User talk:Ruakh

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
2006 · 2007 · 2008
2009 · 2010 · 2011
2012 · 2013

→ search archives

January 2014[edit]

Unsorted interwikis[edit]

I noticed this edit by Rukhabot and that the interwikis on the page are unsorted. Aren't they supposed to be sorted? Why doesn't Rukhabot sort them? --WikiTiki89 23:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

They are sorted. Per MediaWiki:Interwiki config-sorting order, en.wikt uses the meta-native-languagename ordering, which is given at m:MediaWiki:Interwiki config-sorting order-native-languagename. (See m:Interwiki sorting order for more information.) —Ruakh 00:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh. I didn't realize that we sorted them that way in the source code as well. --WikiTiki89 00:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
That's how it works: those pages tell bots how the interwikis should be ordered in the wikitext, and the software just preserves that order when it renders the page. (The software itself doesn't know anything about MediaWiki:Interwiki config-sorting order or m:MediaWiki:Interwiki config-sorting order-native-languagename, it's just a convention.) —Ruakh 01:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Does that mean that when we add interwikis to a page, they appear in the same order that they're in the source code, just like with categories? —CodeCat 21:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Yup. —Ruakh 21:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


I noticed you're adding {{attention}} to pages as you fix them, but I'm not sure if that's really necessary? I mean, just adding a headword template doesn't seem like something that would need to be checked. —CodeCat 21:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The {{attention}} isn't asking people to check my work, it's asking people to check and improve the entry. There may be a more-specific headword template that can be used; there may be gender or other information missing; the whole entry may be wrong from the get-go; and so on. I'm removing some obvious evidence of wrongness, but that doesn't mean everything is O.K. now. —Ruakh 21:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I just think that if I came across an entry like that, I'd be confused about the template because I wouldn't know what it was for. In the past, I've used a bot to add the correct headword-line templates, so calling for attention has never really been needed for me. Instead, the templates that the bot added would themselves add the appropriate categories, like Category:Dutch nouns needing inflection which {{nl-noun}} adds. It's much clearer that way I think. —CodeCat 21:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I take it you've never actually read the description atop the attention categories? :-)   —Ruakh 21:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that all attention tags should have a reason given as a second parameter. Otherwise who would ever be able to fix them if they don't know what's wrong? --WikiTiki89 21:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
That seems backward. The person who's giving attention should be the person who can tell if something is wrong (and if so what). —Ruakh 22:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The person who adds the attention tag needs to have something in mind otherwise they wouldn't add it. There needs to be some kind of hint for the person checking it even if it's just "verify headword template". --WikiTiki89 22:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
So {{attention|xx|this entry seems to have been created by someone who either wasn't familiar with our conventions, or else wasn't paying enough attention at the time}}? I'm not sure what benefit that adds. —Ruakh 23:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Well there has to be reason that it "seems to have been created by ...", so that reason should be in the attention tag. For example: "poor formatting", "suspicious gender/number/declension/etc.", "suspicious definition", etc. You can't expect people to notice the same things that you do even if they are more familiar with the language in question. More importantly, when the person checking the entry looks and finds nothing wrong, they will hesitate to remove the attention tag if they don't know what it was for, or they will remove the attention tag before whatever it was there for is fixed. --WikiTiki89 03:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I think you're misunderstanding me. Actually, I think you're misunderstanding the conversation here. The reason it "seems to have been created by ..." is that it had a glaring problem; but I addressed that problem, so it wouldn't be helpful to call it out. So now I just want the entry to be glanced at by someone who's qualified to glance at it. —Ruakh 03:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Then perhaps {{attention|xx|double-check entry}} would be best. That way the checker knows that there is no specific complaint. --WikiTiki89 03:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
O.K., I can do that. —Ruakh 03:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

User: Kc kennylau[edit]

This contributor is certainly very enthusiastic, but the sheer volume of edits has me a little concerned: one bout of accelerated page-creations hit 78 in 12 minutes. I don't know the limitations of the system, but I seem to remember you cautioning someone at one time against setting the throttle on a bot to a fraction of that speed. Even if I knew more about editing in Chinese, I couldn't begin to patrol that. They're also asking for AWB privileges. That said, I know how much I don't know, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention and let you decide if any action is necessary (or even a good idea). Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

One edit every 9.23 seconds is fine from a system-limitations standpoint; I actually run my bots at a higher edit-frequency than that. (Of course, if 78 edits in 12 minutes means something "burstier", with a bunch of edits at once followed by a break, then the situation is a bit different.) (Also of course, I run my bots with the maxlag= parameter set, telling MediaWiki that it's O.K. to reject their edits if the system is lagging, as it frequently is; Kc kennylau obviously isn't doing that.)
But if you're concerned about patrolling, I definitely think it's reasonable to ask Kc kennylau to edit more slowly.
Ruakh 03:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
If you're not worried, I'm not worried. I'm not qualified to patrol Chinese except for language-independent stuff, anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


I am curious, have you ever taken a course on logic, or perhaps read a book on such? --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure — both math-ish and computer-engineering-ish. Why do you ask? —Ruakh 01:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I thought that if it helped you, it would also help our friend; you could recommend that he train hisself to be a logician (an unofficial one), assuming that he wants to improve hisself, of course. --Æ&Œ (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
In my experience, the people who would most benefit from that are the ones least likely to resort to it. After all, if you're always right and everyone who says otherwise is out to get you because they disagree with you or don't like you, then you're liable to tell everyone else to study logic, because their thinking is obviously flawed- not yours. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Besides, his problem isn't that he's got the formalisms wrong, it's that he doesn't think critically or make rational arguments (or even try to do so, SFAICT). I don't think a course in logic can really help with that. —Ruakh 05:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

So fix it[edit]

If you want to fix "bugs", fix them, don't just "click the warning message away" and think that solves it. The error is there for a reason, and removing it doesn't suddenly make everything fine. Don't stick your head in the sand and start edit warring over it. —CodeCat 12:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The bug is the script error, as explained in the discussion you claimed to read, where the vast majority of editors agreed.
The point is, missing asterisks do not cause long-term problems — we can easily find, identify, and fix them. Script errors do cause long-term problems — they make it look like Wiktionary is broken, and they drive away contributors that we cannot get back.
I know the error is there for a reason, but it is wrong.
If you revert again, I will block you.
Ruakh 17:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Rukhabot activities[edit]

At Wiktionary:Votes/2011-04/Representative entries it had been discussed that the default sorting order within a category should not be overwritten. IMHO it is completly another thing to avoid that each entry in a category gets a headline of this entry. Please look to Category:Kangxi radicals to understand what I try to explain: in opposition to the first few entries, all the characters are precided by an additional headline of the character itself. This is rather disturbing than of any use, doubles the lines and makes it difficult to get a swift overview.

The headings are useful where severeal entries with the same leading letter should be bundled together, making this way partitions allowing an easier overview. They are totally useless in categories of single letters, where they are just doubling each single enty.

I categorized the items in Category:Han rad sup with [[Category:Han rad sup| ]] to avoid the generation of this unwanted headline - this does not change the sorting order mentioned in the votes (when it is done with all entries). As I see now, your bot changed this in January 2013 in 8 of 16 category entries. I repaired it, just to see later that in the above mentioned Category:Kangxi radicals much more entries are affected.
Would you mind to undo that last edit there (33 cases) ?
I think it will be done faster with the bot instead of by hand.

BTW, Category:CJKV radicals contains 275 entries, all of them with the headlinings because of the categorizing without the "| "-sequence. Is your bot able to add this sequence to all the pages in this category? Toda sarang사랑 09:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. I see that you've now fixed most of Category:Kangxi radicals by hand; I'm sorry you had to do that. (I should have replied faster.) I've now fixed up the last three pages.
For Category:CJKV radicals, I'd certainly be willing to do that, though I'd rather it were mentioned at Wiktionary:Beer parlour beforehand (to make sure everyone's on board with this change); 'be bold' does not apply to bot-edits. Would you be willing to post there?
Ruakh 18:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]


Can you recall, why you added attention -tag on this entry back in 2012? I don't see any problem in it. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It just had some weirdnesses, such as weird use of parentheses ("shout (shrilly)", "my (Finnish) passport"), and I felt that a Finnish-speaking contributor should look at it. If it seems fine to you, then it's fine. —Ruakh 06:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

tense v. aspect in BH[edit]

I think [1] may interest you. (But I must admit I've only read the first section and the summaries and skimmed the balance.)​—msh210 (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It does; thanks! —Ruakh 17:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Feature request[edit]


I've made a feature request for you at User_talk:Ruakh/Tbot.js#Tbot_for_Chinese. Please reply when you can :). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


The "{{n-g|A term for tzaddik, a righteous person.}}" sense, with two cites, seems non-distinct from the other sense. The cite to Esther would be a good one, except that it's to a different word. Arguably, it's simply a feminine form, but, anyway, that's the sole cite, I think: the Zechariah cite is I think to the "myrtle" sense, with the metaphor not of lexical interest. And the Esther cite is arguably to Hadasa as a smart or stupid or pretty or ugly or brave or cowardly woman just as much as it may be to a righteous woman. I gather from your inclusion of the sense and its cites that you disagree with what I wrote about both cites, and am curious to know your reasoning. Moreover, I was about to add the modern-Israeli "{{given name|female}}" sense, but worry that it's redundant to the "n-g|term for a righteous person" sense.​—msh210 (talk) 04:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: "I gather from your inclusion of the sense and its cites that you disagree with what I wrote about both cites": No, I actually thought about the same things you did, and strongly suspected that someone would message me asking about it. (I actually find the Esther cite even less relevant than you seem to: hadasá appears to be a proper noun in that cite — Esther's "Jewish name", essentially, just as many Jews today have both Jewish and secular names — and so, at best, using a sense derived from a "righteous person" sense.) I was just following the presentation at the he.wikt entry, figuring that that was the best approach for an edit whose edit-summary claimed it was taking its information thence, and that if we disagreed with their presentation, we could make changes in follow-up edits. —Ruakh 05:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)