User talk:Embryomystic

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

Template:gv-noun[edit]

I've removed a number of parameter names that were just alternative names for other parameters. They weren't used on any entries anyway so nothing really changed. I added the first parameter as an alternative for g=, and the plural can now alternatively be given with the second parameter, and the genitive with the third. Nothing else has changed yet, until the "old" parameters have been converted to the new ones, which will take a few days most likely. —CodeCat 20:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of the entries have been converted now. What do you think should be done regarding default values? The genitive should default to the page name when it's missing, but what about the plural? —CodeCat 21:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
If the plural is missing, it's best if it shows nothing. In most cases, if the plural isn't present, it's because the noun in question is uncountable. I don't think we need to explicitly indicate that, though.
On a sidenote, would you be willing to have a look at gv-verb as well? It's a simpler job, just needs the first parameter to be the verbal noun, if nothing's there, then it's the same as the citation form, and an optional second parameter for the past participle (optional only because I don't have a comprehensive list, and it's still worthwhile using the template). embryomystic (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Er, on reflection, gv-verb may want something a bit more fleshed out, with the option for a present participle (distinct from the verbal noun) as well. embryomystic (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Welsh "bron"[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to thank you for your excellent example sentence on bron#Welsh. It is a moving sentence, and indeed - she does have an incredible pair.

Timeroot (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I had honestly forgotten about doing that, and laughed and laughed and laughed when I got your message. You're very welcome. I think the entry needed it. embryomystic (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sense definitions[edit]

I notice that, among your changes of the 15th of May to the word finish, were several switches of the initial letter of a sense definition from upper to lower case, accompanied by the removal of the terminating full stop. Though a peripheral Wiktionary contributor, I had noticed some time ago that the vast majority of sense definitions, even (perhaps particularly) phrasal ones did in fact start with a capital letter and end with a full stop (period). Therefore I have been "tidying" sense definitions in that direction while I was making contributions. Have I been mistaken in this ? Is there somewhere in wiktionary.org where standards in such matters are stored ? ReidAA (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

That's an excellent question. I had been doing it out of my own preferences for rendering a sentence fragment, and even then, not for its own sake, but only while I was adding something else. If you can find support for your own inclination, I'll happily conform to the current consensus. embryomystic (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, my involvement with Wikipedia is peripheral, being focussed on adding quotes. Thus I don't know how to go about finding out what the current consensus is and don't have much inclination to find out how. ReidAA (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
That's somewhat unfortunate, if only because that's kind of how this whole venture works. embryomystic (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

aboyez[edit]

Is there a particular reason why imperatives have their own category? They're just verb forms aren't they? —CodeCat 22:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm the right person to ask a philosophical question like that. I'm just putting entries in the categories where they belong (admittedly, I'm trying to make it so all forms of Ido verbs use io-form of, in order that both kinds of Ido imperatives end up looking essentially the same as entries, but). imperative of puts imperatives in their own category (formerly Category:Ido imperative forms in this case, now Category:Ido verb imperative forms), so I make sure that's where they go even as I bring the basic imperative forms in line with the past imperatives. embryomystic (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I had a discussion with Donnanz about this just yesterday. My argument is that there is nothing inheritently special about imperative forms in most languages to warrant giving them their own category, especially not if there are not also categories for all other forms. But of course creating a category for every possible form would become unmanageable when a single lemma may have dozens of forms, especially verbs. So I am kind of against creating a category for every form. Do you think this needs BP discussion? —CodeCat 22:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I can certainly see the logic there, and I would be interested to see the results of a discussion on the subject, though I decline to take a position myself. embryomystic (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Caps.[edit]

Are we not starting definition sentences with capital letters? I thought that was the norm. bd2412 T 19:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I may be overstepping, but it's how I'm inclined to write sentence fragments (which most definitions are). Can you point to a written rule regarding this? I'd be happy to follow it, if there's something official. embryomystic (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I personally agree with Embryomystic, but there is a very clear, long-standing dissensus on the subject. --WikiTiki89 19:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. Somehow that doesn't surprise me. Good to know I'm not alone. embryomystic (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I'm not keen on other editors decapitalizing sentences that I have written with capital letters in the first place. Also, a grammatical fragment can still be a complete sentence. For example: "Where did you go?" "The beach." I view definition sentences as answers to the unwritten question, "what is the definition of this word". bd2412 T 20:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I take your first sentence as an answer to my speculation about overstepping, and fair enough. I will endeavour to respect your formatting in future. As for the rest, that seems like part of the discussion that WikiTiki89 says is ending in dissensus, and it's probably not worth arguing here. embryomystic (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Very well, I will take my love of argument elsewhere. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the following two edits are pretty rude: diff, diff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Rude in what sense? Obviously, the main reason I was there was to fix the context tags, which had no defined language. I replaced those with label, which serves exactly the same function. As bd2412 has said, he would prefer that capitalisation is not fiddled with, and fair enough, but I don't understand how the minor edits I made were rude. embryomystic (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
1. You would know that many editors prefer definitions to start with a capital letter, given how long you have been around here.
2. You have changed the capitalization of an entry to which you have contributed nothing of substance, shortly after it was created by a person who has contributed substance.
3. That is rude. It is rude to be meddling with entries to fit one's preferences despite lack of common practice (or even the common practice tending in the opposite direction than one's preference) while contributing nothing of substance. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
1. I know that some prefer it. I had no idea it was as big of an issue as it is, regardless of how long I've been around here.
2. I didn't look at how recently the entry was created. As I say, I was fixing context tags that had no defined language. Clearly I overstepped when I went outside that. Feedback taken. You can see it as rude if you like, but if bd2412 took it as some kind of personal criticism, I apologise.
3. You and I clearly have different definitions of rude. People 'meddle with' entries that I've created all the time, and for the most part, I don't take even the slightest offense. It's part of working on Wiktionary. embryomystic (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It is really very simple. If there are two ways of doing things, both are widespread, and you know quite positively there is no consensus for one or the other, then you should not be changing entries as for these ways. You will be switching entries to lowercase (without an edit summary) and User:-sche will be switching them to upper case (with a misleading edit summary). Both are instances of the same moronic behavior. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, now you are overstepping. Moronic? I didn't know this was a contentious issue till now. Now I do. I have no desire to get into a big argument over it. I certainly would have refrained if I had known that something like this was going to result. I have said twice now that I was not there solely (or even primarily) to change cases, and I don't edit and haven't edited entries if that's my sole reason for doing it. In future, I will refrain entirely. There's no need for you to be insulting. As I said before, we clearly have different definitions of rude, because you call what I did rude, and now here you are being, by my definition, rude yourself. Dial it back a little, sir, if you please. embryomystic (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I'm not upset about it. I was just a bit confused by the change. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate that. embryomystic (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)