Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/February

discussion rooms: Tea room • Etym. scr. • Info desk • Beer parlour • Grease pit ← January 2016 · February 2016 · March 2016 → · (current)

---

About entry names (removing from CFI, adding to EL)

I believe the whole section WT:CFI#Idiomatic phrases is the province of WT:EL#Entry name, not of WT:CFI. I propose removing the whole section from CFI.

Many phrases take several forms. It is not necessary to include every conceivable variant. When present, minor variants should simply redirect to the main entry. For the main entry, prefer the most generic form, based on the following principles:

Pronouns

Prefer the generic personal pronoun, one or one’s. Thus, feel one’s oats is preferable to feel his oats. Use of other personal pronouns, especially in the singular, should be avoided except where they are essential to the meaning.

Articles

Omit an initial article unless it makes a difference in the meaning. E.g., cat’s pajamas instead of the cat’s pajamas.

Verbs

Use the infinitive form of the verb (but without “to”) for the principal verb of a verbal phrase. Thus for the saying It’s raining cats and dogs, or It was raining cats and dogs, or I think it’s going to rain cats and dogs any minute now, or It’s rained cats and dogs for the last week solid the entry should be (and is) under rain cats and dogs. The other variants are derived by the usual rules of grammar (including the use of it with weather terms and other impersonal verbs).

Proverbs

A proverb entry's title begins with a lowercase letter, whether it is a full sentence or not. The first word may still be capitalized on its own:

• you can't judge a book by its cover
• Rome wasn't built in a day

I propose using this (updated) text for WT:EL#Entry name, which is the same thing from CFI but without some repetitions and explanations (updates are underlined):

The name of the entry is the term, phrase, symbol, morpheme or other lexical unit being defined.

For languages with two cases of script, the entry name usually begins with a lowercase letter. For example, use work for the English noun and verb, not "Work". Words and phrases which begin with a capital letter in running text are exceptions. Typical examples include proper nouns (Paris, Neptune), German nouns (Brot, Straße), and many abbreviations (PC, DIY). Compare: you can't judge a book by its cover and Rome wasn't built in a day. If someone tries accessing the entry with incorrect capitalization, the software will try to redirect to the correct page automatically.

Omit an initial article unless it makes a difference in the meaning. E.g., cat’s pajamas instead of the cat’s pajamas. For multi-word entries, prefer the generic personal pronoun for the main entry. (one, oneself, someone, one’s, etc.) Common forms with other pronouns are usually redirected to the main form. For example, fall over oneself would be the main entry and these are some entries that would redirect to it: fall over himself, fell over himself, falling over himself, fall over herself, fall over themselves, etc. Use the infinitive form of the verb (but without to) for the principal verb of a verbal phrase, for example: rain cats and dogs. In English, sometimes the lemma should include a specific personal pronoun. For example, the proverb you can't fight City Hall would be the lemma, not one can't fight City Hall. For prefixes, suffixes and other morphemes in most languages, place the character "-" where it links with other words: pre-, -ation, -a-, etc.

When multiple capitalizations, punctuation, diacritics, ligatures, scripts and combinations with numbers and other symbols exist, such as pan (as in "frying pan"), Pan (the Greek god), pan- (meaning "all-") and パン (pan) (Japanese for "bread"), use the template {{also}} at the top of the page to cross-link between them. When there are too many variations, place them in a separate appendix page, in this case Appendix:Variations of "pan".

Use the "Alternative forms" header for variations of the same word kept in multiple pages, including:

• regional variations: color, colour; center, centre
• historical variations: anæmia, anaemia; coördinate, coordinate
• hyphenization/compounds: tea cup, tea-cup, teacup
• style variation: naiveté, naïveté
• some misspellings: see WT:CFI#Spellings
• uncertain capitalization: laser, LASER
• different scripts: реч, reč (Serbo-Croatian for word) (sometimes, this is located in the headword line)

Some page titles can't be created because of restrictions in the software, usually because they contain certain symbols such as # or |, or are too long. The full list of those entries is at Appendix:Unsupported titles. They are named using the descriptive format "Unsupported titles/Number sign", while using JavaScript to show the correct title like a normal entry.

Matched-pairs, such as brackets and quotation marks, can be defined together as single entries. The entries are named with a space between the left and right characters. Examples: ( ), [ ], “ ”, ‘ ’, " ", „ ”, « », ⌊ ⌋, ¡ ! and ¿ ?.

References

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Edited: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm.

1. This doesn't seem to differentiate between uses of {{also}} (for orthographic differences that map to the same character in the absence of diacriticals and case differences) and the Alternative forms header (for forms of the same Etymology or PoS, including those that otherwise meet criteria for inclusion in top-of-the-page "also").
2. It neglects to suggest the possibility, let alone desirability, of redirects from common forms of MWEs that use pronouns other than one/one's, someone/someone's, or something/something's to the lemma, which uses those person- and number-free pronouns. Furthermore, in English, sometimes the lemma should include a specific personal pronoun. For example, a folksy proverb like you can't fight city hall would be the lemma, not one can't fight city hall. DCDuring TALK 11:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

What about now? I edited the text. The text you saw and replied to is in this revision. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: "Category:English trisyllabic words" and similar categories

I created/populated Category:English trisyllabic words; just one category, for the purpose of discussion. If people like it, I'd like to create the full category tree, which would be:

• Category:English monosyllabic words
• Category:English disyllabic words
• Category:English trisyllabic words
• Category:English tetrasyllabic words
• Category:English pentasyllabic words
• Category:English hexasyllabic words
• ...

Should there be any hard limit for the number of syllables? And, of course, I'd like to create the FL counterparts:

• Category:Portuguese trisyllabic words
• Category:French trisyllabic words
• Category:Spanish trisyllabic words
• etc.

I created {{hyphenation categorization}} for that purpose, which categorizes entries that use {{hyphenation}}.

I was kinda inspired by ptwikt, which has categories like pt:Categoria:Trissílabo (Inglês) and pt:Categoria:Trissílabo (Português). They are populated by a template that I created years ago. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the need for these categories. Benwing2 (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

English is my second language. Hyphenation is one aspect of English I have yet to grasp decently. That category seems helpful to me, as I admit I wouldn't recognize more than half of those words as trisyllables: the fact that "eukaryote" and "acquainted" have 3 syllables seems a little bizarre to me. In Portuguese, we separate syllables basically by counting vowels and vowels combinations. (there are also a few more rules, like the thing with "rr" and "ss", but that's it) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Totally useless. Please don't do it. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW, eukaryote has 4 syllables, something like 'eu-kar-y-ote' in my dialect if you hyphenate by pronunciation; I think Brits would hyphenate 'eu-ka-ry-ote' if following their pronunciation. Evidently Wiktionary's English hyphenation isn't a reliable guide to how many syllables there are in a word. BTW hyphenation in English is a total mess; no one really understands it. It seems to involve a great deal of conventional rather than linguistic rules, and undoubtedly differs from dictionary to dictionary. The traditional purpose of English hyphenation is to indicate where words can be broken in printed text, and doesn't have much anything to do with pronunciation. Benwing2 (talk) 07:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

In fact there are many 4-syllable words in your list of English trisyllabic words, e.g. just among the a's there are abaxial, achievable, analysis, anthology, antipathy, and authority, plus 5-syllable atrabilious. Benwing2 (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

In Portuguese, we have very fixed hyphenation rules that we learn at school as children. (in my experience in Brazil) Like: característica = ca-rac-te-rís-ti-ca. Also, perhaps I should update polissílabo, that word in Portuguese seems to be always about a word with specifically 4 or more syllables, not just "more than one syllable", but it's conceivable that the latter could be citable as a separate sense.

If "hyphenation in English is a total mess" then it makes sense that we should not have the proposed category tree for readers. Still, I fixed "eukaryote" based on what you said and you pointed other mistakes in hyphenation. Do you think categories like Category:English trisyllabic words could serve the purpose of helping editors seeing lists of words that use {{hyphenation}} and check if they are being used correctly? If so, maybe they could stay but as hidden categories?

I'm curious if there is any foreign language for which "Category:(language) n-syllabic words" would be a deeply helpful thing for readers. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is, hyphenation is used for two different purposes: indicating syllables, and indicating where words can be broken with a hyphen in printed text. In English they aren't the same, so e.g. the hyphenation 'atra-bili-ous' may be correct for printing purposes. It's not obvious to me that you should correct this to follow syllable divisions, similarly with 'eu-kary-ote', which is probably correct as-is for printing purposes. Benwing2 (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, never mind then. I reverted my edit on eukaryote. I'll delete {{hyphenation categorization}} and Category:English trisyllabic words later if no one wants it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure what chronique scandaleuse is doing in this category....--Ce mot-ci (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Hyphenation is not a good way to determine the number of syllables. Just today I added the {{hyphenation}} template to two disyllabic words that are hyphenated as if they were monosyllables: abreast and ahead, which are never broken across a line break, because one of the rules of hyphenation in English is to never leave a single letter by itself. Also, dictionaries differ as to where acceptable hyphenation points in English are: for eukaryote, Merriam-Webster's and Oxford agree with us that -kary- should not be broken up even though it's two syllables, but American Heritage does break it up as eu·kar·y·ote. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think such categories are a good idea, and (as noted above) they certainly can't be populated by the hyphenation template. - -sche (discuss) 23:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Not wishing to dogpile but I also think this is a waste of time and resources even if it were done accurately. Perhaps at some point we can reliably generate such info from the IPA transcriptions or something. By that time it is not clear that we will still be using the existing category system at all. Also, has anyone ever asked for this as a feature? Equinox ◑ 23:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody asked for it, I was just copying ptwikt. They also have categories like pt:Categoria:Oxítona (Português), pt:Categoria:Paroxítona (Português) and pt:Categoria:Proparoxítona (Português) for oxytone, paroxytone and proparoxytone words. AFAICT, it may be tied to our culture of learning to count syllables in school, it also affects the placement of accents. But I'm not sad to see the category Category:English trisyllabic words go, I see that using {{hyphenation}} for that purpose was a bad idea. In the case of Portuguese, counting syllables is often as easy as counting letters IMO, (if you ignore some stuff like the pt:Categoria:Proparoxítona aparente (Português) thing that affects words like advérbio) so I wouldn't argue we need a special category for it, maybe only if it served the purpose of checking how many of the entries are correctly tagged with hyphenation. (hyphenation = syllables in Portuguese) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The only way to do this automatically in English is to use the IPA pronunciation, assuming that it's correct (e.g. eukaryote has a strange second pronunciation listed that would suggest it has 5 syllables). BTW, I saw an error in pt:Categoria:Trissílabo (Inglês) -- eclipse is only two syllables. Benwing2 (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this can be enabled only for specific languages like Portuguese, with regular hyphenation rules. DTLHS (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I confess I'd like that if other people agree with it. Does Spanish have regular hyphenation rules, too? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Most languages have regular hyphenation rules, I think. Spanish spelling is regular enough that you can count syllables just based on the spelling, exactly like in Portuguese. Benwing2 (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I can support this if the categories are named in regular English (one-syllable, two-syllable, or perhaps 1-syllable, 2-syllable) rather than the obscure Greek. —CodeCat 12:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Support. I prefer Category:Portuguese 1-syllable words, rather than Category:Portuguese one-syllable words. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Rationale: categories named with "1" are easier to sort; and also easier to parse visually. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't really see any harm in this. A lot of our categories are in my opinion not very useful for human users (as opposed to finding stuff for bot edits) and this is no worse. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Do we have any evidence that any of our categories are ever used by our users. I just assumed they were for our own benefit. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, someone wrote about Wiktionary categories it in a book: link. Does that count as evidence that it Wiktionary categories helped their research? "Categories such as etymology, POS categorizations, personal names, numbers, and plural nouns are obviously important clues for POS tagging." --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I've looked at stuff like CAT:es:Baseball before. If you're talking about non-editors I guess you'd have to look at WT:FEED. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Alternative forms after definitions

Previous discussions:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2012/April#Moving 'alternative forms' down in ELE
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/December#Alt forms BEFORE the definition?
• User talk:Daniel Carrero#Reordering L3 headers

I would like to see alternative forms down in the entry. But where could we place it exactly?

Here's one proposed order, I'm open to different ideas:

• L3: POS section
• L4: (Inflections and/or Usage notes, the order of these two is the subject of a separate discussion)
• L4: (Quotations -- but see a critique of this header here)
• L4: Alternative forms
• L4: Synonyms

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Rationale:

• Having less things above the defitions is a way to promote the definitions.
• Alternative forms and Synonyms are similar concepts.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, they belong close to synonyms. The way I see it, the headers that are "close" to the term in question come first, and then the relationship to the current term becomes less as you go down. —CodeCat 17:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Also agreed. I recently ran into a situation where I couldn't decide whether to make ноль (nolʹ) and нуль (nulʹ) be alternative forms or synonyms of each other. It's easy to miss alternative forms when they're at the top. (And it's even easier to miss the "see also" notes at the very top.) Benwing2 (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

If they are to be moved below the definition, then a position above synonyms does seem like a good position for them. "Quotations" is unnecessary in most cases — when I see it, I can almost always move the quotations to be under one of the senses. - -sche (discuss) 23:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

A slight aside: even though we won't be a (relational?) database any time soon, if we are trying to enforce orderings of headings, perhaps we could make the editor pop up a warning where a proposed edit would cause sections to be out of the agreed order? Equinox ◑ 23:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Would we make that warning appear before or after all entries are fixed to conform to the same heading order? If we do it before the entries are fixed, then when a user edits an entry with the wrong section order and leaves the section order unchanged, they will see the warning even though it is not his/her "fault". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting a general practice, not implementation details. If it can't be done it can't be done. Equinox ◑ 23:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ideally, if we can fix all entries, then make the warning appear in new edits, I'd support it.

If the warning thing can't be done (I didn't check), maybe we could use tags like the no-documentation, new-L2, etc. (wrong-section-order) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• A counterargument, in re: Alternative forms and Synonyms are similar concepts:

Alternative forms are terms where (generally) everything matches except the graphemic representation.

Synonyms are terms where nothing matches except the meaning (and often just a subset of meanings).

As such, it has always seemed sensible to me that alternative forms would be towards the top: everything beneath applies to the given alternative forms. It has also always seemed sensible to me that synonyms would go beneath the definitions: synonyms generally only match a subset of meanings, with {{sense}} required to stipulate which. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it generally makes sense to put the alternative forms at the top. Quite a few other dictionaries do it this way as well. Plus, I think that it divides information nicely between the top and bottom sections. Nibiko (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Alternative forms can have different pronunciation, gender, inflection and even descendants. The line between alternative forms and synonyms is very thin. The only criterium seems to be similarities between the terms. So there is no assumption that "everything beneath applies to the given alternative forms", because it certainly doesn't in many cases. —CodeCat 22:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

ноль (nolʹ) and нуль (nulʹ) are good examples. They are both clearly derived from Latin nūllus, but possibly through different paths. The meanings are overlapping but not quite the same, and the declensions are related but different (ноль has two declensions, one of which borrows most forms from нуль). Other examples in Russian are воскресенье (voskresenʹje) (meaning "Sunday" and also "resurrection") and воскресение (voskresenije) (meaning "resurrection"), or e.g. мгновенье (mgnovenʹje) and мгновение (mgnovenije) (both meaning "moment, instant"). Benwing2 (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm, that's quite interesting, thank you both. It seems that again Japanese might be the oddball here. Alternative forms for Japanese are mostly cases of graphemic differences that are otherwise overlaps. C.f. 山樝子 / 山査子 (sanzashi, “hawthorne, Chinese hawthorne”), or the more complicated example of 漏れる / 洩れる / 泄れる (moreru, “to leak (out from something); to be omitted, to be left off or out”). The etymologies, pronunciations, and senses overlap, with only some usage notes to clarify the different spellings. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• In the case of Finnish myydä, the alternative form myödä can be traced to a separate Proto-Finnic form. So the doublet can be traced back to an ancestral language. Proto-Slavic *pljuťe and *pluťe are derived from different ablaut grades of the root. Serbo-Croatian still has both varieties, differing by dialect. Compare also Finnish auttaa vs avittaa. —CodeCat 01:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

An English example of ambiguity between alt forms and synonyms is finocchio, which listed "feminine forms" like finocchia as alt forms: in this case, there's no difference in meaning (they both mean "fennel"), but in the case of a (presumably Italian-derived) word with X-o and X-a forms where one referred to a man who did X and the other referred to a woman who did X, I doubt we'd list the forms as alternative forms, since the meaning as well as the pronunciation and (slightly) etymology would be as different as they are for finocchio vs finocchia; conceivably the plurals could be different, too. Obviously, there are other cases where it's clear that two things are alternative spellings, like realize (Oxford-British and American spelling) vs realise (alternate British spelling). - -sche (discuss) 02:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Are there any examples of English etymological doublets that are treated as synonyms or alternative forms in modern usage, perhaps differing by dialect? —CodeCat 03:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

To me it seems so far like a problem with classifying certain things as alternative forms rather than a problem with alternative forms themselves. Just because a word is a cognate, doesn't necessarily mean that it's an alternative form. In Japanese, there are plenty of cognates, many are considered alternative forms, many are not. The line is drawn on a practical level. Furthermore, synonyms is far from being the only alternative to classifying something as an alternative form, as there are other headers such as related terms, see also, usage notes, coordinate terms, and for ubiquitous concepts in a language there is usually some template parameter. Nibiko (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

need bot permission

i am user from Bangladesh. i wanted to add new BN word . so i need bot flag . Rahul amin roktim (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You don't need the bot flag to add new words, just add them directly. Benwing2 (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

A bot gives you the ability to do an enormous amount of damage very quickly, if you don't know what you're doing. Why should we risk allowing that when you haven't edited a single entry here at English Wiktionary? Not only that, but you've been blocked at bn Wiktionary for continuing to run a bot on your main account after being told not to, which doesn't inspire confidence in your willingness to follow the rules. You need to edit here for a while without a bot so we can see that you know how to do things right- then, maybe, we'll give you permission to run a bot. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose per Chunk Entz. Bot flags are for 'creating words' anyway but for repetitive minor edits that would flood the recent changes. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No need for a bot flag in the first place, and no reason for giving one to an unknown and untrusted user with few edits. Prior behaviour on other wikis only weighs further against. We should keep an eye on the user and block if they evade our bot policies. —CodeCat 22:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

In fact zero edits in the main namespace. First ever edit for that user was the one that started this thread! Renard Migrant (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Removing Quotations header

Proposal: Removing the Quotations header from all entries.

1. If there are quotations in the Quotations header, move them to the respective senses.
2. If there is just {{seeCites}} (which links to the citations page), remove the Quotations header altogether, it's just a duplication of the citations link at the top of the entry.

For example, remove the Quotations header from abyss.

Quotations

• For quotations using this term, see [[Citations:Beer parlour/2016/February#|Citations:Beer parlour/2016/February]].

Previous discussions:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2010/July#Value of the Quotations header?
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-12/Headings#Quotations

Can we do that? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

{{seeCites}} can also be moved under whatever senses it applies to (being converted to {{seemoreCites}} if there are existing citations). All of this can be done in most cases. But in a few cases it's unclear which sense a quotation applies to; housing these is the stated reason for the existence of the (oft-misused) Quotations header. What should be done with such citations if the Quotations header is removed? I suppose they could just be moved to the citations page. - -sche (discuss) 22:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

We add quotations and other usage examples to illustrate usage. If we don't even know what they illustrate, then they don't really belong in the entry. —CodeCat 22:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Massively support. But 'moving them to the respective senses' has to be done by human editors, so it's a big job. Like CodeCat says, just move them to the citations page and put them back into the entry when a human user gets round to it. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Goods points from both of you. Yes, it seems like a bot could just move 'em all to the Citations pages. (A bot could even skip cases where the citations page already existed, if that would make things easier; that would probably cut the number of remaining quotations sections down to something humans could manage.) For reference, as of the last database dump 4223 entries had quotations sections. - -sche (discuss) 22:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I dislike the idea of relegating them to the citations page, but I do support getting rid of the quotations header. The only time I've seen one where the quote couldn't be moved to a specific definition is at PC, which has a quotation containing three different senses of the word. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

According to WT:EL, if it's possible to sort quotations under a sense, it's acceptable to do so. In my experience, only a tiny fraction of the 4223 entries which use quotations headers use them for the WT:EL-approved purpose of housing unclear quotations; most entries can be cleaned up on sight with no change in policy (and for years I have been cleaning them up when I rarely encounter them). - -sche (discuss) 23:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel super-comfortable with this; I tend to miss the Citations page and I imagine I'm not alone here. Benwing2 (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Might as well. Be warned that there might be a handful of pages where this header has been used to add a citation of uncertain or missing meaning. Equinox ◑ 00:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Emilian-Romagnol vs. Emilian?

User:Gloria sah asked me:

I noticed that in the page "cà", since I wanted to write about Emilian-Romagnolo language, I had to write the abbreviation "egl" (that conversely usually refers only to Emilian language) instead of "eml"=Emilian-Romagnol language. Do you think in the future I'll have to write "egl" again, or there is something to fix upstream? Thank you in advance, --Gloria sah (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know enough about these varieties to answer the question. Anyone? Benwing2 (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Gloria sah: ISO 639-3 has deprecated eml and now treats Emilian egl and Romagnol rgn as two separate languages. Therefore, please always use egl for Emilian words and rgn for Romagnol words, and use the headers ==Emilian== and ==Romagnol==. If a word happens to be spelled the same in both languages, you can create two entries. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Although (Gloria), if you think Emilian and Romagnol should be treated as a single language, we could have a discussion of the appropriateness/inappropriateness and benefits/drawbacks of that. - -sche (discuss) 19:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your precious answers. I'll ask my colleagues too. --Gloria sah (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Who are your colleagues? Renard Migrant (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)