User talk:Daniel Carrero

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
User talk:Daniel.
May 2008 - June 2010
July 2010 - December 2010
January 2011 - May 2011
June 2011 - December 2014


I'm wondering why you added this new function. We already have another way of retrieving language names. —CodeCat 13:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I'm just getting the hang of Lua. I tried to retrive language names directly from Module:languages but didn't seem to be able to. --Daniel 13:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
No there's a separate module for template-based access. It's written so that its interface mostly mimics the Lua version. require("Module:languages").getByCode("xx"):getCanonicalName() becomes {{#invoke:languages/templates|getByCode|xx|getCanonicalName}}. The same principle is used for families, scripts and other "codes". And several other modules also have a /templates submodule, like Module:links/templates and Module:headword/templates. —CodeCat 14:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Great; thanks! I'm using the code you said and I've rolled back the new function I had added to Module:utilities. --Daniel 14:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Language and family changes[edit]

Your recent edits have caused some errors. Wintu (wnw) now has an invalid family code "qfa-wtq", while "qfa-wic" is used twice. —CodeCat 18:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Found my mistake, I've reverted my edits and did them again. I believe Wintu is working correctly this time. Sorry for the trouble. --Daniel 22:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
A tip when working on codes is to check Module:data consistency check afterwards (perhaps do a null edit first). This module checks lots of modules and reports if anything doesn't fit. —CodeCat 22:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
That's nice, thank you. --Daniel 22:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Language appendices cats[edit]

If you're going to add a whole bunch of "Category:[almost unattested lect] appendices" cats to appendices, at least create the categories- you've just doubled Special:WantedCategories, and we were getting behind on creating things as it was. Or remove them, since most of those categories are going to be utterly useless- there will never be more than one appendix in them. I should also mention that some of the languages and language families referred to in those category names aren't recognized by Wiktionary. People create Swadesh lists for all kinds of speculative or obsolete language groupings, and include all kinds of minor dialects. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble with Special:WantedCategories. I love the work people did with the Swadesh lists, though the appendices' categorization really is now very much better now than it was before. I admit it is troublesome that I created red links to many language categories if in practice they are just dialects of broader workable languages. In the case of Appendix:Paleosiberian Swadesh lists and Appendix:Chumashan and Hokan Swadesh lists and others, in a prior revision I populated them with many red links to language categories that are really unmentioned subdivisions of languages mentioned. After your message I think removed almost all of those. I left all the languages that are already mentioned as individual columns in those Swadesh lists, example: Sham/Dong/Gelao/etc. in Appendix:Tai-Kadai Swadesh lists. I don't think those categories ought to be removed. Would you remove those too?
In my favor, most of the Swadesh List-ed languages are well established as languages with a sizeable number of entries here, and not expected to be treated as lects, — like Appendix:Celtic Swadesh lists has Proto-Celtic, Breton, Cornish, Welsh, Old Irish, Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Manx, — thus I'd argue the current categorization, standardized through a template that adds the appendix to categories of each language, is extra helpful for those.
As for the family codes that I created, which of those would you delete/remove from Wiktionary, if any? In particular I created qfa-tot (Totozoquean) because I needed to create qfa-tot-pro for Proto-Totozoquean (which was named "Appendix:Swadesh lists for Totozoquean languages" but only had Proto-Totozoquean). It's ugly and I'm not happy about it either, in case you're not happy with it. I did not add any other families or languages to Totozoquean since it's only a proposed group of languages and I don't intend to.
P.S. I said the categorization is now better than before because it was impossible to know for sure through categories what Swadesh lists we had for a given language because they were either in 1. only "Category:(family) languages", 2. only "Category:(language) language", 3. only "Category:(language) appendices" 4. only "Category:Swadesh lists" and nowhere else, or a combination of the first 3 plus the 4th. Now they are all in the appendix category for each language but not the root language category.
P.S.S. A few languages like Punjabi appear in more than 1 Swadesh list so they populate, for example, Category:Punjabi appendices with more appendices. --Daniel 05:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleting Appendix:The Simpsons[edit]

Please explain Why was this deleted? It has incoming links on enwp for instance. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Most appendices of fictional universes that I created years ago were decided to be deleted by the community. This is one of those that nobody did delete. I figured I could just nuke it as well. Anyway, if you want it, I restored it. No big deal. But the pages for individual words should probably be merged with the main page at least. --Daniel 06:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Consensus I can't speak to community consensus from the past--I didn't take part in those conversations--but The Simpsons is a bit broader than most media franchises as some of its coinages would have attestation in professional linguistics and dictionaries. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Citation pages for specific Pokémon toys[edit]

What's the point when they aren't showing generic use and would fail WT:BRAND? Equinox 15:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure, I'm just browsing Groups and wondering if any of Pokémon names or Pokémon-related terms would seem cite-able in the future. That last one mentioned the toys, but for most of those I was thinking WT:FICTION rather than WT:BRAND. --Daniel 15:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikisaurus redlinks[edit]

Would you be able to create a list of English Wikisaurus entries that have redlinks, together with their redlinks, and post it to my talk page? That would be cool. I mean a list formatted like this:

  • WS:entry1: redlinkitem1, redlinkitem2, redlinkitem3
  • WS:entry2: redlinkitem1, redlinkitem2, redlinkitem3, redlinkitem4
  • ...

I know you were doing some Wikisaurus redlink reporting in the past, so maybe you have a script or something to do that? I am only interested in English entries, not, say, Portuguese entries. ---Dan Polansky (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Changes to {{citations}}[edit]

When you make a change to a template that invokes a module, you should always check Category:Pages with module errors for at least a day or two. In this case, you seem to have changed the parameter requirements, which triggered at least five module errors. It may be that someone has misused the template in these pages, but, as the person who made the last modifications to the template, you're the logical candidate for spending the time to fix whatever is wrong. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, you could say it was kind of my fault. I didn't see any problem then but I see now what happened. Before my edits, {{citation}} just categorized into "Category:(language) citations" according to the language code; if no language code was given, it gracefully assumed English. But then I implemented "Category:(language) citations of undefined terms" (Category:English citations of undefined terms, Category:Portuguese citations of undefined terms...); I didn't make the template assume English gracefully with the new categories. Most citation pages had the language code anyway and nothing wrong happened, apparently thanks to MewBot (talkcontribs) adding the code to them. But I see those 5 pages didn't have the code and generated the module errors. Thank you for fixing them. --Daniel 12:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Godai Myōō[edit]

Hi Daniel, I saw that you'd deleted the Godai Myōō page, but you gave no reason in the summary. This romanization is attestable, so I have restored the entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That's ok. Probably 五大明王 and ごだいみょうおう should link to Godai Myōō, they only link to Go Dai Myōō. I'm not sure how to make {{ja-pos}} handle two differently-spaced romanizations. Probably using the rom= parameter like: rom=Go Dai Myōō or Godai Myōō. --Daniel 12:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Cheers, thank you. About the romanization, both forms are attestable. Lexicographically, Go Dai Myōō is more correct, in that the term is ‎(go, five) + ‎(dai, great) + 明王 ‎(myōō, Buddhist wisdom king). There is no Japanese term 五大 (godai). In terms of usage in English-speaking contexts, Godai Myōō is more common, due to vagaries in how Japanese has been phonetically parsed by English speakers.
I experimented with how to add two romanizations, and any addition of rom= argument values results in the entry being added to a maintenance attention category. I added a usage note instead. Please adjust as you deem appropriate. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 03:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Sounds great. I just added an {{also}} link at the top of Godai Myōō and Go Dai Myōō now. --Daniel 10:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Extra space after Template:rfelite at Euphagus[edit]

There is extra space after the template in the Etymology section. I don't think it has to do with the template, but I don't have good diagnostic skills. Do you have any idea why this happens? Does it happen for you? I use FF and Chrome and have the same problem in both. I use rhs TOC. DCDuring TALK 21:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The code of the template looks good and I'm not seeing any extra space in the entry; all seems normal to me. Also compare this revision with this revision. The spacing in both look, and should be, identical, since the only difference is that I used plain text rather than a template in one of those revisions. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't have the extra space when I disable the right-hand side Table of Contents gadget. That might be the problem. I don't know how many use it. DCDuring TALK 23:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
WiktPreviewRightTOCs is the gadget. DCDuring TALK 23:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Here is where you'd find it. Do those "clears" do too much? DCDuring TALK 23:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The extra space goes away:
  1. when I remove both {{wikipedia}} and {{wikispecies}} OR
  2. when I move them "sufficiently far down", beyond where the bottom of the TOC reaches.
Any ideas? DCDuring TALK 00:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I realize that you tried a number of different places to put both boxes, separately and together, in the entry, and you currently settled for this revision with both boxes directly below ===Proper noun===. See File:Euphagus.png and File:Euphagus diff.png for how the entry appears on my computer. All looks perfectly fine to me, with or without the right-hand TOC enabled. I also checked each of the revisions of the entry to make sure. In File:Euphagus diff.png, there is actually a slight difference in spacing when you are specifically looking at a diff rather than the actual entry, because the TOC appears to move upwards a little, away from the wikipedia/wikispecies boxes. Could you upload to Wiktionary an image of how you see the entry, for diagnostic purposes? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)