User talk:Daniel Carrero

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


July 2010 - December 2010
January 2011 - May 2011

Contents

June 2011[edit]

a thought[edit]

¶ It may be worth mentioning in ‘God’ that it is the central deity of all Abrahamic religions, that could make the mentioning of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism redundant. --Pilcrow 17:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea; I've done that. Thanks. --Daniel 18:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
This has been a great victory for Wiktionary ^_^ Happy dayyys.
Daniel, do we have boiler templates for names categories? — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 18:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Category:English given names and Category:English surnames have a catboiler. Derivations of names between languages such as Category:English male given names from Hebrew don't have a catboiler. --Daniel 18:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Poo. I guess I don't need to go so crazy about names right now, anyway. Though they are fun to add lol — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 19:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
If you're just looking for work to do, I suggest starting by adding your use of "poo" to poo. q: --Daniel 19:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Haha nah, I can think of tons of things I should be doing... but I'm lazy. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 20:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Grandfathers...[edit]

Don't you think it's getting a little bit silly now? —CodeCat 23:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. Do you have a better idea? --Daniel 23:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm just wondering if all of these are actually citable... —CodeCat 23:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I too was wondering this; and I discovered they are. I've been quickly checking Google Books while creating each of these entries. The shorter ones are actually pretty common: "my great-great-great-grandfather" returns 3900 results. --Daniel 23:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I remember that great-great-great-granddaughter is in a song, too... —CodeCat 23:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe this[1] song. Which I didn't hear. I just Googled for the lyrics. --Daniel 23:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep that's it! —CodeCat 23:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding 'alternative parent' to catboiler[edit]

I just realised that some categories automatically add a parent even though that parent would never contain more than that category in some languages. For example, the category 'noun plural forms' has 'noun forms' as its parent, but in many languages the only noun form is the plural form. So I was wondering if it would be possible to specify that one category should be used as the parent only if another one doesn't already exist. That way, if a language has no need for 'noun forms', 'noun plural forms' can be categorised directly in 'nouns'. —CodeCat 11:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It is possible; templates can be programmed with "ifexist" to make this happen. However, that's a potentially big change that touches directly on the controversial issue of "Category:English plurals" versus "Category:English noun forms", so I'd expect at least a BP discussion or poll or whatever to implement it. You may use this potential function as an argument to defend the latter, for example. --Daniel 16:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

An appendix idea.[edit]

Hola senhor Carrero.

¶ I should probably post this in the Beer Parlour, I had this idea for an entry but I do not know where it is appropriate to ask for præviews; I would like to see your opinions, though. I was worried this entry would be quickly deleted so I simply experimented: here is a prototype. It is about English words containing ph, but are not (closely) related to Greek. ¶ I am sorry if this seems random, but I do not desire to rush into making something I suspect may be deleted. --Pilcrow 12:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

We have few rules or prospects for what should be in appendices. Apparently, nobody cares whether appendices are used as sandboxes or big projects, as long as they have so much as a hint of usable contents.
Please use "Ancient Greek" or "Hellenic languages", though, to clarify the scope of the appendix. "Hellenic language" sounds as if you are mentioning the language called "Hellenic". Here, for purposes of consistency of names, Greek is a language (Category:Greek language) or a script (Category:Greek script), Ancient Greek is a language (Category:Ancient Greek language) and Hellenic is a family (Category:Hellenic languages). --Daniel 13:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Eu gosto tanto de como ele disse "hola" :D — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 13:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
"Hola senhor" was a nice example of Portuñol. I like it too. --Daniel 13:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
¶ I could make the appendix whenever, but I am having trouble thinking of an acceptable name. Should it be “English terms containing ph not derived from Hellenic”? That probably sounds exceedingly lengthy. --Pilcrow 12:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
No. The name would be "English terms containing ph not derived from Ancient Greek", because the distinction between languages and families is serious business here. Having a "lengthy name" would be a poor reason for deletion, so presumably this appendix might simply be created, and kept, and improved, and someone will shorten its name eventually if necessary and reasonably possible. --Daniel 14:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
¶ It would seem that the aspirated p is no longer spoken in Greek, so “Ancient Greek” is correct. I apologize for my error. --Pilcrow 23:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem; I don't blame you for your previous apparent lack of information. Thanks for contributing to the appendix namespace. --Daniel 10:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Username change[edit]

Hello Daniel,

I just see that you are wanting to change your username on every project. So let me advise you this page, it will surely help you ;)

Moreover, you can request the renaming of your account on every project with no active bureaucrat on this page.

Have a nice day ! -- Quentinv57 (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably I will not change my username on every project; just the ones where I've been at least more-or-less active, such as the English Wikipedia and here. That said, these pages surely will be useful. Thank you very much for kindly linking to them. Have a nice day, too. --Daniel 19:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical terms[edit]

Do you think this is a topical category or does it belong in lexicons? —CodeCat 21:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a usage context with a relationship to Christianity and theology that is unclear to me. Much of it has been inherited from Websters 1913, AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 22:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
So the template should really categorise terms in 'Christianity' then? —CodeCat 22:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
If inspection suggests that no violence would be done thereby, that might be satisfactory. I have little experience with these topics or contexts and only a passing familiarity with some of the instances of Websters usage of the term. When I am home I can look at Webster's second and third to try to suss out how they use it. DCDuring TALK 22:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, "Category:Christianity" looks like a good name to me, too.
Notably, the distinction at hand is like saying that "Category:fr:Mathematics" is a topical category while "Category:French mathematical terms" is a lexical category. Whether a category is topical or lexical oftentimes can be changed by applying that simple logic of choosing names, though apparently people are prone to prefer making categories always "topical" when possible. --Daniel 12:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

in the driver seat[edit]

Are you sure about this form? I've only heard of in the driver's seat. Equinox 00:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty sure about that one. However, I don't have time for attesting it right now, so I opened a RFV discussion for it. --Daniel 16:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:ja-kanjitab[edit]

Hi,

Your latest experiment with Template:ja-kanjitab and filling categories "Japanese terms spelled with ..." looks interesting. If there is an agreement, perhaps you could that with Template:zh-hanzi and Template:zh-forms as well? --Anatoli 12:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for appreciating my work. Ultimateria helped me a lot, too, by providing cleanup work and feedback. Yes, I can adapt Template:zh-hanzi and Template:zh-forms to categorize terms by their characters. --Daniel 19:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi again, after nearly two years, I'd like to revive this discussion. Tooiroonic didn't like the idea, he said there are just too many characters. The templates are now called Template:Hani-forms and Template:zh-hanzi. I think having Mandarin terms by individual characters categories would be very beneficial for learners and editors. Is it possible to autogenerate categories, though? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Started you had started a comment and withdrew it. I've gotten some feedback on an entry from and editor named Equinox, as well as on the Talk page of the entry where this issue arose santorum. I'm afraid that Wiktionary seems a bit confusing to navigate at the moment. I am familiar with Wikipedia, but I can't seem to find a lot of the same mechanisms and processes here, so I'm just taking a stab at it. -- Avanu 02:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Why use singular nouns in catboiler?[edit]

I've been wondering for a while why you created catboiler to treat its parameter as a singular and pluralise it automatically. Wouldn't it be easier if the parameter would always be plural? Or is the singular form needed somewhere? —CodeCat 17:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I just copied the good and old syntax {{infl|en|noun}} to {{poscatboiler|en|noun}}. It seemed simple and elegant at the time. Then I copied it to affixcatboiler, shortcatboiler, and so on. I wouldn't mind changing everything to make the parameter be always plural. The only problems would be making everyone being used to such a huge change. (In addition, "always typing a few more characters everytime" could be an additional problem, but I don't think so.) This is a huge proposal, so why don't you create a vote for that? --Daniel 20:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The proposal would mostly involve bot work, though. A bot could easily replace all the thousands of uses with the plural form if needed. —CodeCat 20:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, bot work, and everyone using new parameters thereafter. --Daniel 22:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Topic cat with the new catboiler system[edit]

I've made a new template {{topiccatboiler}} which I hope will eventually work as the older {{topic cat}}, except that it uses the same catboiler system that other templates now use. So far it seems to work well for the language-specific pages, which are the vast majority (see Category:osx:All topics). It still breaks on the umbrella categories (categories with no language code), because the description doesn't match and the categories are wrong too. —CodeCat 20:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I see you are a skilled fan of {{catboiler}}. Don't forget that umbrella categories by default have a generic description. See Category:Nouns by language. --Daniel 00:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

derivcatboiler works now[edit]

{{derivcatboiler}} works now for cases where the destination language (the first parameter) is provided. You can see it on Category:English terms derived from Dutch. The way it formats the names is reasonably simple... it first checks if a template {{label}} exists for the given label (the second parameter) and if so it treats it as a language, using {{languagex}} and {{langfamily}}. If not, it treats it as a language family and prefixes it with etyl: and using {{family}} instead. If the family templates of either sort returns nothing, it categorises into the root category Category:English terms derived from other languages. I haven't tested the umbrella or fundamental categories yet, but since they're not part of the vote anyway there is no rush. —CodeCat 20:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The umbrella categories now work, as well as the fundamental categories. There is only the issue of the umbrella categories of language family derivations, such as Category:English terms derived from West Germanic languages. Currently it gets categorised into Category:Terms derived from West Germanic languages, but I'm not sure if we want that?

I've rewritten quite a lot of the earlier code. What I did is basically reuse much of what was already there before, but with one difference. There is now a setting in {{catboiler customize}} that controls whether everything is controlled by one subtemplate per label, or a single subtemplate called ALL that handles all labels. {{derivcatboiler}} has a subtemplate {{derivcatboiler/ALL}} that does this. The difference between those two methods has been abstracted using {{catboiler getproperty}}, which fulfills the role that {{temp}}/{{label}} used to. —CodeCat 00:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Other[edit]

what can you do about: 結界, 魔法, 封印, 変身 + 気#Derived terms —This comment was unsigned.

I can read, edit, move, protect, delete, unprotect and undelete them. --Daniel 19:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I mean that I tried to add them to tr: to them and it would not work. —This comment was unsigned.

You will have to be more specific. tr: is the Turkish Wiktionary. --Daniel 06:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey dude, format question[edit]

I have a feeling you know this better than I do, but what's our current "proper" formatting for Cardinal numbers and their categories? — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 13:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus on a "proper" formatting; just common practices. In English, typically, the POS header is "Cardinal number", or just "Number", or even "Numeral" and the category is Category:English cardinal numbers. There are some anomalies such as hundred, whose POS header is "Noun", and whose cardinality is mentioned between parentheses; and thousand's POS header is "Numeral" and umpteen's is "Determiner". --Daniel 13:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a topic in the Beer Parlour about this right now, but it seems to have been ignored somewhat. —CodeCat 13:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
There were dozens of topics in the Beer Parlour about this over the years that seemed to have been prematurely abandoned... The most recent one, in particular, deals with a number of related subjects. The existence of Category:Arabic numerals is a moot point, because it should not exist. Given its contents, its standardized name would be Category:Translingual numerals in Hindu-Arabic script/Category:Translingual numbers in Hindu-Arabic script. --Daniel 14:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
No it wouldn't... there are numerous different Arabic and Hindu numerals. Western Arabic 123, Eastern Arabic as used in Persian, then Hindu, Bengali... I can't think of any numeral system used in common by Arabic and any Indo-Iranian language. Anyway. Since nobody can make up their minds, I'll use ===Number=== and {{cardinal}} and {{ordinal}}, fuck it. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 14:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I did not contradict the idea that "there are numerous different Arabic and Hindu numerals". I just said that the standardized names would be the aforementioned ones. We have Category:Hindu-Arabic script and Category:Hindu-Arabic script characters (and Category:Latin script and Category:Latin script characters). --Daniel 14:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleting Harry Potter subpages[edit]

Hello Daniel, do you think you could delete Harry Potter subpages, in accordance with the vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-10/Disallowing certain appendices? They can be found in prefix index. --Dan Polansky 15:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

WT:BP#Renaming proto-language codes[edit]

Could you take a look at this discussion and maybe give some input? Thank you! —CodeCat 20:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we should just rename the templates. Ruakh is the only one to object, but he seems to have general objections against the idea of merging different kinds of code template into a single namespace. I'm not sure what his reasoning is but it seems to me to go along the lines of 'they are different, therefore they should be as different as possible'. Whereas I think that things that can be the same should be the same if it gives no problems and doesn't make things needlessly complicated. I think the case with the distinction between language and family codes, and between regular and proto codes, is exactly a case where it is needlessly complicated. —CodeCat 22:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Apparently Ruakh and Ivan have questions, rather than specific objections. You answered them. Since this issue continues nonetheless, I asked Ruakh now if he has more questions, or objections. We don't need to hurry. Ruakh has the right to know why "gem-pro" is a good idea. --Daniel 22:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Derivation category vote[edit]

It looks like it will fail now unless two more people vote support... —CodeCat 18:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Not anymore. --Daniel 00:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Old derivations categories / templates[edit]

What's the plan for getting rid of these? Should the old categories be redirected to the new? The old topic cat helper templates also need to be deleted. The interwikis for the old categories should also be moved. Nadando 00:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The topic cat templates (e.g. Template:topic cat parents/French derivations) are already de facto deleted, because they are not used anywhere. Their actual deletion might happen anytime; we don't need to hurry, yet some people already are hurrying with the deletion work nonetheless. I asked the owner of User:MalafayaBot, now, whether he can handle the interwikis; I'm waiting for a reply.
No, I don't think the old categories will be redirected to the new. In Wikimedia Commons, for example, redirecting categories seems to be serious business. Clearly, its page [2] for "Category:Dog" is a big blue soft redirect to "Category:Dogs".
On the other hand, categories of Wiktionary seldom are redirects; and {{movecat}} says "If any pages link here, please update the link, as this page may be deleted.", indicating that even the redirects are expected to be deleted eventually. This is an aspect of Wiktionarian culture. You might try to change it if you want, perhaps by suggesting the addition of the Commons' big blue template to thousands of our deleted categories. I would support that proposal. --Daniel 14:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

{{Portuguese personal pronouns}}[edit]

Hi Daniel,

When you have a chance, could you take a look at [[Wiktionary:Tea room#lhe]]?

Thanks in advance!
RuakhTALK
02:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ --Daniel 06:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

re: Derivações[edit]

Olá, Daniel.

Respondi lá na minha discussão no pt.wikt. Se calhar, vou começar a responder aqui para acelerar o diálogo... Abraço, Malafaya 18:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Bem, os interwikis seriam para constar na categoria nova. Na antiga, sendo um REDIRECT, eles serão ignorados.
Mas o REDIRECT só por si já corrigirá o problema. Os interwikis na categoria nova seriam apenas para aumentar a probabilidade de não perder a ligação em definitivo. Concluindo, se não quiserem ter demasiado trabalho, o REDIRECT na antiga ou os interwikis na nova chegam. Se não se importarem de perder mais uns segundos por categoria, então os 2 garantem mais o resultado. Malafaya 18:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, e os REDIRECTs são temporários. Com tudo prontinho, podem ser apagadas as categorias antigas. Malafaya 18:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Penso que ainda falte atualizar {{proto}}, porque páginas como شدن ainda têm categorias na forma antiga. Malafaya 22:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sim. Obrigado pelo aviso, mas eu e outros colegas já sabíamos que ainda falta atualizar {{proto}}. Deve demorar um pouco mais para atualizá-lo, porque falta resolver um problema técnico. (Acontece que ainda não temos códigos individuais para idiomas como "Proto-Germanic" e "Proto-Indo-European.", e tais códigos são necessários para as categorias do novo sistema.) --Daniel 22:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Pensei que teria ficado esquecido :). Malafaya 23:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Replacing langscript[edit]

Is it really necessary to replace langscript itself? It could stay in use in the same way that {{language}} does. —CodeCat 22:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Removing {{langscript}} (eventually, when everything else is ready for that removal) is removing an unnecessary layer of complexity. Editing templates is easier to me if I don't have to consider its existence. --Daniel 22:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it would have been better to keep {{langscript}}, because of all the extra calls to {{langprefix}} we now have to add... —CodeCat 00:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the work you're doing is still in progress but categories such as Category:Mundolinco language are not entirely correct (text, cats). Malafaya 00:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
True. That ought to be fixed soon, too. --Daniel 00:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that replacing "langprefix" by "langscript" is better... Both alternatives make you and me type something behind the language code anyway.
Moving Template:proto:gem-pro/family to Template:gem-pro/family, that would have been better. --Daniel 00:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I would prefer moving {{proto:gem-pro}} to {{gem-pro}}, but Ruakh doesn't agree. —CodeCat 00:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
One thing at a time. There are reasons for the existence of the prefixes of "proto:gem-pro" and "etyl:gem", therefore deprecating them reasonably involves deprecating the reasons too.
Is there any reason for the prefix of "proto:gem-pro/family" and "proto:gem-pro/script"? I don't think so. --Daniel 00:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
It's to conform to the rule that the script and family templates are always subtemplates of the language template itself. —CodeCat 00:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Then that's a bad rule. Just my opinion. :p --Daniel 00:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Acronyms categorized as terms spelt with .[edit]

Hola senhor.

¶ Do ye think that acronyms should be included into [[Category:English terms spelled with .]]? As it appears now, only abbreviated forms might be permitted. I assume this category might possess (secret) restrictions; similar to how affixes may be un‐welcomed in [[Category:English terms spelled with -]]. Although I do not know if that is official. ¶ Would you recommend if I inquire this in the Beer Parlour instead?

Obrigado e gracias. --Pilcrow 05:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think Category:English terms spelled with . should contain abbreviations, partially because apparently most abbreviations are not spelled with dots anyway. Yes, please ask in the BP if more people have something to say about this categorization. --Daniel 06:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:script languages[edit]

104 categories that are broken somehow... --Yair rand 07:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Apparently, langcatboiler simply could not handle "None" as a value of script. Now it can. --Daniel 08:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The culture in Wiktionary...[edit]

is why this is a second-class dictionary still instead of being a uber-valuable companion to Wikipedia. Usability takes a back seat to someone saying "what about expert users of Wiktionary?" Dictionaries aren't supposed to have expert- and basic- level users. It is supposed to be simple for people. And the idea that you can't simply have an English dictionary here is silly also. I have to wonder how Merriam-Webster ever accomplished it so well, when there is so much contention here. Good luck, you'll need it. -- Avanu 10:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You're doing it wrong. First, you show me your credentials as the Master of Usability, and I show you mine as the High Dictator of Wiktionary. Then, your rant would make sense. If I cared about it under my dictatorship, which I wouldn't. --Daniel 16:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Kind of off topic there. Hyperbole isn't accuracy. I've been dealing with improving usability for decades. Maybe you've been a dictator for decades, although I hardly see how that is relevant. There's no such thing as "Master of Usability", but there is common sense. Obviously you just didn't care to hear a rant, that's fine. I probably shouldn't have bothered. You can't fix all the problems in the world, but the culture over here is vastly different from Wikipedia and the guidance for getting things done is in unfamiliar places under unfamiliar names. -- Avanu 13:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
My talk page is not a place to be ranting nonsense. First, because that attitude makes me distrust your judgement by default. And, second, because you basically have to convince the whole community before doing something extreme like changing the titles of entries that way. I'm not the only one who opposes your idea, and I have no idea why you chose me. You sounded as if my opposition alone had prevented the implementation of your big usability plan (or, conversely, that you had to have my agreement in order to do things), hence the "master of usability" and the "high dictator" analogies. --Daniel 21:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
This "second-class dictionary", while by nature impossible to complete, is and has the potential to be pretty god damn comprehensive. For example, besides the Lithuanian wiktionary, it's probably the only place online where you'll find extensive Lithuanian conjugation and declension. Same for Romanian, if you don't speak Romanian, same for a number of minority-Romance languages. I'd be so bold as to say we're probably the best resource for Eastern Armenian, for Hungarian, one of the better in English for Icelandic. We've got fucking thousands of entries for Italian and French... If you think Wiktionary sucks so much, maybe you'd be better fit somewhere less awesome. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 15:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Its great that you have so many entries. Why are they in the English Dictionary and not their own? -- Avanu 23:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Have you never heard of a bilingual dictionary? Huhduhhhhhhrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Read our front page. All words, all languages. Don't like it? Well, then this isn't the place for you. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 23:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Let me just add, while this new awareness is fresh in my head, that you've just hugely contradicted yourself. You say you're so so worried about usability when you apparently expect users to venture into foreign-language monolingual wiktionaries to find the information I described to you above? You think that would be at all useful to anything but more advanced learners of languages? I want to look up this word in Lithuanian! Ok, so I'm on their wiktionary looking at the conjugation of this new verb I'm trying to learn. But I can't read any of their fucking grammar tags. Būtasis dažninis laikas? tiesioginė nuosaka? What the fuck are those things? Luckily, that's really easy to find out here on the English wiktionary. būtasis dažninis laikas. tiesioginė nuosaka. So maybe you should rethink certain parts of your philosophy? — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 23:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, this explains the whole attempt to merge capitalizations. Avanu, it is very clear that you're not at all familiar with what Wiktionary is, and knowing what the project is is generally a prerequisite to changing how everything is done. The English Wiktionary is a multilingual free-content dictionary intended to include "all words in all languages", and "not only the definition of a word, but also enough information to really understand it", with the information given in English. --Yair rand 23:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Yair, thank you. You're the first person to really have a reasonable answer among this little crowd on Daniel's page. Although this might seem clear to some of your fellow editors, and makes sense via your explanation, I would say this isn't very clearly explained via the front page of this Wiktionary. Given that this is actually not just an English dictionary, I can see the arguments making slightly more sense to avoid the proposal I put forward about merging. My impression was that en.wikt meant that this part of Wiktionary was for English words, and there would be corresponding areas for other languages. Thanks for being polite and reasonable and helping your fellow editor to better understand how this project works. -- Avanu 03:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Avanu, it's good to know you know Wiktionary better from Yair's explanation. However, you still got some facts incorrectly. First of all, politeness is not an one-way road, so you shouldn't expect the best social treatment anyway. Dick and I were reasonable and helpful, so saying we weren't is wrong.
What Yair said, while being reasonable and helpful too, is explictly explained on the main page, in the following statements:
  • Welcome to the English-language Wiktionary, a collaborative project to produce a free-content multilingual dictionary.
  • We aim to include not only the definition of a word, but also enough information to really understand it.
  • This is the English Wiktionary: it aims to describe all words of all languages using definitions and descriptions in English. For example, see dictionnaire (a French word). In order to find a French definition of that word, you would visit the equivalent page in the French Wiktionary.
What Yair said is also heavily implied in the following portions of text of the main page:
--Daniel 05:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the phrasing on that is not as clear as it could be.
For example:
"Welcome to the English-language Wiktionary, a collaborative project to produce a free-content multilingual dictionary."
Might be re-phrased as:
"Wiktionary is available for English-speakers here. Words and phrase entries can come from any language, but the definition or explanations are solely in English here. To find Wiktionaries for other languages, please review the links below, and welcome!"
Yair happened to be the most insightful and most willing to acknowledge that a great deal of the problem and frustration might have been the complete misunderstanding of this Wiktionary. He didn't respond to my frustration with more of it. So for that ability, which I myself sometimes lack, I give credit where credit is due. -- Avanu 06:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I, personally, don't think your proposed text is better than "This is the English Wiktionary: it aims to describe all words of all languages using definitions and descriptions in English."
What the main page says is basically what Yair said anyway, and you apparently understood the facts very well from his explanation.
I did, however, move this statement closer to the introduction of the main page now, to improve the chance of people seeing it immediately. --Daniel 08:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I like when I agree with you, Yair. Have a cookie. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 00:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
To all, thanks for getting me on the right track in understanding this Wiktionary a bit better. I still think the combined entries would be nicer for English words, but considering the number of loan words English has, and also the fact that this is a multilanguage dictionary, things are a bit more complicated than I first realized. -- Avanu 06:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Avanu, apparently you are becoming wiser. I appreciate that. --Daniel 08:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I think the combined entries would be nicer for all languages with bicameral scripts, not just English. —RuakhTALK 12:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Too bad it wouldn't work for Turkish, German or Greek. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 13:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Assuming that by "wouldn't work" you mean "would work perfectly", then I don't see what's "too bad" about it . . . —RuakhTALK 13:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Luckily for me, your assumption only makes an ass of you and I can make an ass of myself! So, let's jam. It might work ok for Greek, except that they usually don't use accents when everything's written in caps, so without some change to the software, searching would be made at least a step more difficult. The German ß (which would have to be written SS in caps) and Turkish ı and İ have been discussed elsewhere. This proposed attempt to increase usability would rape it for some major languages. So you're like totally right! Nothing too bad about that at all. Except that you know, it definitely would be. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 13:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
No one is suggesting all-caps anymore. The idea was raised offhandedly by Lmaltier, Daniel ran with it, discussion raised several issues, that issue is closed. You're arguing against a straw man. —RuakhTALK 14:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
So what, all lowercase? — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 14:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I think so. Alternatively, Lmaltier suggested using first-letter caps (like the Wikipedias); and we could even consider title-case. There are a number of options. But personally, yes, I think I prefer all-lowercase. (Needless to say, we'd also want to consider some changes to our format; currently the H1 at the top of the page is usually a fairly decent indication of the headword — within limits — but with any implementation of case-insensitive titles, I think we'd want the actual headwords to be more prominent and the H1 less prominent or perhaps completely suppressed.) —RuakhTALK 14:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
We did away with first-letter caps once, and I really just don't think that our capitalizations are the worst thing about our systems. In fact, I think that's probably the least important thing at the moment. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 15:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that capitalization is not our biggest problem. —RuakhTALK 20:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
(In response to something you said above, Daniel) I know in this discussion I've been more reasonable than I usually am, but you don't have to pretend my behaviour qualifies as normal haha. I had some pretty marked moments of snide animosity. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 12:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I do generally get pissed off with editors that come over from Wikipedia without knowing anything about Wiktionary and start contravening our common practises. For example someone once tagged an Arabic entry for speedy deletion, not realizing that we allow multiple languages here. I think if you come from a non-Wiktionary backgrouns, jump into Wiktionary with your eyes closed, you deserve whatever criticism you get. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Dick, I was not pretending anything when I said you have been "reasonable" and "helpful". In fact, I don't care whether your behavior is "normal". --Daniel 22:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll take it. :) — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 22:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Categoria obsoleta[edit]

A Category:es:Latin derivations ainda tem artigos. Para corrigir, é só mudar a categoria neles sem fazer mais nada? Malafaya 15:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Também a Category:fi:Italian derivations. Malafaya 15:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
"Só mudar a categoria, sem fazer mais nada" funciona bem.
Porém, o ideal para corrigir o verbete ciervo é fazer o seguinte, em dois passos, se você puder:
  1. Remover "Category:es:Latin derivations".
  2. Na etimologia, substituir "Latin" por "{{etyl|la|es}}", sem aspas; "la" significa latim e "es" significa espanhol.
Ao fazer isto e salvar, o texto etimológico aparece automaticamente, e a nova categoria, também. --Daniel 15:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Relativamente a sudaca, está na categoria de derivações do latim, mas a descrição da etimologia não me parece consistente. Malafaya 16:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Você está certo. A etimologia não diz que "sudaca" seja derivada do latim, então removi a categoria em questão. Talvez "sudaca" seja, sim, derivada do latim, mas creio que a categoria deva refletir o conteúdo da página. --Daniel 16:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

July 2011[edit]

Categoria "estropiada"[edit]

Olá, Daniel.

Hoje, encontrei esta categoria em muito mau estado. Deve ter novamente a ver com as predefinições que foram alteradas recentemente. Malafaya 12:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Você estava certo. Um bug estava afetando todas as categorias com ancestrais, como Bislama, que menciona "from English". Estas categorias estão consertadas agora. --Daniel 16:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

my request[edit]

Hola.

¶ I am grateful for your compliance, but that summary is still visible on: this page. Is there another way to extract it? --Pilcrow 07:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, I can hide a summary from the history, but I can't do the same thing from the log of new pages. I don't know why. I guess it's just a catastrophic bug of the software.
I solved your problem by deleting the entry and recreating it. --Daniel 07:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Appendices encompassing all languages[edit]

That's not a particularly useful way to describe these appendices. How about instead Category:Translation table appendices? --EncycloPetey 15:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. I like your suggestion. --Daniel 08:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Documentation of templates that use catboiler[edit]

I think using standardised documentation that is the same for all templates is a bit too restrictive. For example, the new {{famcatboiler}} template has only one parameter instead of two, but to change the documentation we would have to make all kinds of adjustments. While if it were just a documentation page, it would be easy. I think it would be better if we removed the documentation and relied on each template to provide its own, instead. —CodeCat 19:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. --Daniel 20:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

{{list}} categorizing[edit]

Was it intentional that {{list}} not categorize hypernyms and synonyms? That kinda drives me crazy. Could it be "fixed"? — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 21:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That template should categorize all synonyms, and no hypernym. "week" is not defined as a day of the week, so it can't go into Category:en:Days of the week. (In fact, "week" is not an hypernym of "Sunday", but that's just the wrong name of the parameter.) Please tell me at least 2 examples of broken categorization of synonyms to be fixed, so I can fix them all. --Daniel 21:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Only one I can think of offhand IS {{list:quarks/ru}}. I see your point on the hypernyms, i"LL JUST ADD THOSE MANUALLY> Haha that was an accident, but it's so funny I'm going to leave it. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 22:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
And that's done. Sorry for taking a long time to start doing what you asked. In the end, I just spent some 60 seconds to edit that template. --Daniel 07:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Chip's Challenge[edit]

Hello, myself. Please format Appendix:Chip's Challenge in the near future. --Daniel 16:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ --Daniel 22:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand.[edit]

Daniel, could you please tell me how exactly ‘follow common practice’ is “good advice”? It is not descriptive or very informative; it is (highly) subjective. Am I seriously expected to exhaustively analyse ∼60.00% of entries and duplicate the type of layout which is most frequent? What about any specific restrictions? Translations are (supposedly) only allowed in English sections, why not for other sections? Why are some genitive cases acceptable while others are disallowed? Those are examples; I am not trying to propose any new policies here. ¶ The more I think about this, the more frustrating it is; this recommendation does not describe anything in particular, it is supposedly important but for no apparent reasons, and since I cannot extract those complaints from my talk page, I have to think about them. --Pilcrow 06:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If everybody follows common practice perfectly, then you should only have to copy the layout of 1 entry. Or, perhaps, you should compare 10 entries to see their common characteristics. This should not be a problem to you: you know hundreds of entries.
For more specific questions, which can't be answered merely by looking at the hundreds of pages you know, such as why some genitives are allowed and others not, you can simply ask them at the WT:BP or the WT:ID. Probably, the answer will either be "Why not? We don't have a rule for that! You can add genitives to any of these languages if you want!" or "Because the contributors of this language want genitives and the contributors of this other language don't want genitives." The latter may even be followed by a justification, such as "...only in this language, and not this other, genitives are sums-of-parts" and "we have had this vote and this other vote".
Translations are allowed only in English sections. That's true. Why? Short answer: Because everyone does that. Either you follow their lead or you give convincing reasons to do otherwise. Long answer: I talked about the reasoning of English-only translations here in 2008. --Daniel 09:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

derivcatboiler[edit]

Daniel, you should fix these problems of {{derivcatboiler}}:

  • its poor documentation
  • its futile "edit" button, which should be useful for someone who wants to edit its generic descriptions
  • its complexity that makes it relatively impossible to be edited and copied to other Wiktionaries
  • and the fact that Category:English male given names from French can't use it

I know you can do it. Start doing some work here: {{derivcatboiler/sandbox}}. --Daniel 11:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Closing decision discussions where one has been an advocate[edit]

I think it is bad practice to close decision discussion in cases in which one has been an active advocate for one side or the other, unless one is closing on the opposite side from one's advocacy. I cannot point to any written statement to that effect, let alone a voted-on policy, but it nevertheless is a practice that is customarily followed. I think the logic is fairly obvious, but would be happy to make it explicit. The principle might be overridden for very stale discussions. We also have {{look}} to draw attention to discussions that need more input. DCDuring TALK 13:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

{{look}}, statistically, just doesn't work. Wiktionarians apparently follow a proud tradition of ignoring all, or almost all, discussions older than a few days or weeks. Yes, I only close stale RFDO discussions. Its talk page suggests waiting just one week, but I usually wait at least a month; sometimes, many months.
I don't think I would be particularly more diplomatic, or more fair, if I only closed discussions on the opposite side from my advocacy. I do that oftentimes, but not always. If everyone only did that, always, without exceptions, then logically discussions with unanimity would never be closed. Other levels of consensus merit an eventual closure by whoever volunteers to do that as well.
Please note that I don't often archive discussions that I close, (I just let someone else do it, and that someone else typically is Mglovesfun) so they are de facto free for more input, not to mention new discussions. --Daniel 14:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

ler[edit]

If you have time, we need a verb template for ler like {{pt-verb/crer}}. —Stephen (Talk) 12:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Per the request in the Tea Room, I set up a template for the conjugation of ler (Portuguese). Could you double-check my work? (especially the imperatives) I would have used the crer template, since as far as I know the two verbs share the same pattern of endings, as is also true in Galician. However, I wasn't sure that all the endings were the same, and the crer template has the "cr-" embedded in the endings values, so it would have meant more work as well to adapt the existing template. If they do share all the same endings, then the two templates could still be combined with only a little more work, I suppose. --EncycloPetey 05:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that conjugation, EncycloPetey. I double-checked it, and only made a small change to conform to the most recent orthographic reform.
I think it is a good idea to have separately Template:pt-verb/ler and Template:pt-verb/crer (and Template:pt-verb/ver), because Template:pt-verb/er is already taken as the ending of regular verbs. --Daniel 17:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

{{citation}}[edit]

I believe your edit on June 1st broke Category:Citations of undefined terms. Nadando 02:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

request for permission[edit]

Hola.

¶ Could I please have your permission to extract this topic? Should I also ask someone else in advance?

Obrigado. --Pilcrow 14:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I just did it for you. It's "hidden" in the history now. --Daniel 14:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not really hidden. You hid some of the page's history, but the text that was added during that time is still available via many of the later versions that you didn't hide. —RuakhTALK 21:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I think both "hidden" and "extract" are ambiguous words in this conversation. Anyway, thanks for explaining the situation better, Ruakh. I think everybody already knew what happened from observation, but verbal clarification doesn't hurt. --Daniel 01:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
¶ I am grateful. I would like to request for extraction of other topics (such as this), but I was afraid it was too ‘early’ for that. --Pilcrow 19:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Done. I extracted that topic for you. --Daniel 19:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
¶ I am pleasantly surprised at how compliant you are beïng. Did ye do this in spite of any personal disagreements ye have? --Pilcrow 19:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Good. However, It's not the first time I've been compliant to you. No, I don't disagree with my actions. --Daniel 19:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The topic User_talk:Pilcrow#Etymology_in_inflected_forms is back. What am I supposed to do? --Pilcrow 08:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ask Dan Polansky how long does he want that discussion to stay in your talk page. If he replies with a deadline (or other criteria) that you find reasonable, then you two got a "consensus", and this problem should be over already. If, on the other hand, he says something you disagree with, then you have an endless number of choices, such as talking with him to seek a consensus. --Daniel 12:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I really do not want to speak to him, because he is one of the most inconsiderate and rude individuals I have met. Worse: nobody cares about how he treats me, so that means his behaviour is acceptable here. Considering that he re‐inserted that topic because “the section shows what kind of person this is”, it is quite clear that he is only doing this to further humiliate me. Why would he possibly care about what I think? --Pilcrow 16:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

catboiler helper with mask[edit]

Don't forget to edit the contents of Category:catboiler helper with mask, to allow pluralized masks ({{{mask}}} parameters). You're late. --Daniel 07:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Japanese syllables and whatnot[edit]

When you're done with the other tasks, there's still some work left here in this big list: User:Daniel Carrero/jap.

Don't worry, the hard part — the intellectual part: figuring things out, writing texts, etc. — is over. Now you should simply mechanically copy things over and over to a few hundreds of entries. Piecemeal.

Oh, and go figure out some etymologies, and the Cyrillic script, too. --Daniel 07:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Number POS for 1, 2, 3[edit]

The proposal WT:BP#100 is a number passed, weeks ago. You may start editing the entries anytime. There are 84 of them, now. --Daniel 08:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Combining Diacritical Marks[edit]

Make all entries linked at Appendix:Unicode/Combining Diacritical Marks exist as redirects, and double-check the Unicode boxes of their targets, too. --Daniel 17:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:character info[edit]

I haven't reviewed all the changes you've made, but I like that it supposedly works better with unsupported characters. However, I don't think we should make this display taller, and the new line "Character ..." I don't think adds much. See User talk:Yair rand#TabbedLangauges question 823 for related ideas. --Bequw τ 17:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for approving my work concerning unsupported characters.
I created WT:BP#"Character" row to discuss the "Character" row; and I already gave a few reasons to keep it. Feel free to contribute to that conversation.
Since you linked to that discussion, I read it. Currently I don't have anything to say about what to do with {{character info}} with Tabbed Languages active. --Daniel 17:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Unrelatedly I like you how you've treated your talk page like a micro-blog. I've thought before about doing it. Maybe I'll start as it lets people know what one is thinking about. --Bequw τ 20:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I think that was a good idea. That way, it's easy (for me and whoever else) to keep track of my tasks, especially the longer ones. And, naturally, I'm not the only person who uses my talk page to ask me to do things, anyway. --Daniel 00:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Basic Latin unicode boxes[edit]

Make sure all characters of Appendix:Unicode/Basic Latin have Unicode boxes with name, codepoint, and "previous" and "next" links. Typically, this means just addint the prev/next links to an existing box, or creating one from scratch. Control characters are an exception; they shouldn't be "defined" in individual entries. --Daniel 08:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Daniel 21:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
form[er] and latt[er] fit better than "previous" and "next". Lysdexia 20:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Why? --Daniel 20:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Normalization[edit]

Double-check this:

--Daniel 11:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

August 2011[edit]

Deletions[edit]

Hi, I had two categories listed on my userpage, Category:English rare terms and Category:English spellings by character. I noticed you recently deleted them, but I'm confused as to why? There's no reason given for either. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 15:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. According to this discussion, "Category:English rare terms" should be deleted because "rare" implies that all senses are "not common". It was moved into "Category:English terms with rare senses" per that discussion.
However, according to this subsequent discussion, even the new name is inaccurate, for the opposite reason: it implies that some senses are rare and some aren't. (One proposal to fix that would be creating "Category:English rare terms or with rare senses", eventually.)
"Category:English spellings by character" was moved to "Category:English terms by their individual characters" because, among other reasons, I felt it provides a better contrast with "Category:English terms by their sequences of characters". --Daniel 16:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, thanks for the explanation, makes sense. But shouldn't the deletion summary at least give the new name of the category? -- OlEnglish (Talk) 18:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
That's a good idea, which is almost never done in Wiktionary, though. Maybe we are just forgetful en masse, or we expect people to ask someone else where did old categories go. (For comparison, in Commons, apparently it's standard practice leaving thousands of category redirects, including commons:Category:Dog, for example.) You're welcome. --Daniel 18:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:pt-adj-mf[edit]

Is this needed, can {{pt-adj}} replace it? Curiously it calls on the subtemplate of {{pt-noun-mf}} which failed RFD a few months ago, so those templates should really be removed from it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of Portuguese adjectives that are simultaneously masculine and feminine (a word like this is called "adjetivo de dois gêneros").
Yes, we need Template:pt-adj-mf or any other way to replace it.
Yes, Template:pt-adj can replace it, and already replaces it. See doente. --Daniel 14:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
What I think you mean is, it won't be needed if/when all such pages use {{pt-adj}} instead, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Right. --Daniel 14:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Page moves[edit]

When you move a page could you please include the reason for the move? I don't understand why you moved HP1 through 7 (Harry Potter abbreviations) from appendix into mainspace. Equinox 16:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the move, I may or may not write down the reason for doing it.
No, I wouldn't write a summary explaining about moving Appendix:Harry Potter/HP1 to HP1, because the whole context of what is appropriate for what namespace is too big and complex to fit there. "I believe the main namespace is better than the appendix namespace for this entry" is more-or-less explicit already, and good enough. Nice additional reasons would be "I've seen people using 'HP1' somewhere in a manner that would meet CFI and whatnot" and "That's an abbreviation; who cares?", which are heavily implied, given a certain level of knowledge of Wiktionary, which you have. Actually, the former may be false, since in my experience it's easier to find "HP 1", etc. than "HP1", etc. in a manner that meets CFI, so probably these entries will have to be moved again to include a space there, or more research will have to be done to justify these exact spellings. --Daniel 17:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don’t mean to sound negative, but…[edit]

Why are you so nice? --Pilcrow 03:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

If you were offended, I will gladly retract my comment and apologize. --Pilcrow 17:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Taking back a question about the niceness of someone after offending the nice person with it? That would be weird. Very, very weird.
I guess different people have different criteria for niceness. Stephen G. Brown, Jesus Christ and Superman are very nice, in ways I'm not. I think I just see the point of being nice, and don't see the point of being mean. Except when the latter is fun. --Daniel 03:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
¶ It took ye a while to respond, so I thought myself sounded inappropriately interrogative or rude, so you were ignoring me. Yo creo tú creer mí desconocido, no amigo, so it would be inappropriate das información personal a mí. (did I get that right?) --Pilcrow 03:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
FYI, in the older forms of English that I think you're trying to follow, it should be "it took you a while to respond" and "ye were ignoring me": "ye" was the subjective, like "I/thou/he/she/we/they", and "you" the objective, like "me/thee/him/her/us/them". (That's not the only attested "ye/you" alternation, but I think it's the one you want.) —RuakhTALK 13:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
@Pilcrow: I'm not very good at spotting errors in Spanish to try to reply your "did I get that right?" I just understood perfectly what you said. That's very considerate of you. A little paranoid, as expected, but considerate. --Daniel 16:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
If it's meant as Spanish, then no, it's not right. My Spanish is not great, but maybe "Temía que me considerara como desconocido, no como amigo, y que por eso fuera poco apropiado darme información personal"? —RuakhTALK 17:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Por Daniel: yo no cierto por que usted designado mí cuando considerado, porque mía Español estoy no bien, yo creo.
Por Ruakh: perdóname. --Pilcrow 18:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Now I barely have a clue about what you said. I think you should try talking to me in English. --Daniel 19:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
¶ I thought Español and your mother‐tongue were intelligible with each‐other. Here is my re‐phrase: ‘I am not certain why ye call me considerate, since my Español is not good, I think.’ --Pilcrow 22:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Since your Spanish is not good, it is possible that I misunderstand something when you misplace prepositions or conjugations or other things, as I believe you have done. But I may not know exactly how to correct you.
To be fair, when I read "yo no cierto por que usted designado mí cuando considerado, porque mía Español estoy no bien, yo creo", I did understand exactly "I am not certain why ye call me considerate, since my Español is not good, I think.", so your Spanish can be serviceable to talk to me, while English would be the optimal choice.
However, the sentence does not make sense in any language, so I just have assumed that I could not understand what you were saying. Your considerateness and your lack of fluency can coexist. --Daniel 22:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The above has been somewhat entirely fascinating... Vă rog pe ambii să continuați. — [Ric Laurent] — 11:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
"You"... "Both"... "Continued"... Damn, I give up; you probably were just talking to yourself in Romanian, anyway.
Yep, fascinating things are fascinating. --Daniel 16:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Vă rog pe ambii să continuați. = I ask (of) you both to continue. — [Ric Laurent] — 17:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. :) --Daniel 19:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I think Pilcrow is Razorflame. — [Ric Laurent] — 22:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I see some differences. Razorflame is bolder, in a bad manner. And he has no soul. --Daniel 22:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Bahaha <3 — [Ric Laurent] — 02:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

phrasebook[edit]

Hi,

Could you add Portuguese translations to what are you doing, are you OK and what's your job, please? --Anatoli 03:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ --Daniel 03:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Obrigado, don't give up on phrasebook translations :). --Anatoli 03:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

October 2011[edit]

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

Because you voted in Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Categories of names, I'm informing you of this new vote.​—msh210 (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Daniel 09:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Fancy being a judge?[edit]

Hi Daniel.. So they didn't choose you to be the judge for Brazil's Top Model. Nevermind, you can still live out your dream, and be one of the judges in the upcoming story-writing competition. Are you interested? You may of course enter as well as judge. --Rockpilot 09:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What a boring dream. I'm sure just watching the girls would be better than having to judge them, because those formal rules of female beauty are so far from my personal views... Besides, I'm sure the hottest girl in Brazil didn't ever pursue the career of a model.
Now to the point: My answer is yes. --Daniel 03:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Please state you preference at WT:FUN. --Rockpilot 10:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
✓ --Daniel 07:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

topic cat[edit]

Hi Daniel, I am working on implementing the topic cat system in the Hungarian wiktionary. I copied all the necessary templates and it seems to work except a weird side-effect visible here hu:Kategória:af:Földrajz. The page is suddenly added to a hidden category (see Rejtett kategória:magyar-afrikaans szótár at the bottom of the page, basically it's the index of the language) and I was not able to figure out what's causing it. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Panda10 19:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I figured it out. The language template {af} adds the word to the hidden category. It is how it was designed and the topic cat system reuses this template. I'm not sure how I will resolve this. I can't create a new set of language templates because I can't duplicate the language code templates. And I don't think the Hungarian editors would want to remove this hidden category from the language template. --Panda10 11:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you should replace this code of hu:Template:af...
<includeonly>[[Kategória:magyar-afrikaans szótár]]</includeonly>
With this...
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}||[[Kategória:magyar-afrikaans szótár]]}}
--Daniel 17:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I made the change in hu:Template:af but I don't see any difference here hu:Kategória:af:Földrajz. But thanks for responding. --Panda10 23:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the hidden category anymore, so presumably the edit I recommended was successful. Daniel. 01:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
You're right. It seems that it took a while, not sure how long, for it to disappear. It was not immediate. But it works and thank you for finding the solution! --Panda10 22:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011[edit]

Possible?[edit]

Would it be possible to change instances of "e" to "ɛ" in Romanian IPA templates? That'd be super awesome if you could make that happen :D — [Ric Laurent] — 16:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. I barely know what are the specific needs and quirks of Romanian here. Please show me one page that would be affected by that change, and hopefully I'll understand your whole request in a second, like a genius. --Daniel 17:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Pretty much just e > ɛ, like this[Ric Laurent] — 17:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure that's a good idea? I believe the usual practice among linguists is to use only "e" for languages without distinct /e/ and /ɛ/ phonemes. —RuakhTALK 17:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Where did you hear that? it doesn't make any sense. -- Liliana 17:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
[after e/c] I didn't hear it anywhere, but I've observed it to be the case. Incidentally, I just now checked w:Romanian phonology (which I should have done before!), and found that it follows the practice I describe, explaining: "Although e̞, o̞ are written above with diacritics to show their mid height and ä with a diacritic to show its central backness, in virtually all phonetic transcriptions of Romanian these characteristics are implied and the symbols are written without diacritics. The same convention is applied in this article." So I should modify my statement a bit: perhaps linguists would use "ɛ" for a language with a distinctly open-mid vowel, even if it lacked a close-mid counterpart. (I don't know if such a language actually exists, but presumably one does.) —RuakhTALK 17:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
addendum: however, what you're proposing doesn't seem to fit with w:Romanian phonology. -- Liliana 17:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Why the fuck do I bother trying to make wiktionary more correct. Fucking whatever.
Daniel, how are you with the js that User:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js uses? I made a request for Albanian there that's gone unanswered, I was wondering if that'd be something within the scope of your skillz. — [Ric Laurent] — 18:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to anger you. I do support correctness, I'm just not sure that it's "more correct" to use "ɛ" where experts use "e". —RuakhTALK 18:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedians as experts. Lold.
Feel free to completely disregard my 4 years of speaking Romanian. I'm youngdumb and for the most part self-taught, I can't possibly know what the bloody hell I'm talking about. — [Ric Laurent] — 18:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you're reading criticisms into my comments that simply aren't there. (Oh, but for a criticism that is really here: you're being a total hypocrite. When I raised this same issue about Hebrew, you insisted on using "ɛ" anyway, even though my Hebrew was and is a hundred times better than yours. I think that we should follow common linguistic practice; but if you genuinely believed that we should follow the opinion of experienced speakers, I'd at least understand that. But that's not what you believe; you believe that this is a decision that should be made by you, both for languages that you speak well and for languages that you don't, and fuck everyone else.) —RuakhTALK 18:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I used ɛ for Hebrew because that's what the sound is. Lazy people can use o and e in place of ɔ and ɛ all they want, but I'm not going to do that if it's not what I hear being pronounced. "Common linguistic practice" means shit compared to what people actually say. As the only experienced speaker of Romanian who's familiar with IPA and the sounds of numerous languages, I'd say my opinion's one that should be respected. (God I hate using that word about myself.) The difference between my using ɛ for Hebrew and you suggesting we shouldn't use ɛ for Romanian is that I knew something about Hebrew, and I'm assuming that everything you know about Romanian you got from wikipedia. Your argument's full of holes. — [Ric Laurent] — 19:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The question is not "what people actually say", the question is how to represent what people actually say. For that, we must turn to common practice among experts. (Unless you want to suggest that, unlike those lazy people who use IPA, we should introduce our own phonetic alphabet that is completely correct because we say so?) —RuakhTALK 19:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The IPA was made to be specific. For us to "represent" sounds for which there are actual IPA symbols with symbols that mean other things in the IPA... is frankly just stupid. — [Ric Laurent] — 19:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps ideally that were so, but in this world, I think that your proposed use of "ɛ" for Romanian and Hebrew would wrongly imply that those languages distinguished "ɛ" from "e". IPA is designed to be not just specific, but language-specific; in ordinary transcription, the choice of symbols depends not just on the sound itself — or how an English-speaker such as yourself perceives the sound — but on how the sound fits into the sound system of the language as a whole. And anyway, I don't really trust your opinion that the sound "is" [ɛ] rather than [e]; in a precise, language-independent transcription, Wikipedia states that it would be [e̞] (that is, halfway between [ɛ] and [e]), and to gainsay that, you would need not only knowledge of Romanian (which I'm happy to trust you on), but also a much better knowledge of IPA than you actually have. (I know this, because you cite "what [you] hear being pronounced"; if you were really making an expert judgment, you would instead cite spectrograms, scatterplots of F0 and F1, and so on. To a specific speaker such as yourself, it might sound like [ɛ] rather than like [e], but that has as much to do with that speaker's language background as with any objective reality. For information on objective reality, consult spectrograms, or consult the experts who have consulted spectrograms.) —RuakhTALK 19:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It's a good thing you know so much or the world might not be as perfect as it is. — [Ric Laurent] — 20:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I made an old and simplistic search-and-replace script one day, so I can use it to convert "e" to "ɛ" in every Romanian IPA, just one time, if people decide it is a good idea. --Daniel 09:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The opinions of wikipedia editors always trump people who speak something here. Especially for lesser-spoken languages like Romanian. — [Ric Laurent] — 12:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I just came across this blog post, by John C. Wells, author of Accents of English and the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary, which makes explicit the usual practice of using "e" to transcribe an "ɛ" sound in languages that do not distinguish /ɛ/ from /e/. Liliana may find it interesting. Ric will presumably ignore it. (By the way, I don't claim that Wells' justification for the practice is compelling; only that it is the usual practice, and that it doesn't make sense to claim that a deviation from said practice would somehow make us more correct.) —RuakhTALK 20:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
You're lazy and unpleasant. Lol. — [Ric Laurent] — 20:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
"Unpleasant", coming from you, can only be taken as a compliment. "Lazy", perhaps not; but I suppose they cancel out. —RuakhTALK 20:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
"An important principle of good phonetic transcription is simplicity" - ignoring the complexity of natural language?
Why do we use IPA at all? Why not have a nice simple individual system for every individual language?
"For points 3, 4, and 5 please wait until tomorrow." - See? Too lazy to even make his points. As far as I'm concerned, everything in this man's blog post supports my assertion. He brings up [l] and [ɫ] specifically, so should we differentiate those? If the argument is for simplicity, why do we distinguish between [ø] and [œ], [ɤ] and [ʌ], having the same basic distance from each other as e/ɛ and o/ɔ? Yucatec doesn't have [b], so why don't we use [b] for their [ɓ]? French doesn't have [r], so why don't we use that for [ʁ]? Where do you draw the line, exactly? Is it limited to ɛ and ɔ, or should we start simplifying our IPA for everything? Is it unreasonable for me to want to represent any particular language's sounds as accurately as I can? — [Ric Laurent] — 20:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Re: ignoring complexity: I don't think an open-mid vowel is any more "complex" than a close-mid vowel. Simplicity of transcription lets us reserve complexity for the case where there is actually a complexity to convey.
Re: why use IPA: Because it is a well-understood system, with well-understood general principles. Some aspects of IPA are unfortunate, such as the general use of /e/ and [ɛ] to designate a certain phoneme and phone, respectively, in many languages where the former is pronounced approximately as the latter — but that's how it is. If you want to make up a more complex system, be my guest; but you might want to avoid calling it "IPA", since that term is already in use. ;-)
Re: points 3, 4, and 5: I think he postponed them because the post was growing long, not because he was too "lazy" to post them the same day. (After all, had he preferred to post everything in one entry, he could have pushed off points 1 and 2 until he had written the rest.)
Anyway, I'm not saying, a priori, that we can't decide to do things differently from the normal linguistic practice; our needs may be different. You could certainly make a case for our using /ɛ/ in languages where /e/ is generally pronounced [ɛ] (though Romanian would not be the best example of such a language, since external sources describe its /e/ as being pronounced [e̞]); but you haven't bothered to make such a case, because you're simply not interested in acting like a rational human being for even five minutes. Which is unfortunate for you, and unfortunate for those of us who find ourselves in the position of trying to have a conversation with you. My initial comment above was:
Are you sure that's a good idea? I believe the usual practice among linguists is to use only "e" for languages without distinct /e/ and /ɛ/ phonemes.
And your initial reply was:
Why the fuck do I bother trying to make wiktionary more correct. Fucking whatever.
which belies its own claim as well as anything could. "Fucking whatever" is right.
RuakhTALK 21:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I wish you wouldn't pretend that you may at some undefined point in the future actually take me seriously, regardless of my present demeanor. The fact that you ignored the bulk of my last message basically proves it. — [Ric Laurent] — 21:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I didn't ignore the bulk of your last message; rather, the bulk of your last message is covered by the bulk of my reply. You ask about a number of specific IPA symbols, and ask how we should apply them, to which my default response is, "the same way that linguists do". I'm open to reasons that we should depart from usual linguistic practice, and obviously there are many cases where there's no one practice that can be considered standard; but your arguments so far amount to "linguists are tools, I can do better". (And I do take your comments seriously, not just in the future but in the present. Many of your comments are calculated to insult rather than inform, and obviously those comments are useless, but that is by no means true of all of your comments. You're a smart guy, much as you try to conceal it.) —RuakhTALK 22:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The laze of linguists shouldn't trump what people actually pronounce. — [Ric Laurent] — 22:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Contextual separation[edit]

This might've gotten lost in the fest-of-suck that became my last request, so I'll copypaste the one I made after I realized I'd wasted my time with the first one:

"Daniel, how are you with the js that User:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js uses? I made a request for Albanian there that's gone unanswered, I was wondering if that'd be something within the scope of your skillz."

I really wish I knew how to do these ones myself, because I'm constantly thinking of stuff that could (and should) be accelerated.... Alas, javascript is Mongolian to me. — [Ric Laurent] — 12:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This time, I'm going to be useless to you. I'm not so good with JavaScript as I am with MediaWiki. --Daniel 12:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
No worries dude, I don't blame you, that shit is ridiculous to even look at. It makes no sense whatsoever to me.... — [Ric Laurent] — 13:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

to be continued#Japanese[edit]

Hi, It was amusing but I have deleted the Japanese section. --Anatoli 04:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. --Daniel 09:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

book[edit]

prone, supineLucifer 02:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It took me a few seconds to realize what were you talking about... Nice choice of words, though. Thanks. --Daniel 05:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

deixar[edit]

You may be able to help out at [[WT:ID#deixar (pt)]].​—msh210 (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011[edit]

direção[edit]

Hola. I am taking another break, but I had to log back on because I really want to know if these are intentional, namely:

  1. If the plural is really «dirçãos»
  2. If ‘He were’ enstead of ‘He was’ is appropriate.

I am not assuming anything, I am just wondering if these are correct to you. --Pilcrow 04:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The plural was written "direçãos", but the correct one definitely would be "direções". "He was" is the appropriate wording. Thanks for letting me know about these mistakes. Fixed. --Daniel 20:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

February 2012[edit]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the additions of links at Citations:assholocracy! Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

^-^ --Daniel 06:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
You think some of those redlinks should be created as new pages? :) -- Cirt (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
As long as they are attestable by three citations each, why not. --Daniel 07:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try to do some research on that! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems there's an emergency effort to try to get these pages deleted real fast for some unknown urgent reason. I'd appreciate any advice you could impart to me about that. Perhaps you could revisit Citations:assholocracy? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If you can attest the words in question (assholocracy, assholeocracy, arseoleocracy, assholocrat and assholeocrat), then they would be kept. Even if they get deleted prematurely, they could be restored once attested.
As I checked Google Groups and Google Books in a few minutes, I did not find any new content to add to Citations:assholocracy, so most likely the entries will get deleted, indeed; the citations page can stay, nonetheless.
Amusingly, for some reason, "assholocracy" returns 19 results in GB, but the resulting books either seem to not actually have that word, or are not viewable at all. --Daniel 10:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, do you think based on Citations:assholocracy, at the very least the main entry for assholocracy should be kept, along with the citations page? -- Cirt (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know, only one citation counts, if it can be found in a print book: "We are living, he observed, in the age of the assholocracy. He's right, you know."
Most other citations don't count because they are not the word being used in a phrase. "Most Outrageous: "assholocracy", meaning rule by the disgustingly super-rich." is just a definition. It is a mention.
Please see: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use-mention_distinction --Daniel 09:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. But there are plenty of other cites at assholocracy. Those are satisfactory, yes? -- Cirt (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
After you asked me to check the cites, a couple of days ago, I noticed that almost all cites with the specific word "assholocracy" at the pages assholocracy and Citations:assholocracy are mentions, not uses.
  • "Assholocracy won the award for the outrageous word of the year."
  • "there’s assholocracy, concisely defined as “rule by obnoxious multi-millionaires.”"
  • "Most Outrageous: "assholocracy", meaning rule by the disgustingly super-rich."
  • "new additions to pre-existing blends, like assholocracy"
  • "My favorite was "assholocracy", which won "most outrageous"."
The only exception is the one I pointed above: "We are living, he observed, in the age of the assholocracy. He's right, you know." So, assuming this one counts, then that word needs two additional citations that count, to be kept. --Daniel 19:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes but what about the alternative spellings? Aren't they usages of the same meaning? -- Cirt (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, some other citations are usages. Their meanings vary a little, though. From my count, none of these words is currently attested, though. I don't know any rule along the lines of "if three books use the same word, each book using a different spelling, then the word is attested". I believe each spelling would have to be attested on its own. The usages are:
  • "Whicg[sic] of these did the assholeocrats get rid of?"; He is the elder statesman of tge[sic] assholeocrat party."
  • "Could simply gather them under a uniform label: Arseholeocracy" (this one could be controversial)
  • "He is the elder statesman of tge[sic] assholeocrat party."
  • "you can't say they are all automatically assholes simply because they work within the ubiquitous Assholeocracy."
  • "We are living, he observed, in the age of the assholocracy. He's right, you know."
--Daniel 12:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, those all do seem quite similar, and the spellings could simply be typos in some cases. -- Cirt (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Arguing that is possible.
DCDuring recently mentioned at WT:RFD#Chinese man a way to check for typos and scannos, that may apply to the issue in question: "It is easy enough to see whether any single instance of Chineseman occurs on the same page or adjoining pages with Chinese man and to inspect the page image for scannos." --Daniel 20:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm quite certain I've also read other users state that it's okay to use alternate spellings to support the same word before, I'll try to research where I saw that. -- Cirt (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

deus[edit]

I don't know any Portuguese but the plural for this word seems a bit unlikely... can you check it please? —CodeCat 20:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ --Daniel 20:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

CFI and company names[edit]

Do you intend to vote in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names? You have made a comment in the vote, but given no vote, which surprised me. --Dan Polansky 09:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I voted now. --Daniel 19:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

CFI and straw poll[edit]

What do you think of your withdrawing Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-01/Linking "Straw Poll: each section of our CFI" from the CFI? Then it can be removed from WT:VOTE. You have even opposed the vote yourself. I don't think anyone's going to complain if you withdraw the vote. Just an idea. --Dan Polansky 10:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ --Daniel 19:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/Minor ELE fix[edit]

I edited the page so removed your vote; please revote. Sorry for the hassle.​—msh210 (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You may want to double-check that vote and edit it again. There's a "Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found" somewhere. --Daniel 22:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"::The vote is on removing the quoted sentence, which includes a <ref> tag. The error notice is a byproduct.​—msh210 (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

changes[edit]

I like the changes you made. I think this is much clearer now --Cova (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Good. --Daniel 12:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Editing CFI[edit]

I think you would do well to reduce the number of subsequent edits when editing CFI, which can be achieved by using the preview function, deliberately slowing down, and carefully thnking about the edit that you are about to make. Another option is that you stop editing CFI without a vote. I know your edits were related to the use of references, but I still find them objectionable. In February and March of 2012, you have made 21 edits to CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I am going to try to avoid series of cosmetic corrections, along the lines of "Oh, I just placed a bold text here, but I prefer it non-bolded instead!" That's just noise on the history, and demonstrates that I didn't use the preview function satisfactorily.
On the other hand, my original plan of mentioning one vote per revision looks good in the history, as it's abundantly clear what I have done. It's clearer than a single revision explained like "Adding 15 footnotes", but this would be a good alternative plan, too, for conciseness. Either way, deciding about this specific dichotomy (adding one footnote per revision or many footnotes in one revision, assuming that footnotes can be added, to begin with) looks like a moot point today, if I could successfully make sure that all the applicable votes are mentioned in CFI and ELE.
The current tally of our vote about voting suggests that, in the near future, only discussions and consensus would be enough to edit these policies.
Apart from that, we have some history of editing CFI and ELE to add references to votes even when the votes do not state that a reference should be added. This revision[3] is an early example from last year, a little earlier than the vote Sourced policies.
I'm not sure what you mean by "objectionable", so you might want to elaborate this statement. I believe you don't oppose the practice of adding unvoted references to votes in CFI, in general, because you supported that practice, in Sourced policies and in Modify WT:ELE rhymes section.
So, I infer that you might find objectionable some specific edits I have done. If this inference is correct, I'm not sure exactly which edits. Nonetheless, I see that the different edits have different levels of importance. The votes I have added fit well into three categories in my mind: (1) major/active, describing rules that are remembered often in discussions, like WT:COALMINE and Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-01/Appendices for fictional terms; (2) minor/passive, rules that are often undisputed and undiscussed like Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-07/Exclusion of possessive case and cosmetic changes like Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Renaming CFI section for spellings; (3) neutral or niche, that govern a comparatively small number of entries (such as a single language), like Wiktionary:Votes/2011-06/Redirecting combining characters and Wiktionary:Votes/2011-09/Unified Tagalog. The first category is very important. I believe the second is less useful in practice, and probably can be deleted harmlessly, yet keeping it seems equally harmless; I'd keep it for curious minds like mine. The last category might be moved to other policy pages when they exist and are authoritative enough. --Daniel 16:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

catboiler subtemplates[edit]

I noticed that the subtemplates like catboiler categorize, catboiler doc, catboiler format and so on were originally subtemplates: catboiler/categorize, catboiler/doc, catboiler/format... Is there a reason why you changed this? —CodeCat 15:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Predefinição pt-verb[edit]

Oi, Daniel.

Encontrei um problema na predefinição pt-verb: ela está chamando o tempo verbal gerúndio de "particípio presente". Veja, por exemplo, gostar: lá consta que "gostando" é present participle de "gostar". Está errado: o particípio presente de "gostar", se existisse, seria "gostante", e "gostante" não é verbo (ao contrário de "gostando", que, justamente por estar no gerúndio, é verbo).

A terminação do particípio presente é sempre -ante, -ente ou -into:

  • (verbo) cantar + -ante = cantante (que é adjetivo, não verbo. Exemplo: pessoa cantante)
  • (verbo) correr + -ente = corrente (que é adjetivo, não verbo. Exemplo: água corrente)
  • (verbo) constituir + -inte = constituinte (que é adjetivo, não verbo. Exemplo: assembleia constituinte)

Sampayu msg 07:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Portuguese adverbs suffixed with -mente[edit]

Is it necessary for this category to specify the part of speech? (Also Category:Portuguese nouns suffixed with -a.) I was about to change them but I decided to ask what your reasoning was first. Ultimateria (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

How are you?[edit]

Hola senhor; long time no see. You may not recognise me, but I signed my e‐mails (to you) as ‘Seth’, & Stephen helped me alter my title now that Doremítzwr left. I personally believe that this title behoves me more‐so than my last one. I desired to ask you why you had not answered my e‐mail I sent a few months ago. And I suppose that I ought to thank you for partially unblocking me, but I honestly can’t promise you that I will not ‘ragequit’ again if somebody ruffles my feathers. I’ll just have to mellow out more (being an adult now should help). Regardless, I wanted to enquire what has been going on with you recently; I hope that you are fine. --Æ&Œ (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikisaurus and attestation[edit]

As you are someone with a significant contribution to Wikisaurus[4], I'd like to bring Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-09/Wikisaurus_and_attestation to your attention. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Daniel 15:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:All spellings[edit]

Hi,

Is this category you created in 2009 is still useful? — Automatik (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not, since we don't have categories like Category:English alternative spellings anymore. Thanks for asking. --Daniel 23:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Do you delete empty categories here? — Automatik (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Sounds uncontroversial, so I went and did it. It could be undeleted/recreated if others see fit. --Daniel 13:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

RFDO on some items[edit]

Just to be fair, FYI: Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Appendix:Roger_Rabbit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:place:Brazil[edit]

Hey. Can we safely delete Template:place:Brazil? --ElisaVan (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for taking some time to answer. Sure, please go ahead if you'd like. That's just an old project that didn't go very far. --Daniel 11:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)