User talk:BD2412/Archive 3

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

Status: Active. (e) Archives: 1 (10/05 - 06/06); 2 (07/06 - 9/15/06); 3 (9/15/06 - 3/12/07); 4 (3/12/07 - 6/28/07); 5 (6/29/07 - 12/31/07); 6 (1/08 - 8/08); 7 (9/08 - 12/09); 8 (12/09-12/11); 9 (1/12-4/16)


Looking at this entry, I'm left wondering why the English term isn't listed? Has this been discussed somewhere at length that can read up on? This seems quite wrong to me. --Connel MacKenzie 21:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Is there an English word dán? I was not aware of it. bd2412 T 21:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know if there is, but that wasn't what I meant. The "translation" listed is for another foreign term! --Connel MacKenzie 05:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Strictly speaking, it is not a "translation" but a "transliteration" - the roman alphabet version of the Chinese character. I'll sort through the definitions once I have the initial entries done! bd2412 T 05:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, OK. Sorry for stepping on your toes, then. Keep up the great work! --Connel MacKenzie 05:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No "Verb form"[edit]

As per WT:ELE I'll change those all to ===Verb===. --Connel MacKenzie 05:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oook - well you could have just said something - the block I could have done without. I can fix them back. I did not realize that was incorrect, as I've been using that header for quite some time without raising any comment! bd2412 T 05:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I saw a high edit rate, and instinct kicked in. --Connel MacKenzie 05:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
In that case, can you do me the favor of unblocking me? I will not unblock myself, on principle. bd2412 T 05:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
oops - never mind, I see you have. bd2412 T 05:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Right. Unlike Wikipedia, blocked users cannot edit their talk pages here. --Connel MacKenzie 05:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, a talk page message will stop AWB just as effectively as a block - it shuts down until you check the message. bd2412 T 05:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I shall try to remember that! After all, that was all I intended in the first place. --Connel MacKenzie 05:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Would all this be faster and easier to discuss on Wiktionary IRC(help)? We'd love to see you there. Dvortygirl 05:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, I have no chat client! Guess I'll have to get one (tomorrow that is). Cheers! and Goodnight! bd2412 T 06:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
mIRC has been good to me, hope to see you there soon :) - TheDaveRoss 17:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You should now see a link just to the right of [log out] at the top right of the window here, to [irc]. That uses Javascript to open a window to a CGI-IRC gateway (running a java client in your web browser.) For now, it is a sysop-only feature, only to test it to see if it can sustain the load (and to hash out any browser anomalies with a smaller group of participants.) --Connel MacKenzie 00:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Not seeing it - but I've never yet signed up for a chat client. Been too busy! bd2412 T 04:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Preload templates[edit]

Unfortunately, the "noinclude" doesn't work for preload templates. There's a recent discussion about it somewhere in the grease pit. --Connel MacKenzie 17:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"Irregular" plurals[edit]

I'm watching with some amusement, as you enter/re-cat those various plurals. I strongly agree with what you are doing, but I've been told that that is my POV. User:Ncik and I had a lengthy flamewar in 2004 or 2005 about the "-es" plurals, which he insists are regular, by English rules of spelling. --Connel MacKenzie 20:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, until someone objects, I plan to keep on it - did he think y --> ies pluralizations were "regular" as well? That's next. bd2412 T 20:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I strongly agree with what you are doing. Yes, he considered "-ies" forms to be regular as well. Most curious to me; he found a reference that insisted that "-ked" (e.g. for verb magic) was also "regular." --Connel MacKenzie 21:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: WT:C[edit]

Sorry - I didn't realise that there was a 25-vote-rule, so I just saw unanimous support and didn't think it worth it to support them. Now supported. Thanks and regards, —Celestianpower háblame 22:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

like this[edit]  :-)

--Connel MacKenzie 13:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Done. --Connel MacKenzie 13:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I was terse earlier. The XML dump was ready, so I was occupied. --Connel MacKenzie 03:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


Isn't this a trademarked term? If so, it might need to be capitalized. --EncycloPetey 23:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • May be, but I've seen plenty of generic usage. bd2412 T 23:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


Would you mind if I subst:ed out all of these templates? As they are no one can edit/add to the entries, they don't count in entry counts, and they are not searchable. - TheDaveRoss 22:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • My intention is to wait until all the basic entries are done (I believe I have finished about 95% of them, here), and then to seek input from the community if there is anything else to be added or changes to headers, definitions, etc. that should be made before subst'ing. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Makes perfect sense, if you want it automated it would be a 2 minute bot run. Just let me know. - TheDaveRoss 22:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Much appreciated. At the moment I plan to do it manually, as I anticipate making certain entry-specific alterations during the process. Thanks again. bd2412 T 22:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I was just looking at it, thanks for the heads up! - TheDaveRoss 23:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A thought, from reading the BP. Suppose each of the Pinyin entries had the template (cmn-alt-pinyin) on the "inflection" line, and then the definition line(s) were the characters with glosses. And suppose that the template was given both forms (diacritical and with-numbers). {{cmn-alt-pinyin|yí|yi2}} It could then magically display the correct form for the page it was on. Then the page text for and yi2 could be identical ...

And note that you don't need to edit the existing pages to add the present pagename as a parameter to cmn-alt-pinyin; that can be done with subst: magic. So you would subst: each page (as you intend); add the characters; as you complete each you simply copy it to the form with the diacritical. Robert Ullmann 12:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If you like this I can edit {{Pinyin-n}} and {{cmn-alt-pinyin}} to set this up; if you don't like it you can always revert both of course. Your show ... Robert Ullmann 12:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking now that the Pinyin-n entries should indeed be set up like the corresponing diacritic entries - however, only a scant handful of the diacritic entries are done, and A-cai assures me that much of the info in them is wrong (going back to the wrong source fom which they came). But I would like to set up the Pinyin entries to list the diacritics under an Alternative Spellings subhead. bd2412 T 13:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking the subhead is overkill; and it really isn't exactly an "alternative spelling". I was thinking more of
yi2 (form of  with tone number)
 (form of yi2 with diacritical tone)

or something like that. Should I set it up so you could take a look? Robert Ullmann 13:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as somewhere in the mix it indicates that this is a Mandarin pinyin transliteration... bd2412 T 14:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've modded both templates. The idea would be to change PAGENAME to subst:PAGENAME, and do the 'bot run. Then we are all set to add characters and short defs. The entries not done yet show up in the existing category for Chinese words needing work, so several people can edit if desired. I used "syllable" for the moment. See what you think. Robert Ullmann 15:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I lost the Mandarin pinyin cat (the people here changed our wireless s/w, driving me nuts for 2 days, of course this is not an actual excuse.) put it back in the template where it won't get lost. Robert Ullmann 21:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you think we should have separate categories for the numbered and diacritic entries? There will be over 1,400 of each, already a good size cat for either... that's pushing my thinking in that direction. bd2412 T 22:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I like it the way it is, sorting them together. As long as we use the cmn-alt-pinyin template, (which is where the cat was, and should be) we can always change it. I added the lc TOC template, doesn't seem too big at all. (certainly not more than 200 at each letter of the alphabet) wait 'till you see Han characters, with an average of 1000 at each radical ... sleepy time now, 2AM Nairobi, see you soon. Robert Ullmann 22:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Tweaked it a bit more; I had lost the "#Mandarin" section link; added a stub-like template so it is obvious what to replace when adding the characters (and we can mod the cat and text later if desired). Robert Ullmann 14:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
True - definitely best to keep as much as possible in that cmn-alt-pinyin template. Good thinking. bd2412 T 21:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Going to begin subst'ing tomorrow night, will do one letter per day. I will try to complete the entries as I go. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Good-o. Do it by replacing {{Pinyin-n| with {{subst:Pinyin-n|subst=subst:| and the PAGENAME will be fixed. (I think you could just run this through all of them and then add the characters as you plan, but whichever way you like!) Robert Ullmann 17:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I was just going to add the PAGENAME subst to the template itself before subst'ing the templates. bd2412 T 19:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
(left margin again ;-) that's fine if you do them all at once, otherwise the remainder say subst:PAGENAME instead of the pagename ... this works both for subst and include. But whatever, you know what you're doing. Robert Ullmann 21:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I fixed the template to handle the (e.g.) a/a0/a5 case, and sort a in the proper place. (even though "5" is more correct, it makes more sense to sort a on a0, right? looks good...) Robert Ullmann 15:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which is correct[edit]

Certainly I've seen several people comment that the tone markings should not be wikified in translation sections (which makes sense, as they are only lookup aids.) This is correct now, right? --Connel MacKenzie 08:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A yao has it right; the form with tone numbers won't exist (unless it happens to be one syllable), and the form with the diacritics is preferred in the translations sections (sigh, another thing to add to WT:AC in the re-write ;-) although the diacritic form is specific to one language. (as is the translation in a lot of cases, they are often disambiguated). Robert Ullmann 11:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with that - if you are looking to write something in Chinese, you would not write it with the numbers (unless you were unable to write the diacritics, I guess). bd2412 T 14:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Irregular plurals[edit]

I just noticed that you also added lots of regular plurals to Category:English irregular plurals ending in "-es". Please read the rules on Category:English nouns with irregular plurals!!! If you want to have them changed, please discuss first. Ncik 12:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well done..[edit]

..for finding a good compromise solution. It sometimes seems there aren't enough level-headed people around... Widsith 15:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course, they are irregular forms, but, eh. bd2412 T 15:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I happen to disagree, but it's probably best to avoid the discussion entirely! Widsith 16:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Irregular plurals[edit]

Could you stop reorganising Category:English irregular plurals and its subcategories for awhile. I think we should discuss (on Category talk:English irregular plurals) what we are aiming for first. Ncik 16:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm done. bd2412 T 16:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Argh. I'd hoped you'd leave correct irregular plurals (such as bases, koories, etc) in Category:English irregular plurals ending in "-es". But nevermind, readding them shouldn't be too difficult. I've posted a few questions on Category talk:English irregular plurals now. Ncik 16:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


If you find you have large scale tasks such as the subst you are now doing manually, we have created this page for requesting bot runs. It is a much simpler process for a bot to do the replacements, unless you really want to in which case, more power to ya. Just thought I would let you know about it. - TheDaveRoss 16:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is more of a pain than I had anticipated - please feel free to 'bot it, as the individual changes I thought I'd be addressing will have to be dealt with later anyway. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Running now. And done. - TheDaveRoss 16:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Bam! :) bd2412 T 20:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, but it was run without doing subst:Pinyin-n|subst=subst: so the PAGENAME still appears in the entries ... we need to change {{{{{subst|}}}PAGENAME}} to {{subst:PAGENAME}} ... ? Robert Ullmann 11:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed we do! bd2412 T 16:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Legal assistance[edit]


Some bizarre amount of misinformation is being put forth on WT:BP#Some 'bots that might be useful. suggesting that clear copyright violations, really aren't copyright violations because the OED's copyright of their list of words (without definitions) is "dubious."

Could you please shed some light on the situation. If not, could you please direct me to someone who can? I don't know where WMF hides its lawyer(s). One of the mailing lists perhaps?


--Connel MacKenzie 22:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

...but do read the thread first, because as the one who used the word "dubious", I can say that it was certainly not to condone any copyright violations, or to suggest that we misuse the OED's list of words. —scs 22:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll have a look, but it will take me a day to get to it. Things have been busy around here! bd2412 T 03:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Pinyin entries[edit]

In reformatting the Han character entries, I linked all the Mandarin pinyin (in the diacritic form). Connel is now complaining that I've clogged up Special:Wantedpages ... the top 1000 entries are pretty much all missing pinyin entries.

I was thinking of generating all the missing ones, with the characters and the simple meanings where available. The code is simple, and I have most of it. What do you think? Robert Ullmann 04:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like an entirely reasonable plan to me. bd2412 T 06:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Shall we do something with the ones with tone numbers? Which leads to an interesting observation: the Mandarin entries for words use tone 0 fairly consistently, while the single Han character entries always use 5. Have you looked at User:Robert_Ullmann/Mandarin_Pinyin? (and cheers!) Robert Ullmann 06:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The entries for tone numbers should essentially be identical to the entries for the corresponding diacritic. A "0" tone and a "5" tone should be identical but for a usage note indicating why one or the other is used, I think. bd2412 T 02:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, but there really isn't any reason why one or the other is used, except that some people thought "no tone" should be 0 and some thought it should be 5 (would have been nice if the original scholars had simply used 0, but they reasonably thought no tone should be no tone number ...). Would be kinda nice if we could do one thing consistently. Robert Ullmann 02:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Ours is not to reason why... if both are in use (and there's no rhyme or reason favoring one or the other) then we have entries on both with a usage note describing the alternative is something along the lines of an alternate spelling. bd2412 T 04:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing English plurals[edit]

The {{plural of}} template can take a language parameter. I only learned this myself earlier today, but you can type {{plural of|[[arthropod]]|lang=English}} for instance, and it will automatically be categorized in Category:English plurals. You don;t have to put in a whole category tag. --EncycloPetey 07:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

θείον and theion[edit]

Greetings Widsith! Some time ago you moved theion to θείον. However, I believe that iwe should have a separate entry for theion based on the substantial usage of this transliteration in English-language theological writings (645 Google books hits, the bulk of them meeting this description), including the examples in the entry. What do you think? bd2412 T 00:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, sounds good to me. I've never come across the word in English, but it does seem to be out there. Widsith 09:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Done - since the cites were to the English, I've moved those as well (and added a bunch of others). Cheers! bd2412 T 11:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


I've been on Wikipedia for a long time and saw that Transwiki:Urban prairie was moved here, so I moved over the updated version. Maybe you could check it out, since I see a lot of red links. --Awiseman 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


I'm doing updates again. (I left a reply on the talk page). For junk just make a note so I can add it to my exclusion list. The blue links are either an out of date dump or a bug (please leave them a little while and I'll try to check for bugs). RJFJR 06:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing other people's comments[edit]

Please don't edit other people's comments, as you did at Don't ask me why, but it's been discussed, and apparently it's considered condescending and offensive. —RuakhTALK 05:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

BD2412 used AWB, which was shown in the edit summary. This link says AWB is semi-automated so I don't think it's his/her fault. Tim Q. Wells 05:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
One is not excused from damage one causes using a tool; many elements of a car are automated, but if you crash your car into someone else's, it's your fault. w:WP:AWB gives as the very first rule of using AWB, "Check every edit before you save it" (emphasis in original). —RuakhTALK 06:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it was BD2412's fault for being condescending and offensive by correcting the spelling using AWB, which was my point. You could agree with my point and agree that it was BD2412's fault for correcting the mistake simultaneously. Tim Q. Wells 07:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We hardly need to be fixing spelling in the discussions anyway (and sometimes it is intentional). It is easy in AWB to exclude non-main-namespace entries. And the main namespace edits should be checked very carefully; one doesn't want to "correct" the spelling in a quotation. Robert Ullmann 11:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I bother to fix spelling in the discussions at all because certain batches of information, such as that at User:RJFJR/WTconcord, try to pick up all the words used in the dictionary to find those that should be added, and frequent repetition of spelling errors in discussions clouds these searches, making these resources less useful to the project. The benefit to Wiktionary of having a clear record of which words are missing and the frequency with which words are used outweighs any contributor's right to leave errant spelling hanging out there. I've been careful to not edit or to revert my own errant edits of intentional uses of the misspelled version. bd2412 T 13:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Who minds my proofreading their comments? and explain why, so soon after a very clear decision than items on talk pages should not be "corrected" your bot is now doing so. --Enginear 15:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that discussion, but it doesn't change the fact that, as I've explained above, the frequency of such misspellings cloud the ability of our tools to determine what words are in use in Wiktionary itself, and should therefore be defined in Wiktionary. Also, I'm not using a bot. However, in order to prevent a recurrence of this controversy I'll avoid such tasks in the future. bd2412 T 15:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Those tools shouldn't be reading the discussion pages. They will get all sorts of crud. (Should we fix "repitition" in your comment above? Why? No tool should be reading this page in producing a concordance.) In producing User:Robert Ullmann/Missing I parse all the text in each main namespace entry, taking out template names, user names, http links, html comments, etc., also capture words from definition lines and not from quotations, titles, authors etc. RFJR just seems to crunch the raw file into "words", which is why the list is full of template names, user names, etc. (and "nph-chw", which oddly doesn't occur anywhere in the XML dump?) That list is interesting, but I don't think it is worth trying to "fix" high-frequency things on it that are not problems in main namespace entries? Robert Ullmann 14:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Fixed it myself. I will point out that the problem I was correcting - the common misspelling of "pronunciation" as "pronounciation" - was a problem in main namespace entries (I corrected well over 100 examples in that namespace). Perhaps the equal frequency of this error in discussions is a symptom of the problem, and perhaps it encourages the problem by making it seem that that is in fact the correct spelling, it being used so often. However, the point is moot, as there are plenty of other things I can do here without getting involved in another spelling repair. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

AWB edits[edit]

Hi there. Could you mark all these as minor please - so we can see the wood for the trees when patrolling. Keep up the good work. SemperBlotto 08:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I'll make that my default, as it's most frequently the case now. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


What are you doing? The ISO 3166 code is "en" and the default language on the English Wiktionary is English! --Connel MacKenzie 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but if you don't put anything there, it doesn't automatically put the entry in Category:English plurals. However, having it in the template as |lang=English saves fifteen characters of space (over having that category). And a lot of English plurals have no category at all, so this process catches them as well. bd2412 T 03:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
That is demonstrably false. They are in the plurals category, unless someone has maliciously broken that template. --Connel MacKenzie 11:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I've tested it - add a plural with the {{plural of}} template with neither a language parameter nor addition of Category:English plurals and the word does not show up in the category. If the category should do that by default, it's failing to do so. bd2412 T 11:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I see the error in {{plural of}} now. But I am left wondering why you would want to change entries instead of fixing the template? Since that (having lang=English) is directly against the existing conventions, it is very inconsistent to take that approach! --Connel MacKenzie 11:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry about the temporary block - I don't know how else to be sure AWB will stop. --Connel MacKenzie 11:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Dropping a message on a user's talk page stops it until the message is viewed. bd2412 T 11:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Please stop! See Template talk:plural of! --Connel MacKenzie 11:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we're talking past each other - I have stopped - the only parameter I've added since your message was one to test whether the categorization function was working. So should I bother removing the "lang=English" parameters already added? There's a few thousand, though I suppose a bot could do that job just as well - you may want to check the verb form templates as well, I think I saw the same problem, at least with the third-person singular template. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I see now what happened. When User:Eclecticology blocked the bot, and pissed off that administrator to no end, the cleanup task never got finished. So the lang= parameter wasn't added when it should have been, and other languages didn't get e.g. lang=French added. So the lang= parameter was supposed to be optional for a little while, while those all got corrected (but none of that happened when Ec pissed him off.) Before moving on to the verb form templates, I'd best generate a cleanup list/bot run to clean the rest of this up. I'm sleepy too, so a reminder may be helpful. --Connel MacKenzie 11:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll be sure to remind you when I wake up! I doublechecked, and the situation is definitely the same with the third-person singular template, and who knows which else. bd2412 T 11:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi, Thank you very much for your advice. I'm sorry you had to correct all those entries and I will use the template for any other entry I create. Thanks. Tim Q. Wells 05:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Plural nouns[edit]

Thanks a lot for your tireless, ceaseless devotion to English plurals. Also thank you for doing it during slow hours so as to minimize the number of people whose recent changes get flooded by it.  :-) In deep appreciation, we've nominated you for bot, at Wiktionary:Votes. Hopefully the vote will pass, and then you will no longer need to restrict your bot-like editing to the slow hours!! :D

I've never used a bot, and am a little leery of the concept. Frankly, I like doing this manually because it lets me pick out errors in the entries and make other changes as I go. bd2412 T 04:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

AWB, stop.[edit]

--Connel MacKenzie 11:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


I don't think the noun legalness has a plural. How would you use legalnesses? RJFJR 14:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Similarly licitness. I think most nouns ending in -ness are uncountable. RJFJR 14:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If you can discuss the legalness or licitness of two separate acts, then you can discuss their legalnesses or licitnesses. However, I can see where either would fail the CFI. bd2412 T 18:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)