User talk:DAVilla

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

Archive[edit]

abeille[edit]

It's a figure of style that is completely at odds with the normal abeille imagery (that of the busy bee in French too), it's also not in two sources that are usually overly welcoming of such figures of style (Académie and Atilf, the old Académie dictionary being a prime source of definitions at fr:). Unfortunately, it's hardly possible to do a search on it because there have been at least two important writers with "Abeille" as their family name. Circeus 15:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Mzajac/Language attributes[edit]

Hey, thanks a lot for the comments. I've been away from that for a little while, but it's time to move on with it in the next few days. I'll try to incorporate your suggestions, and then field-test a few templates. Michael Z. 2009-01-27 18:26 z

Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Recurring problem with Chinese vs. Mandarin[edit]

Talk here moved to the link above.

Citations:Leona Helmsley, Citations:Leonard Nimoy, etc[edit]

I don't get it. Why did you create these sorts of pages? The main entries would not satisfy WT:CFI, would they? -- WikiPedant 21:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not as CFI is currently written, no. But there is the possibility that, in the future, out-of-context citations such as these would qualify the term, an individual's full name. DAVilla 03:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Equinox[edit]

To be fair, I'm informing you of Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2009-03/User:Equinox for admin.—msh210 17:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Open sunshine[edit]

Thank you for undeleting the open sunshine entry and adding the citations. It has been real hell getting that entry established :) Wakablogger 21:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

stargate[edit]

It wouldn't obviously fail. Some words take on a life and meaning beyond the original universe, like Klingon. --EncycloPetey 03:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The definition removed was "Any of the fictional ring-shaped wormhole-based devices used for interstellar travel in the Stargate universe." This is more specific than the first definition, which passed RFV. DAVilla 03:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
But that does not mean the second definition would not pass RFV. Consider that the ring used in the Stargate universe has specific properties not necessarily found in the general definition. The definition ought to be RFV'd rather than deleted outright. --EncycloPetey 04:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
If you say so. DAVilla 04:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

diff[edit]

I probably rolled-back from that diff, which essentially was an anon deleting substantive content. If I did, that also would have been the only content effected, not any additions. - Amgine/talk 14:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

<whince> Sorry I stepped in it. It just looked wrong from the RC patrol pov. - Amgine/talk 02:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

WOTD audio[edit]

There are more than five missing audio files for this month. Did you look at the list of selected words at User:EncycloPetey/WOTD? Words after the 6th have not yet been loaded into the templates. --EncycloPetey 05:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks for the link. DAVilla 05:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Some of these words I've never heard before. I had to pronounce them based on the IPA, but I don't feel comfortable doing so not only because of my unfamiliarity, but more worrisome the fact that the IPA isn't always right. I've had to correct a few (repechage listed UK twice, empyreal had a vowel combination not used in US English) and I would wonder if the last syllable of polyptoton isn't just /@n/. DAVilla 06:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The section for repechage had a copy-paste error I hadn't noticed. The US IPA for polyptoton is correct. For empyreal, I had to rely on published sources, since I've never heard anyone use the word that I can recall. --EncycloPetey 14:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

no, this does not require a vote![edit]

ISO removed Europanto from ISO 639-3, thus reducing the number of constructed languages by one. This is *not* a major change, and does *not* require a vote. Also, it's absolute nonsense to say that there are 10 languages, while only nine are listed. -- Prince Kassad 17:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the WT:CFI page clearly states that it cannot be changed without a vote. We even had a recent vote to that effect. Accuracy of the information is not at quesiton. If you have issue with that, you should take it up in WT:BP.
Where does it say that? At the top, it says "It should not be modified without a VOTE." Note the emphasis, it does not say "must", but "should". Use common sense to determine whether this is a policy changing edit, because stuff like correcting typos and the like (which this is) does not require a vote. -- Prince Kassad 12:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, if you want to stay consistent, you should revert this too. -- Prince Kassad 12:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think all changes before the Vote are grandfathered. We should probably consider redrafting to exclude items that more properly belong in guidelines. It is also bad legislative drafting practice to have provisions that can become contradictory without a vote. Thus having an explicit list of excluded languages but allowing changes by the ISO to override the explicit list creates an opportunity for contradiction. DCDuring TALK 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Context labels in ELE[edit]

Hi. Thanks for all the input and the vote of support. I'm sorry I dragged my feet, but I've finally made a much-abbreviated version of the proposal at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/Context labels in ELE v2Michael Z. 2009-05-17 18:03 z

hang[edit]

Would you mind seeing Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#hang again? I'd be curious to read your further views. Thanks.msh210 00:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And I've responded further there.msh210 17:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Old gender templates[edit]

Is there still use to {{pxx}}, {{sxx}}, and {{fxx}}? They're not used, and if they won't be, I'd rather rename/remove them to get them out of the 3-letter language code space (those codes aren't currently used by ISO, but it's nice to have a tidy house). Thanks. --Bequw¢τ 03:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal context template use[edit]

Back in April you commented on Template_talk:context#Lexicography. I've just added my thoughts. Not sure if you would be magically notified after all this time. Regards, Bricaniwi 15:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

C# again[edit]

After reading various scattered comments (in which your name featured actively, which is why I'm contacting you) about the difficulties with the title 'C#' (the programming language), I did a search for it the way I think most people would, i.e. typing 'C#' and hitting enter, and of course you land on plain C, so to be helpful there I have added a pointer in the "See also" sub-section C#See also 5. Hope this is OK.

Should I also have added a link there to the Wikipedia entry on C# (Wikipedia:C_Sharp_(programming_language))? What is the current policy on such out-of-project links? Should they explicitly let users know the target is a different site (and I don't think the tiny "w:" is enough clue - I would type the full "Wikipedia:")?

In the old discussions at Wiktionary:Tea room/Archive 2009/April#C.23 you say "And sign the petition" - which petition was that? Outcome? Thanks, -- Bricaniwi 16:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember if there ever was a petition. I think not, but there is more than likely a bugzilla request to support all characters in titles. Technically it's entirely feasible.
There isn't any reason to elaborate on listed terms. Certainly you can link to the Wikipedia article, but only from the entry on C# (which in this case is Appendix:Unsupported titles). Use {{pedialite}}. DAVilla 06:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

m:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting[edit]

I do not want to come across as contumelious but please consider casting your vote for the tile logo as—besides using English—the book logo has a clear directionality of horizontal left-to-right, starkly contrasting with Arabic and Chinese, two of the six official UN languages. As such, the tile logo is the only translingual choice left and it was also elected in m:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran Speak your mind my past 03:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Header for examples vote changed to "Samples"[edit]

As there seemed to a clear majority for a change in the header, it has been changed to "Samples". The vote has been extended 7 days to allow time to (re-)consider one's position. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Bequw¢τ 03:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Local logo vote[edit]

I didn't see that you had already created a vote when I listed this one in the voting section. Clearly the differences will have to be hammered out. Feel free to make any edits before the start date. DAVilla 09:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with setting the start date at February 23 is there are some things that need to be done before local votes can start (making the lower left-side words illegible, and making localized versions for the other wikts) and we don't know whether they'll be done by then. I think it would be better to set the start/end dates like I did here, and remove the nowiki tags when the work on the logo is done. Also, should I delete this vote as it's now redundant? --Yair rand 19:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Merge and redirect.  :-) ​—msh210 17:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Main page redesign[edit]

Re: this, are you volunteering to run the new features? If so, could you make that clear? The vote's at 15-8, 30 hours left, and most of the opposers are against the new design because nobody's really volunteered to run the new features. --Yair rand 17:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you know if there was an existing page showing who's doing what for the new features? I wasn't there during the early discussion of the redesign so I don't really know how much went into them. (Assuming that there was no such page, I started WT:Main Page/Features.) --Yair rand (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Too long ago for me to remember. Email me if this comes up for vote again. As far as volunteers, we shouldn't really dictate too much, like the names of each section which were just demonstration, rather have each volunteer take ownership in what interests them. At one time I would have been willing to coordinate volunteers, but I'm probably not the best man for the job. DAVilla 04:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Phrasebook CFI[edit]

There has been some effort to come up with some formulation to criteria for the phrasebook. Controversy around I have a big penis (RfD and Vote) is significant. I don't have the right kind of experience to help much. You might find it interesting and your input could help. As the effort is still in an early stage, the criteria established need only provide a place for systematic effort on Phrasebook to begin, not to end. It could also use some useful definition of purpose (short-term, at least, and long-term) that motivates effort. So far the most cohesive, albeit obviously partial, concept is a "sex-tourism phrasebook", which has the disadvantage of alienating some contributors and users and attracting controversy that could derail the whole effort. Your perspective might be helpful even if you can't put in much time. DCDuring TALK 10:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I note that you'd already contributed to the discussion when I wrote the above. Thanks. I think it's one of the most important efforts now and could reduce some of the conflict over English entries justified mostly as "translation targets" and reduce the underlying conflict between en.wikt as monolingual English dictionary and as translating dictionary, until we have fully satisfactory technical solutions (eg, views tailored to user purposes and capabilities). DCDuring TALK 10:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Mandarin[edit]

Hi,

I don't agree with some of your changes but I got confused of what you were trying to change after looking at multiple edits. 华语 is favoured in South-East Asia but not used in Taiwan. I think the 2nd sense is incorrect. --Anatoli 04:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: ...is the description really this complicated? in your edit summary of (国语). The word is often used in China to contrast it with the mainland Chinese flavour of Mandarin - 普通话, accent, vocab, etc. --Anatoli 06:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
By all mean, please correct me. I was mainly trying to move the descriptions given in synonyms/see also sections to the relevant pages. Synonyms and see also words are not annotated. DAVilla 07:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Deletion requests#Wikiquote[edit]

Hello. Since you participated in the deletion discussion above, I thought I might like to hear some input from you regarding this one. Thanks. TeleComNasSprVen 12:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Old vote on attestation criteria[edit]

About the vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-12/Attestation criteria, are you planning to start the vote at some point? If not, would you withdraw the vote by leaving a note in the vote that it is withdrawn, so I could remove the vote from WT:Votes? --Dan Polansky 05:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There is still interest. User:msh210 prefers that we test it out before abandoning. DAVilla 17:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Def subpages in Wikisaurus[edit]

I would like to get the /def subpages in Wikisaurus deleted. I know they were your creation, so I am first checking with you to see how much resistence I would meet with the proposal.

The way I see it, the subpages make the thing needlessly complicated, and Wikisaurus works fine even without the subpages. One side effect of the subpages is that they turn out as pages when one uses the random page fuction in Wikisaurus namespace.

I have documented the idea of using /def subpages on the talk page of {{ws refer}}, as a historical record of proposed ideas.

What do you think? --Dan Polansky 08:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have now noticed that, just recently, Daniel Dot has deleted Wikisaurus:ephemeral/def and Wikisaurus:enrage/def, without asking anyone. Sigh. --Dan Polansky 08:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not holding them dearly. If they're not being used then delete them. If they're being used then don't delete them unless you have a better strategy. Half the stuff I've done just exemplifies an idea that no one else carries. DAVilla 17:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

str[edit]

Thanks for your research. We seem to have string (programming or musical), strong, straight, and two that I'm not sure about (the moorable boat could be a steamer, but I doubt it, and I have no idea about the scriptural one). Hmm. Equinox 00:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Other dictionaries do have steamer, so I think that's the most likely explanation.
What about strait? DAVilla 00:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, a strait can't be moored (if that's what you mean!). I'm curious about "This Ps. is introduced by an editor with a Str. taken with slight variation". Presumably the "Ps." is a post-script, but the rest leaves me confused. Equinox 00:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Ha! No, I was referring to the one you've now quoted. Ps. is psalm. DAVilla 00:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Attestation in academic journals[edit]

I appreciate that you are abstaining in the option "Proposed Change 1: Remove", and I understand your intent. Nonetheless, the way the vote is set up, it seems you cannot really abstain in an option: either you support an option or you don't. If you want to make sure that the option 1 passes, the best thing to do is to vote "Support, although I prefer the Proposed Change 3", or of the sort. Of course, you can make this change shortly before the vote ends, so it becomes clear that you are merely giving in to the winning option, one that is good enough for you.

From one standpoint, I have to admit this seems a petty distinction: your "abstain" should be clear to any human admin closing the vote. Nonetheless, formally, the closing admin will have a harder time with "abstain". In any case, that is how it seems from when I am standing; the closing admin may see it differently. --Dan Polansky 19:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

you need a bath (so to speak)[edit]

I (personally) don't like the idea of moving an entry nominated for deletion to a very different title and then replacing the entire content of the page. The net effect is the same, granted, but I think I need a bath should have been deleted and you need a bath created as a separate entry. There's a bit of confusion now over whether I need a bath has failed RFD or actually passed it. Again, nothing more than my opinion. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I am acting out WT:BP#Proposed Phrasebook criterion. I don't think it's necessary to RFD a phrasebook entry in most cases (and never should RFV be necessary). However I should have left a more detailed note as you did. I did not strike it because I am not certain my move will be the final resting place. I agree that this looks odd since the title has turned red. Any suggestion on a process would be more than welcome. I do not consider the current process to be entirely applicable, but I do not pretend to have all the answers either. DAVilla 05:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I also read your edit comment at global marketplace which is not even a phrasebook entry. I will refrain from hijacking these ordinary nominations in the future. DAVilla 05:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Always nice when admins can talk criticism without getting in a huff about it. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/Names of individuals[edit]

FYI, I have edited the vote. --Dan Polansky 20:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Merging google[edit]

I have undone your merging of the two senses of "to google". The sense of searching specifically using Google is a distinct one, and should not be merged into a broader sense, as people often use "to google" in this specific sense. It is a bit like with "cat", which in one sense refers to a domestic cat, and in another, broader sense, refers to any animal of the family Felidae.

On another note, the sense "To search for (something) on the Internet using any comprehensive search engine" is as yet unattested. --Dan Polansky 10:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

splitting labels from links in context tags[edit]

Your input would be valuable at the GP. Thanks.​—msh210 (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.​—msh210 (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Victoria's Secret[edit]

It seems that the entry you created falls foul of a passage of CFI that you wrote. How ironic. What did you mean when you wrote that section in CFI on company names? There's a disagreement between me and Ruakh as to what it means, nobody else seems to care enough to have pitched in with an idea. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not write the section on company names, I only whittled it down when parts had become irrelevant. It may have been Connel who added the passage, since he was most adamant about their exclusion.
There's definitely a problem when it comes to words that can be both brand names and company names, as I've stated once or twice before. A few of the examples at WT:BRAND are also company names. Victoria's Secret is easiest to define as a retail marketer, but sometimes the way it is used is as a substitute for the product, just like Mazda and Adidas.
This is one reason for the new vote I have created, to give more balanced treatment to any term with commercial interest. The other motivating factor is to simplify the rules, which have been criticized for their complexity. DAVilla 15:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A question for you[edit]

Please see it here. --Daniel 23:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

add fuel to the fire[edit]

I'd value your opinion as to the value of the usage notes for idioms, for which this is an example. I believe that most idioms have a significant amount of variation. I'd like the usage notes to be useful, the main entries to be lemmatized, and the main/lemma entry to be findable with a large number of the plausible search terms a user might attempt. Though I have nothing against them, I'd like to minimize the need for alternative form and redirects. Including the terms used in common variations is intended to make the entry both informative and accessible from more searches. DCDuring TALK 18:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"inflection of add and fire"
"determiners, possessives, and adjectives modifying fuel"
I don't think it's necessary to make this explicit, either by comment or in a list of alternative forms. If not to be left completely unacknowledged, this can be exemplified with quotation as samples of how the phrase may be modified.
"different determiners, possessives"
I don't think it's necessary to say this. The only alternative form that might be listed is add fuel to a fire. It captures the idea that fire can be indicated as any incidence instead of a specific incidence. But for add fuel to their fire etc. there is no change to the meaning of the component lemma form. I wouldn't even bother brainstorming these unless it's likely that someone would try to create a separate page, in which case a hard redirect is fine.
"and no determiner instead of the"
This is an important alternative form. It changes the meaning of fire from an instance to a collective noun. It's much easier to list than to explain, and it at least deserves a soft redirect if not its own page. As I alluded to in RFD, the distinction could change the meaning in theory, but this isn't evidenced in my brief searches.
"substitution of put and pour for add, usually with on for to"
Assuming these are in common use, they are important variations, enough such that they would each warrant a soft redirect. We don't know if someone is going to look up add fuel to the fire or pour fuel on the fire initially. A usage note is only informative if you first find the former. Otherwise the search engine is not going to try to interpret the usage note when it looks for hits.
All in all, I prefer the current method of not stating the obvious and, when significant, listing variations. It's clearer to people and machines alike. DAVilla 20:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to give this your consideration.
I certainly wouldn't do it if I thought it were all obvious. We have plenty of folks who use "set phrase" as if it applied to many kinds of idioms. This particular expression is close to being merely a metaphor, which is arguably why so much variability appears. The contrast with kick the bucket which allows no variation except inflection of the verb is the point.
I don't really tax my imagination on these: I search COCA, which supports searches for wildcards, forms of lemmas, and parts of speech.
There is little effort expended by anyone to add redirects, so, in the absence of an automated redirect generator, that seems like a straw man.
The presence of words (other than stopwords like "on", "to", "the") anywhere in the entry allows the search engine to find the entry and put it on a multiple-search results page. Try it.
The versions using the other verbs are "common" enough to appear in COCA and certainly attestable. For a common idiom that is so close to being a metaphor, there is a very large number of attestable forms of the metaphor-idiom, which add little to Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 20:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Adding hard redirects is not really relevant to the choice of method. I was just saying that not all the variations really need to be spelled out under the current setup, just the most significant ones. I said that because your usage notes go a lot further than a list of alternative forms normally would. It's fine to have just one lemma if there's only one needed, but having several does not mean that we're letting in the floodwater. We're still concentrated on that group of lemmas.
You're right about alternate searches if you know that the resulting add fuel to the fire is equivalent to what you're looking for. But what the server thankfully gets right in this case, the user may not. More troubling is that it would take reading through that long usage note to determine it's the right hit. Even knowing what all those grammatical terms mean, which I don't think is true of the average user, it took me a moment to parse those sentences.
I don't think soft redirects or a reasonable list of alternative forms subtract anything from Wiktionary. And I don't agree with your assessment of kick the bucket. I found relevant cites for “is kicking the bucket” and “kick the damn bucket”, although a usage note or mention in the literal sense line may be helpful to distinguish kick over the bucket. DAVilla 05:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Hi DAVilla, I replied to you at the Beer Parlour, it would be appreciated if you could reply to me please. :-) -- PoliMaster talk/spy 10:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


DAVilla would you please rephrase what you meant with your comments at the Beer Parlour, it was written very eloquently, that I couldn't understand it fully. :) -- PoliMaster talk/spy 10:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If I am further encouraged to edit BP it will be to retract what I've said. DAVilla 17:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Categories of names[edit]

The vote Categories of names is going to end soon, after receiving contributions of only a few people. (it proposes a number of renamings, in this pattern: Category:en:Rivers to Category:English names of rivers)

It would benefit very much from your vote, even one of abstention.

I assume you would be interested in this subject, as I am sending this message to everyone who didn't vote yet, but participated in the discussion that introduced the vote, and/or in this poll, which received far more attention than the vote, and is closely related to the proposal in question.

Thank you. --Daniel 16:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/2011-10/Categories of names 3[edit]

Because you voted in Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Categories of names, I'm informing you of this new vote.​—msh210 (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nouns and proper nouns[edit]

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

hundred[edit]

Was the spelling in this quotation "for a good a hundered and fifty years" correct? If so, will you be creating a separate entry for hundered? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ack! DAVilla 18:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Post[edit]

Regarding your post at [1] should for example devil be considered non-existent? Pass a Method (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Would you consider using categories for your entries such as Category:English nouns for English nouns? Just saves other users from doing it. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I've started to use the templates a little more, just now getting the plurals down without having to look them up. Sorry if I was too lazy to figure out the ? or if there were other lapses. DAVilla 20:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Compound terms[edit]

Hello!

Some time ago, you wrote on my talk page that I have created several compound term entries. For the word algorithm, I plan to add the hyponyms of the word. Where should I ask for admission? --Sae1962 (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any compound terms that would be red linked? I'm not sure if my examples are properly hyponyms, but hopefully they serve some illustration. Acceptable would be things like divide and conquer, while brute force algorithm would almost certainly be rejected. The latter is simply an algorithm that uses brute force. I'm less certain about dynamic programming, but I would add it since it's less offensive to list a term than to create a page. You should still use some discretion though, so thanks for asking. Let me know if there's anything more specific that would be helpful. DAVilla 02:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)