User talk:Metaknowledge/2012/Jan-Jun

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from User talk:Metaknowledge.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


This page shows conversations on my talkpage from when I registered here on January 1st to July 1st, 2012.

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

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! Ultimateria 05:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirects[edit]

If something is a word, don't redirect it to another word, create it! If it's an inflected form use {{head|rap|pronoun form}}, if it's an alternative form, # {{alternative form of|au|lang=rap}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, please do NOT create redirects. If you need to create a redirect, then you're doing something wrong. --EncycloPetey 19:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
No. If the orthography in the Swaedish list is wrong, then it needs to be corrected. If the Swaedish list is using a different orthography than the standard, but the list's orthography is still a valid alternative, then an alternative form entry must be created. Wiktionary does not use redirects from one form or spelling of a word to another.
For examples of how this is handled:
  • See gray and grey for a situation where both spellings are standard and common, but one is US-standard and the other is UK-standard. As a result, both have full entries.
  • See naïveté and naiveté where one entry is the full entry, and the other is a "form-of" entry. "Form-of" entries must be used in these situations rather than a redirect.
See Wiktionary:Redirections for more information about the reasoning behind this policy. --EncycloPetey 20:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

tzedakah[edit]

See my changes to the etymology section of this word. This is the proper way to link word etymologies here. JamesjiaoTC 03:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

cephalon[edit]

Note: the Greek eta is transcribed as ē (with a macron, not a caron). Also, adding an etymology is not considered a "minor" edit. --EncycloPetey 04:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Fluffy[edit]

[1] Equinox 22:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the citations seemed to support this as a valid definition, even though it is in-universe. Metaknowledge 22:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Etymon glosses[edit]

Just thought I'd drop you a note to let you know that {{term}} does have a spot for glosses, namely the second unnamed parameter. So, instead of {{term|ἔμετος}} "vomiting", you could do {{term|ἔμετος||vomiting}} (note the two pipes between the word and its gloss), or if you feel especially ambitious {{term|ἔμετος||vomiting|tr=emetos|lang=grc|sc=polytonic}}. There are a few advantages to doing so. Firstly, it makes it easy for computers to figure out that "vomiting" is the gloss and not something else, and we like to have computers do a lot of our work here. Also, it allows us to build in options for users to alter how entries are styled for them. Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for all your work on grc etymologies. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

consecution[edit]

Please take a look. Does anything seem wrong? Note the usage note, which is intended to discourage use by translators, except in logic. DCDuring TALK 20:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, but I have no experience with actual people using the word 'consecution' in speech or translation, so I have no way of knowing if the usage note really covers the right ground.--Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
My experience is in seeing some bad translations and poor choice of English words by writers who were almost certainly not native speakers of English. DCDuring TALK 21:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Etymologies[edit]

Thanks for fixing up some of the Greek. The Greek script seems to have been lost through encoding issues when Webster was digitised (by whoever originally did that), so the actual root words are missing. Equinox 20:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I wish we had more grc entries to flesh out the etyms, but my Ancient Greek is so bad that I don't trust myself to add them. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Have you tried this link? It has both Greek and Latin dictionaries as well as other resources. DCDuring TALK 21:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Descendants[edit]

At panis, you added English words that do not derive directly from panis, nor from a direct descendant of that word. Rather, companion derives from another a Late Latin word (see the etymology on the English entry), and pantry derived from a French word that, although related to panis, is not a later form of that word. Such distant relations are not counted among "Descendants". --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

ELE is extremely unclear on the matter, but for the time being I will align with your view, which seems reasonable enough to me. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds
I have written some guidance along these lines at Wiktionary:About Latin#Descendants. Please, could you take a look at that and see whether the text there clearly delineates the view it was intended for, or whether it needs revision? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that's good, although it would be better if it defined direct. The problem was that I checked at WT:ELE#Descendants, which gives little or no help (although I don't think it would make any difference if we changed it). --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of specific language guides that have much more detiled ideas than any of the general ones. My hope is that some of these specific guides will be thorough enough that we can adopt a version of their contents to be more generally applicable, either in ELE, one of its subsidiary pages, or in a Help page. That's at least been my approach with writing WT:ALA. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for tokens[edit]

Thank you for the support on the sparsely documented languages initiative. (Failed vote)

In the discussion, you mentioned that this vote would provide support for Fiji Hindi. In response to Dan Polansky's request for actual tokens (word examples), I am gathering examples. Would you be willing to provide a list of words from Fiji Hindi or other languages that would benefit from this vote? BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not personally familiar with Fiji Hindi, but I will find examples from some relevant language for you. Where will you want me to put it (or should I just put it on your talk page)? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the prompt response. If you could put it on this page, then it will be easier for me to give credit to you for the assistance :) BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Tok Pisin, a sparsely documented language:

    • 1995, John Verhaar, Toward a reference grammar of Tok Pisin: an experiment in corpus linguistics[2], ISBN 0-8248-1672-2, page 433:
      Mekim olsem pinis, orait tupela i planim taro na banana, na kumu, painap, kon, tomato, na kaukau tu.

Krio, similarly sparse:

    • 1995, Masée Touré, Bai Bureh's Countrymen[3], ISBN 0-85756-189-9, page 12:
      Pa Gasama spoke in Krio, a language that was common to all; 'Famble den who na kushe oh'.

In Bislama:

    • 2008, Miriam Meyerhoff, Social lives in language--sociolinguistics and multilingual speech[4], ISBN 978-90-272-1863-6, page 344:
      Bang i wantem mi faen from mi ovaspen.

In Pijin:

    • 1988, Geoffrey Miles White, Bikfala faet: olketa Solomon Aelanda rimembarem Wol Wo Tu[5], page 75:
      Bihaen hemi finisim skul blong hem, hemi go minista long sios long ples blong hem long 'Areo.

Thank you so much, Metaknowledge! I hope to present a new proposal in about a week.

Sorry, I intend to add more, but my life has been very hectic and I may not be able to, so I wanted to at least give you one a few. If I can, more will follow. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the kind follow-up. I'm almost done drafting the new proposal. I have a list of five languages now and one more I will add tomorrow. I think that will be enough to demonstrate the issue clearly, but if you have time to find more, that would also be much appreciated! BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Jalpi Türk Tili[edit]

See: The Representation of Korean and Other Altaic Languages in Artificial International Auxiliary Languages, Journal of Universal Language, March 2012, 125-167

That is a scholarly paper that notes that Jalpi Türk Tili is an auxiliary language, which is not approved for use in the main namespace of Wiktionary unless there is consensus for it. See here: WT:CFI. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that means Wiktionary has its own rules. I see. --85.101.112.194 04:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for languages with limited documentation[edit]

Thank you for your assistance and suggestions with this so far. Although I'm sure I'll see new things that need to be edited and changed tomorrow, I feel like the proposal is about ready to be published. I left in the part about voting to exclude languages. You suggested that should be left out (left in by natural implication), and I'm still on the fence about it. If you have any feedback or suggestions on that or anything else before I release this, I would appreciate it ;) BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Really, a bunch of small stuff. Prince Kassad prefers to be called Liliana-60, your use of the word "hyperlinking" seems out of place, the background section is excessive for the demographic that will vote on this, the "potential for abuse" section should be heavily reworked or probably just relegated to a short sentence elsewhere, and the "community rules" section is unnecessary for understanding the issue. A shorter, clearer vote is always better, in my opinion, and will get more support (most likely). Perhaps in your vote of support, you should mention specifically how you met concerns (for example, about not changing the wording about extinct languages). Thanks! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Great, thank you. I think I'll put pretty much everything but the proposal itself onto the discussion page. I'll spend another day or two on the issues you mention and see if I can streamline it! BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Phrasebooks by language[edit]

Nice spot! I added this to {{pbcatboiler}}, so can I now revert your edits? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, not really. It doesn't list them in the category page for me - but is that just because I haven't cleared my cache? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Nope, I cleared my cache, and something I didn't manually add like the Thai phrasebook still doesn't show... can you purge the page, perhaps? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
CodeCat is trying to fix it (I can see the bug in my edit). Chalk it up to another list of things created by Daniel Carrero which are brilliant in every detail, apart from the bloody thing doesn't work. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I took a look at the templates, but I knew it was waaay past my comfort zone. I don't mind if you revert my edits, but only after this is fully functioning (and then we can remove the tag, too). --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The thing with Daniel Carrero's template is, if they work, great, but when they don't, the templates rely on subtemplates, which themselves rely on subtemplates (and so on) trying to find which one to modify is a massive nuisance. I've got more experience than most, but I honestly try and stay away from them. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Now that's it's been moved to [[Category:All phrasebooks]], can you please fix the link on the main page? Thanks --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I've spent some time revising the catboiler templates so I'm fairly familiar with how they work. I do think they are kind of messy, but I'm not sure how to improve them without losing out on some of the features they provide for us. Maybe some features that aren't actually needed, such as automatic generation of documentation pages, can be removed. Maybe this can be discussed further at Template talk:catboiler? —CodeCat 19:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts[edit]

Next time please explain your reverts Pass a Method (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

See your talkpage. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

List of languages with limited documentation[edit]

I've made a list of languages that would qualify for one usage or citation because of limited documentation. I excluded patois because it has so many meanings, and I think the intended languages qualify as pidgins or creoles. Would you be willing to take a look at the list before I put it in the proposal? BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Koine is also a pretty unclear term, so that may need specification. Something in there about "natural languages" and "that have ISO codes" might be in order. My other comments fall into two distinct categories:
  • Exclusions needed: Malayalam, and also probably Telugu as well, should be excluded. As for African languages, you haven't excluded any, and just counting languages that originated in Africa, Swahili and probably many others (I'm thinking of the likes of Coptic, Amharic, and Malagasy) are well documented.
  • Inclusions needed: A bunch of languages fall throught the cracks in this proposal. One class is that of non-indigenous, non-creole, non-pidgin languages of the Americas, like Hunsrik and possibly Língua Geral Paulista. Another class is that of indigenous languages of Siberia and the Eurasian steppe, like all the Uralic languages (except Hungarian, Finnish, and Estonian), the Tungusic languages, the Paleosiberian languages, and the Eskimo languages spoken only in Siberia. Your division of Southeast Asia needs to be expanded to include (probably) the Tibetan languages, and definitely Dzongkha and Lepcha (in fact, all the native languages spoken in India east of the Siliguri Corridor). Yet another class needed is that of any language that is spoken outside of Oceania, yet only on a few small islands, like Dhivehi, Andamanese, Jèrriais, Guernésiais, and Sercquiais. This means that the European exclusion clause needs to be modified, because Ladin, Friulian, and Istriot also probably need this.

I hope you see now why listing languages is such a monumentous task. However, if you make these changes, I think most languages with limited documentation will actually be part of the proposal. To be honest, making an exhaustive list is impossible, and it will likely be necessary to vote in more languages, but this would cover everything of importance. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

(By the way, you might also consider asking somebody like User:Chrisportelli, perhaps through email, if Maltese should qualify.) --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


This is a wonderful list, thank you! Believe me, I am not a fan of listing languages, but I have come to the conclusion it can't be helped :)

I don't want to put in the ISO requirement. Not all of the languages you listed, particularly the Andamanese languages have codes. I've added the word "natural."

I think w:Koiné_language is specific enough, though there are some languages that don't seem like they should qualify, such as four English-based languages. I don't have a solution yet.

I also deleted the European exclusion with the hope that people will interpret the intention. I would rather not say "excluding colonial languages."

Running through your list:

I added Malayalam and Telugu.

I know nothing about African languages, but those all seem reasonable exclusions and I've added them. (Someone might claim the source materials are hard to get as with the case of Tok Pisin, but that's a topic for another day.)

  • Hunsrik - added
  • Língua Geral Paulista - covered by extinct language category
  • Siberia and the Eurasian steppe - I assume most of these are in the UNESCO Atlas. Anything in particular?
  • Uralics
    Kven Finnish - added
    Tornedalen Finnish - needed?
    Ingrian, Karelian, Liv (I met a speaker once), Livvi-Karelian, Ludian, Veps, Vod - all listed as endangered in the Atlas
  • Tungusic - all in the Atlas
  • w:Paleosiberian_languages: Wikipedia says there are a total of 23K speakers for all of them, so I'm going to assume they are all covered in the Atlas
  • w:Eskimo–Aleut_languages: Only Inuktitut and Kalaallisut have large populations. Should they be included?
  • Tibetan: I see three languages near the top of the list that are not in the Atlas, so Tibetan should be added, but any exclusions?
  • w:Dzongkha is Tibetan
  • w:Lepcha_language - added
  • native languages spoken in India east of the Siliguri Corridor - anything specific? Perhaps these are listed in the Atlas.
  • w:Dhivehi_language - added
  • Andamanese languages - added
  • Jèrriais, Guernésiais and Sercquiais - added
  • Ladin, Friulian, and Istriot are all in the Atlas

Will look into Maltese, thank you! --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A run-down of your (excellent) run-down:
  • Tornedalen Finnish: I'm not sure if we treat this as a dialect or a language around here. If it's a language, it ought to be on the list.
  • Paleosiberian: Well, Ainu is not endangered AFAIK, but it needs to be listed.
  • Dzongkha: There seem to be several Tibetan languages, but in any case the entire subfamily needs to be on here (that would cover Sikkimese, too).
  • East of the Siliguri: Assamese is the big one that won't be on the Atlas but needs to be listed. Manipuri, Tripuri, and Mizo also need listing.
  • Taiwanese: There's a mess here, with Hakka, Hokkien, Fujianese, Min Nan et al., but whatever the standard is on Taiwan, it ought not to get the exemption.
  • Siberian Eskimo: I think everything in this category is either endangered or mostly North American, so it's in the clear.

I'll add more after a little research. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are some more:
  • All Turkic languages except Turkish, Azeri, Turkmen, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, and Uzbek (notably, that means including Tatar, Uyghur, and Tuvan)

--Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to get back to work, but these are great. Ainu is definitely endangered and is probably technically extinct. (I met two Ainu last year.) Here's one other branch that should probably be added: [Gallo-Italian]. Two of them you mentioned: Friulian and Ladin. Romansch (despite the small population) and big languages like French should be ruled out. I can check the others against the Atlas, but how about languages like Emiliano-Romagnolo? I bet there isn't a lot of written documentation even though there are a lot of speakers... Oh, and I once corresponded with someone who talked about how there are lots of Germanic varieties that don't get any official status and are generally ignored. Perhaps in the Low-Saxon branch of Germanic. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
More stuff (sorry to give you so much to sift through): I forgot to mention that for African languages that are exceptions, Arabic must be explicitly listed due to African varieties treated as separate languages on Wiktionary (Egyptian Arabic, Maghrebi Arabic, etc). The Berber languages, Igbo, Shona, and Hausa might qualify to be on the list of African exemptions, but I don't know enough about them to make a judgment, so those probably ought to be figured out by an expert or a native speaker. Oh, and Afrikaans definitely has a strong written tradition, so that's another African exemption.
A partial solution for Gallo-Italic and company is just to say that all living languages and dialects from Italy, San Marino, Monaco, and Switzerland are included, leaving Standard Italian, Swiss German, Swiss Italian, and Swiss French as the exceptions. Notably, that handles Venetian and Sicilian as well.
Another class of languages are the languages of the Caucasus; all need inclusion except Georgian, Armenian, and Azeri. Notably, Ossetian, Abkhaz, and Lak get covered.
I don't know anything about varieties of German or Dutch, but I'm sure there are many users here who could help with that. By the way, do you think you have successfully responded to all the criticisms in the failed vote (except maybe Dan Polansky's...)? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional feedback. I added the list to the talk page; I should have waited 10 more minutes :) Anyway, I don't see how Standard Italian, Swiss German, Swiss Italian and Swiss French are excluded, but could we work out something that applies to Arabic as well (and maybe the Caucasus languages), so that "national or official languages" are excluded but their dialects are not?
My intention was that I addressed all the criticisms in the first failed vote, but thank you for the reminder. I'll put that on the list of things to do! BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Always more. Tamil needs to be excluded from the Dravidians, Breton needs inclusion, and after a bit of investigation, it seems that Iberia has a similar mess to Italy and Germany. By the way, when I say "include" or "listing" I mean it needs to get the exemption, and when I say "exclude" or "exception" I mean that it shouldn't. Just making sure I'm clear.

Anyway, these all ought to come in on later votes (as per the new vote's talkpage).--Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A quick review, then:
  • It would be nice to add African languages
  • The Ethnologue has 34 Caucasian languages, so they should be checked. (Now is the easiest time to do it.)
  • The language continua like Gallo-Italic, German and Iberian Romance we can leave till later.
  • Tamil needs to be excluded from the Dravidians.
  • Breton is in the Atlas, so it's fine.
--BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
That's everything except for excluding Taiwanese, adding those east of the Siliguri, and adding the Turkics (with the exceptions I mentioned). I don't feel comfortable editing someone else's subpage, else I would have added things myself. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I added in the Formosan languages and the Caucasians. It turns out w:Ossetian language is Indo-European, but it is in the Atlas, so it's fine.
Of the Altaic languages (including Turkic), the only ones not in the Atlas are: the Eastern Turkics (except Ili Turki which is in the Atlas), the Azerbaijanis (except Turkic Khalaj (klj) which is included), Turkish (except Turkish (tur)), and tuk, kaa, kaz and kir. So I won't adding any of those unless there is something in particular that needs to be added. BTW, Ainu (aib) is not listed as endangered. It's Ainu of Japan that I was talking about above :)
East of the Siliguri: I added Assamese, Manipuri (Meitei), Tripuri (Kokborok), and Mizo
I think that covers the list so far except Maltese :) --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, and I added Tornedalen Finnish (Meänkieli) in, too. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, let's see. At this point Taiwanese is being included; it needs to be explicity excluded. Africa has become a total mess now, so I think that's going to be a drag - for now I would at least add the w:Grassfields languages. Really, listing Africa's languages will NOT be fun. Also, there are still indigenous languages of the Americas not getting covered (AFAICT), especially Quechua, Aymara, and modern Nahuatl.As for the Caucasians, that doesn't list the smaller Kartvelians. Mingrelian? Laz? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the reminder and additions. Always something else :) I keep forgetting Taiwanese. I reworded so it says "Formosan" which takes care of that because Taiwanese is a Sinic language. I added the Wide Grassfields languages, please confirm that's the appropriate level.
Quechua is a complex term, that can be applied at different levels of the language tree and the Atlas has some forms. Aymara is in the Atlas. A number of Nahuatl languages are not in the Atlas. Really, though, the way to handle American and Australian languages is to allow everything indigenous, and then make exclusions such as Hunsrik. I'm concerned that someone will list a language we didn't think of and vote against the proposal for that reason. So I propose we hold off on any other American/Australian languages and put that in a follow-up.
I also added Kartvelian which includes Mingrelian.
I'm going to _try_ and stay away now for 24 or 48 hours so I can get a clear head and rework the policy. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
When you return, be sure to fix the Kartvelians - all of them either qualify or are already endangered EXCEPT for Georgian, which is well attested. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Admin vote?[edit]

Hi. You seem competent and I've noticed you putting delete tags on the occasional bad entry. Are you interested in becoming an administrator on en.wikt? If so I could start a vote for you. Equinox 22:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That would be really great. Not much would change around here, but at least some nonsense entries would get deleted more quickly. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, you need to edit this page and fill in a couple of things (acceptance, time zone...): Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2012-04/User:Metaknowledge_for_admin. Cheers. Equinox 23:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Your vote has passed, you are an Admin. Please add your name to WT:Admin. Also, see Help:Sysop tools. —Stephen (Talk) 02:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Korean vowel length[edit]

Regarding your edit [6], I have a newbie question: how exactly am I supposed to indicate vowel length in transcription? Ignoring it seems likely to mislead people. Thanks, Quant18 (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I do not know Korean, so first off I am not the best informant. However, I am well-acquainted with RR, and I believe all the major transliteration systems do not mark vowel length. If a user is unaware of it, they can always check the IPA transcription. Sorry about being so picky about this, but I believe this to be a standard feature of our Korean entries. I'm sure you already know this stuff, but more info is available at Wiktionary:About_Korean/Romanization. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Butting in here, although it has never been represented in the hanguel or Chinese writing systems, Korean had a contrast between long and short vowels that was recently lost. I'm not sure when, but there are probably still some elderly people who still have it. I have a dictionary that includes it in the pronunciation. As with all language changes, it is certainly possible the contrast is maintained in dialects, including North Korean. For that and historical reasons, it may be worthwhile considering a system that provides that information. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Again, I am no expert, but my understanding is that the only people to have completely dropped vowel length are younger people in the big cites of ROK (Seoul, Incheon, Busan). I still think that it is considered to be more "correct", as in formal speech, and thus deserves to be noted in the IPA transcription. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Benjamin & Metaknowledge. Not all South Korean dictionaries indicate vowel length, but those which do usually do it by placing the IPA long vowel sign after the hangeul syllable in question, e.g. 면ː세 /mjɘːnse/ or something similar. It seems that among the Wiktionary entries which do include pronunciation information, they're following this convention, e.g. 한국어#Pronunciation. (The North Korean dictionaries I've seen don't seem to bother). Yale romanization actually has a standard accepted way of indicating vowel length (a macron), so I guess the solution I'm looking for is to add Yale romanization (so there's at least one transcription in "Pronunciation" sections that reflects vowel length). Cheers, Quant18 (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I dislike Yale translit, but that seems like a good method for the entries, especially if you'll be adding multiple transliteration systems. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Quick update on Zarma[edit]

I just got an e-mail from CW. He says that the Wikipedia page has a number of errors, and that there are a handful of irregular words. Nothing further than that.

Also, I will try to update the proposal over the next two to three days. I added a provision that says a box has to be included stating that entries are not fully attested. Hopefully everything will be good enough to move to a vote.

I hope the bot testing is going well! Based on your threads and that Mac page, I think I should be able to get an upload bot working. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please ask Christopher either to specify the errors on WP or to fix them himself, because even a bot will have to use templates (i.e. my inflection template). Yeah, having bots will be great. Definitely it will help my self-esteem in relation to technical matters (I still am a dummy in this regard...). At this rate, Zarma will be ready sooner than the vote! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I've set up a Google Docs spreadsheet and asked him for all the paradigms. When I get them, I'll put them into the spreadsheet for easy entry. The resulting forms can be concatenated in Excel/Word into full entries that can then be uploaded by bot. The template calls for paradigms can also be incorporated into those full entries. I think that's the easiest way to do it, though maybe I'm missing something.
Also, once his thesis is done and the vote passes (if it does), his thesis can be used as the basis for Wiktionary entries. It sounds like he might fix the Wikipedia page, though we haven't discussed it. I feel like I'm already asking for a great deal. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
That would be great. Yeah, it is asking for a lot, but whatever we can get would be good, I suppose. What aspects of Zarma will the thesis cover? Will it be readily available online? (By the way, for this new vote, I will wait a week, and after that start contacting people from the old vote - supporters will support again and opposers will (hopefully) have their concerns met.) --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know anything about his thesis or whether it will be online. There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed. One of my main concerns is copyright and WT:Requesting_copyright_permission. I hope to do two or three pilot language projects to learn about the issues before publishing the LDLP (limited documented language project) page and inviting the public at large.
Thanks for the offer on contacting people. That sounds like a great plan. I see I'm up against the deadline once again. I need to create a complete draft and then go through all the concerns like you reminded me, and then post. I'll delay the vote tomorrow. We'll get it done eventually :) --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the sooner, the better. As for copyright, that is worrying... I'm not sure how copyrightable dictionary definitions are. Also, make a note in your new vote that it supersedes the old one (just in case that one miraculously passes). --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I know that facts cannot be copyrighted, but if someone puts a ghost entry in a glossary or makes an error, then it seems to me there is an issue. In fact, the more I think about this issue, the more I'm convinced I need to take this issue higher. I don't think I can let the proposal go to vote in conscience without making sure this is on firm ground. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why the vote has to be postponed, though. :( --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Because if it's not on firm ground, a new vote would have to be held. I think I'll start by contacting one of the administrators. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 05:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Eh, start a thread in the BP. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I e-mailed an administrator. I would like to get general feedback on copyright issues, but for now, I want to just solicit one person's opinion and then decide what to do. BTW, the link above was wrong. It should be w:Requesting_copyright_permission. BTW, I don't think this will delay the vote much or at all since the proposal still needs to be commented on before going to vote. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Language list reworked[edit]

I still haven't verified against any of the past discussions, but I've rewritten the proposal with a framework that I hope will work. I also reordered the languages by geographical area and put the creoles and pidgins in a different section (I think that was sche's idea). I think this new structure is better as it allows languages like Pennsylvania Dutch and Jèrriais without mentioning them specifically. Again, I haven't gone back to double-check the languages. Dhivehi is in there, but as Maldivian as per Wikipedia. Any suggestions are welcomed. Hopefully these revisions will be acceptable to most people, and over the next few days, I'll go through the history of everything to make sure everything is covered. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A warning: this overview may seem harsh, but I'm just trying to utilize constructive criticism. Now that I've got my disclaimer out of the way, here we go:
I don't have any hair left, but it will grow back, LOL. These are great points and getting it right the first--er--second time is important.
  • "List of materials deemed appropriate": This asks way too much of each "community" (in reality, just a couple fanatical editors like me covering many languages). Conversely, a list of materials deemed inappropriate (on the About:Xyz language page) would be a welcome thing, IMO.
    I see this as a natural part of the citation process that should be pretty painless. So the community (as you say, the fanatical editors) says, "Let's use Smith's Hunsrik-Portuguese Dictionary." They list it on their page and create a template, something like Template:hrx-Smith (see, for example, Template:R:Webster_1913). Then every time they use that to include a word, they put {{hrx-Smith|page XX}} in the entry, and a full citation appears. So the thinking is: Only add citations if there is a template, and if there is no template, create one and list the source on the source page. If you still think it's tedious, let's discuss it. I see this as a vital part of allowing one mention for inclusion.
    Look at that Krio cite I provided and you'll see the issue. It's a book, mostly in English, with a little real Krio in it. A lot of cites will be sourced that way. Making all those templates would be ridiculous. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
    Ahh, I didn't think of that. How about requiring this only for single mentions, not uses? I don't want to make this an exercise in tedium, but I'm imagining people using glossaries.
    Aha! I guess such a list could simply be a list of the mention templates. See my comment below.
  • You mention a box (perhaps {{ldl}} would be good) to put in affected entries. If it's easy, I'm willing to add that in, but it's pretty unnecessary. If you really want to use it, I recommend that you make a template for it (I can make one for you if you want).
    I have some ideas but nothing concrete yet for the wording. I got the idea from Template:webster, which warns people on pages such as abhor.
    Personally, I find that template annoying. I guess I was unclear on what your box's function is meant to be. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
    LOL. Basically it should say something like, "This word has not yet been documented. If you can provide another source, please consider adding it." I'm also considering variations where it says, "Verification of this word is not considered complete. It has been documented in one source and one/two/three speakers of XX." The templates would be named something like hrx-1, hrx-2, hrx-3.
    Wonderful. I would definitely support it for mentions. Of course, it needs to be phrased in such a way that it doesn't sound like LOP material is in the entry. Also, it would optimally be a single template that works for any affected language. Maybe it would also add the word to a category specially for that purpose ([[Category:Ancient Greek mentions]]).
  • The exclusions are phrased in an unclear manner. I advise that all exclusions go in parentheses that directly follow the name of the language family or geographical region they are to be excluded from. As soon as I read "Kartvelian languages", I should see the exclusion for Georgian so I don't get worried.
    I agree. I kept changing my mind. It still is not clear. I grouped by geographical region, but as Atitarev points out on the discussion page, Sinhalese appears to be included in the Dravidian languages. I don't see a clear way to do this, yet, other than by bombarding the list with semicolons. Any ideas?
    Semicolons + parentheses = clarity. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
    Okay. I would like something simpler, but you're right. I'll try to get to that tomorrow. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Three minor points: I would prefer that the word in question for Krio be "famble", because "kushe" might actually be one of the few terms currently citable in Krio (due to being the most commonplace greeting in Sierra Leone). Also, you misspelled CW's name as "Christopher Weedal" in your courtesy line. As for Dhivehi/Maldivian, Tripuri/Kokborok etc, I don't mind at all what we call each language (I learned about much of these from sources that would now be considered severely outdated, and were so even then).
    Got famble and Weedal, thank you! I keep thinking I should list the ISO code for languages, but I think it will work this way...

It looks good, and primed for success, considering that the old one even gained majority support (although not the required supermajority).--Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"That's right! I had forgotten that the earlier vote actually got reasonable support. Hopefully we're almost there. (No word on the copyright issue, yet...)--BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

On templates and the LDL project[edit]

I'm going on vacation Monday. I'll check in to continue shepherding the LDL vote, but I'm not going to look into templates for at least two weeks.

You suggest above that a category be added for single mention entries. I really like that. Can the {{ldl}} template be made so that that category is added and the disclaimer text appears when someone just copies the template into a page?

If the vote passes, then I plan to run two or three language tests and then invite endangered language specialists to contribute. (I don't know if people will be interested, but I hope so.) To that end, I want to build the LDL project page so contributing is as easy as possible, and this LDL template would be one step toward doing that. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of templates automatically add a category. That shouldn't be too hard to make. If you can specify exactly how you want it to look (size, color, wording, name of category that gets added, etc) I can make it. After all, I could use the practice.
By language tests, do you mean Zarma, Makah, etc? I think for specialists to directly contribute, we'd need a lot of helpful material. Wiki markup can't be learned in a day, and Wiktionary is especially demanding. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Glad to hear that! Yes about Zarma. If CW is interested in going through the process, then Zarma can be the first test. I'm happy to basically do most of the markup--in fact, I mean to use Excel/Word (or Google Docs) to generate the markup w/template code as necessary and then a bot to upload it. Once the markup meta code is worked out, everything should go pretty smoothly. I expect it will take a couple languages before we get to the boilerplate stage, but surely it's possible. My goal is to create a path for people to contribute without learning the markup. Oh, and if I can get copyright permission for the Makah thesis, then that can be the second (with myself as the guinea pig). --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Vote recap[edit]

I've now run through the languages above and think everything mentioned is covered. I also went through the objections in the previous vote and the discussion page of the current vote. I think those are covered as well. I also (finally) contacted Chrisportelli about Maltese. I'm still waiting to hear about the copyright issue, but otherwise I think the wording is pretty well set for a vote. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

If Maltese needs treatment, I'm sure we can add it in later. I only brought it up because Wiktionary has almost 1000 terms in Maltese, so it's a case more about protecting existing entries rather than adding new ones. Anyway, sounds great! Thank you!--Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

LDL template[edit]

I'm on vacation now, but want to briefly talk about the LDL template wording. It currently says:

This entry is based on less than three non-mention citations, the minimum considered necessary for attestation and may not be accurate. If you are a speaker of this language and see something that can be improved, please consider editing this entry or adding citations.

I'm concerned about two things:

  • I think this template should be for less than three mentions and uses. In both cases, there is a real concern that the entry is not accurate.
  • I do not think words like "mention" and "attestation" should be used because they really leave the general user in the dark. Even people who know what attestation means will not fully grasp what the intent is.

Aloha. --BB12 (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Do not, I repeat do not ruin your vacation worrying about this. In fact, don't even log in to Wiktionary (you can use it if you want, but our Hawaiian section is weak in my opinion). When I return to Southeast Asia this summer, I assure you that I won't be around much on Wiktionary (maybe that's not true; I've heard there are a lot more internet cafés there since my last visit).
If you have disregarded the message above, please consider my following responses: your first point is valid and you can change it; your second point is moot because both words you mentioned are linked in the template to richly informative pages.--Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
LOL. There was another concern about the vote, so I will be watching that. I think I found a solution and hopefully that will be it! --BB12 (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

WT:AGRC[edit]

Your most recent comment on inflection tables reminded me that you have some Ancient Greek background, and so I was wondering if you would have time to read this page, and possibly offer some feedback on it. I have this bad habit of unilaterally dictating grc policy, largely because there are few others who have anything to say about it. I also have an even worse habit of making poor decisions on the language and its treatment, as I am no Ancient Greek scholar (not by a long shot). Because of this, I try and get as much feedback as possible, in order to help keep Ancient Greek policy on Wiktionary from being comprised solely of my whims. The original incarnations of this page were greatly improved because of the feedback of others, and I'm hoping my recent changes might suffer a similar fate. Thanks very much. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I cannot conjugate a single grc verb, I don't understand the grammatical structure, and I don't know enough vocabulary to even put grc-0.5 on my BabelBox. I think you do a fine job, although as a whole, I find grc entries around here to be messy (i.e. some entries for verbs don't even have all the principal parts, etc). However, I would be glad to go over AGRC; I'll write my response here. I may be critical but I aim for constructive criticism. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
My feedback:
  • Biblical Greek: "Various theological nuances" should be appropriate. Just because it is not "solely a biblical study tool" doesn't mean that it can't be useful for that purpose. However, all the fluff about "volatile factors" and respecting Christians needs to go; semi-related wiki-etiquette simply doesn't belong on AGRC.
  • General stuff: Why are we hand-holding so much? This page is quite educational, but I doubt, for example, that we need to explain what sound the acute makes.
  • Specific guidelines: There are a bunch of little things in here, like a declaration that alternative forms should be listed with bullets, that are too nitpicky. Bullets are probably the best, but I've seen other formats and they look fine. I see no reason to legislate these kinds of details.

These are the main things that caught my attention. You might also want to add a link to Category:User grc or, even better, get active grc editors like Saltmarsh to sign at the bottom like you did (it's a bit presumptuous to do it for them, I should think).

I decided not to edit the page out of deference to you, and because I would just end up deleting a lot of material. However, I certainly think that what I have pointed out above deserves to be fixed or at least discussed. My overall views on AGRC, however, are different than yours; I cannot imagine most of it ever being used, because only an editor who already knows most things there would add grc entries. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback. The Biblical Greek and diacritics sections were two sections that I had grown more uncomfortable with over time, but not quite enough to change. I have now changed/removed them. As to nitpickiness, I think I'm going to leave a lot of that stuff in for now. I think most of it is pretty standard (for example, while there are different ways that alternative forms are done, I think bulleted is pretty standard practice), and all else being equal, I'd just as soon have new editors do things the way I've been doing them, for consistency's sake. Nothing in here is written in stone, and if anyone wants to propose something else, it can be changed. As for other editors at the bottom, there are precious few other editors who have both made a habit of editing Ancient Greek entries and given the impression that they're comfortable answering questions about it. Saltmarsh is really just a Greek editor, and as such runs into Ancient Greek from time to time, but I strongly suspect he would not want to put his name there. Medellia and Gilgamesh have done a lot of good work on grc, but they're both long gone. Flyax is the only active editor that I can think of, and I have asked him to consider putting his name there. Chuck Entz is still really new, but I suspect that I'll ask him in time. As for the messiness in our Ancient Greek section, you're certainly correct. There are a lot of entries that need to be cleaned up/expanded, and a lot of basic words that don't even have entries yet. I'd like to encourage you to use {{attention|grc}} and Wiktionary:Requested entries (Ancient Greek) when you come across such deficiencies. The grc section is simply too large for me to go through it all one entry at a time (when I started, it wasn't :-)). In any case, thanks very much for taking the time to read AGRC, and offer your input. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I skimmed through a second time, with a couple new insights. In AGRC, the Synonyms and Antonyms sections are very repetitive of each other and should be merged. Also, do you think that the infinitive-as-lemma proposal for Latin in the BP should apply to grc? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll take a second look at the antonyms/synonyms section. As for verb lemmata, the same arguments for, and really none of the arguments against apply to grc. The PAI1S has traditionally always been the lemma form, and is used in all Ancient Greek dictionaries I've ever seen. Fortunately, Greek retains this form as its lemma, so it makes for a clean, easy connection. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and why don't we mark acutes and circumflexes in transcription? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
That has been a somewhat contentious issue for some time. I wish I could think of a previous discussion on the subject, but the best I can think of is User_talk:Atelaes#Macrons_in_Ancient_Greek. In short, my reasoning is that a transliteration is meant to provide a very rough and dirty approximation of the pronunciation of the word, for those who can't read the script. Diacritics in transliterations are unlikely to provide much help to those people, and are more likely to simply confuse them, especially as English doesn't really make use of any in its spelling. Additionally, different accents mean different things, and the same accents mean different things in different time periods. All in all, I can't think of a way to meaningfully capture all of that in a transliteration scheme. The fact that we have the actual Greek script, as well as IPA pronunciations on most of our entries mitigates, in my mind, any shortcomings that might be present in our transliterations. A fair number of people agree with my approach on this, but some disagree. However, no one has come up with a comprehensive counter-treatment. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
It makes sense to me, simply because I believe that if someone cares about this, they will teach themselves the Greek alphabet and its diacritic system (as I did). However, as you noted in the linked discussion, current grc translit policy is hypocritical, because we use macra for ēta and ō mega. Is merger a good idea? Is it feasible (easy to change by means of bot)? (I would enjoy it simply because macra are a pain for me to enter). --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I suspect it is feasible to make such a change by bot. The situations where transliterations are used are limited enough, and formatted strongly enough that a bot could do it. Mind you, I don't have the requisite technical skills to pull it off, but I strongly suspect we have someone on Wiktionary who does. Getting a consensus for such a change is a little more iffy. As you may have noticed from the linked conversation, I am somewhat ambivalent about the limited use of diacritics to distinguish eta/epsilon and omega/omicron, so I wouldn't make such a proposal. If someone else were to do so, I probably wouldn't support not oppose it. I do sympathize with what a pain in the ass it is to pull up the special characters drop-down every time I want to transliterate an eta/omega. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't quite understand your second-to-last sentence. You would support such a proposal or oppose it?--Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Neither. If there was a consensus one way or the other, I would happily comply with it either way. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
In a situation like this, that would almost certainly cause a net increase in percent opposition. So I guess it's not going to happen any time soon. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

LDL project[edit]

Just a note to say I'm back from vacation. It looks like the vote will probably pass (hooray!). I want to continue working on the LDL Project page with the idea of using it myself for the first test language. Feel free to modify or make suggestions if you're interested, though right now it's just an outline.

No update on Zarma at this point.

Congratulations on making admin, too! --BB12 (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hrmm. Well, to start off, thanks, and congratulations on a vote that is honestly taking way less criticism than even I expected. I must say you made a very thorough and well-written proposal.
I am afraid that I'm not so interested in the LDL project page, because I think that we would only be priming contributors who would honestly make some sort of a mess. I simply don't think that users adding only in one language will bother to read through all the pointers that it takes to learn wiki markup, for example. Perhaps I'm wrong, and contributors of that kind are waiting to increase our linguistic knowledge. It's just hard for me to see the issue optimistically. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
(Oh yes, and if we ever get a chance, finishing up with the languages of Africa and India would be good.) --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
That's certainly a possibility with the LDL page; I hope not, though. I don't know enough about the languages of Africa and India to move forward without some direction from others. I've asked at least twice for guidance on African languages, but didn't get a response (or not much). --BB12 (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The next week will be hellish for me (I hope you don't mind if I don't notify all the people from the old vote about the new one as I planned to do). If you are so kind as to remind me 10-12 days from now, I will pull down the dusty old volumes and educate myself on these, and report back my findings. (Actually, Wikipedia might be more helpful, but you never know.) Did Maltese ever work out? I think User:Dick Laurent has some experience as well. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Contacting those people sounds good. I'll remind you about the languages. Never heard back about Maltese. --BB12 (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You say 'okina, I say ʻokina...[edit]

I just "discovered" the difference between the single quote and the apostrophe in Hawaiian terms, and realized that I was responsible for every one of the entries with the apostrophe, except one: 'ehu. I've since moved all of my Hawaiian entries to single-quote spellings (being careful not to mess with Samoan or other languages), and would like to create an ʻehu entry and move the Hawaiian contents of 'ehu to it- but it only seemed proper to check with you first.

On a completely unrelated note, I hope you noticed Category:Polynesian canoe plants, which I recently created (Polynesian ethnobotany is a pet subject of mine). Mahalo! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I have long been aware that 'okina usage differs across Polynesia, mainly due to the whims of whichever minister printed the first local bible. The reason that all my entries in Rapa Nui, Samoan, and related languages use ' is that it is simply easier for me to input (so Stephen just added Hawaiian to a Rapa Nui entry I had already created). I think Hawaiian comes closest to a standard out of any of these, so I would definitely support moving those to ʻ spellings (with redirects and {{also}}s as necessary). If I can help, just tell me.
Your category is great - I'll try to add a few more terms to it when I get a chance, and I'll put links in pages like vaka. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, you were the one who added the Hawaiian entry, but that's neither here nor there. I was just focusing on Hawaiian, because that's pretty straightforward. I'm not sure whether converting the other languages is a good idea, since usage seems to favor the apostrophe. I can see good arguments either way. I decided to bring up the topic in BP, since others may blunder in like I did and re-complicate things again. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I only added the Rapa Nui (diff from my initial entry to its present form). In any case, I guess moving it to the BP was a good idea, so I'll comment there. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Samoan language entries[edit]

Hello, I've noticed that you've added a lot of the Samoan language entries, which is fantastic (it's a not easy to find online!). I was wondering if I could find out what sources you are using-- I've noticed words and forms that I'm not familiar with and I'm hoping to improve on it without tripping over any toes. Thanks, --MichaelBillington (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I will have to admit that I tend to feel a little guilty about Samoan entries, because my Samoan is simply horrendous beyond belief. I used any source that would talk about Samoa that I own, and I'm afraid my standards were probably lower than they should have been (whereas fale#Samoan is easy to prove correct, laititi#Samoan may not be). Please do me a favor and don't worry at all about stepping on or tripping over my metaphorical toes, but instead go through all of Wiktionary's entries with an objective eye.
If you're having trouble finding and verifying terms in Samoan online, however, I do have an answer for you. This dictionary is out of copyright, and thus its definitions may be used on Wiktionary and the entire book can be viewed and conveniently searched, courtesy of Google. For terms that a dictionary wouldn't cover, or that have been coined in the intervening years, the Samoan wikipedia is a good place to look, although its coverage can be best desribed as spotty. Finally, I'm an admin here, so if you find any entries that are obviously errors or misspellings that I made, just tell me and I'll delete them (after a quick check on the nets, of course). Thanks --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I almost forgot to mention - the dictionary should not be used as a sole source, because, among other things, it's extremely untrustworthy with niceties like the 'okina and marking long vowels. Anyway, I'm sure you'll notice that on your own. Again, thanks --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I've seen Pratt's dictionary before and it's a nice bit of history. I'll watch out for those inconsistent koma liliu. I have some newbie questions which I'm hoping you can answer:
  • Do we have our own style guide about which long voewls to mark in polynesian languages? I say this because Dictionaries tend to mark all of the long vowels (presumably for pronunciation) regardless of how the word is written, but modern written Samoan uses them rarely if ever in regular prose.
  • Is there a template that can be used to show the parts of compound words? eg olamatuaola (life) + matua (old age). --MichaelBillington (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Great questions! We always mark long vowels if the word is pronounced that way, but we recognize that most Samoans can figure it out based on context and thus omit them. If you add an entry with a long vowel and we already have an article (covering any languages) that has the same letters but doesn't have the long mark, add {{also|the name if the page you just created}} to the top of the other page. If that other page doesn't exist, the search function will solve the problem.
  • Just put in the Etymology section {{compound|ola|matua|lang=sm}}, and it will handle it for you. Please tell me if you have any other problems or questions, or if any of this was at all unclear. Thanks --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Allow me to add: there are a couple of nice comparative databases that cover Samoan:
You have to be careful, though, because they're only interested in whether the word exists in the language, not how it is used- or even if it's still used at all: the word they give may have been completely replaced by a synonym from a different origin to the point that most speakers won't recognize it as belonging to their language Chuck Entz (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

RFV and RFD[edit]

Hello. It's best not to close these too early, as there may be feedback about the quality of the citations (see e.g. the recent kif), or other further discussion. I dunno the precise rules but we tend to leave them open for a month or more even after they are marked cited. Periodically some good saint will go through the page and zap the ones that are clearly resolved. Equinox 22:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I figured it would be fine with something so comprehensively cited as Citations:leather cheerio, but I'll let it wait if you want. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply to a message directed at me[edit]

Hi there MK. This is a reply to the message at http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary%3AWhitelist&diff=16900029&oldid=16900020 . You mentioned "stop adding entries you don't know the definitions of". Let me explain: I often add rfdef to entries not because I don't know the definition, but for a few reasons: Firstly, I often find quotes and add them here (which of course, is very helpful). Occasionally, there is no definition on the entry that fits the quote so I add a rfdef with the quote and sometimes come back later when I'm feeling more in a defining-words mood to add a definition. Sometimes I leave the rfdef because I've repeatedly been told that I suck at the art of defining words in English. Anyway, I figure that a quote without a definiton is better than nothing (or better than a quote with a lousy definition). Anyway, well done for spotting me. I guess that is also an art (or something). --Maria.Sion (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess you're right about that. It's just that seeing an rfdef annoys the hell out of me when I just want a definition. Also, I don't think anyone really goes through the requests for definition category (maybe I should). Neither spotting you nor making definitions is really an art in my eyes, and I doubt you're really that bad at it, considering how long you've been here. Finally, you're the first person I know of who has called me MK, and I'm glad to finally have a biliteral moniker. Makes me think of M.K. Gandhi... --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not fond of rfdefs either, but I dislike missing definitions even more. And bad definitions even more. And being stung by hornets even more. Anyway, some people go through that category from time to time. Normally it is SB (who I naively assume will do everything eventually) who every year or so adds definitions to these. Anyway, let's go for some harmonious editing. --Maria.Sion (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I think an entry with rfdef is still better than none at all. Especially if the entry contains other information like inflection or pronunciation instead. —CodeCat 21:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about harmonious editing, but, despite your wishes, I'm not planning to ever block you. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I have concluded that, as a general rule, the number of missing senses is more than proportional to the number of senses for a given PoS, unless one of our very best contributors has worked very hard at it, whereas the number of senses that might be redundant or unattestable seems less than proportional. Well-placed {{rfdef}} templates are helpful, especially if accompanied by a helpful comment on the talk page and one (preferrably more) citations and most especially for basic verbs, prepositions, and adverbs not ending in "ly". DCDuring TALK 23:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

βλέπω[edit]

Hello - you have marked βλέπω for attention, it lacks an ancient Greek entry - is there something particularly wrong with the modern ? — Saltmarshαπάντηση 04:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It lacks a conjugation template. Sorry, but I really rely on those (I have a lot of trouble with Greek verbs). I just noticed that it was already tagged for that, but still. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Right - nearly all the Greek verb entries lack conjugations - a field I've lacked the courage and time to start on - yet! — Saltmarshαπάντηση 14:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, thank you anyway, and I hope you get to it soon. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Switch to exclusion[edit]

I've been thinking about how to do this. Basically, a switch to exclusion means that the section Wiktionary:CFI#Languages_with_limited_online_documentation is no longer necessary. So my proposal would be to delete that (but keep " When considering exclusion, consideration of how to handle existing entries should be taken into account.") and link the list directly from Wiktionary:CFI#Number_of_citations. As per the discussion, I would add languages with official national status in Europe and note that Maltese is not an exclusion. Does that sound about right? --BB12 (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand this, but if I do, it looks like a bad idea. Can you demonstrate? As a side note, I reckon a note mentioning that although most languages on Wiktionary are covered, most words on Wiktionary are not would be in good order. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure which part is the bad idea. I've put it up at the top of User:BenjaminBarrett12/scratch2. Also, I don't understand your suggested note. --BB12 (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Yeah, that looks pretty good, actually. #4 needs a lot of revision, though (if you're going to mention the 8th schedule, don't bother listing some of the languages in it). We have a data structuring problem now, though. It's logical, but counterintuituve. Consider (you'll have to click edit to see what I mean):
                       Yes --> LDL status
Listed on CFI <                                      Yes --> No LDL status
                       No; listed on subpage? <
                                                              No --> LDL status

Sorry, I was too lazy to make a structured tree. The <s are branches. Anyway, the point is that on the CFI, being listed make it get LDL, but suddenly, when you're on the subpage it's the other way around. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm 100% with you. That's actually what's been bothering me the most. My only other solution is to divide the languages into three-use (the "general" rule), one-use (extinct) and one-occurrence (everything else). --BB12 (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
That could work, iff we modify the CFI to that effect as well as the subpage. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that's what has to happen. I think this will take until tomorrow to work up. --BB12 (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Back to inclusion[edit]

I have the copy nearly ready at User:BenjaminBarrett12/scratch2. I think this is the clearest, most concise version of anything so far. --BB12 (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There are problems. See w:Languages_of_the_European_Union where Maltese is listed. Also, Romansh is listed as a national language at w:Switzerland. It will be several hours, but I will tackle this later today, US time. --BB12 (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Or feel free to edit :) --BB12 (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I think we're in the same time zone. It being a weekend, I just woke up. I'll take a look later today, and I'll respond here. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
OK: I'm not sure what's going on with the Number of citations section, and it includes some aspects I think we agreed not to include, so if you're planning on doing anything with that, it needs revision. I made a bunch of edits, but I tried to use descriptive edit summaries so you can see what I did in the History tab. I think I addressed all the concerns raised in the BP except CodeCat and West Frisian. Can you do a followup with CodeCat, specifically asking if W Frisian terms are fully citeable on bgc, and that sort of thing? Maltese is a little messy, but it doesn't matter, since we list it explicitly. There is a little problem I noticed about official languages and such in relation to Fiji, but few people care about the languages of Oceania like I do, so I'm sure nobody else will notice and it will be fine. Is it just me, or are we covering a lot less African languages now? Well, I reckon that's about it. Thanks --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
It looks like some of the changes you made were to older sections. I've deleted those now. I then put in each language of Europe to make everything explicit and get rid of some exclusions that would have been necessary otherwise. The number of citations sections had to be changed, but I tried to keep it to a minimum. I think it still reads pretty much like the original. Part of this proposal will be to eliminate the "Languages with limited online documentation" section. Such a lot of work gone!! Oh, well. This is better. Is there a Fijian language that should be excluded? I'll ask CodeCat, though we may post before getting a response. --BB12 (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh my. There are a lot of linguistic issues. Some of them I'm just going to change (there are two Norwegian languages around here, for example). I made a bunch of additions, because you forgot some important stuff (like Albanian, for example). If you're curious, the reason for "Standard" Indonesian is to avoid the common grouping of Javanese and similar languages. I'm sure there are more omissions I didn't notice, though.
So much for the list. The top part has some issues. After resolving the Dacian issue, Dacian is now left out of the loop again. We have the the problem of the fictitious language community upkeeping a list of mention-worthy materials (if we change that to a list of unworthy materials, it would be a lot more realistic), and also the strange citation requirement that appears to go beyond 'normal' requirements.
I must say, a lot of these languages have varieties and sublects that don't merit inclusion. Instead of linking to the page on the language here, can we link to About page when possible, and maybe link to the votes on Unified Romanian, Tagalog, and Serbo-Croatian? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Me and language complexity[edit]

I really like the second paragraph of your "Me and language complexity." I've never been able to put that into words, but it's exactly how I feel about language! Two ways I get around my laziness are Skype lessons from [www.myplt.com/ PLT] and Pimsleur CDs from the public library. --BB12 (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I never expected anyone to read my userpage, much less appreciate it.
I am rather suspicious of the Pimsleur method, solely because of the outrageous claim that one can a learn a language in a few days, and by association with my disenfranchisement with Rosetta Stone, which I found to be awful (unhelpful approach to grammar and bad selection of vocabulary). Does it work for you? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
It's a stretch, but their advertisement is essentially accurate. After the first thirty-minute lesson, you really can speak and understand a couple of expressions at native speed. So far, I've found that if I have some classroom experience, Pimsleur works excellent. For other languages, it's still really tough, but I learn far faster than anything else I've tried. (Zero luck with tones languages, but oh, well!) If you library doesn't carry them, they offer 30-day rentals as well as sales. --BB12 (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll have to give it a try. It would be nice to do so before I go away (10 days from now, to Thailand, Laos, and South Korea), but I'll settle for mastering the Thai and Lao abugidas (Thai is the most complicated writing system I have ever seen of the ones that do not use characters). Thanks! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Learning an abugida. That is awesome! I've never had reason to do more than look at them, but that's a good project. --BB12 (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, it sure beats memorizing kanji/한자/hanzi.--Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Something I will NEVER do again, LOL. --BB12 (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm treating that as a long-term goal so I don't get discouraged by the fact that I am unlikely to ever memorize very many :) --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I just got 8 hours' worth of Pimsleur from the library. Thanks for the tip! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

How is Pimsleur working? Also, two days and no disagreement about the LDL changes. How many days before you take off? --BB12 (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Exactly a week! LDL seems to no longer be a hot issue (BTW, isn't it funny that everybody only cared about European languages?) in the BP, but I think it might still need a vote. At least, I'd don't think I'd personally feel comfortable interpreting lack of disagreement for community consensus.
Pimsleur is pretty good, and they do a fine job with grammar, but I feel like they move a bit too slowly for my tastes. I also am messing up their Pimsleurian theory by doing at least 2 days' worth every day. I think it will pay off, though. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Would you feel comfortable in taking the BP discussion as consensus if I advertised it there once more? --BB12 (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
If it's the sort of discussion where people say support (like the style of an RFD discussion), and nobody's raising Cain, then probably.--Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

your assistance please[edit]

Thanks for directing me to WT:CFI -- which I am sorry to say was the first genuinely helpful tip on this matter in five years.

You wrote: "Please don't waste our time further with this, or at least provide the evidence that Ruakh has requested and is required under the CFI."

I provided 8 links, and I would be grateful if you returned to that thread and told me whether they would be suitable for the attestation WT:CFI mentions.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A little help understanding code please?[edit]

Hey, I was wondering if you could help me a little. As you know I'm preparing a bot for some form of stuff, just Icelandic nouns initially as I said at BP. See, I've been looking one of the Icelandic declension templates to try to right code to make entries for noun forms in that declension...but it's not so easy due to the way in some cases Icelandic nouns mutate horridly (like change a vowel in the middle of the word). Since I've never known much about the code in templates on here I was wondering if you could explain this snippet I took from one of the declension templates.

|dats={{{1|}}}{{{2}}}{{{3|}}} {{#switch:{{{4|}}}|i={{{4}}}

In the switch part there, "i={{{4}}}" Does that mean {{{4}}} or whatever becomes "i"? Or am I misunderstanding? 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A switch means to look at a value and to give different values depending on the initial value. It's similar to a set of several 'ifeq' together. The code you gave means: 'look at the value for {{{4}}} and if it equals i, use {{{4}}}. It's a bit silly to write it that way, because you could also write i=i instead of i={{{4}}} there. —CodeCat 21:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
OK. First things first, I'm not a technical expert, and while I'd be glad to help, a user like CodeCat may be able to do a much better job, depending on the complexity of the template.
#switch is a parser function; its complete behavior is described here. Does that make sense to you now? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks guys. Since I have Java experience, I am familiar with Java switch statements but I've just been getting so bogged down in trying to understand this template I was doubting if it was really the same kinda thing or not...I'll look at the template again when I can and give you a shout if I'm too confused CodeCat. 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

+1[edit]

Hi,

At [[+1]], did you maybe mean to add like and unlike in a "See also" section, rather than a "Related terms" section? Because the latter is supposed to be for etymologically related terms, which I don't think these are?

Thanks in advance,
RuakhTALK
02:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I tend to get those headers a bit confused. Do feel free to fix those without consulting me. Thanks --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

question[edit]

Just checking, did you mean to remove my last comment. Geo Swan (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Very sorry about that. I was in an edit conflict, and got confused. I would never knowingly remove another editor's comment unless I found it extremely offensive (direct attacks on another user, spam, etc). If you see this happening again, feel free to undo my edit without notifying me. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • OK. And if I make a similar mistake feel free to do likewise. Geo Swan (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And—[edit]

Mate, I appreciate your kind message very much. (If you're on LJ yourself let me know, as most of the more interesting stuff is hidden from public view – though since I had a baby a couple of months ago, updating has become a bit sporadic.) Unfortunately, I can't help much with the Egyptian problem you mentioned. I think I once spent a long weekend working on hieroglyphics here, but I don't even have all the right reference books with me now. FWIW, I agree with you that entries should be under transliterations as well. If I recall correctly, when editors first started adding them here, it was before hieroglyphics had been added to the Unicode standard, hence a situation now where there is not much standardization. But I suspect I'm not the editor to fix that – there are others who have studied it a lot more than me. Ƿidsiþ 06:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

South Korea and Zarma[edit]

I hope you have a good time during your travels! During a Korean class, I learned about a folk village in South Korea where people go to learn about folk ways, dressing up in clothes, etc. No idea if it's any good or just a tourist trap, but it sounds like fun.

Also, I think CW and I are going to start adding Zarma words in a few more days. Unfortunately, almost no references use tone marks, so we'll probably wind up putting tone marks only for pronunciation. --BB12 (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! During my time in 한국, I'm planning on trying to stay just in the old part of 서울. As for Zarma, I think that would be a mistake (a lot of Etymology 1 and Etymology 2 and multiple pronunciations because in Zarma, different words are sometimes distinguished only by tone). However, I will trust that Christopher knows best. Have you noticed that Ungoliant is already adding {{LDL}} to Hunsrik entries? Not much, but it's a start! Also, I think you can move the new vote out of the 'Proposed votes' section, since it'll be active soon. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it seems that the only resources with tones are inconsistent in tone use. I would like to use tones, but the resources just don't seem to be there, but there are resources without tones. I noticed the Hunsrik entries and had assumed you were doing that! I've moved the vote. --BB12 (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Pity. Well, as long as reliable tones are marked with the IPA, it'll be fine. If it would help, I can construct a template to make that easier (maybe something like a scaled-down {{grc-ipa-rows}}?). Just ask in the next two days!
I've never studied Hunsrik, but once I get back I'm planning on doing a lot of work with Samoan, possibly Māori, Tok Pisin, and maybe Tok Pisin's close relatives Pijin blong Solomon and Bislama (I've only added ovaspen so far). Looks great! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Dick_Laurent/despre_mine[edit]

I'm surprised he didn't mention me by name on that page XD Razorflame 00:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's kind of par the course for him, but I guess it was especially bad with you. He keeps threatening to go inactive, but I don't really care so long as y'all refrain from wikibattles. Old talkpages are fun indeed. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Telugu pages[edit]

I have started writing about Telugu language words a month ago. There are now some 30,000 pages in this language. Fortunately some Wiktionarians are helping my work and improving them. I have seen that you are helping many languages. Can you help me in the templates for the Telugu languages and their documentation. The Index:Telugu is taking long time to do manually. Can you help me through your bot and save my time; so that I can concentrate in improving by adding the information in Telugu language. Telugu language is now in 31 position in Wiktionary statistics. Your help further boost the prospects which is called "Italian of the East". Thanking you.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I can help with templates, but I don't have a bot. User:Conrad.Irwin has a bot (User:Conrad.Bot) that does language indexing based on XML dumps. You should try asking him if he get his bot to work with Telugu. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately User:Conrad.Irwin is presently not responding to my request. There are about 50 common Telugu verbs now. Can you prepare a template for them accommodating verbs in different forms.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I am leaving for a month-long trip, sorry. You can either wait until I return or perhaps ask User:Stephen G. Brown to help make you verb conjugation templates. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Peace Corps manuals[edit]

Exciting news from the Peace Corps: their old manuals can be used as long as proper attribution is given. (They evidently no longer maintain their manuals.) I received a response from their Information and Exchange office in response to a question about a Zarma manual at [9]. --BB12 (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That's great! I wonder how many languages they have available. It would be good for languages where I struggle to find citations with correct (i.e., modern) orthography.
Still working on my Thai and a little conversational Korean - no better time to practice than a 12-hour plus plane ride! By the way, I completed my goal of 8 hours of Pimsleur, but I can't understand how you can do it while driving. It really makes it too hard to focus on the road. Oh yeah, and I set it so that my vote should automatically appear in the support section about within a day after the vote begins. 안녕히 계세요! (or something like that...)--Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Well maybe it's not age that makes me deficient at language learning, then, LOL. Thanks for the vote and bon voyajee! --BB12 (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you're deficient! I believe I coded my vote incorrectly, so once it displays, please remove the code that surrounds it (the #ifeq stuff and the <!-- comments, as well as the text in the comments). Thanks! ~~~~ —This unsigned comment was added by Metaknowledge (talkcontribs) at 12:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC).