User talk:LlywelynII

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

Archived talk page[edit]


Pinyin entries[edit]


Please follow this format for pinyin entries, no definitions are allowed (this is a policy).

guìhuājiǔ and others.



# {{pinyin reading of|桂花酒}}

Numbered multisyllable pinyin entries are not allowed, you may create redirects to toned pinyin, if you wish, though.

[...split into separate threads...]

Thanks for your contributions and understanding! --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem.
Look at my entries: I am including pinyin for the most part. The numbered pinyin entries look just awful and I completely agree: I ended up making those because I was copying the format at another page which uses template:cmn-alt-pinyin. If that's completely depreciated and you're concerned about this, you can use the incoming links there to remove it; then get it nixed from the project. You can copy my vote in support of its removal to the appropriate page.
I disagree strongly about disallowing glosses (it's particularly unhelpful on lists with many characters) but, if it's a set policy, I'll follow it until we get a better one to replace it.
This isn't a native-Chinese dictionary and I'm not ever going to add rs values. Feel free to follow behind and include them if they're actually necessary, or give me a template I can add to the page so they're flagged as needing rs details.LlywelynII (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The rs value is a pain but you may consider using {{cmn new}}, Wyang (talkcontribs) has created. E.g. {{subst:cmn new/a|p1=máng|p2=mù|n|[[blindness]]}}. I find it very useful (you may need to edit it after creation). Occasionally it gives some erroneous alternative characters and can't generate correct IPA for erhua words. As I said, you can always look up rs in the entries. For "盲目" the rs value is "目03", which you can find in "".
Pinyin vote - Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Pinyin entries. Believe me, it wasn't an easy one and we want to encourage users to rely on Hanzi entries, not pinyin. It's very easy to slide into using pinyin to write Chinese user examples, etymologies, etc.
Please consider adding Babel to your user page. Other currently active experienced Chinese-aware editors are Tooironic (talkcontribs), Jamesjiao (talkcontribs).



No need to create -de adjectives. Entries like 盲目的 can be deleted on sight but I have nominated for deletion for the moment.

Please note my changes to 盲目#Mandarin. It was badly formatted. Need pinyin and rs values (you can get it from the first character entry for each word). You might want to review your entries.

Thanks for your contributions and understanding! --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem.
I understand about the policy, even though I (obviously) disagree and (specifically) added that entry because it is in fact a somewhat different meaning from the base word and had its own entry at It's just a hard call re: translating Chinese usage.
[...split into separate entries...] LlywelynII (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I disagree about 盲目的. This is how Chinese grammar and parts of speech work. To make "a blind person", you use "blindness" + "的". You're welcome to make your point at Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#盲目的. I have no idea about your Chinese knowledge without Babel but IMHO, you may need some guidance regarding policies, standards and conventions. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
A blind person would be "blindness" + "人". 盲目的 needs a separate entry explicitly because it has shades of meaning that "盲目" by itself does not. A little knowledge, danger, and all that. — LlywelynII 00:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I think you can expand the "盲目" like this or something, if you really think 的 changes the original meaning (not part of speech):
1 blindness
(with 的 -de) (additional senses follow)
Or add a usage note header. Even 男的 is redundant. All the senses could be covered by , if done properly. I don't find 盲目的 in Nciku or Pleco, it's not in CEDICT either. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
If everyone wants to go that way, peachy. As long as the information isn't lost or (unless pleco is right) conflated with 盲目. (Missing 盲目的 at nciku, frankly, you just weren't looking; pleco seems to conflate the "ignorant", "senseless" meaning with 盲目, which nciku doesn't.)
For whatever it's worth, I disagree very strongly that the noun sense at 男的 is redundant or that removing it would be a service to the wikt's users. (But, then, you know that's why we're having this conversation. =) ) — LlywelynII 07:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Re: "just weren't looking". What you gave me is not a definition but a search result in example sentences or translations from English. This is a definition.
I'm not suggesting to remove 男的, it may be (arguably) part of a small list of words, which include 的. See Tooironic's link in the RFD discussion. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 13:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Allow me to weight in. Firstly, why do you think its sense is different from 盲目 (which itself can be used as an adjective to mean, ignorant/blind)? Secondly, 盲目 + 人 makes no sense. The Chinese term for a blind individual is 盲人. senseless has multiple meanings in English. I have no idea which one it's supposed to mean in 盲目的. It simply means ignorant/lack of prior knowledge. JamesjiaoTC 01:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback.
First question: Because it was listed separately in the dictionary I was examining. If 盲目 has that sense, which pleco seems to support, obviously the whole problem goes away and 盲目的 is just another standard adj that doesn't require any separate treatment. Go let the guys over at the removal discussion know that, if you haven't already. (The rest of your comment seems to caution against that, though: 盲目's main sense is blind as in eyes; if the adjective's main sense is blind as in reasoning, it may still need a separate treatment or careful usage notes.)
As for 盲目 + 人, you just misread what I wrote and what I was replying to. Of course it's 盲人.
Nciku gives the meaning "meaningless (senseless)", which in English is more capricious than "ignorant", particularly when used of natural or inhuman forces. If pleco is right and mangmu has that meaning on its own, though, its sources might be off. Again, I'm just going by my dictionary on this one and defer to the native speakers. — LlywelynII 07:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it's just the way it's defined on various dictionaries. Meaningless would not be a good translation in my opinion. If you have a look at the examples on this page [1], you will see that all of them imply a lack of planning and/or information before taking action. JamesjiaoTC 04:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

CFI and Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia[edit]

I saw you posted to Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-09/CFI and Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia and you then reverted back. I encourage that you post your support or oppose vote but marked as non-counting, which you can do by posting one of the following or the like:

#: [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] '''Support'''; posted after vote closure date. --~~~~
#: [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] '''Oppose'''; posted after vote closure date. --~~~~

The vote end date is a necessary evil, IMHO, to make votes closable. Getting a better picture of support and opposition by editors who did not notice the vote at the time it was running is worthwhile, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. — LlywelynII 08:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure you suppport action 2, but not action 3? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
A, I restored the votes I'd previously made, as asked.
B, yep. My understanding of reading the debate there is that this policy is a duplicate of others elsewhere and so the vote is over an issue of phrasing (do we repeat it, how do we say it). My personal thought is that as a matter of style, we should say this, say it clearly, and say it tersely. If we need to be verbose (keeping the 2nd graf), which is not my choice, there should be examples.
Especially if it's just an issue of phrasing, though, I'm not really invested in it enough that I need to vote against something everyone else seems to want or to build a consensus around changing the examples being given, which admittedly aren't the best. — LlywelynII 23:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference strokes (大内)[edit]

Great entry. Just for next time, please make sure you put in the radical and the number of reference strokes as well :) [2]. JamesjiaoTC 21:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've already explained to Anatoli I won't, but you're more than welcome to. Thanks for your help. — LlywelynII 11:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, has a traditional version - . Fixed and added another definition. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not know that. Thanks. — LlywelynII 11:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
You can use Perapera Chinese plug-in (Firefox), which is right in most cases, it's based on CEDIC dictionary and has good info in hanzi. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll see if there's a Chrome equivalent or if Firefox got any faster lately. — LlywelynII 04:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


Having a hanzi box in a Mandarin entry is compulsory. I am in the process of fixing your previous entries. If you want to know its usage, take a look at 近体诗 and 近體詩. The same template can also be used for entries that are the same in both trad and simp Chinese - you simply have to include one param instead of two. JamesjiaoTC 21:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!
I don't know if you really care but, for future reference, it's probably a good idea if learn to say "please" and don't throw around words like "compulsory". There doesn't seem to be an entry on "draw[ing] more flies with honey" but no one is being paid to be here and some contributors are less thick-skinned than I am. — LlywelynII 11:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Follow-up: I won't remember or type the overly long one you're using above but I've created a more sensible redirect at {{zhbox}} and will aim to remember to use it. If you're involved with template creation, remember that you're trying to convince people to use them so it's probably good SOP to have shorthand redirects for sensible but over-long templates like yours above or {{pinyin reading of}}. Simplicity and easy of use are important.
I've also noticed a quite a bunch of templates (like the one you just gave me) with no docs or explanation at all. Obviously, not your job if you're not involved, but if you are making or enforcing their use it might help to fill them in little by little. — LlywelynII 15:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


Hi, where did you find teẏrn? I've never seen y with a dot used in Welsh except in grammar books like A Welsh Grammar, but never in ordinary texts. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of the Welsh entries I added were from the edition of the laws of Hywel Dda (in Welsh and English) that I transcribed for Wikisource. I can't speak to that specific entry, but that text certainly had plenty of dotted Ys. — LlywelynII 20:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I'm skeptical that y and ẏ were ever considered separate letters in Welsh, but better safe than sorry. Are you the same person as User:Llywelyn2000 at Welsh Wikisource and Welsh Wikipedia? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Is "pope" Byzantine Greek?[edit]

That's how the entry was categorized after you were through with it: if you look at the edit before I fixed your templates, you'll notice categories at the bottom of the entry such as Category:Middle English terms derived from Old English, Category:Old English terms derived from Vulgar Latin,Category:Latin terms derived from Byzantine Greek, and Category:Byzantine Greek terms derived from Ancient Greek. While the {{etyl}} template comes in handy to output standardized language names, its main and original purpose is to add derivational categories to the entry, which will be wrong if you don't get the parameters right.

Please remember that the {{etyl}} template always takes the language code of the language section the etymology is in as the second parameter, except in cases such as cognates that aren't in the chain of derivation for the term- and those should have "-" as the second parameter to avoid categorization. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


Could you add {{Babel}} to your user page? I'd appreciate it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Quotations for cracker and copyright[edit]

In diff, you added a massive amount of material, including quotations. Are these quotations from OED? Note that the selection of quotations that OED made is subject to copyright; to my understanding, copying a significant amount of dictionary quotations from OED to Wiktionary constitutes a copyright infringement. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Your understanding would be quite wrong, particularly inasmuch as (to the best of my recollection) I have never lifted the OED quotes wholesale but just use the earliest attestations and major writers (Shakespeare, Joyce) or interesting ones and they certainly have no claim on them. I also typically reformat and rephrase the definitions and shift the cite to our house style and give fuller info (they usually abbreviate titles, for instance).
Now, that said, if you can replace one Shakespearean quote with another one (especially a better one; they're not infallible); if you want to touch up the formatting (it took me the longest time to realize that they give the chapters of books and acts of plays in lower case roman numerals); or if you want to move the earliest attestations to citation pages, have at it.
Do not on any account blank content, particularly the earliest attestations. — LlywelynII 15:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Is it correct that each of the quotations that you have added is from the OED? (OED does have copyright in the selection of their quotations.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
It is neither correct that each and every quotation is from the OED nor that the OED has copyright over quotations which happen to be included among their lists. They would have a copyright claim over an entry which included wholesale content from newer editions. It is further not the case whatsoever that the OED has any copyright whatsoever over any content from their first edition, which was published in the 1800s. Chill, pseudolawyerman. — LlywelynII 16:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
So you think that by omitting some of their quotations for each entry, you can copy the rest of their quotations, doing that systematically, sense after sense, entry after entry? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
For the 19th century edition? Absolutely. For subsequent editions, your phrasing betrays your bias. The OED cannot claim that their use of quotes ("quarks for muster mark") precludes other's ability to include them; we are more than free to use some of those they include, as well as others. If you have concerns over overuse, point it out case by case and (in almost every case) the solution will be to improve the quotes with other/better ones, not remove entries' quotes without replacement. — LlywelynII 16:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
To be clear: do you think that by omitting some of the modern copyrighted OED's quotations for each entry, you can copy the rest of their quotations, doing that systematically, sense after sense, entry after entry? This seems to be a yes-no question. So can you give a clear yes or no, even if followed by an explanation? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Can I give a clear answer? I already have. You're welcome to address it, with particular reference to particular entries you believe constitute offending overuse of the modern editions. — LlywelynII 16:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
You have not. You have intentionally avoided stating a clear yes or no, here as below in this thread. I think it likely you are engaging in copyright violation. I am afraid someone will have to clear your mess later. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry your reading comprehension has so failed you (as, apparently, has your ability to provide any specifics whatsoever), but (again) no I am not engaged in copyright violation (particularly of the edition that is completely out of copyright) and yes the solution is for editors to continue to further emend the quotations with better and alternate ones in addition to those sampled by the OED. No, the solution is never to blank content, except in actual cases of wholesale copyright violation. — LlywelynII 16:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Is the correct that the sequence order of the definitions and their subsensing that you have placed to Wiktionary is identical to that used by the OED? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Identical and subject to copyright infringement? No.
Not pulled out of my ass and not improved by your grotesque blanking of content? Yes. — LlywelynII 16:00, July 2014 (UTC)
Your answers are not very clear. I am not asking about whether the definitions are identical. I am asking whether the sequential order is identical. Furthermore, I am asking whether the resulting tree structure for subsensing is identical to that used by the OED. Again, not whether the wording is identical, but whether the resulting structure is identical. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
My answers were perfectly clear. You're also welcome to go get your own copy and examine both the differences and similarities. — LlywelynII 16:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The root of radish[edit]

In an excessively long series of edits in radish, you have removed the sense "The pungent root of this plant, usually eaten raw in salads etc". You did so without a RFD or RFV. As per radish at OneLook Dictionary Search, the sense is at, Collins, and AHD; it is the introduction of the sense in MWO, although MWO does combine the plant sense and the root sense. Generally, definitions in Wiktionary distinguish plants from their roots and fruits. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

While (in general) the collaborative effort is part of what makes this dictionary work well, the level of obsession you're currently displaying and the utter wrong-headedness of your various edits (abusing my talk page, deleting perfectly valid quotes, claiming consensus while violating and ignoring it, &c.) can only make me question both your sanity and helpfulness here.
I'll put that redundant aspect of the definition through the process, but stop with the vendetta and get on making this place better. There's plenty of work for four hands, without you using yours to just cover yourself in dirt. — LlywelynII 00:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
So again, please readd the sense to radish that you have removed without a due process, which would probably be RFD. The sense is "The pungent root of this plant, usually eaten raw in salads etc". --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It's redundant and (if improvement or procedure were your actual concern) would have taken you less time to fix than you've expended bitching here. You are right to note that there would have been a better policy to follow, though, so when you finish reädding the redundant (but attested) sense and I finish both other things I'm doing and cleaning up your various messes around the dictionary, I'll start it through the process rather than deleting it again. — LlywelynII 10:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
In fact, I finally checked radish again. You go check it again; that definition wasn't removed. It's still there. — LlywelynII 11:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


Since this doesn't seem to be stopping, I suppose I should start keeping a list of Dan's more indefensible edits somewhere handy. So far:

 — LlywelynII