User talk:GianWiki

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


Hi. About this: the Italic script for Umbrian should be entered in Unicode characters, not as images. --Vahag (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Vahagn. Yes, I probably should have used Unicode characters. I just thought rendering the stylistic variants of Old Italic script (Umbrian, in this case) could be a good thing to do. Thanks for the advice.

GianWiki (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The image can be shown in the page for 𐌖𐌄𐌓𐌚𐌀𐌋𐌄𐌌, when it is created. --Vahag (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


See my changes: 五蘊 and 五蕴. Thanks. Good job by the way. JamesjiaoTC 21:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding dashes to separate out language sections[edit]

Make sure you add four dashes ---- to separate out the language sections. See here: Added dashes JamesjiaoTC 02:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


  1. Chinese languages are tonal. These IPA-notated pronunciations are therefore basically inaccurate.
  2. 蘊 in Beijing Mandarin is /yn51/, not /jʊn51/.
  3. 春 in Guangzhou Cantonese is /tsʰɵn55/3/.

Wyang (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Avestan, Middle Persian, etc.[edit]

Hi. Thanks for adding those scripts. Do you look up the exact spellings in dictionaries or do you "detransliterate" yourself from a given romanization? --Vahag (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I "detransliterate" after looking up the script's characteristics (e.g. vowel omission) and checking if the given spelling is plausible according to the script transliteration. —This unsigned comment was added by GianWiki (talkcontribs).
Please don't do that. We need the exact spellings as attested in extant manuscripts, which are capable of passing WT:CFI, not hypothetical detransliterations. Also, I have to revert most of your recent edits to Armenian and Persian entries, because they are wrong, e.g. تنگ (tang) is not derived from Middle Persian *vitang. --Vahag (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
My apologies. Reading that تنگ (tang) is related to վտանգ (vtang), I think I inadvertently assumed the two to be cognates (a silly mistake, I have to say). With this assumption, I went further and assumed the Etymology entry for վտանգ (vtang) could be applied for تنگ (tang) as well (I mainly thought so because, sometimes, etymological information is included in an entry yet missing in a 'cognate' entry, as far as I've seen. I just thought this was one of those cases). Again, I apologize: I will try to not to rush things the next time.
GianWiki (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry, I made many similar mistakes when I started editing Wiktionary. --Vahag (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

A Welcome, and a Note[edit]


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

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

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

  • Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
  • If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome!

Please pay special attention to our Criteria For Inclusion. We go by usage, not whether it can be found in a dictionary. Some of your recent Latin entries for modern technology seem unlikely to exist in actual use, though Latin is still used by the Vatican, so I could be wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I myself do not know how widespread their usage may be, but I believe that the very existence of these terms, and to the fact that someone took the time to plan and construct them in order to somewhat revitalize the language by expanding its lexicon (see the Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis found at the Holy See website or the 2007 Auxiliary Spanish-Latin Dictionary for a Modern Usage of Latin) is reason enough for their inclusion.on Wiktionary. I might be wrong, but I believe this should be taken into consideration.

GianWiki (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that some of your entries have been challenged at WT:RFV. There's some debate as to whether modern Latin is covered by the partial exemption in the CFI for languages with little documentation. Classical Latin is, but modern usage is a separate issue. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese[edit]

The pages you created (戰國, 战国) were full of errors. Please stop adding languages you are not familiar with. Wyang (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Latin proper noun forms[edit]

Could you please add {{la-proper noun-form}} to these entries under the ===Proper noun=== header? It provides a bold headword and categorizes. Thank you. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of your 大麻 edit[edit]


Please read Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-04/Unified Chinese and related discussions, which affect the new policy for entries in Chinese topolects. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 13:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Ancient v Modern Greek[edit]

Thanks for trying to help - but the pronunciation sections which you added belong in an Ancient Greek entry. — Saltmarshαπάντηση 17:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)