User talk:Internoob

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

This page uses Liquid Threads. If you don't want to use Liquid Threads to talk to me, go here. Any posts made to this page that don't use LQT will be moved there.

Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
re: percussão105:58, 14 September 2012
Haitian Creole100:05, 2 August 2012
about about120:40, 7 July 2012
The 14th sense you added to à521:54, 5 July 2012
Thank you for setting the Words of the Days116:57, 25 March 2012
developer program503:35, 16 March 2012
hot chicken sandwich103:52, 3 March 2012
Thank you for making slash fiction the Word of the day204:30, 21 February 2012
message, vintage103:21, 12 August 2011
Request for temporary protection for Talk:loser.103:01, 7 May 2011
/ɵ/123:23, 3 May 2011
Template:rfd200:25, 14 April 2011
Deprecating less-than symbol in etymologies317:19, 20 March 2011
Ishionomy300:41, 8 March 2011
abazia100:27, 1 March 2011
sunyata (emptiness)222:30, 26 February 2011
Anatman ---------------------------> (आत्म‍|/Ātmā), * IPA: /ˈɑn ˈɑːtman/522:30, 26 February 2011
Ian, is WP:BITE specifically considered to be NOT-policy at wiktionary?322:04, 26 February 2011
Can I get rid of red letter pluralization that automatically populates new pages819:58, 26 February 2011
Bodhipathapradīpa602:38, 25 February 2011
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

re: percussão

Thank you for your remarks, I will remember them for the future. I didn't know about {{attention}}. Thanks again! Zu (talk) 05:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Zu (talk)05:54, 14 September 2012

Any time. :)

Internoob05:58, 14 September 2012

Haitian Creole

Thank you for the vote of support on Wiktionary_talk:Votes/2012-06/Well_Documented_Languages. It has passed. Do you want to propose Haitian Creole be removed from the list? Consensus in the Beer Parlour is all that's needed.

BB12 (talk)23:15, 1 August 2012

Not removed, but added. I'll look into it. Thanks for reminding me.

Internoob00:05, 2 August 2012

Judging by the talk page, people keep adding joking or simply incorrect "Canadian" pronunciations to [[about]]. If you're Canadian, could you check out the audio pronunciations which are still in the entry and the IPA transcriptions which were just removed, and help us work out which, if any, are actual Canadian pronunciations of the word?

- -sche (discuss)07:32, 7 July 2012

Both of the audios are right, although File:En-ca-about.ogg was once vandalized and then corrected. The IPA was right, AFAICT. w:Canadian raising says it's [ʌu] or [ɛʉ], but the entry had [ʌʊ] and [ɛʊ], which are probably either the same or acceptable variations.

Internoob20:40, 7 July 2012

The 14th sense you added to à

Hi Internoob. I do not agree with the sense you added to à with this edit: "(in conjuction with the definite article) Used to name the owner of a body part". The sense is much broader: here, "à" introduces a complement to "couper", not to "les oreilles", and introduces a provenance. It can be translated as "from" and usually can be equally replaced with "de". It is the same "à" as in "couper une branche à un arbre", "retrancher 10 au résultat", "prendre à Pierre pour donner à Paul". This sense should stay because it is not redundant with any other sense, but it must definitely be rephrased. — Xavier, 21:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Xavier,21:15, 2 July 2012

Yes, you're right. I made this change, which is an improvement but could use some more explanations, maybe. What do you think?

Internoob21:11, 4 July 2012

Indeed, that's better. However, in my opinion, what remains to be said is mentioned in the usage notes: "à" introduces an indirect object (envoyer qq chose à qq'un) or a second object. I am not grammatically savvy enough to tell you more but my feeling is that this sense 14 (naming the owner or the provenance) is not the same as sense 6 (belonging to). Contrary to sense 6, this "à" is intimately bound to the verb and it introduces more the origin of an action (from ...), or the indirect object of an action, than the belonging of the direct object.

In this respect, the bolded translation, albeit correct, is misleading. To make myself clear: "il a volé la voiture à son père" would translate to "he stole the car from his father" (origin). On the other hand, "he stole his father's car" (appartenance: il a volé la voiture de son père) is very close but doesn't exactly bear the same meaning.

Xavier,23:38, 4 July 2012

It's definitely different than sense 6, yes, but I'm not sure how to express the difference clearly either. I made this edit to the translation. "Cut the ears off of" sounds like more natural English IMO than "cut off the ears from".

Internoob21:17, 5 July 2012

Perfect, thank you! And you are in a better position than me to judge what sounds best in English ;-) BTW, I wonder whether the "off" shouldn't be bolded too.

Xavier,21:48, 5 July 2012

I was wondering that myself, but I don't know enough about syntax to say for sure.

Internoob21:54, 5 July 2012

Thank you for setting the Words of the Days

Thank you for setting the Words of the Days! It's a massive, daily undertaking! I remember when I took over from Widsith, and eventually got burnt out, which is when you stepped up (thank you)... if you ever feel tired of it or need a break from it yourself, you should bring it up in the BP like Widsith did so others can help out. - -sche (discuss) 05:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you don't have an objection— it is very early, but— I'm tempted to start filling December with words like doomsayer, rebirth, apocalyptic#Adjective and b'ak'tun — interspersed, of course, with calmly atopical/untopical words like, well, intersperse and atopical. (I'd leave Christmas, New Year's and as much of Hannukah as possible open for others to fill with their holidays' cheer, and if anyone came up between now and then with better words for days I'd set, the better words could always be subbed in.) What do you think? When December arrives, it'd be a month off. - -sche (discuss) 05:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
05:20, 25 March 2012

You're very welcome. :)

If you want to fill up December, I have no objection and I would appreciate the help. Just make a note on Wiktionary:Word of the day/Status of which days you've done so that I don't set them again.

Internoob16:57, 25 March 2012

developer program

developer program entry denied

Sorry newbie here. I would like to try this again but need to retrieve the original text and can't figure it out how to access the full text of my original submission.

Not sure how to avoid company names since developer programs are always associated with a company. See: Apple Developer Program. AT&T developer program., etc.

Thank you.

Sorry I had to delete this page. We generally don't include the names of companies (see the policy WT:COMPANY), except in certain cases such as McDonald's, and even that is undergoing a request for verification. —Internoob 05:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Jmarkhayward05:21, 6 January 2012

Oh sorry, I realize now that this isn't really a company name at all. I saw the link on the page to and I assumed that it was promotional material for that site/company. I'll restore the page.

I don't know really what a developer program is beyond what you've written but it seems to me that the definition could be pruned to help comprehension. The phrase "via published APIs, SDKs and NDKs" might be changed to "by providing access to resources" or some such thing (make it more general and more accurate). I'll leave that up to people that are more familiar with the topic. Also, I realize that the external links go to examples of developer programs but external links aren't aren't usually used here, except for references. They tend to look spammy and don't fit in with dictionary material very well IMO.

Internoob23:35, 6 January 2012

How can I retrieve my original, initial definition for "developer program" which was rejected? I need to retrieve that verbiage so I can begin working on a Wikipedia entry. Thank you.

Jmarkhayward01:24, 2 February 2012

Under the History tab of the entry, click the date for the version that you want. You probably want this one then.

Internoob01:34, 2 February 2012


We want to create a Wikipedia entry for "developer program."

Developer programs are a $billion+ industry. Google it.

Little public information is available because all programs compete for same developers and they don't share technology or best practices information.

Many developer program attempts fail as a result. It appears to be solely a technical problem; technology is the easy part. Most developer program people learn this the hard way, and we hope to use Wikipedia to help educate the industry.

We simply are looking for a venue for to educate people. The approach we hope to take requires input for everyone in the industry and we need your advice. We understand the Wikipedia processes. Instead, we are looking for some insights. Who can we talk with?

Thank you.

Mark Hayward, +1 (512) 218-1001 x607

Jmarkhayward (talk)21:18, 15 March 2012


I think you should ask for help at Wikipedia's Help desk. I am only a Wiktionary administrator and all I know is that Wikipedia is a more appropriate place for the stuff you want to do than Wiktionary.


Internoob03:35, 16 March 2012

hot chicken sandwich

Hi Ian! You're in Canada according to WT:Wiktionarians and a "hot chicken sandwich" is Canadian according to WT:RFV#hot_chicken_sandwich, so I wondered if you wanted to comment there (or here) on whether or not we should keep our entry about it. I'm assuming it's attestable; a question raised on RFV is whether it can be made with meats other than chicken, and whether than makes it more, or less, SoP. Also, do you know anything about a "hot hamburger"? - -sche (discuss) 03:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

- -sche (discuss)03:38, 3 March 2012

I've never heard of such a thing as a hot chicken sandwich or a hot hamburger, sorry.

Internoob03:52, 3 March 2012

Thank you for making slash fiction the Word of the day

Thank you very much for making slash fiction the Word of the day! Most appreciated.

-- Cirt (talk)22:17, 20 February 2012

No problem at all. Thank you for nominating it.

Internoob04:08, 21 February 2012

Heh, my pleasure! ;) It's my first Word of the day, exciting stuff.

-- Cirt (talk)04:30, 21 February 2012

look at this →

--Kzman 03:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Kzman03:10, 12 August 2011

I replied there.

Internoob (DiscCont)03:20, 12 August 2011

Request for temporary protection for Talk:loser.

Please protect Talk:loser for a while, it seems that multiple IPs have taken to vandalizing it. Ajraddatz 02:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ajraddatz02:59, 7 May 2011

Okay. Thanks.

Internoob (DiscCont)03:01, 7 May 2011

Well, I acquired the habit of using /ɵ/ from Wikipedia, where it's used for those unstressed vowels that vary between /ə/ and /oʊ/ (or somewhere between) for different speakers. The note at WP:IPA for English:

Pronounced [ə] in many dialects, and [ɵw] or [əw] before another vowel, as in cooperate. Sometimes pronounced as a full /oʊ/, especially in careful speech. (Bolinger 1989) Usually transcribed as /ə(ʊ)/ (or similar ways of showing variation between /əʊ/ and /ə/) in British dictionaries.

I'm not sure how this fits in to Wiktionary's pronunciation policies.

— ˈzɪzɨvə03:36, 3 May 2011

Okay, I see. Wiktionary has few guidelines concerning pronunciation, and nothing on this specifically, so there's nothing wrong with it.

Internoob (DiscCont)23:22, 3 May 2011

If you read this diff, rfd now seems to add an extra space, making the colon appear as part of the section header.

Mglovesfun (talk)15:14, 13 April 2011

Oops. My bad.

Internoob (DiscCont)00:06, 14 April 2011

I'm not sure what was wrong to begin with but it's fixed anyway.

Internoob (DiscCont)00:25, 14 April 2011

Deprecating less-than symbol in etymologies

I am responding on your talk page to your response at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Deprecating less-than symbol in etymologies from 13 March 2011. I have overlooked your response; sorry for the late response.

Re: "You can't get everyone to structure their creations in exactly the same way, and with every new thing that gets standardized, we have to explain to newbies that make a mistake what their mistake was and ask that they remember it in the future.":

Getting everyone to use the common format and structure is exactly what Wiktionary has been trying to do all along. We require that the entries conform to ELE, including the requirements on used headings, used format in translation sections, and more.

The vote is not there to scare the newbies. It does not even use the word "forbid"; it says "deprecate", which is defined by WT as "to declare something obsolescent, i.e., to recommend against a function, technique, command, etc, that still works but has been replaced". The point '(b) declaring that anyone is welcome to replace less-than symbol with "from" in etymologies, no matter whether manually or robotically' formally allows editors to switch to the "from" format, which is what some editors have informally been already doing anyway. Once every etymology contains "from", newbies are likely to use the same formatting rather than being confused by the mixture. Instead of having to search for policies and guidelines, newbies will be able to just look around and imitate. Thus, this seems to be an improvement for newbies. I do not support people pesking newbies for using "<"; I merely support that people should feel free to replace "<" with "from". If you read the text of the proposal again, it does not say anything from which pesking of newbies would follow. If you are afraid that pesking of newbies could be read into the proposal, you can explicitly state that you oppose pesking of newbies for deviating from the standard.

The use of "from" is really easy to pick, and I have seen newbies spontaneously using the form. What is much harder to use for newbies are the etyl and term templates. Some newbies vehemently reject to use them. Some senior editors have been pesking newbies for failing to use the templates in etymology sections, asserting that their use is the community decision. (As you can seen from this vote, that is as improbable as anything. ) I have been pesked by a senior editor for writing {{term|latin term||gloss}} instead of {{term|latin term||gloss|lang=la}}: what the editor complained about was the missing lang=la.

I am sorry for the long response; its benefit is that I could explain and highlight things in detail. Thank you for your attention.

Dan Polansky10:53, 19 March 2011

Firstly, no need to apologize. I am not bothered.

RE: "Getting everyone to use the common format and structure is exactly what Wiktionary has been trying to do all along. We require that the entries conform to ELE, including the requirements on used headings, used format in translation sections, and more."

Yes, I agree that we value consistency. However, there needs to be a compromise between that and having a manageable number of rules so that we don't drown in them all. There's no way to easily make everyone's contributions exactly the same in structure. Some people put the oldest definitions first in a list, some put the perceived most common definitions first and for some people it's arbitrary. Some people use "colour" and others say "color". Some people use a * for the only item in a usage notes section and others don't bother. The list goes on. As individuals, editors edit differently. To change this requires effort.

Having said that, I will be willing to switch to abstain if I understand correctly that no one (whether newbie or senior editor) will be forced (or strongly recommended, or whatever language someone might use to "force" someone to do something) to use ", from" over "<". I don't care if users want to change what other people write if they think it's bad for some reason, but I won't go so far as to support it. All I care about at this point is that it won't become a silly point to nit-pick over just because it's been voted on.

If you can assure me of that much, I will abstain. (Or you can discount my vote for me, if time runs out before I do.)

Internoob (DiscCont)04:29, 20 March 2011

In all frankness, I cannot assure you of the behavior of other editors. (I can assure you that I will do no pesking myself.) If the vote passes, it is the proposed text that passes. The proposed text is, to recall, this:

'Voting on: Setting the use of "from" in etymologies as Wiktionary standard, and deprecating the use of less-than symbol. In particular: (a) adjusting Wiktionary:Etymology, a guideline for formatting of etymology, to state that "from" is the standard, by replacing less-than symbol with ", from" in examples and by other adjustments as needed; (b) declaring that anyone is welcome to replace less-than symbol with "from" in etymologies, no matter whether manually or robotically. (c) There should be a comma and a space before "from", with the exception of "from" that is at the beginning of the etymology, and possibly some other exceptions; as in "From A, from B, from C" rather than "From A from B from C".'

The proposed text does not prevent editors from pesking, but it also does not mandate pesking. But then again, for pesking, senior editors do not need any vote: it suffices that they claim that the newbie has violated "what the community has decided" without there being a vote, such as the use of templates in etymology sections. Actually, in my case with missing lang=la mentioned in my previous post, I was no longer a newbie yet I got pesked by a senior editor. Peskers will pesk; many of them have an innate drive to do so. I think I have such an innate drive but I am trying to block it. If you want to prevent pesking in general, you have to do more than oppose a vote that makes it possible for people to replace "<" with "from": you have to say, possibly in boldface, I vehemently oppose pesking newbies for failing to use 'from'. When you see pesking that you do not like, you have to stand up to the pesker. However, there are some senior editors who won't care anyway, your boldfaced opposition or not, this vote or not. This vote really is not about whether newbies should be pesked, but rather about whether editors can feel free to quickly converge to "from".

As my afterthought, consider Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Romanian orthographic norms. This vote could have been opposed on the ground that the editors should spontaneously converge to something in the mainspace. In fact, there was not all that much time for editors to spontaneously converge to anything as regards Romanian forms, unlike "from" vs "<" which was given at least four years for the convergence since I have started editing Wiktionary. One of the Romanian editors has been pesking another Romanian editor for using the option that has in the end won in the vote. Thus, this particular vote has protected the pesked from the peskers, despite the vote's imposing a standard.

Dan Polansky07:47, 20 March 2011

Hmm, maybe. I'll think about it.

Internoob (DiscCont)17:19, 20 March 2011

Am i not wrong? That if some thing is published on a article on a website, blog, or other internet source, it is acceptable for this site, 7 March 2011

It needs to be recorded three times in permanently recorded media (books, Google Books, Google Groups, but not blogs or web sites) per WT:CFI. Ishionomy gets zero Google hits, on Books, Groups and even web (which doesn't count for WT:CFI, but goes to show that it probably doesn't exist). If it does exist, please provide some evidence.

Internoob (DiscCont)05:00, 7 March 2011

Here is some evidence, but there is more. Gigasolus 17:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Gigasolus17:45, 7 March 2011

Hmm. For some reason that didn't come up for me on Google Groups. I'm still a bit skeptical however. If you can find enough citations, please add them to Citations:ishionomy and readd the entry. Also note that the definitions would be formatted like this:

 # The process of working with stone
 # Masonry

With a # instead of 1. The hash turns the list into a numbered list in the same way that * makes a bulleted list.

Internoob (DiscCont)00:41, 8 March 2011

Ok, I got it. Thanks for welcoming and for your message. Larry Yuma 00:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Larry Yuma00:24, 1 March 2011

You're welcome :)

Internoob (DiscCont)00:27, 1 March 2011

I've been reading about sunyata in English philosophical writings for decades. It is like karma and nirvana but less common. Someone deleted it without discussion. What is the proper way to contest or dispute a deletion aside from nominating it for deletion yourself and voting keep??

Geof Bard18:42, 26 February 2011

The "Not dictionary material: please see WT:CFI" part of his deletion summary was not really the reason for deletion; it was that it had a Sanskrit language header but it was in Latin script. It should be okay now.

When administrators delete a page, they have the option of selecting the reason from a drop-down list of reasons. As a result, sometimes the reasons are unclear or vague when they don't think that hard as to which reason really applies. It happens that there's nothing in CFI about using the wrong script, but he probably assumed there was somewhere. I've done that myself on occasion. In this case, he added an extra note in the deletion summary so that's how you can know the problem.

If you're ever unsure why an entry was deleted, you can always ask an administrator such as me (or better still the deleting administrator) for clarification. If you still think that it was deleted in error, you can post on WT:BP or a similar forum.

Internoob (DiscCont)18:59, 26 February 2011
Please re-post this at with your four tildes thanks. Geof Bard 19:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Geof Bard19:52, 26 February 2011

Anatman ---------------------------> (आत्म‍|/Ātmā), * IPA: /ˈɑn ˈɑːtman/

I'd appreciate if you would take a look at my entry [anatman] and let me know if I screwed up the etymology by not including the proper tag for inter-wiki search engines, or violating protocol on the etymology.

I am pretty confident with definitions and meanings but not so much so with these other aspects of the format. Thanks.

Etymology looks good, except it's unclear whether the an- prefix comes from English or Sanskrit. If the prefix was added in English, I recommend that you use {{prefix|an|atman}}, and then describe where atman comes from like you have done; if it was added in Sanskrit, you should say that the word comes from the Sanskrit word anatman which is itself composed of an- + Ātmā ("no soul") or some such.

PS. I'm going to go on a wikibreak, and I'll be offline for the weekend.

Internoob (DiscCont)17:42, 18 February 2011

It is Sanskrit and Anglicized Sanskrit.Geof Bard 19:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Geof Bard19:19, 26 February 2011

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could you clarify please?

Internoob (DiscCont)19:33, 26 February 2011

I believe that both atman and anatman, or versions of them, existed in Sanskrit and probably Pali, although the Buddha was famously silent on the issue. Thus, there is a Sanskrit prefix "an" which negates...perhaps that is where we obtained the English prefix "a-" or "an-". We being speakers of an "Indo-Aryan" tongue...But you still haven't commented on where the biased secularists are flaming alreadyGeof Bard 19:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Geof Bard19:51, 26 February 2011

Good. If you know what the Sanskrit word anatman with the prefix is, then it would be good to add that to the etymology. If not, it's probably good enough as is.

Internoob (DiscCont)22:30, 26 February 2011

Ian, is WP:BITE specifically considered to be NOT-policy at wiktionary?

I have received some surprisingly harsh criticism for such offenses as writing an excessively lengthly defense against an rfd, removing what seemed to be a routine mispelling error (at this point moot whether or not it was) and providing definitions that some thought were too fussy. No mention anywhere of correcting the black hole of missing theological terms, which I think may be something I could contribute; it seems that the web attracts a higher proportion of white hat hackers and cyberpunks who are not necessarily up on the traditional religious cultures. Or, for whatever reason; the point being that I would have thought that there would be a more positive reception for those contributions and a somewhat toned down picking of nits. I don't mind being relentless flamed when I am pushing a point - such as the entry of TULIP, and its derivatives. And I don't mind being on the losing side of controversy such as the rejection of Game (the rapper),despite the fact that they are letting in a lot of entries that are probably less defensible. But some of the remarks seem to take the view that it is some kind of crime to have a different perspective, and frankly there seems to be a very strong bias toward UK and Commonwealth English. Be that as it may, the subject upon which I seek your advice is whether in fact WP:BITE is specifically rejected as either guideline or policy. I think I am obligated to find this out, aside from any benefit which may devolve to me from understanding the answer. Please advise. Geof Bard 01:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Geof Bard01:54, 17 February 2011

Not sure who this person is, but since he's referring to me as critic: (i) he has repeatedly refused to read our basic policies, preferring to rely on long-winded bombast and speeches, (ii) he has made various ill-advised edits on the grounds of being an expert (including some kind of promise or signature in the edit summary, which is obviously not provable or enforceable), and (iii) he is talking here about Wikipedia policies, which do not apply to Wiktionary. Cheers, Equinox 01:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Equinox 01:57, 17 February 2011
Edited by author.
Last edit: 22:04, 26 February 2011

Concerning BITE, I think that we've developed a culture that is less tolerant than Wikipedia of the newbies. This is because we have fewer prolific editors than them, so we need to spend less time fixing other people's mistakes and we're less patient. And this is not just my opinion by the way; it's been discussed before, e.g. on Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2010/January#Pulling our act together. In reply to your previous question about Jeff (SemperBlotto), User talk:SemperBlotto#Please do not bite the newcomers pretty much explains it all.

Internoob (DiscCont)00:33, 18 February 2011

Thanks, yeah that about sums it up. Well I looked over dozens of edits and Jeff only reverted a couple, so I guess my case was kind of the opposite of the normal new user situation with regard to the definitions. And everybody has been very cool and helpful regarding format issues. I freely admit that I screwed up on respell, which was partly my own arrogant sense of style for which I have always just detested that word and partly my inept clicking the wrong link and missing the voluminous google list of uses of the word. It is a very contentious environment but as far as I am concerned language is sacred. I hope that Equinox revives his account, the guy is brilliant and he has a lot to offer. I think it might be OK to work up a somewhat softer reception for new contributors but the important thing is that Wiktionary does not become responsible for degradation of language, most particularly English and Sanskrit. Again, Equinox could be a major contributor to that, his vast knowledge,skills and abilities are far too important to not undelete and resume. I publicly apologize for antagonizing him by so stupidly overlooking the obvious on the respell matter and if it will bring him back on board I am more than happy to leave Wiktionary for an agreed term. However, I will not concur that he has any right to post that I allegedly "refuse to read" something or other as he has no way of knowing what I have and have not read, nor did I ever post any statement of refusal. It must be annoying to have a newbie whose sin is not the prevailing general ineptitude with language, but rather a poet's sense for it. But for a crew that has some excellent language [chops], it should mitigate any sense of annoyance you folks may have over things to know that I acknowledge that this is a space where everyone else is pretty much as smart or smarter than myself regarding our Sacred Mother Tongue. I hope that other dude - I suppose you call him that "chap" - comes back sooner rather than later, and accepts my apology, despite my reservation. It doesn't make it not an apology, it is just that I can't acknowledge that anyone else has ESP or remote vision and I do speak for myself on what I have and have not read. So if that assertion nullifies the apology, or delays its effect, or if perhaps I am just the lastest straw in a big haystack of setbacks at wiktionary, I honestly don't know what I will do. It is easy enough to see how one could become addicted to wiktionary; perhaps for some it is more productive to step back and write haiku on the beach...I don't know at this point whether that is the more enviable option. In any case, Jeff K. should get a prize for what he's been able to accomplish here, but I hope it doesn't get messed up with imprecise definitions which then propagate like, well, prions...

Geof in a Lao Tsu mood04:56, 18 February 2011

Can I get rid of red letter pluralization that automatically populates new pages

even when it is obvious that there is no plural??

Geofferybard04:31, 14 February 2011

I'm not sure what you mean. I think that you could use {{en-proper noun}} (proper nouns) or {{en-noun|-}} (uncountable common nouns). Does that answer your question?

Internoob (DiscCont)04:50, 14 February 2011

It provides hints for experimentation.

I think you mean that if I past those templates the problem will go away.

It seems obvious but I am not sure that it will get the exact effect I would like to see.

I will try it but I've got a back log of new definitions I want to get created session so I might not get to it.

I hope people don't mind but I have a lot of ideas for great new entries and I am not into polishing them up with pronuounciation and etymology at the moment. I don't think that is all that important on some type of words,technical words.

Geofferybard06:10, 14 February 2011

Yeah cool works perfect.

Geofferybard06:16, 14 February 2011

What is the template if there IS a plural. Check out Yakima. What's the drill?

Geofferybard06:24, 14 February 2011

If there is a plural, the way you have it at Yakima is exactly right assuming Yakimas is the plural of Yakima. I assume that if it has a plural, it also means "a person of the Yakima tribe"?

If you want an easy way of adding entries for these plurals, you can use WT:ACCEL and install it by selecting, in Special:Preferences, under the Gadgets tab, "Add accelerated creation links for common inflections of some words." Does this answer your question?

Internoob (DiscCont)04:15, 15 February 2011

I was all set to create this entry but came upon a warning it had been deleted. I think it is a settled issue that words like this will be created on Wiktionary. Maybe it was previously deleted because it indicated "Tibetan" as the language and thus proceeding is not a problem as long as it is coded as "English"

Bodhipathapradīpa is the name of an influential book which a lot of Americans read in translation. It even has English commentaries. The basis given was that theoretically it is not kosher to write in "Latin" letters words that were previously written in some other script. Obviously that would throw out all derivatives of Greek, Teutonic languages, etcetera. Also we would have to toss out words like karma.

I posted this question on Information desk but thought I would ask you as well. Geof Bard 06:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Geof Bard06:25, 18 February 2011

Correction - it is part of the Sanskrit canonized by Tibetans. It is a word in Tibetan just as it is a word in English, as is [karma]. So it is in all three languages but with Sanskrit derivation.

I think it is like [Bible]. Whatever the policy is on [Bible], should be policy on [Koran], [Qu'ran], [Dhammapada],and Bodhipathapradīpa. Etcetera..

Geof Bard 06:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Geof Bard06:41, 18 February 2011

Yes, the reason it was deleted is that it had Latin letters but had Tibetan as the language, but Tibetan uses the Tibetan script. Go ahead and re-add it with an English header. Even if it's a loan word from Tibetan or Sanskrit, if it's used in an English context it's considered an English word. Its version in Tibetan script would be considered a Tibetan word, and so forth.

Internoob (DiscCont)17:54, 18 February 2011

That's what I thought. But I don't understand why the language wasn't just changed to English, unless the purpose was to create some kind of standing monument to something or other...oh well, in Buddhism we don't worry about "standing monuments" one way or another. Geof Bard 19:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Geof Bard19:53, 18 February 2011

The admin that found it was probably reluctant to make changes to it because it was Tibetan and he didn't know whether the script was wrong or the language was wrong, so he deleted it. He might have used {{wrongscript}} but he maybe didn't understand the definition either. As an administrator, I can restore the page and clean it up if you want.

Internoob (DiscCont)01:53, 21 February 2011

I probably wrote it up wrong but sure lets get the ball rolling and restore the entry.Geof Bard 01:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Geof Bard01:39, 25 February 2011
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page