User talk:Carolina wren/Archive/2009/March

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


Hi Carolina. I've been enjoying following some of your conversations elsewhere round here....and your Catalan work has been great. Would you mind sticking up a Babel template up on your user page? It's always useful to see what languages our editors can work in, or just understand for that matter. Ƿidsiþ 20:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


Please do not remove the "see also" links to the numeral appendix. Many users (and even editors) complain that the appendices are hard to find, and removing links (even links perceived to be duplicates) reduces the findability of these appendices. The "See also" section is the primary place that appendices and other such pages are to be linked. --EncycloPetey 22:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I could see the point you make, if the only other place it was linked in the entry was via {{cardinalbox}}, but I really don't the point in having both:
====Usage notes====
See [[Appendix:Latin cardinal numerals#duo|Appendix:Latin cardinal numerals]]
====See also====
* [[Appendix:Latin cardinal numerals]]
Perhaps the usage notes for unun, duo, and tres should be separated out as sub-pages of Appendix:Latin cardinal numerals that could be transcluded into both the appendix and the relevant entry for each, thereby making the usage note section of duo be:
====Usage notes====
{{:Appendix:Latin cardinal numerals/duo}}
That would avoid the appearance of a duplicative link, and help make certain that the relevant material would stay in sync between the entries and the Appendix. Carolina wren 22:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
That would not work. The length and information content is appropriate for a numeral appendix, but is too much text for a usage section on the specific word. This is why the information appears in an appendix rather than on the page itself. This also won't work for most other cases where this information must be mentioned in the Usage notes. not every Latin numeral will have it's own separate text section. The entries for ducenti (200) and other multiples of 100 share a paragraph in the appendix, as do the numerals for IV through XX. --EncycloPetey 23:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to disagree, at least in the context of unum, dos, and tres, as doing so would also obviate a need for a separate inflection section. Compare:

Usage notes

See Appendix:Latin cardinal numerals


Irregular. (Note: the word "duo", by definition, has no singular.)

Number Plural
Case \ Gender Masculine Feminine Neuter
nominative Template:Notred Template:Notred Template:Notred
genitive Template:Notred Template:Notred Template:Notred
dative Template:Notred Template:Notred Template:Notred
accusative Template:Notred / Template:Notred Template:Notred Template:Notred
ablative Template:Notred Template:Notred Template:Notred

Usage notes

Inflection of duo ( II )
nom Template:Notred Template:Notred Template:Notred
gen Template:Notred Template:Notred Template:Notred
dat Template:Notred Template:Notred Template:Notred
acc Template:Notred / Template:Notred Template:Notred Template:Notred
abl Template:Notred Template:Notred Template:Notred

Inflection : The Latin duo (two) has a highly irregular inflection. While some of the endings resemble those of a first and second declension adjective, others resemble those of a third declension adjective. In fact, its dative and ablative endings occur in no other Latin word.

The choice of ending will agree with the gender of the associated noun, which will necessarily be plural: duo equī ("two horses"), duae clāvēs ("two keys"), duo saxa ("two stones"). The ending will also agree with the grammatical case of the associated noun: duōs equōs (accusative), duārum clāvum (genitive), duōbus saxīs (dative).

Compounds : When duo is used to form compound numerals, such as duo et vīgintī or vīgintī duo ("twenty-two"), the masculine nominative singular is used, and does not inflect. However, duo does inflect when used with the plural of mīlle (thousand) to indicate how many thousands: duo mīlia ("two thousands"), duōrum mīlium ("of two thousands").

On my display the second is actually slight more compact, though I admit with a narrower one it wouldn't be. Still, it wouldn't be massively larger. The only grounds I can see to objecting to it would be an insistence on the inflection having its own L4 header, but those could be accommodated, albeit by adding height to entry.
I am also puzzled by your concern that there would be too much text for a usage note. This isn't a paper dictionary. If a longer entry is needed to give the information needed for proper use of a word, it can be done. Carolina wren 23:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

But that also breaks the formatting of entries. An inflection table should be in an Inflection section, not in a usage section. Right-floating items are already contentious and problematic in entries without transcluding them. And yes, "Wiktionary is not paper", but it's also not a data dump. There does come a point where the amount of information in an entry overwhelms its utility. Witness the recent debates over how many cognates to list ion an etymology section. Sure, we could list 180 cognates, but how useful would that make the section? --EncycloPetey 23:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Then how about a more modest transclusion (or even a simple copy) so that usage notes section includes just the info info in the appendix about compounds and reads:

Usage notes

When duo is used to form compound numerals, such as duo et vīgintī or vīgintī duo ("twenty-two"), the masculine nominative singular is used, and does not inflect. However, duo does inflect when used with the plural of mīlle (thousand) to indicate how many thousands: duo mīlia ("two thousands"), duōrum mīlium ("of two thousands")

If you insist that the added inflection information for duo in the Appendix is of sufficient importance to duo in and of itself, shouldn't that be in the entry for duo in the Inflection section anyway, either as a copy or as a second transclusion (or from my POV, the worse option of a link to the Appendix under the Inflection section)?
As for 180 cognates, that sounds like a reason to have yet another collapsible section like the translation tables if any entry ever justifiably got that overloaded. However, I'll defer to your opinion on cognates as I haven't had to deal with them much for Catalan. To the extent I have dealt with cognates, it's mostly follow the link back to the Latin and look at the other descendants. (Speaking of which, I was surprised that duo had no descendants listed. The other small Latin cardinal numbers all have several. I looked to see if there was an edit that wiped them out, but found no such edit.) Carolina wren 00:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The lack of descendants is the result of incomplete editing. Most Latin numerals didn't have entries until last summer when I created them. The smallest Latin numerals (unus, duo, tres) have all had entries for a long time, and so required revision rather than creation. I didn't always add all the new section when I had to contend with checking and correcting all the pre-existing information. Going back through the lower numerals and double-checking them all is on my long list of things to do, but until recently I was spending more of my time cleaning up Spanish verb entries to use the new inflection template I designed for them. That project might now be finished (or nearly so). --EncycloPetey 00:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The basic problem I have with all the transclusion suggestions is that it limits what can be done in the appendix. In the entry, strict format is required, including clear separation of the usage and inflection information. An appendix can mix these as needed for the explanation. I strongly dislike the idea of having to force a particular format on the appendix simply so that it will be suitable for transclusion. I also dislike the idea of duplicating all the information so that any change must be made in two places. Hense, the entry was given the briefest of summaries and the appendix is linked to for the complete information. --EncycloPetey 00:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Adminhood.  :)[edit]

'Ello there. Been watching your contributions (and your occasional marking things for deletion, which is wonderful) and I was wondering to myself why you weren't an admin. I certainly thought that you were, actually, and was surprised to look and see that you weren't.

So, the short question is if you have any interest in becoming an admin? It looks like you could make good use of the tools if you so wanted to.

Cheers. --Neskaya kanetsv 19:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, although since I've only been highly active for about one and a half months, some might think that was rushing things a bit. Carolina wren 19:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Every time that I log on, I look for vandalism since I last logged off. When I come to revert vandalism - then as often as not you have got there first. I was thnking of asking you the same question. I'll put it to the vote later. SemperBlotto 20:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh c'mon, lemme nominate please? I had actually thought of doing this several weeks ago and decided to give it a little more time. --Neskaya kanetsv 20:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I said yes. I just indicated that some might think I need more time, but that'll come out in the vote, and can be remedied if it does prove a problem. ;) Carolina wren 20:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
That was actually aimed at SB, not you, as he said that he would put it to the vote later, which would have been beating me to it.  :) --Neskaya kanetsv 20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, could you enable your email? --Neskaya kanetsv 21:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I could, but I'd rather not. I've never felt the need before to provide an email for the Wikimedia projects, and even if I did, there's no guarantee I'd answer it in a timely fashion. I speak truly in saying that my user page would in most cases the fastest way to reach me. Carolina wren 22:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I do see that an email is required for an admin, so I've given one. Hopefully, I won't need to change it to a separate email because of the volume. Carolina wren 03:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You've been nominated.  :)[edit]

Understandable, just that that is one of the things needed for adminship--the way that it was explained to me is that it allows a blocked user to directly contact an admin, when they wouldn't be able to edit a talk page, although I've never been fond of receiving said emails myself. I'm actually gonna go ahead and start the vote anyway, just enable your email before accepting it. You have until midnight UTC to accept/not accept.  :)

Congrats nonetheless. --Neskaya kanetsv 00:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think I made a few mistakes with appropriately titling the vote. Gimme a few seconds and I'll just redo it and start over, so that it is properly transcluded. --Neskaya kanetsv 01:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. You should be able to mosey along over to the votes now and properly accept the nomination should you so wish to. --Neskaya kanetsv 01:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Done Carolina wren 03:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
You should now have some new buttons. Welcome. Please add an entry to the list at Wiktionary:Administrators. SemperBlotto 07:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

WT:BP#Move Category:US to Category:American English[edit]

Hi. Your question prompted me to rethink the proposal. Please comment at the new heading. Thanks. Michael Z. 2009-03-19 15:56 z

Another babel template for you.[edit]

Just whilst I was generally fiddling around here, I have added for you a template for cy-0. Hope this helps. Usually when I see missing templates, I go over and steal them from, where their templates are quite complete, and generally well formatted. --Neskaya kanetsv 22:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We also now have a template for sw-0. I'll see what I can do about the last one.  :) --Neskaya kanetsv 22:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And, no sooner said ... You may want to go and find the actual colour used in the rest of the -0 templates here and see if you can change the colours in the ones that I just imported off of Wikipedia, but other than that you're set to go. --Neskaya kanetsv 22:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. The color's are fine now though haw has a different problem. Carolina wren 22:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Babel-0 entries[edit]

I don't see the point of these. Surely, there are hundreds of languages that you don't speak. Doesn't the absence of an entry mean just that? SemperBlotto 22:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm using them to indicate that I know a few words and perhaps some of the grammatical features of the language, but not enough to conduct an actual conversation in them at even a basic level. Carolina wren 22:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
OK. Babel-O.1 would be silly. Perhaps I'll add German and Spanish to mine. SemperBlotto 22:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for welcoming me to wiktionary and the tips regarding the article I had newly made (Muff (chicken)). I have removed content from the original article and transferred it as a subheading of the article on muff. Please aid me in correcting any incorrect formatting or procedure.

Thank you,

Sicilianu101 04:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


Why did you {{delete}} this?—msh210 18:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

One word def from an IP contributor. No obvious support for the given def via either Google or Urban Dictionary. (UD does have an entry, but not with this meaning. There does appear to be a hip hop artist or group that goes by the name "Fricky Fresh", which in that context probably is frick + -y, but that doesn't support the given meaning either. In short, the entry wasn't usable as is, and at most should be treated as a very informal request that it be added to Requested Entries. Carolina wren 19:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough.—msh210 19:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


Would you be willing to look into this etymology. I can't imagine that anyone can know such specific morphological information about the etymon, without knowing what language it is. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That was almost the etymology the GDLC has for the word except that it had them as hypothetical forms, so I've changed the etyl to match. No idea whether bana is indeed an Occitan cognate, as all I'm certain of is that it is a nonstandard Eastern (i.e. occidental) dialectal variant. The entry adder might have misinterpreted "occ." in the DIEC CVB as Occitan. On the other hand, Eastern Catalan and Occitan are part of a spectrum, so it's certainly reasonable that Occitan could have have bana, so I'd want to not find it in an Occitan dictionary before challenging bana.


Hi. I appreciate that you're trying to move things along, but what is there to moderate with only one party's talking? I addressed DCDuring's 5 concerns under WT:BP#Move Category:US to Category:United States English, and he hasn't been interested in participating since. I tried to engage him further on his talk page, but I can only interpret his lack of response as “don't bother me unless you want to embrace my ideas, and develop them too.” My optimism is waning. Michael Z. 2009-03-28 21:01 z

Latin months[edit]

I've finished updated all of them now. --EncycloPetey 01:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for catching my type with setembre, tho I'd like to think I'd've caught it once I finished the last of the Catalan months. (This comment also marks my first use of my souped up signature. — Carolina wren discussió 02:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)