User talk:Dan Polansky/2010

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


Do you have any ideas or suggestions on how to improve the proposed Wikisaurus portal page? Maybe shrinking/removing some of the bright icons, adding more information into the page itself, or something like that could make it usable? --Yair rand 19:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I would drop the idea of a Wikisaurus portal altogether. The proposed Wikisaurus portal is another page to maintain, with unclear focus: is it for readers-only, for newbie editors or all editors? Who stands to gain from the portal? --Dan Polansky 20:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The focus would be for readers who would hopefully become editors. The Requested Entries section would need maintaining, with updates every time one of the requested entries is built, (there might be away around that by using #ifexist, though), but the "Newest Entries" section is self-updating. The real problem I hope to fix with this is the fact that the Main Page has a link to Wiktionary:Wikisaurus (which will be displayed more prominently when the redesign is finished), which leads to a page which, while giving useful information for editing, doesn't really give the impression of an active and useful subproject. --Yair rand 20:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any benefit a separate portal would bring to newbie editors. I don't know what you specifically mean by "doesn't really give the impression of an active and useful subproject"; I certainly do not want to create mere superficial impression by adding colored boxes and oversized flashy icons. If you think some class of information is missing in Wiktionary:Wikisaurus, that the order of sections would benefit from a change, or that, at the top of the page, there should be a box for newbie Wikisaurus reader, we can talk about it. But I am against distracting eye candy. I am against the Wiktionary:Wikisaurus page looking like Wiktionary main page; Wikisaurus is a subproject of Wiktionary or not even that; it is not on par with Wiktionary.
Whether Wikisaurus is a useful subproject and mainspace has to be judged from Wikisaurus entries, not from Wiktionary:Wikisaurus. --Dan Polansky 21:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi there Dan. I've replied to your note on my talk page, just in case you didn't see it. Cheers, Razorflame 19:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Two things[edit]

Well, you are right about list of portmanteaux apart from it failed RFD didn't it? That's why it was a redirect. Restored.

Similarly, I've been thinking about [[Category:Wiktionary projects]], if you wanted to rename the pages as you suggested, I think it's a fine idea. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, Connel deleted it against the consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem: the page contained only a redirect in the last revision, so it looked deletion-worthy. The main thing is deleted pages can be restored again. --Dan Polansky 19:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Counting of Latin verb forms[edit]

This still seems to be undecided. I noticed you made a few edits in December to remove the 'intrasparent workaround' [1], but since FitBot (talkcontribs) and EncycloPetey and I haven't been persuaded by a change in formatting, wouldn't it be better to persuade us and promote discussion, rather than odd edits? It seems futile, since most form of words don't use your method; this seems a trivial issue at best anyway. Caladon 19:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it obvious that
(a) # {{conjugation of|praecipito|praecipitō|pres|act|inf|lang=la}}
is preferable to
(b) # {{conjugation of|[[praecipito#Latin|praecipitō]]||pres|act|inf|lang=la}}
and can explain my preference upon your request, though the case is pretty obvious and has already been argued in User_talk:EncycloPetey/Archive_9#Counting_of_Latin_verb_forms.
Are you saying that you prefer the formatting (b) to the formatting (a)?
Can you explain your preference? (I know that preferences are often inexplicable, but some preferences are explicable.)
I think that the formatting (b) is a trace of history that should be replaced with (a), ideally robotically.
--Dan Polansky 12:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I am willing to accept formatting (a), but this all depends on if you can persuade EP to change the current standard formatting and for somebody to setup the replacement of entries using formatting (b). I am not keen on the idea of them having to be replaced by hand. Caladon 12:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not wholly clear about what you are saying. Do you agree that (a) is preferable to (b), or do you merely think that (a) can be lived with, meaning that (a) can be endured or tolerated?
I do not know whether I can convince EncycloPetey, but he has provided no reasons for (b) other than that he prefers (b). This, in this case, I find unconvincing. There are matters of pure individual preference, but this is not it: (b) is a formatting that even EncycloPetey must admit is but a workaround, one that is (i) intransparent, and (ii) in most of its uses superfluous AKA unneeded; no trick for ensuring counting of entries is needed when there is intewiki or when there is a Spanish or Italian entry on the same headword, and interwikis are now plentiful, and increasing, as other Wiktionaries add Latin forms.
You do not need to replace anything by hand. All that I am asking is that when I enter the formatting (a), no one turns it into the IMHO worse formatting (b). --Dan Polansky 18:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
What I meant was that (a) is tolerable, just like the proposed changes on translating lemma to lemma, instead of the current system, would be tolerable. I suppose it's acceptable that the formatting you prefer remains unchanged, though I'd rather there was standardization across all formatting; it's frustrating when there are contradictions on all of the documents. If it's superfluous, then I don't see the need to use formatting (a). Thanks for your time on replying anyway, as it seems the issue may be unresolved, at least for a while. Caladon 20:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
To avoid misundestanding: I am not saying that the use of the template is superflous; what is superflous is "[[praecipito#Latin|praecipitō]]". The very same link is generated by the template as invoked in (a); this manual "[[praecipito#Latin|praecipitō]]" is there only to ensure that the page gets counted; it is there as a workaround around a bug or quasi-feature in Mediawiki software. But this bug consisting of pages not being counted under certain circumstances does not occur when there is interwiki for the page.
I understand your wish to standardize, but it seems poor to me to standardize on an intransparent formatting, whose reason for being is only known to some elect contributors. I found the formatting (b) frustrating when I have first seen it. At first, I thought the template did not know how to render the link using the lang parameter. Then I have realized that the template actually did what it should. Only then have I realized--and I don't remember whether I have found it myself or have been told--that "[[praecipito#Latin|praecipitō]]" is a workaround around a counting bug. The mark up "[[praecipito#Latin|praecipitō]]" does not say "I am a workaround around a counting bug"; that is frustrating. In software development, this is exactly the kind of thing one should not do: when one builds a workaround, which is in principle better than passing a misbehavior of a component on the poor user, one should document the workaround properly as a workaround, so that the people who come later understand what is going on. --Dan Polansky 09:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


Hey there Dan P. I've been waiting patiently, and while I think it could possibly wait a little longer, I just don't see any rhyme or reason in not allowing me to edit in Italian, even after I've proven that I know the basics of the language. I've had my babel set to it-1 for over two weeks now. Therefore, I would like to ask that I be allowed to make Italian entries and add Italian translations now. Thanks, Razorflame 12:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi. I've picked a flower for you! I hope you like it! Is this correct Czech? --Volants 15:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "gladiola" is a Czech term. --Dan Polansky 16:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Unisex names?[edit]

Hi Dan – thanks for your vote proposal on name appendices.

I’ve suggested a point (namely a “Unisex” category), which may get buried in the extended discussion, so I thought I’d repeat it here:

To jump in a moment – could we also have a “Unisex given names” category, for names like “Francis” or “Jessie” (rather than just cross-listing them in both Male and Female)? There are some such names in English, and they are very common in Chinese and Sikh culture, for instance.

Perhaps worth discussing in a separate vote, if appending it to current vote would be distracting.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
My first thought is that I would rather avoid having a unisex category, and find it okay to have "Francis" listed as both a male given name and a female given name. --Dan Polansky 08:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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


Hello there Dan Polansky. Being that you are the one who seems to be the most interested in User:Razorflame/Promise, I have (will) sent you (be sending you) an email (fairly long, I believe). Hopefully, you can reply fairly quickly :) Razorflame 08:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi there again Dan. I've noticed that the {{cs-noun}} template isn't split into different templates for gender. This can still work, however, you'll need to make it so that when the gender parameter that is input into the article is f, it only adds the Category:Czech feminine nouns category, and not the Category:Czech nouns category, because the feminine noun category is a subcategory of the overall noun category, and so, does not need to be included on each page that has the feminine noun or masculine noun categories. I am not quite sure how to achieve this in template form, but I would like to recommend that you ask around and see if someone can fix the template for you :) Cheers, Razorflame 08:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the cs-noun template. I have opposed the creation of "Category:Czech feminine nouns" and I like it when all the Czech nouns are listed directly in the "Category:Czech nouns". --Dan Polansky 09:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Well it seems as though the Czech feminine nouns category has been created, so maybe if you don't like it, an RFDO of it would be the best course of action? I agree that all nouns should be listed in the "Category:Czech nouns" category to make it easier to find them, so I would probably support the deletion of the "Category:Czech feminine nouns" category. Razorflame 09:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi there Dan. After 10 minutes of research, I have come up with two additional definitions for this word in addition to the one already there: It can also mean phony and forged. Just wanted to let you know so that you maybe could update the article. Cheers, Razorflame 12:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi there Dan. Over the past few hours, I've been thinking about ways that maybe the restrictions could be lifted. Even though the promise should not change much until March 1st, I would like to propose a small addition to it. I can edit in languages other than the ones that are listed on the promise page, but I can only do so in my userspace and must make sure that it is absolutely correct before moving it to the mainspace. Does this kind of compromise work for you? That way, I can edit (albeit, in my userspace) in languages other than the ones listed on my promise, but I cannot add them to the mainspace until I've verified that they are completely correct. Does this sound like a good compromise to you? Razorflame 18:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to negotiate with you any changes in the conditions of the promise until 1. March 2010. --Dan Polansky 21:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It isn't really a change, IMHO. Razorflame 22:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Razorflame, in User:Razorflame/Promise, one piece of text is "I may create or edit an entry if". You formally specified entries, so definitely this change would break your promise, no matter the correctness of your contributions. On the other hand, I didn't found any promises against editing your userspace. If you are interested and knowledgeable enough to create "absolutely correct" definitions in languages other than the currently chosen at your promise page, perhaps a handful of such definitions in your userspace could help in the negotiation planned to occur in March 2010. --Daniel. 22:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I've created a few Kananda entries in my userspace to help the negotions go along. Furthermore, I assume that the two months started when I was last blocked, which means that the negotions should take place on the 27th of February (a day earlier). Cheers, Razorflame 16:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
You wrote: "I will do as you said and wait until the first of March to begin discussions about modifying the promise, as discussed on my talk page here. Hope this clears up the confusion :) Razorflame 11:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)"[2]. --Dan Polansky 19:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Yep. The two month period would have been on the 30th of February, which actually means (sorry for my early morning grogginess) the 2nd of March. By the way, do you use IRC? If you do, could you come on? Razorflame 19:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm interested in that phrase, "must make sure that it is absolutely correct". How do you propose to do that? —RuakhTALK 19:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Nit vs niť[edit]

I was about to create nit on French wiktionary but, looking for examples, I found that it might better be niť

Wikipedie has an article on 'Nitě na šití'

thx. --Diligent 13:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Both forms--"nit" and "niť"--are attestable. WP has cs:W:nit. "niť" is citable in Google books. The source has "nit"[3] but not "niť". --Dan Polansky 13:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

thank you.


Not really that major, but could this be renamed for two reasons? One, two letter codes can be used for languages, two WS often means Wikisource, similar to WP, WB, WT, etc. Thoughts? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather see this templated unrenamed, unless there are pressing reasons. The template is heavily used in all Wikisaurus entries. If the reasons are hypothetical, the template should better stay unrenamed. There is a naming convention that all Wikisaurus templates start with "ws "; this one is an exception in that it starts with "ws" without the space at the end.
Is there a language that has the code "ws"?
Does anyone actually confuse the template with Wikisource? --Dan Polansky 22:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Both good points. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


prstýnek Dan was this intentional that you REMOVED the translation or just a cut and paste mistake? "prstýnek" *is* used as the ring worn around the finger, so I see no sense in having to look up the meaning in the non-diminutive word as a second step. That's just a time waste. If you think it's incorrect ... well, tell me. But I *DO* want a translation there. -andy 02:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence that "prstýnek" is used more often than "prsten" in reference to a wedding ring. I tried the following searches:
I do see a point in indicating diminutives as merely diminutives whenever they are nothing else. --Dan Polansky 06:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi there Dan. While I understand your concerns about my promise, you need to understand that I only have the best intentions for this project. Under my old promise, I felt like I was not able to provide my fullest ability to help the English Wiktionary, and now that I am under my current promise, I feel like I will be able to much better provide contributions to the fullest of abilities here now that I am no longer restricted. People make mistakes, and I know that I will make some; the fact of the matter is that they should not be treated with scorn, but helpfulness. If you notice a mistake that I make, speak up about it, and I will work to understand why I made the mistake, and how to fix it. All that I ask is that you give me a chance to prove that I can be as diligent an editor as Opiaterein when it comes to new languages.

On another note, I would like to nominate you for administrator. The nomination is here. You can choose to accept or decline it as you wish. Cheers, Razorflame 19:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


mystery is over ;-) From German or Dutch (most probably German as it is closer to Czech) - germanic work Takel and French suffixe -age rather common in Dutch.

Conclusion, not all -áž words come from French!

--Diligent 15:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi there. Can you give me some resources on learning Czech? After working with the language on another site that I go on, I have grown to love Czech quite a lot, almost as much as my love for Romanian, and I was wondering if you could impart some resources that I can go to to start learning Czech? It would be much obliged! Don't worry, I won't make contributions in Czech on here until I learn more about it, so worry not! Thanks again, Razorflame 08:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This was a serious request. I seriously love the Czech language and want to begin learning it as soon as possible. Can you please provide me with some links to help me get started?

Also, does podnikový mean corporate (in an attributive sense)? I am pretty sure it does, but then again, I don't know.

And lastly: Are you purposefully ignoring me? Thanks, Razorflame 12:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

 :p. --Dan Polansky 13:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Razorflame, you have broken a promise that you have given to me, a promise that you will work only on four languages: English, Esperanto, Ido, and Spanish. Now you come here and ask for help. There is not much I can do about your breaking the promise. But there is one punishment left: a refusal to help. --Dan Polansky 13:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
What you should understand is that by not helping me, you hinder me, and you hurt me very deeply. I am saddened that you would treat me with the lack of friendliness and helpful attitude...The promise that I have given you was not broken because of the points raised on my talk page. While you might not agree with it, my promise is now on my userpage, and while you posted that you would not monitor my behavior on here any longer, I did not expect you to completely shut me out. If an old lady asked you to help her across the street, would you do it? Of course you would, because it is the right thing to do. Now, that same old person asking for help to cross the street is given a push in front of the bus...why? Why won't you do the right thing, and help a person in need? Who cares if the promise that I gave you is broken if said promise was broken to begin with and if I am currently working to nurse it back to help? You are not helping either case, and that truly saddens me. Razorflame 14:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Empty vessels make the most sound. --Dan Polansky 15:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Kindness makes the best gift. Razorflame 16:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternative spellings - formatting[edit]

(from my talk page) Facts707 19:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternative spellings - formatting

What makes you think that this is the preferred formatting of alternative spellings? --Dan Polansky 13:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

See following section. Facts707 19:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Should alt forms/spellings have idiom tag?

This would be a worthwhile principle to establish, one way or the other. I think I agree with your approach. But rather than implement it wholesale or in edit wars, it might be better to bring the matter up at WT:BP with a rationale. It could then become a matter of cleanup and be implemented universally (one way or the other). DCDuring TALK 18:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to start an edit war. I don't think the others actually had a problem with removing "idiom" from, say, bassackwards when bass-ackwards has "idiom" and is the main entry. I think the problem was when I went a step further and removed the "en-adj" etc. subheadings for bassackwards, etc. My thinking was that since it is only a minor alternative spelling (with a hyphen), the definition including "en-adj", etc. was redundant since the user would just to go the main entry. This would eliminate having to maintain two entries and would avoid inconsistencies, such as the currently existing one where bassackwards is defined only as an adjective, while bass-ackwards is defined as both an adjective and an adverb. I'd be happy to post this subject at WT:BP or where otherwise appropriate as well. Facts707 18:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Apology to you[edit]

Hello there Dan. I know that you and me don't get along very well ever since I instated the new promise, but I would just like to ask you to just look at some of the work that I have accomplished with the restrictions off. I've been expanding on our knowledge of words that I can verify through other reputable sources, and this is where I need one to forgive another one for their foolish actions in the past. I am asking you to forgive any abuse I gave you in the past. I know that you were only trying to help me. The truth of the matter is is that I could really use your knowledge of the Czech language because I help another site expand their selection of Czech words using the information that you have provided here as well as from other reputable sources. I would very much so appreciate being able to ask you about certain words so that I can continue to grow and improve my understanding of the Czech language. Not being able to converse with you is putting a huge dent in that. All I am asking is for you to think it over and hopefully come to a favorable decision. I await your reply :) Razorflame 22:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This thread is entitled "apology to you". But nowhere in the posting can I find "I apologize for ...", "I am sorry for ...", or "I will refrain from doing ... again.". I am perplexed. --Dan Polansky 07:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
My bad. I will now include them in this segment. I will refrain from doing anything too drastic like changing my promise at any point in the future again and I am sorry for any problems it caused you over the duration of the promise's life. I just want to get back to working together with each other to build the best dictionary that we possibly can build :) Can you meet me halfway and work with me and get 'er done? Razorflame 08:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) Do I understand correctly that you will constrain your editing to English, Esperanto, Ido, and Spanish, as you have promised? --Dan Polansky 08:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
That was not what I was aiming for in this discussion. This apology was for the trauma caused by the promise. Ever since I started following the promise listed on my userpage, the number of conflicts between other users and me have decreased significantly, and the communication between key members of the dictionary have increased dramatically. Being placed back underneath the original promise will strip everything that I've worked hard to earn back (in terms of trust) away. My purpose of this was to apologize for what a jerk I was earlier on in my career here at the English Wiktionary and basically, I was asking for a chance to wipe the slate clean and just start over. Right now, I have no plans on editing in any other languages but Finnish, Czech, Esperanto, Ido, Italian, Spanish, and English. If I must, I will commit to making a promise to edit in only Czech, Finnish, Esperanto, Ido, Italian, Spanish, and English, but I would rather not have to make that commitment because I believe that you can find it in your heart to forgive a brash young arrogant fool for putting you through hell earlier this year. I just want a chance for the slate to be clean again. I hope you can understand at least that :( Razorflame 08:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) I do not have any trauma. I just dislike people who systematically break promises. If you want to apologize for having broken a promise given to me, and if you plan to keep your promise to constrain your editing to English, Esperanto, Ido, and Spanish, I am interested. Otherwise, I don't see why you are talking to me. --Dan Polansky 09:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I am talking to you because I find it very unhealthy for someone to completely shut out another person just because that person wanted to change and grow and become someone useful on this site. That, to me, is a little bit rude, in my opinion. I said that I would only edit in Czech, Finnish, Esperanto, Ido, Spanish, Kannada, Italian, and English as those are the only languages that I have any interest in. If those terms are not agreeable, then I am willing to work with you to make them agreeable. Razorflame 14:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) I am merely refusing to fulfill your request for information on the ground that you have broken a promise that you gave me, a promise that you do not intend to keep. I just dislike people who systematically break promises. --Dan Polansky 15:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
How can I prove to you that I've changed besides having your trust in me one final time to not break it again? Razorflame 15:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
If you become a good and trustworthy editor, and remain so for a while, then eventually people will start to trust you again. I don't see how anyone else's trust is a prerequisite for that; it's not as though you'd been permablocked, so needed an admin to trust and unblock you. —RuakhTALK 15:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


Again, you do not even intend to keep the promise that you gave me. --Dan Polansky 08:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I do intend to keep the promise that I gave you. I only plan on editing in the following languages: Kannada, English, Spanish, Italian, Czech, Finnish, Esperanto, and Ido. Those are the only languages that I actually plan on expanding our knowledge base in. I won't even touch other languages because I don't know enough of them to touch them. Razorflame 14:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You do not intend to keep the promise that you gave me. --Dan Polansky 14:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Because I have outgrown that promise. The new promise is exactly what I just told you. Those are the only languages that I will be editing in, and I can prove it to you. If you don't believe me, just watch my edits for the next twp weeks, and I'll prove that those are the only languages that I'll edit in. Razorflame 14:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems we agree: You do not intend to keep the promise that you gave me. --Dan Polansky 14:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I intend to keep the updated version of my promise that includes the languages mentioned above. That is the promise that I mean to keep. I will not limit myself to four languages when I know that I can help the site more through helping in other languages. I do not get why you are so freaking adamant over this. I am trying to tell you that I intend to keep the promise listed above, and I don't see why you have to be so stubborn about it. You should be acting like: Ok, you keep the promise for two weeks and we can help each other again. I don't see why you can't have that kind of attitude when that kind of attitude is exactly what this Wiktionary needs right now. Razorflame 14:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


This entry is written entirely in Czech (or maybe Slovak). Can you help? --EncycloPetey 18:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The term "konfirmácia" is Slovak, as is the text in the entry "konfirmácia". I recommend to delete the entry "konfirmácia", and create it anew, as the current text is a copyvio from [4]. --Dan Polansky 20:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Is the Slovak entry something you can write, or should I simply delete the entry and leave it that way? --EncycloPetey 22:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Re: I have created "konfirmácia" as confirmation AKA verification. There is also some ecclesiastical sense of "konfirmácia", which could be "confirmation—a sacrament of sealing and strengthening in many Christian religions, often including a ceremony of anointing". I leave the ecclesiastical sense for someone else to enter and verify. Online sources indicate that "konfirmácia" differs in Catholic end Evangelical churches. They also indicate that "konfirmácia" is not "sviatosťou"—sacrament, contrary to the English definition of "confirmation". --Dan Polansky 07:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Mission statement[edit]

Sounds like a fine idea to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I too think Wiktionary should have something of the sort. --Dan Polansky 08:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I've made a start. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

One of two options[edit]

Currently, you are only talking with me when I make a mistake. There are only two options: 1) You either help me as well, or 2) You stop talking with me altogether, or 3) You continue along with what you are doing, however, please note that this is not the right choice. It is your choice. Razorflame 18:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh kurva, please RF. There's always more than 2 options. I only talk to other French editors when they make mistake too. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 18:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with Razorflame's 3rd option. Please continue along with exactly what you're doing. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 21:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
4) tell Razorflame to STFU and worry about his own editing, not other editors. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please just disregard my last message. Carry on with what you've been doing. Razorflame 00:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback: Nils von Barth, Merging in a revision history[edit]

You have new messages Hello, Dan Polansky. You have new messages at Nbarth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{talkback}} template.

Czech entries[edit]

I've made four-seven more Czech adjectives that would greatly benefit from a look over by you. Please let me know about any errors I made ;) Razorflame 10:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Listen. We can get more done and make Wiktionary better if we work together. You not replying to a message like this just goes to show that you would rather see Wiktionary go to hell in a hand basket instead of trying to make it better. Please be respectful and answer a question if somebody asks you to, even if you absolutely hate that person's guts. Razorflame 16:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what to say. --Dan Polansky 16:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


It would appear that the template now links to the intermediate LSJ, which is an abridged version. I think we probably want to go back to 57, as the Intermediate will not have full coverage. It's probably not a huge deal, as almost all (but not quite all) of our current entries fall under the category of "basic vocabulary". Could you give me some examples of pages which were not working with 57? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I suppose δηλητήρ would be a prime example of this, eh? *sigh* Damn Perseus and their good-natured, but poorly conceived and executed project. The entry exists, of course, but at the rather esoteric address d.24.D.H.lhth/r. This is probably because the entry occurs in the paper version as second half entry title.....which probably is complete gibberish to you. In the paper version of the LSJ, entries which share the first few letters are often grouped together. The letters which they share in common (which are generally a stem of some sort) is put as a sort of heading, and then every individual entry is titled simply as the remaining letters. So, in this case, you would see a heading of "δηλ-" and the entry for δηλητήρ would be titled "-ητήρ". Perseus, in their vast short-sightedness, saw fit to encode this into their xml, which is what their website reads to produce the entries. They even encoded the page breaks of the paper version, which completely borks the xml. As a sort of compromise, would you consent to me recoding {{R:LSJ}} so that it links to 57 by default, but can easily be switched to 58 if you can't find the entry? Something like {{R:LSJ|dhlhth/r|58}}? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: Oh, sorry for my trial-and-error edit. Feel free to revert me. The entry that did not work was "δηλέομαι", and "δηλητήρ" was another one. I have not noticed that 58 goes to another edition; using 58 seems wrong. --Dan Polansky 13:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
{{R:LSJ|dhlhth/r|58}} looks good, just that there is going to be an edition mismatch. Ensuring linking to d.24.D.H.lhth/r would be better, it seems. --Dan Polansky 13:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I have put 57 back to the LSJ template. I have fixed both "δηλητήρ" with {{R:LSJ|D.H.lhth/r}}, and I have fixed "δηλέομαι". I have now noticed that, in Perseus, there is an input box, located to the right of the blue navigation arrows, containing the address, e.g. "LSJ D.H.le/omai1". That address can be used by the LSJ template. Problem solved. --Dan Polansky 13:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


Yes i am a bosnian and german native speaker and i would say my en level is between 2-3. Sorry but I´m not going to add babel on my user page as i hate those boxes. Language explanation is included on the user page. Should i answer her about Sven70 or on his talkpage where discussion has start? --WizardOfOz 18:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are planning to lead any further discussion on Sven70, which seems unnecessary, then preferably not on my talk page. One venue is Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#nl4.5Bbabl.3Dimprope. But I think the matter is settled now. --Dan Polansky 21:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


As per Opiaterein's message, can you please look at the word on my talk page and see if you think it is an appropriate translation? On another site that I work on, a Native Czech user said it was, but I think that you should double-check to make sure about it. Razorflame 20:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. --Dan Polansky 21:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

It is like my mobile phone number; I don't know it because I never phone me... LessHeard vanU 22:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi there Dan. So by your actions on the entry cytologie, I take it that you would like me to keep the gender unspecified? If that is the case, please let me know. Thanks, Razorflame 17:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly like the gender unspecified with adjectives in DTs and RTs, as an adjective as a whole does not really have a gender: černý, černá, černé are considered to be various forms of a single word or lexeme. My recent practice has been to leave the gender unspecified also with nouns, but I am unaware of any consensus in this area. --Dan Polansky 17:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to specify which gender a noun is in the derived and related terms, especially for people learning the language, but I agree with you 100% on leaving the adjectives unspecified. I'll go back through my recent edits and unspecify the adjectives :) Cheers, Razorflame 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As regards nouns, the gender is already specified in the entry itself, and I do not see why gender is more important than, say, part of speech. Instead of writing

Related terms
  • kocour masculine noun


Related terms
  • kocour m n

I prefer just

Related terms
  • kocour

--Dan Polansky 17:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. If you don't think that it would be helpful to specify the gender, I'll not specify the gender for nouns. Razorflame 17:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Do as you see fit as regards the gender of nouns; I am unaware of any consensus. I have merely explained what I am doing, and why. I have not been actively removing gender from nouns in DTs and RTs; I am merely omitting it when adding new items. --Dan Polansky 17:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll do the same as you. I'll not add them for any future entries, and I will remove them from any entries I have made in the past few days. Razorflame 17:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for intruding on your conversation, but here's how I see it: adding gender identification to nouns is more useful than providing the POS of all words. Identifying genders can a) help foreigners memorize which nouns have which genders, b) help determine the meaning and declension of nouns not yet present on Wiktionary ("red links"; e.g. under "český", seeing a masculine term "Čech" and a feminine term "Češka" implies that "Čech" applies to a male and "Češka" to a female).
It also helps separate different POS, without every word needing a POS marker. Most adjectives, adverbs, and verbs have very recognizable, distinct suffixes ("-í/ý", "-a/e/ě/y/...", "-t", respectively). Nouns have variable suffixes, which can sometimes be confused with these. By separating nouns from other POS, it's much easier to tell which words are what part of speech. --Mirek2 13:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I just want to thank you for looking past our past troubles to provide this kind of help to me. I appreciate it very much! Razorflame 17:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Are you sure that this is a masculine gender word? All of my experience and lots of online sources and my print CS-EN dictionary all point to this as being a neuter noun, but I thought that I'd ask you about it first to make sure. Razorflame 19:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is neuter; my mistake. --Dan Polansky 20:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the help :) Razorflame 21:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Declension tables[edit]

Can you please check the declension tables that Rising Sun added to a few of my Czech entries? If you could, it would be very helpful. I'm still learning the declension tables, so I cannot, with certainty, check to see if they are correct, but in the meantime, I would love it if you could see if the ones added by Rising Sun are correct in the meantime. Thanks, Razorflame 23:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I second that. I think some of these nouns might be uncountable --Rising Sun talk? contributions 00:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


You said "not all hyponyms should be placed to the person entry" when reverting my edits at WS:person [5]. This seems an important information about the Wikisaurus project, but I have not found anything related at the policy, discussions or other WS pages, so your action surprised me. How did you came to this decision about "all hyponyms"? Why did you removed them, the additional holonyms, meronyms and the whole grammatical definition? Why would you keep "adult" and remove "adolescent"? Why would you remove "hominid" and keep "being"? --Daniel. 07:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hyponyms: It is kind of obvious that not all hyponyms should be included. You have added randomly selected hyponyms, and even then the page was becoming unwieldy. You have added a fraction of all occupations (Wikisaurus:worker, Wikisaurus:physician, Wikisaurus:musician), a fraction of all roles of relatives (Wikisaurus:relative), a fraction of nationalities ("Englishman", "German"), a fraction of other words such as "scoundrel", "rascal", "genius", "idiot", etc. The set of all hyponyms of "person" is really huge. See also Wikisaurus talk:person.
Grammatical definition: The page should ideally host only one definition. I admit that this is not currently done in all Wikisaurus pages.
Hominid, being: As I understand it, a person is not an animal but rather an abstract entity located somewhere in an animal of the species homo sapiens. So a person is not a hominid. I admit that this is open to controversy. To be honest, I think that the relationships between "person", "human", "man", "animal", "hominid", and "body" are a can of worms. --Dan Polansky 08:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I've responded to most subjects at Wikisaurus talk:person.
In my opinion, your suggestion of handling only one definition per Wikisaurus page can be achieved, though it presents ambiguity issues that would be fixed by two strategical steps:
  1. Moving WS pages named after words to pages named after glosses. That is, WS:man would be moved to WS:adult male human to avoid ambiguity with WS:chess piece and WS:worker.
  2. Then, removing the "Sense:" line from them, since it would be deprecated by the first action.
These actions would also hopefully resolve the can of worms of "person", "human", "man", "animal", "hominid", and "body", since each word would be placed in the respective WS pages according to their definitions. --Daniel. 10:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

black red links[edit]

Polansky, since you have mentioned that "Wikisaurus:ugly woman" should be marked with the ws template, can you please tell your opinion about my following suggestion?

To make all the red-links automatically black-colored, like the four black links in the inflection table of tímido.

The final result would look like:

--Daniel. 13:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you avoid addressing me as "Polansky"? I would appreciate it. You may address me as "Dan Polansky", "Dan" or without my user name, whatever you see fit.
As regards the substantial issue: the template "ws" should IMHO better show redlinks by default. Disabling redlinks can be made an optional parameter of the template. When the redlink is disabled, there should plainly be no hyperlink rather than a black hyperlink. --Dan Polansky 13:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
"Polansky" is how I search for you in discussions and the Firefox history, hence my natural inclination to type that word also occasionally in talk pages. Nonetheless, I'll avoid it in favor of the alternatives as you asked, Dan.
Thanks for creating the format of "{{ws|ugly woman|-}}"; I like it. Can we also avoid the red link that is at the "{{ws header}}" of WS:ugly woman? --Daniel. 01:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The adjustment of {{ws}} to support "{{ws|ugly woman|-}}" has been done by Conrad Irwin. I agree with the adjustment in principle, yet would like to see a different syntax. I have posted to User_talk:Conrad.Irwin#Wikisaurus_-_hyperlinks_in_ws_template a proposal to do it like "{{ws|ugly woman|nohyperlink=1}}".
Getting rid of the redlinks from {{ws header}} is supported by me. --Dan Polansky 08:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


I don't see why player can't be a meronym of game. Games aren't composed entirely of players, but they are composed partially of them. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

For example in our entry : The word "arm" is a meronym of the word "body". Bodies are composed entirely of arms, either. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I readily admit that games have players, but I deny that games are composed of or consist of players, regardless whether in part or wholly. I deny that tennis consists of tennis players and tennis racquets, while I do not deny that actors and equipment are associated with activities that make use of them. I hope I am not missing something. --Dan Polansky 12:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


Hey there,

can you tell me if this word in Slovak means field or not? A google search implies it does, but I'm not 100% sure if it's really Slovak until I ask someone here. Thanks 11:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It’s spelled wrong. Should be roľa. Ľ/ľ is a single letter, not composed with '. —Stephen 15:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've searched for it on Slovak wikipedia and wiktionary, it stated it's another word for pole. I have no doubt that means field in Slovak as well. 17:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Slovak word "roľa" can indeed be at least approximately translated as "field", but I am not sure whether it fits exactly the definition "a wide, open space that is usually used to grow crops or to hold farm animals." This should better be verified by a Slovak native speaker. --Dan Polansky 11:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


You [Dan Polansky, 11:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)] asked me about an old entry of mine at dander. Please check my attempt to edit my entry there. 6-30-10 7:01pm CST Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas 00:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Belated answer: Your edits to "dander" do not answer the questions that I have asked in User talk:Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas#dander in April of 2010, in particular whether we can merge the senses and if we cannot then why. But I assume from your edits that you think that the second and third sense are needed as distinct in spite of dictionaries usually not having them as distinct. --Dan Polansky 11:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Czech Abbreviations[edit]

Hi, Is there a set way on how to format Czech abbreviations, or any non-English abbreviations, for that matter? The Czech pages feature different variants of formatting, sometimes listing the expanded Czech version under the definition and sometimes an English abbreviations. Sometimes the expanded version is listed as a synonym, sometimes it is under "Etymology". I actually prefer yet another variant, apparent in this German abbreviation: usw. . Which variant should I use? Thanks in advance. --Mirek2 21:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I am on a wiki-break. I have broken my wiki-break in order to vote before a vote closes, but otherwise I am trying to avoid any editing and research. I hope to look into this once I return from wiki-break. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thank you for your question. --Dan Polansky 07:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I see you have posted the subject to Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2010/July#Formatting Non-English Abbreviations. I disagree with Ruakh that the definition line is the best place for the expansion of a non-English abbreviation such as CHOPN, which translates as COPD, and has the synonym chronická obstrukční plicní nemoc. I think that the synonym sections and the etymology sections are those to which this class of information properly belongs, at least in many cases.
The boldface emphasis for first letters has been voted down: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-03/Bolding letters in initialisms. --Dan Polansky 09:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Hence my edit to PSČ. --Dan Polansky 09:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
OTOH, the likes of # {{abbreviation of|akciová společnost|lang=cs|dot=<nowiki/>}}: [[JSC]]: from a.s. look okay to me. If you, Ruakh and possibly other people prefer it to be this way, I can live with it. --Dan Polansky 10:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. :) I'll use that template. --Mirek2 18:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


hello, in regards to your comment on the word, the correct "grammatically repetitive aspect of verb" word is iterative or frequentative.

--Diligent 10:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Dan Polansky 09:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


(This is a copy of your message to me on my talk page. I'm not sure which page I should reply on, yours or mine, so I'm posting my reply to both pages. :))

What makes you think that "decentní" can be translated as "decent"? In what sense of "decent"? Do you have a Czech example sentence that uses "decentní" in such a way that it would be translated as "decent"?

I am asking because I have always thought "decentní" and "decent" are false friends. OTOH some dictionaries indeed do have this translation pair, among other translation pairs. But I cannot think of a Czech sentence where this translation would fit. Thanks. --Dan Polansky 10:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Do you think "unobtrusive", "temperate" or "subtle" would be better fits?
Off-topic question: Where should I post replies to your messages on my talk page: here, or on your talk page? --Mirek2 12:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I have responded on your talk page. --Dan Polansky 13:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi, could you check my Czech addition to linguisticky? I based it off of other similar entries, but I know nothing of the langauge. — lexicógrafo | háblame — 01:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Czech adverb form would be *"lingvisticky" having "v" instead of "u" in the middle; the model would be "lingvistický", "lingvista", "lingvistika". But I have found only one attestation for the adverb *"lingvisticky", as it gets mixed with the adjective "lingvistický" in Google. I find it likely that the adverb *"lingvisticky" with "v" is attestable, but it seems rather rare and not positively attestable at the moment. --Dan Polansky 08:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Are these all misspellings or scannoes, then? — lexicógrafo | háblame — 12:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry: I was wrong in assuming from the searches that the "linguistický" and "linguisticky" forms are unattestable.
The adjective form "linguistický" with "u" is attestable: google books:"linguistický".
The search for the corresponding adverb form (google books:"linguisticky", notice the quotation marks in the search) mostly finds occurrences of the adjective "linguistický" as in "Pražský linguistický kroužek", but it also finds true attestations of the adverb form: (a) "Vcelku je tu možno pozorovat aversi k pracím, které vyšly z moderní, linguisticky orientované metriky, jejímž velkým průkopníkem v Polsku byl...", (b) "... které i linguisticky úzce spojovaly Slovany a Germany, výsledkům našim přímo neodporuje", (c) " koho naleznete tam u Vas takové práci linguisticky a filologicky dosti vyspělého ...". So I will revert my removal at linguisticky. --Dan Polansky 08:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Kthx. I couldn't read any of it but based on how many hits there were I thought it'd be attestable. — lexicógrafo | háblame — 11:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


ahoj, I don't know how the verb templates work, so i am turning to you.

i think that the meaning to fit is imperfective (tense has a present value)

and the perfective meaning to fall is missing.

--Diligent 13:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Semantically, "to fit" indeed seems to be imperfective. But the Czech term "padnout" used in the phrase "oblek ti padne" seems perfective, grammatically or morphologically anyway. I admit that it is a bit of an oddity. One may want to rate the "fit" sense of "padnout" by the semantic imperfectiveness rather than the grammatical or morphological one; I don't know. I went for the morphological perfectiveness. On a closer semantic look, "to fit" is neither imperfective nor perfective, as "padnout" (to fit) refers to a state rather than a process. A process can be ongoing or completed; not so for state. So a "kámen" can still "padat" or it can finalize the operation and "spadnout", but I see nothing of the sort with "to fit". It is true that states are typically referred to using imperfectives, above all the imperfective "být". I don't really know what to do with this.
The perfective of "padat" is above all "spadnout", and also "dopadnout". "padnout" can be used in such phrases as "padnul mrtvý" or "padnul v boji", and these are figurative senses, which I have just entered. One sense is still missing for the phrase "vláda padla", which you have entered into fr:wikt. --Dan Polansky 14:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Internetová jazyková příručka gives the two possibilities (děj časově ohraničený i neohraničený), but they do not give a clear indication of perfect/imperfect.

I also find on the net : opisné futurum bude padnout je tu dosvědčeno z pražské mluvy prof. J. Jakubcem a z literárního jazyka citátem z Vrchlického.

Anyway, my template is perfective.

"oblek ti padne", now that you say it, i find equivalents in French of a future with a present meaning ("ça ira" (pujde to) = "ça va" (jde to), if it will go, it is already ok).

Another question if you don't mind. I am creating vlastnit. There, I really have a problem with the perfective aspect. I find loads of "bude vlastnit" on the web, so it must be - at best - ambivalent. Can you check ?

thank you for your help.

--Diligent 19:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The term "vlastnit" looks imperfective to me. It refers to a state rather than a process. My mistake; thanks for the catch. --Dan Polansky 06:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


Can you look at this, please? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Czech cognate with chew[edit]

According to Julius Pokorny, there is a Slavic žьvǫ, žьvati cognate with chew (Russian жевать (ževatʹ), Polish żuć), zero degree of extended žvýkat, žvatlat, žvanit.

I am sure I heard žveš, žve (with meaning "speak nonsense") when in Prague, but i cannot find it on UJC database. Can you confirm? infinitive would be žvát?

thx. --Diligent 12:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry; I thought I have answered this some time ago, but I have not. I do not know the forms *"žveš" and *"žve"; I have never heard it, but there are almost certainly some attestable Czech terms that I have never heard. It seems that the infinitive would be *"žvát", on the model of "lžeš", "lže", "lhát". --Dan Polansky 07:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikisaurus: number of senses per entry[edit]

Months ago you have expressed the preference for having only one definition per Wikisaurus page. If possible, can you please elaborate this idea? What is the problem with, for example, having both "canine that has been domesticated" and "to follow closely" at WS:dog? --Daniel. 03:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

First, let me change the subject title of this thread from "domesticated canine, follow closely", to "Wikisaurus: number of senses per entry", to increase the findability of this conversation months later. Now to the subject.
The current setup of Wikisaurus enables several senses per Wikisaurus entry. But I think there should be as few senses per Wikisaurus entry as possible, ideally only one sense per entry. A Wikisaurus entry does not stand for a term or a syntactic entity; it stands for a semantic entity or a semantic cluster. Thus, etymology and etymologically related terms make no sense in Wikisaurus, as the headword is not really a proxy for itself but only for a sense or a concept. It is confusing to store several semantic clusters on one headword. Doing so facilitates the idea that each term from mainspace should have its own Wikisaurus entry, which is a really poor design for many purposes I think. Doing so also confuses the hyponymy and meronymy relations, as they typically refer to senses through their headwords, and when more senses are on the same headword, the headword cannot be used to unambiguously refer to one sense. Referring to Wikisaurus senses through their headwords from the mainspace is ambiguous when there are more senses in one Wikisaurus entry.
Particularly many senses can be found in the entry "Wikisaurus:sound". It now has 9 senses, whereas I think Wikisaurus:sound should ideally host only one sense: a sensation perceived by the ear. The sense of sound as a body of water can be hosted in Wikisaurus:inlet instead; the sense of sound as healthy or fit can be hosted in Wikisaurus:healthy or Wikisaurus:fit; etc. Other entries with many senses are Wikisaurus:bad and Wikisaurus:old.
WordNet is a model that has senses as central entities rather than having spellings or terms as central entities. I encourage setting up Wikisaurus on the same principle: the central entity is a sense or a sense cluster, and that entity is hosted on a headword, but the headword is an accident of sorts: the cluster for child as a non-adult person can be hosted on "child" or "kid", and it does not really matter all that much on which of the two it is hosted. So the headword "Wikisaurus:obvious" does not stand for "obvious" more than it stands for "apparent", "manifest", "evident", "palpable", etc. Wikisaurus headwords could be even numbered, like "Wikisaurus:sense267", but using natural-language headwords looks more natural and helps human memory. The downside of natural-language headwords is that they get confused with the subject of the entry, which they are not; it is the sense that is the subject of the entry, not the headword.
The requiment of one sense per headword raises the question of whether appropriate headword can always be found. So far it seems feasible to find a dedicated headword for each sense, without the need of disambiguating terms present in the headword. If this approach turns out to create more difficulties than expected, Wikisaurus can start using headwords on the model of "rich (wealthy)", "rich, wealthy", "rich; wealthy" or of the sort. The need for this complication has as yet not been demonstrated. --Dan Polansky 07:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I see. Then, can you tell me what is your opinion about the current setup of WS:alcoholic? It contains two individual senses: one formatted like the majority of WS "sense" sections, with subsections for synonyms and antonyms; and other solely to link to WS:drunkard. Do you agree with using this scheme of disambiguation? Or, perhaps, there should be something like "See also Wikisaurus:drunkard" at the top of the page?
Notably, the English word man has various definitions, including "adult male human" and "piece of board game". However, WS:man currently only displays the former and does not provide any disambiguational link to WS:board game piece whatsoever. --Daniel. 04:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) I am inclined to think that Wikisaurus does not need any headword-based disambiguation redirecting at all. If the user looks for "chess piece", he should better check the mainspace and look for hyperlinks to Wikisaurus there, or he should search in Wikisaurus for "chess piece" and soon he will find what he is looking for. "man" is far from the first headword under which I would look for "chess piece". As regards the redirect-of-sorts in Wikisaurus:alcoholic, that was created by me back then as a compromise with those who wanted an entry-per-word thesaurus. Right now, I would not shed a tear if the redirecting sense in Wikisaurus:alcoholic got deleted.
In particular, adding five to seven redirecting senses to Wikisaurus:man (one per definition of "man") seems a poor idea to me. --Dan Polansky 09:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
This edit to "man" shows how the mainspace naturally serves the disambiguation role for Wikisaurus. --Dan Polansky 09:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I, differently, would prefer easier disambiguation between Wikisaurus pages. Expecting entries or searches to serve disambiguation purposes diminishes the informative potential of WS pages. This is true especially if the goal of providing only one definition per WS page eventually comes into effect. If there are five or seven definitions for man, it seems reasonable to expect them all to appear at WS:man, either as definitions or as links to other pages. I agree with you that the existence of "five to seven redirecting senses" at Wikisaurus:man would be a poor idea. Then, as an alternative idea to link between WS pages, I have created a new template ({{ws dab}}) and tested its effect at the top of WS:alcoholic. --Daniel. 10:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Re "If there are five or seven definitions for man, it seems reasonable to expect them all to appear at WS:man, either as definitions or as links to other pages": I absolutely disagree. And I disagree with using {{ws dab}}. --Dan Polansky 10:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Why do you disagree with letting people know, for example, when browsing WS:person, that a WS:grammatical person exists? --Daniel. 10:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with adding clutter to Wikisaurus pages that is redundant to mainspace links and to searching in Wikisaurus. As I have already tried to explain. --Dan Polansky 10:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
For future reference, your proposed use of {{ws dab}} can be seen in this revision of WS:alcoholic. --Dan Polansky 10:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I have already replied on how entries and searches are not the best way to disambiguate between various similar Wikisaurus pages. Since a WS page may be found by a link from a discussion or from other site, I believe we cannot simply assume that the reader has previous access and knowledge about how to browse Wiktionary. Even if he or she possesses such savviness, there is the fact that browsing entries and searches require various clicks, in addition to visually scanning through various entry sections (assuming that all the entries invariably and unambiguously link to all the related WS pages) or probably dozens of results of a search, thus the lack of direct links is resulting in lack of usability. --Daniel. 10:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) Well I disagree with you. I disagree that "Wikisaurus:man" needs to link to "Wikisaurus:board game piece". I find your arguments unconvincing. My main point is that Wikisaurus entries should stand for senses, not for headwords. So it should be merely accidental that the headword is "man" rather than "sense1562". The user of Wikisaurus needs to learn to use the search function for Wikisaurus, or else there would need to be a Wikisaurus entry for every single word. The search function is present in the header box of each Wikisaurus entry. The user looking for "shabby" should use the search function to find WS:stingy. --Dan Polansky 10:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I can notice at least a few existing issues related to whether to link between certain WS pages; I would appreciate if they were solved. Since you express thoughtful opinions about the appearance of WS, you probably have already noticed them too; let me point them out anyway, to proceed with our discussion.
Firstly, let us set aside the fact that many WS pages do contain multiple senses (which may, perhaps, be "fixed" through patiently splitting them into multiple pages eventually).
Secondly, the current system causes the phenomenon of each WS page ideally standing for a sense, not a word, to not be entirely clear. WS:person is comprised of certain hyponyms, synonyms, holonyms and more related information; as a result, its purpose of displaying relationships between words is clear at sight. If, by chance, WS:person lacks a particular holonym known by a reader, he or she may be inclined in good faith to add that holonym to the list. Similarly, a reader with grammatical savviness may notice the lack of "first person" or "reference" as terms related to "person" and be inclined to add it to WS:person, unaware of the existence of WS:grammatical person for the precise sense.
The fact that "WS:person" could be named "WS:sense123", despite being true, is not inherently obvious for all readers. Since "person" is a common English word with various definitions, a "WS:person" not listing them all is most likely to be deemed uncomplete.
This is different from requiring a page for each English word: I am not proposing the simultaneous existence of WS:stingy, WS:shabby and WS:ungenerous, all pointing to the same sense of "one who avoids spending". On the other hand, if we have WS:mean with the sense of "cruel", it may as well link to WS:stingy for disambiguation.
You apparently expect people to infer the approach of having only one sense per WS page by looking at synonyms from entries, which is an unnecessary and unreliable mental clutter. The specific line "(adult male human): omi (Polari); see also Wikisaurus:man" at man does not help at all for this specific purpose, because it only points to a WS page without reminding that it stands for only one sense.
This conclusion is aggravated by how the WS standard indentation permits rather elegantly (but ambiguously, as you have stated) the existence of various senses per page. One may simply add another third-level header for another sense, because he or she cannot be kindly redirected to the proper page, read a related disclaimer or otherwise be formally prevented from developing multiple senses per page.
There is another, technical, issue: you clearly oppose linking from WS:man to WS:board game piece; however, oppositely, WS:board game piece is naturally linking to WS:man. That is, since man and board game piece are synonyms (in the gaming sense, whose page is WS:board game piece), man is listed at WS:board game piece. The other page, WS:man, deals with another sense (of an adult male human), but is linked from WS:board game piece anyway, simply for existing and being recognized by {{ws}}.
Similarly, WS:person does not link to WS:grammatical person, but the vice-versa occurs. --Daniel. 04:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like to finish this discussion with you before proposing major changes for the Wikisaurus at the BP and the GP. So, if you are still inclined to actively disagree with my thoughts, please do so. --Daniel. 15:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

“continental philosophy” ?[edit]

So looking at Wikisaurus:nonsense (to add “rot”), I noticed that continental philosophy was listed (as a hyponym), via this edit. Now, it can be quite bad (I’m not sure if peyote is necessary to read or to write Foucault), but perhaps this is a little strong? (Though I did get a laugh – thanks!) Shall we place it instead at Wiktionary:Bad jokes and other deleted continental philosophy?

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Dan, you're getting a bit roguish. I dispatched this one directly to the bit bucket. Now, if you'd said analytic philosophy I might have let it be. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 04:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I’ve put a mention at Wiktionary:Bad jokes and other deleted continental philosophy#nonsense, so future generations can appreciate this.
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
It was just a joke. --Dan Polansky 07:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Signature[edit]

Would you like me to use the standard signature that the Mediawiki spits out for me? Please understand that I only used the same signature I had over at Wikipedia simply because I had previously garnered concerns over there when my userpage was a redlink, and they didn't like redlinks. I'm pretty new here (as you can probably tell), and I would like to know more about some of the rules about sigs, if you would be so kind. TeleComNasSprVen 20:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wonders of the world[edit]

I'd say delete, but there was a big raging argument about this whole thing so I dunno. Equinox 13:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Given the choice I would delete this purely encyclopaedic material. Equinox 13:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Felonia[edit]

I agree actually, surely there are more useful things you can do than edit talk pages. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What Felonia is doing is a bad practice. Maybe he is Wonderfool. Even if not, blanking one's user talk page should be discouraged. Note also that Felonia has created User talk:Felonia/archive, but the page is incomplete; selected discussions have been removed, while some conversations as old as of August 2009 have been left. I would have blocked him or her for this; good that I am not an admin. --Dan Polansky 12:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Msh210 and Equinox also use this system. Does anyone ever read talk page histories? Even if they do, my point still stands. Way too minor to consider a block. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I do read talk page histories, to figure out a bit what sort of communication I can expect from the person. --Dan Polansky 12:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Let's compromise. I'll put a link to the page history on my talk page, deal? --Felonia 12:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Your talk page should link to the page User talk:Felonia/archive, and the archive should contain the full history of your talk page, including the accusation of your being Wonderfool. That would be a deal. --Dan Polansky 12:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll consider it. It may take a long time to consider though. --Felonia 12:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) Felonia is quite possibly Wonderfool; see Wiktionary:Requests_for_checkuser/archive#Felonia (talk • contribs), in which the evidence was inconclusive. --Dan Polansky 13:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi there. If you add an inflection template to Latin adjectives, nouns or verbs (see vehemens) then my bot can add the inflected forms automagically. Cheers. SemperBlotto 08:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see your bot adding inflected forms automagically. Unfortunately, I know almost nothing about Latin grammar and inflection, so I do not know which inflection templates to add. At least one person thinks I should not be working on Latin at all, but my error rate seems to have been rather low so far, also because I have avoided doing things I do not know how to do. --Dan Polansky 08:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

WT:BP#A synonym of itself in Wikisaurus[edit]

I created a new discussion concerning Wikisaurus: WT:BP#A synonym of itself in Wikisaurus. I thought that you might me interested, so I am linking it from here for your conveniency. --Daniel. 01:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Re Modern Greek[edit]

Given our discussion's premature archival to Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2010/September#Modern Greek, I'll respond to your most recent posting here.

It would be difficult and tedious now, because it would require one to scan the histories of those newly recategorised Ancient Greek derivations to look for past miscategorisations. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. I maintain that finding miscategorized entries in Category:Greek derivations is fairly easy. It is fairly easy now, and it was fairly easy before the cleanup done by Vahag[6]. --Dan Polansky 07:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Let's assume that none of them are miscategorised any longer. In that case, proof takes the form of diffs of past miscategorisations. Finding them requires checking the histories of the now-correctly-categorised to find those diffs. Before they were easily found in Category:Greek derivations because of spelling differences, but no longer. Vahag's contributions list is probably the best place to start if one wanted to find them. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how finding diffs of past miscategorizations proves anything. Anyway, if there is a statement that you think you can prove, go ahead: state the statement, and state the proof. If not, I am not sure what we are discussing. --Dan Polansky 16:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
TBH, I can't even remember any longer. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Multilingual Dictionary[edit]

Very well, I understand that now. Was a bit hard to read that in the clipped image in the top left. Why the "en" subdomain, then? Also, would be nice if you didn't outright revert, I had added some things into the English section which was lacking and had a broken link... 21:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


I assume you removed one citation accidentally. I've readded it. Please take care. --Daniel. 22:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Oh, so you are doing that intentionally. Then, please stop suddenly deleting others' work. --Daniel. 22:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-10/Treatment of toneless pinyin other than syllables[edit]

Found four recent discussions in the Beer Parlour, added the links. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


I've reverted your change that makes {{en-pnoun}} a "soft template redirect", because it makes that template unusable. --Daniel. 12:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The template {{en-pnoun}} should not be used. There is the standard template {{en-proper noun}}. --Dan Polansky 13:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
There is also {{en-adjective}} and {{en-adj}}; and other multiple varieties of templates. I'm going to revert your edit again; since it is you who are introducing a new practice of deprecating a template, which has raised opposition by me, you should discuss before taking action again. Thanks. --Daniel. 13:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
First show that your template has a support. I have seen no support for your template. --Dan Polansky 13:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, what's the deal with this? It's trivial for me to type adjective for adjectives, but really annoying to go through the list of possible abbreviations, or hunt down a template's name. I will never remember whether it's en-ad, en-adj, en-adject, en-adjective, or en-int, en-inter, en-interj, or en-interjection, etc. ad infinitum, for obscure parts of speech that I may add to entries once in a year.

What harm is there in making entries work right when I type the words? Michael Z. 2010-11-12 00:26 z

It is a poor practice to have several template names in the main namespace that do the same thing. Using a redirect to help memory is okay, but it is not okay to spread another name of the same template in the main namespace, IMHO anyway. Someone else then does the cleanup job. A soft redirect makes it possible for you to type the template name {{en-adjective}} and, by doing so, find that the template name you were looking for was {{en-adj}}. I have tried to preserve your convenience in part, while also avoiding multiplication of template names in the main namespace. --Dan Polansky 08:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Keeping entries.[edit]

Hi Dan,

When you judge that an entry is "kept" (at RFD) or "RFV passed" (at RFV), please remember to de-tag the entry.

RuakhTALK 19:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I can do it the way you propose. Nonetheless, I thought that removing the tag from the entry should be done as part of the final removal of the section from the page. The RFV process distinguishes between striking and closing; the RFV process describes detaggging as part of the closing part of the process: Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Header. That said, I am fairly certain I often forget to remove the tags also in the closing part of the process. I also admit that it does not say in the RFD process that it should distinguish between striking and closing, unlike in the RFV process. I find the distinction between striking and closing convenient: it gives editors enough time to review my striking action. --Dan Polansky 09:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Header is completely wrong. It looks like you added that distinction in this edit. I'm sure you had good reasons for thinking that that's how it works — maybe you took text from a mistaken RFD header? maybe someone told you something in the BP that was either mistaken or easy to misunderstand? — but, well, it's not how it works. It's not how anyone else is doing it. Do you mind if I rewrite that header to match how I do it, and then we can work from there to figure out if I should modify my practice in any respects? —RuakhTALK 15:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Oops. I have edited the header shortly after a discussion in Beer parlour (Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2010/February#RFD vs RFV), but the section with striking seems like my proposal, based on my observation how people proceed; I have since forgotten that it was me who has added the section. The header now describes how I do it.
You say that "Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Header is completely wrong": really? Are all sections completely wrong or is only the distinction between striking and closing completely wrong?
Anyway, if you say that you do it differently, I take it that you know better than I do what the long-term practice was. So yes, go ahead and edit Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Header to match what you think is either a better practice or the actual common practice. --Dan Polansky 07:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
By "is completely wrong" I meant something like "is unambiguously wrong", not something like "consists solely of things that are wrong". I'll give it a shot. —RuakhTALK 14:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I had a look at your changes at the header, and they make perfect sense to me. You have mapped (striking, closing) to (closing, archiving). After your changes, most of the action happens during closing, while archiving is only a small last step that archives the discussion. Thanks! --Dan Polansky 07:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Deceptive summary"?[edit]

On WS:associate, I changed the noun sense definition from "person united with another or others in an act, enterprise, or business" to "someone united with another in act, enterprise, or business". All I was trying to do was make the summary more concise and easier to read. But you reverted it with the edit summary "deceptive summary; actually changed definition", because I didn't include the title change in my own edit summary. Firstly, I wasn't trying to change the definition, just to shorten it, and secondly, even though I didn't include the change in my edit summary, that's not reason enough to undo my definition change. I made the change in good faith. Can we come to some sort of compromise on this? --PaparazziPulse 21:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And also, I acknowledge that my edit summary was inadequate, but I did include "alphabetized", and I did alphabetize the entry: it wasn't deceptive. I'm aware that I haven't been creating edit summaries as much as I should, so I've been reading up on the edit summary page and easing myself into the habit. Cut me a bit of slack: I'm new here and still learning the ropes. --PaparazziPulse 21:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


Please do not arbitrarily delete the senses of a headword just because you think they're unfit for that headword. Instead, please move them to a more suitable page, with a different headword. In this case, from WS:correspondent, I have moved the sense "happening simultaneously" to WS:simultaneous. I actually suggested this exact solution to you on my talk page, but you seem to have ignored my suggestion. Deleting valid senses, instead of moving them, is bad practice and detrimental to the growth of Wikisaurus. --PaparazziPulse 00:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the history of contributions, User:Dan Polansky is anything but detrimental to the quality and growth of Wikisaurus and in no way guilty of bad practice. On the other hand, your (PP's) contributions reflect poor knowledge of Wiktionary standards. I urge you to accept and follow the advice given to you by Dan with great patience. The proportion of administrators to articles is much lower on WT than it is on WP, and there is - generally speaking - less tolerance here for users wasting productive time. -- Gauss 09:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your advice. From where I'm sitting, User:Dan Polansky is indeed hurting (rather than helping) Wikisaurus by deleting valid senses and synonyms, but what do I know, I'm just a new guy. I'll do my best to reconcile my own personal logic with the rules of the system, and continue to try and improve. I don't suppose there's anything positive to be found in the contributions I've made so far? --PaparazziPulse 10:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikisaurus entries with multiple senses[edit]

There's no real drawback, is there? As long as the sections are kept clearly separate. For example Wikisaurus:paint could have a noun and a verb section without them interfering with each other. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

See #Wikisaurus: number of senses per entry above. --Dan Polansky 15:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


How is Wikisaurus:dawn? --Mat200 00:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems basically okay, although I would not lump "dawn" and "sunrise" together as synonyms. The way I understand it, there is the following sequence of fuzzy events, in order of time: dawn, sunrise, sunset, and dusk. But this nice distinction is not all that critical for a thesaurus entry, and can be fixed later.
A minor formatting problem that anyone can easily fix: the section antonyms is lacking "ws beginlist" and "ws endlist".
Another minor problem: "dawn" is not listed as a synonym, but it should: see for instance WS:cat. --Dan Polansky 16:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


Please let me control my own talk page. Also, both user:Equinox and user:Msh210 can verify that I am not "Wonderfool", if that's what you want. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 17:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Your talk page is not really owned by you; it is a track record of your communication with other editors. If you are not Wonderfool, why are you removing the Wonderfool notice? The games with colors on your talk page also smell of Wonderfool. Anyway, I suggest you go on your Wonderfool vandalism spree, as you don't stand a chance of making it to an admin here anyway. --Dan Polansky 17:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I am removing the Wonderfool notice because it smells of stupid childish name-calling and paranoia, and that's not particularly what I want to be associated with. Have a merry Christmas. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 17:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Dan, would you mind meeting me on IRC? I'd appreciate it. My username is msh210.​—msh210 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Noneditable sections of polls[edit]

Thank you for repeatedly creating polls for relevant subjects on BP; I appreciate them.

Now, let me make a suggestion: would you mind if the options "Some individual people should have dedicated sense lines in some entries.", "No individual person should have a dedicated sense line in any entry." and "I am hesitant or don't care." from your last poll were changed from mere bold texts to L3 headers?

If this suggestion comes into effect, then the options will be editable sections, which I believe would make voting on them a more comfortable experience. --Daniel. 21:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have formatted the options as non-sections rather than as L3-headings by intent. I see no significant disadvantage of this formatting. I do not find posting to the poll without L3-headings uncomfortable. --Dan Polansky 21:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
OK. --Daniel. 12:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)