User talk:Dan Polansky/2009

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


Looks good now. In some ways what I RfVd was "sophisticated" vandalism. Rolling-back was more efficient than other means. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 01:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice![edit]

lol i don't know bot will do this. thanks--Zodlicious 01:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


Suggestions: Wikisaurus:hello, Wikisaurus:goodbye. --EncycloPetey 08:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(uncountable) (rare) → (uncountable, rare)[edit]

Hi there. All context tags affecting a given sense should be præsented in one parenthetic comment; please note how to do this for future reference. Thanks.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Simplifiying the format Appendix Names[edit]

Dear Dan,

Your simplifying the outlook of the Names Appendix is in my opinion somewhat too drastic. Now the page looks rather sterile and is not so inviting as before. Can you please add some colours to the page. Accenting by example the genders by colour. Blue for male, pink for female, and green for the surnames?

Thank you in advance.

Best regards, Sanne van den Eijnde (Alasdair), Amsterdam, the Netherlands

--User:Alasdair 12:33, 17 March 2009

I suppose you are referring to Appendix:Names and to my edit. I assume that you prefer this revision, which is IMHO an example of poor web formatting. The current revision looks the way I think it should look. --Dan Polansky 11:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

vést vs. vodit[edit]

can you check this ? the second is marked as imperfective of the first but the first is also marked imperfective. --Diligent 12:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Both "vést" and "vodit" are indeed imprefective. The term "vodit" probably differs from "vést" in that "vodit" is not only imperfective but also frequentative; but no guarantee on that from me. --Dan Polansky 12:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

categories for de-verb / de-verb-conj[edit]

Hi, in this edit you said "-Category:German verbs: not a job for a conjugation table", but that removed many German verbs from categories, see Special:UncategorizedPages, is now full of them. You may be right that category is not a job for the conjugation table,but these pages all use Template:de-verb and i think it would for sure be a job for that template, but that is a redirect to the conjugation template. It doesnt seem like a good idea to me to make a template that is used in so many pages a redirect. Hmm, how can we solve this and get the pages back into categories, without having to manually add them? Mutante 10:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I will manually add {{infl|de|verb}} to those approximately 200 German verb entries without category when I find time. Thank you for the notification; this is an omission of mine. --Dan Polansky 14:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

rád as a verb[edit]

Hi, I think we can't take rád for a verb. First, the fact that "rád bych věděl" translates into English as "I would like to know" doesn't make it a Czech verb any more than zahradní makes an English adjective from garden just because "zahradní květiny" translate as "garden flowers". Second, the verb in the sentence is vědět in the conditional form věděl bych, and rád just qualifies, like eg sám does in "Sám bych to nevěděl" - surely we wouldn't take sám for a verb?! On the other hand whether to call rád and adjective or an adverb... I admit I can't decide. --Duncan 13:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I don't insist on "rád" being a verb in this usage. Still, consider that "muset" is classified as a verb and plays a similar role to "rád bych", like "rád bych věděl" and "musím vědět", or "rád bych jel s vámi" and "musím jet s vámi". On the other hand, there is "(já) ráda nakupuji" and "I like shopping", which I would admit suggests "ráda" as an adverb; also "nakupuji ráda a rychle".
If you have a clear idea on how this should be classified, go ahead and change the entry. Possibly, one more sense with a usage example is needed. --Dan Polansky 14:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
But even in "rád bych věděl/jel s vámi" the word works as an adjective or an adverb in that it can take the comparative and superlative forms "raději bych věděl/jel s vámi" and "nejraději bych věděl/jel s vámi", doesn't it? I'll have to ponder some more the adj vs adv angle, though. --Duncan 14:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Based on your point with the existence of comparative and superlative, I would classify it as an adverb, based on the syntactic appearance, like "raději", "tepleji", "rychleji".
On another note, in English, there is a dedicated entry for would like. So there could be a dedicated entry "rád bych", although that would have to form the comparative "raději bych".
Feel free to change the lexical category (AKA part of speech) to adverb. I've had my try at that odd "rád" entry, and don't feel like taking responsibility for further changes to it. --Dan Polansky 15:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's a bugger of a word - it forms comparative & superlative as an adverb, yet sports all three genders in the positive degree... In the end I decided to keep both adjective and adverb. Perhaps somebody else will come with a better solution in the future. --Duncan 17:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

{{clear}} at Wikisaurus:bird[edit]

I added the template because before you added the synonyms section, the whole three columns got squeezed left of the ToC. Circeus 14:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I see. But if ToC at Wikisaurus creates a problem, not only for you but also for other people, this should better be dealt with in {{ws header}} instead of manually in each single page.
I do not experience the problems with ToC in Wikisaurus, because I have ToC disabled by having placed "#wikisaurus-toc { display: none; }" into my monobook.css, but this does not solve the problem for people by default. I do remember this unpleasant effect of columns squeezed to the left by the ToC.
The following line from {{ws header}} is responsible for putting the ToC to the right
<div id="wikisaurus-toc">{{tocright2|50}}</div>
. I can imagine that not putting ToC to the right could be more convenient for many people, after all. I am satisfied with my personal setting of having no ToC, but I do not know whether this would be the preferable default.
Now, {{tocright}} is at the very end of {{ws header}}, but it used to be at the very beginning[1], possibly having pushed the ToC more to the top of the page.
As a summary, I see three possible actions to take:
  1. Leave things as they are, with the unpleasant squeezing of columns.
  2. Remove {{tocright2}} from {{ws header}} altogether, leading to a standard ToC.
  3. Move {{tocright2}} to the very beginning (top) of {{ws header}}, and see what effect this has.
What you could do is that you would create a copy of Wikisaurus:bird in your userspace, replace {{ws header}} with its contents in that copy, fiddle with the expanded {{ws header}} in that copy to see what you like most, and get back to me with the results. --Dan Polansky 16:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
FWIW the problem is only really acute when you have many -nyms in the first section (usually a synonyms sections has a few words and is enough to prevent this problem from occurring, adding just one synonym in these pages "fixed" them).
I'm confused as to why the header is setup the way it is: there is no apparent reason for basically forcing the ToC to remain in the middle of the screen on larger display. This actually what causes the problem (although in this case, the first header is very long): it only appears around 1100+-width pixels screen definitions. Circeus 17:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The fact that the ToC does not come completely to the right and comes to the middle instead seems to depend on the use of {{tocright2}}; {{tocright}} does move the ToC to the very right of the page, even on a wide screen. This I judge from an experiment made in my User:Dan Polansky/Sandbox. However, the use of {{tocright}} does not solve the problem of squeezing of columns, especially on narrow displays. It seems to me that removing {{tocright2}} altogether would be the best way to go to cater also for narrow displays, but the people who originally added tocright to {{ws header}} apparently thought otherwise. What about going to Beer Parlour or Grease Pit with the issue? --Dan Polansky 18:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I have adjusted {{ws header}} to remove the problem with the ToC staying in the middle for wide screen. I have tested the adjustment in Firefox. Does it improve the ToC placement for you? --Dan Polansky 18:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Because the header doesn't wrap, it draws the text higher again and causes the columns to "squeeze", but the squeezing is not problematic anymore (squeeze three one-word columns into ~700px and it'll look just fine). Circeus 19:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Empty" headers[edit]

I'm not entirely certain whether there will be names of uncertain hyphenation in Wikisaurus:bird of prey (there will definitely be in wikisaurus:passerine), but until I'm done with it, I'd rather they stay there. Circeus 06:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess that you are referring to this comment of mine, and to the headings such as "1.2. Sometimes in two words" and "2. Single species". What I was wondering about was not only whether these empty headings are useful per their emptiness, but also whether these kinds of headings are useful at all. Like, why should I want to classify terms by whether they are "sometimes in two words"? I for one do not see the point, and would be happier if Wikisaurus:bird of prey had no subheadings of the "Hyponyms" heading at all. --Dan Polansky 09:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess because should I list it as olive dove instead of olive-dove, there would immediate problem as to whether it is a SoP. Plus, there is genuine disagree between national association and major authoritative source over most of these cases. Circeus 16:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
How does the heading "1.2. Sometimes in two words" in Wikisaurus solve the potential inclusion problem created by the possibility of "olive dove" being a sum of parts? Either the term is included in WT or not; but what does Wikisaurus have to do with that? I mean, only terms included in WT mainspace can also be included in Wikisaurus, and no further headings in Wikisaurus can change that. --Dan Polansky 16:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Butting in: I would be inclined to advocate keeping all multi-part vernacular taxonomic names, whether or not hyphenated. Most are more commonly not hyphenated, I think, when used as nouns. That is contrary to my (and EP's, I think) preference and practice for Translingual multi-part names. I have been splitting their two-word Translingual taxonomic wikilinks into one-word wikilinks. My rationale is that we, not WikiSpecies, seem to be the best home for the English vernacular names, but they are better at taxonomy. If we have Translingual taxonomic names at genus and above (and the species modifiers as Latin) and links to WP and WikiSpecies at all the appropriate entries, Wikimedia would be offering its best material to all users looking up a vernacular or taxonomic name in Wiktionary. This might warrant BP discussion or at least including EP. DCDuring TALK 16:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Re "I would be inclined to advocate keeping all multi-part vernacular taxonomic names, whether or not hyphenated": I tend to agree, but I have not given much thought to this topic, so my voice should not count much. However, my point was that whatever the decision on this issue, whether Wikisaurus should or should not have a certain heading is completely unaffected. --Dan Polansky 16:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


Could you check this entry? I vaguely remember someone telling me that it never starts a word (hence no capital letter can exist)--Diligent 08:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right that no word starts with "ů". Still, the capital letter "Ů" is useful for writing in all caps, such as "DOMŮ". --Dan Polansky 08:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Ach, jo, of course ! Can I have another prosbu? I don't want to edit words in Czech, but ě as tenth letter seems bizarre to me.
No problem. The tenth position of "ě" is verified at W:Czech alphabet. --Dan Polansky 09:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Aha... I understand. To me, the 'Czech alphabet' was the one I find in my Czech dictionary (A, B, C, Č, D, E, F, G, H, CH, atd) and other letters are only diacritical variants. But you are right (of course).
Yeah, it is not all that clear how the counting should be done. In any case, once you count all the diacritical variants as W:Czech alphabet does, you get to the number ten for "ě".
When I recall how I have been tought the alphabet at the primary school, I recall the sequence that you mention, with the addition of Ď, without the acute variants. I do not know which of the counting options is more customary or correct.
See also Index_talk:Czech, in which only the following letters have sorting significance in Czech:
a b c č d e f g h ch i j k l m n o p q r ř s š t u v w x y z ž
Notice the missing "ě". --Dan Polansky 09:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
you inspired me to do : fr:Wiktionnaire:Index tchèque (a podle ceskeho abeceda ;-) --Diligent 16:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:dceřinná společnost[edit]

dear Dan, can you have a look? I was about to create the page on Wiktionnaire when i found this link on Gůgol. --Diligent 22:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --Dan Polansky 08:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


Explain to me how wikisaurus works, I thought it was just slang words with meaning under them. So piece being a word for gun: "Are you carrying a piece?" User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 12:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In Wikisaurus, words are organized under semantic relations to senses, not to words. In Wikisaurus:piece, there is the sense "one of the small objects played in board games", and under that sense there is the "hyponyms" heading for hyponyms of this sense, not of any other sense of "piece".
For "piece" as a synonym for "gun", the entry "Wikisaurus:gun" would be the right target, just that it is currently not there. There is now Wikisaurus:weapon, at least.
Importantly, only a fraction of words should play the role of a headword of a Wikisaurus entry. Most words should only be found in one of the Wikisaurus entries in contrast to being a headword of one. An example: while "injury" is a headword of the Wikisaurus entry Wikisaurus:injury, "flesh wound" does not need its own Wikisaurus entry, doing fine as a hyponym of "injury" in Wikisaurus:injury.
Ideally, as few senses as possible should be in one Wikisaurus entry. There are entries that violate this requirement, such as Wikisaurus:sound.
Synonymy is not the only semantic relation captured in Wikisaurus. Further semantic relations include hyponymy, hypernymy, meronymy and holonymy. For the example of use of several of these relations, see for instance Wikisaurus:cell and Wikisaurus:person.
Slang words are not the main intended contents of Wikisaurus. Wikisaurus, modeled in part on Roget's thesausus, is for all words, regardless of whether they are slang ones. Admittedly, many of the current Wikisaurus entries focus on slang synonyms of body parts. However, there are now also many entries that do not feature primarily slang words, such as Wikisaurus:animal, Wikisaurus:mollusc and Wikisaurus:injury.--Dan Polansky 12:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so the wikisaurus:gun does not exist, but can gun be under a synonym header in wikisaurus:piece? User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 16:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Better not. To do that, a new sense would have to be added to Wikisaurus:piece. There should be as few senses in one Wikisaurus entry as possible. The sense of "gun", the one to which you want to add a synonym "piece"--and "gun" is not the primary meaning of "piece"--has the home entry Wikisaurus:handgun or Wikisaurus:gun, not Wikisaurus:piece. In detail, there are several senses of gun, and the sense that you probably mean is "A very portable, short weapon, for hand use; a bullet or projectile-firing weapon; a handgun: a revolver, pistol, Derringer, zipgun, so forth." Possibly, the better headword for this sense is handgun, not even gun. --Dan Polansky 16:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, copy that. User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 17:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

maths terms[edit]

Hello Dan. It seems you are the mathematics expert here. Can I get some mathematical definitions for deviation and mean deviation? děkuju. --Jackofclubs 17:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jackofclubs, I have added deviation, based on WP. The only notion of deviation that I know by heart is the standard deviation. W:Mean deviation redirects to W:Absolute deviation, which says:
It should be noted that although the term mean deviation is used as a synonym for mean absolute deviation, to be precise it is not the same; in its strict interpretation (namely, omitting the absolute value operation), the mean deviation of any data set from its mean is always zero.
So I'll better leave mean deviation redlinked. --Dan Polansky 17:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
děkuju moc. --Jackofclubs 09:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikisaurus:elementary particle[edit]

Seems like this page could use a link to Category:Elementary particles. Were you planning to add them all as Hyponyms? --EncycloPetey 17:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. At some point, some of them may be added as hyponyms, but whether all of the hyponyms should be put to "elementary particle" remains to be seen, as they can be further subdivided into bossons, hadrons, etc. When I come back to this again in future, I'll certainly check Appendix:Subatomic particles, which seems to give a nice overview. --Dan Polansky 17:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

for my money[edit]

Thanks, we needed that. DCDuring TALK 16:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you have created the entry; thanks. --Dan Polansky 16:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

set to work[edit]

See Talk:set to work. I've gotten confused about this. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

výstup a nástup[edit]

not urgent, when you have time, can you check those two words here.

I have added them on the french wiktionnaire with the superfamous sentence : Ukončete, prosím, výstup a nástup, dveře se zavírají.

thank you ! --Diligent 05:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

confirmation (FYI)[edit]

Hi, I checked cs translations there, but left there your hidden note - I'm telling you so just in case you'd like to do something else about it (but no longer remember that edit), as the defs haven't changed at all since then. Cheerio, --Duncan 17:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, nice of you! Looks okay to me, although I cannot confirm the translation of the first sense "An official indicator that things will happen as planned" as I don't quite understand it. I still think some senses are missing, yet these will probably be added later. --Dan Polansky 19:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


Do you intend to list all specific proteins as hyponyms? There are many tens of thousands. It might be better to limit hyponyms to classes of proteins. --EncycloPetey 17:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I did not know how many proteins there are, and what taxonomies of proteins are used in science, so I have only started adding specific proteins to Wikisaurus:glycoprotein instead of to Wikisaurus:protein. If you think some of the classes added to Wikisaurus:protein are too specific, feel free to improve upon my edits, of course. If you can propose a hyponym structure for Wikisaurus entries for proteins, meaning what headwords there should be for proteins in Wikisaurus, I'll be glad to follow the proposal. --Dan Polansky 18:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Referencing etymologies[edit]

Hello there. I noticed you add a lot of etymologies, citing as your authority The Century Dictionary of 1911 using {{R:Century 1911}}. In future, would you mind using in-line referencing like this, so as to show what specific assertions of fact are supported by the authorities in question? (Pardon the pun.) Thanks.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have some doubts about in-line referencing of etymologies. If someone edits the etymology further, what happens to the validity of the in-line reference? The way I do it, the source of the etymology can be traced from the history of the entry: each edit of etymology has its source stated in the edit summary. I realize, though, that the way that you propose make the source easier to see for the reader, without looking into the history of the article, which the reader should not need to do. Hmm; I dunno. I surely won't revert the in-line references you add, but it will take me some time to get myself convinced that I should switch to in-line references myself.
Are there any BP discussions on this or a section in an article in Wiktionary: namespace? What have other editors been doing in this regard? --Dan Polansky 08:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, the way the reference is presented at the moment looks like it broadly supports the entire entry (including the alternative spelling(s), the etymology, any pronunciatory transcriptions, the senses enumerated, any usage and grammatical notes, &c.), which, albeit accidentally, misrepresents the cited authority. Moreover, the validity of a footnoted reference is also compromised if someone edits the etymology; conversely, I think an editor is more likely to be careful not to misrepresent an in-line reference which supports a specific assertion than if the reference is listed at the bottom, supporting nothing specific, out of sight and out of mind. (What I mean is, if I see an in-line reference in an etymology which I then embellish, I am careful to edit in such a way as to imply that that authority only supports what was there originally; whereas, if the authority is just listed at the bottom with no explanation of what it’s supporting, then I just ignore it, since I have no idea how accurate it’s being in the first place.)
I don’t think it’s unrealistic to assume that fewer than 1% of our users will browse an entry’s edit history to find out what authority supports what assertion. Furthermore, using in-line referencing does not preclude noting the authority in the edit summary (in fact, I usually do that myself, with such comments as +t’OED as ref.), so that argument is neutral in the footnoted vs. in-line referencing concern. IMO, and especially for specific assertions of fact (such as etymologies), in-line referencing is the way to go, being more professional and less likely to mislead.
You might have noticed that only a minority of editors here (albeit, happily, a growing minority) reference authorities as a regular habit. Consequently, it rarely comes up in discussion. That said, there was some discussion on it a while back; IIRC, the majority tended to favour in-line referencing in principle, though one objection on technical grounds was raised, namely that since <references/> lists every <ref> included thitherto, that it would cause problems if used in multiple language sections; AFAIK, this scenario has not come to pass anywhere in this entire dictionary hitherto, so it is of very little significance IMO; the problem was brought up in the place which deals with these WikiBugs, and that’s the last I’ve heard of it. WikiPedant often cites the OED [2nd Ed.] when he edits; he uses in-line referencing for specific assertions, whilst using footnoted referencing when the authority supports the entry per se. (Ask him if you’d like a more thorough explanation of his methodology.)
Hopefully, this will serve to persuade you to some extent. Regards,  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

sting - Czech[edit]


Please check the Czech translations of to sting (verb) in the sense of "to bite". Could you mark them as perfective and imperfective, please? Děkuju Anatoli 11:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Checked. I have removed the noun forms "bodnutí" and "píchnutí", and the imperfective verb form "píchat". I usually enter only a perfective into translations when both perfective and imperfective exist. The perfective of "píchat" is "píchnout". --Dan Polansky 12:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I should have been more careful with nouns instead of verbs :) I find both impf/pf forms are useful. What's the imperfective of bodnout? bodat? Anatoli 12:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, "bodat" is an imperfective of "boudnout". I see little point in entering both perfective and imperfective into translation section. If the user wants to know the imperfective, he first clicks through the term in the translation section to get to the perfective, and from that goes to imperfective. See for instance the perfective usnout which links to the imperfective usínat. Or see sednout and sedat. --Dan Polansky 12:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I see. There are no entries yet for these verbs, anyway. Thanks. Anatoli 13:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed en-noun because...[edit]

...I didn't think it was relevant to de-noun. If you can explain to me why en-noun needs to be there, I might change my mind, but I don't believe that one template has anything at all to do with the other. Two different languages, entirely different required parameters, etc. I just don't see how linking between them is useful. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 19:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think at least one model template should be listed at {{de-noun}}: {{en-noun}} seems to be a fine model template, even if differing in several regards. I have linked it from {{de-noun}} not only to provide a model for the design of the template but also as a model for creating a documentation of an inflection template. --Dan Polansky 08:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
{{en-noun}} differs in all regards :p I based de-noun on {{nl-noun}}, so if you insist on listing another template, I think that one would be better. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 12:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

calling me by only surname[edit]

Just FYI: (;-) In Kenya (from British usage) it is common to call someone only by surname, so I don't normally consider it offensive. Robert Ullmann 13:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi Dan,

I notice that so far, you've managed somehow to escape adminship. Mind if I nominate you? :-)

RuakhTALK 01:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

We want Dan! We want Dan! We want Dan! DCDuring TALK 02:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I am flattered, yet I decline. I fear that my adminship would create the temptation for me to spend even more time at Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky 07:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Let me know if you ever change your mind. :-)   —RuakhTALK 11:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


We don't create those sorts of redirects. Please review Wiktionary:Redirections. --EncycloPetey 14:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Glossary of[edit]

If you have time, and want to discuss about the titles of lists and glossaries, please see my reply at Appendix talk:Glossary of military slang. --Daniel. 08:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


I am a daily editor on Wikipedia but I rarely use Wiktionary and so I apologize for not being wholly familiar with the guidelines here. But it would seem to be that the word "malintent" as a word meaning malicious intent is only a common mistake produced by people who have heard of w:MALINTENT but don't always remember that it's a proper noun. You revived the article saying that you've seen citations of the term in Google Books. Could you provide some links to those? I am not seeing anything that is in what I would call a reliable source on Wikipedia (dictionaries, grammar books, how-to-write guides, etc) but then maybe the standards here are not like what they are on Wikipedia. I will leave this page open so I can see your reply when I check back tomorrow. Thank you. -- Soap 04:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The search google books:"malintent" shows that the word "malintent" is used the way I have described in malintent. See also WT:CFI--Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. --Dan Polansky 07:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


[2]. Thanks, Dan, on your remark.
I know for the rule about writing with capital letters - they mean shouting.
I use italics for citing.
I also use bold, but not a lot. Further, I don't find him as shouting - finally, the Wikipedian articles begin with bold text (on the other hand, I see no capital letters text). But I agree that overuse of bolded text annihilates the emphasis.
So, I use underlining of text as a mean of emphasising. This is my preferred method. Of course, I always try to avoid the overuse of underlined text - it takes a lot of effort to read such text. And, like any overuse, it decreases/eliminates the original emphasis-effect.
Do you agree with me?
Bye, Kubura 10:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa![edit]

... but that was uncalled inclusion in the discussion with someone else, and my mistake was that I put a comment on project talk-page instead Opiaterein's talk-page. Again: Mea Culpa! Over and Out! Face-wink.svg --Jure Grm, 12. day of August in Year of Our Lord Twotousandandnine, at 13:06 o'clock.

Some definitions for me:
  • mea culpa--My fault, due to my error; my bad.
  • over and out--Used to signal the end of a conversation, especially one conducted by CB radio or the like.
--Dan Polansky 13:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

-isko => -sko?[edit]

I humbly think that this suffix belong to the family of -ský - in most cases, the /i/ before belongs to the root of the verb or has been added for euphonic reasons. compare vojsko and all countries with -sko (Alsasko, Cesko, Slovinsko, atd). what do you think?--Diligent 16:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that the suffix is formed correctly. Compare
  • hled-ět, hled-isko; (sou-)střed-it; střed-isko; stanov-it, stanov-isko; seems to be formed from verbs stems (or roots or whatever the thing before "-" is called)
  • slovin-ský, Slovin-ec, Slovin-sko; pol-ský, Pol-ák, Pol-sko; seems to be formed from adjective stems
I don't have any citation, though. Do you have one? --Dan Polansky 16:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A new parameter of cs-verb[edit]

Hi Dan, FYI I added parameter aa2 to cs-verb template (similarly en-noun has parameters pl, pl2, pl3). It can be used to add second alternative aspect of a verb. See zkoušet for example. --Karelklic 12:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Karel, thanks for the notification.
From "zkoušet", there are prefix-derived "vyzkoušet" (šaty, žáka z předmětu, přístroj, postup), "prozkoušet", "přezkoušet" and "nazkoušet" (divadelní hru), while "zkusit" is not prefix-derived from "zkusit".
The multiplicity of prefix-derived perfectives leads me to avoid adding "vyzkoušet" as an alternative aspect of "zkoušet" on the inflection line.
On the other hand, one of the prefix-derived perfectives is usually somewhat default: dělat, udělat (and not vydělat, prodělat and zadělat); nést, donést (but also přinést and vynést); myslet; vymyslet (but also domyslet, zamyslet) and zkoušet, vyzkoušet (prozkoušet, nazkoušet, dozkoušet.
I am unclear about whether the default prefix-derived perfective should be placed on the inflection line. If you prefer to add it, let's hope it's going to work for most imperfective verbs; let's hope an unambiguous default prefix-derived perfective can mostly be found. --Dan Polansky 13:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
An afterthought:
For zkušet-examine, the perfective is vyzkoušet while for zkoušet-rehearse, the perfective is nazkoušet. I have a vague sense of problems lurking in the determination of the default prefix-derived perfective. --Dan Polansky 13:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
You are right that nazkoušet is also perfective form of zkoušet for the rehearse meaning. However, most prefix-derived verbs have different meaning from the imperfective verb, eg. prozkoušet means "to examine thoroughly" and not just "to examine", přezkoušet means "to examine again", dozkoušet means "to finish an examination". These forms IMHO belong to Derived terms. In my understanding zkoušet should list only zkusit, vyzkoušet and nazkoušet as perfective "opposites" of zkusit, because some meaning of them is (precisely) shared with "zkoušet".
IMHO verbs with many similar perfective forms should list them in derived terms, but aa2/aa3 parameters can help us in situations where there are only 2 or 3 relevant forms.
What do you think about it? --Karelklic 14:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Sounds about right. Let's see how it's going to work. --Dan Polansky 14:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

social class[edit]

If you were an admin you could have answered the question yourself by looking at the deleted content. Thus we would benefit a bit by your being an admin even if all you did was answer your own questions of that type and put out the occasional fire that nobody else was in a position to. Would you reconsider your previous rejection? (BTW, it'll double your pay, with successive percentage increases as regular as clockwork.) DCDuring TALK 13:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I hate to disappoint you, yet I still think I should better not be an admin. --Dan Polansky 17:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Your contributions are esteemed anyway. I often welcome your contributions and your point of view, rarely find much to disagree with, and appreciate the care with which you approach things here. DCDuring TALK 21:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Appendix:English ...[edit]

Shouldn't all these be together in, maybe, Wiktionary:About English (like all the other languages), or maybe Appendix:English grammar? SemperBlotto 16:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I wondered too whether this fine granularity is the best thing. Hmm.
"Wiktionary:About English" seems not to fit, as "Wiktionary:About Czech" and "Wiktionary:About German" are language-specific guides on creation of Wiktionary entries, not grammar appendices.
"Appendix:English grammar" looks good as a title. --Dan Polansky 16:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see someone working on Wikisaurus[edit]

Hi, I kicked off Wikisaurus a few years back , so its nice to see someone taking an interest.

I'm not likely to come back and spend any time on it (I left in disgust at the pedants, puritans, egos and deletionists that seemed to have control then), so take my comments with a pinch of salt. Having said that, ....

I only kicked off Wikisaurus as a trial system, as there had been endless going around in circles about how to do a Thesaurus. I thought better to try it out and see what the practical problems are. Well, we now have some expereince, but what have we learned ?

The main problem it seemed to suffer from was the lack of contribution by the existing team and users, and at the same time the over-enthusiastic use by people interested in the tits and bums words. Which of course drove CM into a mad deletionist rage, over which we violently disagreed.

My view was that the more people we get coming to Wiktionary via WikiSaurus (and at one time Wikisaurus was drawing more hits than the rest of Wiktionary - no need to guess which type of words were most popular), then the more people who may turn in to useful contributors. But it wasn't going to work when CM, and others, were likely to welcome them by banning them, or deleting their work!

Also, lack of awareness within Wiktionary. The reason I created the logo and put it as many places as possible (such as using the Wikisaurus-link template, instead of just "See [[Wikisuarus:blahblah]]") was so that the general users might more easily notice that Wikisaurus existed. So,my view is that discouraging the use of Wikisaurus-link is a mistake.

Another issue. Trying to decide what to do with Wikisaurus, how to improve it etc, was not a debate to be had down the pub/in the Beer PArlour, where every uninformed lazy bugger feels they have the right to stampede all over your discussion. And there is no continuity from one phase of discussion to the next.

My view was, and still is, to conduct real creative discussion in a backroom somewhere (ie: a special page, such as Wiktionary:Wikisaurus/discussion) Every so often you can go the bar (Beer Parlour) and make an announcement that anyone interested is welcome to come and join in, and occasionally let them know where the ideas are getting to. But that if they do really want to contribute and help, or just have their say, they need to come along to the back room committee / special discussion page, where the real work is done.

So, my view is that whoever redirected the discussion back to the Beer Parlour did the wrong thing. Once again it is very difficult to find out what discussion has happened about Wikisaurus, or any Thesaurus. It's scattered all over the Beer Parlour archives. Anyway, that's my view point. Carries no weight of course.

If you want to chat, you'll need to send me an email, as I'm not likely tbe back checking Wiktionary for a while. rb_wiktionary (AT) theboults (DOT) net Richardb 09:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Richard, I have read your post, thought about it a bit, and have not changed my mind. I still think that discussion on Wikisaurus is best lead in Beer Parlour. The logo should better be avoided. Linking from mainspace using "See also Wikisaurus:artifact" is the preferred way. --Dan Polansky 07:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I try not to get riled when I put together several paragraphs of argument, and someone else comes back with linking from mainspace using "See also Wikisaurus:artifact" is the preferred way.. Why is it the preferred way ?--Richardb 05:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


This is why users should not create entries for languages they do not know. The Latin word necesse is a defective verb, not an adjective. The several verb and verb form entries you have created all require cleanup because the templates in them were not used correctly (see Category:Latin verb forms needing attention) and the macrons were omitted. --EncycloPetey 03:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Error: I am sorry for necesse error. It stems from necessary in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911, as you can check. If you find more errors, please let me know so that I get a feel for my error rate. If this is the only error that I have committed in the batch of created long-missing Latin entries, then this is a fair score, I would say.
Latin verb form entries: I do know that I have omitted the macrons in the Latin form entries, but this is not about correctness but about completeness. AFAIK there is no factual inaccuracy in the Latin form entries that I have created. That they have appeared in Category:Latin verb forms needing attention (of which I wass aware) is nothing bad; to the contrary, it makes it possible for those who care about macrons to know where to add them. I could have added the macrons, but that would have slowed me down a lot; it seemed better to have entries without macrons than have no entry at all.
Latin verb entries: I have used {{infl}} instead of {{la-verb}}. I know that an expert such as you or Caladon will add {{la-verb}} and inflection tables. But these are formatting incompletions, not substantial errors. I have proceeded on the principle of delivering the minimum added value with the least added effort while avoiding inaccuracies as far as I was able to, with the use of external sources for verification.
Procedure: I have used English etymologies and Century 1911 as a source, sometimes Lewis and Short as a source, and mostly Lewis and Short as a check.
Benefit: The result of my recent batch of work on Latin entries is that many more English terms have links to their etymons. Apart from the one mistake that I have made, I see no harm and a lot of benefit. --Dan Polansky 07:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Be advised that English etymologies are not always a reliable guide at all. Some English (and other language) dictionaries use hypothetical but unattested Latin roots in writing etymologies. This problem has come up several times in recent months. Sometimes the Latin root is attested, but the particular form of that word is not. In that situation, the lemma can be created at the wrong location unknowingly. I have had that problem twice recently.
Thus far, I have only done cleanup of a small number of your recent Latin additions, so I can't yet evaluate the error rate. However, I hope to go through them all today, and you can see in my Contributions what changes I've made. The problem with necesse stood out, since I spotted is as a derivative of esse (a form of sum) straight away. The translation or descendant of a word is not always a guide to its part of speech in the original language. --EncycloPetey 15:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I have started to wonder about "necesse". Century 1911 has it as an adjective, so does Lewis and Short if I read them correctly, and so do the following dictionaries:
How did you arrive at the conclusion that "necesse" is a verb? --Dan Polansky 15:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Some Latin verbs translate into English as adjectives. Lewis & Short translate necesse as an adjective, but its inflection is that of a verb, and its ending is esse, a form of sum (I am). If you look in any Latin textbook or recent dictionary (such as Feyerabend), they will explicitly identify it as a verb. Lewis & Short are sometimes sloppy in this regard. They failed to separate the verb components form the participle component necessus, which you can see following the headword. --EncycloPetey 16:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
One error I'm noticing consistently in your edits is the use of the Latin present active infinitive in English etymologies; the first principal part should be used instead. You are also sometimes forgetting to add lang=la. --EncycloPetey 16:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I am often consciously omitting "lang=la", to be added later. And I am consistently and consciously adding Latin infinitive instead of Latin present active to English etymologies, as that is the form that I find in the source that I am using—Century 1911; it is also the form found in Latin etymologies of English words in most OneLook dictionaries. The reason is that adding etymologies is already a lot of typing and attention work; in this way, I reduce my already high workload a bit. In return, I format various things left not fully formatted by previous editors, including etymologies that miss {{term}}, let alone any of its parameters. This is a kind of workload distribution among editors, and in time; or give and take. ---Dan Polansky 18:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Then you are consciously making an error. Yes, English print dictionaries use the infinitive in etymologies, but that is not how Wiktionary does things. Wiktionary, unlike those dictionaries, includes entries for the LAtin terms themselves. We therefore include and link to the verb's lemma, not to an arbitrary form simply because a print dictionary has that form. This is not workload "distribution"; it is deliberately creating more work for other editors that you couldn't be bothered to do yourself. Some of the rest of us have high workloads too. If you have a high workload, and can't cope, then you should slow down or ask for help, not deliberately leave improperly formatted information when you know that it isn't correctly formatted. --EncycloPetey 20:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I see it differently. I am leaving some work for other people to do, right, but I am not creating more work. To switch, say, "scandere" to "scando", is a fraction of the amount of work that it takes to type the complete etymology and format it using {{etyl}} and {{term}}. So an editor who does the switching has much less work to do compared to having to add the complete etymology himself. If the editor is proficient in Latin, he can switch the form by memory, which I cannot do. The resulting process is quite effective, as far as I can see: I do the job that I can do best, and someone else does the little that remains to be done. ---Dan Polansky 07:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
But you are forgetting that the person doing the cleanup has to find the problem first, which means that all the cleanup you're creating is hidden from other editors unless they deliberately go looking for your mistakes. You are not adding the requisite cleanup tags to make this process work. --EncycloPetey 13:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) The problem of finding etymologies that need cleanup should be robotically solvable. In early phases of Wiktionary, editors just copied and pasted etymologies from Webster 1913 unformatted, and naturally with Latin infinitives. It is not only my etymology contributions that are worthy of further work. There are many Latin infinitives in etymologies in Wiktionary that have not been added by me. The uses of {{term}} that are missing lang=la or any lang= should be easy to spot for a robot, so by omitting lang=la, I am in effect marking the etymologies that need further work.
I do realize that my etymology contributions are frustrating for you, as you want to have them nicely completely formatted upon the first entry. But I think we should proceed in a breadth-first manner, creating as many shallow entries and substantial information in the first pass as possible, while expanding them with macrons, inflection and what not in later passes. Given a fixed amount of my total expenses, the more shallow and incompletely formatted contributions I am allowed to make, the more entries can have etymology, the more attractive Wiktionary is for users looking for information, and the higher the chance that some of these users get cought by the wiki bug.
In any case, if me adding some explicit tags would solve the problem for you, I can do that. I can add the very same tag to etymologies not created by me that need further work. Just let me know which tag (template) I should use. --Dan Polansky 13:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The verb pleō is another problem. As far as I can determine, this appears only as a hypothetical reconstructed root in the works of Latin grammarians. So, it's never going to have use citations. --EncycloPetey 03:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


Please do not delete senses just because they're lacking from dictionaries; use RfV instead. In this case, the second sense is easily attestable. --EncycloPetey 03:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

R templates and bullets[edit]

FYI (if you didn't know) AF adds * before R: templates at the start of lines, so there should be few or none such cases left. Any future cases will get fixed. So nothing to worry about, carry on ;-) Robert Ullmann 15:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I see; I really did not know so I was a bit hesitant. Thanks. --Dan Polansky 15:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help![edit]

Thank you very much for the help! I've gone through the 6 creations that I made recently and fixed them up using the new template and suggestions that you gave me. Please feel free to give me tips like this in the future, as it will help me out quite a lot :). Thanks again, Razorflame 09:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you?[edit]

Hi there. Can you please provide a reasoning for your oppose vote on my RfA? It will help me and other editors understand why you voted the way you did. Thanks, Razorflame 13:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Get off my talk page![edit]

ur mindles,disrespectfl+intolerant,sense&logiclesGOBLDGUKisNOTWELCOMonmy tlkpp--wt is abigplace,GOPLAY SOMWHERE ELSE osoful-ofurself-brat,w/the comunitys'blesin,ofcors,houndin'disgrace u r!!!!!--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 08:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Rendering: Your mindless, disrespectful, intolerant, senseless and logicless gobbledygook is not welcome on my talk page--Wiktionary is a big place, go play somewhere else, oh so full-of-yourself brat, with the community's blessing, of course; hounding disgrace you are.--史凡; rendered by --Dan Polansky 12:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Assuming that you are referring to this edit of mine: if you write in the middle of what I or anyone else posts, I have the right to revert it, to make it clear who wrote what. If you write in the middle of what I write instead of below it, I will revert it again. --Dan Polansky 08:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

史凡 ......[edit]

I'd like you to take a look at this and see if you can make up at all with 史凡 (talkcontribs). Thanks. L☺g☺maniac chat? 15:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem that should be dealt with at Beer Parlour. If Sven gets abusive again, I will come to his talk page and write "Please, don't be abusive" or something of the sort, providing a hyperlink to what I think was his abusive post. I have not blocked Sven and have not in any way interferred with his edits in mainspace. I have, nevertheless, reverted his edits to my posts on his talk page. --Dan Polansky 15:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, he thinks he has been insulted and wants whoever insulted him to 'fess up. I don't know who he has in mind. So I wanted to let you know... not saying that you specifically were the one that said something that accidentally rubbed him the wrong way. Re "I don't see any problem that should be dealt with at Beer Parlour": As a 13-year-old, I'm not exactly sure where the problem lies but I know it's around here somewhere and if I need to post at the Beer Parlour to hunt it out ... well then I'll do so. L☺g☺maniac chat? 15:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent) It is clear from his last string of contributions[3] that there has been a conflict between Sven and me, and the previous section on my talk page just above this section was one of the last posts of Sven before he got blocked. You can, and probably even should at least in part, judge for yourself who did what in that conflict and with what justification. --Dan Polansky 15:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I saw that. I'm not sure whose problem it is, though, and am afraid that if I take sides, the other party is going to get mad at me. I see 史凡 writing in the middle of your post to save typing "Re:..." or the like. I see you reverting it because you don't like it. I personally don't think his writing in the middle of others' posts is a problem that needs arguing over. If that really bothers you, it would be good and right to politely ask him to stop on his talk page instead of just reverting it with biting comments in the edit summary. All I can clearly say is that I see a lot of hypersensitive people who will argue over minor talk page details instead of just getting over it and building the dictionary. L☺g☺maniac chat? 15:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC) P.S.: If I was forced to take sides in this issue I would go with 史凡.
It's not merely about what I like and dislike; it is about what I have a right to do. I think that I have a right to revert someone elses edits to my posts.
You speak of biting remarks, but I am not sure what you mean.
  • I have written in an edit summary: "undo; avoid writing in the middle of what I post"
  • Sven has written in an edit summary: "MODIFY1MORETIME MYFINAL VRSN OFMY LNGHND &BE CITED4ABLOK4VANDALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
After that, you may still avoid taking sides just to be okay with about everyone. But that is a choice that I cannot recommend.
Also, I have asked him to avoid editing my posts, and I have done it long before I have reverted his edits: "Also, please do not edit this post: answer below it."[4]
--Dan Polansky 16:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) "Avoid writing in the middle of what I post" sounds like a command with no explanation. From my (limited) experience people don't like to be ordered around. If you had put in your edit summary, "Would you please not write in the middle of my posts? It bothers me." I don't think Sven would have responded that harshly. Also: Sven did not edit your actual post, AFAICT, to mean something else. He just inserted his comments in the middle of it. You have a right to guard what you posted, but to what he posted in the middle of it? I'm still thinking this over. Like I said, I'm not trying to take sides (hard, so hard ...) , just trying to use common sense and figure out the issue from a neutral POV. L☺g☺maniac chat? 16:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent) But consider that I have posted the edit summary of which you say that it sounds like a command after Sven has posted an indecent edit summary with 13 exclamation marks. It still seems to me that I have managed my anger quite well, even though it did not occur to me to post politeness tags such as "could you please". After the shower of rudeness that Sven has already sent to me and other Wiktionarians, it seems odd to ask me to post "could you please"s in edit summaries. I ask equal and fair treatment; fair does not mean that everyone is found equally unguilty regardless of what they did, so that everyone can be best friends. Trying to keep peace at all costs is a dangerous strategy, as history manifestly documents. --Dan Polansky 16:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
But just because someone's been rude to you doesn't justify you to be rude to them. I don't know how to handle this. I'm only 13, guys!!! I want to hand this over to a responsible adult. Let me find a responsible adult around here and then we'll see what happens. I think this is above me now so will drop it (as arguing with you is not going to get me anywhere). One last request: Could you please help me find a responsible adult to hand this over to?! L☺g☺maniac chat? 16:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Look, given that you are only thirteen, you do not need to handle this at all. If Sven is unable to handle his conflicts himself, there is no need for a 13-year-old to do that for him. Given Sven is an adult, he can take care of himself. You can just get over it, and go building the dictionary, exactly as you have proposed. --Dan Polansky 16:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
He's not taking care of it. You're not taking care of it. Ruakh did a good thing by blocking him, but that's the only useful thing I've seen done besides my translations and peacemaking attempts. And I will disagree. I do need to handle this, for the simple reason that no one else is! Now until I find a responsible adult that WILL take care of this problem, I'm going to do it myself. :( L☺g☺maniac chat? 16:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, it is no good when a teenager is trying to handle problems of an adult who cannot or does not want to handle his problems himself. --Dan Polansky 17:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Butting in: Not everything needs to be handled or can be handled. I'm no longer sure that even translating Sven's posts is a good idea, given that the content can be inflammatory. Perhaps WMF needs to consider what kinds of accommodative assistance WMF projects should afford someone with difficulties such as Sven's. I'd like to think that such assistance would help, but it might not get at the real issues. I don't see that a group of volunteers is likely to be able or willing to step to the plate on the accommodation issue. DCDuring TALK 17:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
So other people can insult in plain English as much as they like but Sven can't because he's disabled and almost unable to type legibly?! I think I'd better pull out of this. This place is disgusting. For a while I thought there were real, caring people around here ... L☺g☺maniac chat? 17:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I will keep translating his posts as I see no reason to stop. If you all would like to solve your own problems, well then you can but I've tried to talk common sense to you and it hasn't worked.
(Unindent) Let's make a deal: if Sven apologizes to me for his shower of insults, I apologize for the unfortunately formulated summary "undo; avoid writing in the middle of what I post". --Dan Polansky 17:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I said I'm pulling out of this. If you two want to make up, fine, go ahead. If you don't, I'll just sit back and watch the situation deteriorate with no one trying to reconcile it. L☺g☺maniac chat? 17:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, this really hurts over here too. It's really hard to pull out of this because it's become a situation dear to my heart. I tried ... I tried so hard ... forgive me for my human failures ... L☺g☺maniac chat? 17:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

sklonovani jho[edit]

ahoj. i am a sort of mad collector of czech words without vowels. using my standard template on declension, i obain a genitive plural jh. is it right? or do we need to add an 'e'?--Diligent 17:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated answer. You can find declensions of Czech nouns at; just enter your word into the input box below "Hledání konkrétního slova nebo tvaru slova". --Dan Polansky 19:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary:All Wikisaurus pages[edit]

This page has some sort of script to display all the pages in Wikisaurus. However, since the number of Wikisaurus entries now exceeds the number that can be displayed on one page, the list runs out at G.

Anyone know how to get this page to list all the Wikisaurus entries ? --Richardb 22:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Sent this to you Dan as you were the last to modify the page. Also put it into Grease Pit.

Topic category follow up[edit]

Re Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2009/September#.2ATopics, did you email Eclecticology and if so did he respond? I'd like to keep momentum on this idea. --Bequw¢τ 20:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not email Eclecticology. I mentioned the option of emailing him for the sake of those who would want to be on the safe side, but I personally think it is unneeded to be on this safe side.
I support dropping * from the category name "*Topics" resulting in one of the names "Category:Topics", "Category:Terms by topic" or "Category:All topics".
That said, I have not on my radar screen as an action item to get rid of the asterisk. If you want to push this item, you have my support, but I am not the leader on the item :). --Dan Polansky 09:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Editable CFI - Wikisaurus sub-entries[edit]

On the discussion page I have argued my case for a lesser CFI for Wikisaurus sub-entries. Please do me the courtesy of arguing your case, not just reverting my work without any discussion. This is, after all Editable CFI, which is intended to be open for discussion, not just upholding the present status-quo.--Richardb 23:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make a proposal to change a policy, the right venue is Beer Parlour, not an obscure talk page. Editable CFI is open to edits that are likely to be uncontroversial, which yours were not. --Dan Polansky 00:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I quote from the top of the page

"The following is an editable draft of Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. It is intended to help the Wiktionary community develop new and perhaps better approaches to inclusion issues. This page has no policy authority.
Please feel free to edit this page conscientiously, as you would any document on a wiki."

So where do you feel you draw your authority from to stop me doing what I am clearly invited to do ?

It might help you to know two things:-

  1. I was the one who launched Wikisaurus in the first place. I know what was intended, and I also know what is clearly in there in practice.
  2. I was the one who launched Policy pages on Wiktionary. There are fewer than there should be. CFI probably should be one. But to claim that Editable CFI is one is outlandish.

I am an experienced professional developer and writer of policies, and a Quality auditor of adherence to policies. The aim of all Policy Development is to have Policies and Practice well aligned. Here, the CFI as applied to Wikisaurus is very much out of alignment with the practice. The question is, which do we adjust ? Do we throw away the value of the CONTENT of Wikisaurus that doesn't meet some crazy idea of CFI imposed by a past exclusionist bowdleriser ? Or do we PROPOSE an adjustment of policy in line with what is generally accepted as acceptable ?

Please don't make a war over this. That is so unproductive.

And, if you do think my amendments should be brought to the attention of the noisy crowd down at the Beer Parlour, by all means tell them. Personally I wasn't going to bother until I got around to proposing the Editable CFI be adopted. My view is that policy development should be done away from the very distracting noice of the Beer Parlour, where every passing newbie wants to say his piece, and only brought to their attention once a certain amount of ground work has been done.

We both have the aim of building on Wikisaurus. You have done some admirable work. Don't try to exclude other willing volunteers.--Richardb 05:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Beer Parlour under "Wikisaurus - inclusion criteria". Whatever you think is the best for Wiktionary and Wikisaurus, you are bound by the principle of consensus, even if it is a consensus with people whom you deem inferior to you, inferior in terms of past contribution, writing and organizing skills or general intelligence. --Dan Polansky 16:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
An afterthought: the people discussing at Beer Parlour are usually long-time established Wiktionary editors such as Bequw, Conrad.Irwin, DAVilla, DCDuring, Dominic, EncycloPetey, hippietrail, Ivan Štambuk, Lmaltier, Mglovesfun, msh210, Robert Ullmann, Ruakh, Vahagn Petrosyan, Stephen G. Brown, Visviva, Widsidth, and others whom I am inadvertently omitted is this randomly recalled and in part collected list. Your hypothesis that Beer Parlour is ruled by newbies is wholly baseless. Your description of this group as "noisy crowd" is wholly out of place. --Dan Polansky 17:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Look, sorry about the past couple of days. I got so horribly burned by a past admin (fortunately not in your above list) virtually stalking me and negating everything I tried to do. But I've done some hunting around and see you are doing some damn good work, especially for Wikisaurus. So I certainly don't want to waste your time, and neither mine. But, please bear in mind the Assume Good Faith policy too.
As to the noisy crowd, perhaps Beer Parlour has changed. On the other hand, I find it frustratinly and unnecessarily hard to follow the history of a long discussion spread over several archives, amonst a hundred and one other topics. Instead I'd prefer a calm discussion of one topic in one "discussion" page, with frequent notes to the Beer Parlour that the discussion is happening. Very much analagous to having a back room committee meeting at the club, occasionally letting the people out in the bar know what's being discussed, but not trying to do the real work out in the packed bar.
As to the acerbic comments about "people whom you deem inferior to you, inferior in terms of ..". Certainly not my intention to convey that meaning. But what I am keen to express that in my career as a Business Anlayst / consultant, it is often my role to try to keep the technicians talking to the general users, in a language they understand, rather than the more specific jargon they use amongst themselves. In Wiktionary, I find there is often a tendency for the "academic linguists" and the "template gurus" to forget that Wiktionary should try to stick to plain English as much as possible, where plain English will do the job. So I intentionally keep my viewpoint somewhat plebeian. Which no doubt causes irritation to some.
Anyway, let's get back to Assuming Good Faith, and try for productive collaboration.--Richardb 12:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


I noted your query of DaveRoss. Our entry for snowclones conforms to my understanding of its meaning. The gloss at WS mad person does not.

They have some interest for grammatical amateurs like me. I think of them as formulaic phrases with their own micro-grammar of semantic restrictions on the filling of two or more syntactic slots. (I say two to distinguish them from simple cases of complementation.) The formula has no one form (set of slot fillers) dominant. When one substitutes in one slot, one must make compatible substitution in one or more other slots.

Thus, there are two sets of snowclones at WS mad person: "not the Xest Y in the Z" and "X short of a Y".

In the first, X is the term which alone could modify something outside the snowclone. The choice of X restricts candidates for X which restricts candidates for Z.

In the second, the need is for a pair of terms where X is a NP referring to a necessary part of Y. The NP must refer to one or more of a set of similar, non-identical, units that make up Y, where Y is itself a meaningful unit. (Saying "A roof short of a house" or "a couple eggs short of dozen" would be less felicitous.)

I also don't think that a neologism like snowclone is a satisfactory header for wiktionary. It is even worse that "meronym". I have been advocating the use of appendices linked to Wikisaurus for non-CFI-meeting terms that have some lexical merit. Snowclones, in particular, would go well in such appendices and have no home in principal namespace. Snowclones, BTW, occur often in the realm of invective and oaths. DCDuring TALK 12:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. My query of DaveRoss is a result of my removing the term "snowclone" from Wikisaurus; I have already removed the term "snowclone" from other Wikisaurus entries. I share in your view that "snowclone" is an unsatisfactory heading in Wikisaurus.
What would you do with the terms?:
  • not the sharpest tool in the shed
  • not the sharpest tool in the toolbox
  • not the brightest bulb in the box
  • one sandwich short of a picnic
  • a few cards short of a deck
  • a few clowns short of a circus
Some specific questions:
  1. Would you remove the six terms from Wikisaurus altogether?
  2. Would you merge the six terms into synonyms sections in Wikisaurus?
  3. Do you think the six listed hi-frequency terms meet CFI?
  4. Specifically, do you think that "not the sharpest tool in the shed" (google:"not the sharpest tool in the shed": 26,300,000 hits; google books:"not the sharpest tool in the shed") meets CFI?
--Dan Polansky 12:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. I would not remove all of them. I'd guess that some percentage of our users would probably be amused and appreciate it, though I have no facts. Wikisaurus would benefit from offering humorous circumlocutions. If someone wants to deliver an insult, we should stand ready to help them find a felicitous one.
  2. I have no opinion on their exact location.
  3. Since no one seems to show much respect for CFI, I don't really know what to expect. Under the new regime of pan-inclusiveness, it is possible that all of the forms would be acceptable, but if it violates some graybeard's sense of taste, the vote could go against all of them. Having the most common form of each preresearched could lead to their successful inclusion in principal namespace ("N0"). Redirects of potentially attestable forms to the most common truly attested form should be acceptable. OTOH, I am simply not sure that metaphors (and similes, catch phrases, and cliches) really belong in N0. And For some reason, humor seems a liability for an entry's inclusion, almost as much as a flavor of commercialism or practicality or of the bourgeoisie.
  4. That form seems the one most likely to meet CFI.
I think that Wikisaurus could perform a service and attract users by being a home for such entries, especially if they are rejected in principal namespace. WS could get traffic if it had such expressions and N0 did not, especially if WS was included in the default set of searched spaces (which is N0 only by default, I think). HTH DCDuring TALK 17:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikisaurus:mad person - snowclones[edit]

Hello, could you help me to sort out one thing? I do not know what a snowclone is, but I was just about to move or remove the following list tagged as "snowclones" from Wikisaurus:mad person:

  • not the sharpest tool in the shed
  • not the sharpest tool in the toolbox
  • not the brightest bulb in the box
  • one sandwich short of a picnic
  • a few cards short of a deck
  • a few clowns short of a circus

It seems to me that the first three are adjectival phrases roughly synonymous with "stupid" or "less inteligent" rather than "mad" or "insane" or "deranged".

The second three could go beyond lack of intelligence to insanity, and seem to be noun phrases rather than adjectival ones, so would indeed belong to "mad person".

Can you comment on, meaning confirm or refute, my estimations?

On another subject, what single-word headword would you recommend as an alternative for "mad person"? The term "mad person" is okay, but having one-term headword would be better.

Thanks for any advice that you can provide on this. --Dan Polansky 11:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say that all of those are snowclones. The first three are "stupid" and the rest are "insane". As for a good headword for "mad person" I would say madman (even though that isn't very PC) or lunatic. Hope that helps, - [The]DaveRoss 14:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh and backreading your talk page a bit I would call them "phrasal synonyms" or just "synonyms" rather than "snowclones". "Snowclone" doesn't describe the relationship between the phrases and the headword, and that is what the sections are meant to be in Wikisaurus. - [The]DaveRoss 14:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

re: Wikisaurus - linking from mainspace[edit]

You have posted the following to my talk page, to the thread "Nice to see someone working on Wikisaurus"; I am also quoting my previous posting to which you were replying:

Hello Richard, I have read your post, thought about it a bit, and have not changed my mind. I still think that discussion on Wikisaurus is best lead in Beer Parlour. The logo should better be avoided. Linking from mainspace using "See also Wikisaurus:artifact" is the preferred way. --Dan Polansky 07:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I try not to get riled when I put together several paragraphs of argument, and someone else comes back with linking from mainspace using "See also Wikisaurus:artifact" is the preferred way.. Why is it the preferred way ?--Richardb 05:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, picking up on a month old thread does not seem to be the best idea. For another, if you want to discuss anything about Wikisaurus with me that would lead to the change of the current practice in Wikisaurus, please start a discussion at Beer Parlour, and notify me that you did so, so that I can join the discussion. --Dan Polansky 08:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Dan. I was only trying to work with someone who is interested in Wikisaurus. Already, by my name appearing on Beer Parlour, my arch protagonist, CM, has tried to provoke me, despite making virtually no contributions since May!

If you want to TELL me how to work on Wiktionary, then perhaps I've gone cold on the idea that maybe I could collaborate with you. I find Beer Parlour such a disgusting place to try and do any real analytical, policy work. Just forget I was interested.--Richardb 08:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, Dan, enough is enough. Let's stop bickering over this. You have done the right thing by cleaning up my unformatted entry. I'll try to make sure my future entries are formatted better.
Perhaps what we need is:-
  1. When a new Wikisaurus entry is to be made, the user is offered a WS template.
  2. A regular running autobot to auto format Wikisaurus entries that don't meet the format
What are your thoughts ? Maybe that is a project I could look in to. But, as you are the current champion of Wikisaurus, and I'm just a w:WikiSloth, likely to go to sleep at any time, I'll work with you on this.--Richardb 03:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical categories and WS[edit]

I have been populating some grammatical subcategories of PoS categories. One set that might be of value to WS are some of the adverb subcategories, especially the subcategories of English sentence adverbs, such as Category:English modal adverbs etc, and Category:English degree adverbs. It should be possibly to find a few synonym groups within each of those. Those groups might work for the corresponding adjectives in some cases. I haven't done the synonyms sections of these systematically yet. DCDuring TALK 10:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Let's see whether I am up to the task (able to) of identifying synonym groups. It seems like a challenge.
Nice work that you are doing on these categories! --Dan Polansky 11:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Latin dialect templates[edit]

Per WT:RFDO#Dialect etymology templates, the separate dialect templates ({{VL.}}, {{ML.}}, {{LL.}}) will be deleted. Please use the more functional and standard {{etyl}} approach ({{etyl|VL.}}, {{etyl|ML.}}, {{etyl|LL.}}). The template parameters work just the same. Thanks. --Bequw¢τ 15:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the deletion, but I will get used to the new regulation I guess. I will adjust my bookmarklet for etymology cleanup. --Dan Polansky 19:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)