User talk:Catonif

About dunque and unque

Discussion moved to Talk:dunc.

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Vininn126 (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Does *farβātos exist?

Hello, I am curious about your recent edit to the etymology of barbātus which removed the derivation from *farβātos. If the Proto-Italic form existed at all, it seems it must have been the ancestor of the Latin word, since we say it is "reconstructable back to a Proto-Indo-European **bʰardʰéh₂tos". Is there some issue with the Proto-Italic reconstruction? Thanks! Urszag (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Urszag: Ack! You caught me red handed immediately! Oh well...

The thing is, here on Wiktionary Proto-Italic is currently a mess: not only our spellings are very inconsistent, and when they are consistent they are not very smart (why *β for example? it's *f! our WT:AITC should be updated), but the main problem of most of the Proto-Italic entries is the misconception of what the term even refers to.

Proto-Italic is “the reconstructable ancestor of the Italic languages”, that means that our entries should be reconstructions based on what we can deduce from the several attested forms in Latin and all the Italic inscriptions, a.k.a. from the bottom. What actually happens most of the time, is that PIt entries have Latin as their sole descendant, and can be reconstructed not with Italic terms, but with other Indo-European ones, a.k.a. from the top. That makes our PIt entries just pages with objectionable spelling and no valuable information, except for the link to the Latin entry, and that of the PIE one. Just useless in-betweens that offer nothing but clutter and confusion.

These reasons are why I'm planning to start a mega-RFD with all of the PIt entries of this kind (followed by a reasonable spelling reform), so that we can make sense and value of this. A mega-RFD takes time to put together (no, I'm just procrastinating), and I promised myself that until I start it I won't touch PIt entries, but here I fell into temptation: not only we have Latin as the sole descendant, but we're also reconstructing an initial *f- (which though it is most likely to have been pronounced that way by speakers of PIt) irregularly changed into *b- in Latin, thus making it impossible to reconstruct a PIt *f- just with Latin. So we have a reconstruction page that (1) has only one descendant, and (2) doesn't even reflect that.

Thank you for reaching out and not reverting me immediately. I'll try not to do anything more to PIt until I'll do the RFD and reach consensus. Catonif (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. And in fact, you did not touch the reconstruction page yet. I did see that the PIt form had Latin as the sole descendant and wonder about that too. I think your plan of addressing all such Proto-Italic cases at a single time is a good idea. I see though that de Vaan refers to forms like "PIt. *farfā-", despite it apparently not being directly attested in any Italic branch aside from Latin.--Urszag (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Urszag: Thank you for understanding, and yes, de Vaan likes to do that, for some reason. Probably because he's more interested about the external proof, i.e. the relationship with PIE, rather than the internal Italic one. As I defined it before, he "reconstructs from the top". About *farfā in particular though, we actually have farfecchia so I think it should be kept. Catonif (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Removing Template:deverbal

Hi. I have changes not-yet-pushed that convert uses of id2=deverbal into {{deverbal}}. I notice you made the opposite change in some cases. The problem with your change is that it removes the category CAT:Italian deverbals, which I think is more important than noting whether a given word is derived from the suffix -o, -a or -e (which should be self-evident from the ending of the word). Benwing2 (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Hello! If we want those entries to end up in CAT:Italian deverbals we can set CAT:Italian terms suffixed with -a (deverbal) and CAT:Italian terms suffixed with -o (deverbal) as subcategories thereof. I think that the categories should stay separate, just like CAT:Italian terms suffixed with -are and CAT:Italian terms suffixed with -ire are separate. Catonif (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Still not sure I see the point of this; the reason for distinguishing -are from -ire is that they have entire distinct conjugations below them, but there is nothing of the sort for -o vs. -a vs. -e deverbals, which don't seem to have semantic distinctions among them. But if you really want those categories, I would suggest we create a specialized etymology template something like {{it-deverbal|abbagliare<t:to dazzle>|-o}}, which automatically converts to something like {{deverbal|it}}, from {{af|it|abbagliare<t:to dazzle>|-o<id:deverbal><pos:deverbal suffix>}}. The code you've been adding like From {{af|it|abbagliare|t1=to dazzle|-o|id2=deverbal|pos2=forms deverbals}}. is long and redundant and is likely to lead to all sorts of inconsistently formatted etymologies if we don't clean it up. Benwing2 (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, the {{it-deverbal}} idea sounds good. Catonif (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Catonif (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2 I made {{it-deverbal}} and tried it out on sferra, abbaio and pago and placed the two categories in CAT:Italian deverbals. Catonif (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Proto-Italic question: *opeō

Discussion moved to Reconstruction talk:Proto-Italic/opeō.

disabled rhymes

Hi, I see several pages where you disabled the rhyme in {{it-pr}}, e.g. trabalzone, zozzeria, zozzezza and several others. I'm removing these because I don't understand why we would want to disable the rhyme. I think it's reasonable to do so for proscribed pronunciations but not standard ones. Benwing2 (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Hi, those date back to when I planned to sort out the rhyme categories. You see, rhyming a word with another word with the same suffix is somewhat an impure rhyme, so if you wanted to rhyme mangiare you'd be looking for words like mare, chiare etc. but the category is currently bloated with all the other -are verbs. Same things goes for all highly productive suffixes, like -ezza, -one (augmentative), -eria, etc. I was thinking to remove such affixed terms from the category, and then placing the entire category [Term suffixed with -...] (or in -are's case, CAT:Italian verbs ending in -are) in the appropriate rhyme category. But I've practically given up on that project so you can put them back in the rhyme categories. Catonif (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I see. You'd definitely want to do something like that semi-automatically if you wanted it done. Benwing2 (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Zuccu

If a quote uses a certain form of a word, you can't just go and modify it even if the change you want to make is grammatically and morphologically correct. It's falsifying a quote and not permitted. Robbie SWE (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Robbie SWE Oh you're right, sorry, I forgot I added a quote there and from the diff I presumed they just changed a collocation. Catonif (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistent use of Template:tr-def-suffix form

Your template {{Template:tr-def-suffix form}} is used inconsistently. The definition line for -lı does not have the number "1." before it like it should. I can't have the template emit "#" because on the -sız page the # is already there and I would get "1. # ...". Can you go through the uses and make them consistent with each other and with our entry layout guidelines?

I fixed another bug by changing a regular space to a non-breaking space. The regular space was eaten by template processing. " " is not special, it is the same as typing a space. You have to write " ". Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Vox Sciurorum The template is supposed to only be used in definition lines (i.e. after #), misuses seem to have been introduced by Orexan. I will gladly fix them in my next slice of free time, though I'd like to make clear that I'm not responsible for this. Thanks for fixing the spaces thing, didn't realise. Catonif (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Catonif I meant to fix the head templates from suffix to suffix form on a bunch of entries but I broke other things apparently. I try to make the morpheme forms look like -uk, -keç, -kün etc, not the template by itself without a # but kinda like a sub-head, and then the definition is below, numbered. This makes sense to me but I have a suspicion that the feeling isn't mutual. Orexan (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Orexan, and first of all thank you for your excellent contributions! Now, about this: it seems a wise choice to centralise most information, most importantly definitions, but also IMO etymology, only in the lemma form. This is comes in handy when, say, a user wants to edit a definition, and doesn't have to go through the hassle of copy-pasting his change on the other 3~7 entries: information that is duplicated on more entries is bound to get out of sync, and hence hard to maintain. The template's scope was exactly that of giving a practical way to provide soft redirects, as we call them. Therefore, the definitions, which would indeed appear as subsenses, are best omitted entirely from non-lemmas.

While we're on the subject, it should probably be also decided on where to lemmatise, if at the fronted ⟨e i⟩ or if at the back ⟨a ı⟩. Possibly worth a BP discussion. Catonif (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Catonif Possibly. Though I don't see a lot of BP discussions coming to conclusion on Turkish, and the category for Turkish morphemes is a dumpster fire that every time I look at it it gives me a headache and a sense of despair that nothing good is ever gonna happen.

I'll check the edits on the suffix forms I made around the time I broke -lı. Orexan (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

'grc' language code for Dacian

Hi,

I see that you changed the Dacian translation at [[bryony]] from the language code 'xdc' (meaning Dacian) to the language code 'grc' (meaning Ancient Greek), with the comment 'on purpose'. [diff] Can you help me understand what this is about?

Thanks in advance!

—Ruakh_TALK 05:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ruakh!

The thing is, the word is Dacian but it's attested only in a Greek text, which doesn't make our work much easy. Saying {{t|grc|κινούβοιλα}} (= κινούβοιλα (kinoúboila)) was needed for the Ancient Greek CSS to kick in (that is, the right font and size), as {{t|xdc|κινούβοιλα}} looked like κινούβοιλα (kinoúboila). The technical problem with this is probably the term showing as a yellow link (which, it doesn't on my end, even though it should. Does it show as yellow to you?) for which the solution would be {{t|grc|{{ll|xdc|κινούβοιλα}}}} (= κινούβοιλα (kinoúboila)).

This was the technical side of it, but if you question was more "why are we lemmatising this term under Dacian then", the answer is, well, there's no established way of dealing with these things. See for example Talk:κινούβοιλα, with much hesitation even pre-dating my change, or Talk:𐤊𐤋𐤌, where Fay Freak even normalises these attestations into a native script (while noting that it couldn't be done with Dacian and Thracian). A Greek grammarian saying "the Dacians say κινούβοιλα" doesn't mean that the word was ever actually "borrowed into Greek", nor that it was ever a "Greek term", so saying ==Ancient Greek== ===Etymology=== {{bor+|grc|xdc... is IMO misleading.

Admittedly, κινούβοιλα and sinupyla were my first Paleo-Balkan contributions, which is why lemmatising them under the donor language seemed most appropriate, Note however that continuing editing for Paleo-Balkan, I eventually settled at keeping them under their attestation language, such as Δευάδαι (Deuádai), βάρυκα (báruka), etc. because this double-nature of the terms is hard to maintain. So yes, I would make κινούβοιλα ==Ancient Greek== if I were to do it now. :) Catonif (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining!

If there are Dacian words known only from mentions in Ancient Greek sources, and we want to use those spellings (which sounds reasonable to me), then I think we should configure to Dacian to be a language that we use multiple scripts for, rather than marking those words as "Ancient Greek" when we've no reason to think they were ever used in Ancient Greek.

No?

—Ruakh_TALK 01:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ruakh Yes, that was my original thought as well and definitely the most straightforward solution for neat cases like κινούβοιλα~sinupyla, but the distinction between the Trümmersprache and Graeco-Latin isn't always so neatly defined. Should sabaia be made into ==Illyrian== ? haliurunna into ==Gothic== ? βρά is reportedly Elean Greek, but Latte reads Ἰλλυρίων instead of Ἠλείων (cod. Ιλειων). There are many different cases with different problems, some more appropriate to have the native L2, others best kept under Graeco-Latin. There's no established policy, and if there were it wouldn't be very practical, as the situation is full with edge-cases, one solution can benefit in one case and backfire in another. @Mnemosientje rightly calls this an "awkward tension", and may have some comments on this. I'd even support having a big box template (in appearence along the lines of {{reconstructed}}) to place under the Graeco-Latin L2 to warn "this is a gloss, not a loan". Catonif (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

While a satisfactory one-size-fits-all solution for words like these is difficult to find and there ought to be room for evaluation on a per-case basis, my preference is generally to add them as words in the language of the text in which they are mentioned. I agree that it is a good idea to place some sort of disclaimer, usage note, or other clear indication that explains the difficulty and that the word is not to be viewed as a loanword proper. But again this is probably not optimal in every case and there are many cases in which I am just completely unsure what to do (e.g. basically the entirety of Category:Vandalic lemmas).

An example of why I am reluctant to add them under the presumed "real" language header is that a big concern with words like these in my experience is that the language they are ascribed to by the author of the text in which they are mentioned may simply not be quite accurate, or their definitions may be different from ours. Greek and Roman authors, for example, are notoriously inclined to miscategorizing aspects of 'barbarian' culture and language. What one author calls Gothic or Dacian or Persian may in fact refer to a dialect or language that is quite different from the languages we associate with these words.

To use an example mentioned by Catonif: when Jordanes calls haliurunnas a Gothic word, does he refer to the same language as Ulfilan Gothic, or does he simply share a bunch of related East Germanic dialects and languages under one and the same umbrella term that differs significantly from our idea of Ulfilan Gothic? (Compare the case of Procopius, according to whom Goths, Visigoths [mentioned separately from "Goths"], Gepids and Vandals all spoke the same language called "Gothic" - but we consider Vandalic at least to be a separate language on Wiktionary! And consider the tendency of Greeks and Romans to dismiss everyone on the Eurasian steppe as "Scythian", even up to Byzantine times - "Gothic" in some contexts may similarly have been a catch-all term imposed out of convenience or intellectual laziness/disinterest by outsiders on a heterogeneous group speaking heterogeneous languages and dialects, including but far from limited to what we consider to be "Gothic".)

I therefore usually prefer to err on the side of caution and, following the example of many modern Latin and Greek dictionaries, generally put them under a Latin or Ancient Greek language header, unless the case is clear-cut. But I am not sure if that is the right approach, and am open to a well-reasoned general solution if one can be found. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mnemosientje I wholeheartedly agree. We could try to formalise some of our points into guidelines/suggestion in the WT: namespace (no strong policy of course, given the great wobble).

About the particular example of the Vandalic lemmas, aside from the eils / scapia matzia ia drincan and some reconstructions, they seem to be mostly given names, which I'm assuming appear as Latinised in otherwise fully Latin text, like Liburnian Vescleves- is (if on the other hand they appear isolated then ignore the following). These seem to me not only lemmatisable under ==Latin==, but even treatable as proper loans. My rationale is modern given names from actually attested languages work the same way, so Nguyen and Rossi have an ==English== as well. Hyperbolically speaking, I could even claim that someone possessing a name of Vandalic origin must not be assumed to even speak Vandalic.

As for eils / scapia matzia ia drincan on the other hand, I'd definitely be bummed if it appears as ==Latin==, as it's good proper Vandalic running text, not glosses. It's a shame the source just calls them Gothi... If the corpus however more or less amounts to this we could even make Vandalic (maybe together with other East Germanic lects) an etym-only language code of Gothic, and the words could be placed under ==Gothic== with a label (most likely Vandalic) vel sim., which would of course categorise accordingly so the Vandalic lemma category wouldn't be lost. Catonif (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European *leyd-

Buongiorno. You recently created a page Proto-Indo-European *leyd-, and I copied the information into Bunadas (my network database of cognate words, with the emphasis on Celtic). What this threw up, though, as seen in this tree generated by Bunadas, is that the Old Irish words laíd/laídid are indicated by other Wiktionary pages (Latin laus, Proto-Germanic *leuþą) as being from “From Proto-Indo-European *lēwt-, *lēwdʰ- (“song, sound”), from Proto-Indo-European *lēw- (“to sound, resound, sing out”)”. Any thoughts on this? I am not a historical linguistics expert myself, and so am unable to voice an opinion. --Caoimhin (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hòigh @Caoimhin! I as well don't have the knowledge to voice my own opinion on the etymology of the Irish word, but I can report what I can find on the sources I have access to. The connection with Gmc. *leuþą is favoured here, but it seems that all of the notable later sources, although with some uncertainty, connect the word with L. ludo rather than laus (for which I rewrote the etymology). Connection with laus is explicitely rejected here, and is left unmention in all of the following works I checked. In any case, those trees (I played around with the site a bit) are very interesting. Catonif (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Caoimhin, I cleaned up *leyd-, and I also agree, the Celtic doesn't look to belong there. I also don't think the Albanian is related either, which, if so, would make this a Balto-Slavic-only root. --{{victar|talk}} 05:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Victar As far as I can see, the sources which you kept on the entry go against your edit. A separate root for "to play" seems to go back to Pokorny, and I imagine that Mallory, to which I don't have access, endorses it as well, but are you single-handedly dismissing the more recent Rix and all of the Leiden linguists? I'm ready to reconsider the validity of the root, but with proper reasoning and sourcing. Catonif (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Most recent ≠ most right. Also note that Rix marks all of his reconstructions on his entry as uncertain. It's a theory he published, not fact. --{{victar|talk}} 17:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Victar It's comparative linguistics: everything is a theory, nothing is a fact. That said, there are four cites on the entry, none of which are minor or outdated sources, all explicitely agreeing on a single root "to let; to let go". You are free to doubt whatever you will, yet, in your words, "deleting sourced reconstructions is unprecedented and counterproductive to the project". Again, I am ready to reconsider the validity of the root, but with proper reasoning and sourcing, while by far all you've provided is "doesn't look like it belongs here", "I don't think", "doesn't make much sense" and "I really doubt". Whenever you'll feel like elaborating on your doubts, feel free to do so in WT:ES or on the entry's talk page. Catonif (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Catonif if you think that *leyd- (“to play”) should be merged, you need to start a WT:RFM or WT:RFD the second meaning. Please do not start deleting sourced content and wheelwarring simply because you disagree. @Chuck Entz, Mahagaja. --{{victar|talk}} 16:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi again, @Victar.

1. You, endorsing a Pokorny theory, removed a root which, although you keep claiming is only supported by Rix, is widely supported by modern sources. And now you accuse me of deleting sourced content. What was the content that you deleted unsourced?
2. I remerged the roots, again, per sources, while being careful at keeping all of the work you did on the entry I deemed appropriate. You, on the other hand, compulsively reverted my edits without even looking at them (besides other things, the most blatant example is you removing dial. Alb. le and the missing asterisks you reinstated). And you accuse me of wheelwarring.
3. I asked you to provide proper reasoning and sourcing, and you've yet to do it.

Please address each of these points. Catonif (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Why have you removed the genitive case in albanian?

The genitive case is still alive and well, along with the locative, vocative and several instrumental forms, even though these last 3 are not present on the standard language.So what is the explanation of removing the genitive despite being a noun case, both present in the standard language and used actively in all kinds of speech? Dinamo-Barça (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Dinamo-Barça! I removed the genitive row from declension tables because it is identical with the dative one. I left a note behind "dative" that appears whenever it is hovered with the mouse (hence sadly not visible from mobile) that explains that the genitive forms can be formed with the dative forms preceded by the linking particle. I feel like there's no reason to make Albanian inflection look more complex than it really is, and the table looks much more straightforward when it is compact. Catonif (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Nobody said to make the declension look more complex, but you should be realistic. As an albanian native speaker, l find it concerning that some of our cases and time tenses are not present anywhere in the declension tables. They can be compound and identical to other forms but they are tought regularly in schools and used actively in everyday speech. My request to you is to leave more notes about the cases and time tenses. If you want,I can help you. Dinamo-Barça (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dinamo-Barça Thank you, I'm always open to native speakers' insight. I am aware that the 4-case system analysis for Albanian nominal inflection, which I think is more "linguistical", although definitely not mine as it is found in some recent works, doesn't conform well with the "traditional" 5-(or sometimes even 6)-case system analysis that is still found in most handbooks and taught in Albanian schools, and I see this can throw some people off, as it did to you. The point is, since I like merging table slots whenever they are always identical, and this is not just an aesthetic preference as I do find value in its straightforwardness and conciseness, there's little point to giving its own row, as it would simply make the dative row taller. One option is changing "dative" (the hovering text says "also used as genitive when with a linking clitic") to "dat./gen." (the hovering text says "dative, also used as genitive when with a linking clitic"). Having a separate footnote as the conditional tenses would be too cluttered in my opinion.

On the verbal compound tenses you mentioned, they're still visible by clicking the "show compound tenses" button. I thinking giving the option between the two possibilities, i.e. on one hand the compact and essential, and on the other hand all the completeness of the compound tenses, is the best compromise between the two things. The conditional present and perfect were reduced to a note already before me, although I think that's a very good idea. (I'm aware the active conjugation box and the medio-passive one aren't in the same style, that's something I was wishing to tackle.)

Lastly, a bit unrelatedly to the issue, it might be worth mentioning I'm rerwriting the infrascructure for Albanian nominal inflection (module, testcases) to make it more immediate and versatile, so if you have any general feedback it can be implemented. Catonif (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Catonif

Excuse me but I couldn't help but notice that you changed the etymology of the word "garë".

Now you have cited the reason of the change is "he was unaware of the italian word". To me it sounds like an unprobable mistake a linguist can make. He states sources from an abundance of languages (both spoken and dead) when presenting the cognate words, yet apparently fails to mention a from one of the most spoken languages in Europe.

Of course, Orel has his fair share of mistakes too. Since I have read his etymology book, I can tell you there are lots of etymological mistakes like the one we are talking about, so I am not saying your argument is baseless.

But again, 95% all the etymology entries here on Wictionary are linked to his work. So shouldn't we start adding more proposed etymologies from other linguists as well? Because otherwise we will have a reader who comes here on Wictionary,as it is one of the easiest sites to access, search up the etymology, read what is written here and then understand it as a fact.But you can't do that if you study linguistics.We learn that all works have their own theories and mistakes. We dont have a sacred etymology book, to which we always refer everytime we study the etymologies, but here I see that you have, and that is Orel's work.And that is confusing for people who don't have experience nor education in linguistics.

As an linguistics student in the University of Tirana,I appreciate and thank you if you consider my concerns. Dinamo-Barça (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Dinamo-Barça. I'll try to address the two points you've posited: first more generally the validity and etymological monopoly of Orel's work on Wiktionary and secondly the etymology of garë in particular.

About Orel, when you say that 95% all the etymology entries on Wiktionary are linked to his work and say that they are misphrased as if his theories are facts, you describe the unfortunate truth. The Orel-bias of Albanian etymologies has been long-standing issue many people have complained about, and is exactly one of the things that I and other Albanian editors are in the process of cleaning Wiktionary from. Whenever I can I always add more than one source and often propose different theories (although this of course needs to be done critically, by discarding the obsolete or highly improbable ones).

With that hopefully settled, now about garë. Given that the Albanian and the Italian word are pronounced exactly the same way and mean exactly the same thing, I don't think anyone would deny that they are indeed the same word, whatever may be the direction of the borrowing. Having agreed on this, if we follow Orel's etymology, the only possibility we're left with is Al. garë → It. gara, as indeed was the situation before I intervened. The theory at a frist glance may look attractive, but after critical thinking I have no doubt about it being wrong, for the following factors:

1. Attestation: the Albanian word is not attested in any of the Old Albanian works (i.e. Buzuku, Budi, Bardhi, etc.) nor in other later more comprehensive works (i.e. Jungg, Rossi, Meyer, etc.). The earliest attestation I know of is from the FGJSH of 1954, which seems bit late for a native word of this kind. I'm aware the Old Albanian corpus is not as comprehensive as we wish it was, so I'm sure there are some native words that indeed have stayed unattested such dates, but I assume those would be relatively obscure pastoral terms or something of the like. The Italian word on the other hand has been and still is an integral part of Italian lexicon and is widely and heavily attested starting as soon as 1310.^[2] The A. → I. theory would hence assume the Albanian word to be quite strong to be borrowed into Italian in a very early date, but at the same time stay under the hood until government-funded dictionaries, coincidentally right after Italian occupation of Albania.
2. Semantics: the fact that the semantics are indentical from a language to the other — economic sense included! — also suggests the borrowing is recent, as I'd expect at least some degree of semantical evolution if we are to assume more than 700 years have passed from when the word was borrowed.
3. Basic statistics: with the exception of a couple of animal names like zappo and manzo which are indeed usually believed to stem ultimately from some Paleo-Balkan language (I must note that these terms are attested in Old Albanian, as well as found in Romanian), there are no Albanian words into Italian I know of. On the other hand, there are hundreds of Italian words into Albanian.
4. Unsourcedness: no linguist endorses the A. → I. theory, not even Orel himself. As far as I can see, it's something that emerged only on Wiktionary. This is why I say that Orel was simply not aware of the Italian word, as he always mentions occurrences of Albanian words (or more exactly, Paleo-Balkan substrate words akin to the Albanian ones) being borrowed into other languages (usually Romanian), as can be seen in entries like dash, këpushë, etc. so if he did know about the Italian word, he certainly would have mentioned it. I'm surprised just as you are about him making a mistake like this, but that's what happened. Also note that usually his entries have tons of sources while this one doesn't have any (he cites Pokorny and Frisk, but only to back up the derivation of χαίρω (khaírō) to *ǵʰer-, not the nativeness of the Albanian word, as neither source mentions it).
5. Conclusion: the Albanian word is a recent borrowing from Italian. I'm not the first to reach this conclusion: "Some etymologies in Orel's dictionary are disputed or wrong. For instance, Albanese^[sic] garë comes from Italian gara, ”competition, race”. It is a recent loanword."^[3]

Sorry for the long answer, but I hope it clarified the situation. Catonif (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello again Catonif,

I appreciate your answer and l really want to thank you for taking my point into consideration.I did not mean to say that you were wrong in the word "garë". I honestly believe in your work and I hope you, and other albanian editors who I would like to meet in person, adress the aforementioned problems Dinamo-Barça (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Horizontal rule

Am I going crazy, or are there once again horizontal lines separating language sections on pages as of late? I figured I might bring it to your attention, since you created the original vote to remove those lines.

Cheers,

Chernorizets (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Chernorizets. If you are referring to the horizontal rules appearing on entries (but not in the wikicode) that's because for not having to type them but still making them appear we've incorporated them into the project's CSS (discussion and diff). If you are referring to horizontal lines actually in the wikicode, those should be removed. Catonif (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Catonif huh, ok, I guess I'm going crazy. For a while I thought I wasn't seeing any (CSS-driven or not) horizontal rules between per-language entries on Wiktionary pages. I'll check my eyes. Thanks! Chernorizets (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Un po' di Topalli

Ei! Ti lascio qui il link per accedere alle varie edizioni (se non l'hai già fatto) di "Studime filologjike".[4] Topalli ha riportato spezzoni del suo dizionario a scopo di anteprima e ho pensato potesse interessarti. Ovviamente è in albanese. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@FierakuiVërtet Ottima trovata! Sia per Topalli che per tutti gli altri innumerevoli articoli, ci metterò un po' ad orientarmici. Grazie per aver condiviso! Catonif (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Before you tag pages for speedy deletion, please click on the "What links here" tool and correct any incoming links to that page. Ultimateria (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ultimateria Sorry for the slip-ups, thank you for deleting the entries. Catonif (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Bartholomae's law

Sono solo un appassionato di linguistica, non conosco bene la legge di Bartholomae. Riporto dal testo E.CAMPANILE, B. COMRIE, C. WATKINS Introduzione alla lingua e alla cultura degli Indoeuropei, nella sezione dedicata §6.1.7.2, nel quale è spiegata in breve la legge e sono esposti alcuni esempi tipo quello che avevo inserito in बुद्ध. Nella sezione successiva invece §6.1.7.3 è descritto l'incontro di dentali ed è fatto l'esempio di infestus, il quale è referito alla suddetta legge. Per quanto riguarda la provenienza di Infestus da n̥-g^whed^h-to- io ho solo un dubbio su *d^h >*t che non è indicato da Comrie nella sezione dedicata alle occlusive e ai loro riflessi nelle lingue derivate. Per il resto funziona:

n̥ è sonante e ha qui il valore sillabico in-; *g^wh, labiovelare sonora aspirata diventa in latino f(u), sempre da Comrie; *ed^h-to- è appunto il nesso consonantico interessato dalla legge che quindi diventa -sto-. Themistokl (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Ciao, @Themistokl! In primo luogo, benvenuto. Ho lasciato il template {{welcome}} sulla tua talk se può servire ad orientarti. La legge di Bartholomae's riguarda le lingue indo-iraniche, quindi col latino per quanto mi risulta c'entra poco. Qui la situazione è diversa, e riguarda il gruppo consonantico TT, vale a dire due occlusive dentali, t d dʰ, di seguito, che ha come risultato regolare *ss nel ramo delle lingue italiche, il quale a sua volta in latino spesso per scambio di lunghezza in una sillaba pesante (dalla consonante alla vocale) ritroviamo come s. Ne sono un esempio lampante i participi passati dei verbi in -dĕre, come vīsum < *wid-tó-m. Ho aggiornato l'etimologia della voce per riflettere queste considerazioni. Catonif (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Ciao, grazie.

Hai ragione che riguarda principalemente le lingue indo-iraniche e i suoi effetti sono in esse più apparenti. In realtà però hο trovato sul libro che ho citato, altri esempi non indoiranici. In questo caso il gruppo dentale+dentale si trasforma seguendo la legge di B. D'altronde l'esempio in avestico di ajasta, mostra che non è una trasformazione ristretta al ramo italico. Nel senso che l'incontro tra dentali di solito porta *ss nel ramo italico, è molto chairo l'esempio di vīsum, ma in questo caso l'incontro segue la legge di B. La legge è comunque ipotizzata come trasformazione del proto-indoeuropeo in generale.

Ti ringrazio per aver aggiornato l'etimologia, direi che effettivamente ora sarebbe meglio eliminare l'ultima etimologia, e riaggiungerla solo dopo che avrò trovato altre evidenze nel libro di quello che sto dicendo. Themistokl (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

changes to Module:el-translit

Hi. I know you would prefer an entirely transliteration based approach to Greek translit but the last discussion on this showed no consensus to make [5]. I would suggest you undo this, and seek consensus to make such a change or create a vote (cf. [6] where you undid a change based on there being no "valid vote" in favor of it). Benwing2 (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, @Benwing2. Building on your analogy, I'll try to show you the differences between what I did to Greek transliteration and what you did to Latin verbs.

First of all, no consensus? It didn't exactly pass in the most visible of ways, but I see 6 in favour of the ISO transliteration, or more generally a more orthographic transliteration (me, Saltmarsh, Sarri, Urszag, Mahagaja, Erutuon), 3 in favour of something home-made more phonetic (you, Atitarev, Soap) and -sche suggesting we have both somehow. Note how the less accustomed a user seemed to be with Greek the more drastic innovations they proposed. In any case, everyone agreed that initial ντ and δ should not be transliterated the same, and that the issue should be fixed in one way or another. This already looks like a pass for following the transliteration standard, yet despite that, I even took the oppositions into account and didn't go all the way into implementing the ISO transliteration scheme. As you said, I would prefer an entirely transliteration based approach to Greek translit, as I made clear in the BP discussion, yet notice how what I instated in the module is not what should be my preference, as it's still far from the standard I was looking forward to have here. I limited myself to solve what was the pressing issue at hand, the initial ντ~δ problem, hence keeping the transliteration scheme very close to what it has always been. With the exception of a couple of native terms like ντόπιος (ntópios), initial ντ is found almost exclusively in loans. It would be hard to even notice this change for someone that isn't a Greek editor here, an assiduous reader of the Greek entries we have or someone who just went checking the translit module's edit history. And would you look at that, the resulting translit scheme ended up matching perfectly the standardised ELOT 743 transcription. Now, if I were to endorse your preferred dh~gh transcription, or my preferred ELOT 743 transliteration, that would have been definitely drastic and visible. That I did not do. To summarise, what I did was changing the translit module to get rid of a bizarre merger that no other source even imagines having, which was introduced here by mistake, as Saltmarsh and Erutuon, who were the ones to bring it, tell.

About this incident with Latin, now that's drastic and visble. There's a difference between the character sequence nt in a restricted number of entries and the full 33 characters long first/third-singular present indicative in every single Latin verb ever, cluttering the ever more cluttered headword and assuming an unreal amount of ignorance from the reader. I indeed mentioned a vote, but really, even a plain discussion would have been a huge step forward. This was introduced by consulting none of the editing communities of the countless languages this affected, merely by mutual agreement with two users in a seemingly unimportant chat under an unrelated discussion. This immediately raised great disapproval from basically every other editor. After the change I only heard bad comments about it. Not to mention how this choice is unprecedented from any other dictionary, as opposed to the Greek situation, where the unprecedented situation is what I got rid of. For each of these two cases at hand, note (1) the visual and informative impact, (2) the community's opinion, (3) the bureacracy and discussion behind the change and (4) the tradition of other linguistic sources. In all these points the two cases are completely uncomparable, and the analogy you try to make is not valid.

To conclude, I'd rather not undo my change. No matter how you look at it, a revert would objectively be a degradation, from a standardised scheme that makes sense to a flawed scheme that does not make any sense. I see no reason to reintroduce what is a plain mistake. I hope you don't wish to worsen Greek transliterations out of spite for an unrelated matter.

That said, I'm sorry for the abrupt revert. I hope we can take a step back from that and discuss this data.gloss thing with more time and calm. Catonif (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Yzeír|i

Hiǃ I was wondering if you happen to know anything about this Albanian name that have an obvious Turkish origin. Could you provide or find any information regarding it (etymology)? It's not very popular but still... I'm curios. Thanksː) FierakuiVërtet (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi! :) That seems to be referring to the Quranic figure Uzayr, corradical with the Biblical Ezra. I made Yzeir. Catonif (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Grazie mille! FierakuiVërtet (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

{{RQ:it:Commedia}}

Hi, I was thinking that the years of the first edition of each canticle could be more specific than early 14th century, with something like this:

#* {{quote-book|it|year={{#switch:{{{1|}}}|if=1314|pg=1316 c.|pd=1321 c.}}|author={{w|Dante Alighieri}}|title={{w|{{#switch:{{{1|}}}|if=Inferno|pg=Purgatorio|pd=Paradiso}} {{#ifeq:{{{1|}}}|pg||(Dante)}}|{{#switch:{{{1|}}}|if=Inferno|pg=Purgatorio|pd=Paradiso}}}}|chapter=[[s:it:Divina Commedia/{{#switch:{{{1|}}}|if=Inferno|pg=Purgatorio|pd=Paradiso}}/Canto {{{2|}}}|Canto {{{2|}}}]]|line={{#ifeq:{{#invoke:string|match|s={{{3|}}}|pattern=–|nomatch=1}}|–||{{{3|}}}}}|lines={{#ifeq:{{#invoke:string|match|s={{{3|}}}|pattern=–|nomatch=1}}|–|{{{3|}}}}}|text={{{text|{{{4|}}}}}}|t={{{t|{{{5|}}}}}}}}

I just wanted to know if you think it might be a good idea. —— GianWiki (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@GianWiki Yes, it's a good idea. :) The vague date was a placeholder since I didn't know better. Catonif (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Distinzione tra primo e tardo proto-italico

Salve, collega sia di Wikipedia che di nazionalità, sono Cicognac e sono utente autoverificato su Wiki.it, lavoro ultimamente nel Wikizionario. Sono stato bloccato per una questione banale da un admin ma, in mezzo a questo blocco (dovrebbe avermi sbloccato), mi ha segnalato te e un tale @Nicodene, collega italiano pure lui, per sbrogliare una questioncina in proto-italico (premetto che sono laureato in Lingue e ho un background mio in simili proto-lingue pur non essendo PhD o docente di linguistica storica).

Qui nel Wikizionario erano già presenti ricostruzioni in primo proto-italico, cioè quando *f < *θ fricativa interdentale sorda < PIE *dʰ e quando h < *x < *gʰ (sia con che senza labializzazione) se si postula tale cambiamento come avvenuto già in tardo proto-italico. Dal background che ho, avevo riconosciuto tali ricostruzioni (mi risultano). PUC mi ha detto che 'sono poco convincenti', eppure da *fakjo ho ricosciuto *θakjo quando l'ho visto la prima volta (basta vedere la radice in PIE). Stavo estendo tali cambiamenti compilando le 'early version' dei vocaboli in proto-italico contenenti tale mutazione meccanica ma PUC mi ha detto di parlarne con voi. Si tratta solo di applicare un paio di mutamenti fonetici meccanici.

Possiamo discutere qui sia di questo problema (a me non sembra tale, ma ne discuto lo stesso e volentieri), sia di come lavorare al proto-italico che mi interessa tantissimo e di come eventualmente gestire la trascrizione (e.g. 'f' oppure 'ɸ'? Io sto usando sempre e solo la prima ma è perlopiù una preferenza mia). Il mio sogno in futuro è di travasarci tutto il dizionario etimologico di De Vaan, di cui ho una copia virtuale, poi non so se c'è altro di simile per il proto-italico. Intanto, ti saluto insieme a Nicodene. Se ci sono altri esperti di proto-italico, puoi chiamarli qui. Cicognac (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Ti aggiorno immediatamente dicendoti che forse rimuovo le forme del primo proto-italico senza le fonti, pure se la forma non tarda distingue *θ e *x labializzato prima che convergessero in *f in una fase più tarda (siccome il cambiamento è meccanico, ho pensato di inserirlo manualmente ma in effetti tali forme non sono corredate da fonti); pure se la convergenza è confermata, per tagliare la testa al toro si può optare per accettare qui solo forme di primo PIt fontate da fare contrastare con il tardo PIt. Aspetto solo un assenso finale. Questo modus operandi può essere elevato a standard nella sezione di PIt qui sul Wikizionario, ne stavo parlando proprio con @Nicodene. Cicognac (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Ciao, @Cicognac, carissimo compatriota. Mi dispiace per il blocco (ingiustificato, poiché non stavi andando contro a nessun avvertimento), ma mi fa piacere che si sia già giunti ad un compromesso. Il motivo per cui il genere di contributi quali i tuoi siano controversi in realtà si inserisce in un discorso che va avanti da tempo e che avevo abbandonato per lo stress che mi provocava, ma riconosco che avendo lasciato le cose al caso la situazione protoitalica ora è forse ancora più precaria e arrangiata di quanto non lo fosse prima. Perciò mi è ripresa la briga di aggiornare le linee guida del protoitalico. Continuo dunque in inglese sulla pagina di discussione della norma per il protoitalico. Ti informo comunque che Nicodene, sebbene possegga un'ottima comprensione dell'italiano, è un georgiano purosangue. :) E un'ultima curiosità, in che lingue ti sei laureato? Catonif (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Cinese moderno standard (quindi non dialetti come il cantonese) e inglese; in più, da autodidatta (e usando le teorie di Krashen per cui usi una didattica improntata all'acquisizione linguistica invece che all'apprendimento, cioè usi pochissimo i libri), soprattutto man mano che mi libero mi studio il portoghese brasiliano, ucraino, spagnolo e francese, ho poi gettato le basi di greco moderno, albanese, rumeno e latino (quest'ultimo mi serve più per esami universitari e come ponte per il proto-italico) più quelle del pidgin nigeriano. Per 'gettare le basi' intendo ricostruire un ordine di acquisizione plausibile in base a quello di lingue imparentate, degli studi che conosco e dell'esperienza mia, da lì ti costruisci il materiale andando in ordine. Sono un wanna-be iperpoliglotta, insomma.

Dimmi dove trovo la pagina di cui parli, così insieme a @Nicodene riesco a seguirti: è per caso Wiktionary:About Proto-Italic, sezione 'discussione'? In teoria, potrei mettere anche io da solo uno standard e da lì aggiustare/correggere le pagine per poi espandere la sezione di proto-italico con opere di De Vaan e Schrijver (sono i due studiosi più citati), ma non mi va di fissare degli standard da solo.

Se conosci altri studiosi di cui posso attingere dai loro lavori, dimmi pure. Posso pure chiedere alla mia tutor di latino, che aveva fatto una tesi su filologia (quindi penso che conosca il proto-italico e/o abbia un network di studiosi che lo conoscono). Cicognac (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:syn lb inline modifier

Hi, I notice you've been using the |tag= param and/or <tag:...> inline modifier in {{syn}} and {{ant}}. These are changing to be |lb= and <lb:...> now that dialect tags have been unified with labels; the values of these parameters are handled just like labels in the {{lb}} template. (Same thing with the {{desc}} template.) Benwing2 (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Alright, thanks for the notice! Catonif (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Technical problems

Hi, Catonif ː) How you are you doing?

I have a technical question and I was hoping you could help me. Per farla breve, quando digito la combinazione di tasti che nella tastiera italiana restituisce la parentesi graffa, quello che ottengo è questo carattere ̪ . Perché? E non riguarda solo la parantesi graffa, ma tutta una serie di caratteri che richiedono una combinazione di tasti. Spero di non essere l'unico. ː( FierakuiVërtet (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@FierakuiVërtet Ehilà! :) Scusa per il ritardo, hai ancora questo problema? Di certo è abbastanza bizzarro, hai attiva una qualche impostazione particolare per la tastiera? Catonif (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Sì, ma ormai è da una vita. Ho pensato solo ora di chiedertelo e vedere se succedesse anche ad altri. A questo punto però, mi sa che è un problema solo mio. Ora controllo bene se ho cambiato qualche impostazione. Deve essere un problema dell'account, perché se non faccio il login non mi dà problemi... FierakuiVërtet (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Vabbè, sono scemo io, ho appena fatto "Restore all default references (in all sections)" e il problema si è risolto. Scusa per averti scomodato per questa s*ronzata XD FierakuiVërtet (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@FierakuiVërtet Haha vabbè, mos u shqetëso, mi fa piacere che si sia risolto. :) Catonif (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello. Are you interested in becoming an admin? PUC – 09:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your recognition. Tempting proposition. I'm not sure the community really wants nor needs any new admins (the last ones accepted were in 2022), but we can give this a shot, why not? Catonif (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@PUC, what are you waiting for? He could have deleted all those Ottoman terms himself. Vahag (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Catonif: I'll volunteer to make the nomination if you like. --Svartava (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Svartava Thank you! I guess we could try. :) @PUC I hope this doesn't bother you. 🙏 Catonif (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Catonif: Done, please accept here: (and as a formality you might need to add your email to your account so email link works) Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2024-09/User:Catonif for admin. In practice, the [c]autionary note is mostly ignored (and invalid in my opinion) since a lot of nominations come from Wonderfool and non-admins, and also pass - just taking a look at some votes. Svartava (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Svartava Nice! I've accepted. Catonif (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Svartava PUC Is this accurate?

User_talk:AryamanA/2017#Adminship

"Cautionary note: It is often the case that those who are not nominated by currently active administrators do much less well."

By that measure, User:Vahagn Petrosyan may be the most senior admin in this discussion so far.

And yes, although it is unclear whether the community really wants nor needs any new admins, it may have been better if Catonif had been able to delete those Ottoman Turkish terms himself. Kutchkutch (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch Thank you so much for dealing with so many of the Ottoman Turkish CAT:D requests and I'm sorry you had to go through the hassle. I forgot there was a history merge feature, I hope I didn't edit in any way that hindered the feature from being used, if it has specific requisites in which it can be applied. Catonif (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hello Cantonif and nice to meet you (since this is the first time I’m interacting with you).

• Regarding your adminship,

• Just to be clear, my comment above about the cautionary note and whether the community really wants nor needs any new admins has nothing to do with your suitability as an admin.

• What I think about your suitability as an admin (at the time the vote was created) is what I said in the vote itself.

• dealing with so many of the Ottoman Turkish CAT:D requests

• Although, I’m not a a Turkic editor,

WT:About_Ottoman_Turkish#Arabic_script_encoding

is intriguing to me since there are parallels that can be made with South Asian languages written in the Perso-Arabic script.

• When CAT:D gets flooded with all these requests at once, it can take a while for all of them to be addressed, especially when there are no active admins that are also editors in that area. In some deletion requests, you mentioned that you forgot to untick the suppress redirect box, which is understandable since even I forget to do that sometimes.

• Just as a reminder (since you will hopefully become an admin soon), there are various steps that should be followed even for speedy deletion. For example,

• Links to the page before and after the deletion should definitely be checked if they work as expected.

• If the page is mentioned in an RfD or similar discussion, then that may need to be addressed.

• However, the step that I have doing of using Special:MergeHistory to preserve the page history, is a step that I don’t see many admins doing.

Perhaps this is because it may be a bit difficult and error-prone. And, in some cases it is not possible to preserve the page history, especially if there multiple languages on a single page. So, in some cases, it might be easier not to use Special:MergeHistory. Please let me know if you notice that I haven’t done this correctly. Kutchkutch (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch You're right, nice to meet you too! Don't worry about the note and all, I understood what you meant. Thanks for summarising the deletion practices, I'll definitely keep them in mind. I'll now go through the WhatLinksHere of the entries I've tagged with {{d}}. Catonif (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Block

Hey. User:Wonderfool here. Welcome to adminship. Please have the honour of blocking me indefinitely, before I go ccrazy. Denazz (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Denazz Pleasure to finally meet you! Even though I wasn't able to do this personally, I am nevertheless honoured it all went this way. Catonif (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

congratz!! :3

conjralashion for being an admin, fren!! :3 əkrəm. 11:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Əkrəm Cəfər Thanks! <3 Catonif (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Module:Linb-translit

Something about your last edit to this module resulted in module errors at 𐀏𐀙𐀒 and 𐀗𐀪𐀺𐀈: if I preview the entries from earlier revisions of the module, there are no errors. I don't know if it's something wrong with the module, or if there was something wrong with the entries that was exposed by the change to the module- but something needs to be fixed. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Thanks for notifying me, sorry for not having tested sufficiently. I got rid of the error, so that at least the quotes show, though there still is a bug regarding the hyphens I should be able to fix tomorrow afternoon when I'll be back on the computer. Catonif (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Linear B

Thanks for your additions.

Do we know if 𐃒 LINEAR B MONOGRAM B247 DIPTE is actually pte plus an adjunct/complement di, or is that just a guess? kwami (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Kwamikagami! Yes, I made the entry 𐃒 (di+pte), that's how it is interpreted by sources. Note this kind of ligature is usually referred to as "monogram" (= ligature of syllabograms) rather than "adjunct" (= ligature between an ideogram and syllabogram). Catonif (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's well attested then, I wasn't sure. It wasn't mentioned in the minimal sources I had, and Unicode names aren't a reliable guide to anything.

That was the last red-link character in the Unicode block that Unicode calls a 'monogram'. 𐃓 looks like it might be. I assume most of the rest are logo/ideograms, some unidentified, and a few are obviously hapax. kwami (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

It would seem intuitive for the female livestock to be compounded with B102 WOMAN. Do you know of any sources that make that connection? kwami (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami Are you referring to the sex distinction present in livestock animals' ideograms? If so, that dates back to Linear A, note the sheep 𐘏 𐘐 𐘑 (*21, *21^f, *21^m) → 𐀥 𐂆 𐂇 (OVIS OVIS^f OVIS^m) and the goat 𐘒 𐘓 𐘔 (*22, *22^f, *22^m) → 𐁒 𐂈 𐂉 (CAP CAP^f CAP^m). Presumably the graphic pattern was subsequently regularised and generalised to other animals in Linear B, giving also male and female ideograms for the horse, cow and boar. How the ligatures came to be originally I don't think is well known, it may have been a ligature based on the Minoan phonetics for the relevant words, i.e. adjuncts with the syllables 𐘠 (*37 /⁠ti⁠/) and 𐘂 (*03 /⁠pa⁠/) vel sim. Also note the woman Linear B ideogram 𐂁 (MUL) developped later into Linear B as a skirted and breasted variant of 𐂀 (VIR), and no Linear A variation of the man ideogram 𐙇 resembles B102. So in short that connection is not possible. Catonif (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks.

Regarding the change of 'letter' to 'symbol' at 𐀀, 'symbol' seems overly broad as a subheading. In its nominal logographic use 𐀀 is also a symbol. Do we have a subheading that would indicate what it actually is? If ppl would object to 'letter' as implying an alphabetic script, maybe 'syllable' or 'phonogram'? kwami (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami I am indeed against "letter" as I see it to imply an alphabetic script. However "syllable" seems a more appropriate heading as is allowed by WT:ELE, so I changed "symbol" over to that. Catonif (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. kwami (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I changed all 'letter' subheadings to 'syllable' kwami (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami Nice, thank you! On a separate note, I disagree with adding things like 𐂘 (a+re+pa) to the derived terms of 𐀀 (a), and other similar cases. They do graphically contain the syllabogram but they don't derive from it. It would be like claiming that USA is a derived term of S. Catonif (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Change that to 'Related', maybe? There are so few compound glyphs that IMO it would be useful to cross-ref them. kwami (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that makes it any better. If we are to keep them, just like we have a distinction between ==Etymology== and ==Glyph origin==, distinguishing the actual word's origin and the origin of how it is written, there should be a distinction between ==Derived terms== and some sort of ==Derived glyphs==. We could start a discussion to allow this header under WT:EL. Note also that there are more derived glyphs than you may think, it's just Unicode that lacks them. Taking 𐀀 (a) as our example, there are also 𐂐+𐀀 (OLIV+a), 𐂕+𐀀 (OLE+a) and 𐃨+𐀀 (AMPH+a). Catonif (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Interesting - the Egyptian demonstratives are masculine p- and feminine t-. Looks like we don't have a Semitic reconstruction, but that would be too old to be relevant anyway. kwami (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami That's a very cool remark! Unfortunately it's based on my likely erroneous comparison of the adjunct element in the male animal with 𐘂 (*03 /⁠pa⁠/), while it more likely represents 𐘄 (*05 /⁠to⁠/), given that in 𐘔 (*22^m), in iscriptions, the horizontal line on top seems to be most often longer than the one below. Catonif (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

𐘂 (*03 /⁠pa⁠/) is what I've seen in published sources, and they didn't mention Egyptian as a motivating factor.

I haven't seen 𐘠 (*37 /⁠ti⁠/) suggested anywhere, and anyway that would be characteristic of afroasiatic as a whole.

And even if it is /pa/ and /ti/, they could mean something else entirely of course. kwami (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

That's cool, which sources are you referring to? I'm a bit at a loss with logograms in general because all the information I have I scraped from various sources as I never found any modern source with them as its focus. It seems today's scholars are much more interested in the syllabic element of the language rather than the logographic one. Catonif (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

drachma sign 𐅂

Are you familiar with how the drachma sign 𐅂 is used with the Greek acrophonic numerals? Presumably 𐅂𐅂𐅂𐅂 is 4 drachmas, but ΗΗΗΗ𐅂 is presumably 400 d, not 401 d [though there's also ΗΗΗΗ𐅄Δ𐅂𐅂, which looks like 462 d], and I can't make sense of sequences like 𐅄Δ𐅃𐅂ΙΙΙΙ where 𐅂 is used alongside the tally stroke Ι. These examples are from here -- kwami (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami Hi! Sorry for the late reply, I wasn't home these past few days. To answer your question, in Attic numerals whenever counting drachmas the unit is expressed with 𐅂, while what is usually the unit Ι stands instead for an obol, i.e. ¹⁄₆ of a drachma. So 𐅂𐅂𐅂𐅂 is 4 drachmas, ΗΗΗΗ𐅂 is indeed 401 dr., ΗΗΗΗ𐅄Δ𐅂𐅂 is 462 dr., 𐅂𐅂𐅂ΙΙΙ is 3 drachmas and 3 obols (= 3¹⁄₂ dr.) and 𐅄Δ𐅃𐅂ΙΙΙΙ is 66 drachmas and 4 obols (= 66²⁄₃ dr.). Catonif (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. kwami (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Latin + Mycenaean transcriptions

How should this be handled, e.g. at 𐃧? I've started using 'tr' vs 'ts', but that's hardly ideal. kwami (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Kwamikagami! Again sorry for the late reply. Assigning ideograms to their corresponding syllabic spellings is something that can be done in various ways, like using Usage notes, Etymology, Alternative forms sections or perhaps in definitions, or synonyms. I'm still experimenting with the layout, so I'm not sure what exact answer to give you, though |ts= is misleading and hacky. I have amended the example you've given me to give an example (in that case, the interpretation as the vessel name is not 100% confirmed, so the I chose the wording to reflect that), although I don't have the time currently to go through them all. Catonif (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Module:bibliography/data/preload

Could you fix this so it's not in CAT:E? Chuck Entz (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Thank you, fixed. Catonif (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Appendix:Bibliography/Albanian

In case you weren't already aware, this is in CAT:E. It looks like the module can't handle borrowing from the submodule for a transliterated language to one for a non-transliterated language, probably due to something about the language data. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Thank you for noticing everytime, :) it was a mistake in the input. Catonif (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

De

Hi Catonif, it's been a long time, I hope you're doing wonderful! I just wanted to let you know that de has been added in DPEWA . I've seen you had edited that page, so I thought it could interest you. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @FierakuiVërtet, I hope you are doing great as well! Sorry for the late reply, and thank you for the notification, I amended the entry with the proposed etymology. This was an fun one, :) considering all the homographs in both Albanian and Ottoman Turkish. Catonif (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you translate in Vai?

I’ll suggest the word “rat” which is an animal. can you translate rat to Vai language? 201.20.90.149 17:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

It was transcribed as tò́ra by Koelle (1854, p. 222) and as tó'á by Welmers (1976, p. 5). My guess is that it would be spelled ꕿꕞ (tola) in the native syllabary, although I am not sure. Catonif (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! 201.20.90.149 15:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Yo, riguardo alla tabella dell'emiliano

A dire il vero qualche giorno fa uno su Reddit mi ha dato una tabella per le coniugazioni in italiano che ho modificato per adattarla all'emiliano/bolognese, e ormai ho usato quella per un po' di verbi, direi una ventina finora, quindi a sto punto userei sempre la stessa. So che avrei dovuto indicare che tutte le cose che ho scritto erano solo in bolognese, e se vuoi da adesso inizio... però dai, nessuno editava sta lingua da anni, non pensavo che nessuno, soprattutto nessuno di quegli editor molto discutibili di 9 anni fa, se la sarebbe presa. Un giorno metterò l'indicazione "di Bologna" in tutte le mie vecchie pagine, lo prometto, però, ecco, non credo che sarà una cosa particolarmente sentita. Le fonti le inserirei anche, ma non so fare (sono il "Dizionario Italiano-Bolognese Bolognese-Italiano A.Vallardi" del 1999 [tra l'altro datato per certi versi] e il libro di grammatica "Mé a dscårr in bulgnaiṡ" di Daniele Vitali). Ho sempre pensato che queste fossero sottigliezze, e che la priorità numero uno fosse documentare questa benedetta lingua su Internet, ma se vuoi mi adeguo. Ah e per il nickname non so come fare a cambiarlo, scusa. Sucabokkini (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sucabokkini Ehilà! Ottimo spirito cooperativo. Sono completamente d'accordo con quello che dici, il fatto qui non è accontentare gli editor del passato, ma noi stessi. Il motivo per cui è necessario avere un template unico che serva da base per la coniugazione di tutti i verbi è per risparmiarsi la duplicazione su ogni pagina di tutto quell'ambaradam necessario per formattare la tabella, che non è ideale per vari motivi, uno dei quali il fatto che se un giorno vorremmo cambiare la formattazione della tabella dovremmo cambiare ogni pagina individualmente, mentre con un template dovremmo aggiornare solo quello. A sostituire il template nuovo nelle varie pagine lo posso fare io senza problema, non ti voglio obbligare a fare qualcosa di ripetitivo, l'unica cosa che mi aspetto da te è l'approvazione, o l'eventuale disapprovazione argomentata così da trovare un compromesso, della formattazione che ho proposto in Beer Parlour, così che posso mettere quella tabella al posto di {{egl-conj-table}} e per le prossime tue voci non ti dovrai più preoccupare della formattazione ma semplicemente chiamare {{egl-conj-table|lb=Bologna|cràdder|cardànd|cardó|...}}.

Per quanto riguarda le fonti, è vero che il Wikizionario le ha spesso trascurate, ma con gli anni e con l'esperienza ci siamo resi conto del potenziale valore anche accademico del progetto. Come su Wikipedia, un'affermazione senza fonte ha molto meno peso di un'affermazione ben citata. Ho creato dei template di citazione per le due opere che hai citato, {{R:egl:Vitali:1999}} e {{R:egl:Vitali:2022}} rispettivamente. Per chiamarli in una pagina puoi scrivere, ad esempio.

===References===
* {{R:egl:Vitali:1999|page=53|cràdder}}

Concludendo, riguardo al nome, immagino ci sia una burocrazia piuttosto complicata, ma ci dovrebbe essere una guida a w:WP:RENAME. Catonif (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Allora, grazie un sacco per i tuoi commenti estremamente costruttivi. Nella tabella manca il passato remoto (direi che si possa chiamare "past historic" anche per il bolognese), e sarai tu a dirmi se è più corretto parlare di "participle" nella tabella invece di "past participle". Effettivamente non c'è il participio presente in bolognese.

Per il resto, se la tabella funziona come funzionavano quelle di prima non dovrei avere problemi, mille grazie, ho solo bisogno del passato remoto. Grazieeeeee. Sucabokkini (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sucabokkini Ok! Ho aggiunto il passato remoto che mi ero perso per strada e ho rinominato il participio in "past participle". L'unica cosa che ho cambiato che in realtà non avevamo concordato, spero non sia un problema, è che ho messo il condizionale dopo il congiuntivo come modo separato, secondo l'ordine tradizionale (non so perché sia stato messo come tempo dell'indicativo in italiano). Catonif (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Benissimoǃ Grazie tantissimeǃ Ora procederò a mette gli altri verbi, ne ho circa 200. Lthe10n (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, scusa, avrei notato che non hai inserito i clitici. Avrei dovuto specificarlo io ma pensavo che sarei stato in grado di farlo senza che si creassero delle pagine che li includessero (ovvero se provo a mettere il clitico "a" davanti a "vadd" mi crea la pagina per "a vadd" che nessuno vorrebbe). I clitici sono quelle sorte di pronomi comuni a un sacco di lingue del Nord Italia che non possono praticamente mai essere omessi. Non sono tecnicamente una parte della coniugazione del verbo, però tutte le grammatiche li includono sempre. Cioè, in bolognese "io vedo" si dice "mé a vadd"; "mé" è propriamente "io", "vadd" è "vedo", mentre "a" non è esattamente il pronome personale ma non può essere omesso. Si può anche dire "a vadd" e basta, ma assolutamente non "mé vadd", che non è grammaticale in bolognese. Non penso che i clitici, o "estensioni del soggetto", siano indispensabili per la declinazione ma nelle mie tabelle originali li avevo inseriti.

No ti obbligo assolutamente a metterli però nel caso sonoː

-Per i verbi che iniziano con consonanteː 1s "a", 2s "t" (o "et" facoltativamente davanti a gruppi consonantici complessi), 3s masch. "al", 3s fem. "la", 1p "a", 2p "a", 3p masch. "i", 3p femm. "äl"

-Per i verbi che iniziano con vocaleː 1s "a", 2s "t", 3s masch. "l" (senza apostrofo), 3s femm. "l'" (con l'apostrofo), 1p "a", 2p "a", 3p masch. "i", 3p femm. "äli"

-Per i verbi che iniziano con "a"ː 1s, 1p e 2p niente, tutti gli altri come davanti a vocale.

Ovviamente questo vale non per i verbi in assoluto ma per le forme che iniziano in certi modiː "lei va" è "la và", mentre "lei andava" è "l'andèva", anche se "và" e "andèva" sono entrambe forme del verbo "andèr".

Le uniche eccezioni sonoː nel verbo "avair" 1s indc pres è "ai ò", non "a ò"; sempre "avair" 1s cong pres è "ai èva", non "a èva"; e nel verbo "èser" 1s, 1p e 2p sono "ai êra", "ai êren" e "ai êri", non "a êra", "a êren" e "a êri".

Ma ripeto, non è indispensabile aggiungerli, siccome non influenzano la coniugazione del verbo, semmai sono i verbi a influenzare le forme dei clitici. Lthe10n (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Lthe10n Ciao e grazie della spiegazione! Hai ragione, avrei dovuto discuterne prima, ho fatto un po' di fretta. Ero vagamente al corrente di come funzionassero i clitici delle lingue del Nord, ma notando come potrebbero essere un problema con il loro variare di dialetto in dialetto e di ortografia in ortografia, ho ritenuto fosse meglio descrivere il loro funzionamento nelle pagine apposite dei clitici rispetto ad hardcodarli nel codice sorgente della tabella. Ad esempio possiamo creare la pagina ai definita come "variante di a in posizione prevocalica nei verbi avair ed èser", e aggiungere note (usage note) nelle pagine a, avair ed èser che menzionino questo fatto, e descrivere il comportamento regolare dei vari clitici (ad es. a → ∅ con verbi in a-, al/la → l/l' prima di vocale, ecc.) con delle note nelle pagine rispettive a, al, ecc. Ho pensato anche che mettere il clitico nella tabella delle forme verbali, nonostante abbia il vantaggio di rendere più chiaro che i clitici siano inomissibili, potesse confondere il lettore nel pensare che siano anche inseparabili dalla forma verbale, il che non mi torna. Per esempio per dire "ti vedo", correggimi se sbaglio, si dice at vadd e non **t a vadd.

Poi chiaramente prendi queste riflessioni come motivi per cui personalmente ho scelto di non specificarli nella tabella, non motivi per cui assolutamente non sia possibile farlo. Se per un motivo o per un altro ci convinceremo che è meglio includerli un'implementazione la si trova. Detto ciò, buona fortuna, e grazie mille per il tuo contributo! Catonif (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Ciaoǃ Ho un dubbio su come inserire i verbi riflessivi, siccome se provo a mettere i pronomi riflessivi tra le due sbarre della tabella mi si crea una pagina che comprende sia il pronome sia il verbo. Se scrivo |am pintéss| (mi pento) mi crea, appunto, la pagina per "am pintéss" e non solo "pintéss".

Se sai aggiungerli tu e ti servono soltanto i pronomi sonoː am, at, as, as, av, as. Davanti a vocaleː m, t, s, s, v, s. Davanti a gruppi consonantici complessiː am, at, se, se, av, se. Lthe10n (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Lthe10n Ciao, e complimenti per le voci che hai aggiunto! Ho modificato il modulo in modo che adesso se specifichi manualmente qualche prefisso prima della forma verbale quest'ultimo viene linkato separatamente. Questo succede solo se separato da spazio, poi dimmi se deve succedere anche per altri separatori (ad es. l'apostrofo o il trattino). Per ora mi sto astenendo dall'implementare qualsiasi forma, verbale o pronominale che sia, direttamente dentro il modulo sempre perché il template generale emiliano dovrebbe essere in grado di supportare tutti i dialetti possibili. Se poi vorremmo una coniugazione più automatizzata, sia nelle forme che nei pronomi, potremmo creare dei sottomoduli o sottotemplate specifici per i singoli dialetti. Catonif (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Further reading use

I saw your comment and I am bringing this discussion here due to relevance. In your opinion, how should Further reading be used? I am seeking guidance, as WT:EL is incredibly broad & vague. You can see my formatting style as a reference: ne, sube, laŭ. Since Esperanto is not as documented as other common languages, my intention is to consolidate as much useful (non-redundant) information as possible. However, as you can see, it can be expansive. TranqyPoo [💬 | ✏️] 02:22, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@TranqyPoo Excellent job over there! :) I also like to sort out sources by type, although within the infrastructure I use I leave them ordered mostly chronologically in entries and leave the field sorting to the bibliography page, see for example lëshoj.

To me, references are any sources that were consulted in the making of the entry. That is any source containing information about meaning, origin, pronunciation or usage of a term itself. Even obsolete sources whose claims we ignored are worth listing as past literature within the reference section, to indicate we're aware of their existence and ignored them willfully. If it's a solely linguistical work, any valuable content should already be on the Wiktionary page, so it's not really "further" reading. Further reading, to me, is anything that goes beyond linguistics, so information about a place rather than its toponym, about a plant rather than its phytonym, etc. "So this is a species of the Foobaraceae family, I now know everything there is to know about the term describing it, but what is its distribution? When does it bloom? Can I eat it? I'd like to do some further reading!" So in practice, my further reading sections pretty much boil down to interwiki links.

However for aesthetic reasons it has become a widespread idea to place inline and outline references in different sections, as you do, and this to me is wrong. Let me be clear, you're definitely not at fault, the system is! :) Your work is much beyond the standard of many respected editors of the project, so you need not to worry too much. But back to the matter at hand, I take citations pretty seriously, as I believe in the academic potential of Wiktionary, and the qualitative distinction between "I made this entry after consulting this source" and "you might also be interested in this" is very important to me and to academics, where in any field the most important thing is to go forward taking into consideration previous works. Having references is often what makes an entry worth believing, and the fact that on multiple occasions some editors have gone on entries I had written and moved the list of sources I consulted and put it in further reading, essentially stripping it of much of its academic seriousness and ditching the credit I had given to linguists for cosmetic consistency, bothers me quite a bit. In my view it's as if someone threw plastic in the paper bin because the plastic bin is full. Many people claim that the distinction between the two is wishy-washy, as seen on the discussion under the vote Vininn started a while ago, which was meant to fix the aesthetic issue, but I believe the confusion is not intrinsic of the headers themselves, rather derives from us having gotten used to misusing them.

Sorry for the ramble. And in the end I'm perhaps nitpicking. It'd be nice if we all agreed on something that made sense, but the thing we should get our eyes on is first laying out valuable content. I don't want to impose my view on others, especially since some disagree with me, but I'd be happy if Wiktionary could finally stop thinking of itself as "a site" and start taking itself seriously for the impact it could have on many branches of linguistics if we do our thing well. Catonif (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@Catonif Thank you for the detailed post! Rarely do I encounter those who thoroughly explain their reasoning. So, I am happy to meet you!

Holy moley, I was completely unaware of bilbiography appendixes! You have answered my internal, but most battling question on how to properly & concisely annotate references. It even has a way to list entry-to-page for multiple entrys on the same line! I thank you to a tremendous degree for this introduction!

To be clear, I am not splitting References and Further reading whether they are in-line citations or not. I use Further reading for when the source material is consulted (and not used), where it notes other definitions/translations or there are more example sentences/contexts/pictures (see rationale in next paragraph). However, I must admit that I have unintentionally stolen translations from some multilingual dictionaries, which I will correct in the coming weeks. I must ask: If Wiktionary already independently lists a sense exactly like another reference does, should the reference be listed and if so, where? For example, let's say ne means no as a response to a question. Wiktionary lists the sense as such without references. As I conduct research, I find an entry in a dictionary which only says that that ne means no. Do I add it and if so, under which heading? I am torn because I find it useful if other dictionaries are affirming our claim, but it would be unnecessarily redundant for the readers. Additionally, would it truly be a reference used if it was not used originally? Please know that the questions are a form of self-reflection and that your answers will greatly affect my editorial conduct.

Regarding If it's a solely linguistical work, any valuable content should already be on the Wiktionary page, I completely agree. In my case, I choose not to add more to Wiktionary (even if I think it would be applicable) as I am still a beginner in this language and therefore, I do not have the expertise to deem some information valuable enough to be merged into Wiktionary. Until I am experienced enough, I hope that other editors will consult the Further reading, merge applicable information, and relocate the sources to References.

Regarding use References for linguistic sources and Further reading for non-linguistic ones, I find your position quite agreeable. I think, however, this can introduce confusion. I believe it is important to distinguish sources based on whether it was used and not used. That way, we are applying appropriate attribution to our entries and being accuruate. To place a source into further reading implicitly signifies that the material has been reviewed and deemed not (yet) worthy of inclusion. Otherwise, it would not have been annotated. For example, you can observe this practice in textbooks and heavily annotated works (such as the Plato's translated books).

Thank you for linking the vote. I have combed through it while making this post. I intend to read more thoroughly when at the bedside. TranqyPoo [💬 | ✏️] 19:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@TranqyPoo Haha, nice to meet you as well! :)

Sorry for grouping you together with those you use the headers for aesthetic reasons, I assumed that based on the three entries you linked to. You raise an interesting point, that being that of course some references are more crucial than others in the making of an entry, and that it could make sense to differentiate between entries we got information from and others we merely consulted, and in your words were not used originally. Regarding this, I can only speak from personal experience, so I may say things which don't apply to your situation, but to me sources usually fall within an intermediate value of this spectrum. Some sources will be directly responsible for 70% of the entry, while some others will barely change the final outcome, if at all, but there is no clear-cut line that separates them in two groups. The distinction also mostly depends on the editor and how it made the entry rather than being a characteristic of the work itself. I may have gotten that information from a dictionary, another editor would've taken it from another one, so which should be considered the original one? In my experience a reference section stands for past literature I've consulted and, in some way, taken into consideration, rather than a lab report of the precise places where I first personally encountered a particular information. So I don't really distinguish between these two cases, although it may be due to my editing practice, which consists of first opening and reading all the sources I have and then reaching my conclusions. So when you say that you are "stealing" translations from a source, you're actually doing nothing wrong, science works by collaboration, but labelling it as "not used directly" indeed would make us feel that way. I use everything I have, so I would have nothing to label as "not used". If a particular information is already somewhere else, then to me it's not redundancy, it's confirmation, and worth listing as much as the other source is.

Another interesting point you make is that one editor may choose to not include all the information we could have for strictly practical or personal reasons, making the further reading section some section for "work in progress". This would indeed match with the literal meaning of "further reading". Still, we're downgrading a source from its status of reference to be among the trivia, and we have a good number of request templates (and can always make more to suit our needs) which serve the precise purpose of signaling room for improvement to future editors. So although it technically matches the literal definition of the section, I'm not sure we should juggle between different headers with this scope in mind, especially since very few editors would interpret it as a request for further work, as most, and understandibly so, often view it simply as a choice of formatting.

I'm glad you like the bibliography template. It's a bit controversial, so it's nice to hear such positive comments about it. :) Catonif (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Catonif You have convinced me to use references as a method for confirming what a sense means or how it is translated. To combat the possibility of other editors moving references to Further reading and to be specific about where the information is derived from/confirmed, I am solely using inline citations for each sense. I notice that this brings some aesthetic displeasure, but I believe this shows the strength of what we claim. laŭ is my new ideal entry. I welcome any criticism, so that I may solidify my practices.

Regarding request templates & further reading not regarded as request for work, I struggle with the idea of using a request template for this kind of work. Most certainly, I would be adding a request template to each entry that I meaningfully touch, which would defeat its purpose. For example, I noticed that one user was adding {{rfe}} to each Esperanto lemma missing an etymology in alphabetically order, because he wanted to add {{etymon|tree=*}} to them. If the assumption is that each lemma should have an etymology, then what's the point of the request? Instead, I believe that whatever I am doing is only inclined to be pursued by me. And (I think you will agree with me on this) most editors here do not care as much about references as we do. At least in my experience with Esperanto, I rarely come across entries pre-existing with either References or Further reading.

I am committed to using {{R}} and its modules. It occurred to me last night that the entire set-up was created by you, which in incredible! Since I believe in what you are doing, I intend to update the documentation over time. I'm actually really appreciative that there is at least some documentation to get started with. I do not think I would even have considered using this technology if the documentation was missing. I can see its controversy. However, I believe the formatting you propose is no different than inline citations referring to a Reference appendix in an academic paper. It is straight to the point with only the most pertinent data on display. Generally, people care about how to review the reference (to confirm the editor's work) and not so much the bibliographic information. So, I will die on this hill with you! Thank you for taking the time to explain own_args as I find the solution much better than the static formatting of the current templates. TranqyPoo [💬 | ✏️] 21:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@TranqyPoo Wow, that's something! I see you are experimenting some interesting layouts, I'm glad to have found another partner in crime. :) Regarding request templates, you're very right that using them for such a scope would be clutterous and unuseful, I guess my point was more about the inappropriateness of further reading rather than the suitability of request templates. Thanks for the offer to help on the docs, and for the nice chat! Catonif (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Nuova fonte per l'emiliano/bolognese

Ciao, non so se ti ricordi, ma ci eravamo già scritti e mi hai aiutato tantissimo a migliorare le mie pagine sulle parole in emiliano. Volevo dirti che adesso posso usare come fonte un nuovo dizionario più vasto e più facile da consultare (peraltro degli stessi autori del mio precedente, dunque i due non entrano in conflitto) e, siccome avevi creato tu il template dell'altro dizionario ti vorrei chiedere di crearne uno anche per questo, siccome io non so fare. È il "Dizionario Bolognese-Italiano Italiano-Bolognese Dizionèri Bulgnaiṡ-Itagliàn Itagliàn-Bulgnaiṡ" di Luigi Lepri e Daniele Vitali edito da Pendragon seconda edizione del 2009. Grazie tantissime. Lthe10n (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Ciao @Lthe10n! :) Ho creato {{R:egl:Lepri-Vitali:2002}}. Se ritieni sia troppo lungo da scrivere possiamo mettere un redirect. Catonif (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Grazie!!! ~2026-57093-5 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Module:RQ:xum:TI

Recently, I've been trying to continue work on this module and I have noticed a few areas for improvement. I know you haven't worked on this module in years, but it still says at the top to "report your complaints at @User:Catonif."

Firstly, it does not seem to be possible to add quotation marks within the translations themselves without messing up the wikitext. So far, this poses a problem specifically for the translation of line 19 on Module:RQ:xum:TI/1b, which does require quotation marks to adequately convey the meaning of the passage. Moreover, the template seemingly can only bolden any part of the quote when the exact sequence of text in the page title is also present in the quoted section. This is a bit inconvenient if a quote features an alternative/inflected form of the lemma in question. See how the inflected form sakref remains unbolded in the quote on the page sacru.

If you would help address these concerns, I would greatly appreciate it. Graearms (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Graearms, and thanks for the excellent work! :) Sorry for the mess I left behind in this language. I think what you ask for should be already doable. To handle quotation marks in Lua strings you escape them with a backslash, e.g. "this \" is a quotations mark", or put them in apostrophes, but then you have to escape the apostrophes, 'this " is a quotations mark and this \' is an apostrophe', or if you really want to escape neither, [[this " is a quotations mark and this ' is an apostrophe]]. Regarding bolding, there should be a |bold= parameter that overrides the pagename already, sorry for the lack of documentation.

By the way, neither sacru nor sacr are attested in Iguvium, I corrected the labels. I would suggest lemmatising at Iguvine forms whenever possible, e.g. c is not a letter of the Iguvian alphabet and seeing it in a lemma is a bit weird. Catonif (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Also, I would not say that you left behind any mess in Umbrian; in fact, the infrastructure you left behind is quite excellent. There are, however, a few more potential issues I've noticed:

• I don't know if it's possible to manually bold multiple separate words, which is a problem for the page kumaltu, where the quote contains two different instances of the same term.
• If I wanted to quote multiple lines from the same tablet, I don't think I would be able to manually bold any different forms from separate lines. Just as an example, here's two random sections from tablet 1a:

1. • early 2^nd century BCE, Iguvine Tablets, table I, side A (photo; facsimile), lines 5, 33:

     ⁵ 𐌖𐌊𐌓𐌉𐌐𐌄𐌓⁚​𐌚𐌉𐌔𐌉𐌖⁚​𐌕𐌖𐌕𐌀𐌐𐌄𐌓⁚​𐌉𐌊𐌖𐌅𐌉𐌍𐌀⁚​𐌚𐌄𐌉𐌕𐌖⁚​ [...]

     ukriper fisiu tutaper ikuvina feitu

     Sacrifice for the Fisian Mount, for the Iguvine community.

     ³³ 𐌀𐌐𐌉⁚​𐌔𐌖𐌛𐌖𐌚𐌐𐌖𐌓𐌕𐌉𐌕𐌉𐌖𐌔⁚​𐌄𐌍𐌖𐌊⁚​𐌇𐌀𐌐𐌉𐌍𐌀𐌓𐌖⁚​𐌄𐌓𐌖𐌔⁚​𐌕𐌉𐌕𐌖⁚​ [...]

     api suřuf purtitius enuk hapinaru erus titu

     When you have presented the porcine (pesondra), then distribute the erus of the lambs.

I don't think there's a way to bold both, say, 𐌚𐌉𐌔𐌉𐌖 (fisiu) and 𐌔𐌖𐌛𐌖𐌚 (suřuf). This does pose a problem if I needed to manually bold two different inflected/alternative forms of the same word that appear in separate lines.

• Also, the template doesn't appear to work right if placed next to multiple hashtags. See, for example:

1. lorem ipsum
   1. lorem ipsum

1. • early 2^nd century BCE, Iguvine Tablets, table I, side A (photo; facsimile), lines 5:

     ⁵ 𐌖𐌊𐌓𐌉𐌐𐌄𐌓⁚​𐌚𐌉𐌔𐌉𐌖⁚​𐌕𐌖𐌕𐌀𐌐𐌄𐌓⁚​𐌉𐌊𐌖𐌅𐌉𐌍𐌀⁚​𐌚𐌄𐌉𐌕𐌖⁚​ [...]

     ukriper fisiu tutaper ikuvina feitu

     Sacrifice for the Fisian Mount, for the Iguvine community.

Graearms (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

@Graearms The final issue already has an easy solution, which is the |indent=, or |i=, parameter, whose value by default is #*. In the case you give, it would be |indent=##* (unusual way to handle this, because the entire module is a big bodge. I'd rewrite it if I had the time.)

The first and second issue don't have a solution yet, because my practice was to only list quotations under the form they are attested. However it's no problem, I can allow multiple values in the bold parameter, like |bold=𐌊𐌖𐌌𐌖𐌋𐌕𐌖/​𐌊𐌖𐌌𐌀𐌕𐌔, which should fix both issues. Catonif (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

You may be an eligible candidate for the U4C election

Greetings,

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) seeks candidates for the 2026 election. The U4C is the global committee responsible for overseeing enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct. Elections are held annually, if elected a committee member serves for two years.

This year the U4C requires candidates to hold administrator rights on at least one wiki, which is why you are being contacted as you appear to hold this right. There are other requirements, such as candidates must be at least 18 years old and may not be employed by the Wikimedia Foundation or other related chapters and affiliates. You can find more information in the call for candidates on Meta-wiki. Additionally, the committee's working language is English; some ability to communicate in English is required.

The election opens on 18 May, if you are eligible and interested you have until 10 May to submit your candidacy. There will week between for candidates to answer questions from the community. Voting takes place privately in SecurePoll, successful candidates must receive at least 60% support. More information is available on the 2026 Elections page, including timelines and other candidacy information. If you read over the material and consider yourself qualified, please consider submitting your name to run for the committee. If you think someone else in your community might be interested and qualified, please encourage them to run.

In partnership with the U4C -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

bacio "bàʃo"; caciocavallo "caʃocavàllo"; etc.

edits like these Special:Diff/89170102 Special:Diff/89616414 in heaps of pages by Special:Contributions/~2026-19841-4, Special:Contributions/~2026-10917-37, Special:Contributions/~2026-85105-7.

I need all of their edits undone. Are you able to do this? Emanuele6 (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, applying the gorgia, shouldn't it rather be caʃohavàllo? 🤔 Emanuele6 (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Emanuele6 Sorry for the late reply. It's not gorgia, but Roman pronunciation. Why mass-undo? They're not perfect but they are it good faith. I retouched these two you mention, I don't see other evident problems. Catonif (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Whoever these accountless people editing are, they removed the Italian pronunciation, so that has to be fixed.

Maybe you are not accustomed to using the contributions interface not noticing any other problem, given that, looking at their edits, one can easily find, for example, Italian cacio. Emanuele6 (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Emanuele6 Any other one? Catonif (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Italian cacio e pepe... Emanuele6 (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Emanuele6 Thanks, although he didn't remove anything there. Need help with anything else? Mass-reverts are a serious thing, for vandals, not for newcomers whose majority of edits are valuable with a couple of suboptimal edits. Catonif (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

What should make us think that a person making edits without an account, with various temporary accounts, is a "newcomer"?

In many of the pages they modified, which unfortunately you are not able to see, they removed Italian pronunciations replacing them with these inaccurate transcriptions of Roman pronunciation; in, to make one example, Italian pinsa moving the word to the wrong Italian rhyming category. Emanuele6 (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, if I may, some of these edits are just vandalistic; there is no way to see them as good faith. Special:Diff/88171513 Emanuele6 (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Emanuele6 But alright, alright, I should have looked better, calm down with the bolding. :) But no, it's not vandalism. I don't mean I agree with him on everything, the thing I want to make clear is that you asked for a mass-revert, I'm simply not giving you one. Catonif (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

In that edit I linked in the comment you are responding to, they literally just removed the Italian pronunciation from Italian frocio. How is it not vandalism to remove Italian pronunciations from all words supposedly of Romanesco origin, or whatever their criterion is? Emanuele6 (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

remove Italian pronunciations from all words supposedly of Romanesco origin Because that is literally what they are doing in effect if you can look past this supposedly valuable excuse of adding (inaccurate, inferrable anyway) Romanesco transcriptions. Emanuele6 (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

You are taking the piss. Are you going to fix the pages manually, at least? Emanuele6 (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Emanuele6 "At least"? I'll do it, but as a favour, calm down. I'm not mocking you, I smiled genuinely. Catonif (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

"At least"? I'll do it, but as a favour, calm down. I insist that, if you don't want to fix these entries by reverting, you must fix them manually, at least. It is but your choice. But thank you for fixing them properly if you will.

I will avoid asking you to use your powers in future as it clearly annoys you. Emanuele6 (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Emanuele6 I believe you are reading my messages with a tone I did not intend. I meant to cause none of the ill emotions you seem to feel. I am not annoyed the slightest bit. Try reading my messages again with a relaxed tone. Catonif (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I read clearly that you will not use your powers to revert their edits as I request. It is clearly pointless asking.

Anyway, I do not care, but I still insist that if you do not want these edits reverted, you must fix the pages otherwise because it is your decision.

Incidentally, "you are taking the piss" is the only correct reaction to Special:Diff/88171513 → But no, it's not vandalism.. Emanuele6 (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Anyway, I do not care, but I still insist that if you do not want these edits reverted, you must fix the pages otherwise because it is your decision. Because if I will have to fix these pages manually myself —because you won't help—　I will do it as I did for the first one of these I found (bacino Special:Diff/90394918), before noticing there were others —and asking for your help— as I have no business nor authority doing it your way, leaving a Romanesco pronunciation. Emanuele6 (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Emanuele6 Why would I not help? I am doing it, you see no edits because I'm taking my time making the entries better overall. Catonif (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I am explaing why fixing these pages is the least you should do to help, since you want them fixed this particular way. It is not a favour because you are doing it your way, and insisting it be done your way; you just must do it. Emanuele6 (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

If you were not to do this, I would have to fixed these now broken pages. And I hope you will realise, you'd be leaving me in a complex sitatuation given I would have to consider this person's "seemingly" vandalistic behaviour non-vandalistic, and deal with these Romanesco pronunciations I have no business touching, and you don't want deleted.

I hope you can realise that after making such statements about the nature of this person's edits with only you being of that opinion, one should be expecting you to do this yourself at the very least. Which is what I meant to say.

If you fix them by keeping the Romanesco pronunciation, there is nothing wrong with that, given that there is (per what I asked on other occasions) nothing wrong with adding a Romanesco pronunciation with no citations. As long as you get these pages fixed without making others' editing more difficult.

Do keep in mind however that this user (and you) is also breaking conventions about Romanesco transcriptions. For instance, in Italian pinsa you edited earlier, the pre-existing IPA^(key): [pint͡sːä] was restored as IPA^(key): [pint͡sa].

May I ask why the IPA^(key): [t͡sː] was ungeminated and the original IPA^(key): [ä] became simply IPA^(key): [a]? That IPA^(key): [ä] is not an uncommon sight in Romanesco pronunciation, and also something that keeps away from them, assuming they are even following a conventions, these; they are often added by IP users as almost everything Romanesco. Emanuele6 (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Emanuele6 I am doing it. Either [a] and [ä] are acceptable for a broad phonetic transcription. Phonetic doesn't necessarily mean that the level of strictness is maximum, it's just indicating that the level of precision goes beyond phonemics. Of course, we can disagree. Thanks for the raw: tip. Regarding caciaia, I did think of /h/, it makes for a complex label, "Tuscan gorgia, after vowels without syntactic gemination". Note that not all Tuscany has gorgia. Catonif (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Either [a] and [ä] are acceptable for a broad phonetic transcription. This is very unhelpful. We pick whichever we feel like at the moment?

Note that not all Tuscany has gorgia and not all of central Italy talks speaks Romanesco, and, as you once said, not all of Lombardy pronounces perché with IPA^(key): /ˈɛ/. What are we transcribing then? Something I could add myself to any entry loosely applying the gorgia or something that can make sense to one who reads it? Emanuele6 (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Emanuele6 What matters firstly is that we have content, consistency is secondary. What I meant by the gorgia remark is that it's best to explicitely label it as such. Are there any other pages you want me to tackle? Catonif (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Your final explanation makes even less sense to me given that that the gorgia is trivial inferrable from spelling like the Italian pronunciation. Anyway, I guess I will have to check other pages the user edited manually, and fix them myself if I find any other ones that need fixing, since you think you are done. Emanuele6 (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Emanuele6 Thank you. Catonif (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Catonif Fix edits by this other newcomer @Special:Contributions/~2026-20489-99 with 100+ edits who edited even yesterday, vandalising Italian pages, such as Italian micio. Emanuele6 (talk) 06:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Emanuele6 You're removing content and calling it fixing. Thank you for your service I guess. Catonif (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

This is incorrect; I am restoring content that was removed by the user; I don't whether the content they added is accurate so I don't know how to handle it any other way.

If you want it preserver you should at the very least help. I don't understand how you can be OK with this user removing Italian pronunciations for bacino, bacio, micio, occhio, ragionevole, etc., adding words to the wrong rhyme category, or moving words from one rhyme category to another.

This has to be fixed, you can't keep enabling this behaviour. I can only fix these by means of reverting, as I've already explained; there is no source I can go off. You are only making it difficult to fix the Italian pages these users (which we have to pretend is new and has not been editing for a while); you are not collaborating and clearly taking the piss. Emanuele6 (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Also I've left micio (to only name the page I found, and linked, passing you the user's contributions page) for you to fix, so that you would handle it. I was hoping you would do it as promised. Why are you acting as if I removed something you can now do nothing about? I've fixed up the edits of the users, you already claim to have reviewed where the pages were still broken, outragously so; not this user's. Emanuele6 (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

(Notifying Chuck Entz): This user across multiple temporary accounts does nothing but vandalise Italian pages.

The @Special:Contributions/~2026-20489-99 account is still making edits, because it has not been made to stop, and nothing was done to amend their edits; recents acts of vandalism commited: Special:Diff/90499389, Special:Diff/90499079

Even if one attempts to fix these edit, this user has reverted such attempts on some pages.

Registered user @Giorgio patrizi engages in the same sort of vandalism Special:Diff/89449240 Special:Diff/89469345; again nothing done about their edits. Emanuele6 (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

TLDR, for future reference. Let's get this straight. There is an IP (Giorgio Patrizi) which is adding a bunch of dialectal terms and occasionally substituting standard pronunciations with dialectal or historical ones. So instead of fixing those which at the time were probably less than a dozen occurrences of the thing, you come to me and ask a mass-revert of all of his edits diff. I say that this is not possible because that is reserved for vandals diff diff, and from here on you keep persistingly mislabel this IP a "vandal" (the first being diff), start using strong language diff, and suddenly it becomes my obligation to spend my time going to fix all of those entries myself diff diff, all because I didn't mass-revert the edits of a net-positive user.

Instead of getting mad over your attitude, I believed I could calm you down by actually helping you with the patrolling. I did a superficial overview of his edits and fixed some of the misformattings I could find. I did not check every individual edit, as most seemed fine, so I asked you for any of the edits I missed you would want me to tackle diff. You take this to mean that now all of his edits now have my stamp of approval, and as such I am now as responsible as he is for all of the mistakes that the pages may contain diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff (bystanders, do the mistakes contained in the diffs look like vandalism to you?), and accuse me of "wanting to make people believe" something in a random unrelated edit diff. You also keep calling valid information "inaccurate" diff, "wrong" diff or "nonsensical" diff. You also revert an edit of mine that had nothing to do with the IP twice diff diff, even though as soon as I open a discussion about it diff you appear uninterested.

After that you complain to poor Chuck, who really wished he could enjoy his time off thinking of something else, about me not helping you diff. And it's true, but you should realise that with that attitude you make it very hard for anyone to want to help you, on a volunteer project. But "turn the other cheek" a good man once said, so I still hoped to fix this situation once again by helping out with the edits. Silly me! I instead got reverted twice diff diff, and when I explained myself diff you called it "nonsense" diff (I recognise the hyphenation was inconsistent). Adding existing pronunciations to ogni? Nope, reverted! diff, because you didn't like the order I listed them in.

Manu, I hope for your sake that you will change. Catonif (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I am sure this is completely uninteresting to you, so ignore it if you want. I stand by what I said: this is not a new user, and there are not just a dozen of instances. I asked for your help and you pretended to not even know how to look at a user's contributions.

accuse me of "wanting to make people believe" something in a random unrelated edit About this specifically, you told me you were the one to blame for labelling "mo" as Romanesco and only correct as /'mo/ when I asked about it a while ago. Looking at basically any dictionary one will see it is actually /'mɔ/. I don't think me wanting to call a transcription with "mo" as "mó" wrong should be so outragous; of course one is free to pronounce it "mó", "ró" or whatever, but I am not going page to page adding IPA^(key): /ˈen.do/ pronunciations to gerunds replacing standard IPA^(key): /ˈɛn.do/ just because phonemically I pronounce that suffix as such; that is normally only allowed when there is an audio to back up the regional pronunciation using different phonemes.

You omit the fact that this user straight up only deletes Italian pronunciations on purpose in some instances, not just replace, and you say you have not actually approved all other edits, or I am to believe, even actually looked at any other edits by the user, whilst saying that there are only "like 12" offenses; I am sure there were way more than those I have had to fix, and I have not even counted, there were multiple hundreds of edits I asked help with, which I thought was fair, given that, with my limited powers, I cannot even know how many other temporary accounts this IP has. I have probably reviewed 5 pages if not more only today, and those were all old edits.

The reason why adding a one-word respelling to multiword entries is unacceptable is that it will cause {{it-pr}} to add the page to a rhyme category, which should not happen.

Abusing your special powers, just so you could justify not having an Italian phonemic transcription in battajeria (was battaglieria), is definitely nonsense.

What I think my mistake was is asking for help rather than simply fixing the pages myself. I have only bothered you, with barely any benefit. Rather, after requesting, you wanted me not to fix these edits by mere reverting despite them causing categorisation errors. I would think one making such requests should be expected to at the very least help with cleaning up manually, but that is not the case at all, one has to respect making such requests even while refusing to help.

One cannot get help requesting a simple permission change, let alone requesting something that takes a bit more effort.

I will help clean up these pages if I can, but I guess I am not making promises and there is no point in doing so anyway because no one seemingly cares that Italian categories are wrong, or that Italian rhymes are removed, even ignoring the quality of the rest of the page's content. Emanuele6 (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)