User talk:Metaknowledge/2013/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 the one-year anniversary of my editorship on January 1st to July 1st, 2013.



Thank you for that! I was rather confused as to why it was showing up in Ogham—not just one the headword lines, but in the categories, too. I find it curious that the software has the ability to mask Latin-letter input as Ogham... - -sche (discuss) 02:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it may be your browser or font. I see Latin letters in the entry, just with a different font/size. —CodeCat 02:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Hm, maybe. For me, the masked-as-Ogham Latin letters also show up larger and more legible than the actual Ogham characters in ᚅᚓᚆᚆᚈᚑᚅᚅ, which show up tiny and barely legible. How are they for the two of you? - -sche (discuss) 02:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I set the lang/script while you were working on it, with the default as Ogam. Not sure what you mean by it categorising it as Ogham. Anyway, the Ogham is just as legible to me, but the masking is typical. Incidentally, I'm not so sure that non-canonical translit (using v) should get an entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you think romanizations of Ogham should be treated as they are in Gothic? —CodeCat 02:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, except without language-specific template support. That's what I've been doing with Primitive Irish, which is the only other language I think we have Ogham entries in, unless I'm forgetting something. See maqqi, for example. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking like diff. Gothic romanization entries explicitly do not contain any grammatical information, not even parts of speech. That is done because presumably, the romanization will be the same regardless of POS and if a single word has several PsOS then that would just lead to several redundant definitions all saying "romanization of (same term)". —CodeCat 02:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I misunderstood... no no no. And the only other person who cares about Template:pgl is Angr, and if he wants that I think he would have implemented it by now. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
(replying to pre-Gothic comments) By "in the categories", I meant that the pages for nehhtonn etc showed up in the categories sorted under N etc but masked in Ogham script. As for hccvvevv: the point of romanised entries is to help people find the Ogham entries, as a lot of scholarly work on Pictish (as on Gothic) uses romanisations only. Perhaps because it's uncertain whether Pictish "ᚃ" was /w/ like Primitive Irish "ᚃ" or /f/ like Old Irish "ᚃ", hccvvevv is the romanisation used by most scholars, and thus the romanisation people are most likely to encounter. - -sche (discuss) 02:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


Thank you Nathanael Everton (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Any time. Just ask. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


my editing was tooken away for trolling i didn't know it was bad and it was on my user page semperblotto never gave me a warning what should i do, signed venomxx on his 2nd accountVenomfail (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, I don't think you're a troll but you also don't contribute, which can be annoying. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Specific-epithet-wanted categories[edit]

See Category:Species entry using missing specific epithet and its subcategories. The subcategories contain my current best guess at whether they might best be treated as Latin or Translingual. The top category is even less certain, but more likely to be Translingual. Let me know how this fits with your tastes. DCDuring TALK 00:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, your two Latin guesses, gularis and minullus, were excellent, and I think those are the only real Latin ones out of all the Accipiters. I created the first one, but I couldn't find any cites for the second one that weren't in italicized specific epithets buried in otherwise English texts. I suspect that the fault is mainly due to OCR, because it seems like a very reasonable diminutive to me. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


Do you know a way that I can contribute more? I want to be able to be something of value to Wiktionary. Oh, and yes i'm back, thanks to vanischenu [from Wikipedia] who requested that I was unblocked from editing due to me having no second chance. [ please leave answer on my talk. ] Venomxx (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again[edit]

I asked the desk and I am waiting for a response. Thanks again for your help. p.s. i put a turtle on my user page. Venomxx (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


Soi, you think we shouldn't list any related terms at all? Not even pater? And surely some of those were term derived from patria, and should therefore be listed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I skimmed the list, and it all looked like stuff ultimately from pater. If there were any from patria (I doubt it), they were misplaced - those go in 'Derived terms'. Patria is not even descended directly from pater, and the list does not seem helpful to me, just clutter. There is a real need to list terms derived from pater, but by the DRY principle, that list should go in the entry [[pater]]. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
So, again, you think we shouldn't even list pater as related? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
It isn't. It's an etymon. I believe etyma go in the etymology, derived terms in the derived terms (or descendants if they enter another language), and related terms in related terms if they add value to the entry (i.e. some semantic connexion). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
So then, you think the words for "father" and "fatherland" have no semantic connection? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
They do. The semantic connexion is immaterial. 'Related terms' is for terms with a genetic connexion (but in this case, the specific connexion is that of an etymon to its derived term, so it belongs in the etymology). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I disagree about not listing terms in "Related terms" simply because they're related in this way. Entries can grow very large over time, so that sections become far separated from each other by masses of content, and related terms placed in etymology sections can be swamped out by mountains of arcane proto-language information and myriad cognates. If there are related terms, they should be listed at "Related terms", and not omitted simply because they also happen to appear elsewhere in the entry. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in, but I think it is perfectly OK for patria to have pater as a related term. All the other ones, however, are just overkill and belong as derived terms of pater. --WikiTiki89 02:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
By contrast, I see the repeated related terms as being the parts that are swamping the entries. I understand when the etymology is more than a couple sentences, or when cognates from other languages are listed, but isn't it ridiculous at corvinus? Wikitiki's solution is acceptable. (PS: Thanks for improving the definition for me.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe that corvīnus should list corvus as a related term. (How does the one word "swamp" the entry?) Otherwise, we run into a logical absurdity in situations where many words derive from a common source. At iūdicātus, for example, would we list as "related" only the other words derived from iūdicō, but not list iūdicō itself? That would be absurd. Personallly, I find our having related terms to be of tremendous help, as it allows me to quickly learn a class of words from a common source and to see morphological relations. I find it to be one of the most useful things we do that other dictionaries do not. I'd be very surprised if I were alone in that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but you see, your argument makes no sense at corvinus either. You can see corvus at a glance, so why would it help to repeat it, alone, lower down? Is it worth breaking DRY and ensuring that at least some lists will fall out of sync? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
No, it makes perfect sense. You can see corvus at a glance if you know where to look, and because we do not yet have a set of quotations, nor usage notes, nor other information that may separate these sections. It would be silly to say to editors: "Don't put this information in until the entry becomes long." I do not believe that DRY applies in this situation, and I don't think that there will be anything to worry about synching. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
You only can see the related terms at a glance if you equally well know where to look. So that's meaningless. I think I'll stop reverting you because it's honestly a waste of our time, but I will keep removing excessively long lists like my edit at patria. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
"Related terms" shows up in the table of contents, so that people can find it quickly. People can quickly see that header and know what to expect, which is not the case if we force them to use the "Etymology" to find related terms. Removing usable and legitimate content from Wiktionary is poor editing. I will continue adding lists of such terms as I have been doing to entries, although I do concede your point about the particular instance of patria. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, glad we've reached a tentative truce. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've started a BP discussion on this issue, in the hopes that we can craft some sort of written guideline(s). We're not likely to be the last editors to debate this issue, and having some guidelines somewhere could forstall future time wastage. To stimulate the most discussion, and hopefully locate the extremes of the community's viewpoints, I have chosen the most inflammatory possible quotation I could get from our discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

To be blunt, I think that was an awful way to try to gain consensus :) I added a bit. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to start with consensus; I want to explore the breadth of opinions, to see what's out there. Then we'll know where the middle ground actually lies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

corvinus quote[edit]

Could you have a look at my translation of the quote on the corvinus entry? It may be right, but I don't feel entirely happy with it, and I'm not sure whether my uncertainty results from my translation or from the medieval Latin I'm translating from. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well... you need a fair bit more Latin practice before you go translating quotes for entries. I have translated it, and it makes a lot more sense now. I can give you a play-by-play reasoning for each point of grammar and vocab if you want it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I have a relatively easy time understanding reasoning behind translations after the fact, but have always had a harder time with original direct translation in the absence of clear context. It's why I usually prefer to work from Latin sources available in translation or for which I know the context. That said, there are translations that I've found to be singularly bad, such as the one I own of Petronius (which is so "free" as to be almost worthless), and just about every translation I've seen of Pliny's Natural History. (You can't effectively translate a work on natural history if you don't know anything about natural history, and I swear there's not been a translator of Pliny yet who knew anything on that subject.) In those situations I usually have to heavily rework the translations, but at least I've got a starting point from the published translation. I'm much better myself working with individual words, morphology, phonology, and the like. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
BTW, I've kept gravid in the translation, since egg-laying animals can be termed "gravid" but not "pregnant". --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Google Translate for Latin is awful (I never use it), but if you're really stuck it will definitely get the general meaning across. IMO, Pliny didn't know much about Natural History either, but obviously I'm biased. Perhaps he was a better at botany than in the subfields that my interests lie in. Putting gravid in is missing the point, because the Latin word used specifically has connotations of being swelled, and is already vaguely inaccurate. As for phonology, I've been meaning to ask: why do we have entries with /kw/ and /kʷ/? I say the former, but I'm not actually sure which is more correct for the Classical dialect. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Historically, English gravid is equally vague, but the modern sense of "pregnant" just can't fit here. Pliny wasn't always right, and he had many strange ideas, but the translations I've seen are often waaay off the mark, as can be seen by anyone who has done field work of any kind. I'm talking about individual names of things being badly translated, on top of grammatical problems. My last foray into such translations found a list of trees where half the tree names had been mistranslated.
English speakers are more likely to say /kw/ since we don't have a separate phoneme for that letter. Scholars usually give /kʷ/ as the sound in Etruscan and Latin. The article on w:Latin spelling and pronunciation is actually very good, in part because of a few skilled and dedicated researchers. The only caveat is that you will find some misrepresentation of "short vowels" in places, e.g. the footnotes in the Consonants section has [ˈkʷɪŋkʷɛ] despite the fact that the vowel section has /i/ and /e/, because the article has undergone piecemeal revision over a long time, and thus there will be some resultant inconsistencies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that's an inconsistency. It's like writing /p/ in English phonology but transcribing [pʰɪn]. The distinction in vowel height between [ɛ] and [e] was not phonemic in Latin (at least not until [eː] shortened) just like the distinction in aspiration between [pʰ] and [p] is not phonemic in English. —CodeCat 16:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe it is an inconsistency, as I was part of the discussion that revised vowel length information in that article. There is still some academic debate about whether Classical Latin had both [ɛ] and [e], and how widespread the two sounds might have been, but it's not certain that the sound separation (apart from the distinction of phonemes) existed prior to the period of Late Latin outside of Vulgate dialects. English scholars tend to favor the idea that there was a difference in both quality and duration (length) of such vowels, while Continental scholars believe the difference was merely one of duration with no difference in the quality. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Mauritian Creole.[edit]

I saw this blog post, and thought it might interest you. —RuakhTALK 16:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I've never looked at an Indian Ocean creole before. It's very unusual, and in some ways less of a creole than most I've seen. I don't think a single Pacific creole, for example, declines its pronouns, has irregular non-auxiliary verbs, preserves T-V distinction, or have much more than 2000 vocabulary words in actual use, yet Mauritian Creole has all of these attributes. Category:Mauritian Creole language looks depressingly sparse, so I think I will attack this one sometime. I really appreciate the thought, by the way. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


User:SemperBlotto is always putting me down. when I went to the WT:Information desk he said I see that you can't even spell two. Can you talk to him? He also said something about me capitalizing I all the time.Venomxx (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well... he's unfortunately right. We're writing a dictionary, so that kind of thing matters immensely. He was referring to the last line of your userpage. Try to use correct vocabulary and grammar. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I fixed my user page, but what about him always putting me down? If I made mistakes why does only semperblotto correct them? Does he have the critic position?Venomxx (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

He does a lot of work around here, and you haven't done any, so it's natural that he might feel annoyed. He's giving you a second chance. Use it well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Am i just ticking user:semperblotto and everyone else off by my questions? Should i wait till I'm older to edit Wiktionary?Venomxx (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat; I have an odd patient streak. I think you should try the suggestions you were given at the Information Desk and see if you can add photos, for example. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

i did it![edit]

My pictures are onAbramis brama Venomxx (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

See these changes. Just one photo is good, and use the format [[|thumb|''{{subst:PAGENAME}}'']] (but replace the part with whatever the image is called, like Paris.svg or Day_1_Parade.png etc. Does that make sense? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

umm kinda, i think i know what your talking about, and yes i will try that. Venomxx (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)i tryed it and i din't get it, before i was copy and pasting.Venomxx (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


I'm having some trouble with one user Dijan ,who is administrator too, and is insulting me,threating me with blocking,and calling me names like racist,ultra-nationalist,disrupting etc.And just because I was trying to fix some mistakes he made or to remove some unverified informations.Can you please talk to him?See Zabadu (talk)

I can't understand Serbo-Croatian and I don't know anything about this situation, so I don't feel qualified to do anything. If you want, you can ask another administrator or raise the topic in the main discussion forum. If you do either, I recommend that you translate the conversation and you provide links. Sorry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why can't we have separate Croatian and Serbian languages?You know Serbo-Croatian doesn't exist anymore?It is usually edited by Croats,some are biased,and language now seems more Croatocentric than it is.Serbia and Croatia are independant countries now as they were hundred of years in the past.Macedonian and Bulgarian are also very similar but are listed separate here.

Zabadu (talk)

The US and the UK have been separate countries for quite a while. That does not mean that US English and UK English are separate languages. --WikiTiki89 18:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It's funny that the Croats say the Serbs are the ones "supporting" the existence of Serbo-Croatian. It seems that the mentality of "our people are better than that, so assume the other ones are to blame" still hasn't gone away since the war. What a shame. —CodeCat 18:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

We tried living in one state,Yugoslavia and it twice failed (WW2 and 90's),war broke out and it ended very bad,very deadly.

Difference is even larger than US and UK English or Macedonian and Bulgarian.British Americans adn British are one nation,while Serbs and Croats are not.I can't help editing entries who are exclusively Croatian.There are hundreds of such words and I have no idea what they mean and I never heard of them.

Zabadu (talk)

Americans and British one nation? You're kidding right? They had a war just like you did and hated each other for decades afterwards. If you come across words you don't know, just leave them or RFV them. That is the normal procedure on Wiktionary. —CodeCat 18:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


You removed my removal of JavaScript from Java. Please see How is JavaScript different from Java? by the makers of java. --Guerillero (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please, don't be haughty about it. I know the difference. What you don't understand is that we're descriptive, not proscriptive, and if people use a term, we include it. For more, see WT:WFW. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Why did you revert my work on the definition of pride?[edit]

The existing definition is completely inadequate to the way the word is used today (and has been for many decades.) It was apparently lifted from the old dictionary and written by a 19th-century schoolmarm who didn't get out much. So maybe my new entry was not formatted in the approved way, but it was a vast improvement, something actually usable for someone who wants to look up the word on wiktionary.

Your definition was a mass of rambling personal opinion, and other material inappropriate for a dictionary definition. It also had nonstandard formatting. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Mass I agree with, in the sense that it was much longer than what existed. Printed dictionaries had to be obsessively concise because of the practical limitations of producing fat heavy books. Imposing the same constraint on an internet dictionary would be nuts. (Look up the definition of pride in the complete OED, which aspires to be complete despite the print format. I bet it's huge.)
Rambling personal opinion, no. It was a well-considered attempt to say what the word means in various contexts. It wasn't perfect, but in a wiki, someone gets the ball rolling, and others improve it over time. Alas, it seems that Wikimedia properties are increasingly not wikis, but prikis (n. website with the outward form of a wiki, but operated as a private club.) Perhaps that's an inevitable bad-drives-out-the-good phenomenon. But Wikipedia got to be good as a wiki before starting the priki evolution. Wiktionary seems to be a priki already, before it's any good.
The current definiton of pride is terrible, and a betrayal of anyone who comes here to look it up. You seem to be presiding over a dusty hundred-year-old dictionary whose main virtue was being free of copyright. I dare say it wasn't a brilliant dictionary even when new, and it's certainly been left behind by 100 years of our living language. I thought I would check to see if it was possible to bring it to life. No. I won't waste any more time, of which I am sure you are glad.
Just in case, I reread it. And I stand by my opinion. But I smell sour grapes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't find the OED's entry on pride to be particularly huge, but it is more complete than the current Wiktionary entry and written in a concise manner despite being online. I think there is room for improvement, but I have trouble understanding where got the contexts from. What centuries does oldest traditions come from and where is the evidence for the assertion behind it? Does "older traditions" refer to people older than 40, 50, 60 or 70, and where does that assertion come from? Do all Americans believe that pride is good (I seriously doubt it) and where are the other individualist cultures (and more importantly, where is the evidence for this assertion)? Where is the proof that there is a definition derived from modern psychological theories (and what is the period of time that modern refers to)? It is probably not possible to document most of this information, so it will not be possible to include it. It may be useful to read Help:Writing_definitions and WT:CFI when considering what qualifies for inclusion and how to format.
It's also recommendable to create a user account with a name. See also Help:Talk_pages for further information. --BB12 (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey BB. Long time no see write. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


  • I just noticed that you blocked GhalyBot and went to bot policy and saw where the problem is . GhalyBot has started working on this wiktionary only on the same day you blocked it. I will revise my user config file and remove enwiktionary from it and will not use this bot again on this wiktionry, would you mind lifting the block ,please. I am very sorry for the inconvenience this might cause you. Kind regards. --Ghaly (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I have now changed the configurations and GhalyBot is not going to work on enwiktionary any more. Once again , I am very sorry. --Ghaly (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
      If you are not planning to use GhalyBot at en.wiktionary, why do you want it unblocked? If you want, you can create a bot vote at WT:V (if you satisfy the requirements in WT:BOTS). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

From rollback in side Robert[edit]

[1] Hey! Why did you revert my edits? What I have thought, name ロベルタ (Roberuta) is right.--Sentree (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Usually, wasei-eigo terms use u or o (in Rōmaji) for a final non-nasal consonant. The fact that this uses a suggests that it instead means Roberta. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Aung San Suu Kyi and The Equality Mantra in Latin[edit]

Since I got "non potestas sed timor corrumpit" as an answer (I even made it a DeviantART comment sig and tagline), how about "Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it."? Then there's a quote from a FaceBook community page called The Equality Mantra: "Love is a terrible thing to hate." And then there's "Please use your liberty to promote ours." and "To be forgotten. The French say that to part is to die a little. To be forgotten too is to die a little. It is to lose some of the links that anchor us to the rest of humanity." (Am I typing too much?) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The practice is good for me. In order of appearance:
Timor potestatem amittendi eos qui eam utuntur et timor potestatis flagelli eos qui eae serviunt corrumpit.
Mantra Aequalitatis: Amorem odisse terribile est.
Si placet tuam utimini ut libertatem nostram promoveatis.
In memoria non esse. Franci exire mortem parvam esse inquiunt. Etiam in memoria non esse mortem parvam mori est. Est pauca nexa quae nos humanitati reliquae connectunt amittere.
Not perfect, especially with the workarounds for deponent verbs. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

ASSK: "Within a system which denies the existence of basic human rights, fear tends to be the order of the day." --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Systemate neganti existentiam jurum simplicium hominum timor saepe diei mandatum est. I have translated "order of the day" literally, but if it is idiomatic it ought to be translated otherwise, perhaps as lex suprema ("highest law"). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Telugu etymology template[edit]

Sir, Can you help me in making the Etymology template to work in Telugu wiktionary. There are about 80,000 pages in there. Some of the Telugu words are derived many other Indian and foreign languages. I would like to link those words to these languages. Thanking you in advance.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that I do not think I have the technical capabilities. Please post your question at WT:GP, where you will hopefully get a useful answer or assistance. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for moving this! Sometimes I get confused about where best to open a thread. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Eh, sure. Welcome back 'n' all that. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
By the way, I actually thought I was being a bit rude by moving it, so I'm glad you're not offended or anything. Quite the opposite, evidently. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
So long as the thread gets eyeballs and replies on the way to resolving the issue, I don't mind where it gets moved to. (Provided I can find it, of course. :) )
And man, but I can spend a lot of time faffing about on here.  :D Good to be back, though. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
As long as you clean out WT:RE:ja it's all cool with me ;) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Chinese cabbage related entries[edit]

I am a bit confused about our entries and the underlying facts. From pedia it looks like there are two subspecies or possibly varieties of Brassica rapa, one of the most varied plant species. At least some of the Chinese terms seem to have more bearing on the part of the plant than the precise subspecies. I would love to clean up our coverage of food-related taxa, especially the relationship between the taxa and the English food terms, whatever the originating language. Brassica rapa is particularly challenging. DCDuring TALK 01:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh god, I hate Brassica. Not the plant (most varieties are actually quite delicious in my estimation), but the taxonomy. I really am not sure myself how to sort things, I only interfered because I knew the characters for caixin. A starting point might be to figure out how complete/accurate the entry Chinese cabbage is; I'll see what I can do in that region. (BTW, if you feel up to a real challenge, try dealing with the entries for various species and varieties of Cucurbita; I seem to remember great disagreement on what to do with a lot of Asian gourds.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That damn icon thing[edit]

"For the record, I am unabashedly siding with the majority to try to ensure that the current setup in which one favicon is the comfortable victor is not changed in the next two days." Haha. RESPECT, as most of my friends (who are all popular rappers) would say. If it doesn't work, we will have to invent some kind of plug-in to make browsers fake an icon per domain. Equinox 02:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Check the percentages. Before I voted, I believe #1 was no consensus in the low 60s and #2 was passing in the low 70s, so assuming slight movement on both fronts, the vote should be stabilised. As you may have noticed, the logo itself is my next goal, but I can't expect that to go as smoothly. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I already have a plug-in thingy: User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV/monobook.js. I still shows the old logo before uncached pages finish loading. — Ungoliant (Falai) 06:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

FWOTD is running out again![edit]

Needs more words... —CodeCat 15:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Do bear in mind that I am a naturally unreliable person :) I have in fact been monumentally overbusied, and catching up with neglected aspects of my life will take a mite of work as well. I hope that we are safe enough for now. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


Hello, Latin triumphus derives from Greek Θρίαμβος, so this is the etymon.

Generally, that would produce *thriambus/triambus in Latin. Are you sure that they are not just cognates? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's via Etruscan, see triumphus page.

OK, I'll add it in. Pleasde note the correct format and the fact that we distinguish Ancient Greek from (Modern) Greek here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, ok, thanks.

not enough?[edit]

I am worrying that I am doing some thing wrong with the pictures I am adding. Here is a normal example of what i am doing; Accipiter ventralis. Also am I even putting the picture in the right spot? Venomxx (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are my tips: Don't use gallery, and make sure to remove the {{rfi}} or {{rfimage}} template. See the changes I made there. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


Desafortunadamente, it is. I was trying to see if there was a more proper term for marea alta and marea baja and did not find it here, went to Google translate and discovered pleamar and confirmed at with rae and then added them all for posterity and easy future reference. Oh and some advice from my part, if you ever want to embarass someone arrogantly claiming to speak a language ask them how do you say "28", "40th", or "shark" as someone with no experience is unlikely to know. BUST-ED every time.Valienteycaliente (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, um, easy: en español "28", "40a", and "eshark"! Actually, I happen to know all three in Spanish even though I'm not really es-1 yet, still looking up muchas palabras en toda página. I have to learn before I go to Ecuador. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


Intrigirati is both Serbian and Croatian word.There is no word intrigovati.Please don't tell me you thougth all verbs that end in -irati are Croatian and -ovati are Serbian.Because that is not a rule.You don't know much about Serbo-Croatian I guess. 18:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't be a language nationalist. Look at google books:"intrigovati" and google books:"интриговати". Obviously this is a real word. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
No, I am not a Slavicist and I know very little about Serbo-Croatian. You, however, are spouting nonsense when you say a real word does not exist. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh my God.You really believe such word exists.No there is no such word both Serbs and Croats say intrigirati.Trust me.These are wrong translations to Serbo-Croatian you are showing me. 18:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you even bother to look at the links I provided? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

In any case intrigirati is not only Croatian verb Serbs say intrigirati too.What gives you the right to undo my changes,you don't know nothing about SH , you are so stup*d you think I am a nationalist. 18:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh my God you are so du*mb, how come you haven't realized that? I wasn't even trying to hide it. Anyway blocking me is really unnecessary because you can change an address whenever you want to. I have plenty of time and I am bored so I will continue editing. You can block me again of course but that won't really do anything.

Also 85 % of my edits is correct and factual you can not deny that.

But maybe I should also stop using insults,really rude. 18:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

WT:Range blocks. I've never used it before, but I assume it works. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You are blocking innocent people.Wrong move.Let's see now how can you block an user(me) without a proof and without a reason. 21:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: "without a reason". Obviously untrue. But really, why must I block you? Why can't you realize that you are simply unwanted? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: bamboo curtain[edit]

Can't believe you deleted the page as misspelling and then recreate it as your own. Do you know the "move" button? You're welcome. Bennylin (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Your page had a lot of formatting errors, so it was easier for me to rewrite it. Take a look at WT:ELE and WT:CFI. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
No need. Your arrogance showed it all. And you have a typo there too. Should you delete that mess? *sarcasmalert* Bennylin (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
For future reference, insulting editors will not help in making them more cooperative. If you find a typo, please fix it (for a content page) or tell me (for a policy page). Anyway, maybe WT:WFW would be helpful for you? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Inline citations[edit]

The purpose of inline citations isn't to cite every single fact like on Wikipedia, and the request template wasn't there to contest any of the content. It's so you can determine more easily which parts of the entry are actually in that source and which are not. I think it is important to be able to see that. —CodeCat 22:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There was hardly any information on the page anyway, so the only thing I can imagine the source was citing was the assumed existence of the PIE word in that specific form. The descendants are obviously related, so that's the only part left. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


I can no longer manage WOTD due to time constraints. I'm also taking a wikibreak from the project as a whole due because I need it. In my absence, could you guide whoever expresses an interest in taking over to where/who they can find the information they need to learn the ropes of managing WOTD? Thanks. Astral (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I noticed... but hopefully -sche will do that. I've never run enWOTD, and I never was able to help much. Of course, we need a volunteer for me to help, even if I can help (I'll certainly try). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Well, thanks for your support, and for your interesting WOTD noms. :) Astral (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I know, my response is probably not exactly what you were hoping for... at least you left a buffer :) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I've made a habit of trying to set at least a week's worth of words in advance, if there's enough of a pool from which to draw. It's easier that way. But it's still a very intensive process, and unfortunately I just don't have the time or energy to commit to it right now. Astral (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

morr rollback[edit]

Hi, rolling back my edit for Alb morr doesn't make any sense since there's no point in listing 2 Germanic comparandae; certainly 1 will do. Obviously, the whole point of listing any is just for comparison, not to make an ad nauseum list. Torvalu4 (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

There's generally no point in removing content that isn't causing a problem and is accurate. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)



Kindly google for hindia and you will agree my definition of Hindia. Its the region of India whose mother tongue or main language is Hindi. This comes to North India or India except South India. Kindly allow my edit

Also Hindia has nothing to do with Hindu as India itself is derived from Indus valley civilization which is present day hindu culture.

As far as I can tell, you are incorrect. Look at google books:"Hindia" and google books:"Hindian"; there are precious few cites, but those that exist do appear to support the Hindu nationalist definition. I cannot find any that undoubtably support your definition. Good day, sir. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


I mist respectfully disagree, on the following grounds:

Certainly, every American I think of as being excellently so, had loved this definition, and what you are describing is how it it has been abused and degraded since.

The version I use would be the one descended from those sources in other languages that, at the time and to this date, would have been as familiar to them, European-descended and educated as they were. It fits, and my efforts in discussion show this.

Further, it is vision or themselves that ca now apply to any country, regardless of flavour, while separating the Patriots (like Teddy Roosevelt) from the Zealots and chanters (I leave to your personal interpretation thereof because they are not truly embracing the values of their country las laid out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Respctfully, I suggest it is time to change course, and if nothing else help me set up a new entry for True Patriot(s)?

Roslyn (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That may be your idiolectal view of the word, but that is simply one subset of how it is used in general discourse. If we were to separate the first current definition into two, one with your meaning and one with my meaning (I dislike patriotism very much, and use patriot pejoratively), the two meanings would still be overlapping so much on who is a patriot, and so redundant to our current sense, that they would almost certainly be deleted. Also, you seem to assume that patriots can only be American, considering your third paragraph. That, too, is quite simply not the case. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Roslyn (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Abdolutely not. I am in fact, by making that particular adjustment and assertion, that I only showed the respect inherent in the possibility of ending up starting arguments where none were intended. Also, patriotism is generally considered a positive trait, it is when confused with jingoism or such that meanings my rub together if the reader/speakers are not alert. As to your stated bias, it demonstrates the result an an ideal being misunderstood and then wished to force the rest to do so? I am perplexed as to where this belongs in a dictionary?


Can you help out with the rfquote, by any chance?​—msh210 (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't speak Hebrew, and my reading comprehension is extremely low. If I were to look for a quote, I'd look for a children's book explaining the meaning of the holiday in Hebrew. It might say something like, "The holiday is called Purim because of the purim that Haman used [] " or whatever. But I'm afraid that I'm not a good person to ask, because I don't have access to those sorts of books. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Setting a few FWOTDs[edit]

Can you set some FWOTDs tomorrow? I will be away. (Note: I’ll also ask CodeCat, in case you don’t see this message in time). Thanks. — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

What a terrible FWOTDer I've been. I'll get on it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Latin 4th declension in -ubus[edit]

On the Tea Room, I discussed the sonus medius. It seems rather likely that the variation between -ubus and -ibus isn't actually a matter of different nouns, but of different usage over time. In other words, -ubus is simply an older alternative form of -ibus. Does that make sense? If so, the template {{la-decl-4th-ubus}} probably shouldn't exist... —CodeCat 02:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There may be a temporal component, and pre-classical Latin is not very well known to me. But within standard Classical texts, and all classicistic texts, one finds use of -ubus as a specific quality that certain nouns have. In many cases, like artus, the functional similarity to -abus in the 1st declension seems to be the cause, but in others it is obscure. At Wiktionary, we have non-classical words when attested, but the infrastructure is made for the standard register of the only truly surviving lect, which is all in imitation of literature in the Golden Age. I always have trouble finding things in Latin grammars, but I'll see what I can dig up. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, historically and etymologically the ending contains -u-. The ending is -ubos in Old Latin, with the -u being a part of the stem as inherited from PIE and therefore invariant. That means that there are only two ways it could have become the -i- of classical Latin. We know that it must have changed naturally through sound change, since we know this did happen to other words in just this phonetic environment: it would developed into sonus medius, spelled i or u before the labial -b-. A second process would be analogy from the 3rd declension, where it originated from Old Latin -e- instead and therefore never had sonus medius. So there are two things at work: one process we know must have happened, and a second that could have happened, and would have produced -i- as the result in both cases. From that, I would conclude that the -u- is indeed sonus medius, but that, like in many other words such as optumus, it was eventually replaced by -i-. Analogical pressure from the 3rd declension would have surely helped as well, but the reality can also be accounted for without it. So that means, really, that all the 4th declension nouns with -ubus are archaisms, and have just become grammaticalised in that form, much in the same way that English has retained oxen even though it has replaced all other plurals with -s. —CodeCat 02:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Assuming that you're wholly correct about Old Latin (hard to see how one could be sure, with all the variant spellings, but it seems likely enough), then your conclusions follow well. But the thing is, you seem to be leading up to an argument for deleting {{la-decl-4th-ubus}}, which still makes no sense to me. If that's not your goal, then what is the point of this conversation (except, perhaps, to educate me a bit on Old Latin)? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm actually still arguing for something like that. Because we deal with all Latin on Wiktionary, not just the semi-standardised classical variety. And surely, there are other 4th declension nouns with -ubus than just the few that have become "fossilised"? —CodeCat 04:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The thing is, we don't cover that much truly old Old Latin here; my understanding is that the scribal process tended to erase older forms anyway. Do you also propose that we put in declension tables for Old Latin forms as well? There is, if not consensus, tacit understanding to treat standard Classical Latin as a prestige default dialect and everything else as Old Latin, Ecclesiastical Latin, etc (with associated templates and categories). The template is useful to help readers know the correct form in the dialect they are most likely to be researching Wiktionary for, the dialect of Cicero and Caesar. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I guess that is true. But some part of me just protests... —CodeCat 04:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Greek Quotations πατάσσω[edit]

Thanks for fixing up my formatting. I am wondering, though, why the citation template displays the transliteration, but not the translation. Is it meant to be that way? Furius (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Any time. We have such quotation templates for every good Ancient Greek writer. I just made a typo; it does display translation. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I just ran across "bangstry" and wanted to know what it meant[edit]

Wow that was so quick, I thought I screwed up the submit. From your first link: A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means.

Which is exactly what happened to me just now as I was watching the police/murder procedural CSI and the episode that aired this past week (as you might have gleaned from the included quotation). I'm not exactly sure what its audience share is, but even after 13 seasons, it is watched by millions of Americans. If you don't believe me, the episode is here and the usage is around the 15:30 mark.

As for your second link, it can't possibly be a protologism as it was included in a 1912 dictionary, as you should have been able to see from my reference.

Let me know what gives, please. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that, my mistake. Note that dictionaries are not actually admissible as citations to prove a word exists (for more on that see WT:ATTEST), but I was wrong to delete it because it does seem to be attestable per a search at Google Books. I've undeleted it and fixed your formatting. Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't about to merge an entire slang dictionary onto here anyway, but indeed that policy does make sense. Thanks for the welcome, and good work keeping an eye on things! -- Kendrick7 (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

praecanto inflection[edit]

Hey, I was wondering if you help me on the inflection for this.

I got the definition from Lewis & Short, but their lexical description is somewhat confusing. From what I can gather, this verb is at least in some sense deponent (ātum), however it also appears to me that this verb has no infinitive. What do you think? - Znex (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, Lewis & Short was written for people who already speak good enough Latin that they only need the minimum of information. It is by no means deponent or infinitiveless or anything else weird, just another 1st conj regular. I recommend that you use Elementary Lewis, which often gives slightly clearer information in that regard (also fully digitised on Perseus Hopper), and maybe get a Latin textbook as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Arabic script characters[edit]

Why did you empty this category? -- Liliana 20:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't fathom its purpose. The few entries I found in it were placed in Category:Arabic letters, Category:Urdu letters, etc. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
It's for all letters written in Arabic script, as opposed to the other, language-specific categories. We also have Category:Latin script characters, Category:Cyrillic script characters, Category:Hebrew script characters et cetera. -- Liliana 20:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, feel free to create it as long as you're going to fill it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Bashkir transliteration[edit]

Hi Metaknowledge, I've noticed that transliteration has changed in the Bashkir entries. Interestingly, the new transliteration overrides the old one that I have provided manually. I guess this is related to your recent transliteration activity. Is this true?Borovi4ok (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

In particular, I have a problem with the way Bashkir ш is now transliterated. Do you think this is still open to discussion? Borovi4ok (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for not consulting with you first. The transliteration that I'm using is the official one described at WT:BA TR, but if you want to change anything, I will respect your wishes.
The transliteration itself is actually controlled by Module:ba-translit, which is in Lua (see WT:LUA for more). So all we have to do is edit the page and the module to change something. What would you prefer for ш? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I would prefer Šš for Шш, Ïï for Ыы, I for И (capital), Čč for Чч, šč for щ.
Also, Uu for уу and Üü for Үү look terribly awkward in cases where they actually represent a consonant sound, as in сиркәү, айыу, ауыҙ and рәүеш. My preference in such cases would be Ww for both consonant sounds. We can work together to formulate the transliteration rules for such cases. Borovi4ok (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's inconsistent with our other Turkic languages, but if you think that's best I guess we can go along with it, as you are our only local Bashkir speaker. The w's will take a bit of effort, I'll see what I can do, probably later today. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, you only want them to be transliterated as w when they follow a vowel and are the last letter of a word, or when they are between two vowels (I'm counting ы as a vowel for these purposes.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, ы is a legitimate vowel, no reservations.
I've spent some time looking at a hefty lists of Bashkir words with у/ү.
The rule would be: ALL у/ү's after vowels (regardless of their position within the word) should be transliterated as w. This would also cover the VwV cases.Borovi4ok (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there any way we can keep the possibility to manually enter transliterations for irregular cases? Some Russian loanwords may be "odd" in terms of transliteration. Borovi4ok (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I have invited another Wiki participant into this discussion. His username is Comp1089, he speaks fairly good Bashkir, I thought his opinion might help. Borovi4ok (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, I will add the rule (remind me if I forget). As for overrides, how would you like a parameter in all the templates called override=? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
OK with "override" parameter. Thanx for helping! Borovi4ok (talk) 09:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
In бөжәк, ж is automatically tranliterated as c.
In my view, that's absolutedly wrong. Can you please change that to ž.Borovi4ok (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
ж fixed, I also added the rule for transliterating ү as w if it is after [АаЕеЭэЮюЯяӘәИиҮүУуӨөЫы], is it OK? --Z 13:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for ж and ү, looks great.
What about tranliterating у? We also needs it as w after all vowels. Borovi4ok (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Added у. --Z 13:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanx! Looks perfect now.
Last one for today (hopefully). Here's one case (just one for now) where we need to use the "override" parameter.
хайуан - needs to be transliterated as xaywan. CAn you please show how to use this parameter in this article to get the desired result? Borovi4ok (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I've added й to that list of vowels, so ү/у would be transliterated as w after й as well, isn't it correct? --Z 13:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, ZxxZxxZ,
That yields the desired result in this specific case,
However, I'm not sure this is the correct formula. Looks like this is a rare case. I need to spend a bit of time looking at lists of Bashkir words, so I can figure out the rule. Will write back a bit later. Borovi4ok (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks like no rules can be formulated for this -wV- cluster :(
On the one hand, in ғинуар and каруан (and several other cases), the transliteration should be resp. ğinwar and karwan.
On the other hand, there are dozens of Russian loanwords in Bashkir, like эвакуация and ситуация, where we need to keep -ua- in the transliteration.
Since no formal rule can be established, we have to use the "orderride" option, so we can manually set the proper tranliteration in specific cases.
Z, ideally we need to remove the й rule you have introduced (to keep the rules straightforward and understandable for newcomers), and use the "manual tranliteration override" option. Is that feasible? Borovi4ok (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok then, I removed й. I've already added the override parameter to Template:ba-noun, you can use it as follows: {{ba-noun|tr=...|override=1}} --Z 14:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanx, it works! Borovi4ok (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, ZxxZxxZ. I am glad that you are evidently more responsible than I am (and hopefully somewhat more knoweldgeable about Lua) because I'm hoping for Module:fa-translit sometime soon :) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, np. For fa, it's a complicated situation: even having a fully vocalized word in Perso-Arabic script won't help, because unlike fully vocalized Arabic words, it still won't contain some information -- ی y may be [eː], beside [iː], and و w may be [oː], beside [uː], and it's not possible to represent it in Arabic script. However, this won't happen if we are going to only include transliteration in Iranian Persian (which is what we users have done so far, but it's not a good practice), which doesn't have [eː] and [oː]. On the other hand, I'm working on a module to generate phonetic pronunciations in different accents of Persian, and it only works by entering the transliteration in Classic Persian. So, at the end of the day we still need to enter transliteration in each entry. --Z 14:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you move the documentation subpages back please?[edit]

WT:Grease pit/2013/March#Modules can now be documented. Thank you. —CodeCat 16:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Um, I moved it because /documentation doesn't work AFAICT. Assuming you're right, what am I doing wrong? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
At the time you made the move, it didn't work. But it didn't work because of an error which I just corrected. Now it's the /doc page that no longer works. Maybe you should have discussed it first? —CodeCat 18:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, discussion didn't seem to get anywhere; I thought it would be better to impose order on the chaos and then people could move it around the way they want later. I guess I'll "move" it all back (i.e. copy-paste, delete, create). Please note that if you want to help, you can't just undelete the old /doc pages because I added module categories. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I can help out if you like. It's not possible to move modules to non-module pages, but if I temporarily undo the change to the subpage name, then those pages you created will "become" non-module pages again. That will allow you to move them freely, although you'll need to move them to another place first, then re-do the name change, and then move them to their final name. Do you think having to move each page twice is more productive than what you suggested? —CodeCat 19:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably, but what would I move them to temporarily? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
It it's just temporary, does it really matter? :) —CodeCat 19:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Just making sure I understand, it would have to go to a different namespace in the first move, and then back to Module: as /documentation, right? I mean, I really don't want to fuck more than I have to. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes. You could move Module:nl-verb/doc to User:Metaknowledge/nl-verb or whatever. Then, once you've moved them all, the subpage's name is changed over to /documentation and that will allow you to move them to the correct location. —CodeCat 19:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Let's go! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I've temporarily changed the name to /doc again and I've moved some of the pages. —CodeCat 19:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Um... I'm still waiting? I need to know when to change it back... —CodeCat 23:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I had to actually attend to real life. Unfortunately or not, I can't quite spend my whole day in front of a computer screen pretending work whilst editing Wiktionary. I'll finish up the move. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Your real life involves adding transliteration code to templates? :p —CodeCat 00:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Lol, that's true, I probably should've done this first... I am impulsive and unreliable, get used to it :) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I just had an idea. We can't move pages from module to non-module and vice versa. But what if I change the doc page name to something else like asdf? Then both the old and the new names will be "modules" and the move may work. Let's see... —CodeCat 00:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it works! You can move the pages directly now! —CodeCat 00:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Finally Yes check.svg DoneΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! —CodeCat 14:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Armenian transliteration[edit]

Can you write Module:hy-translit based on WT:HY TR? I don't understand Lua. --Vahag (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I would be glad to. Unfortunately, I can't read Armenian yet, but it looks easy. I'll do it after I finish templatising the ones I've already done. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll wait. You can also use the Armenian section in User talk:Conrad.Irwin/Transliterator.php. --Vahag (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't feel like I can fully trust the page (it is pretty old, and ignores some important things like vowel stress in Ukrainian transcriptions, etc), but if you say it is all correct for Armenian, I'll make the module from it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
It's correct for Armenian. I wrote it. --Vahag (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
It looks easy if it's one to one. I've done one for Georgian here: Module:ka-translit. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I've done for Armenian as well, please check: Module:hy-translit
Testing a Wikipedia article: Module error --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Nice, I'm glad I'm not the only one transliterating. My only criticism is that you need to create the documentation subpages so that they get categorised correctly. You can use Module:hy-translit/documentation as an example of the format. Can you make modules for the Arabic script languages? I still can't read it, and that might take more work to get right than a one-to-one alphabet. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
It's one to one, except for digraph ու (u), which should be transliterated as u, not ow. How do we do that? --Vahag (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it does already, see the result of passing ու into the module: Module error --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 09:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge. It's not possible to produce accurate transliteration for unvocalised Arabic and Hebrew. Fully vocalised Arabic with strict spelling is possible to transliterate but it will take some efforts, not sure this will be successful. I know the rules of Arabic reading but I don't have Lua skills and would need some help. Of course, there's a question if this is going to be useful, since Arabs don't put short vowels signs, same with Persian and Urdu. Uyghur is fully phonetic but I don't know the rules well. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I know that, but we already use the head= parameter for vocalised Arabic, so it should be possible. You can learn some Lua at or wherever else you find helpful documentation, and there are a bunch of people around here who you can ask. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Transliteration of Russian inflected forms[edit]


Is it possible to add automatic transliteration of Russian inflected forms? Did you do something like that for other languages? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Depends, could you show me an example of what a typically formatted Russian inflected form entry looks like? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Noun: очертание, adjective: честный, verb: делать. They use various templates, though. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Maybe there's a misunderstanding — you said you want inflected forms, right? These are all lemmata. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I meant, is it possible to add the transliteration to the inflection tables. What is required? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Definitely possible, I can do it after I've finished the languages I'm still working on. Ignatus might want to do it, but I suppose there's no need to bother him right now if there's no rush. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


You don't happen to have a list of Inferni red links do you? It would speed up the addition process if I didn't have to generate it myself. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If I had it I've give it to you, but I don't even know the best way to generate it. All I've got (besides my physical copies) is s:it:Commedia (Buti)/Inferno, which you already know about. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
No prob - we have the technology. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Cool. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I shall use s:it:Divina Commedia/Inferno as my source - but it will be a while before I start as I already have several competing projects on the go. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Which languages/corpora/whatevers are coming up next? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
German: I'm working through the German Wikipedia entries for each chemical element (arsenic is next).
Italian: the same (but much faster as there are far fewer missing words)
Portuguese: This is just a maybe - I can more-or-less read it, but can't speak a word. I'm assuming it is "just another Romance language" and should be easy to learn. I haven't even looked at our pt templates yet. (This project might get postponed- but see the current sandbox for words missing from pt Wikipedia article on hydrogen). SemperBlotto (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
See, as a first rough draught, User:SemperBlotto/inferno - 1,740 words to be considered. (I've already added some A--- proper nouns) SemperBlotto (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
A lot of the valid redlinks are medieval spelling variants, but there's also a fair amount of stuff that's just totally unfamiliar to me (hey, my Italian's not so good and getting worse by the minute as I replace it with Spanish). Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
What do you recommend that I do with such words as elezïone. Is this just a typographical variant that we normally ignore? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
We really should have something in WT:AIT about it. However, I'm pretty that this can be a job for {{medieval spelling of}}, but I can make a custom template if you'd prefer. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
OK - that seems to work. We need a category creating though. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

translit modules[edit]


The number of translit modules has grown in quantity. I've add other Slavic languages, Arabic, Persian. User:ZxxZxxZ has done some great work on Arabic, may be will work on Persian but it can't be fully transliterated, Persians use diacritics even less than Arabs. Will have to address Korean at some stage.

Can you do basic Hebrew, Yiddish? Is it possible to transliterate more or less accurately fully vocalised Hebrew? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hebrew probably won't happen. There are some regular stress patterns for certain inflections (like plural forms) and it would probably be more than 90% accurate for those if fed with the vocalised Hebrew, but that would be a job for Ruakh if (and only if) he thinks it's a good idea.
Yiddish is mostly possible, but there are so-called 'etymological spellings' that preserve the (unvocalized) Hebrew spelling, and those cannot be transliterated automatically. I'm thinking of rewriting the Yiddish inflection templates somewhat, which might be a good time to work in as much automatic translit as we can.
I'm also planning on doing more languages, but I feel like the most important part is using the ones we have — that is, incorporating them into templates. For example, has that been done with the Georgian templates yet? If not, I can do that.
PS: Apologies for the late reply. I've been on holiday in the mountains with very little access to the internet. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I haven't started using the templates anywhere. As for Hebrew, like Russian, manual edit should override all automatic transliteration. Stresses are mostly unpredictable and important and Russian as well but if there is no manual added stress, then automatic will do. I would welcome a Hebrew module, also for my own benefit. I can't read Hebrew but we have too many translations without translit., many of them have full vocalisation. Some Hebrew dictionaries give full romanisation but no Roman spelling. I believe over time we could do Thai, Lao, Khmer and Burmese modules as well. Wyang has some skills and interest. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
But vocalised Hebrew is still not fully reliable... if you want to be able to read it, I advise you learn the alphabet (it's pretty easy). I still think that it may not even be worth it; if Ruakh thinks it could be, I assume he would have done it.
Thai and Lao are definitely doable, although getting the tones right will be beyond my ability. I will have to ask for help with that. I can't read Khmer or Burmese, but I think that the Khmer and the two non-phonetic transcriptions of Burmese we use here should be possible.
I really hope Wyang will get into this, because if he can port his lang-to-IPA templates into Lua, we can have bot-added pronunciation for most entries in the languages he works in. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I've already learned half-heartedly a few languages like Korean, Persian, Hindi and Thai, which is sad. My Arabic studies are reduced to the minimum. I still have gaps in understanding Hindi and Thai scripts at times. Hebrew, Lao and Burmese scripts are on my to do list but there's just not enough time in the day. It makes little sense to learn the script without learning the language but I know I won't have time for many languages. Japanese and Chinese are too time-consuming.
I reckon if we start Hebrew, Ruakh may join and see what's possible, what's not. It may remain an editor's tool just to see what letters are actually used. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

stratigraphic periods[edit]

That's good to know; in my search for river-adjectives, I found at least half a dozen terms about which I could work out nothing beyond their etymologies and that they were possibly the names of geologic periods. I'll see if I can find where I wrote them down. - -sche (discuss) 23:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, there's Vistulian and Plenivistulian and Weichselian, the distinctions between which are unclear to me. Also, there are a raft of terms like Lower Permian and Lower Carboniferous which I'm guessing should be included à la Late Middle Ages—but what do you think? Are they SOP or idiomatic? - -sche (discuss) 23:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
If you're ever really bored, there are even more here (but don't feel any rush/pressure to get around to them). - -sche (discuss) 23:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't really care enough to add geological periods because a) I think it's a bot job and b) who would think to search Wiktionary for this stuff?
I'm not actually a genius who's memorised every time period (although I know a hell of a lot of them, and all the big ones), so I use It might not be comprehensible to a layperson, but it's my primary source, so if you want to circumvent me, that's where to go.
The Vistulian (Weichselian is an exact synonym) is not a geological time period, but a paleoclimatic one, technically the Northern Poland Glaciation event. Glaciations are named (interglacial are usually referred to by the surrounding glacial events, although I've seen exceptions) locally as a rule, and this is equivalent to the Würm in the Alps and the Wisconsinan in North America, both of which are familiar to me (my source on that identification was this). The only Wiktionary entry I could easily find for a glaciation is Dryas, so I reckon you can model your formatting off of that.
The Plenivistulian would presumably refer to a subperiod of the Vistulian during the glacial maximum, but it's hard to find papers about it that are both clear and not in Polish.
Whether Upper/Lowers should be included is a deep question. On the surface, they are SOP; there is a geological sense at upper and lower to cover it. There is the truth, though, that sites like give exact values for these regularly named subdivisions. The problem is really that there is a double meaning. in the field, I might wave at a formation and say it's Lower Cretaceous based on its relative position, but in a paper, I'd have to check with radiocarbon dating or index fossils and I'd have to use the internationally recognised delimitation of the Lower Cretaceous. Lower Carboniferous is an odd one. Everyone I know calls it the Mississippian, but maybe that's an American thing.
Hope that helped —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Kvitch and kvetch[edit]

Hi, I see you reverted my edits from kvitch. Just for you to know, they came from Rosten's Joys of Yiddish (pp.227-8 of the French edition)and he insists on not confusing kvitch and kvetch ! Yours friendly--'Inyan (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have the English edition somewhere, I'll take a look if you can find a page number. Rosten is not really a scholarly source, though, and if you look at how people actually use the word (see google books:"kvitching") I think our current definition is accurate. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I don’t know about the nuances of kvetch & kvitch in English, but in Yiddish there is a difference between the two. To confirm, I’ve just checked in Harkavy’s & Weinreich’s Yiddish dictionaries: קװיטש (kvitch) is a shrill, a squeak (Harkavy), a shriek, a scream (Weinreich). קװעטש (kvetch) comes from קװעטשען (kvetchen) which is to squeeze, to press, or to pinch (Harkavy & Weinreich). Kvitch & kvetch in Yinglish might have become one in the same as people forgot the actual meanings and both became terms for a complainer, but this is simply conjecture on my part as I’m no expert in the art of “Yinglish”.Sgold84 (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I'm not really sure how to present that information in the entries; if you want to try, that would be great. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

your revert of my edit on hightail it[edit]

Hello. I noticed you've reverted my edit on hightail it. I figured you must have had a reason for keeping the self-redirect (which I've made into a full article now), but it would have been nice if you had left an explanation with the revert. Just my two cents. --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Unlinking something, even if it's a redlink or a self-redirect, rarely serves any purpose. Creating the entry instead was the right decision and I thank you for it. As for edit summaries, there is a lot of vandalism to revert and edits to fix, and adding detailed edit summaries simply takes too long. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured it was better to make the redirect into a new article. I was initially concerned that a reader could become confused if he or she clicked a link that took them back to the same article.
I'm not that familiar with the guidelines here, but at least on the English Wikipedia, users are discouraged from using to rollback button to revert edits that are not obvious vandalism. I was afraid I had done something wrong and was going to get blocked for it. LOL. --Ixfd64 (talk) 03:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't one of those be defined as "alternative spelling of"? Duplicating the information on both entries doesn't seem like a good idea. —CodeCat 03:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
@Ixfd: Sorry, Wiktionary culture is somewhat different. Please see WT:WFW for more on that.
@CC: Yeah, you're right. I just don't have time to fix it right now. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Reconstructed FWOTDs[edit]

Let’s ask the community if it’s OK to have ’em? — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I hardly deserve to be consulted first. Of course we ought to, though. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hakka reading for [edit]

There you go! Enjoy! :-) Bumm13 (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You're so awesome. We've needed someone to do hanzi work for a long time, but I never expected it to actually happen. Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Code nds at English Wiktionary[edit]

There is no language nds-de and so I would not do so. My consequences: I do not further any translation to the englisch Wiktionary. You have the freedom, to do stupid thinks, I have the freedom, to do not so. (All wiktonaries used nds, not nds-de: To do something like this I cannot understand, but I must not understand it, so, do what you will, at time, we worked hard, to make a good wiktionary and than all people, who want something know about Plattdüütsch or Nedersaksisch, that are only to names for the same language, can used our wiktionary. - And by the way: Englisch is nothing else than Plattdüütsch with many french Words! = nds-en, the correct code for Englisch, change it in your Englisch Wiktionary also) --Joachim Mos (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC) PS: You named .ang Oldenglisch, the correct name is Angelsaks'sch and it's nothing else as an old Low Saxon dialect, which was spoken in east Holstein (Angeln) and England (from Platt: Angelland; means: Land of the Angeln), bevor William has conquered England; I speak modern Neddersaks'sch or Plattdüütsch or Low German or how the language is also called, but I can also understand the most of the Angelsaks'sch, can you do also? And Angelsaks'sch is nothing else then Old Plattdüütsch, a dialect, of course, but old Plattdüütsch. When I search for the older forms of a word, I can find them in the (When it is in it, they have not many articels). The main differences between Plattdüütsch in Dutchland and in Germany is, that the Dutch write for example "z" instead of "s" like in Germany, when they write something on Plattdüütsch. What is going on in your wiktionary is Dutch nationalism à la Wilders and Co., in the Europe of the 21 centery simply an anacronism and has nothing to do with science, only with nationalism: Deal with it.

For myself: I would like, when all people, who write in Plattdüütsch, would do it after the spelling-rules from the old Hanse-times; than we had in our wiktionary much less problems; only in Germany there are many forms, how words are written, one write (engl. east) Ost, the other Oost, the same by west (West - Weest) (in Dutchland they write only Oost and West, what's also not logical, because o and e in east and west would be speek long in all dialects; so there is no sence in the difference spellings, it' only a form of spelling anarchy) And so it makes no sencs, to name nds als nds-de, 'cause that is only the form, in which write the most Plattsnackers, as we called ourself.

And last but not least: Plattdüütsch is spoken also in Denmark: Will you also create a nds-da? --Joachim Mos (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

At first, I thought you were in favour of merging nds-de and nds-nl, but your "English is nds-en" and "ang is nds" straw men constitute quite an argument in favour of keeping nds-de and nds-nl separate (since English, Old English, and Low German are quite clearly separate languages). And "Dutch nationalism"? LOL. - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Joachim, you do not appear to be interested in reasonable debate, but whether you are or not does not concern me. I know almost nothing about Low German. Talk to User:-sche and User:CodeCat if you want to discuss our policy. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi. Could you please fix Module:tg-translit? First, Ц / ц is not used in Tajiki. Could you remove it? Second, there is a problem with transliteration of vowels. When е, и, and ӣ are preceded by another vowel, they are transliterated as "ye", "yi" and "yī", respectively. Thanks. --Dijan (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to fix, seems to be OK now. See Module talk:tg-translit. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Anatoli, looks good now. Sorry, Dijan, I don't actually know any Tajiki so I'm just relying on others familiar with the language to check. Thanks for noticing. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

namespace check isn't really necessary[edit]

See the bottom of User:Maro/headword templates/2. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

For some reason I couldn't get it to work, so I just removed it. I'll try again. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Can FWOTD feature two words?[edit]

I thought it might be nice to have a focus week for antonyms. Each day would feature a word that has near-opposite meanings in two languages. For example, I came across akiri which has opposite meanings in Maori and Esperanto. Would this be possible to do? —CodeCat 03:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We'd have to rewrite {{FWOTD}} somewhat, or maybe create another template. I like the idea, but I'm having trouble thinking of more, because that's not really how my brain works... I always had a little mental trouble with Mandarin de and Spanish de, the former of which has x de y mean "y of x" and the latter which has x de y mean "x of y". But that doesn't really come close to the elegance of akiri. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Could a single FWOTD-page not just contain two FWOTD-templates? —CodeCat 02:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
We could add two {{FWOTD}}s to WT:Foreign Word of the Day/YEAR/MONTH/DAY. But, to be honest, we’re already having a hard enough time featuring one word per day :-( — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


It looks like the same typo that was causing problems with ga-noun is doing likewise with ga-verb. Could you have a look and sort it out, please? embryomystic (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, make that ga-proper noun as well. embryomystic (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't have time now, so I just reverted myself. That means that currently they still need sort=, but at least they aren't broken. I shouldn't have been editing templates on a PC in the first place. Thanks for checking —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
{{ga-proper noun}} displays an ugly error in Gaeilge#Irish. JackPotte (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


If you disagree with some part of the code, remove that part. Don't just blindly revert all of it, because there are other parts that are not controversial. And it also breaks a bot that is currently running. —CodeCat 02:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm a little frustrated at you right now. You didn't use edit summaries and I don't know the template that well, so I'd rather not check each of your diffs and quite possibly make a mistake trying to remove it when you have made a controversial change with just 22% support in the BP without even having a community-wide discussion first, as I noted in my comment there. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with removing it until there is a consensus to put it back in. I only disagree with undoing all the other changes. And it seems that you found it easy enough... ironically part of my earlier edits was to make the template code easier to understand so you could find things. :) —CodeCat 02:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
That helped. I just don't trust myself that much; I mean, look at the previous thread on my talkpage. Honestly, I'm still not quite sure why {{ga-verb}} is malfunctioning. In short, I'm no template genius. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Bimbette etmyology[edit]

The term was used for Disney's Beauty and the Beast. It's confirmed on the Platimum Edition DVD. Angie Y. (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

So? That information doesn't belong in the etymology. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Derived terms v related terms[edit]

How do we distinguish between the two? Thmazing (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Btw, you erased more than just my edits. Thmazing (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Derived terms come from a word. Related terms both come from the same word. For more on this topic, see WT:ELE. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I can't find what else I erased, because I'm not even sure which page you're talking about, but apologies if I made a mistake. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverted addition of "Derived terms" on the platy- page[edit]

Hi Metaknowledge,

I added a "Derived terms" section today on the platy- page, which you've reverted. Pondering what could be objectionable in my edit, I suppose it must be that two of the terms (plate and plateau) are cognate to platy- rather than derived from it. That's it, right? So would you be happy with either of

  1. removing only those two, but leaving a "Derived terms" section with platykurtic and platypus, or
  2. retaining the list of four words but relabelling it "Related terms"?

Also, what is the benefit of having this discussion on your user page, rather than on platy-'s Discussion page where it would be easier for others interested in platy- to find?


Davidwbulger (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

To answer your concerns in the order given:
Yes, I reverted because some of your derived terms were not derived. That said, you needn't add a manual list in any case, because we have a technical solution for this kind of problem, in which any page that uses {{prefix}} (click on the link for documentation) and says the prefix is "platy-" will add itself automatically. I have added this to platy-.
The benefit of having the discussion here is that I will see it and respond. If you posted at Talk:platy-, I would have never noticed and you would be speaking to a wall. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well that sounds reasonable. I'm in favour of doing things the right way & automating where possible. I'm still a little in the dark, though. "Platykurtosis" is unedited this year and gives the etymology "{{prefix|platy|kurtosis}}," and yet doesn't now appear on platy-'s page; will this be done automatically by some indexing bot, now that you've altered platy-? Also, won't platypus still need manual addition to platy-'s "Derived terms" section, both because "pus" isn't an English word and because platypus's current etymology section contains lots of detailed info we wouldn't want to replace with just that template? Davidwbulger (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

platypus should not be listed under the derived terms section of platy- because it does not come from platypus. The word comes preformed from the classical languages; we did not create it from the English prefix. Only words which were created in English, based on the existence of this prefix, should be listed there. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Re platykurtosis: This is not done by robots. The exact technical issue in this case was that the page was in a category before that category existed, and so the category doesn't know about it. The problem can be solved by editing the page, as I have done — even just adding a single space will solve the problem.
Re platypus: Atelaes is quite right. Just like plateau, derived terms must actually be derived. This shows that it is important to research etymology rather than making blind guesses. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'm satisfied with that. Re platypus, in my defence, the first Europeans to see a platypus were English-speakers, and they clearly did not name it after the beetle. If 2000 years hence, post-English-speakers start calling something a "flatfoot," I think it will be arguable whether they have borrowed "flat" and "foot" or "flatfoot" from English. But I'll drop it; platykurtosis is only one I really need there. —This unsigned comment was added by Davidwbulger (talkcontribs).

I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood that etymology, but it is somewhat poorly written, and peripheral to this discussion. Cheers! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


Care to explain why you rolled back my edit on the Malay entry for ديوي? The entry for its romanized counterpart "dewi" already lists the correct meaning of "goddess" last I checked, and unless I'm horribly mistaken, the word specifically and absolutely means "goddess," not "god." Goldenbrook (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I was just being precautionary, because it seems the page was created by a native Malay speaker. If you are completely sure, feel free to add it back in. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


In MediaWiki's search, typing 'bodypolitic' brings up body politic. Removing the space or a using a hyphen does not, in my opinion, alter the condition of being a sum of parts. There are 6 texts found in GB using 'catshits', half of the number by a single author, another a proper noun, and one of the others a typo or scanning artifact. Clearly you have a different opinion so I'll just avoid the risk of being corrected by you in the future.

Oh, and you might scan through the deletion log: there are single word entries marked as SoP. - Amgine/ t·e 15:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion runs contrary to Wiktionary's goal of "all words in all languages", and appears to be a minority opinion, but that may not be true. That's why I suggested you bring the topic up in a community-wide forum to see what others think.
If catshits is unattestable, that's a wholly different matter, and one I was unaware of. You only said "sum of parts", so in no way could I have deduced that.
Can you give specific examples instead of pointing me to the deletion log? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


Looks good. Two questions, which maybe you can help with...

  • What L3 header to use? If the word can be noun or verb then there's not much point having both - is 'transcription' allowed?
  • Exactly which 'alternative transliterations' should we cover? Currently I've just used it for BG - do we really want it to cover all possible transliterations? This will make Category:Egyptian alternative forms very messy - we could have 6 entries just for s3 ( combinations of [s, z] and [3, ȝ, A]). But then, many non-BG forms may be worth having, especially the notorious i or j. What do you think?

Hyarmendacil (talk) 06:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Currently we need to use L3 headers that have already been approved or a bot will mark them as nonstandard. You can always use 'Romanization', which is on the approved list.
I could make it categorise separately based on what system you type in as the type= (see the documentation if you haven't been using this). Then it wouldn't look that messy. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, on thinking about it, don't bother to categorise by transliteration type; nobody is going to trawl through the category looking for transliterations anyway. One thing I've just noticed, though: {{egy-alt}} colonises [[Category:Egyptian alternative forms]] for alternative transliterations - what about real 'alternative forms' (I've just created ddw as a case in point)? Is it worth splitting the two cases? Hyarmendacil (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Good point. I'm not sure what the best decision is, but if you think it's better to split them, I'll do that for you. Just tell me what you want. :) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be good to split. Would it be possible to create [[Category:Egyptian alternative transliterations]], and make {{egy-alt}} categorise into it? Thanks, Hyarmendacil (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. There may some lag in terms of stuff categorising. Tell me if you have any problems, questions, or concerns. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


I was not vandalising vukopis, I only removed Štambak's Yugoslav propaganda, because there is no place for propaganda in encyclopædic content. Élyus (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Macedonian entries[edit]

Moved to User_talk:Bjankuloski06en#Macedonian_entries --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


Would you like to create more Vulgar Latin templates, if it pleases you? --Æ&Œ (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I would. The problem is that there is nobody here who appears to be significantly more knowledgeable that I in reconstruction, and we (by "we" I mean people like CodeCat) simply cannot agree even on how many cases to put in. Were I to make the templates, my own biases would shine through, and I would simply be creating some sort of midpoint between Old Italian and Old French. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 12:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
We could go by what w:Vulgar Latin says, which mentions that the genitive fell out of use in the 3rd century. Also this: "Towards the end of the imperial period, the accusative came to be used more and more as a general oblique case." So in the 5th century the ablative was also mostly gone, but we have to keep in mind that the ablative survived for the formation of adverbs with -mente. The dative probably survived longer, and it definitely survived in pronouns. Another problem we have with Vulgar Latin is the application of sound changes, in particular the vowels. The problem isn't so much that we can't tell when they happened, but where. The major subgroups of today's Romance languages were already being crystallised out at that time. For example, the group that led to Sardinian had already split off from the dialect continuum in the 2nd century, because the merger of short i and long ē in the remaining dialects is dated to the 3rd (Sardinian merged short i and long ī instead). Romanian split off only a century later, merging short u with long ū, with the remaining dialects merging short u with long ō. It's also significant that Romanian retains the genitive. So, the further forward we go, the more dialectal it already becomes and the less unified the language really is. If we really want to treat Vulgar Latin as "Proto-Romance", then the 2nd century is about the latest we can go. If we're willing to do "Proto-Romance-minus-Sardinian" then we can go to the 3rd, and if we can live with excluding Romanian as well, the 4th. That in turn should help us decide which cases there are. Romanian is obviously the main point of contention because of its case system, and it seems that the Romanian genitive-dative plural derives from the Latin genitive, but the singular from the dative, so if we decide to include Romanian, both cases must be included. —CodeCat 13:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Why not just add *disclaimers to the cases, saying when they fell out of usage? If we include declined noun forms that were supposedly never used, I dun see the problem: this is hypothesising anyway, how bad could the potential consequences be?
Also, our verb conjugations for Old French will include alternative forms in the same spaces. Why not for Vulgar Latin as well…? --Æ&Œ (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Asterisk footnotes sound like a good solution. There’s no need to pretend Vulgar Latin was a standardised, centralised language. — Ungoliant (Falai) 13:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
We could also show different forms for different dialects. For example:
  • nominative *montanja, *montanjè
  • genitive *montanjè, *montanjaru (Eastern, Sardinian) *montanjaró (Italo-Western)
  • dative *montanjè, *montanjis
  • accusative *montanja, *montanjas
  • ablative *montanja, montanjis
That kind of brings up another point. How do we spell it? Writing vowels with macrons doesn't seem particularly appropriate because length distinctions were being lost. I think it would make more sense to denote the two different heights for e and o with accents è ò and é ó, like Catalan and (I think) Occitan do. I also used "j" to spell /j/ to clearly show that it was consonantal and not vocalic like in classical Latin. —CodeCat 14:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Shall we create a WT:About Vulgar Latin? — Ungoliant (Falai) 14:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a good idea. We can continue on its talk page. —CodeCat 14:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. Luckily you guys do seem to know more than I recalled you did; I know very little about Sardinian or Romanian, so my reconstructions go Proto-Italo-Western, I guess. There's just too much time and space, though... we could go conservative and call the acc sing montaniã or go farther and call it montaɲa, and both would be some kind of legitimate Vulgar Latin as I understand it. The graves and acutes are a bit confusing, as they make me think of stress or pitch more than vowel quality itself. I reckon we have to tie things down a bit more or else the footnotes'll swamp the whole bloody thing. Ungoliant, if we don't pretend, how can we present things in a neat way? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
We could also use an underdot to indicate the mid-high vowels, like Slovene does. It's not intrusive and it allows us to use acute accents for stress, which is closer to what Romance speakers expect it to mean (well, except for French, which does actually them it the way I did). We should probably continue this on Wiktionary talk:About Vulgar Latin. —CodeCat 02:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Let's all migrate over. I've started a vowel differentiation thread. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I don’t think two footnotes will swamp it. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Infrastructure modules[edit]

I am wondering if a module I want to create belongs in this category. What did you have in mind exactly when you created it? —CodeCat 18:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Modules which are not meant to be invoked by a specific template or set of templates, but instead represent some fundamental part of how Wiktionary stores data or logic meant to be used sitewide.
The truth is, though, that the only reason I designed our module categorisation system was because nobody else did it first. My choices don't have to be how we actually categorise; if you prefer a different system or a different use for each category, feel free to do as you please. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I created Module:language utilities. Do you think that would belong there? —CodeCat 00:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I'd put it in Category:Utility modules. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


Are you refering to this edit? It is a sentence fragment is it not, and should it not use a period? I hope my change is correct and could you provide me the correct policy, or guideline, for it? 21:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Your edit was fine, but the only issue is that your rationale for it was a Wikipedia policy. We don't have policies about captions, because for the most part, we don't use them as much. More on this topic at WT:WFW. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Information desk[edit]

Hi, Metaknowledge, I think your rollback was in error: I think User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV wanted to ':'-indent their answer (not just the 1st line, but also the bulleted points). -- 03:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. If other people have answered, it's better to not edit their comments. -- 03:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. I just reverted on the principle that others' posts are their domain. If you had written IFYPFY and signed, I would have left it alone. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
If I would have written IFYPFY, User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV/User:-sche/User:CodeCat would have blocked me for not showing respect to "heroes with nicknames" (see -- 23:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea where you're getting that idea from, but more importantly I don't want to discuss it with you. You clearly have your own agendas and sensitivities, and that's not my problem. You can discuss it with the editors you named if you so wish. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Comparative reconstruction[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure how comfortable you are with comparative linguistics, but here's my question: If you have two related languages sharing a cognate morpheme which, in one language, functions as a future tense marker, and which, in the other language, functions as both a future tense marker as well as a gnomic/general aspect/tense marker, what would you say you could derive about the protomorpheme's function/meaning? For example:

  • Lang1: IPA(key): /təŋ/ (FUT)
  • Lang2: IPA(key): /eðek/ (FUT, GNO)
  • Proto: IPA(key): /tẽk/ (?)

Thanks, Jackwolfroven (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. With only two daughter langs and no more info, it would be hell to predict unless there's a cross-lingual trend I'm unaware of. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


Since you’re the only one with some knowledge of Rapa Nui around here, can you, before you leave, check whether the dictionary used to cite tingo (download link at Talk:tingo) is appropriate or not, and add it to WT:About Rapa Nui if so. (It might also be a good idea to add a section specifically declaring non-linguistic books like The Meaning of Tingo to be inappropriate for citations.) — Ungoliant (Falai) 14:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. That dictionary is really great, and the scholarship isn't out of date, either. I skimmed through, and the only thing I take issue with is their orthography, but I'm beginning to suspect that I would be wise to leave off my strictness in that regard; I'll do some more research once I've Yiddished myself out. Feel free to edit what I wrote. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Enjoy your trip. — Ungoliant (Falai) 15:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)