User talk:Britannic124

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


In general, we do not give every possible gender, number, case, etc. of translations. Only the lemma form is listed; for adjectives, this is usually the masculine singular nominative form. --EncycloPetey 05:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, Spanish does not have a "common" gender. There are some nouns that exist as either masculine or feminine, but there is not a distinct "common" gender as there is in Dutch or some other languages. You may want to stick with languages that you know well. --EncycloPetey 05:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No. As I said, we don't do that. Only the lemma form is included. --EncycloPetey 05:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


Please do not duplicate translations. The Spanish was already there.

Please do not add gender to adjective translations. Adjectives exist in multiple genders, not just a single one. Nouns have fixed gender, so we indicate that in translations, but adjectives have variable gender so we don't. --EncycloPetey 05:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop and take some time to learn Wiktionary standards. Repeatedly re-adding information that an experienced admin has informed you not to does not make a good impression. --EncycloPetey 05:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


Ambox blue question.svg
This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

Britannic124 (block logactive blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter loguser creation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

Hey, I haven't defied anything you've said. I have been talking to you and listening. Why must you admins always have the last word, then block? That is unfair. I haven't been rude, or harassing, or vandalizing. And when I go to ask another question, I'm blocked. Please, let me speak to you, EncycloPetey.
Please read WT:BLOCK and WT:AGF. These are very different from what you might be expecting if you're familiar with Wikipedia.
The problem here is that you were not listening. Your edits repeatedly added information that I removed; I kept trying to indicate to you that your additions were incorrect; but you kept adding them; and you were not stopping to listen to what I had to say. Wiktionary relies on editors to follow standard formatting in their edits. When an editor repeatedly makes the same mistakes it creates a great deal of cleanup for a very few regulars. Wiktionary policy is to block these individuals. This is different from Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey 05:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
They weren't repeated edits, they were different! You said there was no common gender, so I changed it to "m and f". I take Spanish in school, so that is obvious to you and me, but not to others, and that's why I put it there. Same with the snow-covered, not everyone knows how to conjugate words in other languages. --Britannic124 05:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Again, you're not listening. Nouns have fixed gender, but fuerte is an adjective. It does not have a fixed gender, so a gender should not be included with the translation. I put it back that way, but you added a second translation of "strong" as fuerte. I put it back again, but you added the information back again. The translation only needs to be in there once, not twice, and it should not have a gender stated because it's an adjective with variable gender. The translations section of an English entry is not the place to provide details of Spanish grammar. --EncycloPetey 05:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
It was a double edit (two people trying to edit at the same time), so it would appear that I did it twice, but not really. But, I'll stop. You could have just talked to me, like this, I would have listened, I always rather talk thing through/over. I'm not one to completely ignore someone and do my own thing, I was trying to adjust it to what you said, and to provide the info to other people. You've now explained the rules to me, so what's to make me do it again? --Britannic124 05:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
If you recall, I did start by talking to you and gently pointing out mistakes. However, I cannot spend all my time as an editor doing that. If I did, then I would not have time for my own contributions. "Wiktionary is not Wikipedia" is an important pillar of Wiktionary, and you're again seeing this process of communication through the expectations you've likely built while working on Wikipedia. Wiktionary is very short staffed by comparison with Wikipedia. For example, see the "Recent edits" and compare with Wikipedia. Here, it is possible to see most of the edits over a long period because there are usually fewer editors on-line at any time. Right now, I can see that there have been only about four regular editors active in the past 30 minutes, and three newcomers. The difference from Wikipedia exists in part because of the kind of specialized knowledge needed, and in part because of the stringent formatting restrictions. It's a very different kind of information we create, and so a very different group of people and very different mentality exists. Did you read the two policy documents I recommended? --EncycloPetey 06:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I did read the documents. And you have told me what is done on here. So, why would I change it again? --Britannic124 06:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

of or pertaining to furry fandom[edit]

is not a noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


Please do not add erroneous or misleading information about US pronunciations. Please learn the norm of differnce between phonemes and regional phonetic transcription. Please add Pronunciation sections in the correct sequence within an entry. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Should I be adding it under General American pronunciations? —Britannic124 (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
No. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Phonemic transcriptions of Japanese are generally so close to the romanization that, with a few exceptions, there's generally little reason to give these.
For phonetic transcriptions of Japanese, [u͍] and [w͍] are apparently not kosher IPA, and are deprecated in favor of [ɯᵝ] and [ɰᵝ]; [a̠] and [ä] are apparently equivalent, with [ä] preferred if there are no additional diacritics above the letter, and [a̠] preferred for better legibility if there are any additional diacritics above the letter (such as [ã̠] with the tilde to mark nasality; compare [ä̃] where the tilde and diaresis obscure each other).
-- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses [u͍] and [w͍], and says they are more correct than [ɯᵝ] and [ɰᵝ]. —britannic124 (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
As I said, please see w:Japanese phonology and w:User_talk:Kwamikagami#Q_re:_recent_change_to_Japanese_phonology.23Vowels (both of which are on Wikipedia, as it happens). w:Japanese phonology uses phonemic /u/ and /w/, and phonetic [ɯᵝ] and [ɰᵝ]. There are also some instances on that page of phonetic [u͍] and [w͍], but these appear to be older, hence my use of the term deprecated above -- again, see the thread on Kwami's user page (linked above) for more detail. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Belated addendum re: Japanese phonemic transcriptions -- after talking with Kwami and reading some more, it seems to make sense to include phonemic transcriptions using periods . between each mora. See 孤児#Etymology_2 for one such instance, or 報償#Japanese for another. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)



Have you read Wiktionary:Redirections? You seem to be creating an awful lot of redirects; are you sure they're all supposed to exist?

Thanks in advance,
23:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm creating these redirects because the sound can be represented by different symbol combinations. —britannic124 (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
If the "different symbol combinations" are attested, then they should probably use {{alternative form of}}, and if they're not, then no redirect is necessary. No? —RuakhTALK 23:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • A 2p addition here -- looking briefly at Special:Contributions/Britannic124 shows entries for Ainu. Ainu uses a number of specialized katakana characters that are not always easily accessible via Japanese input methods, such as the small ku character , compared to the regularly sized ku character . Note that these are separate Unicode points, not just font size artifacts.
I haven't read WT:Redirections in a while, but my sense is that things like イタク should indeed have hard redirects to イタㇰ, as (so far as I know) this lemma form is only used for Ainu, and the only reason to use the big ku instead of the correct small ku is due to user interface limitations, and not to any real-world orthographic variations. However, things like アイヌイタㇰ, where all that's missing is a middle dot as in lemma form アイヌ・イタㇰ, should probably be listed as soft redirects, i.e. as stub entries using {{alternative form of}} or {{alternate spelling of}}.
-- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring program[edit]

イランカプテ、ブリタンニック124! User:Metaknowledge told me you're working on Ainu, which is very exciting.

The first linguistic project I ever did was on the syllabic structure on Ainu, which included a basic overview. That experience cemented my love for endangered languages, and last year, I did some volunteer interpretation work for some visiting Ainus (Japanese <--> English, not Ainu!)

After some recent discussion, mentoring program was started up just today, and I was wondering if you are interested in having a mentor, to help with formatting and any questions you might have. You can respond here, on my talk page or on the mentoring page.

Either way, I'm excited about your Ainu work! --BB12 (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I would love to learn Ainu and preserve the language. I already know katakana, so all I would have to learn would be words and grammar. —britannic124 (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
That's awesome. Do you know about the The Ainu Association of Hokkaido? Unfortunately, they don't have any online materials. I did find a bibliography of materials at [1]. There's also a podcast at [2], but it's in Japanese.
Let me know what you think about the mentor program. --BB12 (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)



Please remember to include |lang=ja when adding Japanese pronunciations, since otherwise the "IPA" links to Appendix:English pronunciation (rather than w:Japanese phonology).

15:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will, sorry. —britannic124 (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Japanese IPA[edit]

Hello Britannic124 --

I see you've added a lot of pronunciations to Japanese terms. Thank you for your work.

Two things I noticed that I wanted to mention:

  • In general, mark morae in the phonemic transcriptions, such as /a.ɴ/, but not in the phonetic transcriptions, such as [ã̠ɴ].
  • Devoiced vowels really only occur after unvoiced consonants. [bɯ̥ᵝ] and [ɾ̠ɯ̥ᵝ], for instance, do not occur in any words that I can think of, and should be [bɯᵝ] and [ɾ̠ɯᵝ] instead. Meanwhile, [kɯ̥ᵝ] and [ɕi̥] do occur with some frequency, though notably not in every instance of ku or shi.

-- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's found in loanwords. —britannic124 (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I've never heard devoiced vowels after voiced consonants, even in extensive katakana-speak by native JA speakers. Come to think of it, I can't think of of any cases of devoiced vowels after voiced consonants in English either... Do you have any examples in mind? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 04:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


Hello again, just ran across this entry of yours --

  • There's no /ji/ sound in Japanese, only /i/.
  • This is based on an acronym first made popular in Japan in 1991 by the Fortune magazine, and it apparently stands for young, independent, free (or some variant, such as free-minded), and few, and was used as a label for the generation after the yuppies. So far as I can tell from a quick look at my dictionaries and the Japanese web, it doesn't have much to do with furries -- ergo, it is not equivalent to English yiffy.

-- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it was coined by britannic124 in 2012. :| —britannic124 (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Heh. :) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 04:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I also made the words イッフ and イッフする. (>_>;) —britannic124 (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


I've reverted your edit at [[stand]], because it's not accurate: English plosives are not aspirated after word-initial /s/. And even if they were, it would be strictly phonetic, not phonemic, so wouldn't be compatible with the /.../ notation. —RuakhTALK 06:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-accent-tagged pronunciations.[edit]

Why do you add pronunciations that are not tagged with any accent, right above the separate bullet points for US, UK, etc., pronunciations? Surely the latter make the former unnecessary and wrong? —RuakhTALK 17:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen on other pages with a pronunciation untagged. I assumed it was the preferred pronunciation (or the non-dialect pronunciation), such as how the words are organized in the the “Rhyme” pages. —britannic124 (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The rhymes pages are organized by UK pronunciations. There's no such thing as a "preferred pronunciation" or "non-dialect pronunciation" in English, unless you mean the standard American and British pronunciations, in which case those should be tagged as "US" and "UK", respectively. —RuakhTALK 17:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I found what I was trying to say, it's using the diaphonemes for English. Also, please check here [[3]] —britannic124 (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Got it. Well, please stop doing that. It's counterproductive, when there's already a properly-tagged U.S. pronunciation and a properly-tagged U.K. pronunciation, to throw in another pronunciation that's less informative, and doesn't even explain what it is. —RuakhTALK 18:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I just thought it was good to show how the dictionary prefers you to say it. Sorry. —britannic124 (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Then why are you removing enPR pronunciations? Those are supposed to be there as well. You don't have to add any, but you shouldn't remove ones that are there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, but we should definitely show a diaphoneme pronunciation. —britannic124 (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Why? And what does "how the dictionary prefers you to say it" mean? I just don't understand. :-/   —RuakhTALK 15:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Please look at this page and then this page, and you'll see what I'm talking about. —britannic124 (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I have looked, and do not see whatever it is that you seem to. —RuakhTALK 17:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Block 2[edit]

You clearly aren't taking the time to read and understand the messages we've sent to you concerning your problems with added pronunciations. You continue to use non-phonemes in phonemic transcriptions, use non-standard labelling, and add pronunciations that are flatly incorrect. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

narrow transcriptions[edit]

Hi! I think it's great that you're adding narrow transcriptions to entries like [[tomato]]. One thing: /slashes/ are used for broad transcriptions (which note only phonemes), and [brackets] are used for narrow transcriptions (which note allophones, etc), and it would be helpful if you added the narrow transcriptions without removing the broad ones. (Take a look at my changes to [[tomato]].) Again, thanks for adding the narrow transcriptions! I find them quite useful, though some editors here aren't used to them. - -sche (discuss) 01:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I see you've been blocked by another admin for adding the narrow transcriptions in /slashes/ rather than [brackets]. Wiktionarians do tend to bite people who don't follow standards...and Wiktionary standards are sometimes arcane. :/ But if you get used to put the allophonic info ([ʰ] etc) in brackets and listen to the advice established users have to give you here about what our standards are, I hope you'll stick around. :) - -sche (discuss) 01:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring program[edit]

I'm sorry to see you've gotten blocked. If you are interested in the mentoring program I mentioned above, please let me know. I look forward to more contributions (that are constructive) from you! --BB12 (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


I appeal on behalf of this user. He has evidently done nothing wrong and has helped the community quite a bit. Marowmerowmer (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

And who are you, using an account whose only edit is on behalf of another user? Sockpuppetry may be punished. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I really don't know who this is… —britannic124 (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Why have I been blocked a second time…? —britannic124 (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Please review the several problems with IPA transcriptions that several of us have repeatedly discussed with you. You have continued to make the same erroneous edits and malformatted additions despite this. The community does not have time to continually clean up after you. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you just tell me exactly what I'm doing wrong…? It's not like I don't want to learn… —britannic124 (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
What's the point? We do keep telling you, but with no changes in your editing problems. Hence, the block. If you corrected your edits and changed your editing patterns, that would demonstrate a willingness to learn. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, tell me now, because being blocked doesn't exactly teach me anything with the IPA. Tell me now, while I'm blocked. Please. —britannic124 (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


  • First: We do not use diaphoneme notation in phonemic trascriptions.
  • 'Second: Pronunciations should be tagged by region (UK, US, Can, Aus) and not left unmarked nor have region information removed.
  • Third: Rhymes links never use diaphonemes; they use a standardized set of notations for consistency.
  • Fourth: Some of your added pronunciations were simply incorrect. Please review your recent contributions to see how other editors have corrected them.

This is not an exhaustive list, but it will do for a start. Please do not blithely dismiss these community norms as you have in the past. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. —britannic124 (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


There are several problems with this edit. First of all, Greek ({{el}}) is not the same as Ancient Greek {{grc}}. Many English scientific terms come from Ancient Greek, but almost none come from Greek. Secondly, the word Πανθαλασσά never existed; Panthalassa was pieced together from two separate Ancient Greek words (παν and θάλασσα). Finally, please transliterate terms in etymologies using the tr= parameter, according to the guidelines at WT:GRC TR. Thanks! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I got this information from the Wikipedia article for Panthalassa. —britannic124 (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll go and fix the Wikipedia article. In the mean time, please do not add these kinds of etymologies unless you are familiar with the language(s) in question. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

IPA transcriptions[edit]

I see you're adding a bunch of IPA transcriptions. Thanks, we really need them. But just one thing: we differentiate between phonemic transcriptions and phonetic transcriptions. Phonemic transcriptions are the ones between slashes (like /ˈkæzəm/) and phonetic transcriptions are the ones between brackets (like [ˈkʰæzm̩]). Phonemic transcriptions just show the sounds that make up a word and not necessarily the exact pronunciations and they should only use the symbols in this chart and should not use "ʔ" for "t" or "n̩" for "ən". Phonetic transcriptions try to show the exact pronunciation and they are where you can use "ʔ" for "t" and "n̩" for "ən" if the dialect you are transcribing uses those sounds. --WikiTiki89 15:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The link doesn’t work but the chart says ‘l̩’, ‘m̩’, and ‘n̩’ can be used. —britannic124 (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I fixed the link. And you're right the chart does say that. I guess that means it's ok to use either but don't use both because having both at the same time is not necessary and can be confusing. --WikiTiki89 15:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

lie down[edit]

You have new messages Hello, Britannic124. You have new messages at Talk:lie down.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{talkback}} template.

--Sije (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


Please be more careful. You're adding words that are already there, putting words that actually belong at Rhymes:English:-ɛtɪŋ, and making other people clean up the mess. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I misinterpreted note 2. —britannic124 (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


Hi there, just wanted to mention that it's no longer necessary to use hidx in Japanese terms. It doesn't do any harm--actually the templates ignore it completely now. A few days ago I added some code to generate sort keys automatically from the hira parameter, or failing that the kata parameter, or failing that the entry's title itself. This sort of change usually goes in the "news for editors" thing (and the documentation, but I haven't gotten around to editing that yet), but there are only 3 or so creators of Japanese entries right now that I know of, so I thought I would just let them know individually. --Haplology (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I have one less thing I have to remember. (^.^; 〜britannic124 (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Japanese etymologies[edit]

Heya, I just reverted your etymology change at お父さん. I've also added more detail and references. In future though, please don't remove detail unless you have sources clearly stating that the details you're removing are incorrect.

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Old Prussian[edit]

dīnkun, ērdiw etc. are you sure these were attested in Old Prussian? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I was getting those terms from here. 〜britannic124 (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
That it is not Old Prussian but same fake constructed language. I must ask you to revert all of your Old Prussian-related edits. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
It should then be noted as such on the Wikipedia article. 〜britannic124 (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the section completely. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I've cleaned up your edits. Next time do a bit more research and don't trust blindly Wikipedia. There are more fake Prussian words that need checking inside the Category:Old Prussian nouns, mostly added by User:Beobach972, who also authored that Wikipedia section [4] all the way in 2006. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

A bit more careful next time :)[edit]

oops! JamesjiaoTC 22:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi there, I wanted to give a couple more suggestions on using the Japanese templates. One thing is {{ja-kanjitab}} now does everything that {{kanji readings tab}} does, but with the difference that ja-kanjitab doesn't require the editor to enter any kanji. (It doesn't really make any sense for {{kanji readings tab}} to exist anymore, but I wrote it before learning how to use Lua, so here we are.) So for example {{kanji readings tab|密|みつ|k1=みっ|閉|へい|k2=ぺい}} can be replaced with {{ja-kanjitab|みつ|k1=みっ|へい|k2=ぺい}}. Also, one kana form can be used without the hira field etc. so {{ja-noun|みっぺい}} works the same as {{ja-noun|hira=みっぺい}}.

I've written a template for usage examples called {{ja-usex}}, so that's available if you want to use it. It does automatic romanization and it adds ruby aka furigana. There's also {{ja-r}} which does the same type of thing for links. They're wrappers for {{usex}} and {{l}} respectively.

I've taken the liberty of making the above edits at 密閉.

Do you have strong preferences about how to romanize -suru verbs? I've been writing them with a space, e.g. anshin suru as opposed to anshin-suru or anshinsuru. At the moment all (or 99%) of the entries use that style, but it's just that--a matter of style. But I think it would be nice to have the entries use a consistent style though if you have no strong feelings about it.

Thanks Haplology (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Sorry for making more for others. (^^;
Also, not that this is going to make a difference, but I do think the romanization should be “-suru” since it is a single word. 〜britannic124 (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi, there seems to be a disagreement over what this template's correct behavior is. Someone should be able to leave out the page name as the lemma since the page name is always the lemma, or should be, such as at . Maybe my feature was your bug and your bug was my feature. What was the intended fix? I thought it worked correctly before. Haplogy () 07:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

My edit made it so the lemma could still be left out, but when a lemma was put in, it actually changed the lemma; not the kana. Please look at these tests:



As you can see, the lemma should be “{{{1}}}” and the kana should be “{{{2}}}”. But the templates still make the page name the lemma, make the first parameter the kana, and do nothing with the second parameter. I worked on fixing this for a couple of hours. My changes should still allow you to not have to put the lemma in. 〜britannic124 (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, your fix is to allow the user to enter a lemma other than the pagename. I think that this should never happen. Non-lemma pages should never have inflections. Non-lemma pages should not be carbon copies of lemma pages.
However, this is not a policy, although it was the general agreement until now.
In the meantime, most of the -i adjective inflections are broken. One way or another, it needs to be made to work again.
In a way, the code at the template pages is irrelevant because they should be moved to Lua. The behavior of that Lua code should be discussed at WT:BP if it is going to be an issue. Haplogy () 17:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
The template change I made the other day made all the pages work: {{ja-i|ちいさ|lemma=小さ}} with the lemma parameter being optional.
However, right now when I look at the different adjective entries, the entries are written: {{ja-i|小さ|ちいさ}} which was how they were before either of us started changing them.
I don’t know why they’ve all been reverted, but even if I were to revert the template to your initial edit, it still wouldn’t work. We need to know which parameter style we’re going to use if the template works with all the pages. I honestly think that the template should be {{ja-i|小さ|ちいさ|chīsa}} with each successive one being optional. For the templates {{es-conj-ar}}, {{es-conj-er}}, and {{es-conj-ir}}, typing in the lemma is required. I think the template {{ja-i}} should work so {{ja-i||ちいさ}} works on the entry 小さい, but {{ja-i|小さ|ちいさ}} can be used on other pages.
However, for the time being, I’m going to revert the template to {{ja-i|{{{1|}}}|{{{2|}}}}}, so the inflection tables will display correctly for everyone. I hope we can have an (IM) conversation about this soon. 〜britannic124 (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I still think that {{ja-i|小さ|ちいさ}} should only be used on 小さい, not on ちいさい or anywhere else, so the lemma minus -i should never be typed in. The lemma should always be the pagename, and the romanization should always be automatically generated from the kana. If the Spanish templates do it differently, it may be a deficiency with those templates. Lua is a recent development on Wikimedia projects and not all templates have been converted.
I'm still not clear on what doesn't work. Can you give a specific example?
The parameter style is not such a big issue: I'm planning to rewrite the code in Lua, and that code can be more flexible about which arguments are passed and in what order, and it can accept a lemma different from the page name, even though I'm opposed to that behavior. Haplogy () 20:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I see the validity in that argument, but for many words, the hiragana form is used much more than the kanji form, and for some, the kanji form is barely even used, such as “すばらしい” and “かわいい”. And the main reason why the lemma should be able to be put in is if the word needs has word and/or morpheme boundaries, but is made up of only kana. The second reason why the lemma should be able to be typed in is if the person wishes to use the template on their userpage or talkpage (or in their sandbox). I used to have {{ja-go-ru|〜||-}}, {{ja-i|〜||-}}, and {{ja-na|〜||-}} in my sandbox, so I could quickly reference the conjugations and inflections of various of any type of verb or noun with these endings. The reason why the romaji parameter was useful is because “” doesn’t get romanized and should be romanized differently depending on where it is. A while ago, I noticed that all my tables were messed up and said “User:Britannic124/sandboる”, “User:Britannic124/sandboい”, and “User:Britannic124/sandboxな”. If a user needs to use any of these templates, they should be able to put in the corresponding components if they want to. And typing another space and vertical line isn’t that difficult. 〜britannic124 (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
In order,
  • If the kanji spelling is so uncommon that it is an alternative spelling, then the inflection can appear there also. I forgot to mention it earlier, but alternative forms can have inflections or conjugations too. In rare cases where the kana form is the lemma, it doesn't need to show any kanji spellings because they are just alternative spellings. Yet to begin with, you overstate the case. Words like すばらしい or かわいい that usually appear as hiragana in newspapers or magazines can often be found written with kanji in books. "素晴らしい" gets a few hundred thousand hits on Google Books, and that's just the main inflection. Usage notes about how often hiragana is substituted can be put in the usage notes.
  • You are mistaken; you can indicate word/morpheme boundaries for entries which are only kana by entering e.g. {{ja-i|き.いろ}} on きいろい, although in that case no inflection should appear there.
  • How something is used on a talk page is irrelevant. Besides, users could just as easily add a link to an entry of their choice, or if they absolutely must have the inflection table on their page, they can use Special:ExpandTemplates and copy and paste the output of that.
  • Typing in another space or vertical line is that difficult when you have to do it each time for hundreds of entries. Haplogy () 13:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ainu term spellings in katakana[edit]

Heya, just saw that you moved various Ainu terms with kamuy in them from カムイ to カムィ with the small ィ. Have you found any evidence for this spelling? I note that the Ainu Times itself uses the big イ spelling for this term, as on this page. Given that the Ainu Times is one of the only publications in Ainu that uses kana spellings (at least, that I'm aware of), I'm inclined to follow their lead. Could you explain your reasoning for the move? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

See also Ainu for Beginners on the Unilang site. Lesson 3 down the page includes the term kamuyhum (thunder), compound of kamuy (god; bear) + hum (sound) with the kana spelling カムイフㇺ, using the big イ. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The reason why you might カムイ with “イ” is because the word has been adopted into the Japanese lexicon as a dialectal pronunciation of (god). Also, アイヌ語 (Ainu-go) is how Ainu is written in Japanese. But in Ainu itself, it is called アィヌイタㇰ (aynu-itak). To put it simply, the difference between the characters can be shown in their romanization: (i) vs (y). 〜britannic124 (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Let me restate. The Ainu Times is written in Ainu. The Ainu Times uses the kana spellings アイヌ and カムイ both with the big イ. That publication also takes care to consistently use small kana for the Ainu-specific variants. Their use of the big イ instead of the little ィ thus appears to be deliberate.
Other pages that I can find that include Ainu written in kana, and that also clearly distinguish between full-sized and small kana, similarly use the big イ spellings for both words.
With that in mind, and ignoring the romanization, what is your reasoning for moving these pages to the small-ィ spellings? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I visited the Ainu Times webpage and reason why it’s written as “アイヌタイムズ” is because the page is written in Japanese. And with the other words, it has to be one or the other. The sources I found that use an “イ” for the spellings barely ever use “ィ” in the entire page; which led me to assume it was a typographical error on their part.
I’d rather not argue about this. This is a collaborative website and we need to work together to find the correct answer, because I don’t care who’s right or wrong. I just want to know what’s correct and I want the correct information on this site. How should we go about doing this? 〜britannic124 (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I entirely agree with you about your statement that, "I don’t care who’s right or wrong. I just want to know what’s correct and I want the correct information on this site." I did not mean to come across as argumentative -- my intent instead was to ascertain whether the moves were backed by textual evidence, to establish whether you had sources that used the small-ィ spellings, i.e. to establish what's correct for Ainu speakers / readers.
About how do we go forward, the general ways on EN WT that I'm familiar with are WT:CFI and WT:RFV, and finding citations that might help clarify, for instance, which of アイヌ or アィヌ is the "main" spelling and which is the "alternate" spelling, with entries created and formatted accordingly (such as with usage notes and other details to help explain things). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
This source barely uses “ィ” (11 times). But I noticed that in romanizations, “ai”, “ei”, “oi”, and “ui” never appear, meaning that it’s always romanized “ay”, “ey”, “oy”, “uy” (same with “w”). The use of “ィ” and “ゥ” would make this standardized and consistent in the written Ainu language. 〜britannic124 (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm, interesting. I note that that website's spelling is quite inconsistent, for instance using big ム in places where little ㇺ would be more appropriate, such as for the word am (claw; nail) or asam (bottom; depths). Other terms show similarly scattershot orthography, making me think that this site should probably be ignored when it comes to research into consistent orthographic conventions.
As a counterpoint, the Intermediate Ainu text at, published by the Foundation for Research and Promotion of Ainu Culture, clearly lists katakana and romanized spellings on pages 8 and 9. These tables show that romanized ay is spelled in katakana as アイ with the big イ, romanized aw is spelled in katakana as アウ with the big ウ, while final consonants like the m in am or the final r in asir (new) are spelled with the small kana variants, ㇺ and ㇼ in these two cases. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Ainu spelling and numerals[edit]

I noticed you created entries for ツ゚ (tu) and ト゚ (tu). I've run into a couple texts that state that this spelling has been superseded by トゥ (tu), suggesting that these other two spellings are now obsolete.

Also, I notice that you've created both of these terms with a definition of two. A few dictionaries I've consulted (such as this one with katakana and romaji or this one with just romaji) give the Ainu term as トゥㇷ゚ in katakana, with the small ㇷ゚, and as tup in romaji. Batchelor's dead-tree dictionary lists tu as an adjective, suggesting that this can only be used to modify nouns, while listing tup as a noun. Do you have any more detail on these terms, such as how one counts in Ainu? Some languages have specific forms of number words for different contexts. Navajo, for instance, uses łá (one) in some cases and tʼááłáʼí (one) in others. Do you know if that's what is happening in the alteration between Ainu tup and tu?

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Suppressing ja-r romaji[edit]

You might be interested to know that it is possible to suppress ja-r romaji (like normal {{l}}) now: diff. —suzukaze (tc) 04:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Egyptian pronunciations[edit]

Hello, I noticed you’ve added some pronunciations to Egyptian words, but they’re unclear without being further labelled. For example, what does the pronunciation at ḫb represent? Is it intended to represent the conventional Egyptological pronunciation, or is it a reconstruction of the (hypothesized) actual original pronunciation? The two are very different, and a pronunciation for Egyptian words is not really useful without an indication of which one is meant. If it’s a reconstruction, then it’s good policy to reference where you got it from, because different authors can come up with different reconstructions according to what they hypothesize about the original phonological system of Egyptian. —Vorziblix (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


Hello. I have a question. Is ニㇱ really a Ainu word? I cannot found this word on dictionary of アイヌ文化振興. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)