User talk:DAVilla/2006

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


Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Connel MacKenzie 15:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)



I noticed your treatise at Wiktionary talk:Entry layout explained/Change proposal draft of 20050505. I'd like to know how I can help to encourage you to proceed. This is needed.

We need:

  1. Basic layout for Wikipedians
  2. Basic layout for wikivirgins
  3. Extended layouts (WT:ELE)
  4. Foreign language layouts
  5. Translation table explanation(s)

--Connel MacKenzie 23:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

As important as the creation of these tools is the classification. My point was that it should be clear who the audience is, and it should be easy for that audience to find the information they need. Above, you've answered the first part in the description of each page. But it won't do any good to throw it into the untrimmed hedges. I'll be willing to help create these sorts of tools, but tidying up is a much bigger task. It takes the right mindset of those creating content, to think in terms of the space that an article or discussion occupies—that is, where it links from and who will stumble upon it. Davilla 23:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation files[edit]

Hi, great that you add some pronunciation files! I would just ask you whether you could upload them to commons ( ) instead? That's because it will be much easier for other wiktionaries to take advantage of the files, whithout having to upload them again on their own project.
\Mike 14:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I consider these to be a first trial, and I don't intend to use them aside from gaining feedback. I've read the note about commons, and I was planning to upload them there in the future. Davilla
I'd like to point out that there is a current Beer Parlour discussion suggesting the deletion of all uploaded media content, as well as blocking the capability to upload any further files. The sooner you have a valid commons account, the sooner you'll have a jump on most other people, and perhaps can help guide them along in the migration process. --Connel MacKenzie 17:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Greetings; unified wiktionary outreach[edit]

Hey Davilla,

I know you've been excited about 'ultimate wiktionary' in the past; perhaps you can help get the word out about discussing this actively while the preliminary design is still flexible : check out the new Wiktionary:Project - Unified Wiktionary outreach.

Rock on, +sj + 16:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm interested in testing the ultimate wiktionary when something tangible is available. I've considered joining the discussion on its creation except that the most important elements are already set in stone. The page you listed seems to be local to this wiktionary communtiy rather than including the creators, so I don't know if it would be much use. I certainly hope that these aren't entirely separate groups though. Davilla 02:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

BP RFD RFD comment[edit]

Can you look at your comment on the BP under RFD RFD. You refer to a change from a "achiving" scheme to an indexing scheme - and I just don't know what word you meant to say instead of "achiving". If you could edit yourself, that'd be great.

Cheers, --Stranger 19:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

the and of[edit]

Please remember that all headwords of an entry should be wikified. Selective wikifying is for the definition lines, but headwords (I've been told) are all supposed to be wikified...including the, and, of etc. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this done, and of course I completely disagree with it, but I had no idea it was actual policy. Wouldn't it overlink these stop words?Davilla 20:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
What is "overlinking"? --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
When you go to "what links here" and find almost nothing relevant, such as Wikipedia:English language.Davilla 20:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
What I was getting at was, is that a technical problem? Your answer seems to indicate that it is an aesthetic issue. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Probably not in this case, though it might be a technical problem in others. For instance, I'm pretty sure some of the pages with dozens of translations of a long phrase linking every single word should be discouraged. I also think of it as a pragmatic issue, as links to stop words are not very useful in the general case. If you're not comfortable with these simple words then you're not going to understand 99% of the definitions anyway. This thinking is probably along the lines of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links if anybody else reads that stuff. Davilla 20:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Many of us do read that stuf, but this is not Wikipedia! These "stop words" are some of the finer Wiktionary entries. Some are not, but in general, they have seen much more review than general entries. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, I don't see how the Wikipedia entries are not relevant to the English Language. It is certainly a long list, but then, English is a pretty big language. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I could have thrown into that most of the links to Wikipedia:English. Although they have not been disambiguated, a good number of them pertain to the language. That is, the word sense does, not the article. Maybe you don't agree the other what-links-here is muddled, but these are the worst of them because they're added by happy trigger fingers that link on sight and never do the dirty work of checking their content. The point is that this Wikipedia is written in English. How many people are going to stop and say, "English, what's that?" In how many of these articles are people actually going to want to look up English for further information? Davilla 20:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Nogomatch[edit]

I'm still replying over there. Is that best, for you? --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I always "watch" pages I edit. But I've been busy. Davilla 05:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Good. I think we are now working toward the same goal. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Please don't create redirects for plurals. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I had read that policy somewhere and was being stubborn, convincing myself either that they were temporary, or that there was no use for a full plural page. But you're right, it's better not to have the redirects.
I have a question then about links in definitions. If there are no redirects of inflected forms, then should we link the stem (except possibly in perfect tenses)? And furthermore, as an extension of that policy, should we use piped linkes when the first word must be capitalized? Davilla 03:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the policy is at WT:CFI#Inflections, first paragraph. Entering redirects means you can no longer use the preload templates to reenter it correctly, as they will only preload into missing entries (blank is not good enough.)
Yes, link the stem forms to assist people actually using the dictionary to look up meanings. That is, with or without the alternate forms, linking to the stem is "better." Yes, we use piped links for the start of a sentence. The individual pages are partly there just for lookups, especially from the search box + [Go], but also for external links (such as from --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't remember testing the blank page before, so I just did: it does not let you use the preload templates if the entry exists, but is blank. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Nor do red links employ the templates. Will this change when the common endings are used, assuming we transition to that? Davilla 03:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The red links do, with some help...e.g. User talk:Connel MacKenzie/Gutenberg. Nogomatch is the second place (after the /Gutenberg page) that I got the preload templates to work. Nothing about them is automatic at this point in time.
Now there's a thought. Preload entries from the edit page itself? From a drop down box, or a row of small buttons across the top? If the [Article] link isn't red, hide the buttons. Now THAT could be really useful.
Anyway, it occurred to me that I haven't invited you to join us (about a dozen or so) in irc:// . The crowd is generally a lot friendlier than I am (which is unusual for irc.) It'd be great to see you there. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite. I'm not big on chat, or small talk in general, but on the other hand wiki is a cumbersome means of communication. (I've long felt that talk pages should be simple threaded discussions.)
The templates could be an interface tool on the edit page, a drop bar or list of buttons or links, especially for the basic tutorial and complete (*all*) templates, but you'd have to make sure that selecting the bar didn't clear the contents. In fact it would be consistent to only allow their selection when the contents were cleared, as would initially be the case for a new or blank page, or one where the redirect were deleted.
I was thinking that the process could be even more automated, pre-loading the relevant template based on the suffix of a new entry's name. Davilla 04:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Derived terms[edit]


Derived terms (and related terms) go under a level-4 header under the part of speech from which they are derived (or to which they are related). (See what I have done to carbs). — Paul G 14:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but I'm not sure it's always clear which POS header a term should be placed under. Davilla 19:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Defining competition[edit]

Davilla comes up trumps

Congrats, your definition of triple bluff was deemed, by me, to be the best (there wasn't a great deal of criteria in making the decision, but yours seemed to be amusing on, like, so many levels man. Hence I award you this not-particular-exciting-but-kinda-relevant icon as a prize. --Dangherous 16:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks. Which definition though? Next time we should probably stick to just one. Davilla 17:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Thou shalt not question my reasoning behind the prize. If thou dost, thy crystal clear app kpoker image shall be stricken from thy talkpage. --Dangherous 13:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
How awkward. You might have been a vandal after all, yet this moment I still cherish. DAVilla 18:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Italics in pronunciations[edit]


I see you modified Template:blend, saying that etymologies use italics. I agree, but prefer to reserve italics for non-English words and use bold for English headwords. — Paul G 08:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternate spellings and inflections are headwords. The blends fit the example of other words of origin in the etymology better... unless you want to bold all such English words in an etymology. Davilla 05:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

125,000th entry[edit]

Congratulations on getting us one-eighth of the way to a million! :) — Paul G 16:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I'll never use "Show preview" again! Davilla 16:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


Presumably the "spin" meaning is US only - we don't use it in England! SemperBlotto 15:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Time work[edit]

Thanks for all the work you're doing on the time and calendar words! I was hoping that would happen. --EncycloPetey 21:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


Hiya Dav. Please see Talk:rock. I think those defs should go back in. Widsith 16:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Davilla. Do you want to put in roc as in the bird? Andrew massyn 17:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

American Academy of Facial, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery[edit]

Err, is American Academy of Facial, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery really warranting an entry here? I'm sure it'll be RFDed sooner or later anyway. --Dangherous 18:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't care if it is or not. Just making sure the rules are correctly stated. See Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#Shorter_Oxford_English_Dictionary. Davilla 18:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi I guess I didn't read the entry correctly when I frst looked, and only after I had posted did I realise why it was split, so apologies. I still think that etymologies should go after meaning. While I like etym. I think most people consult dictionaries for meaning first. Regards Andrew massyn 18:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC).

These edits to a specific page aside, I actually agree with you on this broader point. It must have been you who recently brought it up elsewhere. But I doubt many departures from standard dictionary practices would ever gain enough momentum. Davilla 19:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

vote restarted[edit]

In an effort to be bold, I cleared your vote when I restarted it, on WT:BP. Sorry for any inconvenience. And please continue to participate lively. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiSaurus - compromise proposed (/more)[edit]

copied from [WT:BP]===WikiSaurus - compromise proposed (/more)=== A possible compromise between the "tough criteria for WikiSaurus", and the "Don't lose even the least valuable "synonyms". Introduce, in WikiSaurus, a xxx/more subpage for the problem pages. Cull the trash from the main page (by whatever criteria), but don't just delete it, put it in the /more page. In the main page indicate that new entries not meeting the tough criteria have to be put in the /more page, and there can be researched for verifiability, and perhaps later promoted to the main page. With this I would then suggest we might even protect the main WikiSaurus page. Admin's would then be responsible for checking the /more pages every so often to see if there are any terms that could be promoted to the main page, as they meet the criteria. Thus we would meet two purposes. The main WikiSaurus page would be kept up to our "standard" (which I have to point is very subjectively applied), whilst the /more page would capture every possible synonym, and would in effect be a specific protologism page.--Richardb 23:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

on the fly (encryption)[edit]

I'm not sure I understand what you meant by your summary of your reversion of my edit. Did you mean that you think it is wikt policy to link individual words in the headword, even when the etymology appears to be that a group of the words (in this case on the fly) was brought in as an idiomatic phrase, rather than individually? [Not sure this is any clearer than your summary, but I hope it makes sense.]

If that is policy, it may be worth debating, as being misleading -- eg even if the def of fly appropriate to the idiom were in place (which it isn't yet), with a See Also on the fly (also not yet there) it wouldn't be very helpful to link to it. I say may be worth debating because a) the idiom could be shown (perhaps even linked) in the Etymology section and, as you have done, in the def; and b) I can't think offhand of a single phrase which IMO is worth adding, which is made up from an idiom + another word (or idiom).

If there are only a very few entries that would be affected, and the misleading links are actually explained in an etymology close above, then we've probably got better things to do than argue about improving that aspect of policy! --Enginear 19:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are all on point. My reasoning was that linking certain portions is subjective, whereas linking individual words is not. But I think I'm speculating some on what the policy might or might not be. The more I think about what I actually do know about current policy, the more I think you're correct. For instance, upper case is sometimes linked to lower, depending on the meaning that's present. So I apologize for the uncertain revert.
By the way, what would you do with porta-potty? Davilla 19:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's leave it be, till we find out if the word's going to remain, anyway.
porta-potty Isn't it wonderful how inventive some euphemisms are! I've heard nearly all the synonyms listed, even turdis, but I may only have heard some of them as trade names. Yet we still don't have an English word which describes what a WC/loo/jon/etc really is -- I tease Americans for using bathroom, particularly as there isn't a loo in mine, but closet is actually no better, and loo is much more distant, even if a reminder of "facilities" in times past! (The British crapper sounds more direct, but is actually named after an early manufacturer of what the (British) trade call WC pans who was, by a wonderful coincidence, called Thomas Crapper).
Anyway, if I had time to research it, I might suggest an etymology with porta being a contraction of portable and potty being an attempt to make the device seem less crude by associating it with babies and baby talk (otherwise, in British use at least, it would be a porta-privy, since that is the word [rather like closet now I think of it] used to describe smelly grown-up waterless loos [can't resist that juxtaposition]). I think I've heard all that, rather than made it up, but I'd want to check it out before adding it!
But since you've brought up the subject, you have the honour of being the first person to whom I've copied this wonderful misprint in a work e-mail I received today:
I'm unable to attend your meeting tomorrow, as I have privies appointments booked.
I responded by asking whether the appointments were with people who had asked to meet him at his convenience. --Enginear 19:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Quotations requested (rock)[edit]

Nice idea to indicate them, but I'd prefer not to have these lines in between the definitions. Perhaps you can add a category to the entry for that purpose? I think it's a bad precedent to indicate them for each separate definition, or at least in between them, as moving quotations to a separate section is apparently being aimed at nowadays. —Vildricianus 15:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Happened to notice this. I have been doing quotes after each def too, ad requested in Help pages, and think it's a good method. So have put in my tuppence worth to Vildricianus, at User_talk:Vildricianus#Quotations —This unsigned comment was added by Enginear (talkcontribs) 23:14, 25 May 2006. I must have been tired too -- I nearly forgot to sign the one on V's page too. --Enginear 21:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, come to think of it, quotes itself is not a problem of course, but the en-masse indication of them needed disturbs worries frightens <fill in yourself, too tired> me. —Vildricianus 23:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. If I'm ever that ambitious about the quotations again, or any other lacking sections, I'll find a more elegant way to do it. Davilla 15:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Do let me know if you think of another way which might be more elegant. I think quotations are a great asset, so am adding a lot, but I don't want them to get in the way, and am keen to do it the "best" way, once we find it. (And I haven't forgotten porta-potty, just not at the top of my list.) --Enginear 21:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
On format, I agree with you if the numbers are small. I don't think you'd seen the page when I had requested them en mass. It was rather ugly indeed. Davilla 21:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

website on etymology of phrases[edit]

What a coincidence -- I discovered it this morning too, searching for monkey's --Enginear 18:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibly had been dismissed by the Google crawlers for lack of meta info or something, until it's now been noticed and suddenly prominant. Davilla 19:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that is a cool site! And unlike most, it actually provides decent references for what it's saying. Widsith 15:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

To be[edit]

The joke was "the place to be" -> "places to be". Very bad humour, I know. :-) —Vildricianus 15:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

RFD template[edit]

I think we may need a different template for the other namespaces... different links to add entries. Or what did you have in mind? —Vildricianus 16:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it might be possible to use just one template. Just use if/switch on the namespace. Davilla 17:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. Another argument to have the pseudo-namespaces set as real ones. — Vildricianus 11:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi Davilla,

{{cattag}} doesn't work properly because it capitalises the category name in the displayed label as well as in the category. So {{cattag|Chemistry}} produces (Chemistry) as a label (unnecessary capital letter) as well as [[Category:Chemistry]] (required capital letter). Can you revert this and any others that you have changed, please? — Paul G 08:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

More about this; I'm wondering what the {{foreach}} does. I don't fully understand it. Could you document it? — Vildricianus 11:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Does it matter that (Chemistry) is capitalised? --Dangherous 11:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course it does. — Vildricianus 11:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Documentation for {{foreach|call}} is on meta. Davilla 12:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought this was the desired result, as per template talk:italbrac. In fact I had only capitalized the first term. There are a lot of label templates by the way that use a first capital letter, a few of which I've changed to lower-case. Figured if that's the desired result it's better to do through software. Not possible to use lcfirst because of legitimate capitalizations like US.
I've undone the most recent change (ucfirt and a bug fix). The category is still capitalized. Davilla 12:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
{{chemistry}} has its own issues. See Wiktionary:Beer parlour#cattag. Davilla 16:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding cleverness to wikipedia template[edit]

Hi there. You seem to be the man to ask. Would it be possible to add a second, optional, parameter to the wikipedia template so that we can link to other-language Wikipedias? I was thinking of say {{wikipedia|azoto|it}} so that an entry for an Italian entry here could point to the Italian -pedia. The box displayed should say something like "Italian Wikipedia" has an entry for . . . Could the first, optional, parameter be omitted if it corresponds to PAGENAME? Existing usage must, of course, be unaffected. Cheers SemperBlotto 14:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

An optional parameter is no problem. You had asked how to do an interwikiproject-langauge link and I don't know if you ever got an answer to that. Worst-case it's possible using a URL. Or if you already know how to do it give me an example of what you want e.g. at {{wikipedia-it}} (you can delete it later) and I'll modify {{wikipedia}} to give the desired result. If you want to make the first one optional too, you'll have to pass the language as a named parameter, and there might be some complications with a current mediawiki bug. But I'll see if I can work around that. Davilla 14:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
As it turns out, the mediawiki bug is completely circumventable, and doesn't even really apply here since defaults can be specified without using #ifeq.
I have added a couple of testcases at azoto. A separate template called "wikipedia-it" would be OK if simpler and less hassle - I don't suppose we would get many requests for clones of it. SemperBlotto 14:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, the part about use of this new functionality I understood. My question is the same as yours, how to do an interwikiproject-language link. I'll have to look into it if you haven't found an answer, and if Vildricianus doesn't attack the problem first. Davilla 14:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Either order works: w:it:Roma, it:w:Roma. — Vildricianus 14:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Simply something like using w:{{{3|en}}}: I'd say? — Vildricianus 14:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I have made a clone called it-wikipedia and tried it out on azoto. It doesn't work. It tries to link to an article called it:Azoto on en:wikipedia. What have I done wrong? SemperBlotto 17:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Works for me. Links to w:it:Azoto. "L'azoto è l'elemento chimico di numero atomico 7." — Vildricianus 18:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, my ISP went belly-up just as I was testing it. I could get to some sites but not others. OK now. SemperBlotto 19:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll give {{wikipedia}} a test for you. Sorry Davilla, for hijacking your talk page :-). — Vildricianus 19:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've modified {{it-wikipedia}} and refer to {{it-wikipedia/lang}} which should probably be moved to {{wikipedia/languages}}. Other templates like {{de-wikipedia}} are not really necessary, and {{wikipedia}} should be made equivalent to {{en-wikipedia}}. One problem: {{#language:__}} returns the local name of the language, not the English name. Bleh! Davilla 21:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
That works a treat. See Roma and Paris. Let me know if you are going to update the real template, and then I will delete it-wikipedia and modify the entries which use it. Well done. SemperBlotto 07:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. The usage in Roma doesn't specify a language, but points to Italian. Presumably when it moves to wikipedia the default will be changed to "null" representing English? Or do you want it-wikipedia renamed to something like x-wikipedia?
My thing uses the English name, though. User talk:Vildricianus/PageX/5. — Vildricianus 09:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've compared my version to yours. Would you consider replacing yours with mine? It's much simpler and has the English names. — Vildricianus 09:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh no! Last night, a few hours after the request, I looked at your recent edits to see if you were working on this, but I didn't know PageX/5 would be a wikipedia template. I was pretty tired then but I figured it ought to be done.
I don't know if all the language templates like {{it}} are really required for this application, although they may also be useful for something else, e.g. language headers or translation tables. A {{language}} template to provide the English name would be pretty simple to build, modeled after #language. In fact I think I'll look into that. Davilla 09:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have let you know. The thing is that I shouldn't be editing at all, but oh well, addiction is addiction. I can't concentrate myself properly these days.
Well, all these language templates are here yet, and probably here to stay. We could make use of them for this. — Vildricianus 13:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
In retrospect you almost did say as much.
I've done some more experimenting because of the contrast between your simple solution and mine, and I think I could make a few sacrifices for the sake of simplicity. The language code templates are very feasible even with all the error checking I've incorporated. If you're certain about their permanacy, I'll go ahead and use them instead of {{language}}. I'm worried though about potential ambiguity. Davilla 15:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Which ambiguity is that? — Vildricianus 19:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
There are so many three-letter codes, some of them have to collide with English words or abbreviations, potentially those already in use. {{it}} and the potential {{IT}} is already cutting it pretty close. Davilla 21:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
That's the problem with these templates, indeed. But 1/ as it is a most controversial issue to delete them, I don't expect them to be; 2/ the links to other Wikipedias will not be that widespread either; and 3/ sooner or later, I guess someone will file a request for a variant of {{#language:}} that displays the language names in the local language. Perhaps even pretty soon. The template syntax will then be easily replaced. — Vildricianus 21:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I made it the default on {{it-wikipedia}} and de the default on {{de-wikipedia}}. Roma will need to specify a language when it uses {{wikipedia}}, which I've moved over now. Davilla 09:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've cleaned up entries that use it, and then deleted it-wikipedia. SemperBlotto 13:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


By the way, are you sure you're not interested in a set of extra buttons? They would help editing protected pages, which I'm sure would be necessary for you from time to time. — Vildricianus 19:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Would be nice I'm sure, under User:davilla if it's possible. Maybe you should wait until I follow through on some of my promises though. Davilla 07:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Lowercase usernames are not possible. User pages, yes, but not the usernames themselves. — Vildricianus 12:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Now that I think of it, why would you want your sysop rights on another account? — Vildricianus 20:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer the one entirely over the other. Davilla 21:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
OK then. Please make another account then for non-sysop actions. This one is best-known. I'll nominate now. — Vildricianus 21:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Yups. — Vildricianus 21:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Please accept. Andrew massyn
Thanks. I don't see any reason not to. Davilla 21:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Your link[edit]

Your "E-mail this user" link is not working. Could you turn it on please? --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, okay, if it's necessary. This may be a better place to reach me though. Davilla 14:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you also formally accept the nomination at WT:A? — Vildricianus 15:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Some things (user IP addresses, e-mail addresses, real names) should not be posted on talk pages. Also, admins should have "e-mail this user" active so people have an avenue to complain if unfairly blocked. (/me whistles innocently.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand respecting the privacy of others. As for my own edits I keep a long list of the IP's I've connected under, from home, in my watchlist. I've only gotten a collision once or twice and I wonder if it's even worth keeping. It doesn't create a problem, does it? Davilla 10:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving pages[edit]

Well, it's a bit odd this way. There's no contribs link in the toolbox, no e-mail link... (do you even get the newmessages box?) — Vildricianus 18:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The yellow box... unforunately yes. Even when I'm the editor! Even on this page, oddly enough. And it isn't cleared by coming here! The added hassals didn't fix anything. I think I'll move this page back, but leave the user page at the lower-case. Logging out now... Davilla 09:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
You should test something: see if the User:davilla/monobook.css or .js files work. It's really odd that the new messages notice still appears. — Vildricianus 09:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no monobook.css file. I get the browser cache message with nothing in the box. Then when I view the source it's the no page for this exact title message. Davilla 09:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
And we're back. Davilla 10:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
And to a new user name. Davilla 22:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I find it confusing. Who are you now? — Vildricianus 17:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... same person. ∂ανίΠα 14:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Right. Please change User:Davilla and User talk:Davilla from a redirect into some kind of note or whatever. If you're not going to edit under that username anymore, you might as well have requested a name change. Or what's your intention? And who's going to be a sysop? Please clarify this at WT:A#Davilla. — Vildricianus 14:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


Congratulations, you are now an administrator! Ask any of the other administrators if you need any help. — Paul G 20:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! Thank you very much. ∂ανίΠα 16:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Account name change[edit]

I notice you have asked on the administrators page for your account name to be changed to DAVilla. Changing an account name is straightforward for a bureaucrat to do, but puts a heavy load on the server as all your contributions and signatures are changed over. Name changes are therefore only done when there is good reason to do so, such as if a third party is maliciously attempting to find out information about a user.

I will therefore not be changing your account name at this time. I'm sure you quite like "∂ανίΠα" anyway. — Paul G 20:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As Vild suggests below, you may transfer this account (which is smaller) to User:DAVilla. Alternatively I can open that as a new account, and you can apply sysop privileges to it. If you choose the latter, please wait for me to confirm. ∂ανίΠα 16:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
It's probably easier to do a name change, as it would need a steward to desysop this account first. Perhaps you can immediately test the new Wiktionary:Changing username page (and see how long it takes Paul to notice it :-). — Vildricianus 16:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Your name[edit]

I really don't mean to be a bore, but could you please comment here? I've come to the conclusion that your new name isn't that good actually, being that of a sysop, for the reasons listed there. Feel free to ignore my opinion on this, but I'd appreciate it if you requested a name change for this (User:∂ανίΠα) account (which has the sysop status), into some name in Latin script. Technically, it won't be a problem since you've only made 200 edits with it. You could then use this account for sysop things and the other (User:Davilla) for non-sysop things, which I think is what you intended initially? Thanks in advance. — Vildricianus 15:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised at the reaction, especially since my only complaint had been been that I couldn't use a lower-case d, but by no means am I attached to this user name. I'm completely open to any of the ideas that have been presented. For sysops especially I think your case is strong. ∂ανίΠα 16:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for considering that. It's an unprecedented case so far here, so it's something to be learnt from, and something that could inspire a possible policy on this. — Vildricianus 16:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration of the week[edit]

I have been trying to make a pretty template, which I have cribbed off the translations of the week one. You can look at what I have done at User:Andrew massyn/playpen. If you like what I am doing, let me know and I will keep working on it. See ya. Andrew massyn

Absolutely. It's not Project:Davilla after all. Not sure what's different from ToTW, but even that box would be fine. Davilla 17:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Tell me if you like No.1 or No.3 (at little boxes), bearing in mind that ToW is pink. I prefer the lilac & purple one but am not sure if it will be sufficiently differentiated from TOW's to work. Andrew massyn 02:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have sort of got it working...When you edit the batch, there is a little button at the bottom, and that leads you to a page where you have to push a redirect button. Stil trying to fix that one. Do you think 3 blocks or 4. I think that three is sufficient. Andrew massyn 04:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the one you chose. The looks are fine, the only thing is the number of boxes could change, anywhere from 2 to, what, 9 or something? Hopefully not that many again though. Also would you consider the COW to be the prep stage or the main stage? Davilla 17:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I see you've been working on it. Thanks. I put it on the tea room page with an invitation for all and sundry to get cracking. We'll see what the reaction over the next week or so is. My own feeling is to introduce the words at a fairly basic level - major headings and definitions, and see what transpires from there. If we look at "rock", that worked quite well. Any tidying up can be done afterwards. Also, I think that at maximum we should have four entries. I know for myself, it is quite a longwinded process to chase down definitions, quotations (esp) translations and pictures, and I certainly lose focus after three or four of those. Thanks for the work on it all. Andrew massyn 19:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC).


You do know you have a [rollback] link, don't you? You seem to be doing it manually. — Vildricianus 19:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't see it. Not a tab, not listed in the history. Where would it be? ∂ανίΠα 19:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Both on the user's contributions page and on the last diffs of pages. — Vildricianus 19:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

New account[edit]

See this. — Vildricianus 15:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

New name[edit]

Notice: Paul changed your username and I moved your pages here. I also corrected the list of sysops which now displays DAVilla as the sysop. Cheers. — Vildricianus 09:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Please comment: [1]. — Vildricianus 18:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


I'm also clueless why this is so complicated. Why use all these tricks? Template:foreach should be deprecated. — Vildricianus 07:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my prolonged absence. I've been meaning to address this and will do so tonight if my connection speed kicks back up. (Edit: inconsistent it seems.) I think tail recursion might be an easy work-around to foreach, but I'll have to test it first. If not, foreach can easily be simplified. DAVilla 15:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you did finally roll it back. It's just as well. I still need to look into foreach for cattag though. DAVilla 16:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I did roll back as it was entirely broken, see below. — Vildricianus 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, cattag will be rewritten when string functions are available, and will probably be done with tail recursion, at which point foreach can be buried once and for all. Or do I hear cries for a simpler foreach? DAVilla 17:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
StringFunctions may not be availble for a long while. I'll ask again but don't count on it. — Vildricianus 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I've taken foreach (and its calls) and italbrac/... subpages out of the loop. Things should be clean now, and if it checks out in a couple of days then the extra templates can be rfd'd. DAVilla 17:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Great, looks much much better right now. Thanks. — Vildricianus 08:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Form of[edit]

Why needs the {{form of}} be included in every "form of" template? They can handle that independently. — Vildricianus 14:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, I see why and how. This is a good example for what I mean with "unnecessary template calls", and the kind of thing that really must not be done. Avoiding it is an easy way to reduce load time (which is at the moment way too high). If you don't mind I'll roll back. — Vildricianus 14:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If it affects performance then the wiki software is poorly written. And by the way someone should look at statistics for performance hit so we don't have to guess about these things. Knowing what to improve can only be good.
I don't mind if you roll back the changes regardless, except that "form" should be inserted in many cases as per a BP discussion, which is why I tackled them in the first place. The point of the abstraction is to allow a change at a single point rather than hard-coding every form of template. This is a standard and highly praised technique in the world of programming. This way of thinking is second nature to me. It's not a common practice here, nor is this a programming environment, certainly. If you prefer to run bots then by all means use the grunt labor method. There will never be more than a few hundred form of templates anyways. (Edited.) DAVilla 17:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, first, I'm not guessing, as I've talked with Brion about this, and it is, whether or not the software's poorly written, not recommended to have multiple template calls within a template. It's hardly a visible load, but it chops away milliseconds, which can add up during slower connection times, server-side or client-side. So I feel that it's a bit our responsibility as well to see to it.
Secondly, how many "form of" templates will there be? Twenty? Thirty? Anyway, not that many so that it becomes a hassle to change them manually, if ever that is necessary What you said, before I made an edit conflict.
Of course I know you intend to do this for the better, but templates, or rather the way they are incorporated into mediawiki right now, should not be viewed as pieces of code or little programs. They're more like awkward stones you have to carry around all over the place and watch out that they don't become too heavy to carry. Recently Tim Starling changed some code so that {{italbrac}} broke entirely [2], I guess because of the recursion stuff that was in it. That's just an example of why there are limits. Cheers, — Vildricianus 17:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay I'll roll them back. If it saves any time at all then maybe that's reason enough.
I'm not sure if this is what he meant by "multiple template calls". I certainly won't argue that {{cattag}} is clunky, although at the present it's the only way to achieve the desired functionality.
I'm not entirely happy with the way the wiki software is designed, and I mean the sort of issues that take new direction. Eventually I will work my way up to editing real code. As of yet I haven't even done anything with bots though, although having made such promises. DAVilla 17:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey cool, the actual parser code. Strange that it broke italbrac but not cattag. Foreach doesn't actually use recursion, but cattag does (for now). DAVilla 17:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I can only encourage you to take an interest in mediawiki developing. It'd be good to have someone defending our ideas there :-). "Multiple template calls", well, template A that calls B, and B that calls C and D etc. That's OK if it's a real solution but should be avoided, like in the "form of" case. As to what exactly broke italbrac, I'm only guessing, although I'm sure it's in that specific SVN diff I linked to. — Vildricianus 17:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the notice! bd2412 T 21:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Category:English nouns[edit]

"On the subject of templates, in particular the speed in which their use was implemented, I think the reason it passed so quickly is precisely because there were no objections..."

Very nicely argued. —scs 16:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... could be slightly rephrased though. I didn't mean that no time was allowed for objections. DAVilla 16:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
(anyway, I meant your whole writeup, not just that fragment —scs 17:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC))
Oh okay, thanks. DAVilla 17:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

logos - clarification of translation[edit]

You have requested clarification of translation. This word is supposed to be plural locative form. Shall there be just singular nominative and fact, that this is a declension, should be left only in declension table? (I am not aware of ways of implementing locative in english in one word, usually it takes form of "in something")(link provided (Wiktionary:Entry_layout_explained#Variations_for_languages_other_than_English) did not have any useful information on this case) -Yyy 08:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have tagged logs. There are several definitions of window and it is not clear which is being referred to.
Thank you for your feedback on the link. I will have to create a page to explain it. DAVilla 09:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Clarified (logs), hope this is better. I just thought, these data were supposed to be in window entry and nowhere else, because of policy (or recomendation?) to keep entries on foreign language words short and simple. -Yyy 11:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That looks good, thanks. Yes, a gloss is supposed to be there if the meaning is ambiguous. I guess "window" isn't so ambiguous, but it's good to know logs means part of the GUI as well but not a period of time. I'm trying to push more clarifications like these. They aren't always needed, but they are needed more often than people would think. DAVilla 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:present participle of[edit]

My apologies - I did not realize the template was used interlingually. bd2412 T 15:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No apology necessary. It might not yet be. The styling was more significant, although honestly I would prefer that something be used, probably bold having a slight lead over italics. It would be nice to have a vote on the default style, but it's not a cheery issue and I don't want to bring it up all on my own.
I'm sorry for removing your link on past participle. It was easier to just revert it all, and I think the link would be a tad overloaded, but I'm not sure that matters. I would definitely support linking to an Appendix article. DAVilla 16:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:plural of multiples[edit]

Say, can you make Template:plural of capable of handling multiple entries. For example, kitties is the plural form of kitty or kittie. Cheers! bd2412 T 06:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of an elegant way to do that without first having some functions available that aren't. Ideally it would be {{plural of|kitty or kitties}} or {{plural of|[[kittie]] or [[kitties]]}}. I would say for now just don't use the template in such a case. DAVilla 02:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Queer as a clockwork orange[edit]

Thanks for tidying this -- I'd rushed it a bit -- and it was even worse when I started.

I don't mind the "Reference" staying where you put it (in fact it is better there since it applies to both senses rather than the one I'd attached it to), but why did you think it wasn't a valid cite?

It was an example of use, in running text, of the target phrase, albeit consisting of the writer (Head) noting (footnoting in fact) that another person (Morrison) had stated that the phrase was the source of Burgess's book title Clockwork Orange. Unusual, but I believe it satisfies our criteria for cites.

(Incidentally Morrison based it on what Burgess asserted, though no one but Burgess seems to recall hearing it before his book was published, so it may be an invented backstory (?backtitle). However, that is irrelevant to the validity of the cite.) --Enginear 18:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well I wouldn't really say I added anything of value. As far as the quotation goes, it doesn't do much for verification purposes because it's more of a definition. It isn't an example of use in running text. (See w:use-mention distinction.) However, I'm reconsidering what I did. It probably makes more sense to move it back as a quotation. Whether it satisfies verification or not, it's still a quotation. DAVilla 13:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Macron discussion[edit]

There have been complaints in the past about wholesale moving of discussions, so I simply copied over the relevant portion. leaving a note to guide further discussion to the new location. --EncycloPetey 21:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. It just seemed odd having the possibility of multiple responses in different places. I only removed the part that I felt was irrelevant to that page. DAVilla 21:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

re: User talk:[edit]

What would they be? User:100110100 please, thanks. 12:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


It might be easier to choose your occupation if you resolve the non-sequitur between "Finally start a career" and "Seal the fate...." Also, try to clarify the implied stress polarity between the restaurant job and the others. Finally, if it turns out the particular particle of mold whence you sprouted is psychologically incapable of producing joy, consider keeping its genes out of the pool. ;-) Rod (A. Smith) 06:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

On your last point, that is the equivalent of sealing my fate. There aren't too many American women that I find attractive who would likewise want to give me a chance. It's not that my standards are high, it's just that I don't fit in. I don't own a car because I don't want to own a car, for many reasons. Yes, my neck tic is an impediment to meeting people, but it doesn't irritate anyone who knows me. The point is, when I'm abroad, I stand out. People want to get to know me. Being off the charts on the introverted scale, that's a good thing. The only other way for people to get to know me is to force their hand.
Living overseas is stressful because of the environment—the cultural differences, the language differences—because of the low pay which you're constantly having to send home to cover student debt and that European backpacking trip you shouldn't have taken because, as you keep proving to yourself, traveling alone isn't any fun. A career job is stressful because, well, let's face it, the only programmers who don't devote their lives to some company are hustling for contract jobs that require polish I haven't got. The service industry is quite different. I find it exhilarating to exhaust myself physically every day. DAVilla 14:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Come live in Rwanda and teach computers. Learn French. Eat very good food, live in a very peaceful country with a wonderful climate. And very friendly beautiful people. I met with the Rwandan goverment's IT director this morning, if you send me email (enabled on my user page, put wiktionary in the subject 'cause I get lots of SPAM) I'll send you some contact information. They definitely want people. Robert Ullmann 10:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Enticing, but could I teach in English to a young age group? I'm not an IT guy. And would it cover my debts? About USD400 monthly. DAVilla 14:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both and TheDaveRoss for your comments so far. Of course that's what I really want out of this "vote". DAVilla 19:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Translations, etc.[edit]

For some weird reason I asked you a question here. Edit: Now below.

I was also thinking of reviving Wiktionary:Collaboration of the week but simplifying it even further, to a single phase, concentrating on maybe five entries that seem to be pretty well done anyways in terms of definitions, then picking the more active three which are fed directly into Wiktionary:Translations of the week. Are you the one who picks those entries, or do you know how they're currently picked? DAVilla 09:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't have anything to do with picking the translations. I think Connel is doing them in the absence of Vlidricanus. We should probably speak to him.I think it would be great to revive the collaboration, and agree that it should be simplified. A few points.
  • I think it was my ignorance which made accessing the boxes for COW difficult. In the light thereof, we should probably delete all the COW pages and start again.
  • We should define exactly what we want.In this regard, if we are going to feed into TOW, then we need.
pictures, animations etc.
amplified definitions (if necessary).
links (both internal and external).
  • I also think that we should concentrate on perhaps three words max. at a time, just because five or more is too daunting.

Let's start it up again after having spoken to Connel re linking it to TOW. I think you should put in the first entry in the tea room, and perhaps a new or renamed COW page. I will then follow up and see if I can whip up any enthusiasm. Fingers crossed. Andrew massyn 18:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The COW boxes were never used because I had a busy summer schedule right at the time that you created them. I wouldn't mind modeling the page exactly off of the Wiktionary:Translations of the week page though. Only three words? Very well. I like the focus and the feel that there is some urgency. Do you think it would be better to ask for quotes or for clear examples? The latter is much easier to do. DAVilla 22:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. My keyboard ears were ringing.  :-)
I think the TOW model is great, with Richardb's list of basic english words needing cleanup being the perfect ready-made feeder list.
I think example sentences are better for translators to read. But en.wikt: prefers citations, in lieu of references. I can't see expressing a preference for one or the other; situation will dictate which is more appropriate.
Is there anything you'd like me to help with?
--Connel MacKenzie 22:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure there is, but for now I'm just going to set it up and see how it looks. Do you like the idea of feeding these into translations? Would you be confident enough to select from the words o' lacking list before doing so? DAVilla 22:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think WT:PCBEW (Richardb's thing) has pretty much the opposite goal as WT:TOW; I don't think I'd like to see them merge any time soon. (Maybe in a year.) --Connel MacKenzie 23:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
One thing I haven't been doing, that I mean to, is announcing the new TOWs on WT:TR each week. (Sorry for the acronym/shortcut overload...but I don't think I even know the correct page names anymore.) I think announcing the COW on Fridays, the TOW on Tuesdays might be the way to go? --Connel MacKenzie 23:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

I have been asking people to use the talk pages, and to move discussions from the general forums to the talk pages once the topic is talked to death or finalised. Quite often, the same words come up again, particularly if they are contentious and if the history of the discussions are not on the talk pages, it makes it difficult to establish what the consens was relating to the word. Regards. Andrew massyn 02:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's a fabulous idea and I have to admit to being quite lazy about it. I've passed and struck out a number of terms without moving the discussion.
One question though, Andrew. Should the discussion be moved or just copied? DAVilla 09:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, copied, definately. What I am doing at WT:RFV is archiving the page at WT:RFVA once a month with the full discussions there. Each individual discussion is copied to the talk page of the article as it is dealt with. Best wishes. Andrew massyn 18:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


What is your take on the current m:Wiktionary/logo "vote"? --Connel MacKenzie 23:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary, like any vote would seem to be, or perhaps just as any vote is, according to w:Arrow's theorem. The truth is I don't really like any of them. The other truth is the final result will grow on me. I don't even mind that it's the full community deciding, and not just Wiktionary.
I know you don't like the tiles, but that would have been the best for me if the center one were brought closer to the viewer. You need 3D software to do this and my attempt only made it look bigger. (Hey, my graphics software is really buggy, so why try too hard?) I thought people would at least look at that and get ideas, but no. So I think you're right that there just weren't enough ideas out there.
The quote thing is ridiculous. When it closes, they should immediately eliminate anyone who voted for A2-4 or any of the D's. "We're sorry, these were actually traps. Since you voted for a design that conveys no meaning of dictionary, your vote will be eliminated. Thanks for trying, but try to have some taste next time." DAVilla 23:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

re: nolang[edit]

THANK YOU! I have been meaning to do that for a long time. - TheDaveRoss 03:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I did it for myself really. And why didn't you? But I'll take all the glory that could possibly come from a single redirect, heh! DAVilla 03:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


I apologize if this comes off sounding sarcastic; that is not my intention. What is the purpose of having different Wiktionary entries for each inflected form? It seems to me to waste space, not to mention leave many links to as-yet-uncreated pages in its wake. I would just as soon not have had a linked genitive form for the Greek nouns, but as there was no Greek template I modeled the Latin one. I'm rather new at this and would really appreciate any pointers that you might have. Thanks! Medellia 03:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation; that makes much more sense. To rectify the Greek nouns, do you think it would be sufficient were I to, for example, say "This is the genitive form of noun x?" Or would it be best to instead have all of the information contained on the page for "noun x" likewise on the page for its genitive form? Medellia 03:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Will do; thank you so much for all of your help and patience. Medellia 04:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User Kamran /[edit]

Since you are on right now, can you shut this one down? Robert Ullmann 18:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • TheDaveRoss got it ... Robert Ullmann 18:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    That was fast. Okay. DAVilla 18:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary:How to check translations[edit]

Why create a new page? It would be easier to find on the Wiktionary:Translations page. --EncycloPetey 23:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The process is not intuitive, and I'm actually combining information from several sources. The problem with any of the other pages is that they're too broad in scope. DAVilla 23:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
In any case, there should be clear cross-linking. Thanks for writing the page, but the way! --EncycloPetey 23:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

number versus numeral[edit]

Take a look at our own definitions. A number is "an abstract entity used to describe quantity", but a numeral is "a word or symbol representing a number". By our own definitions, numeral is the correct term to use here. --EncycloPetey 17:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I don't doubt it could be more technically correct, as the claimed standard of other dictionaries, but is it any clearer? By itself, I would support ===Numeral=== over ===Number===, but with Cardinal and Ordinal as modifiers either standard makes sense to me. I think if you were to vote on eliminating Cardinal and Ordinal then you would get more votes. Besides myself and maybe Jeffqzy, you'd probably win over Connel, who's interested in simplifying the headers. Of course, ask them what they think. DAVilla 17:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Edited DAVilla 19:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A translation template[edit]

I think it is a pity there is no template for translation, why not create one like the french one : Template:trad.

It would be usefull to create links like :

Sinsedrix (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have passed this off to User talk:Stephen G. Brown#A translation template. DAVilla 17:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I see you have got the COW going again. Good show. I ahave ammended the COW page to put in what I think is needed at the article pages. One thought though, is it useful to discourage translations at this point? I think it would be easier to remove translations for deprecated meanings afterwards, than to discourage translations at this point. It is also a negative rather than positive intervention and we want to encourage edits to these words rather than the opposite. What are your thoughts? Andrew massyn 10:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Altered. Is that better, or does it still not go far enough? DAVilla 08:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Only the first couple COWs are smothered with overlapping TOW issues. It might be overkill. Or it might not. --Connel MacKenzie 17:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

RFV archive?[edit]

What is up with that? If an entry is kept, the RFV conversation goes on that page's talk page, only. --Connel MacKenzie 15:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah? I've never done it before. Okay, I'll delete the ones that passed. DAVilla 16:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Have those sections already been moved to those talk pages? Andrew usually does them one by one. Perhaps a good task, to be requested on WT:BOT/T. --Connel MacKenzie 16:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Andrew and I state "rfv passed" and use the template on the talk page. Otherwise I'm checking them individually as I go, since they aren't all clear. In fact I left a number sitting on the rfv page that I didn't want to delve into.
The thing is that Andrew had told me before that discussion is copied to the talk page, not moved. If it's deleted later anyway, why not just move it? DAVilla 16:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Because many things are disputed that first week after a "decision" has been made. Or they used to be, anyhow. I'm not sure why they aren't disputed as much anymore - maybe the gigantic page size works as a deterrent? --Connel MacKenzie 16:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
What about leaving just a trace, the header and the note "rfv passed, moved to talk page"? We're not talking about deleting the discussion; if it's disputed then it's just a click away. Better though would be to mark it for a bot, which would automatically move it in a week's time. DAVilla 16:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
What do I do when only a sense failed? Does it belong in the rfv archive or on the talk page? DAVilla 16:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. The process changed over the first month or so when I was working on it, so the earlier ones are not all standard. What I am doing now is as follows:
  • For those that have passed;
  1. Noting rfvpassed on the rfv page.
  2. Copying the full discussion to the talk page of the article.
  3. Noting {rfvpassed|text= with the curly brackets at the beginning of the article. The discussion, and ending with a curly bracket at the end.} This then sends it to the rfvresult page in alphebetical order.
  • For those which fail in their entirety.
  1. Noting rfvfailed on the rfv page.
  2. Copying the full discussion to the talk page.
  3. Noting {rfvfailed|text=Discussion}. This sends it to the Rfvresult archive page.
  4. Copying the definition to the talk page.
  5. Deleting the failed entry but not the talk page and noting in the deletion log rfvfailed.
  • For those where one or more sense fails
  1. Noting that the sense has failed at rfv.
  2. Copying the discussion to the talk page.
  3. Noting {rfvResult|text=discussion}
  4. Adding the disputed def to the talk page.
  5. Deleting the disputed from the article page.
  • If I am unable to decide, then I refer it to RFD with the full discussion.
  • If it goes to WT:LOPAgain the rfv discussion including the decision to refer it is put on the talk page, the article is deleted and the talk page is kept.

At the end of each month, the rfv discussion for that month is copied to WT:RFVA and then deleted from the Rfv page.

This puts as much info as possible at all relevant places, so that if it needs to be revisited, it can be checked easily. So far there ahve been a few queries, and some where I have reversed my former decision. The failure rate of the rfv process at this stage is between 1.5 and 2% which I think is acceptable. Regards Andrew massyn 18:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you mean that we've decided to keep talk pages when the article itself doesn't exist? Because I haven't done this maintenance before I don't usually fail entries, but now I doubt SB bothers to preserve discussions on tosh. And was my penultimate edit to Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/September 2006 a mistake? DAVilla 18:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I dunno really. I'm a bit of an ass when it comes to technical stuff and I just do what I am told. If you look at my talk page, you will see the development of the system there. Vlid told me to keep the pages and Connel said there was a place to put them. Rod Smith had been archiving, and taught me how to do it. I think it is a good idea to use the talk pages anyway, as this shows the communities views on things. also, particularly with nonce words and protologisms there is a possibility that they will be accepted and become real words. Its nice to see (Almost) first usages in these cases and will be good in the future. I try to encourage those who are monitoring RFC & RFD to put the discussions on the talk page as well. I might be a bit anal about the whole thing, but that's the nature of lawyers. Cheers. Andrew massyn 18:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This has been my complaint about the approach you've been taking, yes. I would much prefer to see failed entries archived only in WT:RFVA by month, instead of on the orphaned talk page.
I understand it has been easier for you to put them on the talk page. But if we automate this, it should be to RFVA, not the orphan talk pages. Orphan talk pages are supposed to be deleted, but these have been clogging that particular cleanup list (which I've mostly avoided, out of respect for your efforts so far.) --Connel MacKenzie 17:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Wait, the automation should be neutral to policy. As I've said it's necessary to tag the sections for archival since it's not always clear (to a human let alone a bot) whether the nomination has passed or failed. What I had proposed was mainly for RfV passed, which would be convenient because it would collapse into one, several steps that are supposed to take place a week apart. We can model RfV failed after it, with whatever changes are necessary, once it's clear what's to be done. DAVilla 18:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

At the moment I only really feel like I'm trying to assist with the process, so feel free to revert anything I've done. I will continue to copy RfV passed to the talk pages when others verify terms. DAVilla 18:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I really dont mind if the orphaned pages are ditched, as long as the discussion is recorded somewhere, so that if the word comes up again, it can easily be found.

  • The problem with archiving generally is that it is in date order and not alphebetical order, and hence is difficult to access the talk about a particular (deleted) word.
  • The system as it stands now gives one a place to look up all rfv words alphebetically and thus it is easier to access.
  • Certain words have been queried for a second, and it is useful to show the discussion as to why they have been passed or failed.
  • If the technical whiz-guys can sort an elegant solution, I would be grateful. Andrew massyn 18:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Please elaborate what you think should be done, on WT:BOT/T. --Connel MacKenzie 19:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking that perhaps we should have an alphebetical list of Rrffailed words. The rfvpassed ones would stay on their talk pages and the RfvResult ones also on the article talk page. I wil suggest this on WT:BOT/T. Andrew massyn 19:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The COW[edit]

Well, it's looking good so far. We went from just the two of us working in the first week to nearly half a dozen last week. Maybe it will all work this time. (knock on wood) --EncycloPetey 03:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC) (By the way, I've already added the COW template to the translation sections of the new pages and removed them from the old ones.)

Request for deletion comments[edit]

Hello DAVilla. I'm clearing the deletion nomination backlog, and there are some ancient inconclusive discussions that I'd like to close soon. Do you have any responses to Connel's comments on "fi"? —[admin] Pathoschild 05:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you check RFD, there doesn't seem to be any real drive to delete Kau neva no di yus of im tel til di butcha kot it of which is also Jamaican, so if fi were removed it would be inconsistent. Anyway the whole reason for nomination is ill formed. It is clearly a word, the question is only to the name of the language. DAVilla 15:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Getting something deleted quickly.[edit]

Sorry, I don't know what 'tag it with speedy' means Moglex 20:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:speedy DAVilla 12:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Entry for the word "help"[edit]

Hi. I don't understand the need for the (Chinese English) addition. The meaning isn't distinct from #1 "To provide assistance to".

Also, assuming we keep it, your definition should be "To provide a favor to", so that substituting your definition for the word help in the quote makes sense (i.e., since the quote says "me", not "to me").

(If "assistance" in #1 doesn't seem broad enough, you could always change that to "a favor or assistance".)

DanwWiki2 17:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. (transitive) To provide assistance to (someone or something).
  2. (Chinese English) To provide a favor.
    Can you help me to take a picture?
If someone told me the example above, I would think they didn't know how to take a picture, not that they wanted me to take a picture for them. I was looking for a meaning distinct from the first. If you don't think there's any distiction then feel free to just delete it outright. DAVilla 03:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:cattag again[edit]

Does the new second example under Template talk:cattag#Use in label templates really look the way you want it to? It looks pretty wonky, with all those <includeonly>'s and <noinclude>'s. —scs 02:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a permanent solution, but Connel had asked that the label templates be categorized under *. Let me see if I can make it less cumbersome. In the long run it will be folded into cattag. DAVilla 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Context template[edit]

Just curious: what are you trying to get to? ;-) Robert Ullmann 12:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to simplify {{cattag}} to where it can be more easily understood. Because of template includes and namespace checks it's difficult to create in the user space. DAVilla 12:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
(I'm not worried about you playing in the Template space, you can clean up after yourself ;-) Trying to make it simpler for the end-user, the person creating categories or label templates, or for someone trying to modify the cattag code itself? I think a lot might be accomplished by simply documenting it a bit better. Like maybe explaining how label templates can be used as targets for redirects (because categories can't, among other things). It works well, but a bit too magically for people who want to create new labels, but aren't willing to slow down and understand how it works. Robert Ullmann 14:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
At the moment, none of the three. But I am filling in a lot of gaps. DAVilla 23:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


Do you think you could make barnstars for this projects. I think that hard working people should get rewarded.--Sir James Paul 22:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Regional context tags[edit]

Since you have modified all of the regional templates they now seem to take a superfluous lang parameter e.g. {{Chilean Spanish}} used in article coño now has a totally strange category of category:es:Chilean Spanish. Can we fix these? I thought that my original update would have been sufficient.--Williamsayers79 21:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry. Yes this is fixable. The lang parameter is optional for context/cat. DAVilla 21:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll remove it from the regional templates where I see problems with it, to be honest it should only show up in the non-English language regional templates because that would be the only time there would be lang parameter given. By the way, nice work on this one, I was sick of cattag's problems!--Williamsayers79 21:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, let me know next time and I'll try to work some magic!
I've already updated the regional templates in foreign languages. This should probably be done for the English ones as well, for consistency if nothing else. DAVilla 21:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Your edits have broken the formatting of this template. See lion (def 2). I'd try to fix it, but haven't a clue how to do so. --EncycloPetey 00:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get it. Problem with {context}, not the label template. Silly mistake on my part. DAVilla 00:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Even though {{context/template}} is less frequently used, it's taking a while to upload. But it's fixed. DAVilla 00:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Context and Label templates[edit]

Hello again, the category:Label templates seems to have filled up again! I thought all of them had been migrated across? Anyway am I OK to go ahead migrating them in-line with Template talk:context instructions to make new context templates?--Williamsayers79 09:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, there's no rush, but go right on ahead. I hadn't migrated any of them earilier, I had recategorized them temporarily. DAVilla 15:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


About the syntax that you were talking about in the beer parlour. What I really meant was what you said, have it as marcha#spanish|marcha , to hide the code. This is so that if your looking at the spanish translation, you dont get in a sense "a disambiguition" page of marcha.

Bearingbreaker92 02:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Translations - wiki links[edit]

Hi - Sorry if I missed the current policy on this matter - there seemed to be a number of different wiki-links to other dictionaries. I wasn't attempting to change the policy - is the current intention that users should move from (say) window to en:fenêtre and via this to fr:fenêtre in the French dictionary? —— Saltmarsh 15:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should have said current practice. I certainly have no qualms about experimentation. Yes, my feeling is that the indirect link, as you outlined, should be enough. The problem is that it only exists when the en: Wiktionary page exists. But I was a little wild with my vote, if only to point out that it really hadn't gotten enough discussion yet. DAVilla 15:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

relflexive forms[edit]

In Spanish, I know that the decision was to include reflexive forms under the main entry. I don't think we discussed the use of redirects at that time, however. --EncycloPetey 07:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

So what do you do when there are synonyms, e.g. pig out = stuff oneself? I don't know about Spanish, but if that's the policy even there then not filling out reflexive forms seems like a perfect idea in English, and the redirect is just the glue. DAVilla 07:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Wait, so you wouldn't put a Spanish entry at dame? DAVilla 07:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Not as a lemma form, no. Sorry, I meant that we don't have separate full-fledged lemma entries with all the bells and whistles for reflexive forms. --EncycloPetey 07:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)