User talk:-sche/Archive/2011

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

(Also includes a bit of 2010.)


Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here! By the way, you can sign your comments on talk (discussion) pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name (or IP number if you're not signed in) and the current date and time. If you have any questions, then see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my talk page.​—msh210 (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Numbers categories[edit]

You're perhaps not aware that there was a vote in the summer to use full language names for Cardinal numbers/numerals (and ordinals) rather than language codes. I have therefore reverted all your edits to German cardinal numbers. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I have then understood Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Category:German cardinal numbers = Category:de:Cardinal numbers backwards. Category:de:Cardinal numbers was listed second, so I thought Category:German cardinal numbers was the old category, to be moved to de:. They said they would use a bot, but there were so few words I thought I could do it and format the spaces. I'm sorry! - -sche 21:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted senses[edit]

When you strike something as RfV-failed, or whatever, can you please make sure that the entry itself is deleted before archiving the discussion, so that other administrators could perhaps take a look at it? Things like cadre party should not be overlooked. Use a speedy delete tag, or unarchive the discussion and place it back on WT:RFV for the other sysops to see, or just somehow make sure it's deleted, as you say it is. TeleComNasSprVen 06:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi! I think it was understood that if three citations could not be found, that the entry would be moved to Middle English rather than deletion. Leasnam 04:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you're right; I myself agreed that the verb should stay as a Middle English word, in some spelling... but I wasn't sure tocome was that spelling, and two(?) of the three quotations in entry were from the "Modern" rather than the "Middle English" period, so I moved the quotations to the Citations" page and the etymology information to the Scots section, rather than just changing the header. Do you think it (the Middle English entry) should be at tocome, or tocomen, or somewhere else? If at tocome, the easiest thing to do is probably revert my most recent edit, change "==English==" to "==Middle English==", and omit the two "Modern"-era quotations. If at tocomen, would you like to create that entry, or should I? Also, does Middle English have its own verb templates (I presume)? - -sche (discuss) 04:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I would put the Middle English entry at tocomen: tocome would be the first person singular indicative and singular subjunctive (all 3 persons). We may not require any quotations for Middle English, as the verb is certainly well attested during that period. Moving the others to Citations for Modern English is fine (I still have hope that we will one find them ;). Middle English does (or used to--I haven't used it in quite some time) have a verb template. If you would like to create it, you are more than welcome to :) . Leasnam 04:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I've created tocomen, which links to and is linked-to from tocome. :) Feel free to improve it. - -sche (discuss) 04:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks good! Thank you :) Leasnam 05:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Template l[edit]

That[1] is an interesting point of view. Why do you think {{l|en|God}} is not supposed to be used for that? It would seem to work perfectly like your replacement [[God#English|God]]. --Daniel 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

{{l|en|word}} produces the same appearance as [[word#language|word]], but that doesn't mean the two are interchangeable. It's my understanding that {{l}} stands for "list" and is meant for use in lists, not in non-English entries to link to the English translations. This is apparently also Ruakh's and EncycloPetey's understanding, but not Liliana's, CodeCat's or Mglovesfun's, per this discussion (permalink for when that discussion is archived). Perhaps you and I should bring that topic back up? That discussion petered out without any resolution, as far as I can tell. - -sche (discuss) 16:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I, too, thought this was introduced for lists, but never use it for any purpose. DCDuring TALK 17:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
AFAICT, its only effect when used to link to the English section is to put the English section and not the top of the entry at the top of the page. It would make a meaningful difference only in sections that had Translingual language sections under our current policy for the placement of Translingual sections. DCDuring TALK 17:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, linking to the English section (whether by template or by [[word#English|word]]) has the meaningful effect of disambiguating which language is intended — especially helpful if a page does not exist (is a redlink) or does exist but does not yet have the English section it needs (has only a Spanish section, for instance). - -sche (discuss) 17:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)



I was kind of surprised to an entry you had tagged with {{delete}}; I did not know, or did not remember, that you were not an admin. Are you interested in being an admin? Is it all right if I nominated you?

Thanks in advance,
RuakhTALK 01:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I don't know. It would be nice if I could do more than just tag the vandalism in the Recent Changes. But what would admindom entail, besides deleting things? Some days I end up spending too much time on en. and de.Wikt as it is; I wouldn't want to be biting off even more than I should be chewing. Would I have to go on IRC? - -sche (discuss) 07:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
There are no hard-and-fast obligations with admindom, other than the obligation that you not abuse the tool. I don't think anyone would want to confer admindom on someone who won't use any of the tools, but you obviously would at least use the deletion tool and the move-without-leaving-a-redirect tool as part of your work on RFVs. That said, I think all admins are generally expected to do some vandalism-fighting (see Help:Patrolled edits), and most admins who are active at Wiktionary do seem to do at least a bit. (Some admins are much better about this than others.) As for IRC — certainly not. I never go on, and I'm certain I'm not alone. I've never seen any suggestion that admins should, let alone must. —RuakhTALK 15:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for explaining. :) It sounds like mostly what I'm doing already, removing RFV-failed things and reverting vandalism in the Recent Changes. Actually, I thought of asking to be made a patroller on here a couple months ago after I was made one on de.Wikt, so I could "pass" good changes, but en.Wikt didn't seem to have a patroller function — but now I gather from your comment that it's part of admin-ness. That makes sense now!) - -sche (discuss) 20:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
You'd be a fine admin. I assumed you already were one and that I'd missed the vote. DCDuring TALK 21:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, let me qualify that: You'd be a fine admin once you put up your Babel box. DCDuring TALK 21:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Without any qualification! DCDuring TALK 00:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
O.K., you can accept the nomination at: Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2011-08/User:-sche for admin. —RuakhTALK 23:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thank you both! :) - -sche (discuss) 01:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Word-of-the-day for the 11th.[edit]

I see that you did up through the 10th. For the 11th, do you think we should try to choose a word-of-the-day appropriate to the tenth anniversary of September 11 — if we can think of one — or do you think we should avoid that like a thing to be greatly avoided?

RuakhTALK 01:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand that it could be impractical to attempt to find topical words for every notable day (so I would understand if people wanted to avoid doing that); on the other hand, often picks words related to whatever is in the U.S. news, so I see no harm in doing that whenever it proves easy to do. (After a few days' consideration, I found unitive for the German Day of Unity, for example.) Regarding September Eleventh: I think we should favour a topical/appropriate word over a "random"/"generic" word, but I see no problem with a random word (like incumbent or novity) if we can't find anything good and topical. (I was just hoping someone would pick something better than last year's masochism.)
I liked real superhero at first, until I realised I was thinking of real hero (the descriptor of firefighters) and real superhero seems borderline-SOP, anyway. - -sche (discuss) 02:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
EP picked timely words each Christmas and St. Valentine's Day, at least; if I may butt in, I think it'd be appropriate for the eleventh, too — but can't think of a word. Timonism??​—msh210 (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
That would work. I was thinking more about the victims, and their families, though, than about their murderers; something like in memoriam, maybe? But yeah, Timonism would work. —RuakhTALK 20:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I like the idea of using in memoriam, and have tried tidying it a bit. I've added a usage note which makes me wonder whether it isn't primarily a preposition rather than the adverb we list it as.​—msh210 (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
In my experience, it often takes no complement at all. In Memoriam alone is often a title (contrast *In Memory Of), and even in running text the person being remembered is frequently implied from context. When the title does contain a person's name, it seems more often to be In Memoriam: ____ rather than In Memoriam ____, despite some very well-known instances of the latter. So I'm not sure, but I think that overall it's more often a traditional adverb than a traditional preposition. (In a grammar that accepted intransitive prepositions, though, such as what Brett (talkcontribs) uses at simple.wikt, I'm almost certain it would be a classified as a preposition.) —RuakhTALK 22:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Hm... better usage note now, then?​—msh210 (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
It looks great, thank you! —RuakhTALK 22:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, looks good! (I'd like to work the fact that memoriam is the accusative case into the etymology, but {{term}} includes parentheses in a way that makes such things inelegant. Ah, well.) I'll let one of you be the one to set it as WOTD. :) - -sche (discuss) 22:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

note about patrolling[edit]

In this edit, you helpfully inserted a space when an anon had failed to do so after a comma. In fact, this anon has been making bad edits for nearly a year now. The anon usually edits as 187... or 189... and mostly adds Latin translations that are wrong, badly formatted, or otherwise problematic. SemperBlotto, Mglovesfun, and I have battled his rotating address edits since at least November, but the user never responds to comments, and has never improved the poor quality of edits made. As a general rule, when you see this user, revert, because the majority of information added is wrong in one or more ways. --EncycloPetey 02:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Re Verszählung[edit]

Hi Sche. I've responded to you on Stephen's talk page. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 08:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks for helping out catching some of the minor stuff[edit]

that i have missed on my edits. As I rehash and watchlist stuff I have come across it and I appreciate it.Gtroy 09:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


Per Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2011-08/User:-sche_for_admin#Decision, you should now have some new buttons. Please see Help:Sysop tools and add yourself to Wiktionary:Administrators —Stephen (Talk) 03:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, Sche. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 09:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! :] I will add myself to the list, as soon as I figure out how. - -sche (discuss) 00:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Aari infinitive verbs?[edit]

Hi there, -sche. Do infivitive verbs (in English, infinitives start with the word "to") exist in the Aari language? I'm curious because I'm guessing that the words búrukše and búrukse come from some word that might mean "to boil (something)". --Lo Ximiendo 22:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, Aari has infinitive verbs. I assume you're asking with an eye to creating the infinitive form as the lemma, of which búrukše and búrukse are inflected forms. Aari verbs have two forms that could be considered lemma forms: the stem, and the infinitive, which is typically the stem + -inti. The stem of "to boil (something)" is burukš-; AFAICT, the infinitive is not attested in the small corpus of works on/in Aari. However, we could follow Hayward and treat burukš- as an irregularly-formed causative form of buruk-. (Causative forms are typically the stem + -sis-.) The infinitive of buruk- is regular, burukinti. - -sche (discuss) 00:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't have that intent, and I'm now wondering how limited or broad the corpus (whatever it is) of Aari works is. --Lo Ximiendo 01:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


Hi -sche,

Do you have time to choose a word of the day for the 22nd? I almost certainly won't have a chance in the next 21.5 hours. (I should already be in bed right now!)

Thanks in advance,
02:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. :) - -sche (discuss) 02:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I've set the 22.-26. of September and the 1.-7. of October. The 27.-30. of September have not yet been set. - -sche (discuss) 04:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! —RuakhTALK 14:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/2011-10/CFI for Mandarin proper nouns - banning entries not in Chinese characters[edit]


Thanks for your input. I have set up the vote. The wording is not final before the vote starts. Please have a look and make comments in the talk page if you have any. --Anatoli 00:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy with your last [2]]. We seem to be thinking the same way about the issue so far but I'm not so good at wording. --Anatoli 05:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


Thanks! Jcwf 01:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


Should this perhaps be called Annobonese? From what I can tell, that name appears to be much more widespread in English linguistic works. -- Liliana 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. It was called Annobonese in our incomplete WT:List of languages, too — I used Fa d'Ambu as the header in entries only because the template used that name. I can update those entries and categories. - -sche (discuss) 21:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


your welcome, it's my pleasure. I learned to use this program called audacity because of it and I figured all the words of the day deserved to have the pronunciation there too. in case you didn't know a simple webcam will work to capture audio if you wanted to add some yourself and have one and audacity is a free and easy to use. anything that needs particular attention?Totallynotfairbro 03:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for verification#coaster[edit]

Why did you nominate this for verification? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 01:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find the sense in other dictionaries, and looking through durably archived media, I could only find one film review that might have been using coaster in that sense. I posted it on RFV so others could help me look for verification of it. - -sche (discuss) 03:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


To be honest, Penutian should really go. If people don't even know what languages it is supposed to contain, it is a bad candidate for a language family category on Wiktionary. -- Liliana 19:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll move its contents into narrower, accepted families and delete it. - -sche (discuss) 19:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't use double standard[edit]

You said: "deleted, per the precedent and discussion of WT:RFD#Москва". pizza#Mandarin is deledted, so OK#Mandarin should be deleted as well. Actually their meaning can be found from English entries. So, they are not necessary. 19:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)



Thanks for your contributions. Not sure if you're an administrator. Would like to become one? Please reply here, I will nominate you if you're not an administrator yet. I've sent the same invitation to User:Haplology. --Anatoli 01:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You already are, sorry. User:Haplology and User:Eirikr are not yet. I'm going to nominate them, if they agree. --Anatoli 01:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
An administrator shouldn't uses double standard. Please see here. 08:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


I don't know about the details of the RfV, but your deletions of several of its forms has created a rather peculiar situation, just look at the table. Several intransitive forms are now gone, yet several transitive forms still exist. --JorisvS 09:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh! I started deleting inflected forms because the word had failed RFV. I started restoring forms when I realised only the second sense (already removed) had failed, but "gush" is presumably valid. Thanks for pointing out that I missed those! I've finished restoring them, now. - -sche (discuss) 18:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
If an Esperanto verb only has an intransitive sense it can only have active participles (the ones with -nt- like -anta, -onta, etc.), no passive participles (the ones with -t- like -ata, -ita, -oto, etc.). So if, like for ŝpruci, an RfV of a transitive sense failed, but the intransitive sense is valid, then the passive participles cannot technically exist and should be deleted.
Aside from this, there are actually a number of bot-generated passive participles of intransitive verbs because of faulty conjugation tables, although it would be an arduous task to find all of these (which is aside from the fact that at times it can be a pain in the ass to determine whether an Esperanto verb is transitive or intransitive). An example of this is varmi. --JorisvS 22:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hm. If it were feasible to check and correct the inflection tables of our Esperanto entries, so that they no longer listed impossible forms, I think it would be possible to write a bot which would find all entries that use {{eo-form of}} / are Category:Esperanto * forms but aren't linked-to from Esperanto lemma entries / entries. The bot could write a list or add them to a cleanup category or possibly even delete them. Of course, that requires checking all the Esperanto entries, and finding someone who can write bots... :/ - -sche (discuss) 23:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
That wouldn't be the biggest issue. Usually the impossible forms are linked to from their lemma entries through a faulty conjugation table. Such tables probably arise from people quickly inserting ====Conjugation==== {{eo-conj|...}} without thinking about the transitivity of the verb. I think that a bot could help by searching Esperanto verb entries for definitions without a transitivity tag and for inconsistencies between transitivity stated in the definition line and the conjugation table. --JorisvS 08:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


Dick blocked me again but is ignoring the beer parlour decision, what should i do? (ACDC rocks) 22:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

  • (For the record) I ultimately gave Troy an indefinite block because he started weirdly threatening me with some restraining order shit. (Copy-pasting this to a few others.) — [Ric Laurent] — 23:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm totally sorry you hate me, and regret having annoyed you.Catch22 09:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Is that directed at Ric or at me? I don't hate you. I wouldn't mind if you were unblocked. I'll defer to the community's decision in the BP about whether or not to unblock you, though. - -sche (discuss) 19:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Not you at all, Ric. Well the BP's decision was to unblock me but Ric didn't want to respect that. That's the problem. 21:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for unblocking me. ;) What led to that decision? And will it last or can Dick arbitrarily block me again?Acdcrocks 21:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Some Moldovoromanian things[edit]

So, Cyrillic entries shouldn't be tagged as "Moldovan" or Moldavian (or whatever it is that we stupidly use), for at least two reasons:

  1. Most of Moldova uses the Latin alphabet, only Transnistria requires Cyrillic. (As a sub-reason, there are actually at least two Cyrillic alphabets for Romanian: one that was used in Romania and one that was (and still is used) in Moldova).
  2. There is actually a Moldovan dialect of Romanian (I think there are like 5 major ones or something) where regional context labels would be appropriate, so I can see some confusion coming out of that.

So if we're going to be allowing Cyrillic entries for Romanian (which I think would be nifty), these things have to be taken into account when we bang out an ideal format. — [Ric Laurent] — 11:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I just mixed up Moldav(i)an and Transnistria(n). As for the old Cyrillic spellings of Romania-Romanian, the BP discussion takes that into account; one suggestion is to format them like Arabic-script Turkish. How's this for a (not-old) Cyrillic spelling, and this for an old Cyrillic spelling (linked-to from here)? Again, Romanian editors should decide the format, I'm just making grob suggestions. - -sche (discuss) 20:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I think on молдовенеск especially, the usage notes are a bit long. I know this, too, will probably invite confusion, but I'd like to see "Moldavian Cyrillic" and "Romanian Cyrillic" where they differ, and just "Cyrillic" where they're the same. Of course I have no idea how frequent that is. Anyway, we can have those things link to descriptions of the Cyrillic alphabets and their uses without having Usage notes on every Cyrillic-spelling entry. — [Ric Laurent] — 20:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
We need a section on WT:ARO about this. Then, as you say, we could specify on each entry "this is the form used in the Cyrillic alphabet used in Romania before 1860", "this is the form used in the Cyrillic alphabet used in Moldova before 1989 and still used in Transnistria", etc (or even shorter than that). Feel free to modify the entries as you see fit, and we'll discuss. Also, this vote only explicitly assures the Latin and Cyrillic forms entries (when attested), it does not specifically allow or forbid the transitional alphabet. Including it, words could have five or more ===Alternative forms===:
  1. pre-1860 Cyrillic (used to write Romanian; sometimes in use after 1860)
  2. 1860s transitional (part-Cyrillic, part-Latin alphabet, used to write Romanian)
  3. post-1860 Latin alphabet (used in Romania)
  4. 1900s Cyrillic alphabet (used in Moldova until 1989, still used in Transnistria)
  5. 1989-2010 Latin alphabet spelling (used in Moldova; not a different alphabet, but sometimes different from the spelling used in Romania)
- -sche (discuss) 20:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
What's that last one there? I think you might be referring to something caused by the spelling reforms. Not sure how Moldova feels about them... also not sure when they were passed. Hm. That's the less fun part of historical linguistics lol — [Ric Laurent] — 23:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
When Moldova switched from the Cyrillic alphabet to the Latin alphabet, it switched to the alphabet Romania was using. Romania, however, passed a spelling reform a few years later (screw you! we don't want to use the same orthography as you! we're getting a new orthography! — my interpretation, not historically accurate), which Moldova didn't get around to passing for another 15 years or so. Of course, that's the same orthography used in Romania from whenever (1870?) until 1993. I suppose we'll just treat those as dated forms, a bit like connexion#English. - -sche (discuss) 00:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I think what German does for stuff like that is (pre-X year reform spelling) or something like that. I think I like that for Romanian. — [Ric Laurent] — 00:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Good idea! - -sche (discuss) 05:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


Hello. I have just modified a message of yours because the nowiki tag was not properly used and it made some following sections uneditable. It is not <nowiki/> but <nowiki> … </nowiki>. Thanks. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message and the fix! That tag was actually added by Ruakh — my original comment broke the page even more badly. Face-blush.svg I've seen <nowiki/> used before; I wonder if its functionality is context-dependent? In any case, <nowiki></nowiki> works in all cases, as you note. :) - -sche (discuss) 00:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Just for a tip, you can use &#123; and &#125; for { and } respectively. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I believe you're mistaken. The sections were uneditable before my fix; afterward, they worked fine so far as I could tell. —RuakhTALK 01:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Before my fix, the sections below that were broken, because of the unclosed {{'s. After my fix, the sections above it were broken, because of the unopened }}'s. Complicated! —RuakhTALK 02:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Beer parlour?diff=14098297[edit]

Thanks! The sad thing is, I had to track it down in the archive in order to find the discussion title, so you'd think I would have remembered to link to the right archive page!

RuakhTALK 01:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Nouns and proper nouns[edit]

Hey, I've started a discussion in the Beer Parlor. I'd really like to know the community views on this. Any additional input would be great. Thanks. – Krun 14:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


Where did you get this one from? I've just never seen it spelled that way. Ƿidsiþ 19:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I spotted eglog as I cited pestre; at first I couldn't figure out what it meant (and was going to ask you! lol), but then I found w:Eglogue and w:Eclogue, which said the word was also spelt "eclog" in Middle English. However, Google Books seems to have enough hits (in reprints, etc) that it made more sense to me to make "eclog" a Modern English entry marked "archaic" — "no longer in general use, but still found in some contemporary texts". :) - -sche (discuss) 19:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Weird, I can't actually see any good hits for it on (although it's quite hard to search, as Eclog. is a common scholarly abbreviation for eclogue). Ƿidsiþ 19:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Try searching for the plural, "eclogs". - -sche (discuss) 20:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Sysop deleted[edit]

Nice work. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


Care to create this entry? -- Liliana 22:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ein -sche-scher Eintrag. Erstellt. :) - -sche (discuss) 23:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

2 Fragen[edit]


Ich hoffe, dass es in Ordnung ist, wenn ich Dich auf Deutsch etwas frage. Denn mein Englisch ist nicht so gut, um mich adäquat auszudrücken.

  1. Bei der Benutzung des englischen Wiktionary ist mir etwas aufgefallen: unter Windows XP (Opera) erscheint bei Wörterbucheinträgen, die deutsche Übersetzung erhalten, in der obersten Zeile der eingeklappten Translation-Box die deutsche Übersetzung. Aber unter Windows 7 (Notebook, Opera) erscheint sie bei mir nicht. Gibt es da Probleme mit Windows 7 oder muss ich spezielle Änderungen vornehmen, damit ich die deutsche Übersetzung direkt bei eingeklappten Translation-Boxen sehe?
  2. Ist das Translationsscript, das Du für das deutsche Wiktionary löblicherweise erstellt hast, eigentlich einsatzfähig? Oder muss daran noch etwas repariert werden?

Wäre schön im deutschen Wiktionary mal wieder etwas von Dir zu hören, ist in letzter Zeit ziemlich ruhig dort geworden. ;-) Abendliche Grüße --Yoursmile 19:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Gibt es schon etwas Neues, -sche? Schöne Grüße --Yoursmile 11:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


There's nothing wrong with including quotations from blogs and other informal sources though they wouldn't count for verification. Web pages and forums are fickle, and usually a paraphrased example sentence is better. The latter are the only quotations I would consider deleting.

In this case the durability of the quotation may be in question, but that does not mean deletion is acceptable. It was included with the hope of confirming the original source, one that other works we'd consider durable might choose to cite. It may be the case that confirmation will never be possible, but supposing it were, and that the quotation was still not considered durably archived, and then an author came along and put the quotation to print, does it make more sense to you to cite the original speaker indirectly just because the other source is durable?

I mean, any alleged significance of Rush aside, I'm sure there are many important speeches, by presidents, royalty and the like, that are only known from transcription. Do we not attribute these to that person directly, or do we always have to say it's according to such-and-such durable source? DAVilla 05:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't thought of that, but you're right, we can and should have illustrative quotations even if they do not count towards verification (whether because they're mentions and not uses of words, or because they're questionably archived). I don't understand how the quotation of Limbaugh helps confirm the original source (of the word?) — is he supposed to have coined it? As for comments by presidents and kings, I believe we do cite sources (recorded broadcasts, transcriptions, or published copies of speeches, for instance) even when quoting those. But you're right, we can keep the Limbaugh quotation as illustrative. - -sche (discuss) 20:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Translations of attributive use of nouns[edit]

What do you think of encouraging translations of nouns to, in principle, include also the adjectives that translate attributive use of the English noun? I expect that the need for and value of this differs by language, ranging from completely unnecessary through predictable to essential.

How much of this already occurs in translations?

If it makes sense to you in principle, how would it be implemented? Or is there an emerging standard where it already is occurring?

If it can be implemented, how should it be encouraged? DCDuring TALK 22:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: "what do you think", "how would it be implemented?": You commented in the RFV discussion of belt and suspenders that we could allow adjectives as translations of English nouns to address the fact that English uses nouns attributively where other languages use adjectives. I thought and think that a good idea. (I don't want to preach to the choir, but for anyone else reading this, my argument for it is: it seems already required by our policy of including all accurate translations; if brass can be used in two ways, "that metal is brass" and "the brass knob", but we only provide the translation that works in uses like "that metal is brass", we're missing an accurate translation. Also, it represents a smaller change to our current practices than allowing unjustified adjective sections for English words or allowing foreign language entries to have translations.) I used the RFV-failures of the adjective sections of cork and brass to try it: I moved the adjective translations into the noun section. I standardised my language in both entries (corresponding to English attributive use, meaning ‘...’:), but I wouldn't call that an emerging standard; I'd like to shorten the language as much as possible. Do you have any preferred format / language?
Re: "How much of this already occurs in translations?": So far, I have only preserved existing information; I haven't added new information of this kind to any entry, nor have I seen it in other entries. However, I have seen the counterpart quite often — foreign language nouns in the translation sections of English adjectives (like Dutch: model- in model).
Re: "how should it be encouraged?": I don't know. How have we encouraged things like Dutch: model- (nouns in adjective sections)?
Do you think we should bring this up in the Beer Parlour? - -sche (discuss) 04:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
What is at [[cork]] and [[brass]] is very explicit but a bit long. Perhaps we should start with a template with that long explanation. Then we could shorten the explanation if folks object to the length and do so at once for all similar entries. The long text has value in publicizing the approach initially no matter what shortened text we might subsequently settle on.
As for encouragement: One approach might be to locate entries that have English noun and adjective sections with "noncomparable" adjectives and translation sections for the adjective. Those adjective sections could be RfVed where appropriate and the translations merged into the noun section with {{ttbc}}. Another possibility would be to insert {{trreq}} or a specialized version thereof ({{trreq-attr}} to explicitly request adjective translations. Or we could start discussions on Talk pages for one language at a time either at the "About XXX" pages or of leading contributors in language XXX.
Clearly this would need some discussion, certainly at BP. Do you have a sense for how many languages would require this kind of additional translation? This effort would presumably focus on common nouns first, but is the same thing required for proper nouns? What languages are you comfortable with? (Where's your Babel box?) To the extent we don't have comfort with a range of languages (I don't have much to contribute outside of English) we might want to test the idea with a range of languages: Germanic, Romance, Ugaritic, Slavic, CJKV, Arabic, Hebrew, Hindi, etc., wherever someone might be receptive to the issue. Or we could go straight to the Beer Parlor. DCDuring TALK 11:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I like the idea of a template to introduce adjective translations; in addition to being modifiable, it would be subst:able if we ever decided we preferred raw text to the template. I also like the idea of a {{trreq-attr}} — and I think we would need such a separate template, at least at first, because users are used to {{trreq}} in a noun's translation section meaning only ‘please add noun translations of this noun’. (Postscript: it occurs to me we could just modify the text of {{trreq}}.) As for how else to encourage translations: I'd rather approach contributors of foreign languages than seek out adjective sections to delete/‘move’. We should probably raise the subject in the BP before creating too many test entries, though, if only to get others' feedback on format. Matthias Buchmeier just had an interesting idea here, of putting attributive-use translations in a separate trans-box. I'm not sure which style is better, but we should probably pick one or the other.
I can contribute German and to varying extents other Baltic-Sea-bordering languages, but the hard part is thinking of applicable words, words that are nouns in English and not also adjectives but that are nouns and adjectives in the other languages. Perhaps simply going through English nouns that are not also adjectives is a way to go, as it seems most English nouns can be used attributively. - -sche (discuss) 20:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
We could certainly have someone prepare a list of English entries that have noun sections and no adjective sections. Even better would be a similar list of English etymology sections with the same characteristics. Matthias's idea is more appealing the greater the share of languages that require an adjective translation. I suppose most inflected languages must need one.
I suppose we are as ready as it pays to be before bringing it to BP. My only question is whether to wait we have a large number of senior editors active: August is a slow month. DCDuring TALK 21:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there a way to a way to prepare a list of common words that meet those criteria? I expect a complete list would be very long, tens of thousands of words. (We could always just flip through such a comprehensive list manually and pick out common words, of course.) Metals may be a good place to start, as many languages have adjectives for those, where English (to my surprise) often only has nouns. We can certainly wait until September to bring this up; perhaps I can create a few more trial/example entries in the interim. - -sche (discuss) 00:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Spruce is now another test/trial/example entry, as a result of a failed RFV. - -sche (discuss) 22:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)