User talk:Benwing2/2020-2021

Archive

• 2012-2019

Atmos

1. Plural of Atmo 2. (Sound production) clipping of ??? atmosphere

What does this mean: clipping of? Sound production? Ætherdog (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems to mean that the term is used specifically in sound production. Benwing2 (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for template creation

Hello. I would like to reference some Bengali etymologies, and later on, reconstructed Bengali entries, Middle and Old Bengali entries, with Chatterji (1926). This work is in 2 parts. So could you please create templates for them, which you can make as {{R:ODBL|I}} and {{R:ODBL|II}} for the respective volumes? You may set the templates to be appearing somewhat as follows:
Chatterji, Suniti Kumar (1926) The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language‎^[1], volume I, Calcutta University Press; and
Chatterji, Suniti Kumar (1926) The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language‎^[2], volume II, Calcutta University Press
Thanks in advance! —Lbdñk (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll get to this shortly. Benwing2 (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2: just reminding you in case you forgot, but take your time. —Lbdñk (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Script to add translation tables

Hi. I've been working quite a bit with French idioms and their English translations lately, and I'm often adding translation tables to English entries like this (some other examples), before adding the French translation. Do you think you could whip up a script that would allow me to do the first step (i.e. add an empty translation table) in one click? Canonicalization (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I can definitely write a script that can be run to add empty translation tables to a list of French terms. The only thing is that I'd have to run the script because it requires a bot account and various things set up on my computer. The idea would be that you'd give me a list of pages and I'd run the script on those pages. We can repeat this as many times as is needed. If you're looking for something more interactive, you might want something written in JavaScript. For that, ask User:Erutuon, who is much better than I am at JavaScript. Benwing2 (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

He has asked me before; I probably should do it finally. I'll put it on my mental list. — Eru·tuon 09:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Valencia

Believe it or not, this along with its ca, es and pt children, has shown up with "out of time" module errors. If it helps any, none of these shows any categories, so it must be timing out before that part. The only thing I can think of is that there may be some kind of recursion or conflict due to Valencia being both a region/state in Spain and a city in California. Please have a look. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz This was because I had "Valencia" as both an autonomous community of Spain and a city within that autonomous community. For now I've removed it from the city list. Benwing2 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:en:Washington, D.C.

Why did you recreate this? Did you see Category:en:Washington, D.C., USA? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Koavf Yes, I know about that and I'm planning on deleting it. I've added support to {{place}} for major cities all over the world, and I've decided not to include the country name after the city. The logic is as follows: (a) nearly every existing city category does not include the country, and Category:en:Washington, D.C., USA is the only exception I know of; (b) including the country name causes problems e.g. for the city of São Paulo, where there is already Category:São Paulo, Brazil for the state of São Paulo (similarly for Rio de Janeiro). Benwing2 (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

re: "shiretown" parameter

Methinks you left out a step... Chuck Entz (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Oops. I forgot to fix Module:place, will fix now. Benwing2 (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Wingerbot is using gt/lt signs instead of curly brackets

For example diff. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mahagaja Oops. These changes were made manually by me in a text file, and I messed up here. Benwing2 (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete request on شمالات

Can you take a look at this entry? Your bot made it and an IP requested it be deleted. Thanks! - TheDaveRoss 15:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss One of the plurals appears wrong but the other one is correct if rare, per Lane. I fixed the entry accordingly. Benwing2 (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Bot request

I'm replacing a bunch of templates with new tone-requiring versions of them. For each, the former parameter |h= (or |head=) is now going to be the first positional parameter in the new template, with the other positional parameters being incremented by 1 when present. I need some help with the ones I can't easily do by hand, and Erutuon told me you have a script to do this. The replacements are:

• {{ny-noun}} to {{ny-noun/new}}
• {{ny-proper noun}} to {{ny-proper noun/new}}
• {{ny-verb}} to {{ny-verb/new}}
• {{sn-noun}} to {{sn-noun/new}}

Thank you! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Should be done. Benwing2 (talk) 06:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I've now made the /new templates into redirects — could you do a run to chop off /new from the transclusions? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Done. Benwing2 (talk) 07:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

And could you please also do the same (chop off the /new) for {{rw-noun/new}}? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Done. Benwing2 (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I have another one, if you don't mind. I want to replace {{head|ny|noun plural form}} with {{ny-plural noun}}: the former parameter |h= (or |head=) is now going to be the first positional parameter in the new template (if neither of these parameters are present, the first parameter should just be the pagename), and the former |g= is going to be the second positional parameter (but it needs the first character stripped, so |g=c12 becomes |12). Sorry for the extra trouble with this one. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Done. Benwing2 (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Another one, just a simple replacement: {{head|bnt-pro|verb}} to {{bnt-verb}}, please. Thank you! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Done. Benwing2 (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

And another: we can replace {{character info/new}} with {{character info}}, which I assume was the plan all along. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge OK, it is running. As there are over 40,000 pages using the template, it will take a little while. I'm running 5 processes, each one handling 8,000 pages running at 1 per second, so it should be done in a little over 2 hours. Benwing2 (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I have another request — please let me know if you want me to stop. This time, I'd like to replace {{desc}} with {{bnt-desc}} in all Proto-Bantu entries. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Done. Don't worry, these requests are mostly easy to fulfill. Benwing2 (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Block

Hi Ben. I need to be blocked, please. I've been spending too much time here again. --AcpoKrane (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

FYI

diff Chuck Entz (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Sorry about that, I should have checked CAT:E after pushing those changes. I try to do that but occasionally forget. BTW, any time you see a sporadic error like this, it means I used the bot to push changes that I manually made to a text file, and the error is because I mistyped something. When I write a script to make the changes, typically you won't see any such errors, or if you do, you will see a lot :) Benwing2 (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Bulgarian headwords and manual transliterations - bot request

(moved to Module talk:bg-nominal)

Mass removal of Russian manual transliterations

Hi,

Special:Contributions/86.134.66.200 has mass-removed Russian manual transliterations on "чн"/"шн". Is there an easy/quick way to undo this? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Ooof. Some bad abjad removals too. --{{victar|talk}} 23:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like there are some good changes mixed in with the bad ones. Can you identify the bad ones? If you can do that, I have a script I can use to undo those changes (even if there are subsequent changes from other users, although it looks like mostly there aren't). Ideally, save the HTML from the User contributions page and edit it; that will preserve the diff ID's. But that might be painful. If so, just select the lines from the User contributions page that contain the bad changes and paste into a text file, and I'll parse out the page names and undo the changes to those pages from this user. Note that there are some bad changes to pages that don't have чн in the page name, e.g. the change to тряпица. Benwing2 (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I will see what method is best, otherwise, I'll just clean up myself. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

A script to revert any removals where the transcription differs from the automatic one would be nice. --{{victar|talk}} 02:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Victar: No. The automated for стани́чник (staníčnik) is "staníčnik", the manual and the correct one is "staníčnik, staníšnik". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev: I think you misunderstand me. --{{victar|talk}} 03:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Victar: Maybe, please clarify. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev I think we got all of them reverted. Benwing2 (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Victar I'm not capable of evaluating the changes to Avestan or Old Persian; you'll have to look at them and roll them back as necessary. Benwing2 (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2: You can't have the script look at the previous revision to see if it's in C:Terms with manual transliterations different from the automated ones? --{{victar|talk}} 04:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Victar I could write a script to do that, but (a) it would take longer than just manually reviewing the commits, (b) some of the changes (at least for Russian) were correct. Benwing2 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

That's too bad. I'm mostly just going to revert all his edits on Iranian entries. --{{victar|talk}} 04:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Victar I only see about 20 of them, can't you just review them manually? Benwing2 (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't mean just Proto-Iranian entries, I mean entries within the Iranian family. --{{victar|talk}} 05:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Victar Yes. There are the most recent 19 contribs, and about 30 more on March 1st, and that's it. Do you have rollback privileges? If not, I can give it to you, it will make your life easier. Benwing2 (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm manually going through them now, but from what I see, it's more than that -- mostly Kurdish links. --{{victar|talk}} 05:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Yes, thank you. The rest of edits were OK. I wonder if manual (required) translits should have a hidden comment or something. I feel that I have to do it on a regular basis. I still feel that manual transliterations (even with commas) are important, like this one Кузьми́нична f (Kuzʹmínična, Kuzʹmínišna). @86.134.66.200. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

These are also from the same person: Special:Contributions/5.81.100.151, Special:Contributions/86.145.59.25. --{{victar|talk}} 05:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Victar Damn, this guy is persistent. There are an awful lot of Iranian-related changes; if they need to be mass-reverted and can be done by a script, let me know how, and I'll see if I can write the script. Benwing2 (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah... annoying. I would actually even just settle for reverting any edits with pal and xpr. Those are the worst edits. They don't seem to realize that some characters can represent multiple transcriptions, which is why manual ones were set. --{{victar|talk}} 06:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Victar OK, how would the script go about figuring this out? Which templates are involved? Benwing2 (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

{{l}} and {{m}}, so reverting any edits (lines?) containing {{l|pal|, {{m|pal|, {{l|xpr|, {{m|xpr|. --{{victar|talk}} 06:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

T:R:Mackenzie

Benwing, @Erutuon mentioned you might have a bot script for moving links. If you have a moment, could you move all links to Template:R:Mackenzie over to Template:R:pal:Mackenzie:1971? I'd like to use T:R:Mackenzie for another reference template. Thanks for any help. --{{victar|talk}} 06:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Victar Done. Benwing2 (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! --{{victar|talk}} 19:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we simply combine the ‘Europe’ and ‘Asia’ parents?

I did this a while ago, but somebody told me that it wasn’t a good idea. Should I undo it? — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 02:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Romanophile Yeah I don't think this is a good idea. Doing this makes things more obscure as you won't find e.g. Russia under either Europe or Asia when you'd expect it under both. BTW I don't think any country except Turkey and Russia should be listed as being in both Europe and Asia; the rest are only in Asia. Benwing2 (talk) 03:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

All right, sorry about that. Undone. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 04:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Vowel length in Latin verno, vernus, vernalis

I was surprised to see these words marked with a long vowel, and looking through the edit history for verno, I noticed that you had added a macron to it in September 2019. I see that Lewis 1890 marks these words with a macron, and Bennett 1907's entry for vernus does also, simply stating "from vēr" (page 66).

However, vowels before a consonant cluster starting with a resonant are presumed to have been shortened in Latin at some point by a sound change, often called "Osthoff's Law" (a name that also applies to a similar sound change in Greek). Some exceptions are thought to be present in Classical Latin, but I don't know of any firm basis for supposing that the vern- words were such an exception. According to de Vaan 2008, the root of ver itself originally had a short vowel, and the long vowel found in Classical Latin vēr is secondary, resulting from compensatory lengthening when s was lost before n in the genitive: vesnos > ve:nos (with later replacement of ve:nos > ve:ros). Our entry in Wiktionary agrees with this account. De Vaan says that the vern- in vernus might come from either vesin- (in which case the e would have been short all along) or from ve:ri-n-. In the second case, Osthoff's shortening still seems like a possibility. "Osthoff’s Law in Latin", by Ollie Sayeed , assumes that vernus has a short vowel (page 157, in Indo-European Linguistics 5 (2017) 147–17).

So the etymological situation seems inconclusive, and as far as I know, there is no non-etymological evidence of a long e in the vern- words (e.g. in the form of either Latin-era inscriptions with apices, or distinctive Romance reflexes). Do you know more about this?--Urszag (talk) 05:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Urszag I added the long vowel based on Alatius's web page [3], which quotes Bennett but contains corrections from several later authors. vērnus isn't corrected so I took it as correct. I have heard the arguments about Osthoff's Law but AFAIK it applied long before the Classical Latin period; at least that's how I learned this law worked. There are several exceptions like fōrma (as shown by Spanish horma not *huerma, French fourme), vēndō, quīnque, probably vāllum, ūllus, sūrsum, etc. So I am skeptical there was an Osthoff's Law that applied late enough to make a big difference in Classical Latin. De Vaan is of the Leiden school, which has its own peculiar ideas about Indo-European linguistics, so I wouldn't take everything he says at face value. I don't know about Ollie Sayeed but I see he's a PhD student. Benwing2 (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there certainly were words in Classical Latin that for various reasons had long vowels before resonant-initial clusters, as I mentioned. The date of the shortening law would only matter if vernus was a late formation from vēr: if it was formed early on, then one possible scenario is the vowel being shortened by Osthoff's Law and remaining short after Osthoff's Law ceased being actively applied. Is there any evidence that it was a late formation?--Urszag (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Urszag I don't have any evidence one way or other. But the assumption that Osthoff's Law continued to be applied well into the Classical period seems dubious to me given the large number of exceptions. It seems more logical to me that it applied very early on and then ceased to be active even before the Old Latin stage. Is there specific evidence that Osthoff's Law continued to apply into and past the Old Latin period? The only cases I know of where shortening before resonant + consonant seems to have occurred are before 'nt' and 'nd'.

Ultimately it seems that the best we can do is add a note indicating that there is some disagreement in the sources as to the length of 'vērnus/vĕrnus', maybe by writing it as 'vē̆rnus' with a note indicating which sources say it's long and which ones say it's short. Benwing2 (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

For many specific consonant clusters of the form RC, there aren't many examples of OL in Latin. Sayeed mentions shortening before -rn- in perna (>Spanish pierna), and before -mb- (from -ms- or -ns-) in membrum and in month names ending in -ember. Perna, membrum and -ember are supposed to be from PIE roots with long e (pages 156-157).--Urszag (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Urszag The problem is that perna and membrum look to be very old constructions, meaning Osthoff's Law might have applied at the Proto-Italic stage or even earlier (in fact, the Wiktionary entry for membrum effectively dates Osthoff's Law to Proto-Italic or earlier by assuming shortening already at the Proto-Italic stage), and it's far from obvious how the -ember nouns evolved. In fact, Wiktionary's etymology for september assumes that the -em comes from the end of septem, not from the originally long ē of mēns. All of this is not to say that Osthoff's Law couldn't have applied later as well, but I feel we need better evidence. Benwing2 (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Module:compound

The categories no longer work at all. DTLHS (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte

I noticed a rather problematic edit made by User:WingerBot so I fixed it, but you may want to look into it as a potentially larger problem. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 00:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ilawa-Katawa Thanks. This happened because I accidentally deleted the line that demarcated the division between two adjacent pages when manually editing the text. This is not indicative of a larger issue, just human error :) Benwing2 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ilawa-Kataka Oops. Benwing2 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Thank you for your response, I am relieved. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 01:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Bulgarian and Ukrainian pronunciation modules - minor fixes, hopefully

Hi,

When you have a chance (I know you're busy), could you please fix some most striking problems or issues:

1. Handling of "я" and "ю" by Module:bg-pronunciation/testcases when they are not following consonants, should be [j], not [ʲ] like in Russian.
2. There are no cases yet but Module:uk-pronunciation shouldn't make "и" as [e] in unstressed positions but always [ɪ]. I don't have a good reference on Ukrainian pronunciation. Ivan Štambuk must have based on some old book, which not so valid.

Pls let me know if you want anything on the Bulgarian noun inflection module. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev I'll get to this in the next day or so. Benwing2 (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, also please make Ukrainian "е" to always be [ɛ], also unstressed. This will make it a bit more phonemic but also more generic for most speakers.

There are few weird things as for the current pronunciation but it's hard to make it perfect, e.g. вовк (vovk) is [vɔu̯k] by most speakers, not [wɔu̯k]. No rush. Let's do Bulgarian first. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hiya, I've changed my mind about the Ukrainian modules changes. It's better to follow some model, rather than mixing. Fixing Bulgarian module's errors are essential. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

WingerBot creating errors

Hi, edits like diff are creating module errors in Bulgarian entries. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: Thanks. Fixed. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Белоруссия in diff

Hi,

Nah, it's not obsolete but Белару́сь (Bjelarúsʹ) is more respectful to Belarusians, even if Byelorussia is obsolete. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад)

Thesaurus:important person

I decide to be bold and renamed Thesaurus:big cheese to Thesaurus:important person. Could you do a bot run and replace occurrences of the former to the latter? Thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Done. Benwing2 (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

New Bulgarian entries made by WingerBot

I noticed a mass-creation of Bulgarian entries by your bot. They look good - with the right senses, stresses and inflections! How?! It takes a long time to create entries manually. Did you extract all of them from a dictionary? Did it take you long?

I want to ask if it's possible to repeat this feat in the future (theoretically) with Ukrainian and Belarusian entries - The Ukrainian and Belarusian inflections exist on public sites, a smart bot would be able to load them. Russian might use some missing feminine forms, for example. Ivan Štambuk was able to mass generate Ukrainian entries with inflections, which is not easy to do if you have to do it manually. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev I manually create a text file specifying the declensions, stresses, meanings, synonyms, antonyms, derived and related terms, and then use a script to generate the entries, and another script to push the entries using my bot. It takes a long time: the recent batch of 259 entries took 2 days to create. The time goes into looking up the entries, figuring out the inflection and meaning, and finding related terms. Running the actual scripts is fast. If I didn't have to worry about definitions or derived/related terms, it would go faster, for sure. The first few entries in the manually-created text file look like this:

n роб raw:From_West_Slavic,_from_{{inh|bg|sla-pro|*orbъ||slave}},_from_{{inh|bg|ine-pro|*h₃órbʰos||orphan}}._{{doublet|bg|раб}}. <+и+ове[a]>|f=роби́ня|adj=ро́бски (also)(f)[[slave]];[[prisoner]];(f)[[servant]];ux:[[Ваш]]_[[поко́рен]]_'''роб'''|your_obedient_'''servant''' der:ро́бство
n ро́бство роб+-ство </n:sg> [[slavery]],[[servitude]];syn:робу́ване;[[yoke]];syn:и́го rel:роб:роби́ня
n ро́ба - <> [[robe]],[[dressing_gown]]
n хълм inh:sla-pro:*xъlmъ <+ове+и[p]> [[hill]] der:хълми́ст
n щрих de:Strich <+и>|adj=щри́хов (l)[[line]],[[stroke]] der:щрихи́рам,щрихо́вам

Benwing2 (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work! --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hiya. How is going? Do you want me any help with Bulgarian - something I could do? The verbs are going to be a bit more complex but I hope there will be much more commonalities by types, for example, a missing verb ми́сля (míslja, “to think”) has many verbs with similar or identical conjugations of type 173ti in https://rechnik.chitanka.info/type/173ti. We will need to check if a common type also includes stress patterns. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev Hey. I've written the code for multiword nouns and adjectives and I'm testing it now. Afterwards comes the verbs. It would help if you could sort out the different possible stress patterns of verbs, as I have little idea of the possible variations. Maybe make a table similar to User:Benwing2/test-bg-ndecl that lists various verbs and certain forms. I think Bulgarian verbs don't have stress movement within a single tense, unlike Russian, so it may be enough to list the following forms:

1. the first-person singular present (future for perfective verbs0
2. the first-person singular aorist
3. the first-person singular imperfect
4. singular imperative
5. singular imperative
6. masculine indefinite singular present active participle
7. masculine indefinite singular past active aorist participle
8. indefinite plural past active aorist participle
9. masculine singular past active imperfect participle
10. plural past active imperfect participle
11. masculine indefinite singular past passive participle
12. indefinite plural past passive participle
13. adverbial participle
14. singular indefinite verbal noun

Apologies for requesting so many forms per verb. I think it may be possible to do without the plural variants of the participles, which would eliminate three forms (14 -> 11). But it looks from Bulgarian conjugation that Bulgarian verbs are just very complicated. Benwing2 (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I have just started User talk:Atitarev/test-bg-vconj User:Atitarev/test-bg-vconj. Just trying to make sense at the moment. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I have corrected the link. Please check if the number of columns is sufficient. --06:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

vēnus

This Latin noun is documented only in the dative and accusative. Is there a way to reflect this fact in the declension table? I could find no instructions in the template documentation for missing forms. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect bot edits

I notice that on 21 August, you made a lot of incorrect bot edits to forms of the verb compono/conpono, removing the length in -po- where it should have been kept. Would you mind correcting these errors? 2A02:2121:30A:5F8E:2CEB:77A0:3248:7871 08:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

auxiliandi

Could you explain why you deleted this? I can find it attested in Caesar, but I could be missing something. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Belarusian and/or Ukrainian

Hi,

You have done an amazing piece of work for Bulgarian. Thank you! There's always room for improvement but it seems the infrastructure is now in a very good shape.

Please let me know if you're interested in improving Belarusian and/or Ukrainian contents as well. I am more familiar with these languages but I can't give much of a technical advise and I don't think we'll get much help from others. Resources are somewhat better for Ukrainian. Some work on conjugation templates is currently going on Russian and Ukrainian Wiktionaries. The inflections are more complex and there is more variety than Russian but even small improvements would be appreciated. I am OK to continue to add inflections manually but some templates don't even allow that, for example, Ukrainian templates can't handle reflexive verbs. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev Sure, I can do some work on Ukrainian, esp. since the resources are better than for Belarusian. I will start by looking into the issue with reflexive verbs. If you could point me to any resources on Ukrainian declensions or conjugations, it would be helpful. Benwing2 (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. You can start by analysing our currently used templates. For example, a transitive verb говори́ти (hovorýty) has a full paradigm. If you add any term in https://goroh.pp.ua/Словозміна, it will give you inflections, sometimes more than one for different senses. It's very good for nouns and adjectives. The verb conjugation is not 100% complete there. We will need to fill the rest - or leave unpopulated to be filled. E.g. https://goroh.pp.ua/говорити doesn't provide participles, and only one type of the future tense, e.g. говори́тиму - I will talk (infinitive + му ending for 1st pers. sg). The missing type is formed the same way as Russian, e.g. бу́ду говори́ти - I will talk. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW, many Ukrainian terms have audio files, so you can get a feel how Ukrainian sounds. You may wonder if unstressed "и" is represented correctly by the pronunciation module. E.g. говори́ти is [ɦɔu̯ɔˈrɪte] but you will hear [ɦɔu̯ɔˈrɪtɪ]. It is based on a more classical accent, which is fading away. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I have found another online resource for Ukrainian conjugations, the dictionary I have been using for a while - https://www.lingvolive.com/en-us/translate/uk-ru/давати - need to scroll down. It doesn't give stresses here but it gives MORE forms missing at https://goroh.pp.ua/Словозміна. (The dictionary needs some getting used to. It annoys you with requests to log on but t won't do it again after the first query - you can switch languages and look up other words. Clicking refresh is always better and adding the term to the URL). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev It looks like Ukrainian grammar is pretty similar to Russian grammar, so as a first approximation maybe we can use Zaliznyak's system of notating nouns and verbs. Benwing2 (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there are many similarities.

For verbs, there are more forms - alternative future, роби́тиму/бу́ду роби́ти ("I will do"). Ukrainian is unique in this among Slavic languages, forming is easy but care should be taken for reflexive verbs - -сь/-ся are also used, like in Russian but the rules are different.

Many verbs in -ти have alternative infinitives in -ть, the tables could use those: розмовля́ти/розмовля́ть but not verbs like нести́.

Pluperfect tense is sometimes described, e.g. "чита́в був" (I had read), no need to include in tables, IMO.

Present active participle is normally missing, it may be confused with a noun, e.g. даючий. So, I am not sure if it should be included. In any case, it's a bit hard to find for each verb and find the right stress. Perhaps as a parameter, rather than an automatic feature.

"past_pasv_part_impers", is currently not displayed, e.g. "ро́блено" in tables but it should. It's very typical and is also used with intransitive verbs.

All nouns have vocative forms, even if they are not used in the real life, that's what grammar books do.

Some challenges will be with alterations, such о/і, г/з, к/ц, х/с, л/в, у/в, which are not present in Russian.

You can request inflections for different terms and I will try to make entries or just inflection tables. If you improve the current conjugation tables, it will make it easier for me, so that I could use reflexive as well. I will be able to add multiple different verb conjugations on a page, so that you could build a module, if this is what you're planning. Just let me know. If you want to focus on nouns first, that's fine. They are easier. You'll get exposed to many sound changes, which are common for Ukrainian. Some things are still very unfamiliar to me and even current adjective templates include a number of archaic/very rare forms. It's definitely more complex than Russian.

You can also take a look at Ukrainian Wiktionary inflection templates, some are good but far from comprehensive in coverage. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад)

Great job, Ben! Are you able to run a bot and add {{rfinfl}} on all Uk, Be, Bg and Ru terms requiring inflections but missing them (and no {{rfinfl}})? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, great job, but I noticed that your bot added the conjugation table for касувати to мити (myty). İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 13:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ilawa-Kataka: Thanks for spotting. That has been fixed. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev I added {{rfinfl}} to all Uk, Be, and Bg nouns, verbs and adjectives needing inflections. Haven't yet done proper nouns or Russian. Benwing2 (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Thank you for this and the fixes and the enhancements to Module:uk-headword. I saw you added comparatives, diminutives, etc. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev: Speaking of Belarusian declensions, Jarash (talk • contribs) added a few some time ago, but generally without the stresses. See паласа (palasa) or сляза (sljaza) for example. PUC – 10:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@PUC: Thanks, it would be good to label them for attention but maintenance categories for Belarusian are now quite large. I personally have no issue adding a stress mark at all. I am using SC Unipad, which decomposes diacritics and I just copy/paste the stress mark in the right place. At http://www.slounik.org/, you can see the underlined stress marks but you can't copy it. Belarusian headwords need a lot of rework too. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I am your student

Hello from el.wiktionary. I know nothing about Lua, computers, but I am fascinated by your work. And i learn a lot from your comments. I have been trying to unify templates for 'places'. Nothing complicated like your Module:place. I tried a /data page at el:Module:sarritest but I cannot make even one little link work, I cannot make them speak to each other. Is there a magic word for it. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ | 17:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sarri.greek Hello! I can help you if you can specify exactly what you need to happen. Benwing2 (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

O! thank you. I do not wish to bother you. Here is a brief copy: el:Module:topos. I fell SO stupid... ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ | 00:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

O! disaster: The data page el:Module:topos/where will not accept greek terms with spaces or with dialytics. e.g. el:Αρούμπα, el:Template:test I have tried various things. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ | 11:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sarri.greek I'll take a look later today. Benwing2 (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sarri.greek Can you explain exactly how it's not accepting terms with spaces or diacritics? I'm not quite sure how the module is being used and what error you're seeing. Benwing2 (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I see. Benwing2 (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sarri.greek The issue appears to be line 21, where you have this:

local where = require("Module:sarritest/where")

if you change it as follows:

local where = require("Module:topos/where")

then el:Αρούμπα works fine. Benwing2 (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Also everything on el:Template:test. Benwing2 (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It was a silly bug?? @Benwing2 I am so sorry to have bothered you. I thought it was some very difficult font issue. I have asked Lua support for small wikis at meta.wikimedia.org but noone answers. I thank you very much. I would never solve it. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ | 21:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Virile and nonvirile

Can you add the virile and nonvirile genders to Module:gender and number? The workarounds function, but they are not entirely accurate (e.g. utensylia, drzwi). İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 01:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ilawa-Kataka What do "virile" and "nonvirile" genders mean? We already have personal and non-personal, are they the same? Benwing2 (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Definition of nonvirile from Appendix:Glossary: "In Slavic languages, a plural gender used for all groups that do not contain men, as well as plurals of masculine animate, masculine inanimate, feminine and neuter nouns. Contrast virile." Nonvirile and virile are typically abbreviated as "nv" and "vr" on templates and "nonvir" and "vir" in glossing (according to the Oxford Handbook) respectively by the way. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 01:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ilawa-Kataka I see. We currently use npers for non-personal in glosses, is it ok to use nvir for non-virile or would you prefer nonvir? Benwing2 (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Sure, that works. Thank you. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 02:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ilawa-Katawa Done. If you want we can also add categories for virile and nonvirile nouns. Benwing2 (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2 That would be great as well. My username is Ilawa-Kataka by the way. Thank you. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 02:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ilawa-Kataka Done. My apologies for getting your name wrong. Benwing2 (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Thanks again and don't worry about it. My real name is a rather common English name, but I have been called everything from Mitchell to Julia. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 02:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2 There are three problems with the current execution. Firstly, the category descriptions are misleading in that they sound like they are singular whereas virility is strictly plural. I would write for the virile and nonvirile categories respectively: "Polish nouns that refer to a group with at least one male human." and "Polish nouns that refer to a group without male humans." Also, I think both categories should be (also?) subcategories of Category:Polish pluralia tantum since these categories by their nature refer to plural-only nouns. Lastly, Module:pl-headword can neither handle virility categorisation nor display the virile and nonvirile genders. While it looks to be a straightforward edit adding a couple of lines between lines 190 and 191, I am not remotely confident in my moduling skills. Thank you in advance. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 16:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Never mind, I did everything myself. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 17:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ilawa-Kataka Apologies for not getting to it faster. I'm not sure it's correct to put virile nouns under pluralia tantum, though; this is a particularity of Polish. I think it should be added by the Polish module. Benwing2 (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Go ahead and change it, I am uncertain of any application of virility outside of Polish. Also, there is no need to be sorry, I was glad to get a bit of moduling experience. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 01:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ojibwe verb categorization

Hi there,

I saw your recent creation of the Ojibwe verb "gaanda'an". I've been trying to sort out the Ojibwe verb classes, and was aiming for a 4-way classification: VII-VAI-VTI-VTA. I'm no expert in wiktionary editing, but this 4-way classification matches the consensus in Ojibwe grammar. That said, your "gaanda'an" entry (and i assume others) doesn't follow that, separating the transitivity from the animacy, which i don't think works because those two elements can't be disassociated from one another. I don't want to assume my classification (following the Ojibwe People's Dictionary and others) is most appropriate for wiktionary. So, before continuing, i thought i would check with you.

SteveGat (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@SteveGat Hi. I guess you are referring to the categories that classify a verb separately by animacy and transitivity? I'm confused as to why this doesn't work. What is it about these two properties in Ojibwe that makes them so intimately bound? In many languages, nouns, verbs, etc. have multiple properties, and just because a verb is e.g. identified in the dictionary as "transitive inanimate" doesn't mean it needs to be categorized with both at once and not with the two separately. That said, I'm not opposed to creating a category like "Ojibwe transitive inanimate verbs" but in that case I think we should also categorize at least under "Ojibwe transitive verbs" for consistency with other languages. This can be accomplished by creating a special {{oj-verb}} template that takes a parameter to specify the transitivity and animacy; I can create that template for you if you want. Benwing2 (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You can see my overall response in the Beer Parlour. Specifically on animacy versus transitivity: intransitive verbs have different paradigms depending on the animacy of the subject, while transitive verbs (which by definition have animate subjects) have different paradigms based on the animacy of the object. In other words, animacy isn't a feature of the verb itself, so classifying a transitive verb as "animate" (VTA - animate object) has a completely different meaning than classifying an intransitive verb as "animate" (VAI - animate subject). I hope this clarifies the issue, and i appreciate your helping my think this through. SteveGat (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Small bot request

Can you make changes like diff? Ultimateria (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ultimateria Done. 88 replacements. Benwing2 (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Ultimateria (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ultimateria: Here you go:

small bots

;-) Chuck Entz (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Oops, I just saw this. I don't think they survived my vacation 😨 Ultimateria (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

South American countries (bot edits)

WingerBot's templatisation of South American country entries has marked them with r/South America instead of cont/South America causing improper categorisation. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 14:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ilawa-Kataka Thanks for letting me know; fixed. Benwing2 (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Replacing uses of {{timeline}} on English citations pages with {{en-timeline}}

Hi, would it be possible to replace uses of {{timeline}} on English "Citations:" pages with {{en-timeline}}? @Apunite wishes to convert {{timeline}} from a redirect to a general-purpose template, but this is currently distorting its use as a redirect. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Apunite, SGconlaw Sure, I'll do that this evening. Benwing2 (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Much obliged. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Apunite, SGconlaw Done. It converted about 12,000 pages and left about 250 alone as they were in other languages. Benwing2 (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! — SGconlaw (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Ukrainian

How well do you actually speak Ukrainian? --Nueva normalidad (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2 I don't, really. Benwing2 (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nueva normalidad Oops. Benwing2 (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nueva normalidad: May I ask, why you are asking? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Because you've been spending most of 2020 writing ridiculously complex Ukrainian Modules. --Nueva normalidad (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nueva normalidad: Hey. I don't know if you realised that it wasn't Benwing2 asking you the question. "You" must be referred to him.

The modules are complex but it's the grammar, variations and inconsistencies that are ridiculously complex in Ukrainian, especially nouns. I can attest that Benwing2 is bloody efficient at this and the modules are very powerful if used correctly. It's not only Ukrainian this year - Bulgarian modules for all inflections are also done this year. I think with the experience (Russian, Arabic, Latin modules) and the approach he has taken, many things are possible, you don't really have to speak the language well. That's why it's even more amazing. In any case, I can't complain about the development speed or accuracy, LOL. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Module:ang-verb

May I copy this module to Russian wiktionary? ПростаРечь (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@ПростаРечь Sure, go ahead. Benwing2 (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

спусціцца

This was a mistake on WingerBot's part right? İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 22:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ilawa-Kataka Not a mistake. The deleted verb doesn't belong on that page; it's already on its own page. Benwing2 (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I see that now. Sorry for bothering you. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 22:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ilawa-Kataka No worries, you're not bothering me by asking about my edits. Benwing2 (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

More non-native audios

Can you remove Portuguese audios by User:Adélaïde Calais WMFr? Example file File:LL-Q5146 (por)-Adélaïde Calais WMFr-abatido.wav. I'll add any more that I find to this section. Ultimateria (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ultimateria Done. Benwing2 (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

PAGENAME in audio file names

Hi, what is the benefit of changes like this? If the file name were to be changed at Commons, would the bots that fix file names still recognize this as the same file? —Mahāgaja · talk 08:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mahagaja I did this because User:Atitarev has been consistently making changes of the same sort manually. I figured it makes it easier to copy text from one entry to another because you don't have to manually enter the pagename. However, I didn't think about file name changes. Under what circumstances does this happen, and who runs the bots to handle these changes? Can you point to an example diff, as I don't recall having seen such changes? If it ends up making these bots not work, potentially I could certainly do a run to undo all the changes although easier might be to fix the bots to handle this. Benwing2 (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is an example where the bot CommonsDelinker changed the name of a file at Wiktionary because the name of the file was changed at Commons. That bot is run by c:User:Magnus Manske; I guess you'd have to ask him whether the bot would still recognize the name if it uses {{PAGENAME}}. Of course, files don't get their names changed very often anyway; it usually only happens when there's a typo in the old name. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mahagaja Thanks. All of these audio files have a very simple and consistent naming format, e.g. Ru-альтернатива.ogg so they've probably been put there by bot and are unlikely to change. However, I'd definitely like to hear from c:User:Magnus Manske. Benwing2 (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

There's also the chance of them being deleted, since removing links to deleted files is CommonsDelinker's other task. Again, it's unlikely to happen, but it is theoretically possible that some such file was later found to be a copyvio or something and deleted, and if CommonsDelinker didn't know we were using it, we'd be left with a red link. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: I, in turn adopted this method, when I saw User:PUC using it in Belarusian and later Ukrainian and Russian entries. It is a big time-saver when mass-creating entries and should be embraced by others, IMO. If audio or image files get renamed, deleted or replaced, it is a good practice to change all linked entries and I've seen conscientious editors do exactly that with edit summaries. If it doesn't happen, then well, we'll have to fix it ourselves. There's no full protection from this, whether we copy the page name or just replace it with {{PAGENAME}}. I'd like to continue doing it, if there are no objections and recommend doing the same for other languages where the same pattern works. If bots don't work with {{PAGENAME}}, then I guess, it needs to be trained to work with it. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev: But surely saving time when mass-creating entries is no reason to change existing file names so that they use {{PAGENAME}} instead of the actual name? Can't you subst it in when mass-creating the entries? —Mahāgaja · talk 07:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: {{PAGENAME}} serves as a template for new entries or entries to be enhanced. If they are all consistent, then all you need to do is copy that line from similar entries. You won't get many entries with wrong audio files copied from a different entry like this revision of спусці́цца (spuscícca), which belongs to спыта́ць (spytácʹ). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Fine, I guess it's not a big deal. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Category standardisation

Why have you had WingerBot standardise topic categories as {{topics}} rather than {{c}}? For me, {{c}} is slightly more efficient and has a logical progression into {{cln}}. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 12:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ilawa-Kataka Good question. I chose {{topics}} because it's fairly clear whereas {{c}} seems a bit obscure; on the other hand I didn't think about the parallels with {{cln}}. Benwing2 (talk) 04:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

For me, {{c}} is less obscure than {{topics}} since it links to a "c"ategory. Do you think this warrants a Grease pit discussion? İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 15:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ilawa-Kataka If you wish. Not sure it will get anywhere, though; we had a discussion about a similar topic awhile ago and the upshot was there are differing opinions on which template name is preferred. Benwing2 (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I think I remember that one, so never mind. But anyways when I categorise a page it is with {{c}} and I will assume that is not a problem unless I hear otherwise. In an unrelated matter, I left a template edit request at the Grease pit about the Kyrgyz declension template—could you add singulare and plurale tantum support when you have some extra time? İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 19:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ilawa-Kataka Feel free to use {{c}}; no objections. I will take a look at the Kyrgyz declensions. Benwing2 (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

{{place}} problem

At Santa Catarina (and other Brazilian state entries), producing "the the", as well as linking to a Portuguese entry when it should be linking to an English one. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Thanks. There's some old hacks involving 'macroregion' that don't work well; I need to remove them. Converting them to regular 'r/' = region fixes them. Benwing2 (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Same problem at Jerusalem, Batman, Heligoland, and surely more. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Belarusian months

When WingerBot cleaned up the Belarusian month entries, it made them countable (which I recall Atitarev says is incorrect). İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 13:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ilawa-Kataka I thought User:Atitarev said they're countable. They are countable in other languages (e.g. "it happened two Septembers ago"). If this is incorrect, I will fix them. Benwing2 (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ilawa-Kataka: Belarusian months are countable, even if plurals are uncommon, so we have to infer or search for correct forms. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev, Benwing2: Sorry about that, far too late a night I guess. Thanks for correcting me. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 23:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ilawa-Kataka: No problem. The latest discussion was in Talk:травень. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev: That is the one to which I was referring, though my memory failed me this morning. I admire your and Benwing's recent work on the Slavic languages and have been following it closely, though I do not know enough about those languages to really contribute. If you get to Polish I would be more active, but its infrastructure is in a much better state than several other Slavic languages so it's not a priority. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 01:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

New requests

Hi,

Thank you for all the work - Bulgarian, Ukrainian and Belarusian inflections and headwords are so much better this year!

Are you able to run a bot to replace grave accents to acute accents for all Bulgarian templates?

Would you be interested in much smaller improvements for Macedonian (headword) and Hindi (inflections are simple)? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад)

@Atitarev I can run a bot to replace the grave accents, and I'll work on the other tasks afterwards. Benwing2 (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I'd like to learn a little from you on module development too. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev How much programming experience do you have? If you know how to program, writing modules isn't that hard, although you have to learn Lua (which is similar in many ways to Javascript and somewhat similar to Python). You can refer to Wiktionary:Scribunto to get started, and copy an existing module. Benwing2 (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev I ran a bot to check for grave accents in Bulgarian headword templates but it found only one instance, азе. What other templates are you thinking of? I also added Module:mk-headword. I'm looking into Hindi nouns; do any nouns require manual translit? It looks like it's enough in most cases to specify the gender of the noun, and the rest can be inferred automatically. Benwing2 (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Thanks. I come across grave accents all over the place. E.g. User:Benwing2/sla-pro-bg-redlinks shows a few like "бадàкам". I meant {{t}}, {{t+}}, {{l}}, {{m}}, {{cog}}, {{desc}}, etc. Many sorts of templates.

Thanks for Module:mk-headword. I see that older features are preserved too. What functionality has been added? I see dim, adj, m2/f2, etc. are working now. Great!

As for Hindi transliterations, adding them for inflections seems cumbersome. I think you can use the automated transliteration in 99% of cases. The only problem is the shwa-dropping and dropping on the right syllable, which is the work of the translit module. In cases where the automated correct transliteration is impossible, an invisible virama symbol ् could be used to manipulate or phonetic respelling. Say, I want अलार्म क्लॉक (alārm klŏk, “alarm clock”) to be displayed and declined in all forms as "alārm klŏk" (dropping "a"), it could be phonetically described as अलार्म् क्लॉक (alārm klŏk) (with a virama at the end of the first word). Perhaps the phonetic respellings could be used as an additional optional parameter. E.g. कॉफ़ी (kŏfī) can be spelled in a number of ways, with or without nuqta ़, with ॉ or with ा but the |phon= could force the desired reading. So, I think respellings (exposed or non-exposed, to be discussed?) is better than manual transliterations. I am not sure yet if we want the respelling to be shown to the user, e.g अलार्म् क्लॉक (alārm klŏk) for अलार्म क्लॉक (alārm klŏk)

Template {{nuqtaless form of}} Needs a categorisation by language, please, similar to Category:Russian spellings with е instead of ё, I think. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev I see. I think I can trick the translit module into tracking cases where grave accents occur. As for Hindi, the manual transliterations would be needed only where the translit module gets it wrong, similar to Russian transliterations, and only on the lemma, not on the inflections. The declension module will take care of adding the translits to the inflections. So it looks like the choice is between manual translits and respellings. It's the same amount of work in the module in either case. As a first effort I will probably not worry about this, as the existing declension templates don't support it; I can add it afterwards. BTW I don't see the virama at all that you added, either in the normal display or when editing. What do you want the nuqtaless-form-of category to be called? Something like Category:Hindi nuqtaless forms? Benwing2 (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, just automating the inflections is a good start.

Virama is a little diacritic at the end of the of अलार्म् (at the bottom) - letter by letter: अ ल ा र ् म ्. How about ◌्. Can you see here? I am using Chrome. You can download SC UniPad, which is very good for decomposing conjuncts, diacritics, accents, etc. You can copy/paste most of the symbols you need (good for vocalising Arabic sentences, for example).

Yes, Category:Hindi nuqtaless forms is good. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev For the example you give, I see viramas after the fourth and fifth letters and under the dotted circle. But it looks like you're putting them under spaces instead of letters, which is probably why I see them. I am also using Chrome, on a Mac Book Pro. Benwing2 (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

BTW All the Macedonian templates should have documentation describing their params. Benwing2 (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I have only put virama under spaces in this example अ ल ा र ् म ्, after र (r) and after म. Normally अलार्म (alārm) is spelled with one virama after r. You can't see it, as it's all merged into a conjuct र्म, with र appearing as a little hook on the top. Without a virama - रम look as separate too letters and it would be pronounced as "ram" (with the final inherent "a" dropped). अलार्म् with two virama after r and m is a (possible) respelling to force the final inherent "a" to also drop, i.e. "alārama" becomes "alārm". Virama is also called a vowel/shwa killer, I think.

Please download "SC UniPad", it's light and useful. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev Unfortunately per the docs it only works on Windows. Benwing2 (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a shame. Perhaps you're missing some fonts on your Mac? Do you see all symbols in Module:hi-translit, in particular under the line which says "virama"? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

BTW, in Australia, “it’s a shame” = “it’s a pity”, not shaming you but regretting you can’t access the tool :) --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Just FYI. I just found a good example where a respelling or manual transliteration would be required: मेहनती (mehantī), spelled म (ma) + े (e) + ह (ha) + न (na) + त (ta) + ी (ī), should be pronounced as "mehnatī", not "mehantī". The way to tell, which shwa (a) should be dropped could be मेह्नती (mehnatī) (not the actual spelling), just applying a virama after the consonant ह (ha) where the inherent vowel "a" should be silent - ha -> h.

Hindi Devanagari is very phonetic. The few issues with spellings is that shwa-dropping rules (not complicated for humans) sometimes don't work with automated transliterations or syllabification can't be predicted, like in this case or in loanwords.

Another issue is that Hindi speakers (writers) typically fail to write nuqta (dot), not unlike Russians change ё to е or don't always use a couple of other diacritics: ॊ = ǒ, 'ॆ = 'ě', ॉ = 'ŏ', creating cases where pronunciations differ from spellings. At Wiktionary we make terms with nuqta and with strict spellings the main forms, just like we do with Arabic (hamza-less alif, etc.) or Russian - less formal native spellings. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev I am working on this. I will implement phonetic spelling for forcing manual translit. Benwing2 (talk) 03:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks (and fixing a typo in my post). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Benwing2 and @AryamanA. Thank you very much for improving Hindi modules and templates! The complexity actually exceeded my original knowledge and I can't access good grammar resources, so I wasn't able to contribute much at the end, especially with verbs and adjectives. I am sure I will get back to Hindi work later. I am currently busy learning Korean. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Kyrgyz

Two more things with {{ky-decl-noun}}: it currently cannot handle ь (used in loanwords such as Тайвань), which is either removed or not removed (more commonly removed) in declension but does not affect the suffixation otherwise; and it also does not handle possessive suffixes, which I think are best explained at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313774172_Kyrgyz_Orthography_and_Morphotactics_with_Implementation_in_NUVE at page 7. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 19:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ilawa-Kataka Hi. I'll get to these soon. The issue with ь can maybe be handled by an argument, something like |keep_soft_sign= for those cases where the soft sign should not be dropped. Benwing2 (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

How about |soft_sign=b(oth)/y(es)/n(o) or just |soft=? For Тайвань I found both in use (with Тайвандын getting a few thousand results and Тайваньдын a few hundred—both used in professional contexts). İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 00:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ilawa-Kataka Sounds good to me. Benwing2 (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Source for formal grammar for templates

I was wondering if, for example, you know a good formal source of the declension rules for Russian verbs? I see you're the author of the rather impressive ru-conj table, and was wondering if that work was based on some formal set of rules codified somewhere?

I'd like to have a crack at rewriting the conjugation system for my own learning, and was wondering if there's an authorative source, rather than interpreting your code.

Thanks

The authoritative reference is called Грамматический Словарь Русского Языка by A.A. Zaliznyak. It's in Russian so you have to be able to read it at least somewhat, or make liberal use of Google Translate. Benwing2 (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

пат

Etymology 2 at Macedonian needs to display uncountable. Ultimateria (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

de-IPA question

Hello Benwing2!

I was wondering if it would be possible to write a module that creates automatic German IPA pronunciations, just like Module:fr-pron does for French words. German pronunciations seem to follow certain fixed rules, at least for Hochdeutsch, but certainly it would require quite some effort to write it. LinguisticMystic (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@LinguisticMystic: But you wouldn’t know before pleongraphs whether the vowel is the long or the short one. And it can’t know the stress in prefixed verbs where the prefix can be either separable or inseparable, like umfahren. Orthographic depth is lower than in French but with these things there is this more left unexpressed in the script. Fay Freak (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: Even languages with the "shallow orthography" often require stress marks, additional symbols and respellings, such as Erde as "Ehrde". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Which means, that such a module would be very hard to implement, or nigh impossible, I guess. LinguisticMystic (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@LinguisticMystic, Fay Freak, Atitarev Not impossible. I implemented a similar module for Old English, which has many of the same concerns as German. As Anatoli notes, you would need respellings to accommodate unpredictable elements. This would include long vowels where short vowels are expected (indicated by adding a macron over the vowel or an h afterwards), short vowels where long vowels are expected (indicated by adding a breve over the vowel or doubling the following consonant), unpredictable stress due e.g. to prefixes like um- or loanwords (indicated by an acute accent over the appropriate vowel), secondary stress (indicated by a grave accent and/or by adding a hyphen to divide components of compound words), glottal stops in the middle of words, etc. In Old English respelling, for example, I used < to separate an unstressed prefix that can't be predicted, > to separate an unstressed suffix that can't be predicted, + to prevent prefix separation that would normally occur, and - to separate components of compound words that receive individual stresses. More respellings are required than in French, for sure, but it's not impossible. Benwing2 (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I see the main problem being education about the need for respellings. There have been far too many bad edits consisting of replacing hardcoded IPA with empty language-specific IPA templates. Module errors are one option, but the worse offenders are mass-editors (often IPs) who don't preview and don't look at the entry after they click "Publish changes". There's also using the technique by which {{taxlink}} alerts editors that there's already an entry for the taxonomic name, but there again, it only shows in preview. The question then becomes whether we're creating an attractive nuisance, like an unprotected pit that pedestrians fall into if they're not paying attention. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The situation differs per language, depends on how many conscientious and thorough editors exist per language. Manual IPA is no guarantee for errors, either. We do correct such bad edits when we see them. Modules can trap a few errors or slack editing, like headwords requiring accents, the same could be done for pronunciation modules. German is not very different from many languages already automated and it has a high level of predictable pronunciation. Like Slavic languages, it may require stress marks, a list of prefixes, which may determine the stress, respellings, marks for morpheme or component word boundaries.

Module:de-IPA/testcases already uses |orig=. (German is known to retain partial or full pronunciation from source languages.)

There hasn't been much support from native speakers, the obstacle being variations in pronunciations, even for Hochdeutsch. I personally think it would be good to choose a variety/standard and stick to it for the purpose of module development. Regionalism/versions could be added later, if they are really needed. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I've just realized that you already started to work on this as an experiment three years ago ... LinguisticMystic (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Coinages by language

A lot of people forget to use the |nobycat=1 parameter for people who have only ever made one coinage, causing a bunch of bot-created categories that will only ever have one entry (in which case they shouldn't exist). Conversely, it is possible that people may use |nobycat=1 in error, not knowing that somebody does in fact have multiple coinages to their name. Would it be possible for you to do regular bot runs to add or subtract this parameter as necessary, and delete the empty categories that will result? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Apologies, I'll add it to the list of tasks to do, I have a bit of a backlog now :) Benwing2 (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, don't apologise — it's due to human error, not bot error. But it would be good for this to be something that gets run on a regular basis. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I was just reminded of this. No rush, as before, but a reminder in case you forgot too. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Your regular reminder. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge This time I'll actually get to it :) Benwing2 (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge This is running. It output some warnings that you should probably look at:

• Page 159 star-crossed: WARNING: Lang en, coiner William Shakespeare has 6 total words coined but has nocat=1: {{coin|en|William Shakespeare|in=1597|nocat=1}}
• Page 256 brave new world: WARNING: Lang en, coiner William Shakespeare has 6 total words coined but has nocat=1: {{coin|en|William Shakespeare|in=1610|nocap=1|nocat=1}}
• Page 258 commonty: WARNING: Lang en, coiner William Shakespeare has 6 total words coined but has nocat=1: {{coin|en|William Shakespeare|in=1594|nocat=1}}
• Page 376 primrose path: WARNING: Lang en, coiner William Shakespeare has 6 total words coined but has nocat=1: {{coin|en|William Shakespeare|in=1609|nocat=1}}
• Page 531 cold fish: WARNING: Lang en, coiner William Shakespeare has 6 total words coined but has nocat=1: {{coin|en|William Shakespeare|in=1611|nocat=1}}
• Page 647 all the world's a stage: WARNING: Lang en, coiner William Shakespeare has 6 total words coined but has nocat=1: {{coin|en|William Shakespeare|in=1599|nocat=1}}
• Page 684 Ailurus: WARNING: Lang mul, coiner Frédéric Cuvier has 2 total words coined but has nocat=1: {{coin|mul|Frédéric Cuvier|in=1825|nat=French|nocap=1|nocat=1|occ=zoologist|occ2=paleontologist}}
• Page 721 Ailurus fulgens: WARNING: Lang mul, coiner Frédéric Cuvier has 2 total words coined but has nocat=1: {{coin|mul|Frédéric Cuvier|in=1825|nat=French|nocat=1|occ=zoologist|occ2=paleontologist}}
• Page 101 ambivalence: WARNING: Lang en, coiner Eugen Bleuler has 2 total words coined but has nocat=1: {{coinage|en|Eugen Bleuler|in=1910|nat=Swiss|nocat=1|occ=psychiatrist}}
• Page 215 autism: WARNING: Lang en, coiner Eugen Bleuler has 2 total words coined but has nocat=1: {{coinage|en|Eugen Bleuler|in=1912|nat=Swiss|nocap=1|nocat=1|occ=psychiatrist}}

Benwing2 (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I think it would be helpful to both add and subtract the nocat parameter in an automated way; these should all have it removed, and I don't think a human needs to look over this kind of report in general. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Relatedly, can we get the coinage cats to sort by last name instead of first name? It looks sort of amateurish this way, e.g. at Category:English coinages. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Done. I purged all the subcategories of 'English coinages' so they get re-sorted by last name, but it will take a little while for subcategories of other languages to get sorted by last name. Benwing2 (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, looks good. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for creating new parameter

Hello! Sometimes we need to quote only the title of a work to illustrate words, and in such cases, it is desirable, while using the {{quote-book}} or the {{quote-journal}} template, to hide the colon that appears at the end of bibliographical informations, as we are not giving the passage in such cases. So, could you possibly create a parameter something like |nocolon= to that effect? Thank you. —inqilābī [inqilāb zindabād] 10:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

My two cents: (1) try not to use just a title as an example wherever possible; (2) just repeat the title as the text to be quoted using the |passage= parameter, and make the cited word boldface there. That way, there won't be unusual boldface in the title of the work. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Thanks for your suggestions. I myself have used a title as an example only once, but I have seen quite a few ones that other users have added earlier (such as this); and I have seen that they did not use any templates: so, would it not be better to not use templates while quoting titles, as a solution to the problem? But I do not like the idea of repeating the title as the passage, because that would give the impression that the author themself wrote that way. —inqilābī [inqilāb zindabād] 11:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lbdñk: My main point is the first one – titles are not really good illustrations of terms as they are usually very short and don’t provide enough context of the terms. Sometimes they do no more than repeat the term, so I don’t see much value in them. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Erutuon, do you endorse the idea of having a new parameter |nocolon= for this purpose (as stated in the first paragraph)? —inqilābī [inqilāb zindabād] 11:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I also wanted such a thing, albeit not because of quoting titles but to give other editions/loci containing the same text, although it would also be useful for the aforedescribed purpose because I often refrain to type off a whole passage and link to a scan instead (transcribing the editions is extra work that begins at even deciding where to begin the quote if it is a medieval text not using punctuation, or worse if it is a tablet in a fragmentary state); for the purpose of multiple loci the template should also not cause a line break. Fay Freak (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: So d'you want this to be ta'en to Wiktionary:BP? —inqilābī [inqilāb zindabād] 11:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lbdñk: For colon and line break options? Why, this is an uncontroversial functionality extension. It just enables to do the things we do anyway more orderly. Fay Freak (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: I meant the parameter to hide the colon: let us see if the community supports this proposal... But I did not get what you mean by "line break" & "multiple loci". —inqilābī [inqilāb zindabād] 11:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

If you use {{quote-X}} two times for the same quote – because it is found in various editions –, then the first breaks the line. See for example كَرَّانِيّ (karrāniyy), or the hack at بَاطُس (bāṭus). Fay Freak (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: What is the need to provide multiple editions? Never seen such a thing before. Do not take so much trouble: just give the earliest or the major edition. —inqilābī [inqilāb zindabād] 15:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lbdñk: Readings, variants? Not everyone has the same edition? It is good for SEO? Wrong question. It is the superobligatory. There is no need, but we like to do things better or more than is required. It’s free! @Sgconlaw also often adds bibliographic information to the quotation templates which are “not needed” but he does it because he can. Fay Freak (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Providing multiple editions and providing full bibliographical informations are wholly otherly things. The latter is meedful, the former is frowned upon. —inqilābī [inqilāb zindabād] 16:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: if there's a need for some reason to state more than one edition (for example, a reprint of a first edition), you can just use the additional parameters ending with a "2" (|title2=, |location2=, |publisher2=, etc.) as described at {{quote-book}}; it isn't necessary to use a new quotation template. But note that "Wiktionary:Quotations" states: "The year should be that of the earliest edition known to use the word. Where feasible, the page number should be taken from the first edition, but if a later edition is used (found in a library or digitised by Google Books], etc), then the publication date should be added in parentheses after the publisher’s name. In these cases, publication details should reflect the work actually cited: do not give the name, location etc. of the publisher of the first edition if you are not citing it directly." — SGconlaw (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw This is all aimed at English quotes. There technically isn’t a first edition if the text circulated in manuscript, no reprint of works written before the age of printing (which is for Arabic-script lands before 1800). The year in |year= should of course be that of the composition – which is often approximated –, not the publication year of the earliest edition as claimed by Wiktionary:Quotations, that is also |year_published= (if the first edition is given). And usually modern Arabic editions of medieval texts are better than the 19th editions of Orientalists who had few manuscripts, which are however nonetheless quoted, but the editions stand side by side. Fay Freak (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: gotcha, in which case you can still use the “2” parameters as I mentioned. That would avoid the problem of the extra colon and line break in your scenario. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Module:ru-noun

Your recent edit seems to have broken некого and нечего (sounds like material for a Who's on First?-style routine- нечего исправить, perhaps?), or at least exposed a problem that was already there. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Yeah, you are right, it exposed an existing problem. I fixed this issue and also the issue of the lemma showing up as — in the title of the table. Benwing2 (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Yet another fix for Module:la-verb

An adjustment is needed for the particular case of ōdī. The present header,

{{la-verb|4.perf-as-pres.sup-futr-actv-only|ōdiō|ōd|ōs}}

, is an oversimplification; the supine ōsus does exist, and the verb is also optionally semi-deponent—ōsus sum was used for ōderam (e.g. Plautus, Amphitryo 900). Therefore, the header should be

{{la-verb|4.perf-as-pres.opt-semi-depon|ōdiō|ōd|ōs}}

. This, however, creates problems: ōdisse disappeares and ōsus sum is shown to be in the same tense as ōdī. I honestly don’t know how it should be displayed in the end (whether the present infinitive should still be displayed or instead of it ōderam and ōsus sum). Thorny stuff. --Biolongvistul (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Sanskrit reverse transliteration

Hello! I was trying to find out how to combine these two modules, Module:sa-utilities/translit/IAST-to-SLP1, and Module:sa-utilities/translit/SLP1-to-Deva into one and through a template get a reverse transliteration of a Latinized Sanskrit word, so far unsuccessfully. Could you help me out? It would be quite useful to have it, as I have a lot of data in IAST, which could be used here in their Devanagari forms. LinguisticMystic (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I actually found it out by myself. Thank you. LinguisticMystic (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Your bot changed plural to s

Revision. J3133 (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@J3133 That was intentional, but the module had an error handling s and es when there is a qualifier. Fixed. Benwing2 (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/213.166.146.171

Hey, you know some Arabic. Is this IP actually trying to contribute or just messing with stuff? It looks like the latter to me, but I don't know what I'm talking about. —Globins (yo) 05:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Globins Most of the changes by this IP look fine, but not the change to صهيون. I don't know why the IP keeps edit-warring over this. The vocalization ending in -awn is not normal in Arabic, for sure. Benwing2 (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I protected the page to prevent further edit warring. Benwing2 (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2, @Globins, Fay Freak: The IP may be right. The صِهْيَوْن (ṣihyawn) reading is definitely supported by H. Wehr dictionary. Just try putting صهيون in the search window on on this site. Applies to the derivation صهيوني, for which @Fay Freak wants protection as well. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev Interesting, thanks for pointing this out. Pinging User:Fenakhay. Benwing2 (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Fenakhay also reverted the IP's edits on صهيونية, although the dictionary suggests the reading صِهْيَوْنِيَّة (ṣihyawniyya) must be valid (maybe rare or dated but valid). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Globins, Fay Freak, Atitarev Thanks for the ping. That vocalisation is certainly not common at all, and I haven't encountered before. I'll readd it. فين أخاي (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fenakhay, Benwing2, Atitarev: Since one does not learn it systematically, and I have only become cognizant of it because of adding many of these words, I note that there is a pattern where Standard Arabic allegedly has KiLMawN or KiLLawM, and the classical dictionaries list only this, but the most real pronunciation, which the Saudi IP despises and which you virtually always hear when someone on TV speaks Modern Standard Arabic, is KaLMūN or KaLLūM. Other examples include حِرْذَوْن‎ (ḥirḏawn), خِنَّوْص (ḵinnawṣ), بِرْذَوْن (birḏawn), سِنَّوْر (sinnawr), فِرْجَوْن (firjawn) (the last word is not found often so I cannot speak of its real pronunciation, but of Zionists one speaks often); with a remarkable difference خِرْوَع (ḵirwaʕ). You may see that there is no word with such a pattern which is not to be deemed a borrowing. In some other words like تَنُّور (tannūr), زَرْجُون (zarjūn), زَيْتُون (zaytūn), كَمُّون (kammūn) for some reason that KiLMawN or KiLLawM pattern is somehow never mentioned. On other occasions, and more often, the alleged norm is KuLMūN or KuLLūM as opposed to KaLMūN or KaLLūM, e.g. زُنْبُور (zunbūr). Which works analogously with ي (y), as in بِطْرِيق (biṭrīq) instead of بَطْرِيق (baṭrīq) which latter the Saudi IP hates much, قِنْدِيل (qindīl), بِطِّيخ (biṭṭīḵ). Due to borrowings in other languages and the source forms it is also certain that the allegedly colloquial forms have always been of greatest use. I wonder in which contexts one could actually and unironically hear the alleged norm forms. Fay Freak (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Female equivalents

While you're on these I have a request. Can you remove |m= parameters from the headword line on these pages? I think the redundancy at e.g. mercière is pointless and distracting. Ultimateria (talk) 06:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ultimateria Sure, I'll do that afterwards. Benwing2 (talk) 06:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, I cleaned up the ~120 Portuguese female equivalents that didn't have {{pt-noun}}, but the accelerated entry script will keep creating them. Can you take a look at it? Ultimateria (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ultimateria This should be fixed. I added tocadora as the feminine of tocador (not sure this is correct though), and when you click on it you get the headword with {{pt-noun|f}} and the definition with {{female equivalent of}}. Benwing2 (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

BTW I still have to fix the feminine plural accelerator. Benwing2 (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ultimateria Feminine plural accelerator should be fixed; it now generates {{plural of|pt|FEMININE}} instead of {{feminine plural of|pt|MASCULINE}}. Benwing2 (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! Ultimateria (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you replace instances of {{feminine singular of}} in noun sections? diff. Ultimateria (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ultimateria Done. Benwing2 (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you still plan on removing |m= parameters? To be clear I'd only like them removed from sections whose only definition line includes {{female equivalent of}}. Ultimateria (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Renaming of Kurdish entries

You've renamed Kurdish entries to Northern Kurdish and by doing so you broke some links. See for example mereq. The link in "Please also see mereq in the Northern Kurdish Wiktionary" is wrong because it links to kmr.wiktionary.org. The Kurmanji Kurdish Wikipedia and Wiktionary use the ku code, not kmr and since it is just called Wîkîferhenga kurdî (translation: Kurdish Wiktionary. Just "Kurdish" is used in many other places referencing the Wikipedia or Wiktionary too) the "Northern Kurdish Wiktionary" is partly wrong. I know that the dialects differ a lot and perhaps specifying the dialect is good but the name "Northern Kurdish" is pretty uncommon (I know that it's not made up by you, it is used in other templates too). -- Guherto (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Guherto I see, you're referring to Tbot links. I can fix them to use ku as the Wiktionary code. It will still be referred to in the entries as the "Northern Kurdish Wiktionary", which isn't completely wrong since that's what it really is. Meanwhile, if you think we should rename "Northern Kurdish" -> Kurmanji and/or "Central Kurdish" -> Sorani, feel free to bring that up in the beer parlour. Benwing2 (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I will think about requesting it since almost all speakers call it kurmancî (Kurmanji). -- Guherto (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hindi

Just wanted to say again, thanks for all your work on declension and conjugation! Looking back now, it is seriously impressive that you managed to learn the whole noun and verb paradigms so quickly :) Really a huge improvement on what we had before. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 03:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@AryamanA You're welcome! I still need to add docs to {{hi-adecl}}, {{hi-ndecl}} and {{hi-conj}}. I've actually written up more docs privately than are on those pages, just need to copy the text basically. Benwing2 (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Why prefer [[LINK]] to {{l|en|LINK}} for non-english definitions?

Hi there Benwing2! I noticed that your bot changed some links from the {{l|en|LINK}} format to the [[LINK]] format. I thought that when specifically the English definition of a word is being referenced as a definition to a non-English word, it would've been preferable to directly link to the English section of the entry, which is achieved by {{l|en|LINK}} (or also [[LINK#English|LINK]], I suppose). I was just wondering if you had any particular reasoning why it might be preferable to link to the top of the article instead? – Guitarmankev1 ^(talk) 12:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Guitarmankev1 Hi, this is a good question. The general practice I've seen across Wiktionary is to use bare links in English definitions except when the foreign lemma is spelled identically to the English definition, as e.g. on Welsh cobra (in which case the bare link will display in bold and not be clickable). AFAIK the reason for this is that it's much easier to type a bare link, and it's visually less intrusive in the source code, and the English definition is already at the top of the page so it usually doesn't matter very much whether you link to the top of the page or to the English definition. I think there may have been votes on this but I'm not sure. I know that some editors don't even like using {{l|en|...}} links in synonyms/antonyms/derived terms/related terms sections of English entries, but here the practice of using {{l|en|...}} seems more established. Benwing2 (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for mechanical fixing of several dozen misworded Jeju entries

Currently a lot of Jeju entries have "Sino-Jeju word from {{m|jje|[Chinese characters]}}" in their etymology sections. This is pretty bad because first, "Sino-Jeju" is a term nobody uses either in Western academia or in Korea itself, and second, because Jeju does not have its own character readings that correspond to e.g Sino-Korean, Sino-Vietnamese, Sino-Japanese.

The correct way to handle these should be {{ko-etym-sino|[Chinese characters]|nocat=y}}, because these words derive from Sino-Korean readings.

Could you set up a bot so the Wikitext sequence "Sino-Jeju word from {{m|jje|foo}}" is automatically changed to "{{ko-etym-sino|foo|nocat=y}}"?

Thank you so much! :) --Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Karaeng Matoaya Sure, I'll see if I can get to this today. Benwing2 (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Karaeng Matoaya Apologies, it took me several days to get to this. I fixed things up, and also replaced Sino-Jeju -> Sino-Korean in some synonym sections. Can you review the pages with these latter changes? They are as follows:

• ᄋᆢᄃᆞᆸ
• 넷
• 다ᄉᆞᆺ
• 두게
• 둘
• 마은
• 설룬
• 셋
• 쉰
• 시믈
• 아은
• 열
• 예쉰
• 일곱
• 일흔

Also, the following pages mention Sino-Korean in the Etymology section, which can maybe be cleaned up:

• 궨당
• 전상

Other pages whose Etymology sections need cleanup:

• ᄀᆞᆸ
• ᄎᆞᆷ
• ᆢ
• ㅐ
• ㅢ
• ㆍ
• 가사
• 가차이
• 골히
• 드르
• 복송
• 비낌
• 새베
• 새위
• 서월
• 시다
• 심방
• 아시예
• 얄룹다
• 일홈
• 장게들다
• 줴께

Benwing2 (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Karaeng Matoaya Benwing2 (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Having looked at those Jeju entries and tried to fix some of them (mostly by removing the false "from Middle Korean" etymology and just linking to Korean cognates instead), I am now of the strong opinion that Jeju should be merged back into Korean:

• The etymology section for Jeju is unmanageable separate from Korean etymology sections, because 1) Jeju is only attested in the twentieth century but 2) Jeju is not directly descended from fifteenth-century Middle Korean, so all that every etymology section can really say "Cognate to Middle Korean blah blah; see Korean blah blah".
• It is aesthetically very unpleasing to have Jeju above Korean in entries like 나 (na). The definition "A Hangul syllabic block made up of ㄴ and ㅏ" should absolutely come at the top of the page.
• The significant majority of Jeju lemmas are also attested in some form of Early Modern or modern dialectal Korean. So far the Jeju-Korean distinction works because 99.5% of our Korean lemmas are only from Contemporary Standard Seoul, but our coverage of the dialects and of the historical forms has been improving lately and eventually there will come a point when most Jeju entries have a Korean entry below them with identical pronunciation and identical semantics. This seems very unhelpful.
• With just a single tweak for the Jeju /ɔ/ vowel, this will allow us to use Module:ko-translit for Jeju forms instead of transliterations being manually inputted.
• People in Jeju Island today speak a Jeju-influenced Korean, but a lot of these Korean words seem to have been added as Jeju entries (presumably because a lot of online resources fail to make this distinction). Merging Jeju into Korean solves this issue.

What do you think? Should I take this to Beer Parlor?--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Karaeng Matoaya Yes, definitely. Similar considerations led me to suggest merging Scots and English. Nearly all the distinctive Scots vocabulary is also attested in dialectal northern England English, and since we do have coverage of those dialectal terms we end up with a huge amount of duplication, which just adds a lot of unnecessary load onto editors. On top of this there aren't really any Scots editors to maintain the Scots terms in any case. In this case, someone else created a vote which was shot down; there was a lot of huffing and puffing about how Scots was obviously a separate language and to suggest merging them was to deny the linguistic identity of Scots, which in reality wasn't and isn't anyone's intention. But for Jeju vs. Korean you might get more traction since (a) it's not so familiar as with English vs. Scots so less likely to elicit emotional reactions, (b) there's already the example of the merged Chinese varieties. Benwing2 (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Removing macrons from Latin words built on signum (and other words containing -ign-)

I started out trying to do this manually, but there are too many for me to be able to do it well. Could you please feed WingerBot a list of all the Latin words containing -sign- that are now marked with a macron (-sīgn-) to have it remove the macrons? It added them in August 2019, but the idea that these words had a long vowel is not well supported, and the general current consensus is that they didn't. Please also remove the macrons from any words built on other roots that we transcribe with -īgn-, e.g. from dignus.

Per W. Sidney Allen: "The change of e to i indicates a short vowel for an early period in ignis, dignus, lignum, signum, ilignus (cf. p. 23) and Romance evidence points to a short vowel at a later period in dignus, pignus, pugnus, lignum, signum (e.g. Italian degno, French poing)." (Vox Latina page 72)

Likewise, Carl Darling Buck writes in "The Quantity of Vowels before gn" that "For the cultivated language, which is what we aim to represent in our pronunciation and spelling a long vowel before gn is to be recognized only where it is long in origin, as, for example, in rēgnum." (page 314, The Classical Review, Vol. 15, No. 6 (Jul., 1901)).

--Urszag (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Urszag Yeah I'm not sure why I added those macrons originally. My primary source has been here [4], and under section 38 they mention Buck's views, saying "Buck’s argument is a very strong one, and his conclusions deserve at least provisional acceptance. It should be noted, however, that three words, rēgnum, stāgnum, abiēgnus, being derived from stems with a long vowel, were legitimately entitled to their long quantity and always retained it." Are the macrons only on -sign- words and not on any other words with -ign-? If so, I was probably influenced by this evidence: sIgnum, CIL. vi. 10234; seignvm, xiv. 4270; sIgnificabo, vi. 16664;. But I will fix this. It would help if you could make a list of all the lemmas in question, or at least the classes of lemmas (e.g. "words in -sign-", "words in -dign-", etc.), so that I can look for them. Here is what appears to be the complete list of lemmas in -sign-:

adsignatio
adsignifico
adsigno
antesignanus
assignatio
assignifico
assigno
bisignatus
consignate
consignatio
consigno
designatio
designator
designo
in hoc signo vinces
insigne
insignificabilis
insignio
insignis
insigniter
insignitor
insigno
obsignator
obsigno
resigno
signaculum
signale
signanter
signarius
signate
signatim
signator
signifer
signifex
significatio
significo
signo
signum
subsigno

Benwing2 (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I found some words built on ignis that also need to be fixed: ignesco igneus ignifer ignio ignipes ignitus ignivagus --Urszag (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Urszag This is running. Benwing2 (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Primitive datapages

Sir, the primitive auto cat trials are going well at el.wikt. Thank you for your help, so much! If you could help me with splitting the data pages? I tried but failed as explained at :el:Module talk:yy/alldata. I do not understand why :( ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ | 20:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sarri.greek Sure, I'll take a look. Benwing2 (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sarri.greek I looked at your code. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to do, but I think what you want is this:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--                       GRAMMAR Γραμματική                             --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- βλ. και  Παραρτήματα γραμματικής = Παραρτήματα, Αμάρτυροι τύπoι = Βικιλεξικό
local label = {
	-- Αμάρτυροι τύποι = βλ. Ετυμολογία
	['Αντωνυμίες'] = { key = 'αντωνυμιεσ', parent = 'Γραμματικές κατηγορίες' }, 
	['Άρθρα'] = { key = 'αρθρα', parent = 'Γραμματικές κατηγορίες' }, 
	...
}

return label

Benwing2 (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Benwing2. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ | 03:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

{{RQ:Macaulay History}}

Could do you a bot run and replace occurrences of {{RQ:Macaulay History}} as follows?

{{RQ:Macaulay History|10|[quoted text]}} → {{RQ:Macaulay History of England|chapter=10|passage=[quoted text]}}

{{RQ:Macaulay History}} seems to be an unnecessary duplication of {{RQ:Macaulay History of England}}. Thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Done. Benwing2 (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

bring someone to book > bring to book

Hello Benwing. I don't oppose the redirect per se, but bring to book isn't the "standard" form: afaict, there is absolutely no consistency in the way we lemmatize such entries.

A proposal was made about a related issue, but it hasn't got anywhere yet.

In the meantime, I wouldn't delete the original page, because with a red link, someone is bound to create a duplicate entry, not knowing that we already have one at bring to book. PUC – 17:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@PUC I made the change because when I looked at lots of English multiword verbal expressions, it became clear that the cases without someone are much more common than the cases with someone. Feel free to recreate the someone variant as a hard (or soft) redirect if you prefer. Benwing2 (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

{{RQ:Dryden Meta}} and {{RQ:Byron Harold}}

Could you please do the following replacements?

#* {{RQ:Dryden Meta|12}}
#*: And where man ended, the continued vest,<br>Spread on his back, the '''houss''' and trappings of a beast.

→

#* {{RQ:Dryden Metamorphoses|book=XII|passage=And where man ended, the continued vest, / Spread on his back, the '''houss''' and trappings of a beast.}}

#* {{RQ:Byron Harold|3|1}}
#*: When last I saw thy young blue eyes, they '''smiled'''.

→

#* {{RQ:Byron Childe Harold|canto=III|stanza=I|passage=When last I saw thy young blue eyes, they '''smiled'''.}}

Thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw I did this as well as I could. There are a few usages still needing to be fixed manually. If you could make those changes, I'll delete the old templates. Benwing2 (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I did the manual fixes and deleted the redirects. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Something wrong with Module:category tree

See Category:Xiang nouns. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 18:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually it is in every category now. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 18:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ilawa-Kataka Thanks for letting me know; fixed. Benwing2 (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Module:tl-pron/sandbox

Have created a sandbox version of Module:tl-pron, but there appears to be a bug when I'm trying to test it to rewrite the existing one.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

{{RQ:Dryden AZ}}

Hi, another one:

#* {{RQ:Dryden AZ}}
#*: We are both love's captives, but with fates so '''cross''', / One must be happy by the other's loss.

→

#* {{RQ:Dryden Aureng-zebe|passage=We are both love's captives, but with fates so '''cross''', / One must be happy by the other's loss.}}

Thank you! — SGconlaw (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Done. Benwing2 (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Much obliged! — SGconlaw (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

{{RQ:Spenser FQ}}

Another one, when you have the time:

#* {{RQ:Spenser FQ|3|2|stanza=8}}
#*: of which great worth and '''worship''' may be won

→

#* {{RQ:Spenser Faerie Queene|book=III|canto=II|stanza=8|passage=of which great worth and '''worship''' may be won}}

Thank you! — SGconlaw (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Done. Benwing2 (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again! — SGconlaw (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

{{RQ:Bacon The Advancement of Learning}}

Another duplicate template:

#* {{RQ:Bacon The Advancement of Learning}}
#*:'' '''Policying''' of cities.''

→

#* {{RQ:Bacon Learning|passage='''Policying''' of cities.}}

I'm not sure if all the quotations have been italicized using wikitext markup. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Done. Benwing2 (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! — SGconlaw (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Greek categories

There is another problem with Module:category tree, this time only affecting Greek categories like Category:Greek verb conjugation group '-νω'. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 00:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ilawa-Kataka Thanks; fixed. Benwing2 (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

{{RQ:Clarendon Rebellion}}

Could you please replace these uses of {{RQ:Clarendon Rebellion}}?

#* {{RQ:Clarendon Rebellion}}
#*: They discerned a body of five '''cornets''' of horse very full, standing in very good order to receive them.

→

#* {{RQ:Clarendon History|passage=They discerned a body of five '''cornets''' of horse very full, standing in very good order to receive them.}}

That will eliminate an unnecessary redirect. Thank you. — SGconlaw (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Done. Benwing2 (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Categorization of coinages

Hello Benwing2, I noticed that you recently removed the code |nocat=1 from an instance of Template:coinage at autism and some other pages. Most of the removals look good and I thank you for making them. For autism and ambivalence, though, my understanding is that they are borrowings of German coinages and were not coined natively in English. Because of that I think keeping |nocat=1 is appropriate on the pages. I do think the equivalent German terms, Autismus and Ambivalenz should be categorized as coinages. Let me know what you think and I hope you the best. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@The Editor's Apprentice: What you should do when you find these is to remove {{coin}} altogether; it's only to be used for coinages, not borrowings thereof. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Besides which, the only reason to use the template is for the categories. If you just want to display the text, type the text in directly- you get the same results without having to type |nocaps=1, |nodot=1 and |nocat=1. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and I had a similar realization a recently. I can't think of or find any examples at the moment, but I believe I have been doing so. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Fair enough, I'll go ahead and do so. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

{{RQ:Browne Errors}}, {{RQ:L'Estrange Fables}}, and {{RQ:Chapman Odyssey}}

When you have time:

#* {{RQ:Browne Errors}}
#*: Preventive physic [...] preventeth sickness in the healthy, or the '''recourse''' thereof in the valetudinary.

→

#* {{RQ:Browne Pseudodoxia Epidemica|passage=Preventive physic [...] preventeth sickness in the healthy, or the '''recourse''' thereof in the valetudinary.}}

----

#* {{RQ:L'Estrange Fables|passage=[passage]}} or
#* {{RQ:L'Estrange Fables}}
#*: [passage]

→

#* {{RQ:L'Estrange Fables of Aesop|passage=[passage]}}

----

#* {{RQ:Chapman Odyssey}}
#*: The doors of plank were; their '''close''' exquisite.

→

#* {{RQ:Homer Chapman Odysseys|passage=The doors of plank were; their '''close''' exquisite.}}

Then the unnecessary templates {{RQ:Browne Errors}}, {{RQ:L'Estrange Fables}}, and {{RQ:Chapman Odyssey}} can be deleted. Thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Done. Benwing2 (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! — SGconlaw (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:mk-phrase

Hello! Macedonian was not listed in Category:Phrase_templates, so I followed the Template:meta-phrase and changed the code in Template:mk-phrase. Now Macedonian is listed there, but the example in Template:mk-phrase/documentation is not shown correctly. Do you know how can we fix this? Thanks! --Горец (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Горец Hi. Why did you change it? It was working fine before and the previous implementation supported more features (multiple heads, id=). If the issue is placing it in Category:Phrase templates, that is easy to do without using {{meta-phrase}}, which is IMO not very useful (if you look at the history, it used {{meta-phrase}} prior to August, when I changed it to use Module:mk-headword). Benwing2 (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

{{RQ:Chapman Iliad}}

Another replacement of a redundant quotation template:

#* {{RQ:Chapman Iliad}}
#*: Childish, unworthy '''dares''' / Are not enough to part our powers.

→

#* {{RQ:Homer Chapman Iliads|passage=Childish, unworthy '''dares''' / Are not enough to part our powers.}}

Much obliged. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Done. Benwing2 (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw BTW this change has caused a bunch of errors, e.g. on inflame, tappish, etc.: A big red "Unexpected < operator". Presumably this is because the volume or something isn't explicitly given. Could you look into this? Benwing2 (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Yup, I noticed and fixed this. Now it displays a maintenance notice. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

{{RQ:Bacon SS}}

#* {{RQ:Bacon SS}}
#*: The [[cion]] [[overrule]]th the '''stock''' quite.

→

#* {{RQ:Bacon Sylva Sylvarum|passage=The [[cion]] [[overrule]]th the '''stock''' quite.}}

The unnecessary template {{RQ:Bacon SS}} can then be deleted. Thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Done. There are a couple of cases that didn't get fixed up that need to be changed manually. Benwing2 (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

BTW same goes for some of the other orphaned templates I did previously; there are a few stragglers that need manual fixing. Benwing2 (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

{{RQ:Burnet History of His Own Time}} and {{RQ:Burnet History of My Own Time}}

Could you please replace {{RQ:Burnet History of His Own Time}} and {{RQ:Burnet History of My Own Time}} with {{RQ:Burnet History}}? Thank you. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Done. Benwing2 (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

{{RQ:Milton Reformation}} and {{RQ:Milton OR}}

Hello, could you please replace {{RQ:Milton Reformation}} and {{RQ:Milton OR}} with {{RQ:Milton Of Reformation}}? Thank you. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Done. Benwing2 (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't realize they got deleted, lol. Feel free to replace them all again when I've finished up adding a whole bunch of Milton quotes, if you want. Oxlade2000 (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Now, for example, I've finished Milton Oxlade2000 (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

{{RQ:Milton Reformation}}, et al.

@Benwing2: following from above, could you please carry out the following replacements?

• {{RQ:Milton Reformation}} → {{RQ:Milton Of Reformation}}.
• {{RQ:Dryden DS}} → {{RQ:Dryden Don Sebastian}}.
• {{RQ:Scott Lay}} → {{RQ:Scott Lay of the Last Minstrel}}.
• {{RQ:Shakespeare 12}} → {{RQ:Shakespeare Twelfth Night}}.
• {{RQ:Shakespeare LLL}} → {{RQ:Shakespeare Love's Labour's Lost}}.

Thank you! — SGconlaw (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Done. Apologies, missed your previous request. Benwing2 (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Much obliged! — SGconlaw (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

{{RQ:Cowper The Task}} and {{RQ:Shakespeare 12}}

Hi, kindly replace:

• {{RQ:Cowper The Task}} with {{RQ:Cowper Task}}; and
• {{RQ:Shakespeare 12}} with {{RQ:Shakespeare Twelfth Night}}

when you have the time. Thank you. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Done. Benwing2 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: we now have 26 pages in Category:ParserFunction errors that weren't there before. I hope you have plans to fix that. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz I fixed them, we're now down to 1 page in that category. Benwing2 (talk) 05:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, Benwing2! @Chuck Entz: whoops, it looks like I updated one part of the template and forgot to update another part lower down. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

{{RQ:Fairfax GOB}}

Hello, when you have time, please replace {{RQ:Fairfax GOB}} with {{RQ:Fairfax Godfrey of Bulloigne}}. Thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Done. Benwing2 (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! — SGconlaw (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

{{RQ:Milton Divorce2}}

Hi, when you have time, please replace {{RQ:Milton Divorce2}} with {{RQ:Milton Divorce}}. Thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Done. Benwing2 (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! — SGconlaw (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Arabic redlinks

Hey! Is there a reason why this category is empty? — فين أخاي (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 06:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It's controlled by {{redlink category}} and language codes have to be added to a list- which I've now done. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Thanks! Can you add ary and mt as well? — فين أخاي (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 09:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Fenakhay: You can also find lots of red-links (correct and incorrect translations) at User:Matthias_Buchmeier#English-Arabic_(MSA) (under each English letter). Some SoP translations may need a split. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Maintenance category?

Hi,

Thanks for all the work. How difficult would it be to generate a maintenance category of entries that are simultaneously using {{ko-etym-sino}} and {{ko-IPA|com=[any value]}}? The majority of such entries are missing a parameter in their etymology sections and need to be manually fixed.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I managed to do it :)--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Module:ko-etym

Hi,

Sorry to bother you again, but when you have the time, could you add a new parameter ("hangul=y") to Module:ko-etym so that {{ko-etym-native|hangul=y}} produces "In the Hangul script, first attested in..." instead of just "First attested in..."? There are a fair number of Korean words which are attested before Hangul, but the earliest Hangul form is always still important to note, typically because it's the first phonologically transparent orthography.

Additionally, could you have the module put the language as "Late Old Korean" instead of "Middle Korean" if the year is before 1300?

Thank you so much!--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Karaeng Matoaya Apologies for taking so long! I did the first part. For the second part, we should probably add an etymology-only language "Late Old Korean" that has Old Korean as its parent language. However, per Wikipedia, there is disagreement about whether to categorize the Korean period from 900-1300 as Old Korean or Middle Korean. I'm not familiar enough with Korean to know what to do here. @TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, HappyMidnight, LoutK, Quadmix77, Suzukaze-c Anyone else have comments? Benwing2 (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much!!

For the second part, I actually wrote the Wikipedia article on Old Korean, and while I tried to be neutral WRT the periodization question there, there really is a growing consensus in South Korean academia that the periodization up to 1300 is correct/more useful. The previous 900 periodization still holds weight IMHO mainly because of academic inertia, but it was formulated at a time when we knew much less about Old Korean than we do now—almost nothing, really. I've actually already added many thirteenth-century words as Old Korean entries, and explained the reasons for doing so on Wiktionary:About Korean/Historical forms#Periodization.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Karaeng Matoaya OK, I went ahead and created Category:Late Old Korean with the code oko-lat and fixed Module:ko-etym appropriately. Let me know if you see any issues. Benwing2 (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:categoryboiler

Hi, you deleted {{categoryboiler}} for being obsolete, but it appears on every empty category when one starts to create it. We should either restore the template or arrange it (somehow) that categories in the process of being created display something else. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mahagaja Hmm, didn't realize that. The template is becoming less and less useful; we should probably just display a message to use {{auto cat}}. Do you know where the Wikicode is that includes {{categoryboiler}}? Benwing2 (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't. And {{auto cat}} still doesn't work in every single case. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mahagaja You are right, but {{categoryboiler}} only mentioned five templates and all of them are subsumable under {{auto cat}}. Benwing2 (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Let me see if I can find it by searching through the dump file. Benwing2 (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mahagaja MediaWiki:Newarticletext; will fix. Benwing2 (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mahagaja Fixed. Benwing2 (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

"Headword tables"

Re diff, maybe "headword lines" would be better. Headwords don't really have tables. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mahagaja Hmm, yeah I can fix that. I said "headword tables" by analogy with existing categories like Category:Latin terms with red links in their inflection tables. I didn't like categories like "Missing Welsh plurals" because it wasn't obvious whether "missing" meant "plural is a red link" or "plural is unspecified". Benwing2 (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Why not CAT:Welsh terms with red links in their headword lines (rather than just nouns) and expand it to include other parts of speech? (I always disliked "missing plurals" too.) —Mahāgaja · talk 16:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mahagaja In the current setup, CAT:Welsh nouns with red links in their headword tables has CAT:Welsh terms with red links in their headword tables (not yet created) as its parent. I kind of like having different categories for different parts of speech, although I can definitely expand it to cover other parts of speech. Benwing2 (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, having the nouns category as a daughter of the terms category is an even better idea. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

{{RQ:Mrxl SqrsDghtr}} et al.

Hello, when you have time, kindly replace:

• {{RQ:Brmnghm Gsmr}} with {{RQ:Birmingham Gossamer}};
• {{RQ:RBrtn AntmyMlncly}} with {{RQ:Burton Melancholy}};
• {{RQ:Mrxl SqrsDghtr}} with {{RQ:Marshall Squire's Daughter}}; and
• {{RQ:Dryden SF}} with {{RQ:Dryden Spanish Fryar}}.

Thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Done. Benwing2 (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! — SGconlaw (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Module:th-pron

The mistake in this Module is that at one point it attempts to wrap a TD with a DIV, whereas it should be the reverse. As you are more experienced in writing Lua code, you might want to figure out how to reverse this behaviour, as doing so will considerably reduce the number of LintError's being generated.

In a specific example :-

{{th-pron|ลำ-ไส้-ไหฺย่}}

in ลำไส้ใหญ่

what was seeminlgy generated for one row is :-

<div class="th-reading"><td style="border-right:0px"><span lang="th" class="Thai ">ลำ-ไส้-ไหฺย่</span><br><small>l&thinsp;å&thinsp;&ndash;&thinsp;<span title="Vowel sign appearing in front of the initial consonant." style="border:1px dotted gray;border-radius:50%;cursor:help">ai</span>&thinsp;s&thinsp;ˆ&thinsp;&ndash;&thinsp;<span title="Vowel sign appearing in front of the initial consonant." style="border:1px dotted gray;border-radius:50%;cursor:help">ai</span>&thinsp;h&thinsp;̥&thinsp;y&thinsp;ˋ</small></td></tr></div>

The class should be applied to the TR surely?, or the relevant class should be applied to the TR or TD not the DIV, and the DIV tag removed. I don't understand how this is rendered in the Lua, so perhaps you can make more sense of it than I can? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for using User:WingerBot

Hello. Recently, {{root-sa}} has been created to categorise Sanskrit terms by root (see CAT:Sanskrit terms by root). I was just asking that can you use your bot to add {{root-sa|<root>}} below the etymology sections of Sanskrit entries for words which are derived from roots (which have something like From the root {{m|sa|<root>}} in their etymologies)? Thanks, 🔥𑀰𑀩𑁆𑀤𑀰𑁄𑀥𑀓🔥 05:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक {{root-sa}} is completely unnecessary (and badly named, it ought to be {{sa-root}} if it were to need to exist). I fixed {{root}} so you can use it instead, e.g. instead of {{root-sa|<root>}} just write {{root|sa|sa|<root>}}. Benwing2 (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Intended correct treatment of Latin gerunds

The pages for some gerund forms (e.g. addicendo) list the form under the "Verb" heading and treat it as an inflection of the verb lemma (e.g. addico), with the basic {{inflection of}} template to link back to this lemma. Others (e.g amando) list the form under the "Gerund" heading, treat it as a form of the gerund head form (in the accusative, e.g. amandum), and use the {{la-gerund-form}} template to link them back to this gerund head form; in turn, the page for the gerund head form (again, e.g. amandum) sometimes uses the {{la-gerund}} template to mark this as the gerund head form, and the {{la-decl-gerund}} template to generate a gerund declension table. Which of these is the intended correct treatment of Latin gerunds? Wewebber (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wewebber I'm not really sure, but I think probably the former treatment is better because it's not obvious which case of the gerund should be basic. It feels strange to me to say that amandum is a "gerund" and the others are "gerund forms"; in reality, all of them are on equal footing. Benwing2 (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Module italics and recognising escaped brackets?

Would the logic in Module:italics/sandbox be something like what was needed, or am I fumbling in the dark again? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00 Apologies, can you explain again exactly what the issue is? I never completely understood what the problem is you're trying to solve. Benwing2 (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The 'problem' I was trying to solve was that of the italic brackets issue. In comments made by others in respect of {{nb...}} It was indicated that there was an issue with Module:italics failing to recognise that &#91; and &#93; were equivalent to [ ], when used as a replacemet. The code I attempted to add in Module:Italics was my attempt to add a recogniser for that situation. However, this is only my third or fourth to modify Lua code, and thus I'd like a second view on the suitability of the code concerned.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Apart from the Linter errors which are apparently being created (but which don't appear to lead to any visual effects), we've identified the following:

• The current version of the template which uses square brackets creates a clash in quotation templates if used in combination with an external link, for example, if {{nb...}} is used in |chapter= and |chapterurl= is used to apply an external link to the chapter.
• This problem is solved if the brackets in {{nb...}} are replaced with [ and ]. However, the quotation templates don't recognize these codes and so are unable to unitalicize the brackets and ellipses in titles. (I think this is handled by Module:italics.)
• Typing "[...]" within {{nb...}}, for example |title=Just Testing:{{nb...|[...] A Book about How to Carry out Tests}}, breaks {{quote-book}}. However, a workaround is to type "[...] instead. If we're going to implement the workaround, then we'll need your help to replace occurrences of "[...]" within {{nb...}} and {{...}}.

(Pinging @J3133 for information.) — SGconlaw (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

(I did not receive the ping (signature and ping have to be added in the same edit); however, I do not have more information; see also Template:nb.../testcases.) J3133 (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@J3133: ah, I didn’t know that. Thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Module:form of/cats

Given that Module:form of/cats is restricted to template editors, and you're the one who worked on it the most recently, could you make some fixes to it? {{inflection of}} isn't assigning the proper categories to Middle English verb forms (see stod, stode, stoden); I think I've identified what needs to be changed in Module:form of/cats:

• At line 304, {"13", "s", "past"}, should be replaced with {"1", "3", "s", "past"},
• Lines 306-317 need to be entirely rewritten; replace with:
  {"hasall", {"p", "pres", "sub"}, "plural subjunctive forms"},
{"hasall", {"p", "pres", "ind"}, "plural forms"},
{"hasall", {"p", "past", "sub"}, "plural subjunctive past forms"},
{"hasall", {"p", "past", "ind"}, "plural past forms"},

Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 06:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hazarasp I went ahead and made the changes. Let me know if you want to be a template editor; if so I can give you the permissions. Benwing2 (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Middle English verb categories still aren't being assigned properly; I could tell you what I think's wrong, but it'd be easier if you gave me template editor permissions. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 06:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hazarasp Done. Benwing2 (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

{{RQ:Spenser F}}

Hello, kindly replace {{RQ:Spenser F}} with {{RQ:Spenser Faerie Queene}}. Thank you! — SGconlaw (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Done. Benwing2 (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

{{tpi-cite-bible}}

Hi, kindly replace {{tpi-cite-bible}} with {{RQ:Buk Baibel}}. Thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I realized there is already a more complete request at "Template talk:RQ:Buk Baibel#Bot replacements" – please see that page. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

{{RQ:Tennyson IM}}

Hello, please replace {{RQ:Tennyson IM}} with {{RQ:Tennyson In Memoriam}} when you are free. Thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Done. Benwing2 (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! — SGconlaw (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

etyl

Hi, please don't use a bot to eliminate {{etyl}}. Bots don't know whether a term is borrowed or inherited or calqued or what. Thanks! —Mahāgaja · talk 00:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mahagaja Don't worry. All uses of {{etyl}} were eliminated by hand; I reviewed every case and decided manually whether to substitute {{inh}}, {{der}}, {{bor}}, {{cal}}, etc. The only purpose of the bot was to push the changes (that's what "manually assisted" means in the commit message). Benwing2 (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Great, thanks! ☺ —Mahāgaja · talk 09:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Module:form of and Module:form of/templates

{{inflection of}} seems to be putting things in incorrect categories; for instance it places fole in Category:Middle English first-person singular forms and Category:Middle English second-person singular forms, even though it isn't a first- or second-person (indicative) form. The problem seems to be that fetch_lang_categories processes all tags inputted as one large lump when it should be processing each tag set individually. Can you look into this; I would've seen what I could do, but I'm otherwise occupied and I fear my Lua knowledge isn't quite up to scratch. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 09:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hazarasp I'm confused. Middle English fole is given as 1st-person singular indicative as well as 1st/2nd/3rd-person singular subjunctive, so it's correct to place it in both Category:Middle English first-person singular forms and Category:Middle English second-person singular forms. Can you explain how you intend for it to work? Benwing2 (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Sorry, I probably wasn't clear enough; Category:Middle English first-person singular forms/Category:Middle English second-person singular forms/Category:Middle English third-person singular forms are only for the respective indicative forms; see the category descriptions (their names are misleading). All are defined in Module:form of/cats as requiring the tag ind, so 1//2//3|s|pres|sub should not trigger them. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 11:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hazarasp I see. I'll try to look into this today or tomorrow. Benwing2 (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hazarasp I implemented this but it needs testing, which I'll probably get to tomorrow. Benwing2 (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hazarasp I pushed the code to fix this. However, there are various existing issues with Middle English verb forms, so you won't necessarily see what you expect. For one thing, the category spec for Category:Middle English first-person singular forms and such is specified as {"hasall", {"1", "s", "pres"}, "first-person singular forms"}, so it will trigger on subjunctive forms as well as indicative forms. If you want it to trigger only on indicative forms, you should probably add the tag "ind" to the spec; but it looks like not all existing verb forms include this tag (e.g. fole does but wones doesn't). An alternative, then, is to use {"tags=", {"1", "s", "pres"}, "first-person singular forms"}, but that won't trigger if there are additional tags like ind present. You could use something like this:

{"or", {"tags=", {"1", "s", "pres"}},
       {"hasall", {"1", "s", "pres", "ind"}},
       "first-person singular forms"
}

but IMO you're better off just fixing the verb forms to consistently include the ind tag.

Another thing is the naming of the categories themselves. If you want the category to only include first-person singular present indicative forms, IMO it should be named Category:Middle English first-person singular present indicative forms, so that the name correctly reflects what's in the category.

A third thing is this spec:

{"hasall", {"1", "3", "s", "past"}, "first/third-person singular past forms"}.

This should now be changed back to

{"hasall", {"1//3", "s", "past"}, "first/third-person singular past forms"}

as you had it before; the latter now works, and the former doesn't.

If you want, I can make some of these changes by bot. Benwing2 (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this; to solve the continuing miscategorisation, I've chose to implement a solution entirely different from anything you've suggested (but of course which was made possible by your work!), so nothing should have to be recategorised (as far as I know); see my edits to Module:form of/cats. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hazarasp Yup, it looks like what you did should work. I would still recommend renaming the categories, though, to reflect their actual purpose. Benwing2 (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

{{RQ:Scott Lay}}

Hello, kindly replace {{RQ:Scott Lay}} with {{RQ:Scott Lay of the Last Minstrel}}. Thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Done. Benwing2 (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! — SGconlaw (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

And you can do it again when I've finished tagging all of them Oxlade2000 (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible bot task

Most or all instances of "#*: {{quote" should read "#* {{quote". Changes like Special:Diff/61794231 could be automated. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Actually, "#*: {{quote-" because {{quote}} alone does need the indent marker. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Module:en-headword

Have you seen the message I wrote on the talk page on 5 February? J3133 (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@J3133 Sorry, I got that ping but accidentally overlooked it. Fixed. Benwing2 (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

{{RQ:Jonson The Staple of News}}, et al.

Hello, please replace the following:

• {{RQ:Jonson The Magnetic Lady}} → {{RQ:Jonson Magnetic Lady}}.
• {{RQ:Jonson The Staple of News}} → {{RQ:Jonson Staple of News}}.

Thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Done. Benwing2 (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! — SGconlaw (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"form of" module errors

It may not have been obvious due to Chinese terms flooding the category (whatever error it was has been cleared- now it's just the queue), but there are a half-dozen+ Welsh and Norwegian entries that have module errors in the {{inflection of}} template that seem to be due to your edits on "form of" modules. It's not a huge issue- I'm only bringing it up because I wasn't sure if you were aware of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Thanks, I just saw them and pushed a partial fix; the remaining fix will come shortly. Benwing2 (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:mn-verb form of Chuck Entz (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Grease pit/2021/February § Form-of templates not bolding the linked-to word. J3133 (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

{{la-ndecl}}

Have you seen Template talk:la-ndecl § Manual declensions (2 February)? J3133 (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Etymologies of German prefixed verbs

Hi Benwing2, your/your bot’s distinct etymologies for the separable and inseparable forms of German verb durchziehen seem a bit dubious. Some possible sources for the entry expressly do not make this distinction (while others mention no etymology at all). Are there any sources supporting your distinction durch + ziehen vs. durch- + ziehen? On the face of it (cf. durch referring to durch- for use in compounds) the two would appear to be the same. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Akletos This also affects, for example, recent edits to durchzogen and durchwachsen. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@BlaueBlüte, Akletos Most verbs that are both separable and inseparable already had this system of etymology. I simply systematized it across all such verbs. To me, this makes sense, because separable prefixes are fundamentally distinct words that just happen to be written attached to the verb in some circumstances, whereas inseparable prefixes are fundamentally prefixes that don't exist as distinct words. This is clearer on the one hand with prefixes like ver- and ent- and on the other hand with collocations like kennen lernen and spazieren gehen (formerly written kennenlernen and spazierengehen). It's true that for some pairs like ich durchziehe vs. ich ziehe durch the meanings can overlap, but in many they don't at all, as in ich umfahre vs. ich fahre um. Benwing2 (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@BlaueBlüte Without having come to a final conclusion on the issue, in my eyes the distinction between durch and durch- is artificial, but if we make it, we should be consistent and I agree with Benwing that the separable prefixes could be written as separate words, so Benwing's approach seems reasonable to me. I now almost regret that I've created the entries -fähig and -gleich, and am considering if it wouldn't be better to treat the words with these and similar elements as compounds with fähig and gleich etc. Same with durch- et al. --Akletos (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Akletos +1 re: artificial and consistency. Although, consistency probably shouldn’t stop at how we analyze such verbs in terms of etymology, but also look at the entries for those prefixes. For example, the ‘prefix’ entry for um- claims to pertain both to the separable and inseparable case, and the ‘distinct word’ entry um pretty much mentions the meanings for both ich umfahre and ich fahre um (even more clearly so for ich umgehe (‘go around, circumvent’) vs. ich gehe um (‘go about, haunt’)). It would seem that if such a distinction in etymologies is to be made on the lemma level, further consistency issues will arise.
I’m not sure I’m clear on the ‘written as a separate word’ part yet. Would the test for prefix vs. compound be whether the verb can be rewritten with an adverb/a preposition that is ‘more separate’ than a separable prefix? Ex.:
ich umfahre das Hindernis ⟶ ich fahre um das Hindernis [herum]
ich fahre den Baum um ⟶ *ich fahre um den Baum (except maybe poetic)
(a similar test could be devised for -fähig and -gleich: widerstandsfähig ⟶ zum Widerstand[e] fähig)
At any rate, maybe the etymology for separable and inseparable forms could be explained distinctly in an overall less involved way if the etymology, while referring to the same lemmas as the compound elements, were more specific about the distinct (albeit perhaps artificially so) mechanism of compound formation. This used to be the case for durchströmen (see erstwhile source; I can’t reproduce what the rendered page looked like at the time with templates expanded).
Also I wonder if this should perhaps be discussed more widely—or maybe that has happened already? ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Wingerbot's Latin macron edits from September 2020

Hi, Benwing2. I see that some people have discussed a couple issues with the Wingerbot edits to Latin macrons above (regarding vērnus/vĕrnus and -ign- words). I recently noticed cornīx was probably erroneously given a macron... Is *ḱorh₂- > *ko:r- a possible vowel compensation? Spanish has cuervo < cŏrvus at least, and the Alatius page with the discussion by Bennett also has cornīx without a macron. Is there also a way to get a list of the words WingerBot changed at the time (did it include all short -rn- words?)? I would like to try examining them... The discussion on vērnus/vĕrnus seems interesting.--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 14:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ser be etre shi I think cōrnīx was an error on my part, I can't find any evidence for the long ō. The full list is here: User:Benwing2/latin-macrons It's a concatenation of 7 files that served as the direct input to my macron-frobbing script and you have to edit the source in order to make sense of it. Benwing2 (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! It's a lot of words. Looking quickly at the list I now see why you'd do it though, to improve the coverage of less obvious macrons. Some of these really aren't obvious, like the ū of rūrsum/rūrsus... or the ē of comprehendō > comprēndō. Of course they're vastly correct, and it's only cōrnīx and maybe a few others that annoyingly got through the cracks. Hm.--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 00:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for simple botting

Hello, when you have the time, could you run your bot to change all instances of "deriving transitive verbs" to "deriving active verbs" and "deriving intransitive verbs" to "deriving passive verbs" in Korean etymologies (there should be around fifty of both)? Thanks, and hopefully this isn't too much of a bother!--Tibidibi (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tibidibi Apologies, I overlooked this. I'm looking now and it seems you've already made all the changes? I only see one term with "deriving transitive verbs" in it and none with "deriving intransitive verbs". Benwing2 (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Weirdness in CAT:E

Today 16 Georgian entries showed up there, and I can't figure out why. None of them has been edited recently, nor has any of the main forms pointed to by the first argument in the template. I went through the entire transclusion list of one of those entries: aside from one unrelated edit to Module:scripts/data on the 16th, absolutely nothing has been edited since your edits to the "form of" family of modules.

It just so happens that the list of those Georgian entries exactly matches the list of mainspace entries in Special:WhatLinksHere/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:ka-form_of, Special:WhatLinksHere/Module:ka-form_of and Special:WhatLinksHere/Module:ka-form_of, so I can only guess that either someone did a null edit on one of those three, or the edits in the queue from those February 14th edits finally hit one of those three. I've spent years patrolling CAT:E and checked the revision histories of hundreds of entries for patterns, but this is the first time I've seen such an obvious pattern so completely without anything in the revision histories to explain it. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

de-verb/conj

Just wanted to say thanks for your great work on this. Adding new German verbs is a now a piece of cake. – Jberkel 18:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

{{RQ:Knolles Turk}}

Hi, kindly replace {{RQ:Knolles Turk}} with {{RQ:Knolles Turkes}}. Thank you. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Done. Benwing2 (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

{{RQ:Butler Hudi}}

Hi, kindly replace {{RQ:Butler Hudi}} with {{RQ:Butler Hudibras}}. Thank you. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Done. Benwing2 (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

{{RQ:Fuller Church}}, et al.

Hello, kindly replace the following:

• {{RQ:Fuller Church}} and {{RQ:Fuller History}} → {{RQ:Fuller Church History}}.
• {{RQ:Longfellow Miles}} and {{RQ:Longfellow The Courtship of Miles Standish}} → {{RQ:Longfellow Miles Standish}}.
• {{RQ:Milton PR}} → {{RQ:Milton Paradise Regained}}.

Thank you. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Done. Benwing2 (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Kurdish cats

Hi! Hope you are doing well! Just came here to say maybe it's time to move "ku" to a family. Your bot keeps creating a lot cats like Category:Kurdish terms borrowed from Turkish even when there is only a single page, so we can get rid of this problem. Most of the pages in cat:Kurdish language right now are there since we don't know from which Kurdish language a word originates. Once we make a "Kurdish languages" code, we will be able to tag those pages appropriately. Thank you! --Balyozxane (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Balyozxane, Chuck Entz I have done this. It may flush out some errors; let's be on the lookout over the next day for this. Most of the issues should already have been fixed, as I have done various bot runs to convert uses of 'ku' to either 'kmr' (Northern Kurdish) if the term is in Latin script or 'ckb' (Central Kurdish) if the term is in Arabic script. Any remaining issues will be things that were added using 'ku' since I did the last bot run. Benwing2 (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Balyozxane, Chuck Entz, Fenakhay OK, most of the remaining errors are in translation tables (which should use 'kmr' or 'ckb' as above) or in descendants tables. Since 'ku' is no longer a language, it can't be used in {{desc}}, even in a section header. I have changed them to write out 'Kurdish:' as raw text. The alternative is to avoid grouping the different Kurdish languages and put each one alphabetized appropriately, e.g. Northern Kurdish under N. Benwing2 (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Note to Benwing and @Chuck Entz, since I suspect at least the former is not even acquainted with the possibility and the latter followed lead, that one also puts the borrowing arrow as raw text, or with {{tooltip}}, or because one has done it so often there is {{→}}. Such as in front of “Hindustani” and ”Aramaic”. Now you could argue that unlike with Hindustani you put the arrow in front of the individual Kurdishes as there is not one borrowing but separate borrowings as there are multiple languages, but one can say alike that one just puts it once in front of the brackets like in mathematics (what is the equivalent idiom for vor die Klammer ziehen? In law probably none due to the structure of common law, but else?) and it does not even depend on whether something is really one or multiple languages but it should just look nicer, on one level with the other mentioned languages in the same table and uniform. Sometimes one also puts a gloss at the top, if the meaning is the like. Fay Freak (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, Fay Freak I have a script to clear these errors that moves the |bor=1 down to the individual languages, on the theory that they're individual languages and potentially each one could have borrowed it separately. If it's agreed to do it the other way, I'll write another script to undo the change. Benwing2 (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Most of the errors are gone now, I'll tackle the remainder this eve. Benwing2 (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

{{RQ:Spenser Fairy}}, et al.

Hi, please help to carry out the following replacement when you are free:

• {{RQ:Milton Poems|Il Penseroso|39|pageref=n52}} → {{RQ:Milton Poems|poem=Il Penseroso|page=39}} (remove the |pageref= parameter).
• {{RQ:Pope WF|Her '''buskin'd''' virgins traced the dewy lawn.}} → {{RQ:Pope Windsor Forest|passage=Her '''buskin'd''' virgins traced the dewy lawn.}} (add an explicit |passage= parameter).
• {{RQ:Spenser Fairy}} → {{RQ:Spenser Faerie Queene}}.

Thank you. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Done. Benwing2 (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Allow me to add that Category:ParserFunction errors went from 39 to 1 because of your combined work (the one remaining is due to out-of-memory errors). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Great to hear. Benwing2 (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Spanish lemmas

@Chuck Entz Heads up, I am in the process of pushing a bunch of changes I made to Spanish lemmas. As these were mostly done manually there may be some errors. It is running overnight (UTC-6); if there are any errors I'll try to fix them in the morning if they are still around. Benwing2 (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

BTW the bug in acribillar appears to be an underlying bug in Module:compound, but I don't have time to fix it right now, have to go to sleep. Will fix tomorrow. Also, there are continuing to appear errors due to 'ku' appearing in {{desc}}; I have a script to fix these as they come up but it will take a little while for them all to appear. Benwing2 (talk)

Why did you remove the ending period in Special:Diff/61966688? The definition looks like a pseudo-sentence, not a word, to me. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vox Sciurorum On the general theory that there shouldn't be periods in foreign-language defns. I agree it doesn't look perfect as-is; either we can put the periods back or add an argument to lowercase the initial a. Benwing2 (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Another observation: When linking to a different page, {{l|en|a}} => a is better than [[a]] => a because it skips over a potentially long table of contents. On the same page the #English form is better. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

{{RQ:Addison Freeholder}}

Hello, is it feasible to do the following bot edit?

#* {{RQ:Addison Freeholder|50|June 11 1715}}
#*:The enemies of our happy establishment seem at present to copy out the piety of this seditious prophet , and to have recourse to his laudable method of '''club-law''', when they find all other means of enforcing the absurdity of their opinions to be ineffectual.

→

#* {{RQ:Addison Freeholder|issue=50|date=11 June 1716|passage=The enemies of our happy establishment seem at present to copy out the piety of this seditious prophet , and to have recourse to his laudable method of '''club-law''', when they find all other means of enforcing the absurdity of their opinions to be ineffectual.}}

In particular, all dates after 1 January should have the year 1716 instead of 1715; WF indicated the year incorrectly. (Addison published The Free-holder between December 1715 and June 1716.) Thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Kurdish language code

Benwing, where's the discussion to move the Kurdish language code ku to a family code? --{{victar|talk}} 10:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Victar We had several discussions a few months back, in November, I think, and all the Kurdish editors were in agreement. See the Beer Parlour. I made almost all the changes at the time to convert 'ku' to 'kmr' or 'ckb', but never finished it, and a Kurdish editor (see just above) asked me now to finish the job, so I did. Benwing2 (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I remember there being talk about moving pages from the Kurdish header, but I don't recall any discussion about making ku a family code. If we make ku a family code, we should have a ku-pro to replace all the instances of {{desc|ku|-}}. This isn't a good solution to the problem. --{{victar|talk}} 19:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @victar wouldn't that imply those words are borrowed/derived in "proto-kurdish" rather than the individual kurdish langs? --Balyozxane (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that would be implied. In the case exampled in the link, they certainly weren't borrowed from Aramaic multiple times. Using ku-pro would be the best one-to-one replacement for all such examples. --{{victar|talk}} 20:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Oof, I see WingerBot already replaced {{desc|ku|-}} with Kurdish: everywhere. Again, I don't recall any discussion on that choice. --{{victar|talk}} 20:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I recall a lot in the direction of removing the ku code completely. Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/September § Kurdish, Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/October § Remaining Kurdish lemmas. Fay Freak (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Victar, Fay Freak, Balyozxane I can certainly do a bot run to replace Kurdish: with something else if needed, but I strongly disagree with a blanket replacement to ku-pro. Declaring that a borrowing happened in Proto-Kurdish is only appropriate if the term was borrowed 1000 or more years ago (or whatever the age of Proto-Kurdish is). This may be appropriate for some Aramaic borrowings but hardly for the majority of borrowings into Kurdish. It's much more likely IMO that terms were borrowed into a single Kurdish language and then diffused through the others, or borrowed simultaneously into multiple Kurdish languages around the time the originating term was created. In both cases a noncommittal "Kurdish:" header is much better than "Proto-Kurdish". I have no problem with using the arrow template {{→}}, as Fay Freak suggested, before "Kurdish:" rather than separately adding |bor=1 to each language; either way works fine for me. Benwing2 (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It was likely borrowed in the Middle Iranian period from Middle Aramaic, so yes, Proto-Kurdish is probably appropriate. The scenario you're giving sound more like a much later Arabic borrowing. Just because we have a proto language code, doesn't mean it should be used for entries, i.e. Proto-Armenian. That said, if someone wanted to come along and start creating reconstructed entries using the proper sources and methodology, I wouldn't object. --{{victar|talk}} 06:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

For now Benwing's solution seems to do the job but I agree with victar, a "ku-pro" code might come handy. --Balyozxane (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

"For now" isn't a solution. If it's level in the descendants list, it needs a language code. --{{victar|talk}} 06:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Victar It does not. We already have several examples of this, e.g. "Hindustani" and "Punjabi" on مسجد and many other pages, "Northwest Iranian" and "Central Iranian" on Reconstruction:Proto-Iranian/káHmah, "Lurish" and "Caspian" on Reconstruction:Proto-Iranian/HyúHā, etc. etc. Benwing2 (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Those are examples to be remedied, not exemplified. I haven't gotten around to cleaning up the branches of SWIr, and we haven't decided on a name for the Caspian branch. Also, some families are areal, not genetic, like Southeastern Iranian, and I agree that those should be limited to family codes. You reply to my last comment, but you haven't said why a Proto-Kurdish code shouldn't exist. --{{victar|talk}} 07:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Victar I never said a code for Proto-Kurdish shouldn't exist. Feel free to create ku-pro if you wish. What I said was I object strongly to a blanket replacement of Kurdish: in Descendants tables with Proto-Kurdish. This should *only* happen if the term was actually borrowed into Proto-Kurdish, not if it was borrowed at a later period and diffused through the various Kurdish languages. In other words, you have to go case by case deciding whether to use ku-pro. For Iranian terms that were inherited, of course it's ok to use Proto-Kurdish, but that's not the majority of the cases. I also disagree with the idea that every line in a Descendants table needs to use a language code, that seems just an arbitrary assertion on your part. Areal families, for one, should not have any associated code; nor should "Hindustani" even though it's a convenient grouping of what is essentially a single language. Benwing2 (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

If you have no objections to a ku-pro language code, I'll create it. As I said, areal codes are one thing, but there are cases where Proto-Kurdish did borrow terms into it, which surely applies to those borrowed from Middle Aramaic. --{{victar|talk}} 04:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

acribillar

This is an odd one: the problem is caused by the "LL." in the {{af}} |lang2= parameter- if I change it to "la", the problem goes away. If etymology-only languages aren't allowed in such cases, the code should detect for it and give a real error message instead of . Chuck Entz (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Thanks for figuring out that the issue was the etymology language. I fixed the code so it can handle them correctly. Benwing2 (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

{{RQ:Thackeray VF}}

Hi, kindly replace:

#* {{RQ:Thackeray VF|37}}
#*: His jaw was '''underhung''', and when he laughed, two white buckteeth protruded themselves and glistened savagely in the midst of the grin.

→

#* {{RQ:Thackeray Vanity Fair|chapter=37|passage=His jaw was '''underhung''', and when he laughed, two white buckteeth protruded themselves and glistened savagely in the midst of the grin.}}

Thank you. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw I fixed this issue and the previous Addison Freeholder issue except that it's too hard to change the date in the Addison Freeholder usages, because the date format is so varied. I would suggest you make the changes by hand; there are only about 30 usages. Benwing2 (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

{{RQ:EHough PrqsPrc}}, et al.

Hello, kindly carry out the following replacements:

#* {{RQ:EHough PrqsPrc|I|0124}}
#*: XYZ

→

#* {{RQ:Hough Purchase Price|chapter=I|passage=XYZ}}

----

#* {{RQ:Browning AL|6}}
#*: XYZ

→

#* {{RQ:Browning Aurora Leigh|book=6|passage=XYZ}}

----

{{RQ:Chapman Iliad|book=23|passage=XYZ}} → {{RQ:Homer Chapman Iliads|book=XXIII|passage=XYZ}}

----

#* {{RQ:Bentley COA}}
#*: XYZ

→

#* {{RQ:Bentley Confutation of Atheism|passage=XYZ}}

----

#* {{RQ:Locke Human}}
#*: XYZ

→

#* {{RQ:Locke Human Understanding|passage=XYZ}}

For {{RQ:Hough Purchase Price}}, the number in the |2= position should be deleted as it is now meaningless. Thank you! — SGconlaw (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Detection of script by text

Hi, Benwing. For Sanskrit terms in other scripts (see Template talk:sa-sc#Sanskrit terms in other scripts), do you know any template (can you create one if not?), which simply detects and returns the script name/code of a particular text? I am looking for a template like {{script detection template|देवनागरी}} which returns "Devanagari" or "Deva". Even a module would do, if you can tell me which of its parameter to invoke. I think this is possible because:

{{desc|sa|देवनागरी|sclb=1}} returns

Devanagari script: देवनागरी (devanāgarī)

which implies that "some module" has the ability to detect script by text. I tried really hard to find something like this, but I could not. Sorry for bothering you. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 04:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@शब्दशोधक If you know the language of the text in question, you can use findBestScript in Module:scripts/templates; you can invoke this from template code using {{#invoke:scripts/templates|findBestScript|देवनागर|sa}}. This should return the script code Deva. If you don't know the language of the text, you have to call the module function findBestScriptWithoutLang in Module:scripts from another module. I could create a template interface for this in Module:scripts/templates if you need it. Benwing2 (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! But can you please tell me why isn't T:sa-noun categorising entries into CAT:Sanskrit nouns in Devanagari script? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 05:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Relatedly, I was wondering about this for Ladino. As you can see in Category:Ladino headword-line templates, they currently require the script to be supplied, but they could be a lot smarter. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge, शब्दशोधक In order to get a category 'LANG POSes in FOO script' you need to use the |cat sc= parameter, e.g. adding |cat sc=Hebr in {{lad-noun}} will add Ladino nouns to Category:Ladino nouns in Hebrew script. I'll add support for |cat sc=auto to autodetect the script of the headword. Benwing2 (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, it looks like |cat sc= has a bunch of problems, so don't use it for now. I'll fix it shortly. Benwing2 (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

•  It's categorising into Devanagari script entries now. If you can do something to make these ({{sa-noun}}, {{sa-adj}}, {{sa-adv}}, {{sa-pron}}, {{sa-noun form}}, {{sa-proper noun}}, {{sa-adj form}}) templates neater, please do so. Thanks. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 15:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge, शब्दशोधक I implemented |sccat=1 in {{head}}; this automatically adds the correct 'LANG POSes in FOO script' category. I fixed the above Sanskrit headword templates to use this param. Metaknowledge, if you want the same thing done to the Ladino headword templates, I can do it too. Benwing2 (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a lot, it works perfectly now! 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 04:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes please! And if you're willing, it would be great if a bot could remove the parameter supplying the script once the templates can supply it automatically. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Done, see MOD:lad-headword/documentation for the parameters of the templates. Benwing2 (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks excellent. Thank you! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Help with subcategorizing Latin adjectives of the third declension

Hello, thanks for all your work on the modules and templates for Latin. I would find it helpful to have categories for Latin third declension adjectives that have one ending, two endings, or three endings based on gender. I think the auto-categorization of Latin words based on declension type is currently handled by Module:la-nominal, but I don't understand the code there well enough yet to know how it could be changed to add subcategories "Category:Latin third declension adjectives of one termination", "Category:Latin third declension adjectives of two terminations" and "Category:Latin third declension adjectives of three terminations". Could you possibly help me with this?--Urszag (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Pali สะวากขาตะ

The transliteration of this word isn't the same as the Latin script form, and {{pi-adj}} does not support explicit transliteration, so I had to resort to {{head}}. RichardW57 (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@RichardW57, Octahedron80 How can the transliteration be different from the Latin script form? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, although I'm not very familiar with Pali. Benwing2 (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

This form without implicit vowels is a spelling error for สวากขาตะ (svākkhāta), but the misspelling is commoner than the correct form without implicit vowels. I'm not sure if the spelling difference implies a difference in tone for the second phonetic syllable (this form IPA^(key): /waːk̚˥˩/, but the correct spelling IPA^(key): /waːk̚˨˩/) - perhaps @Octahedron80 can advise on that issue. I have found a Thai blog complaining about the misspelling. The misspelling very occasionally turns up in the Roman script, but I don't think at a frequency often enough to record. Besides, I have no durable quotation for the Roman script misspelling. Contrariwise, I don't recall finding a durable quotation for the correct Thai script spelling without implicit vowels. RichardW57 (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@RichardW57, Octahedron80 Sounds like a very weird edge case. Instead of resorting to {{head}} and a transliteration that just makes things even more mysterious, why don't you leave it using {{pi-adj}} and add a usage note explaining exactly what's going on, including the Latin translit and why exactly it differs from the Latin spelling? {{pi-adj}} doesn't generate a translit so it isn't wrong. Benwing2 (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

A usage note would be an odd place to put the transliteration. Doesn't an explanation of the misspelling belong in the etymology? The explanation is that the epenthetic (I think 'svarabhakti' would be more precise) vowel in the Thai pronunciation of the onset (ancient /sv/) has been wrongly treated as a full vowel in the misspelling. RichardW57 (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@RichardW57 The problem is that no other Pali word even has a transliteration so it's far from clear what "transliteration" even means with Pali if not for the Latin spelling. I personally have no idea what the distinction is. So including a "transliteration" that's different from the Latin spelling is IMO worse than not including it; it's just confusing. Better to not include it, and include an explanation of what's going on (a usage note is generally the best place for such explanations, as a synchronic explanation is not an etymology; but it can go in the etymology if you prefer). Benwing2 (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Octahedron80 I've put forward a Pali transliteration module, but I've had no progress in getting it adopted (or sent back for improvement). There are interface issues for the Thai and Lao scripts - I occasionally need to know whether I'm dealing with an abugida or an 'alphabet'. The glosses for non-Latin entries almost always say "xxx script form of blah", so it seems redundant to have the transliteration in the header, and without automatic translation, it is an invitation to error. There is also a specific transliteration issue with Lao. When it uses only the character set for Lao, d, dh, ḍ and ḍh are all represented by the same letter, ທ. Do I transliterate these all as 'd'? So far I've ducked the issue. RichardW57 (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The point here is that the word "savākkhāta" does not exist in Latin script Pali. It is a Thai script error, induced by Thai phonology. The correct form of the word is "svākkhāta". (Remember that the West has gone 'native', and accordingly uses Pali in its own script, i.e. that of the West. The East seems to have largely adopted European punctuation, though the Indians might be doing their own thing.) I repeated my Google frequency determinations. It turns out that, if I actually chase down the Google hits, correct and incorrect spellings get roughly equal numbers of hits in both systems, namely with and without implicit vowels. Without implicit vowels, the correct spelling gets about 7 times as many raw hits as the wrong one; the preponderance seems to be due to multiple copies of the same text. RichardW57 (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I have updated the entry to use {{pi-adj}}. RichardW57 (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

สะวากขาตะ is misspelling. As in สฺวากฺขาต or สวากขาตะ, สว is a cluster sv. You just can't add -a (or -ะ) inside it. Anyway, please create the entries สฺวากฺขาต and สวากขาตะ too.--Octahedron80 (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Octahedron The entry for สฺวากฺขาต (svākkhāta) already exists - I had a durably archived quotation in my bookcase. I don't have a durably archived quotation for สวากขาตะ (svākkhāta) or a good reason to bend the rules to add it, and without it, I wouldn't. Fortunately, I've found it on p12 of a book, but I'm having trouble working out how to cite it. Fortunately, from the bar code 9789744974020 I was able to find it in a catalogue entry at http://www.thammasapa.com/product/459119/%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%AB%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%87%E0%B8%84%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%84%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%96%E0%B8%B2-(%E0%B8%98%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%A0%E0%B8%B2).html, but I'm having trouble working out how to turn that into a citation. Unfortunately, the sentence has an error in it - it starts "สวากขาโต ภะคะวาตา" It's not the first time I've seen that spelling error in the second word. Drilling down, I find 124 hits for the phrase, out of 1210 raw Google hits. I don't think this misspelling merits documentation. RichardW57 (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The +preo template

I mentioned in Wiktionary:Grease pit/2020/October#Experimental template deployed but not finished that the template {{+preo}} is marked experimental and not to be widely deployed. This did not get much response so I thought the template was, or should be made obsolete. But when I tried to replace the template with what I thought was more appropriate format, WingerBot undid the change, see the change history for denken. My main problems with the +preo template are that it is rather cryptic and that it puts grammatical information in a gloss when it would normally go in the label. Plus, as mentioned, it's marked experimental and it's undocumented so I don't know how to fix it if it comes out wrong.

There really should be some standard way to deal with prepositional verbs, but German, the language I'm mainly working on, has a number of variations on the idea and I not sure how a template can deal with them all rationally; is the preposition required or optional, are different prepositions possible, and in which case is the prepositional phrase if the preposition allows more than one? Plus I'm still not sure how to make the whole thing readable to someone who may not be terribly familiar with German grammar and doesn't want to have to figure out a string of cryptic symbols. I'd like to see some kind of consensus on the format first, then if possible have it implemented with templates. At least document the template, so someone other than the person who created it can use it correctly, before deploying it. --RDBury (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Help with merging Prakrits

Lang. code

Hi, again. I just thought you might be able to change pra from an etymology-only language code to full-fledged language code, so that any Prakrit entries from now on will be "Prakrit" instead of "Maharastri Prakrit". The bot implementation can definitely wait until AryamanA has the time to do so. The ancestor of this new "Prakrit" should be Ashokan Prakrit -> Sanskrit -> PIA -> PII -> PIE. I'm not thinking of altering the already existing codes like psu, pmh, inc-psc, inc-kha, elu-prk, inc-mgd, etc. into etymology-only-codes (it'll be done later). If this is done, I'll be able to make some of its basic templates. Thanks. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 03:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

No, there shouldn't be a general Prakrit language. --{{victar|talk}} 04:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Victar, शब्दशोधक AFAIK, there was a discussion among the South Asian contributors who agreed to group all the Prakrits similarly to how the Chinese languages are currently grouped. This would imply creating an overarching Prakrit language, I think. I did not take part in this discussion and I forget where it occurred; User:SodhakSH can you link it? Benwing2 (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Oof, something that big should go to vote. --{{victar|talk}} 06:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Victar, Benwing2: Are you referring to Category talk:Prakrit languages#Prakrit entries (contd.)? It actually started on my talk page (see this archived conversation), then was continued on the category talk page of Prakrit languages. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 06:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Victar Ordinarily I would agree with you but I think a lot of the Prakrit language codes were recently created so there isn't really any longstanding consensus on how to handle them. Benwing2 (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Some codes should probably be done away with, but a Prakrit header? No, that shouldn't be allowed. --{{victar|talk}} 06:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Victar I think this should be up to the editors who actually contribute in this area. Benwing2 (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Benwing2: While I think the idea of merging some of the Prakrits is warranted, it does seem like something that deserves a vote, especially since some Prakrits will be merged and some will not. Regardless, the current language code distribution is way too messy and seems to be hindering progress for MIA. —*i̯óh₁n̥C^[5] 09:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Anyways, would you be changing the lang. code pra to a full fledged language code? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 07:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)