User talk:Mglovesfun/Archives/8

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


Can you take a look at this? It's a bit all over the place. Cheers. ---> Tooironic 01:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  • By the bye - in a recent poll of Italians' sexual fantasies, over 50% of people who responded mentioned Nutella. I'll leave you to decide where they put it, and who licks it off who! SemperBlotto 17:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

green labelling[edit]

While the definition could use some bettering (and I was looking through cites to try to pin a better one down), I wouldn't have called it "totally wrong": it was essentially right AFAICT. Or did you mean that having the entry is totally wrong (i.e., that it doesn't meet the CFI)?​—msh210 (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, SB's written a better one now anyway, so it doesn't matter.​—msh210 (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Looked like tosh. Seems that NEC is only used for protologisms. If it's not tosh, it seems to be SoP (green + labelling) and if the verb green label is attestable, this is redundant to {{present participle of|green label}}. So we might end up debating this entry for six months, just to have it deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
That's ironic, I figured he'd just delete it on sight anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
"To green label the|a|an" shows no relevant books, news, or news archive hits.​—msh210 (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
If you're right about NEC (why is it called NEC, by the way? isn't it the new-entry wizard?), then perhaps we should (give it a little time and see if that continues and, if so,) scrap it.​—msh210 (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Certainly protologisms would be less well formatted and therefore easier to spot, but if we delete it, and our English/Spanish/ASL preload templates, would people stop vandalism/sandboxism or just do it without the templates? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, we'd need to do an analysis of percentage of newpages that are protologistic with NEC vs. without, allowing for e.g. time of year.​—msh210 (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

OE verb classes[edit]

Weak verbs use Arabic numerals (class 2), strong verbs use Roman (class II). (Not universally, but in most modern reference works, and that's how it's labelled at our OE verb page.) Ƿidsiþ 11:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah crap. I was just using formatting that I've seen on other pages. I'll have to find a way to replace the use of I/II. Possibly using regular exercises... just I don't really know what those are. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually it should be easy. Anyway, nice to have you back (if you are back) as I had some stuff to ask you. See Wiktionary talk:About Old English. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
FWIW I'm trying to get the contents of [[Category:Old English weak verbs]] and [[Category:Old English strong verbs]] into [[Category:Old English verbs]]... many appear in just the subcategories. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm kind of back, but have sort of resigned from talk pages -- just too depressing :). Will have a look at the OE stuff now. Ƿidsiþ 12:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


We voted on a set order for L4 headers. Conjugation comes before Related terms in that order. --EncycloPetey 22:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm really? I can never remember the orders. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I can remember a few of the key ones that I use often, but since they're listed at ELE, I find I can look up the others. --EncycloPetey 22:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

kick off[edit]

I noticed you reverted the last change I made on kick off, linking to last straw. Could you let me know why please? 20:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, just as a rule we don't put links in citations or examples. I'm not necessarily in favor of that rule, but I do try and enforce it. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


Have you had a chance to be bothered with WT:RFDO#Template:he-link?​—msh210 (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much the number of uses as the fact that it's complicated and without understanding all the parameters, I'm worried about making a mistake while removing it. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Whenever it's used without the parameter ds or dswv being set (which will be most cases), it can be bot-changed to {{l}} as follows (I think, but you or someone should check this): {{l|he|sc=Hebr|{{{1|}}}|{{{wv|{{{1|}}}}}}|tr={{{2|}}}}}.​—msh210 (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)



The 2 images represent two completely different meanings - pestle (1) and pistil (2). The Russian Wiktionary entry (use of images is very restricted there) has two images as well. See also индианка. In my opinion, the images should be allowed there. --Anatoli 22:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It was actually purely a spacing thing, the two images together produced a large white space at the end of the entry. But... feel free to add it back bearing that in mind. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


Er no, it's the /d/ which is long, not the /e/. Ƿidsiþ 16:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise that consonants could vary in length to be honest. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Links in translation table[edit]

Oops, sorry. Does this apply only to some languages? See e.g. before. --Edcolins 13:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes just some, let the bot handle it. One thing you can do (if you really want to) is convert all the [[link]]s to {{t|xx|link}} in translation tables. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Alright, good to know. --Edcolins 13:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


And now there is no more article about bambu in the Finnish Wiktionary? -- 15:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. Let User:Interwicket handle interwikis, yours was in the wrong place (not alphabetical). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


Hi, Could you help me here I wanted to create Kurdish-Adjective. George Animal 13:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much George Animal 13:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
God only knows why {{ku-adj}} works that way, is it an obsolete template or what? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Kurdish declension templates[edit]

Hi, could you help me to create a Kurdish declension template? George Animal 15:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I moved your user subpage to User:George Animal/Sandbox as you used "Benutzer" which is German, not English. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


It is in romanian language flexible (flexional) noun!!! BAICAN XXX 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My Romanian is crap, I believe it's feminine as -are is cognate to -ation, but I don't know what the problem is. If your English weak (or very weak) perhaps you should contribute on ro: rather than here. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

disparaître auxiliary[edit]

using être as auxiliary for disparaître is uncommon and considered litterary by the larousse. maybe it could be mentionned that être can be used but the right auxiliary is "avoir". check reference works if you don't believe me. (French is my native language and I know it well) 20:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a reason to keep it, then. If it's "uncommon" and "literary", it exists! Mglovesfun (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
yes it exists, but in its current form, the article says that être is the main, only even, auxiliary for disparaître. This is very wrong. 21:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
That's down to the template, which I will check. It should say 'use of avoir or être'. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


Didn't notice your reply until I returned with a result - apologies —Saltmarshαπάντηση 13:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see a couple of things I consider "problems" - I will try out a subtemplate before editing the 'real' one. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I've come up with Template:el-adj/test which seems to work perfectly; it closes the brackets even if only one of one of f= and n= is specified. It won't work if you specify f2= and n= without f=, but then, nor should it! Mglovesfun (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
We seem to have achieved the same output (didn't visit here and discover Template:el-adj/test until just now) - although mine is a little shorter - I think it is unbreakable. —Saltmarshαπάντηση 06:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks very good, I might copy that code for {{ang-noun}} and {{goh-noun}} where it should be possible to specify the plural, the genitive, or neither. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I note the use of commented line breaks in {{ang-noun}}, giving greater readability. Is this used just during development? Is there an overhead if used a lot? —Saltmarshαπάντηση 11:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
That wasn't me actually. I don't really understand what that's meant to do. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
<!-- and --> are HTML comment instructions, anything between them will appear on the edit screen, but not on the output screen. If you edit this text you will find more text between here and here. Thus the relatively intelligible (from {{ang-noun}}):
    -->|p={{p}} ...

becomes (when you can't see the "new line/carriage returns"):

  {{#switch:{{{g}}}|m={{m}}|f={{f}}|n={{n}}|p={{p}} ...

Which, when you have a whole lot of code, can be difficult to read - but possible at the expense of more time for it to be processed. —Saltmarshαπάντηση 18:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I always assume this was used to work round bugs, but in fact it's purely presentational! Anyway, I need to work out how to use brackets when any of several parameters are given, for example {{ang-noun}} I want to add a type parameter (allowing strong or weak) but if the plural is given, it should put them both in the same brackets. I'll try and figure out what code you came up with. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

uses and misuses of rfv[edit]

Thanks for the heads-up. I was looking for an equivalent of the wikipedia Template:globalize . Perhaps you can suggest something more definite; otherwise I suppose it should be a request for references to be given (to support the assertion of achaism). Neuralwarp 16:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


Hey could you answer my initial question, please? Thanks 17:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


Hi, is this template new? I don't think I've seen it before. Leasnam 15:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not that new it just wasn't used much before MglovesfunBot start adding it. FYI you replaced {{ang-noun|g=}} with {{ang-noun|g=?}}. That doesn't do anything, ang-noun hopefully supports all the valid gender parameters, just as {{m|f}}, {{m|f|n}}, {{n|m}}, anything that isn't on that list (if you can understand the pretty complicated wiki syntax) it categorizes in Category:Old English nouns lacking gender. I think it needs a type parameter to support weak and strong, too. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going through the List of OE nouns lacking Gender in order to fulfill them, and I changed the blank gender to a '?' because the gender of princ is unknown (same for cnawlæc). I didn't just want it to sit there for all eternity without any resolution. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to though yeah?
On a different note, about the OE templates, there is one matter I was wondering: can we add the supine form to the template for verb conjugation? (ang-conj-...) so that the "to <verb>" form shows? (e.g. drīfan "to drive" = "tō drīfenne"). We show the present participle and past partciple, we may as show this as well. No new parameter would be needed, we could work with the existing infinitive, and add some logic. If the verb ends in '-an' then prefix with "tō " and change '-an' to -enne. And if the verb just ends in -n (as in bēon) then just add '-ne'. Thoughts? Leasnam 14:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
We can add anything we want. ang-conj isn't the best designed right now as it uses all numbered parameters. It's good as a base template, but ideally we should have more precise conjugation templates, analogous to {{fr-conj}} and {{fr-conj-er}}, {{fr-conj-ir}}, {{fr-conj-é-er}} (etc.) Essentially I/we can add anything we want, it's a question of how to present it, and making sure we don't break the entries that already use it (God knows I've done that before). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Lol, understood. Hey, are any of those open positions being offered for Wiktionary? Do you know? Leasnam 15:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to confirm in writing, I have no idea what you're talking about. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to the Wikimedia job openings. They've largely closed now (I think). I didn't get anything in, but I think they've extended some till the end of the month. If you don't mind me asking, are you an employee? (You don't have to answer that if you do not want to) Leasnam 21:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Nah just an obsessive amateur. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 :) Leasnam 21:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


Sorry. It was a mistake. While I was working in I came here looking for references for title templates and seemingly I created this here by mistake. I have just noticed it now, when I saw your message. Thanks for deleting it and sorry for the inconvenience once again. Regards. --Lucrifuga versipellis 12:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


Are you sure about that block? Has the user done anything bad? I think that user name could have plenty of possible origins other than cunt. Equinox 21:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, no. But I did disable IP block and allow account creation. As always, I'll trust your judgement. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

the die is cast – etymology[edit]

Hi Martin, Noticed your rfc at the die is cast, due presumably to the distractingly long etymology – thanks! I’ve edited and hopefully fixed this – I’ve written a short version, and then left the long version (specific quotes, discussion of Latin tenses) in a collapsed box.

It’s inevitably a little long (an English translation of a Latin mistranslation of a famous historical quotation of an Ancient Greek play), but hopefully rather more usable.

Feel free of course to make any further changes – anything I could do, and is the rfc sufficiently addressed?

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I think so, yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Yay, and thanks!
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi! Can I get a template created for Middle English verbs, analogous to en-verb? Default Third Person Present tense in -eth, Present participle in -inge, and Past/Ppt in -ed? Leasnam 01:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Btw, per your suugestion, I created Wiktionary:About Middle English. It still needs some tweaks and additions, but this is what I have thus far. Leasnam 01:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The thought had already crossed my mind. Since most Middle English verbs end in -en, I couldnt just copy from en-verb, it would have to be a bit more original than that. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The -en ending wouldn't automatically be conveyed by the entry headword form itself? Leasnam 15:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
That's my point, it would create spekeneth not speketh. Anyway, see {{enm-verb/doc}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, it should specify the first person singular, which (I believe) ia speke. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Does one have to be an Administrator in order to modify/program the templates here? Leasnam 15:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC) | Yes, speke. Leasnam 15:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
No, but I suggest you tell me how you want it to look, and I'll do it. Just simply because I don't think you you'd know how to do it. Am I wrong? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Tell you what, how about I try it (not in the Production environment) and you can evaluate my programming skills? I'll just leave it here for you to look at. Sound ok? Leasnam 15:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
This looks good: {{enm-verb/doc}}, but is it not ready? It's rendering as a text. Leasnam 15:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
nm, I left out the stem arg. No, this would work I think. Leasnam 15:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
There's no 'real' way round this I'm afraid. Also (as a help to me) could you like at s:The Canterbury Tales. Some of them seem to be in Modern English. Is there a 'true' Middle English version on the Net? Or any other good Middle English original texts? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I can take a look at this. Leasnam 19:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The Prologue is in Modern English y-wis (:p), but all the others are Middle English. Now, granted, some do look queerly Modern, and may have been normalised in some way (some probably to a great extent as it took me a few minutes of reading to realise that it wasn't Modern English :\ ), but there are clearly distinct ME markers throughout; others appear more raw. I would ween that these do not all originate from the same source, as a greater than normal lack of consistency exists. I do not readily know of a complete set of Fragments on hand, I would have to go a-searching. I will let you know. Leasnam 20:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
We have to be careful, a Middle English work with modernized spelling, we'd have to treat it as Modern English. Yeah undoubtedly some are much more modern and some are more clearly Middle English. I'm not sure how wise it is to use this as a source; I think the entire Canterbury tales are available on Google Books as I stumbled across them once trying to cite and Old French words which was borrowed into Middle English. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's one. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is a nice one. We could use the plain text version to copy/paste, however, plain text seems to only like the current page rather than the entire corpus which means each page will have to be copied individually. Definitely a work of love. Leasnam 21:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


Any objection to modifying this so it categorizes in the existing category (English borrowed words), pending the RFM? It can always be changed later based on the outcome. It seems kinda funny to have it categorize in a nonexistent category when there's a perfectly good one already in place.​—msh210 (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No objections. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


Era corect "plural (undefin.) feminin/neutru forma de la sur"!WernescU 09:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I am away[edit]

I'm at a circus convention from Friday until Monday. Earliest I can reply to any messages will be Monday afternoon. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually Sunday evening as we came back earlier than I expected. Bit of a waste of a weekend. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


I don't think anything you've written about these quotations is correct. At the very least, the years are wrong. —RuakhTALK 02:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, they're secondary citations from books. They're certainly not the original dates, titles or authors. But that's not something I can necessarily get from Google Books. Not easily, as I don't know where that content would be. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
If you're confident that the quotations are good, but you simply don't have enough information to provide accurate metadata, then add the quotations, yes, but don't add bogus metadata! —RuakhTALK 23:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It's correct in a sense. Perhaps correct but misleading. All those citations are in those books on those pages, they're just not the original authors/dates. But... I agree it's misleading. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
They're not the authors/dates, period. For example, Sahar Amer did not write "Tant est li mund faus et jolifs" in 1999. He didn't even pretend to. He didn't even make allusion to an existing poem by writing a line from it. Rather, he explicitly quoted from Marie de France, using an indented block-quote format, and he followed it with a translation. (A translation that, by the way, does not actually agree with our entry for jolif.) The metadata that you added are completely bogus. If the only information that you have is information is about the recent publication — say, it's a b.g.c. snippet-view and you can confirm the quotation but know nothing about it aside from what book it's in — you can do something like this:
  • (Can we date this quote?) quoted in Sahar Amer, Ésope au féminin,[2] Rodopi (1999), ISBN 9789042006072, page 177:
    Tant est li mund faus e jolifs.
But that's not even the case here. Here you can see enough of the context to write something useful:
If you don't want to put in the effort to give really useful metadata, fine, that's your business — this is a volunteer effort, after all — but don't add bogus metadata.
RuakhTALK 13:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
See above. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


See long hop for an apparent cricket sense. BTW, see short hop and in-between hop. DCDuring TALK 14:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I've watched enough MLB games to know what these means. But I've never heard it called a 'hop' on its own. I'd say 'a bad bounce' not a 'bad hop'. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
SB apparently thought hop had a cricket and ergo UK sense and that long hop was a cricket idiom or, at least, entry-worthy. Each of these seems NISoP (at least in some senses given) to me, but only after we have a proper sense of "hop". AFAICT, "hop" is a hyponym of bounce. It is also a figurative jump of a non-living object in mostly horizontal motion (usually a thrown or batted ball). A "bounce" is more generic and is not used much in preference to "hop" where "hop" is the more precise term (or possibly for phonological reasons?). DCDuring TALK 14:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
AFAICT hop doesn't have a cricket sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • 2010‎ July 23, “Pakistan strike early but Australia respond as Headingley loses power”, The Guardian:
    It was a long hop, which bounced high and was flat-batted straight to cover to leave the score at 246 for seven.
I'm not saying there isn't a cricket sense, just that we don't have it. I'm not 100% sure that this citation doesn't back up long hop rather than hop. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

French monocoque citation[edit]

Hi Martin. Could you translate the short 1911 French citation at Citations:monocoque for me please?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Is the French entry I created for that term OK?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I've never heard of it, but the citation seems to back it up nicely. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Kewl; thanx. :-)  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

WT:RFDO#Category:English homophones[edit]

I'm requesting your input, please.​—msh210 (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionnaire:Pages proposées à la suppression/août 2010#for a long time[edit]

Your advice is needed there. Thanks. --Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 21:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


Might I ask which deleted entries she was reëntering? —Internoob (DiscCont) 23:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

[[good luck with that]]. —RuakhTALK 00:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
And for future reference: Special:DeletedContributions/Lexicografía. (There's a link near the top of Special:Contributions/Lexicografía that reads "deleted user contributions".) —RuakhTALK 00:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course. I knew that was there, but I was still stupidly looking through the Special:Contributions for redlinks. -_- —Internoob (DiscCont) 17:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello user Mglovesfun, I am Lexicografía - yesterday at 14:38 you blocked me for one day. It is now 19:56 the following day and I am still blocked. Why? ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 17:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I noticed this when I blocked myself once - a day doesn't seem to mean 24 hours. It's not to do with me personally. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I think a day is 24 hours, but something went wrong on the server.​—msh210 (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 17:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Welcome[edit]

Hi Martin, many thanks of your Welcome.
Ciao from Italia! —•Trevinci 13:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear fuel. Documentation[edit]

  • "Dictionar tehnic englez-roman", ISBN 973-31-1008-8, 1997, EDITURA TEHNICA, Bucharest (page 878).
  • "Collins-French Dictionary", ISBN 0-00-773128-0, 2005, page 193, ("combustible nucleaire").
  • It's OK !WernescU 15:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
We don't currently have many Romanian editors and we're operating on an "if in doubt delete it" policy, as otherwise mistakes can go undetected for years. There are concerns over whether your English and knowledge of wiki syntax are good enough to edit here. Basically nuclear fuel doesn't have an entry here as it's just fuel of a nuclear nature. Same goes for combustibil nuclear. French is nucléaire not nucleaire. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


Mg, the templates today are erroring whenever there is a superscipt (<sup></sup>) in the lemma. Before today I have never had a problem with this happening. Please see farm and forest (Etymology Note) for examples of what's occurring. Leasnam 16:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd imagine that's because superscript can't be part of a valid page name. Don't the w and the h have their own symbol? Right, when you edit a page, a toolbar appears below the window. Go to the drop down menu on the left and select Indo-European. That's what you need. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The majority of them appear as squares to me and I can't tell which is which, even when I mouse over. And they still show as boxes even after being rendered sc=Latinx. Leasnam 17:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
But what is curious about the supercript is that I have always used it with no issue. Strangely today it blows up :\ Leasnam 17:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for fixing those. As w is usually the only one I have ever superscripted, I can just copy the one you added ʷ for future use. At least that will work for now. Thanks :) Leasnam 17:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
If you need any more, see w:Subscript and superscript#Unicode.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The breakage is due to Template talk:proto#Always link to appendix pages. If many people can't see the Unicode superscript characters we could add an optional parameter to display different text from the link target (like {{term}} does). Thanks for cleaning offending entries. --Bequw τ 21:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, not breakage in a sense. Unless I'm mistaken, those appendices couldn't exist anyway as you can't have <sup> an </sup> in page names. It's made the problem more visible rather than creating it. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
One can't have '' (italicisation) in page names either. That made «{{proto|Indo-European|''sm̥H-''}}» show like «[[Appendix:Proto-Indo-European *sm̥H-|*sm̥H-]]». That's rather visible and Template:proto/doc#Parameters says «include whatever quotes or wiki markup are desired» (my bolding of «wiki markup». It took me quite some time to find out that diff=9870055 kind of fixes the problem for sumaraz. In a few days, it will become harder: User:Mglovesfun made the most recent edit on Template:proto and User talk:Mglovesfun#Template:Proto is the most recent discussion on Mglovesfuns talk page, but both won't stay the most recent). If I compare «Appendix:Proto-Indo-European *''bher''-» and «Appendix:Proto-Indo-European *bher-» I guess that wiki markup was never possible, but I am not sure. I can't offer a fix, but the code or the doc needs to be changed (possibly both). --Erik Warmelink 07:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't actually me who made the change - and no I hadn't considered this problem. Let's say the problem has changed - with the #ifexists: form we had before, these appendices could of course never exist as they're not valid page names. But because they didn't exist they just displayed as black text with no linking. The obvious solution seems to me to be to get rid of the invalid page names and keep only valid ones. We shouldn't need italicization as they appendix always displays as italicized. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Oops, yes, it was User:Bequw who made the last change, and the most recent "liquid thread". I couldn't find a way to remove the wiki markup (no stringfunctions here), but the page could exist, [[{{urlencode:User:Erik Warmelink/''italicised''}}]] gives User:Erik+Warmelink/''italicised'' (some more tests at User:Erik Warmelink 9872903). But I won't say it would be useful to use such hacks. --Erik Warmelink 17:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Try using the letters in the italic column at w:Mathematical alphanumeric symbols#Latin letters.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 09:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to create such pages, I only showed that they could be created (as opposed to: "could of course never exist"). --Erik Warmelink 22:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong - isn't this what {{isValidPageName}} is for? Among other things that is. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


Please see my talk page. Leasnam 21:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't have, but I edited the template (I would have undone it if I had ruined it). The persons are aligned better now, and I altered the PresPart to -ende (since we've been so conservative with the other inflections). It seems to stop at 9...I can't seem to get the 10th field working. Is there another template it's working from? Leasnam 22:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
nvermind. I found it :)Leasnam 22:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Alright. It's finished for now. Later we need to add the Subjunctive to the right side (preferably), making the table 4 columns. Perhaps we could rearrange the sections as well, like group the participles and imperative, so forth. Ok, I'll check in with you later. Cheers. Leasnam 23:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Template is also working for tellen. Leasnam 23:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to try and make 1 other template for Middle English verbs, as using this template with irregular and strong verbs (cf. tellen) was difficult. I was finding the need to add too many explicitly defined arguments manually. Perhaps once the new one is built (named enm-conj-irreg) we can maybe move this one to enm-conj-reg? Leasnam 17:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Essentially I set up {{enm-conj-table}} as a master template so that all further templates should call on it (i.e. use it) to avoid having to write out all the bulky formatting stuff every time. I don't object to this one being called {{enm-conj-reg}}. I think the templates could be better, but certainly not bad for a start. The Old English adjective templates need a similar renovation - there are quite a few templates (in all the languages) that need to be in collapsible boxes to avoid taking up too much space and detracting from the rest of the entry - Faroese is another on my list. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi Martin. What is the signification and the derivation of the -mane element of lexicomane?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 08:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Though I don't know, I'd have though the same as English maniac. Hence pyromane and nymphomane. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
My belated thanks. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Limited Internet time[edit]

Following my house move, I can only log on from the library. This may last up to two weeks. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Back online at home as of right now. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi! I just received your reply, but it looks like the page has been deleted? Leasnam 14:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, nm. I see what u did. Leasnam 15:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I realised that I shouldn't need to change anything by bot, as the new version accepts the same parameters as the old one, so there's nothing for a bot to update. I'll do a spot check anyway to see if there are any broken entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


I am not sure I see the point of your note. I never disputed that "Krishna is English". More precisely, "Krishna" is an anglicization of Sanskrit Kṛṣṇa. I am not sure why you should say that "Sanskrit does not use the Latin alphabet", since this is very patently not true. Perhaps you should spend some time reading the w:Sanskrit article. Or if you are pressed for time at least spend a minute to glance at Wiktionary:About Sanskrit. --Dbachmann 10:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems you are right. Still, don't delete the English entry for Krishna. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Arabic interwiki[edit]

the problem is, that, in Arabic language we put above the letters a symbols called Harakat to make the Pronunciation clear. but because these symbols makes a too much "congestion" in the lines of words we usually don`t uses it in our writing (the widely used words is not many and most of it don`t share the same letters), and because this it is not used here in Arabic words articles. in Arabic wiktionary we use the Harakat more than the usual in our articles for its linguistic importance, and the existing of many articles have the same titles in letters but vary in Harakat. so the Harakat exists in the titles of Arabic wiktionary articles but it is not in the other wiktionaries articles titles. i am sorry if my speak is not very understood --عباد ديرانية 21:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC).

Actually I realized that. What you need to do is use redirects as Interwicket (the bot) does interwiki link to redirects. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

French conjugation bot[edit]

Hi there. If you are up to the first two tasks below, I'll do the next two. The one's after that are trivial for a French speaker.

1) Install the programming language Python. See [3] and select whichever of the versions of Python 2.7 applies to your home PC.

2) Download the "Pywikipediabot" extensions to Python from [4]. This stuff can go in a separate folder/directory from Python (to keep things simpler).

3) I'll create a French version of my Italian bot program (mostly by changing all "it" to "fr") and send it to you.

4) I'll send you the "template" file for Italian -are verbs. It's pretty obvious how to convert it to a corresponding file for French -er verbs. You'll need a separate one of these files for each type of verb. When you've made them, be sure to keep a backup - it's easy to accidentally update them when running the bot.

5) After that you just need to create a small file that identifies the bot name and wiki to be updated and off you go.

SemperBlotto 10:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind some stuff can be copied from User:Dawnraybot, so you might not need to create it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding 2), which exactly am I supposed to download? I downloaded the first one, but it says that Windows doesn't recognize the file type, and therefore can't open it. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
They're all the same, just compressed (zipped) in different ways; so, download whichever one you can decompress. On Windows, your safest best is the .zip, since recent versions of Windows have built-in support for that. —RuakhTALK 13:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
OK done, now see User:MglovesfunBot/Sandbox for my subpages versus Dawnraybot's subpages. I'm guess we could just rename them? If so I'll do that with AWB, the best way IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Have massed-moved all the Dawnraybot forms - by the way, Dawnraybot still has bot status (but is blocked). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Middle English spay[edit]

In re this reversion, please add whatever entry is appropriate to the Middle English section of spay to cover that which is directly attested at Citations:spay. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Debatable, perhaps a conjugated form. Or perhaps an alternative infinitive of spayen - Some Old French verbs already use alternative infinitive of - perhaps that would pass here. Wiktionary:About Middle English ought to cover this. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't comment on Middle English conjugation, so I'll let you deal with it, if that's OK. All I know is that it's something — the quotation's there to prove that. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting that. Two questions: (1) Is there a more exhaustive conjugation table that can be added to spayen? It was my impression that there was a lot more to say about Middle English conjugation than just those three forms that are different in Modern English. (2) Should those Middle English quotations at Citations:spay be moved to Citations:spayen, be split between the forms (in which case, which quotations support which forms?), or what? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm far from an expert, FWIW I'm reading Chaucer which isn't as inflected as earlier Middle English (such as 12th Century stuff). You should see and comment at User talk:Leasnam#Middle English verbs where I've been asking pretty much the same questions. Also {{enm-conj}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I'll do that; thanks. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Entry creation[edit]

Thank you for your suggestion. --Amit6 15:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


WOW you're fast! You had that made before I even finished with the main word. Leasnam 21:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC) ;)


OK! Nu este o problemă. Îmi cer scuze, sunt regule pe care nu am de unde să le cunosc! Oricum, s-a corectat, pe mine nu mă supără.WernescU 21:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Numerals and numbers[edit]

I think it would be well to revert the vote on numerals vs numbers vs adjectives to this revision, and work from that. People who support not listed options would simply be asked to add their favorite options to the list. What do you think? You are the starter of the vote, so I see it as in your discretion to perform such a revert. On the talk page of the vote, people voiced gripes about the complexity of the vote, and the reverting would reduce the complexity.

The poll currently running in Beer parlour has gained not much interest so far, as is usually the case: people start to really get interested in a subject and voice opinions only after a real consequences-bearing vote is going on. --Dan Polansky 09:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good, though I too am not really that interested in the topic at hand - I'm interested in a standard policy that we can all adhere too in order to promote uniformity and simplicity. I'm not too bothered about number/numeral. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
So would it be okay with you if I perform the revert? --Dan Polansky 09:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Done: reverted. --Dan Polansky 10:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Suh-veer breakage[edit]

Check out malforta interago, malforta nuklea interago‎, gravita interago‎, partikla fiziko‎, among others. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 12:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That just occurred to me in the last few seconds. I believe eo-noun can handle multi-word nouns, no? Otherwise I can revert pretty quickly. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Only 2-word nouns, unfortunately for malforta nuklea interago... — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 12:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
{{eo-proper noun}} isn't very flexible; it seems I can't specify an irregular accusative singular form, so in that case I have to use infl. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Yep... that's exactly why I used {infl} to begin with :( — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
BTW my current run of edits may break some entries, though undesirable it's quicker to do them all, break a few and repair them than to check every edit when 98% of them will be ok. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Creating account[edit]

Alright. -OG 11:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Unregistered IP[edit]

MG, is there a way to move edits performed under an IP address to an established account? For instance, I have made some edits today unaware that I was not signed in, and for tracking purposes I would like those moved. can it be done? Leasnam 17:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Not that I know of. It's of relatively little importance (to most people, anyway) I've certainly done that before. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

franchise#Etymology 2[edit]

This entry could use your help. Are there really two different etymologies? I would have guessed that the verb is a conversion of the noun, not a separate derivation from French. DCDuring TALK 19:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about this sort of thing recently. It looks roughly right; franchise is a noun and franchir is a verb. You could combine them into one etymology saying the verb is from... the noun is from... but that only works if they're both from Old French, not one from Old French, one from Modern French. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
You don't think the modern English verb is from the Middle English/Anglo-Norman/Old French noun? Both noun and verb are apparently 14th century in (Middle) English. Who added the -ise to the verb? Or was it added to the adjective? Robert shows "franchise" noun as 12th century. So "fraunchise" is just an English rendering of the French pronunciation, isn't it?
BTW, I'm really glad you have taken on fro, frm, and xno. It makes the lack of enm more tolerable. Enm would be a nightmare of alternative spellings anyway. DCDuring TALK 20:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The OED gives for franchise, n. (draft revision, June 2010): "< Anglo-Norman franchese, franchice, franchiese, franchis, fraunchesse, fraunchez, fraunchies, fraunchys, fraunchyse, frauncise, etc.…", and gives for franchise, v. (draft revision, March 2010): "Originally < Anglo-Norman fraunchiss-, Anglo-Norman and Middle French franchiss-, lengthened stem of fraunchir, franchir to enfranchise…. In later use (especially in sense 2) also partly < franchise n.…" — said sense 2 is first attested in 1940 (as distinct from the first attestation date for sense 1, viz. ante 1393). Is that any help? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
That is helpful. When you refer to sense 1 and sense 2 how do they correspond to our entry? DCDuring TALK 23:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
OED verb sense 1: "trans. To make or set free (from, of); to invest with a franchise or privilege; = ENFRANCHISE v. Now rare."; OED verb sense 2: "trans. orig. U.S. To grant a commercial franchise to (an individual or group); to grant a franchise for (a product, service, or business). Cf. FRANCHISE n. 2e.". — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I see. Thanks very much.
It makes me wonder whether it pays for us to maintain separate etymology sections as they stem from a common source, share some much meaning, and the noun strand influences the most common current use of the verb. Is there logic, theory, or custom that would have us give primacy to semantics vs PoS/syntax and keep the strands separate. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
As a comparison, what would you do about the five roots at sophy? There are only two properly distinct roots there — one Ancient Greek and one Farsi — and even then, they've influenced each other (see sophy#Usage notes). — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
As all the senses are of only historical interest, the etymologies seem of more importance to likely users of the entry than in the case of franchise, where the proliferation of modern senses dwarfs the older senses. The choppy appearance of sophy because of the proliferation of headings of all kinds makes it hard to love the entry, though. Perhaps some of the choppiness could be remedied by combining pronunciations into one using references to the etymology numbers and the references into one, letting the user link sense to OED entry on his own. DCDuring TALK 01:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Returning to margin:

Concerning ways to save space taken up by unnecessarily large headers, is there a way to change the display of all headers (except maybe L2 language headers)

like this;

i.e., as if they were created with just a single line-initial semi-colon? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think many other wiktionaries have more compact headers. A great deal can be accomplished with minimal indentation (ie, one n-width per level), I think. DCDuring TALK 02:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you offer some examples? And what do you mean by minimal indentation? I don't understand your meaning. I've been thinking about this a bit, and I've concluded that the greatest space-saver would be moving section contents to begin in horizontal alignment with section headers; to make clear what I mean, see this space-saving demonstration. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
re: Minimal indentation: 1 indendation unit ~ 0.1"/2mm; L2 headers: indentation, L3 headers: 1 indentation unit, etc.
re: Your example: That's the direction I like. I would reduce the size of the Etymology and all other headers while keeping them bold. I would increase the size of the PoS headers to the size of the Ety header on the grounds that any PoS is more intrinsically information than a numbered Etymology header, especially because PoS has been widely taught and has been used by so many popular dictionaries.
My scheme would rely on indentation a the main support for the entry structure. Bold would punctuate the beginning of each section. Larger font sizes would be limited to the most accessible headings in our entries: Languages and PoS, which could be the same, especially if we retain the rule to separate language sections. Other headers' font size would be the same or minimally larger than text font size. DCDuring TALK 14:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
It would be easier to envision your scheme if you provided a visual example in the manner that I did. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and instituted a common Pronunciation section for sophy; what do you think? I'm hesitant of doing the same for the References section without making sure that the information they provide isn't muddled by the merger. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't underestimate the deterrent effect of entry ugliness. A small bit of information loss might be a small price to pay. DCDuring TALK 02:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not willing to sacrifice information as readily as you are, especially not for the sake of subjective æsthetic sensibilities. It turns out that it wasn't at all difficult to consolidate the five References sections into one. EncycloPetey probably wouldn't be happy about the way that entry now violates certain principles of nesting, but I think it's fine; for me, the inviolable priorities are etymological and historical principles. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The esthetics have to do with usability. They are subjective only because we refuse to accept general web usability guidelines, based on the groundless premise that our site is supposedly different and our users are different. Mostly web users are human with a large set of common characteristics. We regular users, especially contributing users, differ from the users we serve by those characteristics. Veterans and admins have a responsibility to try to look past their own preferences to the usability considerations that bear most on unregistered users and users unfamiliar with all the customization options.
I don't see why a reference can't be shared by multiple Etymology sections as ELE seems to require. DCDuring TALK 14:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I simply don't believe these things you assert about users' preferences; where is your evidence? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd favor having definition before anything else (apart from the language statement), then the length of etymologies stops being such as issue. I'm not sure to what extent adding lengthy etymologies is the editors pleasing themselves, and to what extent people read them and/or are interested in them. Regarding alternative spellings, I don't add all attestable Old French spellings for obvious reasons; for some words, it would be 30. By absolute coincidence there's a citation for franchise in s:fr:Lancelot ou le Chevalier de la Charrette, but for me there's not enough context for me to be able to determine what it means. I don't claim to understand every word; the skill is to look for cognates with French or English - sometimes other Romance languages such as cuider = cuidar. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Etymologies should only very rarely need to be longer than two lines, especially if we adhere to the principle of going only as far the lemma of the first out-of-language etymon — being an omnilingual dictionary, there is no need to extend all English etymologies, for example, as far as their Proto-Indo-European roots. Why do you not add those many variant spellings, but consign them to a rel-table, as done for scion#Alternative forms? I've been thinking about alternative forms lately, and have come to the conclusion that our standard format should be to place the Alternative forms section after the Etymology section but before the Pronunciation section, because alternative forms are more often than not not shared by homographs, even in the case of closely-related ones, like relegate. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
menace is another example of the verb and the noun coming from related, but slightly different etymons, listed under one etymology header. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)