

mieć zielone pojęcieEdit

(also pinging @Shumkichi for info) Didn't mean to start WW3 with this entry, apologies! I'm pretty neutral as to whether the lemma is at the positive or negative form (I went for the former on the model of English have a clue and have the foggiest), but if it is to stay positive then probably best to move it back to mieć zielone pojęcie (currently a redirect) and delete mieć zielonego pojęcia as ungrammatical. I would do it but not keen to get involved in the edit war. Cheers, BigDom 16:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I think being used in the positive makes it worth including as such, consdiering it pops up on NKJP and similar. It's odd, we could maybe do something like "almost exclusively in the negative". Vininn126 (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh, don't worry, @BigDom, I wasn't arguing with you and it's not your fault :3 we're cool bro Shumkichi (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

PWN link for wydylowaćEdit

What is the point of including the PWN link when PWN doesn't list anything for this word? - LaetusStudiis (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@LaetusStudiis They usually have a corpus and irregularly update. There's a whole issue of deciding whether to include both WSJP and PWN on everything since they update. If we could figure out a system to add links when a word is added I'd be for not including them. Vininn126 (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I removed links that showed nothing and you reverted. Links should not say "Term in Source" when the source shows nothing for the term, not even quotations of use. That's positively misleading. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky The issue is these resources frequently add these terms - time and time again for example WSJP has added terms that were missing before but are now there, and at an alarming rate. I'm not happy with dead links but I don't want to have to check each day whether terms without them were added. I'm not very happy with either solution, and I would like a bot that could check their recently added words and automatically link them here. Vininn126 (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I see what you are trying to achieve but the method chosen seems questionable. There could be a way to instruct the template to show uncertainty about the term being there, like not "X in Y" but "X (maybe) in Y" or the like. That's a complication, of course, and I don't recall us ever doing that before, but meets the requirement not to misrepresent. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)