User talk:EncycloPetey/Archive 3

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


Au contraire! I'm very inexperienced at Wiktionary, but am very familiar with Wikipedia! I've read the how-to guide, and it is far simpler to create a "complete" page in Wiktionary than in Wikipedia. I'll try to put these settings on. --Merope 23:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a clue how to set my edits as patrolled though, it isn't in any of the tabs in my Special:Preferences;(. Maybe it is only admins who can do that. Are you admin? --Merope 23:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your welcome, EncycloPetey. Just like Merope I don't have a clue how to set my edits as patrolled. :S Curious 00:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for bothering you, but shouldn't it be mummifying instead of mummifiing at mummify? --Merope 00:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for categorizing Wiktionary:Capitalization for me. I was just about to post in the Beer parlour about that. Speaking of which, don't you think the policy category hierarchy is just a bit Byzantine? Currently it seems to reflect the needs of policy makers more than policy users (i.e., editors trying to find out what the policies and guidelines are about particular aspects of entry writing) — which makes sense historically, perhaps, considering the massive effort to develop/revamp Wiktionary policies, but it makes the categories less useful to everyday users. - dcljr 18:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I expect the problem has been that bits of policy were created independently as the need arose, and the categorization was added by policy makers trying to keep track of it all. --EncycloPetey 21:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


your message:

No, it's not a fart. RTFA on Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey 02:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


I re-read the WP article. WP:Flatus redirects to WP:Flatulence. According to the article Flatulence is gas under pressure and used (inaccurately) as a euphemism for a fart. Flatus is a release of pressure. So a fart would be flatus but so would a belch. has a sentence "Gas is eliminated by belching, diffusion from the lumen into the blood with ultimate excretion by the lungs, bacterial catabolism, and passage through the anus (flatus, farting)." (Their bold). This could be read as saying flatus is a fart and belching is soemthing else. (Note: that is, publishers of The Merck Manuals, which I respect though I'm not quite willing to call their web site authoritative, the printed book might be).
Would it be accurate to label the current definition as being (medical) ?
Would a second sense, possibly labelled (euphemism) or (slang), saying a fart be warranted? Should it include belch in that definition? RJFJR 13:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Word of the day/Archive/2006/November

Thank you for adding these. However, please note (if you do it for December) that you should click the redlink of each day separately. If they are included only on the archive page, they are not linked, nor valid, for the actual WOTD part that appears on the Main Page.

--Connel MacKenzie 18:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It's just easier for me to create the entire Archive page for a month off-line and upload it all at once, then copy-and-paste each separate day into the Recycled pages afterwards. --EncycloPetey 19:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC) (Sorry to reply here rather than on your talk page, but I can't upload your talk page from the connection I'm using right now.)
I'm actually quite surprised to hear this. Currently, your talk page is about 42KB, while mine is ~59KB. That doesn't seem like a huge difference. But if it is more conveneient here, no harm. --Connel MacKenzie 20:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Length isn't the issue. Rather, I'm accessing from work and the local filters screen out certain pages for unforseeable reasons. For instance, I had to request the filters be adjusted in order to access Shakespeare's works on WikiSource. --EncycloPetey 22:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Also Please note that the protection for each page should block unregistered users from editing, and allow only sysops to move the page. Otherwise we run higher risk of WOTD vandalism. --EncycloPetey 19:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense. I couldn't remember if they were supposed to be semi-protected for moves or not. I don't think we've passed the one-year boundary yet, so I'm still a little unclear on how it will all work out. It would be awful to have to unprotect all 365, so that a bot could move them to the "right" place when the time comes. --Connel MacKenzie 20:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Why would a bot have to move anything? In any case, we only have to deal with a month or two at a time, and all the material gets archived at the same time the entries go up. --EncycloPetey 20:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Good points. I wonder though, if the page is moved, the Main Page will still be able to reach it, right? Multiple moves are a risk, but I guess I underestimated that risk. Good catch. And thanks for doing November! --Connel MacKenzie 20:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I've done most months since March (though Vildricianus did August, IIRC). I try to pull first from the nominations to be fair to the community, then flesh out the rest of the month with variety in POS, initial letter, and subject area. --EncycloPetey 20:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. :) I see I've got my work cut out for me in the next few days with two more months' worth. They're now on my list. Dvortygirl 00:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well then, thank you. And since I haven't said it before, Thank You. And thank you for entering December from the 31st, backwards (CORRECTLY! HORRAY!) Um, and thank you. Any ideas on how to proceed with January/February 2007? --Connel MacKenzie 21:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. For timing, I usually wait until the middle of the previous month to finalize the new month of WOTD (since this is mid-Oct I set up Nov). That way, I have an opportunity to use more recent nominations. A quicker turn-around on WOTD nominations looks better and generates a more positive response from people who went to the trouble to make good nominations. For technical issues, I'm less certain what might be involved. But the way I've been editing shouldn't change as far as I can see. I create the month archive page first because it can be done is one fell swoop. Then I can edit the recycled pages individually copying from the archive list. Do you forsee something I don't? --EncycloPetey 21:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. As far as I knew, we were going to retain the 2006 archives of WOTDs intact somewhere, and allow them to be "recycled" entries (in the event you fall a couple months behind again, and/or someone else takes over again and misses a few.) In short, I'm unclear on how we want the 2006 entries to be recycled. I'm also unclear on what the desired method for inserting the 2007 WOTDs is. --Connel MacKenzie 19:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you notice how I reverted the November 2006 Archive page (and understand why)? I'm still having unpredictable filter problmes with the current locatiopn from which I edit, but that should be fixed within the next couple of weeks. As I understood it from Vildricianus, the Recycled Pages would be cleared periodically (or edited for new words). The Archive would retain its own copies of the WOTD entries. I don't forsee falling behind again -- the one time last summer was close, but Vildricanianus stepped in to fill in for a month, and as it happens had done so 24 hours before I had returned with a prepared month of new entries! We just need a person or two on standby to watch, and if we get to the middle of a month without having the following month ready, they should step in. There are certainly plenty of decent possible choices piling up in the nominations page to make selection easier, and I'll see soon about uploading my own file of WOTD candidates. --EncycloPetey 20:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I do not follow why you did that. Which page is supposed to be which? If that isn't it, how is it supposed to work? (No, I haven't rolled back your change yet.) Why, if you were going to do that, didn't you just subst: them? --Connel MacKenzie 23:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I really wish Vildricianus were here to weigh in on this. I think it would help cut through the crossed-communication we seem to be having. As I understood from Vildricianus when he sent this up, the Recycled pages should display the daily WOTD pages. As you know, each Date of the year (e.g. 3 Nov) has a Recycled Page that will display wherever the appropriate linking text appears, as in each of the 12 Recycled Master pages for each month (e.g. Wiktionary:Word_of_the_day/Recycled_pages/November). In addition to these recycled page collections is the static Archive of previous WOTD entries, collected by month (e.g. Wiktionary:Word_of_the_day/Archive/2006/November), with one page for each month that WOTD has been running. These accumulate, of course, as WOTD runs for longer. Now, I don't mean for all this to sound pedantic (pedant is my occupation, so sounding like this is an occupational hazard), but just want to make sure we both understand all of this the same way to this point. Was there anything I said that wasn't already clearly obvious to you?
My understanding is that the Recycled Page for each Date gets replaced a year later with new content for the new WOTD. When that happens, the monthly Recycled Master page will show the new content. By contrast, the static Archive pages should preserve the WOTD entries for the specific month (e.g. June 2006) for the date of the Archive page. If the Archive page uses links to the Recycled Pages, then that won't happen; the change to the Recycled pages will alter the Archive as well. So, the content of each WOTD selection should be entered as static content on the appropriate Archive Page itself.
As for your question about subst:, I can't say that I understand it at all. I really don't know how subst: works or what it's supposed to do. I do know that there are about four templates that require subst: to work, and that knowledgable users have warned against using subst: for any other template, and to not use it when in doubt. Is there someplace that explains the use of subst:, and lays out which items on Wiktionary should use it, when to use it, and how? --EncycloPetey 00:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I think I follow the layout now. The timing of when things happen still has me a little confused, BUT you seem to be doing it quite correctly. Let me back up a second.
The "subst:" magic keyword takes whatever would be replaced when the page is displayed, and inserts it in-line, directly into the article. So, if the template has tricky conditional stuff, the conditions will be satisfied and only the corresponding stuff will be "subst:"ed. It gets ugly and nasty when you have cascading templates (like all of our inflection templates) which is why the majority of templates must not be subst'ed.
The "Vild" trick was to use the page substitution properties outside of the Template: namespace. (I'm not sure if that is officially a bug he is exploiting, or just a throwback to the development process of MediaWiki.)
Anyway, my understanding/confusion of it all, was that I thought each month was supposed to have the "template-ish" forms until the end of that month. So if any changes were made to the individual pages during the month in question, the archive page would accurately reflect them. It seemed obvious to me, that the way to do that is using 30 or 31 "subst:" directives on that page. (I cheat by cutting and pasting to another editor and replacing all {{ with {{subst: then save it, and voila...the archive is complete. The secondary advantage of waiting to subst: it, is so that people don't edit the archive, when they intend to edit (for example) tomorrow's actual page.
Sorry to sound like a broken record, but could you please explain to me how it will look in January/February. I really don't want to step on your toes again. --Connel MacKenzie 06:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

genetive v genitive

The first thing we need to clean up is the fact that we list both...which is odd. - TheDaveRoss 23:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The next problem of course being that we aren't allowed to use bots to fix spelling...I will ask Connel to generate a list of all pages which include the word genetive and manually do it I guess. - TheDaveRoss 23:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the translation. I think I'll go with the name containing Phocoena, to distinguish between porpoises and dolphins. --Gray Porpoise 14:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Pickled onion

Has been editing for a bit over an hour in total, has 50 or 60 contributions, and knows way too much. Remind you of someone? Robert Ullmann 23:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Am I doing any vandalism? --Pickled onion 23:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And watches Recent Changes ... Robert Ullmann 23:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Format of entries

Thanks for your work in the Greek entries. We haven't had anyone working seriously on those for a while. That said, it would be a good idea to review standard entry layout. In particular, certain sections (such as etymology) are always placed before the definitions, while others are placed after the definitions. Also, we make a distinction between Derived terms (words in the same language as the entry) and Derivatives (which are in another langhuage from the entry). Take a look at the formatting I did for your edits on ἄγγελος and εὖ for examples. And thanks again for your work! --EncycloPetey 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up after me. I am afraid I tried to go from memory regarding WT:ELE. I will go through my recent contributions to see if I made the same error elsewhere. Thanks in particular for explaining the project's distinction between derivatives and derivations, as derivations don't seem to have made it into the layout guide yet. Are they the same as descendants? --Hroðulf 09:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Depends on what you mean by derivations. As far as my own practice, all same language relations go under Related terms, unless there's compelling reason to have a separate section for Derived terms. When the words are offshoots in another language, use Descendants. --EncycloPetey 01:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Miss Piggy

Miss Piggy isn't used attributively? --Connel MacKenzie 20:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of "Kermit's lover" as an attributive use. Did you look at the deleted entry? Can you find a citation that isn't the Muppet? --EncycloPetey 20:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
"Fat Broad" is more like to metaphoric usage. And yes, the first page of hits I see have indirect and metaphoric uses all over the place. [1] [2] But then, I'm sure I could find a lot more, if I tried. Like, went on to the second page. Or checked any of the 904,000 hits. Honestly, I can't imagine more than a hundred of those hits being "muppets" fan sites. All the rest are probably really good metaphoric comparisons or insults. Are you suggesting that that isn't linguistically relevant? --Connel MacKenzie 20:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly relevant to Western culture. I was merely raising a question of whether the term was in general use. If you can find citations to support attributive use, go right ahead and re-create an article with a suitable definition or two. --EncycloPetey 01:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
"not more than a hundred being Muppets fan sites"? Really? I'm surprised that there aren't more than 904,000. "Kermit the Frog" gets 694,000 for the exact phrase, "Muppet +fan +site" gets 1.26 million, and "Muppet" 5.86 million pages .... Robert Ullmann 01:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi, thank you for correcting the pronunciation of number. In my previous edit, I just tried to get the SAMPA consistent to the IPA. Then, mapping the SAMPA back to the IPA, does it need to be altered to /ˈnʌmbɝ/? TIA. --Tohru 23:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Being nosey...

I would like to apologize in advance for a question undoubtedly nosey and perhaps a little too personal in nature. If you have any inclination towards not answering it, I am truly sorry for overstepping! I noticed on your Wikipedia profile that you live in Berkeley; are you connected to the university in some way? Medellia 22:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thrilled to see someone connected to Cal; I've suggested Wiktionary to many of my linguist friends, and they all seem to scoff at it. Classicists by and large fear or think poorly of technology. Thank you for indulging me. Medellia 23:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


Please do not revert my reversion of pink[3]. The Spanish word that you re-added, rosa, was already there, but properly linked and alphabetized, unlike your addition. —Stephen 23:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. I had confused your edit in the noun section with what was happening in the adjective section. I had intended to restore rosa to the Adjective translations, on the mistaken impression that you had removed it. --EncycloPetey 23:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


Regarding "side", it's in the acoustics category from an earlier edit that seems to have been removed, why I don't know. Page back through the history far enough and you'll find this:

#The thin circle of material attatched to the underside of a drum shell, 
affecting acoustics and allowing control thereof with tuning.

Thanks for the heads up on the category. I'll add stuff as I find it. --Dvortygirl 05:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


On the listen entry, you modified the etymology to say:

{{AS.}} [[hlysnan]] through {{OE.}}

which produces:

{{AS.}} hlysnan through {{OE.}}

Because "Anglo-Saxon" is a synonym of "Old English". This is why the ISO code for Old English is ang. --EncycloPetey 22:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh! I guess I have been wrong all my life. I always thought Anglo-Saxon was Anglish and Saxon and Old English was Anglish, Saxon, Jutish and Norman. Change it back if you like. I have no objections. Andrew massyn 20:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Thanks! I'd be happy to do that. Basawala 03:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary Policy &c.

I thought I'd ask your opinion of this in light of all the work you've done with Latin before opening it up to the community (I'm a little wary of originating this discussion in the Beer Parlour due mostly to the fact that there are various subjects addressed there that are pressing to the community as a whole, and it thus seems that minor language issues have a tendency to be somewhat disregarded.): because of its polytonic accentuation, Ancient Greek requires more different templates than Latin. For nouns, it's a fairly simple process (given that each noun basically has a maximum of ten forms); with verbs, conversely, this is extremely problematic. I had constructed off site a verb conjugation template similar to that of Latin. The result, however, was that for a semi-complete synopsis, the template required an upwards of 12 different forms for verbs with all six principal parts. This is not only tedious, but very user-unfriendly for those who are not as versed in polytonic Greek.

What I'm trying to get to is this: do you think it would be preferable to have say a different template for each principal part that produced the morphology stemming from that part alone, which would all for easier template creation, or rather to continue onwards with one large morphology template? Is it bad etiquette to start a policy page without bringing the issue up in some sort of discussion room first? Would it be unreasonable to start establishing Ancient Greek policy, given that there are so few users with knowledge of it? (My apologies for the vagueness of the questions and bothering you with it in the first place. I would really appreciate any insight or guidance.) Medellia 07:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Greek Template

Greek template

Nice job starting the Greek adjective template. Three questions (since I don't know much about modern Greek). (1) Is there no dative case in modern Greek? (2) Why the non-standard order of cases? (3) ave you considered combining the top two rows like this:

M. F. N. MM. FF. NN.
Nominative {{{1}}}ός {{{1}}}ή {{{1}}}ό {{{1}}}οί {{{1}}}ές {{{1}}}ά
Accusative {{{1}}}ό {{{1}}}ή {{{1}}}ό {{{1}}}ούς {{{1}}}ές {{{1}}}ά
Genitive {{{1}}}ού {{{1}}}ής {{{1}}}ού {{{1}}}ών {{{1}}}ών {{{1}}}ών
Vocative {{{1}}}έ {{{1}}}ή {{{1}}}ό {{{1}}}οί {{{1}}}ές {{{1}}}ά

--EncycloPetey 15:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  1. There is no Dative in modern Greek (except a few cases of archaic expression - I think)
  2. The case order comes from the definitive Greek Grammar (Holton et al pub 1997) but even the Greek govt text on New Greek puts Vocative last - perhaps because some declined parts of speech have no Vocative.
  3. I didn't consider the column heads your suggest - although I think the casual user may not interpret them immediately.
I thought of consulting wider before revamping these templates - the layouts seem many & various! Guidelines would help? Saltmarsh 15:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

xocolatl vs chocolatl

1) An I correct to assume that the chocolate etymology section should identify the origin of the word as Classic Nahuatl?

You could, but it's not strictly necessary. Dictionaries often write "from Greek" when they mean "from Ancient Greek".

(2) Is the etymology from xocolatl correct, or should it be chocolatl?

There's some debate as to its etymology.
The word as actually attested in Nahuatl is chocolatl. Xocolatl is not actually attested, but is theorized based on the assumption that chocolatl is related to xococ "bitter", which it may not be (x > ch is a somewhat irregular development, but not unheard of). However, there's a problem in that chocolatl isn't attested (AFAIK) in Nahuatl until the mid 18th century -- over a century after it's attested in English! This may indicate that the Nahuatl word is a loan, and the Spaniards got the word from a different Mexican language.

(3) Does chocolatl have a different meaning (such as processed chocolate) that isn't apparent in my little dictionary?

My dictionary just glosses it as "chocolate".

(4) What is the plural of chocolatl or xocolatl? My little dictionary has a grammar section showing how to form the plurals, but it only tells how to form the plural of words ending in -tl if the noun refers to a masculine or animate thing.

Inanimate nouns don't have plurals in Nahuatl. They're all like our "sheep" and "fish". --Ptcamn 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Er, like our mass nouns, rather. "Sheep" and "fish" get plural agreement in English ("The sheep are.."), but Nahuatl inanimate nouns get singular agreement. --Ptcamn 01:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary templates

Ok, thank you for having told it to me. 16@r 23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Written down :-). 16@r 19:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Interlingua WT

Thanks for letting me know. You're right, the larger dictionaries are on index pages. It looks like they'll be transferred to the Interlingua Wiktionary when they're finished. – Matt 00:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Interlingua assistance

Hi, I added the Interlingua to Units of Time. It was a snap, as the Italian was right below it, and in theory, Italian is a dialect of Interlingua. Just let me know if I can be of further help to you. I'm a little swamped at the moment, but something like this only takes a minute and I don't mind at all. – Matt 03:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that link. It looks like it's been protected, though. I see this message when I click edit: "Note: This page has been locked so that only registered users can edit it. See the protection log." In the log, Connel writes something about massively linked pages. – Matt 00:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, I'll do it that way. I'm new and still unfamiliar with many of the procedures. – Matt 00:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. – Matt 01:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


Yeah, I started to make changes and then realized that maybe I should build a consensus first. Sorry about that. Is there a manual of style talk page or somewhere in which I can bring the discussion about? I believe that most browsers will display IPA unicode if the {{IPA}} template is used. This way, visiters to the page won't have to learn another pronunciation guide. Ƶ§œš¹ IPA: [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 03:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion log

Please be more careful about removing (any!) personal information from the deletion comment, when deleting obvious garbage entries. --Connel MacKenzie 04:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I am glad to get feedback like this because it lets me know that other people are keeping an eye on things too. --EncycloPetey 18:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Afrikaans help

Hello, I keep forgetting that you know Afrikaans or I would have asked for this help a long time ago. Would you please add the Afrikaans translations to Appendix:Units of time? Thanks, --EncycloPetey 02:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Andrew massyn 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Bosnian and Serbian for listen

Hello! No problem, I've just added the translations for listen for Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian. --Dijan 06:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Done.  :) --Dijan 22:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
When I have some time (probably next week or so), I'll create verb conjugation templates for Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian. Then I can fix those pages up a little more. --Dijan 22:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Special characters

Hi there,

Connel and I have added the special characters you were asking for a few days ago.

The characters with ogoneks are under the Latin/Roman menu option, and there is a new menu option for Latvian/Lithuanian that appears between "Italian" and "Maltese".

Have fun :) — Paul G 17:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew for listen.

Yeah, I noticed. [hik'ʃiv] and [ʔi'zɛn] are almost completely synonymous; the second is a bit more formal, and has a slight connotation of listening to speech specifically rather than to sound generally, but the two are fairly interchangeable. Ruakh 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirects on Wiktionary

Hello. on my talk page I believe you referred to -busch, which you've deleted. You noted that redirects are not encouraged on Wiktionary owing to the possibility that the originating term might be available in another language. Does that really hold for suffixes such as '-busch'? Also, rather than deleting the item, I would have thought that the best course would be to create an entry for it and split out the information I'd added to Busch, providing 'see also' or 'related term' x-references between the two entries. --Ceyockey 04:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd expect the suffix "-busch" to show up in most Germanic languages. Anyhow, yes, deletion of the redirects is preferred to dropping everything and immediately creating the entry that someone mistakenly entered as a redirect. Letting them know (via talk page) is instead, something that may prevent the "bad" redirects from being re-entered as redirects. Deletion in general is preferred, so that the preload templates can be used when creating the "real" entry. --Connel MacKenzie 06:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Hello, Could you please let me know why you deleted my entry for "mandrolic" ? -- Delmatto

Probably because it is not a word in the English language. Although maybe he deleted it because he was faster than I was. For made-up terms, sometimes they are moved to the list of made up terms here. You certainly can add it there. --Connel MacKenzie 17:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


According to this there are zero links apart from what you have added. Please note the top of Special:Wantedpages: The following data is cached, and was last updated 01:18, 1 December 2006. Cynewulf 03:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi! Done.  :) --Dijan 17:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Bunyip. Cryptozoology.

My reason for removing the cryptozoology tag was that unlike some of the others, there is no serious attempt to go looking for a bunyip. I'm not an Aborigine so I can't speak on their behalf, but my understanding is that they themselves consider it only as a mythical creature. --Dmol 23:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are needed

here: WT:BP#non-English word of the day. --Connel MacKenzie 05:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Are you sure? I would say it is an adverb, and this link here seems to bear me out : zigzig20s 05:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


This is from "Grove Art Online" article on relief.

Alto rilievo, or high relief, is used when the scale of projection (the dimension of depth) is half or more than half the other dimensions, and there may be substantial undercutting.

Basso relievo, low relief or bas-relief, is used when the scale of projection is very much less than that of the other dimensions and there is no undercutting at all.

They are not synonyms. SemperBlotto 08:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, the main problem is that there is a gradual transition from low relief to high relief. In the simple geometric case of a sphere gradually protruding from a plane, it would be low relief until exactly half of the sphere was outside the plane - as it comes further out there must be undercutting so it is high relief. But with real sculptures of humans it is more complicated - in even a low relief there would be undercutting of fingers for instance. So I would just use "see also" to link them rather thatn either synonym or antonym. The second problem is that in natural English, people tend to use "bas relief" to mean any relief. Whatever we do, someone will criticise! SemperBlotto 11:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC) (ps I have added the Italian terms altorilievo and bassorilievo in case anyone wants to add an Etymology and get the spelling right (I have seem "relievo" even in Grove).

A (another?) question about WOTD

Looking at synecdoche, I can't tell when it was WOTD. It already was, right?

Did we ever get a thingamajig to put on entries (or their talk pages) to say "This was Wiktionary's WOTD on such-and-such date."? Is it in use? Should I ask this on WT:GP or WT:BP? --Connel MacKenzie 00:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

'abalone' not an Americanism?

Hello EncycloPetey. Your recent edit to abalone noted that it's not an Americanism. The Unabridged states otherwise in its etymology: "[Origin: 1840–50, Americanism; taken as sing. of California Sp abulones, pl. of abulón, aulón < a word in Rumsen, a Costanoan language formerly spoken at Monterey, California]". What makes you think it's not? —{admin} Pathoschild 03:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh. A look around shows that this animal has a very different name in each English-speaking region where it is found. I didn't realize that. However, I will maintain that calling the term an Americanism in the etymology section is not in line with current practice. I will re-mark the word as an Americanism, but in-line at the start of the definition. The Wikipedia article implies that the term is also used in Australia. --EncycloPetey 05:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)