User talk:Dan Polansky

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Attested Acanthasitta[edit]

I am not sure why you think you can single me out, but if you spent less time attacking me and more time searching for words and their usage you would find things like this. or this or this,%20Part%20II.pdf on Page 186. Please before you attack me in the future, do your research with the same dedication that you use to, well, attack me. Sincerely Speednat (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Speednat, don't take it personal. Dan can be a bit assertive, but he has done it to others, including me before. Pass a Method (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

On copyrights and public domain[edit]

By the way, just out of curiosity why did you suddenly feel the need to note the change to my userpage on my talkpage? Was there some specific event/page/something which prompted you to do so? Or perhaps general curiosity about my history here, and elsewhere at Wikimedia? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

My attention is my private concern. It so happened that I noticed your placing of a statement on your user page that could threaten the integrity of Wiktionary: 'I always thought copyrighting a dictionary is pretty silly given that definitions of words contain no original thought.' --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, there are lots of worse things out there that "could threaten the integrity of Wiktionary", I assure you I am not one of them. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

German compounds[edit]

German closed compounds are traditionally included. For a discussion, see Talk:Zirkusschule (mentioning also "Tanzschule"), Talk:Sportlerherz, Talk:Plastikschwanz, Talk:neuntausendneunhundertneunundneunzig. Tanzschule. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking to yourself? I think you probably meant to post this somewhere else. --WikiTiki89 20:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I am making public notes, which appear like me talking to myself. I can search my talk pages and find the notes later using the search terms of my choice. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


You have new messages Hello, Dan Polansky. You have new messages at Kc kennylau's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{talkback}} template.

--kc_kennylau (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


Since I've had a good look-through your history and interpersonal communications with other editors, I'm going to leave this here for future reference. I know you mean well and I do not want to disparage you or anything, but my advice for avoiding further trouble would be to approach other editors in a less confrontational or direct manner about pointing out their mistakes or aberrations. We are all volunteers here, and we have to keep that in mind. Take for example, Haplology's message on my talkpage (permalink), which was well-mannered enough and sufficient enough to convey the information to me that what I did was wrong, and I responded accordingly with the appropriate measures. Your posts to my talkpage appear to convey a less than friendly tone, and I recognize that that can be difficult sometimes for people whose native language is not English, and so I've grown used to adjusting my level of WT:AGF accordingly (i.e. I have a thick skin, but that only lasts so long). I've taken notes of your messages and rest assured I've tried my best to listen as well as respond to them in the way I thought most appropriate, even if perhaps you might think I have not. For the sake of risking further appearance of antagonization from either of us, and because you've posted to my talkpage for three threads in such a short timespan (which I found slightly disturbing) I am asking you to please refrain from further posting at my talkpage, and instead to respond at the appropriate venues at RFD and RFV. Or if you have a direct issue with my behavior on broad subjects or what I put on my userpage, as you've noted at the "Copyright" section of my talkpage, to bring it up to the Beer Parlour where it would warrant further attention.

Final note: I've also noticed you once used the excuse that there had been no prior warning of "blockable" behavior on your talkpage, so that the administrators who blocked your account were considered unjustified. I am thus leaving this here as a... recommendation that you refrain from posting on my talkpage. You can still respond here as appropriately if you have any questions or concerns with this recommendation to you, and I will respond accordingly as I have this page watched. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It is true that I do a lot of talking of criticism that many admins don't do. For instance, in User talk:Pass a Method, I have asked him to stop certain behaviors again and again, to not much avail. Some admins (I am not an admin) have a different approach: they block the guy for a month without even bothering to leave a note on his talk page. All the blocks made against me were in violation of WT:BLOCK, supplied with excuses so lame that I cannot think it possible that the blocking admins believed them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
No, see, you're missing the point. This is not about your past blocks, and I'm sure the other admins have their reasons for choosing to block or not block. This is about your approach to criticism. Criticism is best received when it is dealt with in a constructive manner. Cf Haplology's response to me on my talkpage. That is the example I would like you to follow when dealing with me as well as other people. I have bolded my central point and what I believe to be worthy of you keeping as your 'public notes' to be looked at in the archives. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
In the post above, you have started to prepare ground for my blocking, by making a reference to blockable behavior just before you make a "recommendation that you refrain from posting on my talkpage". You remove inconvenient criticism from your talk page as you see fit (diff). I find your general pattern of editing in English Wiktionary such that you should ideally depart as soon as possible, to prevent harm to English Wiktionary and avoid waste of other editor resources. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

German adjectives lacking inflection table using AWB[edit]

The following guide was posted by User:Kc kennylau, while an original hint of the method is due to User:CodeCat:

  1. Start AWB
  2. Tools -> List comparer
  3. List 1: Category, German adjectives
  4. List 2: What transcludes page, Template:de-decl-adj-table
  5. Unique in List 1
  6. There you go

--Dan Polansky (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I discovered that you can tag people by linking to other people's user name, for example User:Dan Polansky should give you a notice. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

English entries lacking etymology using Python[edit]

Finding English entries lacking etymology using Python, applied to a Wiktionary dump (

import sys, re
entryStartFound = False
etymologyFound = False
title = ""
for line in open(sys.argv[1]):
  line = line.rstrip()
  if "<title>" in line:
    title = re.sub(" *</?title> *", "", line)
  if entryStartFound:
    if "===Etymology" in line:
      etymologyFound = True
    if "----" in line or "</text>" in line:
      entryStartFound = False      
      if not etymologyFound:
         print title
      etymologyFound = False
  if "==English==" in line:
    entryStartFound = True

I wish I knew how to do this using AWB alone. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Updated. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Category intersection[edit]

The method described at #German adjectives lacking inflection table using AWB leads to a method of determining the intersection of two categories, that is, the list of items present in both categories. Ditto for set difference applied to categories. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Slovak nouns not linking to dictionaries[edit]

The method described at #German adjectives lacking inflection table using AWB leads to a method of determining which Slovak nouns are not using {{R:SDK}} to link to great online Slovak dictionaries.

  • List 1: Category Slovak nouns
  • List 2: What transcludes page, Template:R:SDK
  • Result: Unique in List 1

--Dan Polansky (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

English entries lacking pronunciation using Python[edit]

The method described at #English entries lacking etymology using Python applies, just that "===Etymology" is replaced with "===Pronunciation". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Declension of 08/15[edit]

I would like to have the declension of 08/15. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

No idea, really. I'd guess it would be uninflected, but I am not a native German speaker; User:Longtrend is a native speaker, and he is even a student of linguistics. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Inflection of for Czech inflected noun forms[edit]

I have run an AWB batch that placed {{inflection of}} to definition lines of Czech inflected noun forms. I used Latin entries as a model. Czech inflected noun form entries mostly used {{form of}} before this was changed by a run of User:MewBot from 9 January 2014‎; an example edit: diff. I used User:DPMaid to do the job.

I have changed WT:About Czech to indicate the use of {{inflection of}} in diff.

The AWB specification:

  • Work list: entries in Category:Czech noun forms
  • Example edit: diff
  • Number of replacements: 107 (plus 2 under User:Dan Polansky)
  • Replacements used in AWB:
# {{genitive of\|(.*)\|lang=cs}}        # {{inflection of|$1||gen|s|lang=cs}}
# {{dative of\|(.*)\|lang=cs}}  # {{inflection of|$1||dat|s|lang=cs}}
# {{vocative of\|(.*)\|lang=cs}}        # {{inflection of|$1||voc|s|lang=cs}}
# {{locative of\|(.*)\|lang=cs}}        # {{inflection of|$1||loc|s|lang=cs}}
# {{instrumental of\|(.*)\|lang=cs}}    # {{inflection of|$1||ins|s|lang=cs}}
# {{plural of\|(.*)\|lang=cs}}  # {{inflection of|$1||nom|p|lang=cs}}
# {{instrumental plural of\|(.*)\|lang=cs}}     # {{inflection of|$1||ins|p|lang=cs}}
# {{instrumental singular of\|(.*)\|lang=cs}}   # {{inflection of|$1||ins|s|lang=cs}}
# {{accusative singular of\|(.*)\|lang=cs}}     # {{inflection of|$1||acc|s|lang=cs}}
# {{vocative singular of\|(.*)\|lang=cs}}       # {{inflection of|$1||voc|s|lang=cs}}
# {{genitive singular of\|(.*)\|lang=cs}}       # {{inflection of|$1||gen|s|lang=cs}}
# {{locative singular of\|(.*)\|lang=cs}}       # {{inflection of|$1||loc|s|lang=cs}}
# {{dative singular of\|(.*)\|lang=cs}} # {{inflection of|$1||dat|s|lang=cs}}
# {{accusative of\|(.*)\|lang=cs}}      # {{inflection of|$1||acc|s|lang=cs}}

--Dan Polansky (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Czech traffic statistics[edit]

What follows is the entry access statistics or entry traffic statistics of Czech-only entries in English Wiktionary for the October of 2013, obtained using data available at Russian and Latin are shown for comparison, again only for entries that only have one language section. Only the lemma entries were considered, which was especially needed for Latin with its huge number of inflected-form entries; for Czech and Russian, non-lemmas not marked using "{{inflection of" and "{{conjugation of" were included in the analysis, but the two languages have only a small number of inflected-form entries anyway; see also the Python script below.

Language Month Entry Hits in the Month Lemma Entries* Lemma Entries w/ 1 Lang Section
Czech 201310 157,193 21,531 18,057
Russian 201310 495,573 21,915 18,588
Latin 201310 1,244,477 33,139 27,621

* - The numbers for Czech and Russian actually include some non-lemma entries, since Czech and Russian inflected-form entries do not exclusively use "{{inflection of" and "{{conjugation of", but these non-lemma entries are relatively few.

Filtering the Czech entries with multiple language sections out of the statistics was essential. Otherwise, the result would be completely skewed, as an experiment showed. As one source of skewing, the access statistics would include high access numbers for the significant number of Czech entries that also have an English language section.

The data was obtained using the following script applied to the relational quasi-dump available from, in particular enwikt-defs-20140206-all.tsv. The script uses the relational quasi-dump to determine the term work list, and then uses the term work list to access The fact that the date of the relational quasi-dump list lies ahead of the month for which the statistics is collected does not harm. The script output was redirected to a file; the standard error output showed the progress of the script. Running the script for Czech took more than an hour to finish.

def accessStatsPerLanguage(relationalDumpFile,language,monthString,ignoreNonlemma=True):
  # relationalDumpFile:
  # e.g. enwikt-defs-20140206-all.tsv
  # Available from
  # monthString: e.g. 201310
  # Limitations: ignoreNonlemma may need to capture other templates than "{{inflection of" and "{{conjugation of"
  startTime = time.time()
  # Collect a set of terms in the language
  for line in open(relationalDumpFile):
    if not line.startswith(language): continue
    if ignoreNonlemma and ("{{inflection of" in fields[3] or "{{conjugation of" in fields[3]): continue #
  print >> sys.stderr, "Terms of the "+language+" language collected."
  # Collect a set of terms that are in that language but have more than one section
  for line in open(relationalDumpFile):    
    if line.startswith(language): continue
    if term in langTerms:
  print >> sys.stderr, "Terms of the "+language+" language having multiple language sections collected."
  # Collect the page hits
  startTime2 = time.time()
  for term in sorted(langTerms):
    if not term in langMultiSecTerms:
      for line in urllib.urlopen(url):
        if "has been viewed " in line:
          line = line.rstrip()
          hitString = re.sub(".*has been viewed ","",line)
      hitString="-0" #-0 to indicate that it has multiple language sections
    totalHits += int(hitString) 
    print term + "\t" + hitString + "\t" + str(totalHits)
    if termsProcessed%+100==0:
      # Ensure progress is visible
      timeSpent = time.time() - startTime2 
      timeToGoSeconds = (timeSpent/float(singleSecTermsProcessed))*\
      print >> sys.stderr, str(round(100 * singleSecTermsProcessed /\
        " - "+ str(int(timeToGoSeconds/60)) + " min to go"
  print >> sys.stderr, "Total time elapsed:", int((time.time() - startTime)/60),"min"
if __name__ == '__main__':
  dumpFile = sys.argv[1]
  if len(sys.argv)>=3: language=sys.argv[2]
  if len(sys.argv)>=4: month=sys.argv[3]

--Dan Polansky (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikisaurus statistics[edit]

Some Wikisaurus statistics for October 2013 follow, based on, such as "".

For previous Wikisaurus statistics, see User_talk:Dan_Polansky/2012#Wikisaurus_statistics.

  • The number of Wikisaurus pages: 1309
  • The total number of page hits in Wikisaurus in October 2013: 40,600
  • The total number of page hits in Wikisaurus in October 2013, without top 100 pages: 20,357
  • Median page hits per Wikisaurus page in October 2013: 15
  • Average page hits per Wikisaurus page in October 2013: 31

Top 100 Wikisaurus pages in October 2013, with page hits in the month:

Wikisaurus:penis 2090
Wikisaurus:vulva 1904
Wikisaurus:masturbate 1812
Wikisaurus:breasts 1088
Wikisaurus:sexual intercourse 1024
Wikisaurus:vagina 820
Wikisaurus:testicles 667
Wikisaurus:money 631
Wikisaurus:labia 434
Wikisaurus:penis/translations 426
Wikisaurus:anus 372
Wikisaurus:beautiful woman 358
Wikisaurus:prostitute 358
Wikisaurus:drunk 344
Wikisaurus:clitoris 327
Wikisaurus:semen 277
Wikisaurus:marijuana 266
Wikisaurus:erection 244
Wikisaurus:insane 199
Wikisaurus:promiscuous man 195
Wikisaurus:buttocks 194
Wikisaurus:promiscuous woman 186
Wikisaurus:defecate 144
Wikisaurus:wow 143
Wikisaurus:beer 141
Wikisaurus:ear 136
Wikisaurus:pubic hair 134
Wikisaurus:joke 127
Wikisaurus:marijuana cigarette 124
Wikisaurus:erect penis 119
Wikisaurus:idiot 117
Wikisaurus:nonsense 116
Wikisaurus:oral sex 106
Wikisaurus:obstinate 100
Wikisaurus:fool 99
Wikisaurus:vagina/translations 99
Wikisaurus:male homosexual 97
Wikisaurus:bathroom 94
Wikisaurus:sexual partner 94
Wikisaurus:die 93
Wikisaurus:excellent 93
Wikisaurus:fastidious 90
Wikisaurus:copulate 89
Wikisaurus:arrogant 86
Wikisaurus:index finger 86
Wikisaurus:woman 85
Wikisaurus:libertine 83
Wikisaurus:abode 82
Wikisaurus:cheeky 81
Wikisaurus:obese 81
Wikisaurus:thingy 81
Wikisaurus:destroy 78
Wikisaurus:give head 75
Wikisaurus:villain 74
Wikisaurus:kill 73
Wikisaurus:mad person 73
Wikisaurus:sexual activity 73
Wikisaurus:witty 70
Wikisaurus:disorder 68
Wikisaurus:saying 68
Wikisaurus:condom 67
Wikisaurus:naive 67
Wikisaurus:nothing 67
Wikisaurus:noodle 66
Wikisaurus:characteristic 65
Wikisaurus:death 65
Wikisaurus:abandon 64
Wikisaurus:mock 64
Wikisaurus:nipples 64
Wikisaurus:intelligent 63
Wikisaurus:pasta 63
Wikisaurus:utter 63
Wikisaurus:ejaculate 62
Wikisaurus:male genitalia 61
Wikisaurus:scrawny 61
Wikisaurus:water 61
Wikisaurus:covert 60
Wikisaurus:ejaculation 60
Wikisaurus:apex 59
Wikisaurus:girl 59
Wikisaurus:calm 58
Wikisaurus:child 58
Wikisaurus:delicious 58
Wikisaurus:laugh 58
Wikisaurus:anal sex 57
Wikisaurus:fake 57
Wikisaurus:bad 55
Wikisaurus:ghost 55
Wikisaurus:sexy 55
Wikisaurus:zillion 55
Wikisaurus:humble 54
Wikisaurus:masturbation 54
Wikisaurus:praise 54
Wikisaurus:reprehend 54
Wikisaurus:tiny 54
Wikisaurus:chav 53
Wikisaurus:hinder 52
Wikisaurus:circumcised 51
Wikisaurus:hidden 51
Wikisaurus:obstinacy 51


  • 1. Create a text file with the list of members of Category:Wikisaurus, one per line.
  • 2. Run the following script on the text file.
import sys, urllib, re
WSTerms =  []
for line in open(sys.argv[1]):
  if line.startswith("Wikisaurus:"):
for WSEntry in WSTerms:
  for line in urllib.urlopen(url):
    if "has been viewed " in line:
      line = line.rstrip()
      hitString = re.sub(".*has been viewed ","",line)
  totalHits += int(hitString) 
  print WSEntry + "\t" + hitString + "\t" + str(totalHits)
  print >> sys.stderr, str(WSTermNo) + " out of "+str(len(WSTerms))+" processed"

--Dan Polansky (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting to see what kind of words people want synonyms for. --WikiTiki89 19:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

English -ing form and gerund[edit]

The treatment of English -ing forms that act as nouns, sometimes correctly or incorrectly called "gerund", is an unresolved problem. See also Appendix:English -ing forms and Talk:fucking, Talk:perusing, Talk:ploughing, Talk:dating. And also User:Dan_Polansky/Notes#Gerund. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Re linking in reference templates[edit]

Hello Dan Polansky. Re our recent discussion-via-edit-summaries of {{R:L&S}}, my contention is that reference templates should at least link to the relevant cited authority's Wikipedia article (where it exists); that way, an explanation for why the source is being cited as an authority is readily available for the sceptical reader on the other side of the link. Besides that principle, if you want a precedent, {{R:LSJ}} already links to Wikipedia; admittedly, I added that link, but Atelaes has since edited that template without removing the link, so he must, at least, not think that its inclusion is a bad idea. Before I do any more editing pursuant to this issue, I'd like to know: Why do you oppose this linking, other than out of a desire for consistency across referencing templates? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

To be explicit, I do think that the current linking on {{R:LSJ}} is a good idea, for the above-stated reasons, that readers can find out about our source for themselves. However, I also think that the initial round of linking on {{R:L&S}} was a bit excessive. Linking to the Wikipedia article on New York seems utterly superfluous in that situation. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 17:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Less relevant links are distracting, IMHO. A reader can copy the name of the reference work and paste it to Wikipedia article box thereby finding the relevant article, so the presence of the wikilinks in the source name is inessential. Wikipedia's article does not give any authority to a source anyway. Your original edit in diff looked like a bad joke; I have absolutely no idea why anyone might find it a good idea. I like the minimalist linking practice used in so many reference templates; if it is to be changed, there needs to be a consensus to do so. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, reconsidering it, I agree that "the initial round of linking on {{R:L&S}} was a bit excessive". Re "copy[ing] the name of the reference work and past[ing] it to [the search] box", doesn't the same go for everything? What's the point of linking at all in that case? And re "giv[ing] authority to a source", I didn't mean that just having an article on Wikipedia automatically gives a source authority; however, reading statements like "A Latin Dictionary…is a popular English-language lexicographical work of the Latin language" and "Lewis and Short remains a standard reference work for medievalists, renaissance specialists, and early modernists, as the dictionary covers Late and Medieval Latin, if somewhat inconsistently" indicates the (fairly) high regard in which the source is held. Anyway, in the hope of obtaining consensus for this sort of linking, I have started a policy discussion at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/March#Links to Wikipedia in reference templates; please feel free to pass comment on it there. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Formal voting and change of voter stance[edit]

(My notes on voting are at User:Dan Polansky/Voting.)

Voting via a formal process may make some people change the confidence with which they take their stance. In Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2014/March#Stop_treating_Nynorsk_and_Bokmal_as_languages_separate_from_Norwegian, Angr, Pengo and Teodor voted boldfaced support and Eiríkr Útlendi voted weak support; in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/Unified Norwegian, they all voted "Abstain".

The vote counting in the Beer parlour discussion yields 8.5 for support and 2 for oppose; it yields an overwhelimg consensus by any standard ever used in a Wiktionary vote. The vote counting in the vote currently yields 5 for support, 5 for oppose and 5 for abstain. This is a sharp contrast between Beer parlour and the vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Latin and first person in lemma and definition of verb[edit]

Latin verbs are currently defined in first person ("I swim" rather than "To swim"). There was a Wiktionary discussion on that, especially in Wiktionary:Tea_room:nāscor, linked to below; since the discussion was not properly archived, I could only find it by finding the vote that the discussion spawned.

First person in lemma:

First person in definition:

--Dan Polansky (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Later: What makes the current scheme workable is that English does not mostly distinugish first-person verb forms from infinitive verb forms. As a consequence, a link going to a first-person form automatically goes to the lemma form ("move" is the same in "I move" and "to move"). This is not so for Czech and many other highly inflected languages. If the same approach were used in a dictionary using Czech as the meta-language (the main language, the one used in the definitions), then moveo would be defined as "já hýbu" or "hýbu" rather than "hýbat", and the actual wiki markup would have to be [[hýbat|hýbu]] to direct the reader to the Czech lemma entry. In a printed dictionary, this would be rather inconvenient, since the only linking there is is the one made implicitly via visibly presented word forms, which would be "hýbu". In an electronic dictionary, the likes of [[hýbat|hýbu]] are viable, but still feel odd, to me anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I've ceased defining Ancient Greek verbs using the English first person. I now define them using the English infinitive, while keeping the lemma entries at the PAI1S. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Adjectives used as nouns[edit]

There is a discussion at WT:RFD#wicked (later at Talk:wicked) about deleting the noun section, serving to represent "the wicked" used as a noun. This would apply to the unknown, the blind, the dead, the English, the French, as pointed out there.

One one note, it is not obvious to a Czech speaker that "the French" can refer to French people. While cs:chudí (plural of cs:chudý -- adjective meaning poor) works like en:the poor, *cs:francouzští (plural of francouzský) does not work, while Francouzi (singular Francouz) does.

On another note, cs:vrchní (noun, waiter) is derived from cs:vrchní (adjective, upper), but has to be included as a noun, since the meaning is idiomatic and cannot be derived from the existence of the adjective.

Questions: How readily can English adjectives be used as nouns? Are there some adjectives that are very often so used?

What dictionaries do for "poor":

  • MWO has no noun section[1]
    • But MWO has a noun section for "the dead"[2]
  • AHD has a noun section[3]
  • Collins has no noun section[4]
  • Macmillan has no noun section[5]
    • But Macmillan has a noun section for the sick[6]
  • Oxford Dictionaries (do not confuse with OED) has a subsection "as noun the poor" without a definition but with an example sentence in its adjective section[7]
  • Webster 1913 has no noun section for "the poor"[8]
  • Totals: Only one consulted dictionary has a noun section with a sense for "the poor" as a noun.

What dictionaries do for "French":

  • MWO has a noun section for "the French people"[9]
  • AHD has a noun section for "The people of France"[10]
  • Collins has a noun section with a sense directing to "the French", where it has a sense for the French people[11]
  • Macmillan a noun section for the people of France[12]
  • Oxford Dictionaries (do not confuse with OED) has a noun section for "the people of France collectively"[13]
  • Webster 1913 has a noun section for "Collectively, the people of France"[14]
  • Totals: Every single consulted dictionary has a sense for "the French" as a noun.

Other links:

--Dan Polansky (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This is very detailed. Maybe you should include it in the talk. --kc_kennylau (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to flood common pages. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary links:

--Dan Polansky (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Czech combining forms[edit]

There is now a discussion at WT:RFD#jedno- (later at Talk:jedno-) on whether to include what I refer to as combining forms. By combining form I mean a form derived from a word that makes the word ready for compounding. Czech compounds can be found at Category:Czech compound words.

Czech combining forms include the following ones:

Base word PoS Compound Combining form
kočka noun kočkopes kočko-
černý adjective černokněžník černo-
jasný adjective jasnozřivý jasno-
sám pronoun, adjective samoobsluha samo-
nový adjective novotvar novo-

Combining forms and compounds of Polish, Russian, German, Danish and English:

Base word PoS Compound Combining form
pl:nowy adjective nowoczesny nowo-
ru:новый adjective новобранец ново-
de:Inhalt noun Inhaltsverzeichnis Inhalts-
da:barn noun barnevogn barne-
en:larynx noun laryngograph laryngo-

The English combining forms are something of an oddity; they seem to be Latin combining forms in disguise.

Keeping Czech combining forms as entries would lead to a large set of rather predictable entries. OTOH, we already do keep predictable entries like plurals of English nouns.

Part of speech: If they are to be included, then with what part of speech? Should "Combining form" be a part of speech? Or should the part of speech be the same as that of the base word, on the model of inflected forms? Or should even "Prefix" be considered?

Derived terms: Should the derived terms be present on the page of the combining form or on the page of the base word?

Prefix vs. combining form: Can a distinction between a prefix and a combining form be upheld? I think so, but I do not have clear criteria. In Czech, combining forms seem morphologically distinct by the use of "-o-" to create them. Links: What is the difference between a “prefix” and a “combining form”?,, Combining Forms, Prefixes & Suffixes,

Prevalence of the term "combining form": Webster 1913 uses the term in its definition of phyto-[15]. The term is further used in Collins:phyto-[16] for the part of speech; Merriam-Webster:phyt- uses "combining form" as part of speech as well[17]; Oxford Dictionaries (not OED):phyto- uses the part of speech "combining form" equally well.[18]. For more see phyto- at OneLook Dictionary Search.

Swamping argument: A: Keeping these combining forms as prefixes would swamp the prefix category with them. B: Right, but that can be fixed by keeping them as combining forms, in a distinct category.

See also User:Dan Polansky/Notes#Compounds. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I know this is a note to yourself, but I think this may be relevant anyway. In the Germanic languages, there are different ways of modifying a word when it's added to a compound, but none of them can strictly be called "combining forms". In the examples you gave above, the -s- in German is a genitive singular suffix, and can also appear on the noun outside compounds. So the compound should be read as a genitive phrase: "index of contents". In Czech terms, it would be like forming compounds with nového. The -e- in the Danish word is also a genitive, specifically the genitive plural (which does not actually survive as a case in Danish). So this is similarly "car of children". All Germanic languages can form genitive compounds in that way, although in most languages the cases themselves are no longer productive. Even English does it, although the genitival aspect is much more recognisable then: "children's car" or "child's play". In addition to this method, the Germanic languages also form compounds by just putting the (endingless) basic stems together, like the English "coal mine" or "coalmine". Any noun can form compounds by all of these methods, and I'm not sure if there are strict rules for when to use which. From my own experience in speaking Dutch (which likewise allows all three of these types), often one or the other just sounds better. For example, kolenmijn (from the plural) sounds better than koolmijn (which would seem like a "cabbage mine"), and koolsmijn is even worse. I can't really point out why. —CodeCat 22:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for this. Is it then that each would-be combinging form of Danish can be found stand-alone as an inflected form or genitive form? On another note, I now recalled "natřít na modro", "do zlatova vypečené", "venku je jasno", "vejce na tvrdo" (as if "vejce na tvrdý způsob"), and wonder what "modro" and "jasno" are in these sentences and whether the combinging forms modro- a jasno- can be related to them.--Dan Polansky (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The genitive singular would, but the genitive plural is no longer used as a case in Danish, nor in Norwegian or Swedish which also use this suffix. But the cases are still alive and well in Icelandic, which uses the same formations for compounds (they all come from Old Norse). Dutch doesn't use the cases at all anymore, and the genitive ending -s is now more or less restricted to personal possession, only attached to names. We have an entry -s- for the use as a compound former though, classing it as an interfix.
modro looks like the original neuter form of the adjective, which is still preserved in some other Slavic languages like Slovene (see moder). It's not technically related to the compounding form, although the old neuter and the compounding form did normally have the same appearance in Proto-Slavic, by coincidence.
If you go further back to Proto-Indo-European, the neuter ending is -om or (for some nouns) -os, and the compounding form had -o-. In PIE the rule was simple: remove the nominative singular ending. Back then, the -o- wasn't yet part of the endings, so it still made sense to consider it part of the nouns stem, and compounds were then formed just by attaching stems to each other, and adding endings only to the last stem. The Slavic languages still preserve this more or less, except that because the endings have somewhat eroded, it's no longer obvious that this -o- is part of the noun stem. In Proto-Germanic (and in Gothic), the stem vowel -a- (descended from the PIE -o-) was still present in compounds, but in the later languages it mostly disappeared, so modern Germanic languages don't have any stem vowels in most compounds anymore.
Not all Proto-Indo-European noun stems ended in -o-, there were many other formations as well. Those in -o- are called "thematic" because the -o- was the so-called "theme vowel", and all the others "athematic", including those ending in -i- or -u-. These other formations were also preserved in early Slavic, but modern Slavic languages generally have only remnants of these, they've usually been converted to thematic stems (there are still plenty of irregular leftovers though). There is still one example of a noun which preserves the original stem vowel -u-, albeit in a rather hidden way: medvěd. This noun consists of the stem *medu- "honey" and the stem *ēdi- "eater", which are an u- and an i-stem respectively (so both athematic). Put together, you get the Pre-Slavic form *medwēdis, where u becomes w before a vowel because of an automatic rule that existed then. So the -v- in the modern Czech form is a hidden reminder of the original u-stem vowel. —CodeCat 23:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in. I think we should allow combining forms as entries still, even as soft redirects to the base forms. As for German combining forms, they can have -s, -es, -en, -n and "0": Staats-, Rates-, Menschen-, Jungen-, Stadt-. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't call those combining forms, because they correspond to the case forms Staats, Rates, Menschen, Jungen and Stadt. I think it goes beyond Wiktionary entries to explain the intricacies of German compound formation and which case forms are used when; that belongs in a grammar. —CodeCat 23:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

economic blockade[edit]

This will probably be +tagged for deletion again, so you might want to participate in the upcoming discussions. WritersCramp (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Counts of RFV nominations[edit]

Using revision history of WT:RFV, and filtering on "new section", I obtained the following top 20 counts of new RFV nominations:

101     -sche
78      Mr. Granger
57      Dan Polansky
56      SemperBlotto
45      Equinox
42      Metaknowledge
38      DCDuring
29      Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV
24      Chuck Entz
17      Mglovesfun
17      Atitarev
15      Wikitiki89
14      CodeCat
13      I'm so meta even this acronym
13      Bumm13
11      Kephir
11      Hekaheka
10      Liliana-60
9       Haplology
7       TeleComNasSprVen

Used link:

Date range seen in the link:

  • Earliest date: 20 May 2013‎
  • Latest date: 10 May 2014‎

Windows command line using GNUWin32:

  1. Navigate to
  2. Copy the browser window content to t.txt, by selecting all, copying to clipboard, opening Notepad, pasting into Notepad, and saving in ANSI encoding (which is the default).
  3. grep new.section t.txt | sed "s/(Talk.*//;s/.*201.. //" | sort | uniq -c | sed "s/^ *//;s/ /\t/" | gsort -r -n | head -20

--Dan Polansky (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear diary. Dan Polansky is talking to himself again. This is becoming really creepy. What do I do? Keφr 09:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
(but really, why not put it on a user subpage? they seem more fitting here. and this is coming from the person who lectures me on overcrowded tables of contents.)
Are you saying that my posts to my talk page overcrowd the following report?
--Dan Polansky (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

By filtering my contributions on tag removal-of-deletion-or-rfv-template, I can see I made 73 RFV template removals between 30 June 2013 and 28 June 2014. That should cover these 57 RFV additions by me mentioned above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright and copyvio of definitions[edit]

My understanding of copyright law is that definitions and example sentences used in dictionaries are protected by copyright as original expressions. A quick glance at dictionaries shows substantial variation in the specific wording of definitions used by different dictionaries, so merger doctrine (W:Merger_doctrine_(copyright_law), now at W:Idea–expression divide) usually does not apply: a definition is not the sole obvious statement of a fact. With example sentences, merger doctrine does not apply at all: a dictionary maker has a limitless supply of example sentences to choose from.

Some argue that we quote from copyrighted sources to obtain attesting quotations, and that this is similar to copying definitions. That is not so. Above all, the quotations serving to attest definitions come from a huge variety of sources, where we take one or few sentences from each source (few when we use one source to attest several definitions); that comes under fair use rationale. By this fair use, we do not diminish the merchantability of the quoted sources.

Referencing the source of the word-for-word transferred definition does not solve the copyright issue at all. It is more honest than transferring content from a source without acknowledging to do so, but it is still a breach, albeit acknowledged one. Referencing alone without the invocation of de minimis or fair use does not solve anything at all; I cannot just write a bot to transfer, say, Merriam-Webster to Wiktionary and say "from Merriam-Webster online" in the edit summary. Nor can I write a bot that uses six copyrighted sources, and for each entry rolls a die to choose one of the six copyrighted sources to be used in a similar fashion. Nor can a distributed group of humans, without the power of automation, do a similar thing, albeit in sluggish speed.

For a discussion on this, see Talk:blood supply after WT:RFD#blood supply gets archived.

A Beer parlour discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2011/July#Where exactly does copyright violation begin when copying dictionaries?

--Dan Polansky (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

RFV or attestation vs. RFD or sum of parts[edit]

Of the two processes RFV and RFD, I much prefer RFV for what it does. Above all, RFV leads to removal of information that is wrong AKA incorrect, as far as we know. By contrast, RFD leads to removal of information that is or appears redundant. Lack of redundancy appeals to a variety of purists, but is nothing very critical IMHO. Insistence on absolute elimination of redundancy generally leads to poor user experience, IMHO. For instance, it would lead to drastic reduction of etymology chains; indeed, each entry could derive itself from another item and leave the rest to that item. There has to be some reduction of redundancy in etymologies, so not the full length of chains is supported, but the utter reduction of redundancy in etymology is practiced neither by Wiktionary nor by Merriam-Webster nor by other online dictionaries. Having established (for myself anyway) that uncompromising elimination of redundancy at the cost of user experience is a bad thing, I proceed to claim that uncompromising elimination of redundancy by removing all terms that are or appear to be semantic sum of parts is a bad thing. We have to perform considerable reduction of redundancy as far as sum of parts is concerned, but we do not have to pursue perfection in that area. Being a sum of parts is a sign that an entry should be scrutinized for redeeming qualities and if none are found, it should be deleted. But redeeming qualities should be considered, IMHO. The general redeeming quality is this: the entry hosts some content that cannot be meaningfully hosted in the component entries, or whose hosting in component entries is inconvenient. One case of this is when an entry is a translation target, for which a tentative criterion I came up with is this: The term has to be useful for translation into at least three languages and the three translated terms (i) must be single-word ones and (ii) they must not be closed compounds (also at User:Dan Polansky/Translation targets). --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sanskrit romanization AKA transliteration in Latin script and IAST[edit]

For discussions, see WT:RFD#mahā (later Talk:mahā) and Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2013/August#Sanskrit in Latin script?. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Are our readers idiots?[edit]

You've always been in favour of including sum of parts entries because some people won't understand them even by looking up the individual parts. Is that because you think our readers are idiots. If so, at least have the guts to admit it. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not support indiscriminate inclusion of any and all attested sum of part entries; such a position is untenable. My position on sum of parts entries is fairly well summarized at #RFV or attestation vs. RFD or sum of parts above. A sum of part entry should be deleted unless it has a redeeming quality AKA characteristic. Sum of parts entries do not present any serious problem--they are redundant at best--while multiple of them are the best location to host worthwhile lexicographical information. For instance, television show is a great place for hosting translations into multiple languages including Russian телешоу, while teleshow is a ridiculously poor place for the purpose. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you 100% on television show being brought back. I also do have the guts to say that when you use Wiktionary, you don't know what a particular word means, and are ignorant in that one respect. Is a user who looks up a particular word an idiot overall? Who knows. Purplebackpack89 15:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


Thank, mulțumesc pentru (for) Babel la wiki-Portugaliaǃ BAICAN XXX.


I feel like Ungoliant and DCDuring are out for blood. Their desire to take away my rollback and autopatrol seems punitive rather than preventive. I also feel like what they and Kephir said in the thread is heavily exaggerated. What's a guy supposed to do? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 22:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Ruakh misinterpreted your "feeding comment" as an admonishment of me rather than what I think you were going for: an admonishment of people making sarcastic comments and low-level digs at me. As such, I've started a sub-thread to get people to stop making sarcastic comments and low-level digs against me Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 16:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2014/June#Purplebackpack89_.E2.80.94_Rights_removal suggests your rollback and autopatrol flags are fairly safe. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but if the discussion ended today, I'm going to get blocked for a whole month, and because Liliana unfairly removed my thread about sarcastic remarks, nothing is going to be done to stop other editor's problematic behavior. How are we going to get people to stop making sarcastic remarks and low-level digs at me? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 18:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted the removal by Liliana, but this will not help you. Your behavior in past months has already made up people's minds; those who did not know you yet will be deterred by your current drama posts to Beer parlour. The best thing you can do is immediately stop posting to Beer parlour, and keep it so for 3 to 7 days. If admins who already know your amount of mainspace contribution and the amount of drama you produce have made their minds, you cannot do anything about it; more posting by you is likely to make things worse for you. I am by no means on your side. I think you show a lot of behavior that is better avoided; I just do not think a block is warranted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
That's not who I am though. I find the fact that a ONE MONTH block was put on the table unconscionable and I'm not afraid to say so. Why should I be? The problem now is that a lot of people don't like me and are using any excuse to pillory me. That is completely unfair and I should be entitled to say so with no penalty whatsoever. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 19:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Haven’t you ever done dramatic things, too, Dan? I’m not saying that someone’s misbehaviour excuses another, but sometimes I get the feeling that you think that you are perfect. --Æ&Œ (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I took that three-day break. The new signature is here. Purplebackpack89 19:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    The signature is actually better now, thanks. The yellowish or gold is nearly illegible, but at least it is only two characters wide. Signatures tell about users: are they here to build a dictionary or are they here merely to express what they think is their unique personality? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

pedopsychologie and pedopsychology[edit]

Hello, Dan Polansky. Per your invitation, could you explain the relationship of pedopsychology to pedopsychologie, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Since you added "pedopsychology" as a Czech alternative form of cs:"pedopsychologie", and since you presumably know no Czech and have no idea of Czech inflection, can you explain on what basis have you added "pedopsychology" as a Czech lemma? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
As for you question: google books:"pedopsychology" shows e.g. "byl dávno oceněn všemi pedopsychology", in which "pedopsychology" is a plural of "pedopsycholog", which would be en:"pedopsychologist", or, in less obscurantist terms, child psychologist. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Google Translate gives the English output "psychology" for both of the Czech inputs psychologie and psychology. From the little bit of reading I've done, I'm guessing that pedopsychology is the accusative plural form and the instrumental plural form of pedopsycholog; is this correct? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Google Translate goofed; "psychology" is not a Czech lemma, not even a rare one. The form pedopsychology is indeed the accusative plural and the instrumental plural of pedopsycholog. You can see the inflection of "psycholog" (the pedo- form is directly analogous) e.g. at --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction, confirmation, and link. I've applied that information, according to the best of my understanding, to make these changes; do they look OK to you? (Re the declension table, I tried using {{cs-decl-noun-auto|ma|pedopsychol|o|g}} instead, but for some reason that didn't generate anything visible; hence the rather verbose code.) — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Your two edits look good. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Great. Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary (OED)[edit]

An old edition of the OED aka the Oxford English Dictionary is available at, linked from Wiktionary:Public_domain_sources#Oxford_English_Dictionary. Multiple volumes are found using the search for works by James A. H. Murray, but not all of them.

A list of volumes yielding a complete collection of the old edition of the OED, all browsable online page by page: also has a collection of all ten volumes.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Company names[edit]

The only vote about company names that I know of is Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names.

A poll: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2011/April#Poll: Including company names

WT:COMPANY entered into WT:CFI in multiple steps:

  • diff - 22 May 2005
  • diff - 21 November 2007 - Here, the current wording arrived, without a preceding discussion AFAICS: "Being a company name does not guarantee inclusion. To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested."

Company names currently included in the mainspace, with month of creation:

Company names that were included in the mainspace before the edit to CFI that introduced the first mention of company names, that is, before 22 May 2005:

Company names deleted (probably quite incomplete):

  • Atari - the definition line for the company was deleted in September 2013
  • Exxon - deleted in June 2007
  • Microsoft - the definition line for the company was deleted via RFD: Talk:Microsoft
  • Verizon - April 2009 - no process aparent; looks like an out-of-process deletion

--Dan Polansky (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Čechy (Bohemia), Česko (Czechia)[edit]

However simetimes used in wider meaning in Czech, it is simply incorrect usage. Čechy = Bohemia, Česko = Czechia. At the same time, it does not mean this usage in Czech is automatically transported into English. Česko = Čechy + Morava + Slezsko, thus Czechia = Bohemia + Moravia + Silesia. Ignorants can mixed up astronomy and agronomy, but the meaning remains the same and has not been changed by incorrect usage. Wiktionary documents nothing, they are a lot of mistakes, errors and bad explantions in Wikipedia, because it is created and administrated by amateurs.Blanicky (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose you refer to your diff, which was reverted by Mglovesfun. The diff should have been reverted, since it was erroneous on multiple counts: it replaced the language heading "Czech" with "Bohemia", and it broke interwiki.
From what I understood, you seem to want to remove the definition line "Czechia" as incorrect. Since English Wiktionary is a descriptivist dictionary rather than a prescriptivist one, it documents this "Czechia" usage as actually existing and fairly widespread. Furthermore, whether it is incorrect is disputable; it is true that "Čechy" originally referred to Bohemia only, but terms can have their scope extended as time passes. Someone might even argue that "Česko" is incorrect, and that it should be *"Českomoravsko" or even *"Českomoravskoslezko". As a descriptivist dictionary maker, I do not plan to remove the "Czechia" sense, nor would such a removal be supported by the English Wiktionary at large. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Let me be explicit: the part of the entry reading "==Czech==" is not the translation; it is the language of the entry. Similarly, Czechia has "==English==" as the language of the entry, and Tschechien has "==German==". --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

television show[edit]

Pursuant to the RfD discussion, I have restored television show. As you supported this restoration, please improve this entry through the addition of citations supporting the definitions provided and any other materials that would demonstrate its value to the corpus. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Czech infinitives in -ti[edit]

I came across this and I am confused why the infinitives end in -ti rather than -t. Is this dialectal? historical? --WikiTiki89 21:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

-ti is historical, no longer used, but having been used fairly recently. For instance, one has to use a -ti form to search in voněti in Příruční slovník jazyka českého, 1935–1957 and voněti in Slovník spisovného jazyka českého, 1960–1971, 1989; search for "-t" (vonět) finds no results. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you think it might be worth including in Czech conjugation tables as an archaic/dated infinitive? --WikiTiki89 22:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Probably. I am not going to do it myself, though. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Czech rhymes and -li and -ly duplicates[edit]

In Czech rhyme pages, I have decided to keep only one item from each -li and -ly pair of verb inflected forms. Thus, instead of listing both "dělali" and "dělaly", I only list "dělali". The main advantage of this is that it more quickly gives an idea of the content of the rhyme page, and speeds up visual skimming. A disadvantage is that searching for "dělaly" in the rhymes namespace does not find anything. This a tentative decision. A page that was really large without this measure was Rhymes:Czech:-alɪ; it had more than 10,000 items before the measure. Other pages in which I took this measure are Rhymes:Czech:-ɛlɪ, Rhymes:Czech:-ɪklɪ, Rhymes:Czech:-ɛːklɪ, Rhymes:Czech:-ɛklɪ, Rhymes:Czech:-ɛːtlɪ Rhymes:Czech:-ɛtlɪ, Rhymes:Czech:-ɛːdlɪ, Rhymes:Czech:-ɛdlɪ, and Rhymes:Czech:-adlɪ. I did not take the measure in Rhymes:Czech:-ɪlɪ, and Rhymes:Czech:-ulɪ, but I no longer know why. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment[edit]

Perhaps things are different in the culture you grew up in, but for me and probably for most of us here it is highly inappropriate to ask people questions about their toilet habits, especially when that issue has no relevance for the topic at hand. The more general questions and innuendos about CodeCat's gender are also inappropriate, because she has already set her gender to female in her preferences (as can be verified by typing {{gender:CodeCat|male|female|unspecified}} and seeing that it returns "female", and anything above and beyond that fact is none of your business (or mine, or anyone else's here). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Asking people about their toilet habits is completely normal in our Warsaw Pact countries. Please do not impose your imperialist-bourgeois values upon our culture. --Vahag (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you agree that the allegged offense I made many months ago was brought to the discussion by CodeCat rather than by me, althought that was entirely unnecessary?
Do you agree that they referred to "personal attacks" that I made in plural without clarifying what they are?
Do you agree that any reference in a discussion "what is consensus" to personal attacks I made in the past, if any, is the logical fallacy of irrelevance known as "ad hominem"?
Finally, do you agree with the following: When I meet someone for the first time, I have no way of knowing whether to refer to them as "he" or "she" until they kindly disclose to me what they really are? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it was unnecessary of her to bring up your previous remark, but you escalated it by repeating it today so that everyone reading today's thread would be reminded of it. You escalated it even further by asking directly, "Do you visit male toilets?" When you meet someone in person, there is no piece of software telling you what their preferred pronoun is, so either you have to guess based on outward appearances (and of course 99% of the time you guess correctly), or you have to ask. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.
Do you agree that CodeCat created an impression that I repeatedly made personal attacks of unspecified kind which allegedly prevented them from a civil discussion of the subject at hand?
Do you further agree that CodeCat claimed in Beer parlour that these allegged past personal attacks alone presented a sufficient reason for their ignoring the substantive arguments that I made, as if I did not make any arguments at all?
Do you agree what whether someone is a "he" or "she" is not a matter of fact, but a matter of arbitrary choice, just like dress to wear on a particular day?
Finally, do you agree that the community of the users of language has no say whatsoever whom they want to refer to as "she" or "he"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
"Repeatedly"? No. CodeCat created the impression that you participated in unspecified "abuse" at some point in the past, but nothing in what she said implied it happened more than once. She didn't allege that it prevented her from a civil discussion of the subject at hand, but she did imply that your accusation of abuse on her part is hypocritical because of it. Whether someone prefers to be referred to as "he" or "she" is not an arbitrary choice, it's a personal choice based on a person's gender identity, and it's not too much to ask for other people to respect that. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
It's kind of hard to respect someone who is single-handedly destroying the core principles of Wiktionary. And that's coming from someone who's one of the most open-minded people out there. (I have to be, for certain... reasons.) -- Liliana 16:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't really care whether you respect her personally or not, but I do care when people engage in cyberbullying of another editor simply because they disagree with her approach. I don't always agree with her methods either, but nothing excuses the kind of comments Dan made in the Beer Parlour today. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Let us temporarily accept your hypothesis that CodeCat intended to refer to a single personal attack. In diff, they say the following: "I've mostly learned to disregard your opinions and prefer to listen to more civil and trustworthy editors." Am I wrong to read the statement as follows: the allegged single past personal attack (singular) alone presents a sufficient reason for CodeCat's ignoring the substantive arguments that I made, as if I did not make any arguments at all? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. She could have reached that conclusion on the basis of any number of things, not just a single personal attack. But absolutely nothing she said warranted the "male toilet" comment. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
They insinuate that I am somehow not trustworthy. But I do not even need to be. I present an argument, not a witness. They ought to judge the quality of the argument regardless of who is speaking. But they have discovered a neat strategy, already used before by them: instead of answering the argument I am making, they claim that I made personal attacks, am untrustworthy, and, in the past, they even cited a previously unpublished email by another editor suggesting the editor hates me. In a proper consensus-building exercise and civil discussion, none of that should happen. They should not recall some incidents from months ago, and then conveniently ignore the substance of arguments. But why should they bother? It would only undermine the unjust power that they currently enjoy, power that, as far as I know, you did nothing to undermine or limit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Couple things[edit]

  1. Kephir didn't collapse the thread against himself. I collapsed it.
  2. I see you've requested the end of MewBot, but I'm not sure why. Purplebackpack89 13:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    See Wiktionary talk:Votes/2014-08/Debotting MewBot for a rationale. If the rationale is not clear, let me know. I think I'll try to collect a list of incidents in the coming days. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    In the coming days, will the yellow box be gone? Purplebackpack89 19:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    The orange box saying "This vote has not yet started ..." will be gone when the vote starts. The vote is scheduled to start in a week. Have you understood the rationale? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    Yeah, I think I see what you're doing here. Purplebackpack89 19:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


When we use dated in the context or label templates, how do we go about dated from when? Purplebackpack89 02:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"dated" is defined at WT:Glossary#D as "still in use, but generally only by older people, and considered unfashionable or superseded, particularly by younger people." If you want to indicate the time at which the term was not yet dated, I don't think you can. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I was afraid of that Purplebackpack89 14:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I think we should add a way to specify this, such as "(dated since 1960s)". --WikiTiki89 23:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


Dear Dan,

  • Česko-Slovensko (Czecho-Slovakia) was official name in Czech language in 1918-1920 and in 1938-1939.
  • Česko-Slovensko (Czecho-Slovakia) was official name in Slovak language in 1918-1920, 1938-1939 and in 1990-1992.
  • From 1990 use the new Slovak orthography the term Česko-Slovensko (Czecho-Slovakia) for all 1918-1992 period.

As for my diff, I made Czecho-Slovakia into a mere alternative form entry, since "Czechoslovakia" is much more common in the actual English corpus per Czechoslovakia, Czecho-Slovakia at Google Ngram Viewer. If you have any other concern, let me know. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)