User talk:Daniel Carrero/Archive 1

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




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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Ivan Štambuk 18:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese templates[edit]

See my talk page, all done. You were off trying to make things very hard on yourself! Robert Ullmann 11:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, why did you go to so much trouble, now we have to undo the others. Not too hard. Robert Ullmann 11:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now we need to remove all the links you added ...
Other detail: in {{pt-conj-ir}} I made the cat conditional on the pagename=infinitive; then the table can be used anywhere, and only the infinitive goes in the cat.
{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{{1}}}ir|[[Category:Portuguese verbs ending in -ir]]}}

See? Robert Ullmann 12:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

oh, and leaving a line break between the close div tags and the includeonly is not what you want Robert Ullmann 12:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
okay, I think I've got them all. If you need a blank cell, use "-" (single hyphen), but I didn't see any such cases? Robert Ullmann 12:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


In this edit, you "Added past participle variants". I didn't know there were any variants in Portuguese. Spanish doesn't have them, and I haven't heard of variants in Galician either. Would someone really say: "Tenho comida." (I have eaten [feminine])? or "Tenho falada." (I have spoken [feminine])? It sounds wrong to me to use these "feminine" forms to construct compound verbs. --EncycloPetey 06:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You've not quite answered my question. I did not ask about infinitives or about adjective use of the participles. I am only asking about verb use of the participle. You see, in Spanish there are feminine forms of "participles" like the ones you describe, but they are used only as adjectives, not as part of a compound verb. The same is true in French. Are you saying that Portuguese is different from both of these languages? I am asking only about uses in compound verb constructions with auxillary verbs like ter. Uses with estar aren't meaningful for this discussion because that verb is a copula, so "participles" used with it are being used as adjectives. I have limited resources on Portuguese grammar, but none of them show feminine participles used in compound verbs; all verb usage is of the "masculine" only. --EncycloPetey 15:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Renaming high-use templates is a bad idea, as it puts a strain on the server, since it has to re-render every page calling the template. Also, the convention is to use conj-ar for all Iberian languages. Making Portuguese different from all the other languages is likely to lead to confusion later. Yes, it's a subtemplate, but the name does not have to reflect that. (The slash doesn't actually put it in a subdirectory.) --EncycloPetey 06:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to change what I said before about the template name; I think you've chosen correctly. I didn't fully understand what you were doing then, but I do now. you're not setting things up the way the other languages have, so having different names the way you set them up is a good idea. --EncycloPetey 22:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

PS - The header line for the conjugation table is not working. Look at what it's doing for ser "ser er" --EncycloPetey 06:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:pt-verb form of[edit]

Looks good.

Two comments:

  • it would be good to use {{qualifier|Brazil}} instead of explicitly (''Brazil''); that way the customizations users can set will work. (not displaying the ()'s, italicizing them, etc)
  • I think it would be better to use {1} instead of {infinitive}; while infinitive= is not wrong, this would be consistent with all of the other "form of" templates, which use the first un-named parameter as the referenced form.

(oh, one other random comment: if you leave the edit summary blank when creating an entry, it uses the page text, this is very easy to follow in the logs; and "created entry" doesn't really say anything :-) Cheers, Robert Ullmann 09:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) As you said, {{qualifier|Brazil}} looks better. Done.
When I made the {{pt-verb form of}}, I was trying to make a simpler way to gather all the information required to generate one or more definitions. So, it would be something like {{pt-verb form of|achar|ar|indicative-present-singular-third|imperative-affirmative-singular-second}} to generate: Third-person singular (ele, ela, also used with você) and second-person singular (tu) affirmative imperative of verb Template:wlink. Now it is possible to use {{{1}}} instead of infinitive, but even if I chose to use named parameters, it could change anytime. Daniel. 10:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Conjugated forms[edit]

Hi! I noticed that you have been adding conjugated forms of Portuguese verbs. If you intend to do much more of this type of thing, you might consider setting up a bot for this purpose. I don't know how to do this, but you might ask User:Connel MacKenzie, or User:SemperBlotto, who runs User:SemperBlottoBot, which adds conjugated forms of Italian verbs, or User:EncycloPetey, who runs User:FitBot, which adds conjugated forms of Latin verbs. —AugPi 03:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your advice. Yes, I am adding those forms and I intend to do much more of this type of work. I am copying and pasting all those entries for verb forms and changing specific parts, so I don't think it would change my work very much if I would use a bot to do that now (for example, one to copy the entries automatically from a text file). But I already am thinking of creating a bot later for this and other similar tasks; probably when the templates, categories and existing entries will be better organized, as you can see at my to-do list. Daniel. 05:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

pt-noun form of[edit]

I'm a bit confused by this template. Is this for noun forms of words that function as other parts of speech, or simply for plural forms of nouns. If it's for plural forms of nouns, it ought to be named according to our usual conventions as {{pt-noun-form}} (see {{la-noun-form}}}, {{la-verb-form}}, etc.). The extraneous "of" will confuse other editors, as it is used only to name form templates that apply to multiple parts of speech.

I also notice that the template does not display the definition line with the usual italicized format that is standard for "form" definitions, but I hesitate to correct this as I can't quite tell what all the intended functions of the template are. It seems to take several parameters that (to my eyes) don't do anything. --EncycloPetey 18:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

According to their talk pages, the templates {{la-noun-form}} and {{la-verb-form}} are used for inflection lines. The template {{pt-noun form of}} has a different use, that would be better compared to {{es-verb form of}}, {{pt-verb form of}}, {{comparative of}}, {{plural of}}, {{augmentative of}}, {{past of}}, {{inflection of}}, etc.
It creates simple definitions for inflected noun forms. Each possibility of inflection is defined by an unnamed parameter. Portuguese nouns can vary on:
  • gender (masculine or feminine)
  • number (singular or plural)
  • degree (augmentative, diminutive or neither)
As an example, here are all the intended uses of this template for the Portuguese word filho:
Entry Template call Result text
filho lemma form, template not used
filha {{pt-noun form of|filho|feminine|singular}} Feminine singular of noun filho.
filhos {{pt-noun form of|filho|masculine|plural}} Masculine plural of noun filho.
filhas {{pt-noun form of|filho|feminine|plural}} Feminine plural of noun filho.
filhão {{pt-noun form of|filho|masculine|singular|augmentative}} Augmentative masculine singular of noun filho.
filhona {{pt-noun form of|filho|feminine|singular|augmentative}} Augmentative feminine singular of noun filho.
filhões {{pt-noun form of|filho|masculine|plural|augmentative}} Augmentative masculine plural of noun filho.
filhonas {{pt-noun form of|filho|feminine|plural|augmentative}} Augmentative feminine plural of noun filho.
filhinho {{pt-noun form of|filho|masculine|singular|diminutive}} Diminutive masculine singular of noun filho.
filhinha {{pt-noun form of|filho|feminine|singular|diminutive}} Diminutive feminine singular of noun filho.
filhinhos {{pt-noun form of|filho|masculine|plural|diminutive}} Diminutive masculine plural of noun filho.
filhinhas {{pt-noun form of|filho|feminine|plural|diminutive}} Diminutive feminine plural of noun filho.
As for the usual italicized format that is standard for "form" definitions: as far as I know, all italicized definitions were made manually by users who weren't using a template, or perhaps you are talking about your personally defined "use-with-mention" - if that is the case, it is now fixed. Daniel. 19:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, use-with-mention is what I was discussing, but I wanted to avoid the jargon in case you weren't familiar with it. And you're right about the mismatch in noting examples. I am curious why you chose to use the fully-spelled out "masculine", "feminine", etc, instead of using the standard abbreviated forms m, f, etc., which the template could then expand. It would mean a lot less typing, and less chance for a spelling error. --EncycloPetey 20:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
So, may I assume that the template will be useful and I chose correctly its name? There was no particular reason to choose the fully-spelled options for the parameters, so I can change them. Actually, I couldn't find standard abbreviated forms for "augmentative", "diminutive", "comparative" and "superlative" for both the templates {{pt-noun form of}} and {{pt-adj form of}}; however, it's done. Additionally, could you please read the newly written documentation for these two templates, to see if they are better explained? Daniel. 04:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


Please do not edit high-use templates without discussing porposed changes first. --EncycloPetey 23:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The main purpose of that edit was to add a category. So, thanks for adding it again. Daniel. 01:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Opinion on {{suffix}}[edit]

Hi, what's your opinion of the name of the categories created by {{suffix}}? I would like to propose renaming them without the quote marks, but am not sure if I'm the only one who finds them interminably irritating. Conrad.Irwin 19:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, since the category Category:Hungarian suffixes doesn't use those quote marks, something has to change either way. Personally, I just don't like the text Entries in category “Portuguese words suffixed with “-ico”” (with quote marks between quote marks). So yes, I agree with your proposal. Daniel. 19:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese parts of speech[edit]

Please do not alter the category structure without discussing the change first. The language categories are all set up the same way across Wiktionary. Having one language radically different from the others will confuse users. --EncycloPetey 20:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

When I started to alter the category structure of the Portuguese parts of speech, I was just following the English example: please see Category:English parts of speech. By the way, it seems a good idea, so I am still planning to do a few tests on Category:Portuguese parts of speech. It will not necessary to remove any category from Category:Portuguese language, though. Daniel. 21:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


Nesting the {if} staements does not reduce server strain. The way the software works, every possible if-fork is worked out, which puts the strain on the server. --EncycloPetey 20:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It is an interesting paradox: if every if-fork is worked out, the result of the previous if does not matter. Sorry, I didn't understand what you meant - and how can they work, if most are likely to not be reached. Daniel. 21:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
That's correct, it works the entire thing out even when one "if" is false. Unfortunately, I don't have the skill to work out a better solution, which is why I posted in the GP. Some others here might be able to generate a nice bit of code that will do the same function without stressing the server. The alternative is simply to leave the geogrphic links out of the template, if nothing can be worked out. --EncycloPetey 21:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Language templates cat[edit]

ah, you are the one doing this! (:-) Category:Language templates is the code templates for language names. (See the description.)

Other templates related to languages and their categories do NOT belong there! They just go in the language cat. Please desist, and clean up what you can, I will strip the rest. Robert Ullmann 00:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, okay, lets figure out where to put these; they need their own cat somewhere. Robert Ullmann 00:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
...what? I only added Romansch and Neapolitan to a whole group of subcategories. Should they not be there? Ok, let's do a Category:Templates by language. Daniel. 01:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Robert, this category originally existed for the language-specific templates as Daniel has correctly added. The category description was added later, when the category was adopted as the place to put ISO codes. It might be better to move all the ISO templates to a Category:ISO templates. --EncycloPetey 00:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Old Norse[edit]

Note that the pre-edit version of this category sorted differently. [1] You'll need to add a DEFAULTSORT to keep the sorting as it was before. --EncycloPetey 00:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. However, it leads to a possible mess, especially when every subcategory is sorted in a different way. I noticed the change of order made in a few of my edits, but that was an effort to clean up the Category:All languages and others. Preferably, this new parameter shouln't ever be used (or should be used regularly). Daniel. 01:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
It should be possible to sort just once, rather than repeating for each possible including category. That way, it would necessarily be consistent. --EncycloPetey 01:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to handle portions of text, to ignore recurring words like "Old", "Middle" or "the"? Looks like we need this [2]. Daniel. 02:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi Daniel, Thanks for cleaning up the messy entries I've been making in the "-ridden" category. I'm new to Wiktionary (though I've been around Wikipedia for longer). --BodegasAmbite 15:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

De nada! Don't worry about it. As a newcomer, please read Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion and Wiktionary:Entry layout explained if you didn't. I made a few more edits to the "-ridden" entries, please try to follow on (e.g., the template {{en-adj}} already generates a bold inflection line; when you try to format it directly, you are shifting to non-bold instead). Daniel. 15:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi Daniel. A lot of these entries shouldn't actually be in that -en category, since on the Cat page it says it's only for adjectives which have been formed from nouns -- it's NOT just a spelling category. Things like overladen and driven do not belong there. Ƿidsiþ 18:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi Daniel.,

Please just leave the interfixes alone for now. It's likely that they'll up getting changed somehow, perhaps to "infix" as you suggest, but in the meantime, a revert-war with Doremítzwr (talkcontribs) isn't going to accomplish anything. (Personally, I think we should just use "affix" for everything that's not a prefix or suffix, but it hasn't really been discussed.)

Thanks in advance!
RuakhTALK 00:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


Could you convert this to a Portuguese entry please? It's not valid in Spanish. Nadando 02:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Daniel. 03:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


Hi Daniel.. As of my last calculations, you, SemperBlotto and I are currently winning, and there's about 30 points difference between us. The game is on! --Jackofclubs 08:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You're now top, unfortunately ;). I must change my tactics considerably. --Jackofclubs 15:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Heh. Good luck. :) --Daniel. 21:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


Hello Daniel, would you be interested in being a Wiktionary admnistrator? I think you have been helpful with the maintenance of this website and with Portuguese entries, and if you are interested I will set up an admin vote for you. --Jackofclubs 20:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

p.s. It's very close between us 3 in the competition, I'm not sure who has won ;). --Jackofclubs 20:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am interested and would be honored in being a Wiktionary administrator. Thank you for your appreciation. And, I'm going to claim my place on the competition podium soon. --Daniel. 13:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Please accept the nomination at Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2008-12/User:Daniel. for admin‎‎ . Good luck. --Jackofclubs 16:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • OK - you should now have some new buttons. Please add a section at Wiktionary:Administrators#administrators. Cheers. SemperBlotto 22:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, they are here. Thank you. --Daniel. 11:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
    OK. When you have time between edits, please patrol recent edits, revert vandalism and block vandals - thus making the hassle worthwhile. Cheers. SemperBlotto 13:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for adding suffixcat to Hungarian suffix categories. I keep forgetting it... :( --Panda10 14:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, Panda10. --Daniel. 16:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Empty categories for language appendices[edit]

What exactly is the point in creating them, if they don't contain anything? --Ivan Štambuk 15:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because a category does not contain pages at the first few moments, is not a reason to not exist. There are too many appendices without proper categories up to this date (or without categories at all), so it's likely that I will continue to add and delete these categories where I find necessary. I am not intending to leave appendice categories empty, so please, look again. --Daniel. 16:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess it's OK now, though the general idea is to put language families Swadesh lists into language families categories, and individual language Swadesh lists into individual language categories.. --Ivan Štambuk 16:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
From what I could see (by analyzing various appendices, especially the better formatted ones, including but not limiting to Swadesh lists), there is some effort to keep each of them in two main category trees: subcategories of Category:Appendices, and anything else. By this reasoning, it's certainly correct to add appendices to language families, topics, parts of speech, etc. as helpful additional text, and to the corresponding appendice categories, for better organization. For example, in my opinion, it would be nice to have all numerical appendices at Category:Numerical appendices, and all Swahili appendices at Category:Swahili appendices. --Daniel. 16:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


I want to offer an idea, not one that needs to be acted on right away, but just an idea for now.

Spanish, Portuguese, and other Iberian languages have long had numerous separate templates for nouns (such as: pt-noun-m, pt-noun-f, pt-noun-m-unc, pt-noun-f-unc). I've just had a go the past few days at consolidating the noun templates for Occitan and for Catalan. Occitan now uses a single template {{oc-noun}} for all its nouns. Catalan is down to just two: {{ca-noun}} and {{ca-noun-mf}} (for nouns with separate masculine and feminine forms). I've been thinking of implementing the idea in Portuguese and/or Spanish as well for some time. In the past, we haven't had seriously hard-working Portuguese contributors (like yourself), so I hadn't suggested the idea before.

I'd like to suggest you have a look at {{oc-noun}} and {{ca-noun}} and see what you think about doing the same thing in Portuguese. Making any such change across all the Portuguese nouns would (of course) take a lot of work, but might be done with bot assistance. Do keep in mind that I took slightly different approaches in the two languages, so if you do like the idea, you'd also need to consider which approach appeals to you more. As I said earlier, Catalan still has a separate template for nouns with masc/fem forms, which simplifies the main noun template. Occitan uses a slightly more cumbersome template, but packs everything into just the one template. Each appraoch has advantages and disadvantages.

Please give it some thought. As I said, there is no rush. I'm still working to implement {{es-verb}} and deprecate all the old calls to {{es-verb-ar}}, which unfortunately could not be done easily by bot because of the many variations in how the template was (or wasn't) included. Let me know what you think. --EncycloPetey 20:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a good idea and should also be done for Portuguese. Here are some toughts:
  • Firstly, I don't really like to add links for compound words at the inflection line and the etymology section. But, as every other inflection template, there ought to be a parameter for this function, and I am still inclined to using it. {{{head}}} is good.
  • The obligatory shift from unnamed parameter {{{2}}} to named {{{pl2}}} (and ({{{pl}}}) seems a bit confusing. The plurals are very important information and there are Portuguese nouns with up to three of them, so I think a better approach would be to make three unnamed parameters for plurals.
  • As far as I know, there are also nouns with up to three singular forms for each gender. Therefore, we should have named parameters for feminine singular, feminine plurals, masculine singular and masculine plurals.
{{pt-noun|m||vilões|vilães|f=vilã|f2=viloa}}vilão m (plural vilãos, vilões, vilães feminine vilã, viloa feminine plural vilãs, viloas)
  • And there are nouns with identical masculine and feminine forms.
{{pt-noun|mf}}estudante m and f (plural estudantes)
{{pt-noun|mf|avestruzes}}avestruz m and f (plural avestruzes)
  • Uncountable nouns would have a dash as first plural parameter. However, even uncountable nouns can be counted.
{{pt-noun|m|-}}equipamento f (uncountable, plural equipamentos)
{{pt-noun|f|-|aglomerações}}aglomeração f (uncountable, plural aglomerações)
  • Finally, we could have two additional first parameters: {{pt-noun|mpl}} and {{pt-noun|fpl}}. Since we don't add links at inflection lines of alternative forms (like {{pt-noun|fpl|f=cadeira}}), they would de solely used for pluralia tantum. Then, all other parameters (perhaps except {{{head}}}) should be omitted.
{{pt-noun|fpl}}núpcias f (plurale tantum)
{{pt-noun|fpl}}copas f (plurale tantum)
Here is the whole initial set of parameters that could be used for {{pt-noun}}:
{{{1}}}: m, f, mf, mpl or fpl. Basic information of the entry.
{{{2}}}, {{{3}}}, {{{4}}}: Plural forms of the entry.
{{{m}}}, {{{m2}}}, {{{m3}}}: Masculine singular forms of the entry.
{{{f}}}, {{{f2}}}, {{{f3}}}: Feminine singular forms of the entry.
{{{mpl}}}, {{{mpl2}}}, {{{mpl3}}}: Masculine plural forms of the entry.
{{{fpl}}}, {{{fpl2}}}, {{{fpl3}}}: Feminine plural forms of the entry.
{{{head}}}: The optional headword.
--Daniel. 04:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Some replies and clarification:
  • The use of "head=" is entirely up to the user, of course.
  • The is no obligatory shift from using {{{2}}}. If there is a second plural, it can be added simply as {{{pl2}}}. The parameter {{{pl}}} is never required, but is avaiable as an option. I've used {{{pl2}}} rather than {{{3}}} because that is how other templates I've seen deal with a secondary plural, including {{en-noun}}. I wanted to be consistent, to avoid the complications of having the same thing done differently on different templates.
  • The issue of multiple plural forms for both genders leads me to believe we should have a separate {{pt-noun-mf}} for nouns with more than one gender. Putting all that into the main template would make it way too cumbersome for simple cases.
  • The template design already handles nouns that are both masculine and feminine, with the same spelling for both. Use a gender value of mf.
  • I do not understand what you are saying about uncountable nouns. If a noun in uncountable, then by definition it cannot be counted. Do you mean that a noun can be both countable and uncountable in different senses?
  • The idea of simply using mpl and fpl for the plural tantum nouns isn't as practical. It's better to have the gender and plural checks independent of each other. A plurale tantum noun could possibly be coded with pl as the second parameter, but that's not what that value means when it's used in other templates, and I would rather not use something that would be misinterpreted.
And there should never be a need to code the various "singular forms" of the entry. Those are always listed under an "Alternative forms" section, not on the inflection line. --EncycloPetey 04:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Here are my replies:
  • About the issue of multiple plurals, I still prefer the unnamed parameters. {{{pl}}}, {{{pl2}}} and {{{pl3}}} could be simply as you said an option to avoid complications of having the same thing done differently on different templates. By the way, even on other templates, there is a {{en-noun|s|-}}, which encourages me to keep as I suggested.
  • If a {{pt-noun-mf}} exists for multiple forms of both genders, probably it would contain only the functions of the detailed parameters ({{{m}}}, {{{f}}}, {{{f2}}}, {{{fpl}}}, etc.) This could be less cumbersome by simplifying these names. Perhaps, {{{alt}}}, {{{alt2}}}, {{{alt3}}}, {{{altpl}}}, {{{altpl2}}} and {{{altpl3}}} for alternative genders. Please let me know if you have a better way to work out this using an alternative template.
  • The Portuguese language is very flexible about dealing with uncountable nouns. They can be easily fragmented into known contexts, turning into countable. For example, "I have bought some equipment for the soldiers." could be translated as "Eu comprei alguns equipamentos para os soldados." (Please note the plural of equipamento.) Other plural forms of Portuguese uncountable nouns include águas, alcatéias, comunidades, ramalhetes, sequências, etc. and even hardwares. Probably all should be labeled as countable and uncountable for easier understanding of English speakers, but most don't have different senses aside from the plural form itself.
  • I like the idea of having a pl as second parameter for pluralia tantum. But for consistency reasons, perhaps it's better to use onlyplural.
--Daniel. 06:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Greek adjective declension templates‎[edit]

I guess I can't see the merit to this change, and so have rolled it back. I'm open to discuss. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am curious why the adjectives would be separated from other categories. Shouldn't the Category:Ancient Greek declension templates‎ have all the Ancient Greek declension templates? --Daniel. 13:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, Category:Ancient Greek declension templates consists almost entirely of noun declension templates. Quite frankly, there are so many of them that such a super category containing them all is not desired. It's hard enough to find the one you want as it is. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
This sounds like an additional problem, instead of a solution. A super category is not desired, but it still exists, incomplete. Would you object if I create Category:Ancient Greek noun declension templates‎? --Daniel. 16:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Fine with me. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Language parts of speech[edit]

Your list seems to be missing "Articles" and "Participles", among others. What are you doing with "Phrases" and "Contractions"? --EncycloPetey 05:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Up to this date, there are fifteen parts of speech supported by {{poscatboiler}}, including articles. Your examples "phrases" and "contractions" seem to come from our accepted part of speech headers, while I created that template to handle parts of speech in the traditional sense. That is, suffixes, phrases, idioms, abbreviations, symbols, etc. would not appear in categories like Category:English parts of speech or Category:Latin parts of speech. Additionally, I haven't included subcategories, e.g."personal pronouns", "noun forms" or even "participles" yet. --Daniel. 06:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

preload templates[edit]

Please note that "noinclude" does NOT work in preload templates "new ..." Robert Ullmann 06:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the "noinclude" works very well in preload templates. See [3]. --Daniel. 07:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Robert is quite right. Maybe you're misunderstanding the terminology? Preload templates are used like this:
Notice that the <noinclude> section is not removed.
(In particular, preload= is not the same as subst:.)
RuakhTALK 17:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Finnish nominals[edit]

Hi there -- I see you're not happy with a "Finnish nominals" category. Neither was I entirely. Do you have a better solution for what I'm trying to do?

My aim is to catalogue Finnish words by inflection type. For verbs, the conjugation table template now assigns the word page to "Category:Finnish XXXX-type verbs", a subcategory of Category:Finnish verbs with conjugation, a subcategory of Category:Finnish verbs. All straightforward.

But for the declension template, the equivalent is be to assign the word to "Category:Finnish XXXX-type nominals", a subcategory of Category:Finnish nominals with declension . An adjective/noun distinction isn't useful, and I'm not sure if there's a way to spot the distinction from within the declension template (unless it can detect what category has already been assigned by Template:infl?).

So that's why I created Category:Finnish nominals - just to have a supercategory to slot them into. I could just have Category:Finnish nominals with declension be a subcategory of Category:Finnish language.

Anyway, one purpose of the categorisation is so that Appendix:Finnish conjugation types and Appendix:Finnish declension types can have counts to indicate how common the various types are, providing an automatic hint for the reader as to their relative importance. --KJBracey 11:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, KJBracey. From the few Finnish resources I have, including the Wiktionary declension templates you have been editing, I will assume that the whole set of declensions is used by both nouns and adjectives. If I am correct, it is certainly a little easier for editors to save a few keystrokes by gathering everything at a generic "nominals" category.
However, I don't see why would the distinction between various types of declension be more useful than the distinction between nouns and adjectives. An additional parameter for part of speech would not only help as "automatic hint [at the appendices] for the reader as to their relative importance", it would also maintain the tradition that variants of nouns should be kept at subcategories of "language nouns" and so on. --Daniel. 13:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


Please, we need Template:pt-conj/air, can you help? I dont know to make this template. --Volants 10:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy of portuguese translations[edit]

Hi, if you have a minute could you check how many of Special:Contributions/ are accurate? Conrad.Irwin 12:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Most of those eigth contributions had correct translations, and most had incorrect details such as a "literally" context out of place and lacking of grammatical gender. They're now checked and fixed where necessary. --Daniel. 14:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Conrad.Irwin 14:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. --Daniel. 14:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Norwegian --> Bokmål and Nynorsk[edit]

I'm not sure how familiar you are with Bokmål and Nynorsk, but I find it very obvious that Category:Requests (Norwegian Bokmål) and Category:Requests (Norwegian Nynorsk) should be in Category:Requests (Norwegian). That is at least the way we have done it at this Wiktionary so far. Any good reasons not to? Remember, "Norwegian" isn't really a language, even though we treat words similar in Bokmål and Nynorsk to be "Norwegian". --Eivind (t) 10:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I searched through Wiktionary:About Norwegian, Wiktionary categories, old discussions and your message, and didn't find a good reason for Category:Requests (Norwegian Bokmål) and Category:Requests (Norwegian Nynorsk) to be at Category:Requests (Norwegian). As far as I know, Norwegian is a language with at least two written forms, so a good convention should decide if we'll treat Bokmål and Nynorsk here as two languages or two dialects. Wiktionary:About Norwegian says we should use "Norwegian" only, yet we have language categories for all these variants. While a decision on this subject is not made, it would be troublesome to keep peacefully every category inside other similar categories.
If, as you say, "Norwegian" is not a language, then the Category:Norwegian language (and its related subcategories) should not exist, because we already have Category:North Germanic languages to keep Category:Norwegian Nynorsk language and Category:Norwegian Bokmål language together as similar languages. --Daniel. 05:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
You are correct, it doesn't exist a language called "Norwegian". However, regardsless of what we decide for Norwegian languages later on, I reckon we should concentrate on user-friendliness and actually making sure those who are looking for these categories find them. Any Norwegian visiting the category for Norwegian requests, may be able to help out at both Bokmål and Nynorsk requests as well (they are mutually intelligible, and since there are no language called "Norwegian", all requests in that category are either Bokmål, Nynorsk or both). --Eivind (t) 12:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to keep similar Norwegian categories together, the idea of grouping them in additional categories doesn't sound very user-friendly. You could edit their descriptions instead. --Daniel. 12:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor template issue[edit]

I just wanted to point out an error to avoid that I fixed in {{mainapp}}: <includeonly> and <onlyinclude> are very different tags. Something marked with <includeonly> does not appear on the template page, but this is the only effect, as this tag will not prevent unmarked content on the page from being included. If you want that only the content tagged be included, you must use <onlyinclude>. Just a heads up. —This unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talkcontribs).

I see. When I created {{mainapp}}, there was a <noinclude> preventing the addition of the Category:Linking templates to pages linking to this template through transclusion. Unfortunately this bit of code was removed in my last edit. Thank you for your correction. --Daniel. 03:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi. [4] - what exactly are you doing here? :) --Ivan Štambuk 11:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see, nevermind. I wonder where did the aoq code came up on Wikipedia.. --Ivan Štambuk 11:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical sorting for Portuguese[edit]

When you have the time, could you add comments under the Portuguese portion of User_talk:Conrad.Irwin#Galician_index? I'm helping Conrad to use a bot to generate updated Index pages for severla major Romance languages. See Index:Galician or Index:Hungarian for an example of what the bot does. Key issues are (1) which letters / digraphs are indexed separately (e.g. lh, nh), and (2) what sequence is used for diacriticals. Your input would be appreciated. --EncycloPetey 17:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi. Please, can you check Template:pt-conj/uar. I think it is OK, however maybe I do a mistake with negative imperative (I haven't learned this negative imperative yet). Thanks --Volants 10:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Now it's fine. But the verb menstruar uses {{pt-conj|menstru|ar}}, not {{pt-conj|menstr|uar}}. --Daniel. 16:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Greenlandic categories[edit]

OK, will do. Thanks for letting me know :) Jakeybean 00:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

As an afterthought... where should I put drinks such as 'immiaq'? Should I put a drinks subcategory in Foods? Jakeybean 18:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Tu vs Você[edit]

Oi, Daniel.

Sim, é verdade que no Brasil se usa "Tu é" e similares. A minha dúvida reside em considerar que se trate de dialeto ou de um erro gramatical. "Tu é" me parece errado apesar de ser usado pelos gaúchos. Analogamente, em Portugal, há regiões onde se fala de forma incorreta mas tal não pode ser considerado standard mas sim uma "particularidade". Tu o que opina? :) Não insisto muito na minha alteração pelo que se tu preferir eu reverto. --Malafaya 19:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ou então vai em frente e reverte tu mesmo, na boa. ;) Malafaya 20:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, reparei agora que já estava revertido. Malafaya 20:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Appendix:Old Cyrillic alphabet[edit]

Why move this? It is an alphabet, and much more often referred to by that name. If you must generalize it, then perhaps the unambiguous Old Cyrillic writing system would be better. Script can be confused with manuscript in contrast to type, or script fonts instead of serif and sans-serif. Michael Z. 2009-06-16 13:17 z

Yes, I'm intending to generalize appendix and category names in an effort to organize them. In my opinion, the distinction between alphabets, syllabaries, etc. shouldn't be made at their titles. Your suggestion "writing system" seems to be good, but it's not very useful as a disambiguation tool: The Appendix:Old Cyrillic writing system should probably include an explanation about Old Cyrillic manuscript fonts or script fonts, if this title and this information are desirable. --Daniel. 03:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


Could you amend the list so that it accepts Suffix as a POS? Latin formative suffixes inflect, just as the nouns and adjectives they form. --EncycloPetey 20:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As the problem seems to be the suffix inflections rather than which list is ammended, I've created the option {{affixcatboiler|la|suffix form}} instead, so it won't break the distinction between Latin affixes and Latin parts of speech. --Daniel. 00:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


Hello Daniel. I would like to intriduce my bot User:Volantsbot. It will create conjugated verb forms for the Portuguese verbs. I have used the entries, which you have created, as guides - and copied the code from the conjugated forms from amassar. Please can you check that this is working, and see Special:Contributions/Volantsbot and User:Volantsbot/ar template (the template I use for the creation of the verb forms). I think, I can potentially create some thousands Portuguese words , as a result of this bot. --Volants 09:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Volants. Yes, looks like your bot is working perfectly. However, before you create thousands of Portuguese words, an update of the templates {{pt-verb form of}} and {{pt-conj}} is necessary to reflect the recent ortographic reform. (That is, basically, the dialect= parameter should be removed and the affected entries be marked as obsolete.) I'm planning to edit these templates today and notify you when I finish, so you may want to rewrite portions of your User:Volantsbot/ar template for more accurate and informative entries. --Daniel. 09:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
OK. This is fine. I think, I'll have more free time to spend on the internet soon, so I'll be available to play with this bot. And I didn't know anything about any orthographic reform, so thanks for the information. It was a while since I studied Portuguese, I didn't think anything would have changed since that time. --Volants 10:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


As you deal with German can you perhaps check this? Proxima Centauri 08:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I advise you to not ask me about specific entries outside the list of languages I speak at my user page. I removed the Category:de:adjectives from wienerisch, because this does not conform to the pattern of lexical categories (this should be Category:German adjectives, which is automatically generated by {{de-adj}}). I also removed a blank line and an empty "Pronunciation" section, but I cannot accurately tell you if this entry is correct. --Daniel. 09:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It's OK - I think I fixed it - it is simple enough German for me to understand. --Jackofclubs 09:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


Just a note: indefinite pronouns and demonstrative pronouns are generally also considered Determiners. --EncycloPetey 14:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles are also generally considered determiners, but I didn't include this automatic information in the category tree to avoid Category:Portuguese determiners, Category:Italian determiners, etc. in languages where the concept of determiner is not present. If these POS nuances are desirable (from the various manual links I have seen [5], they are desirable), perhaps I should as well consider personal pronouns as nouns and possessive pronouns as adjectives. -Daniel. 14:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
In some languages the possessive pronouns are considered adjectives, such as Latin. Most textbooks and manuals consider them adjectives rather than pronouns. The same is often true in Spanish. I've delayed on revising Latin possessives for this reason. I haven't decided how they would be best treated. I wouldn't make a general statement about which items should be grouped as determiners, since the idea is still new enough to the field that it hasn't been thoroughly investigated in many languages to test the idea of the separate classification. --EncycloPetey 00:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The idea of a category for determiners looks simple enough to have exactly these subcategories if they exist: articles, numerals, interrogative pronous, interrogative adverbs, demonstrative pronouns, indefinite pronouns, possessive pronouns and possessive adjectives. For languages that don't have clear distinctions between possessive "pronouns" or "adjectives" (and even other distinctions or subclasses, including English determiner/numeral and Japanese noun/personal pronoun), I can think of repeating definitions at multiple POS headers or simply explaining them at the POS appendices. --Daniel. 02:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


The definition given is "to used to" - this doesn't make sense in English. Is it like [[used to]]? --Jackofclubs 06:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed this definition now. --Daniel. 06:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


Another one - there's a strange template loop here --Jackofclubs 06:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And manusear has the same problem. --Jackofclubs 06:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Also reconhecer :) --Jackofclubs 06:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Dutch irregular strong verbs[edit]

I must have missed something here, but why was this deleted? The category is intended for strong verbs whose pattern of vowel alternations doesn't fit in with the established 7 classes of strong verb. These verbs are still strong, because they nonetheless show a vowel change to mark the past tense, and because they lack the characteristic -d- and -t- of the weak past tense. Now that the category is gone, I have no idea where to put verbs such as sterven, which is certainly not irregular, but doesn't belong to one of the regular 7 classes either! --CodeCat 19:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

My resources in Dutch did not present the concept of non-regular strong verbs: On the contrary, I could study at least nine classes. Though, as a novice in this language, I'll simply trust you and restore the category, with a different name. Preferably, non-irregular verb descriptions and categories should not contain the deceiving word irregular. So, I created Category:Dutch non-standard strong verbs for its function. The template should update it soon. --Daniel. 23:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It depends on what resource you go with, which classes of strong verb there are. Most sources (such as Wikipedia:Germanic strong verb) including myself go with 7 classes, since those are the classes that all Germanic languages share. It is from this point of view that verbs like sterven, helpen, werpen etc. are irregular or at least non-standard, because they do not belong to any of the 7 classes inherited from Germanic. Rather, they are mixtures of the features of classes 3 and 7 (at least in the case of the three I mentioned). There seems to have been (or perhaps still is) a tendency to move strong verbs to class 7 in Dutch, so this explains some irregularities. There are also some verbs which are mixed, and have both strong and weak forms (such as lachen and jagen). Hope that clears things up for you. :) --CodeCat 12:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

your post on my talk page[edit]

You posted on my talk page: "Category:English words affected by confusion I see you sugested a new category, created it yourself, then deleted the suggestion. Please do not delete discussions, because: [1] they are usually archived for historic purposes (in this case, they are moved to separate pages) and [2] someone may still want to respond, as fifty-eight minutes of existence is not sufficient to draw attention of other editors. --Daniel. 10:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)"

The reason I deleted my suggestion was that I subsequently found w:Categories#To_create_a_new_category and it seemed to me to make my suggestion irrelevant. People can still respond on the category's talk page. However, no-one had replied to my suggestion, so it didn't seem to qualify as a "discussion".--Tyranny Sue 11:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The link w:Categories#To_create_a_new_category directed me to Wikipedia, so I'll assume you meant this link: Wiktionary:Categories#To create a new category. This seems a fine but rather incomplete list of hints. For example, one common practice is that almost every category must be included in another category. Other possible way of improving your recent Category:English words affected by confusion is linking it to Appendix:English malapropisms. You don't need to worry about making perfect edits because occasionally someone will adjust the details where necessary. That said, you just make it easier for everyone by allowing discussion or simply notifying editors at one of our discussion rooms, specially after a brand new idea such as yours. --Daniel. 13:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Spanish verb indicative forms[edit]

I've nominated this for deletion (and by implication similar categories). I don't believe they serve any useful purpose. --EncycloPetey 17:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Except there are already hundreds of similar categories such as Spanish indicative forms. My recent ones were planned to have useful purposes even if the Wiktionary community chooses to delete them: naming consistency and easier navigation. --Daniel. 18:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Galician participles[edit]

This category should not be deleted, just as Category:Galician nouns and Category:Galician verbs, etc. It is the primary category level for that part of speech. --EncycloPetey 00:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Then it would have to be changed anyway: The Category:Galician participles contained only past participles (the present participles are still in the separate Category:Galician gerunds). But I'd rather consider participles as verb forms. --Daniel. 00:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
That's possible for some languages, but not possible for others. In Latin, participles are generally considered a separate part of speech because they have grammatical features of both verbs and adjectives, being neither wholly one or the other, and all of them have their own inflections. If they are a verb "form", then all 36 of the perfect participle inflected forms have to be crammed into a verb conjugation table, as do the present participle forms, future active participle forms, and future passive participle forms. Latin has four major kinds of participles, and three of those have full inflections for three genders and six cases (singular and plural).
There are some languages on Wiktionary where participles are treated as a separate part of speech, because that is the grammatically sensible thing to do. Latin and Ancient Greek are among the languages that do this. There are other languages where treating the participle as a separate part of speech does not make sense, such as English. It simply isn't feasibel to expect all the languages to categorize the participles in exactly the same way. --EncycloPetey 03:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
PS - Be aware that Latin gerunds are not participles. The "gerundios" of Iberian languages come from a blending of the Latin future passive participle (gerundivus) and gerund (gerundium). In Latin the gerundivus functioned as a passive adjective of any gender or number, but the gerundium functioned as an active neuter singular noun. Hence, a gerund in Latin counts as both a verb form (sort of) and as a class of noun. --EncycloPetey 13:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not know yet a language with participles that can't be considered verb forms.
In the languages I've studied, the characteristics shared by other parts of speech come from the fact that participles are not fully inflected when compared to other verb forms (for example, the verb form "eats" indicates an event ocurring now; and the participle "eating" indicates an event ocurring at a moment specified by compound conjugations such as "was eating").
If a word is a participle but may work exactly the same way as another POS, it should have multiple POS headers, such as the participle "fallen", the adjective "fallen" and the noun "fallen".
However, the participle as a separate POS is fine [1] as a way to distribute the various forms and prevent issues such as the cramming of conjugation tables (similarly, proper noun is a subclass of noun but we use separate categories and separate POS headers for it) and [2] for all languages that I don't know properly to decide. Then I defined the option {{poscatboiler|(language code)|participle}}, and I see no reason to not include a category for "participles" to each language that has participles. --Daniel. 04:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi there. Please note this; any idea what’s going wrong?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Titles of glossaries[edit]

I've brought the issue to Beer Parlour. --Dan Polansky 09:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey man[edit]

At least on ser, something's goin' wrong with Template:pt-conj/doWork. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Montenegrin extension code[edit]

Where did "zls" come from? It isn't an ISO code. "sla" (Slavic group) would seem to be a good code, so "sla-mon" ? Robert Ullmann 11:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"zls" is the ISO 693-5 code for South Slavic languages. See this link. --Daniel. 18:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, IC. We should update the text to note that we are using -5 codes for groups in some cases. Will do. Tx, Robert Ullmann 09:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
True. Sorry for the confusion. --Bequw¢τ 18:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


The alphabet seems worse than useless here. Categories like "Xxxn given names" are not supposed to have any names, and even in "Xxxn male/female given names" you rarely find more than 400 names; after that I try to create subcategories. Imagine you are a newcomer here and you see the alphabet. "Fine. I'll look at names beginning with M." Click! Nothing happens."They don't seem to have any names yet."

Could you please remove the alphabet? (I don't know how to edit templates). If you want an alphabet, maybe you could create a separate template, only to be used for giant size categories. I think that having too many templates might scare away potential contributors. It makes editing look like an esoteric science.

What really should be fixed in given name categories is wrong alphabetic order in languages like French, Spanish or Hawaiian. But I don't know if this is your field? --Makaokalani 12:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. Perhaps the better solution would be to automatically not show a Table of Contents in categories with less than 201 pages, where they are unnecessary anyway. This would logically include "Xxxn given names".
And yes, I can likely help you with templates and alphabetic order if you provide more accurate information about these issues. --Daniel. 22:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you really fix it so that the alphabet is invisible if there are less than 201 pages? It would solve all. And it would help to find the correct alphabetical order. I meant that every language has an alphabet of its own - in Portuguese A and Á come together, but the Wiktionary order is ABCD... abcd... and then back to upper case:ÁÀ etc.
What about the uppel level of name categories? Please see the discussion in WT:BP#Names.--Makaokalani 12:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


Hello Daniel, Portugese verb conjunction template pt-conj seems to be broken. See distrair, dizer. --Karelklic 19:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've edited {{pt-conj/doWork}} so that the problem is no longer visible in the title, although the content is still messed up. While my first inclination is to simply leave this for you to do, it appears you haven't been terribly active as of late, and this is a mess which needs to be cleaned up, so I'll try and sort this. Of course, this is your project, and so feel quite free to undo whatever work of mine you see fit when you get to it. However, I would make the small request that you let me know if/when you do so, as I would like to follow this, out of curiosity if nothing else. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, upon a bit more investigating, I see that we're in the midst of a subtemplate formatting transition. Making the requisite changes requires a lot of tedious edits which I don't really feel up to making, so I'll leave it to you. However, I would like to request that you make them in a timely fashion. Making a change where all the templates break if they're on the old system kind of expects the user to ensure that the templates are broken for as little time as possible. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The template transition is done. {{pt-conj}} is fully operational for the verbs that are listed on its talk page. Some new functions are also working properly, such as the automatic conjugation notes for each verb. --Daniel. 18:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks very much. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the clarification on "te amo". Are you from Brazil? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 00:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes, I am from Brazil. --Daniel. 00:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


That term is complex. It also holds the meaning vow, bind... but I decided not to enter those as yet. Thank you very much for repairing my error of judgment. I appreciate exacting and decisive action.
B9hummingbirdhoverin'æω 08:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Letter categories[edit]

I see you're busy changing categories for letter names. Two problems tho...

  1. Where did the change get discussed? (I may well have missed it since I don't always pay close attention to the discussion pages.)
  2. I don't think it is a good idea to have a category name scheme that would merge names for letters from different alphabets. In addition to category Category:ca:Latin letters which you have replaced with Category:ca:Letter names, there are also Category:ca:Hebrew letters and Category:ca:Greek letters.

The contents should remain part of separate categories, though I can see the reasoning behind switching to a name that would cause the category for the names of Latin characters in Catalan to not be a subcat of Category:Latin letters. — Carolina wren discussió 22:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that merging names for letters from different alphabets through categorization is a good idea, but I'm not interested in defending this point of view. In my opinion, separate categories for separate alphabets is also a good idea. The task I'm trying to fulfill is, as you said, cleaning up the Category:Latin letters. Except for the merging of letter names, the changes were not considered significant by me, so I did not start a discussion about them (Though there are numerous generic discussions about how to deal with lexical categories such as "Romanian letters" and how to deal with topical categories such as "es:Letter names", and my conclusion from these discussions was simply that letter categories are undesirably messed up). Perhaps it's better to choose different names for the topical categories categories in question, while keeping alphabets apart from each other. My suggestion is ca:Names of Latin letters, and so on. --Daniel. 22:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Given Wiktionary's aversion to prepositions in category names, might not Category:ca:Latin letter names, etc. be a better option? We might want to take this discussion to the Beer Parlor for input on how to name the subcategories, but I can live with either name scheme so long as it's consistent. — Carolina wren discussió 23:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Initially, the scheme of Category:ca:Latin letter names looks deceiving: the English version (Category:Latin letter names) could evidently be a category for "letter names" in Latin. On the other hand, since "letter names" is a subject, not a lexical item, its purpose becomes clear. In addition, the usage can be further clarified in the description. I think this way is much better than the old way involving Category:Latin letters directly, and I accept it as a good system of categorization of letter names. I do not see a particular reason to bring this conversation into WT:BP now, so I'll leave this decision to you. If you go there to look for more opinions about the issues in question, please notify me so I can participate.--Daniel. 01:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Made a sample change to alef. If you find either the description or the parents of Hebrew letter names inadequate, please improve. I'll get to work on other affected Catalan entries later. — Carolina wren discussió 06:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
That's good, thanks. I made a small change in {{topic cat description/Hebrew letter names}}, it should link to a category Hebrew script (instead of Hebrew letters) now. This change was done to reflect the fact that other languages also use the Hebrew script. You may want to see also Category:Latin script, which I am populating to have all characters based on Latin script, including for example "ç" and "Ë", which are not used on Latin language. --Daniel. 15:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not certain we want categories for the letters used in individual languages. One problem is that for letters such as A, that could result in having hundred of categories. Another is that technically speaking not every glyph is a letter. At least according to the IEC (the standards body for Catalan), the entry previously at Ç was wrong as Ç is the letter C with the diacritic ¸ attached. In general, I think it would be better to handle such matters via appendices than entries. — Carolina wren discussió 19:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Probably all letters officially recognized by any language meet WT:CFI individually, so they merit entries and lexical categories. Furthermore, each may have its own pronunciation, alternative forms, alphabetical order, usage notes, possible diacritics and so on. The entry a currently has many categories; though if its letter categories were removed, this entry would still have many categories, so I think the overpopulation is expected. As for the accuracy issue of having "non-letters" such as Ç in a category for letters, I can live with additional categories like Category:Catalan letters with diacritics (and, by extension, Category:Catalan ligatures and Category:Catalan digraphs if there are any), but I don't consider the group of letters with diacritics as sufficiently important to merit distinction through categorization: the Category:Catalan letters could contain all Catalan symbols directly based on letters, their nuances being explained at their definitions. --Daniel. 21:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Letters certainly meet CFI as Translingual entries, but the information on which languages use them and how they are used strikes me as encyclopedic information that happens to be sufficiently pertinent to warrant inclusion in an appendix, not dictionary entries. — Carolina wren discussió 22:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Finished getting all the Catalan entries into the new categories, and any entries with the same spelling in a different language I tried to take care of as I went along. I'll worry about whether the letters and glyphs themselves need per language categories another day. I'm certain if others agree with me, it'll head to RFDO sooner or later and that point doesn't matter to me as much as other things I'd like to attend to. — Carolina wren discussió 00:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I see, thanks. I've changed {{topic cat description/Latin letter names}} and related templates for more accuracy on letter names. Most items I have listed ("pronunciation, alternative forms,"[...]) at my previous message to you are common for other entries as well, not just letters. Being this one reason to have individual entries on letters, I'll continue to clean them up until further discussion. --Daniel. 16:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Fixed a couple of copy and paste errors in Template:topic cat description/Hebrew letter names and Template:topic cat description/Latin letter names, since I doubted you wanted them to mention Category:Greek script. Speaking of which Category:Greek script and Category:Hebrew script are both red links at the moment, but since I wasn't certain how you wanted them organized, I left them as red links for now. However, The parent category should probably be simply Category:Scripts Category:Writing systems instead of Category:All scripts as Category:Latin script now has.— Carolina wren discussió 19:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
As part of my project of cleaning up all categories for the symbols discussed, I'll certainly create and organize the script categories, but I consider Latin script as higher priority now. In my opinion, Category:All scripts is an elegant name for a top-level category that contains categories. For similar reasons, Category:All languages is also a good name for a category that contain language categories. Thank you for cleaning my typos. --Daniel. 02:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Leaving aside the question of elegance, which is just a matter of taste, the inclusion of that word All in a category name is not standard practice for Wiktionary, Commons, or Wikipedia. Category:All languages and its subcat Category:All sign languages are an exception to the usual practice. Aside from w:Category:All Blacks, on Wikipedia the word All is used only with maintenance categories, while over on Commons besides the All Blacks, it shows up in two categories about proteins to indicate that their components are all of one type.
There is also the consideration that on Commons and Wikipedia, the relevant category is not named Category:Scripts but Category:Writing systems, likely to avoid ambiguity over which meaning of script is meant. Granted, given Wiktionary's focus only one meaning is relevant, but over on Wikisource if they had such a category, it would be a totally different sense of the word script. (Wikisource uses s:Category:Plays.) — Carolina wren discussió 15:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
A "matter of taste" is not unimportant when choosing category names, specially if we consider solely standard practice a good way to reach decisions. Personally, I consider mostly Wiktionary standard practices when making choices on Wiktionary categorization; other projects may be linked manually when necessary. Considering Wikipedia categories, the top-level script category could probably be named Category:Entries by script (or Category:Entries by writing system) [6][7] [8] [9]; or perhaps Category:Script categories (Category:Writing system categories) [10]. Wiktionary doesn't have a strong policy on category naming conventions such as w:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), but the word "all" at the start of category names is not undesirable at all, if it can be used exceptionally. Furthermore, the top-level categories I am working on involve even more exceptions, such as Category:All parts of speech, recently created for {{poscatboiler}}. Maybe their existence and usefulness are sufficient to evolve the word "all" (or a similar separatist naming scheme) into non-exceptional consensus. Until then, I'm using Category:Scripts.
From what I see, the category named Latin script is, even without a description at this moment, clear enough to not be confused with any other definition of script related to Latin. And it is consistent with the abbreviation sc, which is common in many technical aspects of Wiktionary. --Daniel. 18:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The only reason I have for preferring writing systems over scripts for the meta-category is commonality with other Wikimedia projects, which is a decidedly secondary factor for the reasons you gave. As for the use of all, unless someone wants to use a topical category for scripts, which in my opinion would be overly specific as Category:Orthography is nowhere near in need of further subcategorization at the moment, we won't need Category:All scripts. At present, All is used only when needed to distinguish a topical category from a meta-category. Perhaps a more generic discussion of how to name meta-categories over at the Beer Parlor would be profitable. All is certainly better than the * used by Category:*Topics from the standpoint of elegance. — Carolina wren discussió 19:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
According to the description of Category:*Topics, the asterisk is meant to make a category appear at the top of category lists. Without any automatic or manual adjustments, its effect would work only for the English version, because it doesn't start with a code. I've started a discussion here at Beer Parlour on this matter. --Daniel. 18:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I also don't like the "All ..." prefix especially in the L3 category names. Every category attempts to broad in its coverage, there is no reason to make that explicit in the titles. Was there a technical reason that Category:All parts of speech was superior to Category:Parts of speech. Everyone seemed to be fine with the latter since 2004. Same thing with Symbols, {{symbcatboiler}} wants Category:All symbols instead of Category:Symbols. If there is no reason, I'd move to restructure according to how it was (and how Category:Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms still is). --Bequw¢τ 16:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Category:Parts of speech contains English words related to parts of speech (such as the entry noun), Category:All parts of speech contains part of speech categories (such as the category Nouns by language). I'd be against their merge. Category:Symbols for symbols is fine. --Daniel. 18:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Rug pulling[edit]

Was that move of the Dutch inflection page really so urgent? I lost a fair bit of typing that way... Jcwf 01:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I couldn't know that moving Appendix:Dutch parts of speech would make you lose imminent contributions. In fact, your contributions made easier for me to find that appendix with a title to be changed. As far as I know and as far as I experienced as a Wiktionary editor, there's no way to assure that nobody will edit a page you are editing, so you may expect conflicts like that occasionally from anyone. However, undesirable effects of such interruptions tend to be easily reversible; for example, many navigators such as Mozilla Firefox have a "Back" button, which in addition to going back to previous web pages, let you see everything you typed in their text boxes. --Daniel. 02:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Roman alphabet - letter names[edit]


Do you think it's a good idea to create translations/pronunciations of Roman letters in different languages? Not sure if a translation should be on a letter page itself or separately. For example, English or Latin A would have different names in different languages, even if referring to the English letter name /ei/, /a/, эй (ej), إي, エイ, etc. It would be useful for transcribing English abbreviation in other languages. --Anatoli 01:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I think it's a good idea to contribute with information about letters from various languages. Letter names are treated normally like other nouns: You may add translations to English letter names, such as bee and double U, which already have some; you may also create and/or edit entries for foreign letter names, such as ics and エイ, linking them to the English versions. At this moment, entries on letters themselves (ex.: A, B, C...) are relatively messed up, so you are welcome to improve them if/when you want. Language-specific names and language-specific pronunciations may be added to each letter entry, as you can see at the various languages listed here. In addition, appendices are a good way to list and comment about all letters of a language in one place, as you can see on Appendix:Spanish letters and Appendix:Polish letters. --Daniel. 03:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. A to a was OK but I don't quite understand why you moved from b to bee. It would be more consistent to leave where it was. You also removed gender and comments from the Russian translations. Why? Anatoli 04:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
"bee" is the English name of the letter b. Similarly, "a" is the English name of the letter a. You were translating names, not letters themselves, so these new places are certainly more consistent than the previous ones. I removed the comment "name and pronunciation of the English and Latin letter in other languages" because I considered this information too obvious to stay at a translation table. I also removed a "Latin, etc." from a Russian translation because the relation between Latin "a" and Cyrillic "а" would be better explained in their entries than in translations (according to standard practices and WT:ELE#Translations, detailed information should not be at translation tables). I do not remember removing genders from letters lately. --Daniel. 06:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, agreed. Thanks. Anatoli 00:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Appendix:Ancient Greek nouns[edit]

Umm...could you please put these back the way they were. The inflection templates on thousands of entries point to them, and I think each really deserves its own appendix. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I see, there are about fifty templates linking Ancient Greek entries to the three separate appendices for each declension. Rather than edit now all these templates to link them directly, I've redirected the appendices in question to Appendix:Ancient Greek nouns, which facilitates comparison between the declensions; on the other hand, when separated they were almost small enough to fit my monitor, which in my opinion, is a good arbitrary way to decide that any appendix deserves significant expansion and/or merge. Furthermore, the name "Ancient Greek nouns" is consistent with many other appendices ("English nouns", "Romanian nouns", etc.), and as a simple and generic name, it is easier to be remembered, and typed as web address. And, such naming system is programmed in {{poscatboiler}}, providing a very visible automatic link in Category:Ancient Greek nouns and in its supported subcategories. --Daniel. 17:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I must say I'm a little frustrated by this. Did it occur to you that the organization of Ancient Greek appendices had already passed through my mind before? Yes, Appendix:Ancient Greek nouns does need to exist, but what you've put there is not what goes there. Yes, the appendices for the first and second declensions are woefully inadequate, but they will, in time, be expanded, along the lines of that of the third declension, which still has a ways to go itself. Your efforts at organization and standardization are appreciated, but you must defer to people who are knowledgeable/involved in the languages in question. I'm reverting your stuff. I'll thank you very much to leave them. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I could naturally think that you're not particularly involved with where should stay the information now contained within Appendix:Ancient Greek first declension, Appendix:Ancient Greek second declension and Appendix:Ancient Greek third declension, as you did not create these appendices. According to my investigations, the creation and expansion of appendices for declensions with the word "declension" (normally preceded by an ordinal number) in their titles was initially a project by User:Muke, from 2004. However, instead of ignoring you, I gave good reasons to merge them into Appendix:Ancient Greek nouns and you gave mainly prospects of improvement, and seemingly considered such prospects as reasons to revert my edits. From your tone, looks like you're assuming that I'm against improvement of the appendices in question, which would be an untrue assumption. We agreed that an Appendix:Ancient Greek nouns should exist; and I say that it would seem highly incomplete if it don't mention declensions, because declensions are important information for Ancient Greek nouns. By the way, I'm sorry for leaving you frustrated, but I expected you were interested in discussing this issue, rather than simply suggesting that I shouldn't participate in your project. --Daniel. 01:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
First of all, while I didn't create any of the appendices, I have greatly expanded Appendix:Ancient Greek third declension. In more general terms, I consider Ancient Greek on Wiktionary as a whole as "my project" (which does not exclude others from making it their project as well). Thus, I am concerned about, and generally keep tabs on, everything which happens here related to Ancient Greek. Yes, I did note prospects of improvement, specifically to counter your dissatisfaction with the length of one and two (a dissatisfaction I share, by the way). However, aside from that, Appendix:Ancient Greek nouns is simply not the place for an extended discussion on morphology. Yes, it should be mentioned, but that appendix is for a general discussion of nouns, including their grammar, classification, etc. There was simply too much morphological info there as you had it. Each declension is complex enough that it easily merits its own appendix. The fact that we currently have no content at Appendix:Ancient Greek nouns is not sufficient justification for simply cramming whatever we happen to have on hand there. As for suggesting you not participate.....I don't think you ever had any intention of participating. You are not working on the Ancient Greek appendices, you are working on sorting the appendices in general, and happened to come across the Ancient Greek ones incidentally, as part of your project (which, by the way, is a worthy one, in my opinion). If you have concerns for your project, by all means share them, and I'd be happy to discuss how my specific interests in the Ancient Greek appendices can be made to work with your general interests for the appendices. However, as it stood, the way you had things set up was simply unacceptable. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
From what I saw, you weren't directly involved with their titles previously chosen (because you didn't create the appendices, move them or discuss about their titles). Then, I made a wrong assumption, for which I apologize: that you wouldn't mind if I moved their information to another appendix, specially one that seemingly meets the criteria of consistency for my project of standardization of lexical appendices. Technically, any constructive edit would mean "participation", so I was evidently talking about that move, and, by extension, about similar generic deeds, such as the addition [11] of {{langcatboiler}} at Category:Ancient Greek language last year. Though, while I'll probably never contribute on Ancient Greek in particularly greater scale than on most other languages, my generic plans go farther than editing titles and merging contents. I've started a page called User:Daniel./Ancient Greek nouns, which doesn't have much information by now, but can be improved in time. I'd like to move it to Appendix:Ancient Greek nouns under your acceptance; so, when you have time, please see it. Then, if this proposal has any errors or other urgent issues, please improve it through edits or through notifying me. I still want to discuss about how to name and organize the three declension appendices in question, but I consider a good noun appendix as higher priority at this moment. --Daniel. 10:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Daniel./Ancient Greek nouns looks reasonable. I'll make a few changes and move it within a couple of days (the problems are minor enough that you could probably move it now, and I'll edit it later, if you're in a hurry). I apologize for blowing up earlier. I guess I misjudged your intentions and motivations. However, I stand by my position that the three appendices are aptly named, and should each have their own separate existence. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 14:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Good. Then I'll explain the next subject or our conversation. There are two main criteria from my standardization project, that unfortunately are not fulfilled by the titles of these three separate declension appendices at this moment. Of course, while my personal preference is to inflict these criteria over every lexical appendix, you are welcome to discuss about whether they are valuable to the Ancient Greek ones or not. They are: consistency with categories and POS introduction. As lexical appendices describe groups of related words (presumably groups important enough to merit appendices), ideally every such appendix would be directly related to a lexical category, for example Appendix:English nouns and Category:English nouns. Such relation streghtens both the purposes of appendices and categories, by approximating lists and explanations in an intuitive and elegant way. The second criterion is that the part of speech in question would be described at the title of each appendix. By choosing only one POS (for instance, Ancient Greek nouns, Ancient Greek proper nouns or Ancient Greek adjectives, rather than Ancient Greek irregular plurals or similar abrangent titles, the only foreseeable exceptions being the top-level appendices of each language, such as Appendix:Ancient Greek parts of speech and Appendix:Ancient Greek affixes), I hope that visualizations and contributions become facilitated by this system of clarification of purposes of each appendix. Furthermore, they become more convenient for me to organize; and, according to my plans, this organization will eventually lead to a full list of appendices, which when together would also be clarified by their similar titles. From these criteria, I propose the following appendix names: Appendix:Ancient Greek first declension nouns, Appendix:Ancient Greek second declension nouns and Appendix:Ancient Greek third declension nouns. Similarly, categories would also be renamed to match them. --Daniel. 20:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think matching appendices to POS categories is an excellent idea in principle, but I think some flexibility will be required. To begin with, I don't believe that an appendix will be appropriate in all cases. I don't think that Appendix:Ancient Greek noun forms would be useful, even though we have that (admittedly kind of useless, but nonetheless necessary) category. Also, I don't think we should limit our appendices to POS cats, as there will doubtless be other useful appendices (Appendix:Ancient Greek consonant contractions is one I can think of off the top of my head). That being said, I would have no problem moving the three appendices in question to Appendix:Ancient Greek first declension nouns, etc. While I don't think it would improve the appendix intrinsically, matching it up to a pre-existing cat would be nice. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said, each lexical appendix would be related to a lexical category; not the contrary, as I didn't see a particular reason to keep one such appendix without a category. However, as you suggested, this system may not be perfect, so I'll clarify one specific and relatively flexible opinion of mine: I don't think it's necessary to have one category and one appendix for each lexical subject; but, when we want to keep lexical information, it should follow a consistent naming system. (For instance, this naming system says that Appendix:Hellenic languages and their inflections is not be acceptable either as category or appendix, therefore any worthy contents should be moved away from it; though, by the way, I share your opinion on the futility of Appendix:Ancient Greek noun forms.) As for your example Appendix:Ancient Greek consonant contractions, I have to say that contractions, abbreviations, initialisms, phrases, proverbs and other entries directly made from more than one word are still effectivelly untouched by me. But I think their treatment would be the same: we have categories for personal pronouns and interrogative pronouns so, by comparison, a category for consonantal contractions could be acceptable. Anyway, thank you for your time on discussing these issues. I'll move the Ancient Greek appendices and categories (such as Category:Ancient Greek nouns of the first declension to Category:Ancient Greek first declension nouns) according to our agreement and edit the related links. --Daniel. 04:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Letter D's[edit]

Hey, I saw that you added to Appendix:Unsupported titles the D's with commas below. Are they really unsupported? Can't we have the entries at ? Or is there a script issue I'm not aware of? Cheers. PS - I think you copied (w/o correction) the descriptions from to . --Bequw¢τ 13:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I was having some problems with Unicode on my computer, but it looks fine now. As far as I see, all the issues you've pointed in your message are now fixed, including the definitions of . Thank you very much. --Daniel. 14:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, those combining characters can be a pain. Thanks. --Bequw¢τ 17:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


Could you double check it please. It doesn't seem to be adding parent categories as it ought to. For example, Category:Catalan suffixes doesn't have Category:Catalan affixes as a parent, nor Category:Catalan suffix forms as a child. Also as long as you're mucking around with it, could you add support for prefix forms as there are some prefixes that alter form based on the root they attach to. — Carolina wren discussió 03:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't find any issue on suffix form categories (for example, Category:Catalan suffix forms was a child of Category:Catalan suffixes when I checked them, so I left them alone). The Category:Catalan suffixes didn't have Category:Catalan affixes as a parent indeed; this problem is now fixed. And, as you requested, the command {{affixcatboiler|(language code)|prefix form}} is now supported. --Daniel. 04:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

{{mul-script}} placement[edit]

The alphabet display boxes should not be above the first L3 sections. The correct place to show related characters is either in the Related terms or See also (see BP discussion). This hasn't been followed well in the past, usually because originally editors just noted the next & previous characters and that was small enough to fit in a floating box, the inflection line, or the definition line without too much layout problems. But when showing a whole sequence, either alphabets or digit sequences, like the alphabet display templates you are inserting, this can get very space-heavy. On pages such as and I can't even see the some of the definitions even when I move the TOC to the right. Please understand I greatly appreciate the cleanup you're doing to the basic characters (you've done a lot, and the entries need a lot of attention), but can you move the alphabet display templates you inserted to one of the proper headings below the definitions (similar to how {{punctuation}} is placed)? Thanks. --Bequw¢τ 17:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If such consensus is reached, I can certainly edit the current 784 entries that contain {{mul-script}} to change its placement. Though, when analyzing the BP discussion I did not found a consensus preventing exactly the addition of such templates under the L2 language header. In fact, four major templates ({{Zodiac}}, {{elements}}, {{cardinalbox}} and {{ordinalbox}}) appear as seemingly acceptable examples in that discussion; three of them are explicitly documented as being always placed under the language header. Personally, I think the current placement is great, but you may want to share your opinion with other editors through the new BP discussion I started at this link. --Daniel. 03:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course those can be placed anywhere, they float on the right-hand side. The issue with the alphabet display boxes (and those like it in the future) is that they are in the main content area. That's is where we need to stick to the having links in their proper places. --Bequw¢τ 12:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for placing this in See also on the new pages you are creating. Is it technically difficult to move the ones that were already inserted directly under the L2? I'd like to clean up some of the basic latin letters, but was going to wait until after you moved the existing {{mul-script}} instances. --Bequw¢τ 15:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. --Bequw¢τ 17:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Armenian letters[edit]

I thought I'd drop you a line to say that I'm going to remove the Translingual section of the Armenian letters (for the reasons outlined at the BP). Do you think we should keep uniformity and use {{mul-script/Armn}} or keep the original {{hy-script}}? --Bequw¢τ 01:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

When merging, I'd choose the contents from {{mul-script/Armn}} instead of {{hy-script}}, because the latter is too wide. In addition, I'm planning to edit it to include only individual romanizations, like the katakana entry . --Daniel. 01:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
When editing {{mul-script/Armn}} to include romanizations, please add also punctuation marks of Appendix:Unicode/Armenian somewhere, if possible. --Vahagn Petrosyan 07:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I've added the punctuation marks. I'm not sure about adding the romanizations. First off, {{Armn-script}} (a possibly better named redirect for {{mul-script/Armn}}) is really a navigation template and so is now listed in the See also section of the entries. Why would we add the romanizations to this navigation template? Would someone know the letter they want to look up by its romanization and not by its armenian script (and additionally not figure out to click on the Appendix link)? Secondly, as there are several Romanization systems, which would we show? Is ISO 9985 (which {{hy-script}} shows) the only widely used romanization? If not, it would seem better to not make a huge navigation template and instead put the various systems in the Appendix and the per-letter transliterations on each letter entry. --Bequw¢τ 13:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Because romanization is by definition a comparison between scripts. Most or all entry links at the See also section from Translingual letter A could fit into a navigation box; such links at these sections are common in other entries as well, and need seriously to be cleaned up (or, at least, removed in favor of variation appendices such as Appendix:Variations of "a" and simpler navigation boxes). --Daniel. 14:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstood Vahagn Petrosyan. If we are talking about showing the script-to-script transliterations for a single letter on that letter's entry, I'm in agreement and using a template makes sense. But if we talking about showing the whole alphabet transliterated using the up-to six standardized schemes on every entry, I'm not in agreement. --Bequw¢τ 18:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I meant a transliteration like in , i.e. of a single letter. And the only two Romanization systems of Armenian that are relevant are the Hubschmann-Meillet (used for Old Armenian) and ISO 9985 (modern Armenian). By the way, thanks for adding punctuation to {{mul-script/Armn}}. Do you think we can squeeze it in one line together with "Letter Combinations" in a pretty way? --Vahagn Petrosyan 18:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Merged onto one line. It'll be more work for the transliterations. --Bequw¢τ 20:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


I am a little confused as to what just happened. Is everything okay? :)--Thecurran 10:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, everything at WT:GP is okay. As you can see, nothing happened at all. --Daniel. 10:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


Were these supposed to be temporary definitions until the images are included? If not, this would be like defining '!' as "a vertical line with a dot below" (how it looks like rather than what it means). --Bequw¢τ 05:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The definitions from {{mul-braidef}} are supposed to function like "The letter C with a cedilla." found at Ç. Though, perhaps these generic statements from all Translingual characters could be moved and reformatted into the Etymology section. I'd be satisfied either way, as long as they're consistent. --Daniel. 06:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Braille dots were designed as a different character encoding scheme to represent existing characters, not as "new" letters (e.g. 'Ç'). Our definitions will therefore be about this encoding rather than be generic letter definitions (e.g. "C with cedilla"). This happens anytime an alternative character encoding scheme is allowed to be represented in our page titles. For instance, Wiktionary's signed transcription system allows rendering of the ASL manual alphabet letters, so the definitions on these entries will as be similar to what Braille definitions should be ("the letter X") and the physical production stuff goes somewhere else (WT:ASGN designates as Production header). For Braille, we don't need an additional header. It can be consistently displayed via the pictures (which exist) and the Unicode names. It is clearly not etymological. Please fix these entries. --Bequw¢τ 13:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


Is it possible to put languages which have no parameter for the country they're spoken in into a special maintenance category, like Category:Languages needing family? -- Prince Kassad 12:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible. Though not very useful, in my opinion. One family per language is enough in most cases, therefore an automatic list of languages without family presumably shows exactly which information needs to be fulfilled in the moment. This is not true for countries. --Daniel. 10:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


This template is incorrectly named. The etyl: namespace is for the subtemplates used by {{etyl}}. (FYI the abbreviation "etyl" stands for "etymology language"). An easy mistake to make. Please move the template to a new name (maybe "ety-Brai") and update the references so editors aren't confused about the namespace. --Bequw¢τ 13:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved to {{Brai-ety}}. --Bequw¢τ 22:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --Daniel. 10:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-translingual characters[edit]

Many of the Latin-letter variants, for which you created entries (both new pages and Translingual entries on pages that had only one other entry), are not Translingual. I can not find, for instance, [[ɇ]] (w:E with stroke) used for anything but "Southeastern Tepehuán language". Can you please hand-check your L2's before creating more entries and also fix up the ones that you created? Thanks. --Bequw¢τ 04:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

posboiler for ergatives[edit]

Hi Daniel, I saw that you added a short description for ergative verbs, which I applaud because I think for West-Germanic languages such as my mothertongue (Dutch) they are an important category. I think I understand your description as follows. A verb like to melt in English can be used either as:

  1. transitive I melt the ice
  2. ergative The ice melts

In Dutch it is the same:

  1. transitive Ik smelt het ijs
  2. ergative Het ijs smelt

However, I would not call the whole verb melt the ergative but only #2. Reason: in Dutch there are many verbs that only occur in the sense of #2 and that are a group apart in that they have the following characters in common:

  1. The perfect auxiliary is zijn (to be) not hebben (to have)
  2. There is no clear agent. (The verb describes an autonomous process, there is not 'culprit'. They can also be a movement.)
  3. There are no passive forms at all. (Truly intransitive)

Particularly the perfect is a dead give away in Dutch:

  1. transitive Ik heb het ijs gesmolten
  2. ergative Het ijs is gesmolten.

There are also intransitive verbs in Dutch that do take hebben in the perfect:

  1. De hond blaft - The dog barks
  2. De hond heeft geblaft. - The dog has barked.

These verbs do have a passive in Dutch albeit an impersonal one:

  1. Er wordt geblaft. - There is barking going on.

These verbs are either called unaccusative or -as we do at nl.wikt:- inergative. At nl we have dropped the epiteth intransitive entirely for Dutch and split them up in ergatives and inergatives, but I'm not sure if the same can be done for English.

In English the distinction ergative / inergative is much less distinct because all perfects take to have and this means ergatives only stand out if the verb is also used as transitive. In Dutch, German and probably also in some of the smaller West-Germanics like Frisian, Limburgish the different prefect aux makes them recognizable even as they stand alone.

E.g. Du stollen (to solidify) can only take 'to be'. It can not be used as a transitive. It is a process that has no agent and no passives: clearly ergative. (For us it is actually strange to say: it 'has' solidified. It feels weird.)

Sorry for the long rant but I would like to use the label ergative the way I do at nl.wikt and the way you have defined it now is rather restrictive and does not really cover the content of Category:Dutch ergative verbs

I'd appreciate your thoughts. Jcwf 03:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The current description of ergative verb categories is supposed to be generic and true for all languages where such verbs exist. As for "not call the whole verb melt the ergative but only #2", multiple definitions are common in Wiktionary entries. I'd not call the whole English word fish a verb. You could create new categories such as Category:Dutch intransitive ergative verbs if suitable, to express detailed distinctions. Additionally or alternatively, you could improve Appendix:Dutch ergative verbs with related information. --Daniel. 14:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


Somethin's wrong with the pt-conj templates again... — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 17:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. The problem at poder is easily verifiable. apparently assumed that both {{pt-conj}} and {{ca-conj}} work in the same way, because this user copied the template calling from Catalan to Portuguese, down to the parameters but using Portuguese values, despite naturally not working. I've fixed it now, using the parameter scheme documented at {{pt-conj}}. Thanks for pointing me to this entry. --Daniel. 03:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing :) I figured you would be the best person to go to, I have no idea how the new pt-conj templates work with all the sub-stuff. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


What's the difference in purpose between Appendix:Latin script & Appendix:Roman script? --Bequw¢τ 05:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no different purposes for them. And I support their merge, specifically being "Latin script" a better name than "Roman script" in my opinion. --Daniel. 09:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Per the header of Appendix:Roman script, they used Roman rather than Latin so as not to confuse people with Latin the language (which is probably a more common confusion than confusing Roman script with "Roman font"). I'll leave a redirect either way. --Bequw¢τ 17:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


Ruakh has implemented a workaround. See my talk page for more. --EncycloPetey 20:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi, would there be any possibility of getting this to support idioms? 50 Xylophone Players talk 11:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not in {{poscatboiler}}. I'd like to make a separate template for idioms, phrases and other terms composed of groups of words. --Daniel. 18:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, looking forward to it. :) 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey there[edit]

Hey there Daniel. Just wanted to say great work so far :). Keep it up :) If you ever need any help with Ido or Esperanto, let me know :). Cheers, Razorflame 01:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess I can't accurately imagine how I caught the attention of someone specifically interested in Ido and Esperanto, but thank you. :) --Daniel. 01:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Because I'm also interested in Portuguese :) Cheers, Razorflame 01:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Galician spellings‎[edit]

Why create these categories? What else will they ever contain? --EncycloPetey 17:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Categories such as Galician spellings‎, Mandarin spellings‎ and Hebrew spellings‎ are supposed to contain spelling categories. (And possibly links to appendices, by the way, which could explain spelling reforms of languages when necessary.) --Daniel. 17:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
But we have no such appendices for 99+% of languages, and no one is working on them. There is only one spelling category: Alternaitve spellings, so there is no reason to add another step in the category hierarchy. It means an extra click for our users, which is going to be perceived as an inconvenience. I am going to nominate these categories for deletion. --EncycloPetey 18:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
There are alternative spellings, obsolete spellings, archaic spellings and misspellings. And some more varieties in Hebrew and Armenian. --Daniel. 18:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
We have no way of marking obsolete spellings or archaic spellings. We only have a way to mark obsolete senses and archaic senses. You will need to propose and create a whole new system for marking obsolete and archaic spellings that distinguishes these from meanings that are archaic or obsolete. --EncycloPetey 18:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
My mistake, I see that we have such a system, but that it currently is used in only two languages (English and French), which is why I knew nothing of it. With only two such subcategories, creating a whoile new category structure across all alphabetic languages still seems more counterproductive than helpful. --EncycloPetey 19:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I could find sixteen categories for obsolete spellings up to date. For an accurate (yet incomplete, as I'm still organizing them) report of how many of each spelling category exists, I suggest checking Category:All spellings. --Daniel. 14:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Alos note: Mandarin, Korean, and Japanese do not have "spellings" since they are not alphabetic languages. Words categorized in CJKV "spelling" categories will need to be moved. --EncycloPetey 19:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget {{nonstandard spelling of}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
In that whole mess of spelling categories, I almost forgot this. {{nonstandard spelling of}} is now officially included in my project. Thanks! --Daniel. 14:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Appendix:English spellings[edit]

I assume you only moved the page here to avoid red links in categories. Given the whole thing was irrelant and written in the first person, I moved it to the talk page. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Your assumption is technically incorrect, because related categories (such as English misspellings) were programmed to avoid red links: if the appendix does not exist, the link is not shown. Thank you for moving it to the talk page, I agree it's better now. --Daniel. 14:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


Do you intend to expand, update, or otherwise maintain this list? There are three of four Euorpean langauges I know of with ISO subdivisions that I might add. Also, do you intend the right-hand column to eventually provide guidance as to how the language subdivisions are handled on Wiktionary. I think that could be very helpful. --EncycloPetey 21:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I do intend to mantain and update this list to reflect actions taken at other places such as discussions and votes, but I have no intentions of expanding it out of the blue again, right now. If you have more specific ideas on improving the right-hand column or other aspects of WT:LANGTREAT, feel free to notify me. --Daniel. 22:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
As an example, we often have to deal with Chaozhou/Teochow entries, which we treat as a regional dialect of Min Nan. We treat Min Nan as a language in its own right, but treat all forms of Quechua as a single language. Notes like that could make the page a very useful reference. --EncycloPetey 22:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see the codes he and sh in the list; the table was designed through templates to provide links to "related discussions" and "related votes" easily. Generic statements such as "Only the macrolanguage Quechua is treated as individual language." are also available. --Daniel. 22:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For your hard work in making a very usable and good looking page Bequw¢τ 23:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Nice star. Thank you. --Daniel. 15:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are interested...[edit]

Hey there. If you are interested, I just saw Tbot make matinê, which could use some clean up (most likely). Anyways, if you are into cleaning up after Tbot, then go for it. Anyways, see ya, Razorflame 04:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that Tbot creates automatic definitions in various languages, including Portuguese, based on English translation tables. I agree, matinê is lacking features such as inflection templates and perhaps some synonyms. If you don't need that entry right now, I prefer to give higher priority for other words; Portuguese nouns need attention as a whole and will be cleaned up by me eventually. If you do need that entry, rest assured; matinê is correct and accurate. --Daniel. 05:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Nope, I don't need it made. Thanks for the information. Cheers, Razorflame 05:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

à contre-coeur[edit]

Huh? Is the "diacritics" category deprecated? o.O 50 Xylophone Players talk 14:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I consider the category "diacritics" deprecated. This deprecation is part of my project of cleaning up spelling categories, which is being discussed in some places, including my user talk page, the WT:RFDO, the WT:SPL and the WT:GP, though I think this specific category hasn't gone into discussion yet. If you have reasons to want it back (or to want another scheme), feel free to inform me. --Daniel. 14:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Nah, if people want it "nuked" then I'll just stop adding it to entries. 50 Xylophone Players talk 14:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Category deleted. You may want to see Category:English rare spellings and its subcategories. --Daniel. 14:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

one hundred percent[edit]

Even though this has basically the same meaning as completely, I think it would probably make sense to keep the translations separate, because those are probably literal translations of "100%", not just words denoting completeness. --Yair rand 04:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Literal translations such as totalmente related to totally are etymological information. They may be found by searching through grammatical stems. --Daniel. 04:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The two words are not one hundred percent synonyms, so I have restored the Translations table. There are uses and shades of meaning for completely that one hundred percent does not have. Also, note that completely has two definitions, but that one hundred percent has only one definition. This is a problem when redirecting Translations sections, and when it does happen, {{trans-see}} probably should not be used. --EncycloPetey 20:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, in cases where there are multiple translations sections, one could simply use {{trans-see|gloss of the correct table|pagename}}, which would be clear enough, I think. --Yair rand 20:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
No, because it would not match with any definition on the page. The {{trans-see}} header should point to pages with fewer definitions (and ideally one only), not to pages with more. --EncycloPetey 20:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Then, perhaps it's better to also clean up 100 percent. I'm not interested in doing this right now; perhaps later. --Daniel. 02:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

name appendices[edit]

Please stop. Consensus has not yet been achieved. --Yair rand 23:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied at BP. --Daniel. 04:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


You are great at categorizing. Care to make a boiler for Category:Armenian diminutives and its ilk? --Vahagn Petrosyan 22:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. A similar category naming scheme was already available. If you don't mind a name different from Armenian diminutives, please use [[Category:Armenian noun diminutive forms]]. --Daniel. 00:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, didn't know. Do you think we should have [[Category:Armenian proper noun diminutive forms]]? An error happens when I try to create {{poscatboiler|hy|proper noun diminutive form}}. Also, could you expand the text "...inflected to display context of small size or small intensity" to include the terms of endearment. See, e.g. w:Diminutives. --Vahagn Petrosyan 00:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
There is also this unrelated thing I can't fix. --Vahagn Petrosyan 00:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I think [[Category:Armenian proper noun diminutive forms]] is a good idea, since proper nouns here are often treated considerably separate from other nouns; it's supported by {{poscatboiler}} now. Same for [[Category:Old Armenian indeclinable adjectives]]. --Daniel. 01:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Very good, thanks. For the future, these should be sorted. Also, the behavior of {{diminutive of}} should be changed, otherwise categories of [[Category:XXian diminutives]] format will be recreated all the time. --Vahagn Petrosyan 02:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Please clarify how {{diminutive of}} should be changed. Categories such as [[Category:Armenian diminutives]] may be considered nonstandard when compared to the clearer scheme of [[Category:Armenian noun diminutive forms]], but they're a natural alternative when a POS is not chosen. --Daniel. 02:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of automatically sending the words to some cleanup list when pos= is not specified. By the way, another broken category and I am scared of editing poscatboiler/theList. I saw you added nice categorization for augmentatives: would you perhaps consider doing the same for {{causative of}} and {{passive form of}}? I plan to use these for Armenian verbs abundantly. --Vahagn Petrosyan 03:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
You may want to gather consensus through a discussion at WT:GP, before a transformation from the well known category naming scheme [[Category:Armenian diminutives]] into a error such as possibly [[Category:Armenian diminutives lacking part of speech]] occurs.
As you can see, the [[Category:Hiligaynon verb diminutive forms]] is now supported by {{poscatboiler}} and may be populated by {{diminutive of}} with a |pos=verb parameter.
Both [[Category:Armenian verb passive forms]] and [[Category:Armenian verb causative forms]] are also supported by {{poscatboiler}}; they may be populated by templates {{causative of}} and {{passive form of}}. Both these templates lack a |pos= parameter and assume "verb", because I did find only causative verb forms and passive verb forms. --Daniel. 06:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving templates and other things[edit]

I've always wonder why you rename templates and suppress the redirect so often. I've seen you do that with one template about ten times. I've moved {{pt-verb/ar}} to a standard title. I do appreciate that waiting for consensus on Wiktionary is very slow while acting alone is very quick and efficient, but be careful about speedy deleting categories without consulting anyone (such as diacritial ones). Mglovesfun (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you moved {{pt-verb/ar}} to {{pt-conj-ar}}. Please revert. I can't guess accuratelly what you mean by "standard title", since there are different schemes for conjugation template titles at Wiktionary, and the current {{pt-conj-ar}} simply doesn't work like any of them that I know; furthermore, it breaks the current system explained at {{pt-verb}} and {{pt-conj}}. As far as I remember, all discussions about Portuguese verb conjugations have been settled without further objection; if you are unsure about consensus on these pt templates, you might start a new discussion at WT:BP about how they should be changed. --Daniel. 02:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I've moved {{pt-conj-ar}} to {{pt-verb/ar}} and suppressed the redirect. As you can see at my previous message, the redirect you created wouldn't even work on its own. That is, the system based on {{pt-verb}} and {{pt-conj}} would have to be more drastically changed; or, alternatively, {{pt-conj-ar}} could exist as an additional template to redirect parameters to {{pt-conj| |ar}}. Any of these changes is possible; and suggestions are welcome. Though "standard title" and even "why you rename templates and suppress the redirect" are, as I see, meaningless statements. If you object the current Portuguese verb conjugation templates or any other Wiktionary concepts that I work on, please be more specific on: where lies your disagreement (possibly a link to my contribution, or a name less generic than simply the namespace "templates"); what's wrong with them; and preferably, please suggest how they could be improved. --Daniel. 06:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion debate (in French)[edit]

Here. Portuguese speaker needed. Thanks. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't speak French, so I won't participate directly in that discussion. Nevertheless, música para acompanhar is indeed a Portuguese term; a very common phrase. See entry [12]. --Daniel. 11:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:English terms spelled with 0 and similar[edit]

Why does this link to "*" (at the top) instead of to "0"? SemperBlotto 18:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to this error. It probably ocurred when I was programming the support for [[Category:English terms spelled with *]], which unlike most similar categories, doesn't have upper case and lower case variations, therefore it needed a slightly different description. The links are working properly now. --Daniel. 18:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Appendix:Hebrew parts of speech[edit]

Hi. You moved Appendix:Hebrew declension to Appendix:Hebrew parts of speech a while back, and I was wondering if it's really necessary. The appendix really does deal specifically with declension, but only with some parts of speech (not verbs; this is why I just put a note atop it directing the reader to another appendix for verbs). Is there something wrong, or wronger than "Hebrew parts of speech", with "Hebrew declension"?​—msh210 17:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, msh210. Based on the current contents of the appendix, I can safely say the title Appendix:Hebrew declension would also be correct. Although, I'm inclined to choose the current title Appendix:Hebrew parts of speech. One reason for my choice is simply coherence with other similarly-named appendices, for instance, Appendix:English parts of speech. If all these related appendices share the same naming scheme, they are easier to find. Another reason is the fact that the Hebrew appendix is not absolutely informative either way: it could be improved with more details about declensions or about parts of speech in general; or both. --Daniel. 17:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was thinking each Hebrew appendix (main ones, not subpages) should include a boxed link to the others à la w:template:content policy list (see it in use at w:WP:NPOV) or w:template:style (in use at w:WP:MOS). What do you think?​—msh210 18:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
A box containing links to related Hebrew appendices is indeed a good idea. I may express more accurate opinions and contributions after I see it. --Daniel. 18:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Template:he-appendices?​—msh210 19:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The appendix Hebrew patterns and its subpages are unclear to me. They seem to explain how particular groups of letters are found in words, so their contents may be moved to Appendix:Hebrew spellings. --Daniel. 19:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You may find Wiktionary_talk:About_Hebrew#Patterns. interesting and informative. I don't think it should move to Appendix:Hebrew spellings.​—msh210 19:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Wiktionary_talk:About_Hebrew#Patterns. was interesting and informative indeed. Although, while the existence of patterns became clearer to me, I still think that Appendix:Hebrew spellings would be a good new name for Appendix:Hebrew patterns, while Patterns may be a L2 section inside it; this proposal would also be consistent with similar appendices such as Old French spellings and Portuguese spellings. In addition, would you consider adding Appendix:Hebrew given names to Template:he-appendices? --Daniel. 15:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The Old French and Portuguese appendices are really abou thow to spell words; the Hebrew one is a list of patterns used to form words (irrespective of their spelling, though of course each pattern is spelled a certain way), or perhaps can be a discussion of such patterns. it's really not about spelling at all. By all means bring this to Wiktionary talk:About Hebrew for more input if you disagree. I'll add given names.​—msh210 22:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Alright. Aside from the current naming scheme that includes patterns, I have no more objections. The {{he-appendices}} looks useful and suitable. Nice work. --Daniel. 22:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


Hey again. What do you think of adding support for alternative forms to this? In case you don't know, from what I gather, the difference between alt sp.'s and alt forms is that alt forms is generally used for alt forms of words that have a different pronunciation and of course it'd surely be appropriate for stuff like o.O. :) So: Is plausible? What do you think of it? 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I know; in Wiktionary, alternative forms is basically synonym of synonyms. Although, some cleaning up could be done, as various members of English alternative forms might belong to English alternative spellings instead. The English spellings, its subcategories and similar categories for other languages were designed to contain words differentiated by groups of characters, such as English color/colour and perhaps Japanese コンピュータ/コンピューター. So, in my opinion, alternative forms should be avoided in it. For the sake of organization and coherence with the current categories, the name spellings simply doesn't fit variations of words, for example and reality TV and reality television; or head south and go south. --Daniel. 21:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Well then, is there any catboiler template which you think would suit these forms? (sorry for late reply but I've been busy on Wiktionary and IRL.) 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I prefer to create and maintain catboiler templates for more well-defined categories. I've started a discussion at WT:BP#English synonyms on this issue. --Daniel. 20:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


Na'vi does not pass our CFI. Would you like to make an Appendix instead? --Bequw¢τ 15:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Appendix:Na'vi already exists. Conrad.Irwin 15:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Yes, I just saw that. I'm more concerned about his recent conlang additions that aren't appendices: {{art-nav}}, Category:Na'vi language, {{qya}}, Category:Quenya language, {{sjn}} and Category:Sindarin language. The constructed languages are restricted to Appendices, so these should be deleted, especially the language-code templates since we don't want people using them for entries and translations. --Bequw¢τ 15:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
How the fact that fictional constructed languages does not meet our criteria for inclusion influences the existence of templates and categories for these languages? I did not found anything at WT:CFI (or at WT:LANGCODE, by the way) that supports your view on this issue, Bequw. --Daniel. 15:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
(another edit conflict) See the recent BP discussions of constructed languages in 2008 and 2007 where "restrict to Appendix" was used synonymously with "disallowed from the main namespace". The issue of categories has not been explicitly brought up, but I don't think they're desirable. Why have a category that by policy will be basically empty? If it's just to get better visibility of the Na'vi appendix a better bet would be to add it to Wiktionary:List of languages (where Sindarin and Quenya already are). Who would even be looking in the category space for them?
Normal language code templates for these conlangs should not be allowed because we want to have only normal language code templates for possible entry L2's. This is why Template:tlh was deleted. This is why we partition off etymology-only codes to the etyl:*. (Find these discussions by searching for {{etyl}}, the old dot-style etymology templates, fr-ca/CA, etc.) --Bequw¢τ 16:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
To answer your question, I, as a Wiktionary editor who is interested in organization, appearance, consistency and user-friendliness of category trees, would certainly look for languages by searching in related categories. There is a Category:All languages and there is another called Category:Constructed languages, and, as you pointed out, there are even other lists of languages in the Wiktionary: namespace, so Quenya, Klingon, Na'vi and other fictional languages must be findable in all these options, as long as they are up-to-date and accurate. Certainly, I'm not the only person who has been using, editing and improving the current system. If you don't feel comfortable by using language categories, constructive ideas are welcome, including the idea of deleting categories of fictional languages. However, this specific proposal breaks the scheme. If I have the knowledge and want to edit Quenya in Wiktionary, I would respect the place to do it. Not in entries, but in appendices - it seems very reasonable. But I would want to find the place easily.
That said, the etyl: system seems very good. Perhaps, similarly, {{ficl:sjn}} ("fictional language: Sindarin") could be the code for Sindarin, specifically programmed to not work in entries. --Daniel. 01:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Very good idea about a new language code prefix. Maybe we can make the prefix conl: so that it can handle other reasons that a language is not allowed by the CFI (constructed languages independent of fictional worlds & reconstructed languages). That is assuming we'll use codes for these languages. Currently they are only used in {{langcatboiler}}, right? Not sure. Maybe it's good to have codes for them anyways.
I would say that including a link to Category:Fictional languages appendices in the header of Category:All languages and Category:Constructed languages would be much better than having actual categories for nonCFI languages. As for breaking the structure of [template cat inside language cat], the consistency is nice when it makes sense, but here I don't think so.
How do these changes sound? --Bequw¢τ 23:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree, conl: is a good idea for the new language code prefix.
Currently, the discussed language codes are used in {{langcatboiler}} and {{tempcatboiler}} (to create the automatic text at [[Category:Na'vi templates]]). Possibly, the existing Na'vi templates could be renamed to reflect the current scheme. That is, if pt-verb, en-verb and many more similar templates exist, I'd expect sjn-verb and art-nav-verb as well.
The idea of categorizing [[Category:Constructed languages]] together do makes sense, as much as categorizing [[Category:Reconstructed languages]] together. A link at [[Category:All languages]] specifically for constructed languages, as I imagine, would draw too much unnecessary attention for them. --Daniel. 14:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I'll let you move the language codes to the new prefix as you'll have to retool {{langcatboiler}}. I link in the category header probably is too much. I think we could have a category for languages not allowed by the CFI Fictional languages wasn't general enough so I moved the appendices to Constructed languages appendices. But now that seems overly broad as a similarly named category Constructed languages includes both allowed and disallowed languages. What if instead we had a category such as Disallowed languages, Non-CFI languages, or Appendix-only languages? Do any of those work? --Bequw¢τ 14:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see you posted a similar idea in the BP. --Bequw¢τ 19:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
{{langcatboiler}} is now ready for the prefix conl:. From these three naming possibilites, I prefer Appendix-only languages, because, even if Wiktionary editors are used to say Disallowed languages or Non-CFI languages to point to the languages which should appear only in appendices, this meaning is not ineherently obvious. That said, as reconstructed languages are also appendix-only (or "disallowed", or "non-CFI"), I've created a more detailed category: Appendix-only constructed languages. I've also updated WT:LANGCODE. --Daniel. 08:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I reverted that change. I'll leave Category:Fictional languages appendices, but delete it if you think it's now redundant to the categories you just made. Thanks. --Bequw¢τ 15:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

More accurately, "to pass CFI" is a subjective expression. Na'vi definitely passes CFI, as meriting definitions in the appendix namespace. Surely, templates and categories would be welcome for them if presumably they help to improve Wiktionary. There is a small quantity of Na'vi templates, which naturally are categorized together, in a subcategory of Na'vi language. --Daniel. 16:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure everyone who says "passes CFI" means for the normal namespace. I did not argue with Category:Na'vi templates only with the language category. A better parent cat would be at Category:Fictional language templates to match Category:Fictional languages appendices. --Bequw¢τ 16:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
You didn't argue with Category:Na'vi templates, I did. As you can see at my message above, I wouldn't want to break the current system, in which a Category:(language) templates is expected to be one subcategory of Category:(language) language. --Daniel. 01:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


Olá Daniel! Que bom achar um administrador lusófono aqui. Você sabe o que faz funcionar o {{#section:Index:Portuguese/w|toc}} em Index:Portuguese/w? É que lá no Wikcionário, eu botei a mesma função ({{#section:Vocabulário:Português/w|toc}}) na página Vocabulário:Português/w e não funcionou? Cumprs. Luan (discussão) 05:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Olá. Nas páginas Special:Version e pt:Especial:Versão, você pode ver as extensões que estão instaladas no Wikcionário em inglês e português, respectivamente. Para ativar o comando {{#section:Vocabulário:Português/w|toc}}, primeiro a extensão Extension:Labeled Section Transclusion deve ser instalada no Wikcionário em português. --Daniel. 06:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


My bad! Foi um lapso de memória, tinha me esquecido dessas palavras. Obrigado por me corrigir. Jesielt (user talk) 15:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

acronyms in Template:poscatboiler[edit]

Hello Daniel.. I have tried using Template:poscatboiler in Category:German acronyms, but it seems not to function properly. What am I doing wrong? --Volants 13:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, in Category:Polish imperfective verbs and Category:Polish perfective verbs. Maybe more. --Volants 13:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Not all parts of speech are supported by {{poscatboiler}} yet, specially in-depth ones such as imperfective verbs, which require distinct descriptions. At the template's talk page, there's a list of supported commands; please see it. I've now programmed the two options {{poscatboiler|(language)|perfective verb}} and {{poscatboiler|(language)|imperfective verb}}, so you may use them. Although, perhaps [[Category:German acronyms]] isn't suitable as a subcategory of [[Category:German parts of speech]], so I left it alone until further discussion. --Daniel. 14:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi Daniel, would you add the <language> citations category to this template? For example, as a result, the Category:Hungarian citations will be listed in Category:Hungarian language page, and the same for other languages. Thank you. --Panda10 00:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Daniel. 22:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


You deleted this but it is still used on 2 pages. Is there something to replace it with? Nadando 19:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Carolina wren deleted [[Category:Shanghainese language]] before I deleted {{zhx-sha}}. As I remember, I was simply following her lead on considering Shanghainese to be a dialect, not a language. To substitute that template and still treat Shanghainese as a dialect, I've now created {{etyl:Sha.}} --Daniel. 14:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

some more {{poscatboiler}} considerations[edit]

Looking at Wanted Categories, I think you may or may not want to consider adding support to this for ambitransitive and ditransitive verbs. 50 Xylophone Players talk 14:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Two current Icelandic categories. I see. Support added. --Daniel. 15:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:alternative spelling of‎[edit]

What's this "Dass" stuck on the end? Did you test your changes? SemperBlotto 15:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The "}Dass" was one effect of a single bracket out of place. It's fixed now, as expected of whatever error that could happen by editing a relatively messy code for the sole purpose of making it cleanier. Yes, I did technically test my changes, by having a few entries ready to be checked promptly. --Daniel. 16:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, these wiki templates are a dreadful mass of brackets. I always generate a temporary template and test it privately, then implement it after testing. Cheers. SemperBlotto 16:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Creating a separate temporary template is a nice idea, which I may use for my next complex template edits (as I've already done, several times). This was just one time I didn't think a error would happen, especially after reading the code in a long and careful way, but unfortunately not error-proof. Cheers. --Daniel. 16:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Appendix templates[edit]

Regarding {{apphead}}, prefixing appendix templates with "app" is problematic because "app" is the ISO code of the Apma language, which is why I prefixed the appendix templates that I made with "apdx". Also, wouldn't it make sense to have it based on the same kind of patterns as the regular templates (- for uncountable/uncomparable, verb forms set like {{en-verb}}, forms set by X=, etc.)? And one more thing: what are the advantages of using {{apphead|title}} over '''title'''? --Yair rand 19:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, templates for individual languages are named as language code followed by hyphen, so I don't consider the name "Template:apphead" particularly problematic as having potential to be confused with something directly related to the Apma language. Similarly, {{trans-top}} begins with "tr" and "tra" (codes for Turkish and Tirahi), {{temp}} begins with "te" and "tem" (codes for Telugu and Timne) and {{also}} begins with "als" (code for Tosk Albanian). Even apdx begins with apd. Furthermore, head was chosen on purpose, as an uncommon ending which is not used by other templates (there is no "Template:pt-head" or "Template:pthead") and very understandable as dealing with headwords.
Yes, new ideas for {{apphead}} are welcome. Though, proposing "the same kind of patterns as the regular templates" is subjective and prone to various interpretations.. Here are some schemes that would fit this description, regardless of which template name ("apphead" or "apdx") is used, to define the hypothetical fictional term incredibabble, an uncomparable adjective:
The following version is simpler as having to type less characters and remember less concepts.
If there is no predictable need to label one term simultaneously as both comparable and countable, I don't see how logically parameters like comp= and count= would be useful. You might want to explain this point with more examples.
The value es serves different functions in {{en-noun|buzz|es}} and {{en-verb|buzz|es}}, therefore some distinction has to be made in appendice headword coding, instead of merely copying these two possible parameters.
The main advantage of using {{apphead|title}} over '''title''' is: don't worry, both work fine so they are interchangeable. The other advantages are cohesion and conveniency, because if all headwords tend to use the same template, the overall result is cleanier and more understandable; and, at least for me, it became easy to copy or automatically type templates where needed. By the way, there is potential to use styles on appendice headwords, so not all users might want to see exactly a main bold text. --Daniel. 04:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Old French past participle forms[edit]

Should this be supported by {{poscatboiler}}? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't Old French masculine singular past participles, Old French masculine plural past participles, Old French feminine singular past participles and Old French feminine plural past participles be better than Old French past participle forms? --Daniel. 10:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language[edit]

Do you intend to duplicate w:HTML element in the Appendix space? --Bequwτ 14:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if describing usage details of various deprecated tags at w:HTML element violates the rule Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Anyway, I would expect Wikipedia to explain notable and in-depth information about HTML tags, such as comparison of web browsers by tag behavior, hystory of Web 1.0 and how character coding may be harmed by sites that use <font face= instead of <style="font-family:. In Wikibooks and Wikiversity, people may learn HTML through different didactical approaches. In Wiktionary, we deal with words. Probably, Wiktionary is the best Wikimedia project to explain, for instance, that "title" and "type" have more than one individual definition. Well, HTML is a constructed (and well-known) language, therefore it merits being defined in the Appendix namespace. If, by chance, Wikipedia has a list of HTML terms purely containing lexical information, it should probably be transwikified. --Daniel. 15:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
You have new messages Hello, Daniel Carrero. You have new messages at WT:RFM#Appendix:English letters.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{talkback}} template.


Hi, can you give an example sentence for vc? --Rising Sun talk? contributions 21:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, done. --Daniel. 05:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

List and categories[edit]

Do you think it would make more sense for {{list}} to interface with a category (Category:Blues) and take the list of blues from there, rather than creating a completely new list for something that already exists (but in category form)? Nadando 22:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that taking the terms out of a category to the list template would make more sense than the opposite. Compare these two alternatives:
===See also===
* {{list|en|blues}}
===See also===
* {{list|en|blues}}

In short, if the {{list}} took terms from the category, we would have to put terms in the category first. However, the opposite is currently done: When you add {{list|en|blues}} to an entry, that entry becomes a member of [[Category:Blues]]. --Daniel. 22:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


Isn't the point of categories that we don't `need` to list everything on the same page? :p (Also, what's the benefit of splitting the documentation to a different page, it just means i have to watchlits more). Conrad.Irwin 22:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

How would you organize the various tones of blue on the basis that lists shouldn't reach sixty items? --Daniel. 23:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I would only include the common/useful ones (as defined by editorial discretion). I've never heard of eggshell blue or genitian blue, blue green is arguably not a blue, it doesn't need both cornflower and cornflower blue. My gut feeling would probably be to exclude most of the ones that are "X blue" just on principal, which leaves a meagre 13. That said, the current list isn't too bad either. Afterall, a huge list of items is likely to deter people, which is presumably why the category pages and index pages are not formatted as large in-line lists. Conrad.Irwin 23:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
As I think, if any user see a list of English blues without cerulean (or any other blue tone, regardless of rarity, that he or she happen to know), the most likely conclusion would be that Wiktionary does not have this entry yet. This reasoning is also true for anagrams, verb conjugations, alternative spellings, etc. If a set is recognized as incomplete, the most likely constructive action would be to fulfill it. You might want to try something similar to {{list|en|TOP10 blues}} or {{list|en|most common blues}} (from my reasoning, these would be clearly sets of colors chosen by editors) but I would be against a deliberately incomplete {{list|en|blues}} because the deliberate incompleteness would be unclear then liable to misunderstanding. --Daniel. 00:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Urm... That is totally untenable :p. also lists 53 blues, not all of which we have categorised... The problem will be much worse for things like "breeds of dog". I don't think providing incomplete lists is a problem, particularly given that we also link to the category on the same line. It would even be possible to change it so that the category could be included as a more... link at the end of the list. Conrad.Irwin 00:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
There are lists whose items decidedly share the same level of importance, commonness and usefulness, such as {{list|en|Latin letter names}} (twenty-six terms if we ignore alternative spellings such as zee and zed, possible ligature names and names of letters with diacritics) and {{list|ja|days of the month}} (at least thirty or fourty different names, if I remember correctly and ignore hiragana and romanizations). The set of dogs is not the case: instead of {{list|en|dog breeds}}, we may use {{list|en|hunting dogs}} and so on.
If we use the (more...) system, perhaps category names could fit into it, like (more blues and colors). However, I still think that incomplete lists at entries are not the better course of action.
Complete lists are more informative, as I'd like to list the proprioception along with sight, smell, etc. through a {{list|en|senses}}. I can roughly predict that this list would totalize approximately ten items, along with sense of pain and sense of temperature.
If possible, please provide more details on how (approximately) 10 shades of blue would improve Wiktionary entries more than (approximately) 50 shades of blue would improve them. You said that the more extense version would deter people, but I don't think so: According to my idea of including all blues, if a user is interested on searching through them (say, if the user is looking for a particular shade), they are easily readable at each blue shade. They are even conveniently navigable because each link is at each related page. If more complex organization schemes are desirable (for instance, to list whether some words are more well-known), they may be listed at Appendix:Blues or Appendix:Colors if my previous proposal similar to {{list|en|basic blues}} is not utilized.
I'm sorry for the long message; in short, I'd like complete lists at entries and any more complex organizations at appendices. Additionally, if you'd like, {{list}} could be reformatted completely to generate collapsible boxes rather than horizontal lines of text. --Daniel. 04:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, what's with the mass lists of entries?[13] There's already a category link at the bottom of the page for this.

There is no lexicographical basis for linking to the term shocking pink in the entry for the term Indian red, along with a couple dozen other unrelated terms. This represents a thematic relationship between things, which Wikipedia covers. This stuff doesn't belong in the dictionary, which only deals with terms and their relationships, as in synonyms, derived terms, hyponyms, etc. Michael Z. 2010-03-10 14:56 z

Hi, Michael. I've noticed some logical fallacies in your complaint, such as claiming that the relationship between shocking pink and Indian red doesn't belong to Wiktionary while still suggesting that they should be together in categories. Nonetheless, I think I can properly answer your question: Linked terms at See also sections have commonly existed at Wiktionary for years; my project is merely to standardize these links. (Few) entries of shades of red were already linking to other entries of shades of red before I've added that extense list, supposed to be complete. Therefore, three or thirty reds share a common set of definitions which makes them suitable to link to each other. If you don't like links based solely on definitions, I strongly suggest you to discuss your opinions at WT:BP. If you don't like the way I am standardizing them, you may also propose different approaches, such as lists with less items, for instance "(Pinks) hot pink, shocking pink" or lists with only "common", "useful" terms as defined by Conrad who probably would agree with you. Until the community reaches a consensus to modify or delete these lists, note that they are presumably easy to remove all together due to my efforts on organizing them; then, please don't revert anymore my contributions related to lists on the basis that they are contributions related to lists. --Daniel. 15:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say there should be encyclopedic category listings, just that there already are. I'll discuss this further at the BP. Michael Z. 2010-03-10 17:47 z

Category:Greek adjectives[edit]

{{poscatboiler}} seems to provide a link to Appendix:Greek adjectives - is this insertion under user control - and how? —Saltmarshαπάντηση 06:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

A link to Appendix:Greek adjectives is provided to Category:Greek adjectives and its subcategories (for instance, possibly Category:Greek adjectives, Category:Greek uncomparable adjectives, Category:Greek adjective superlative forms, Category:Greek adjective feminine forms, etc. if they exist). If the appendix exist, it is linked. It is not possible to choose to hide that link, but you might propose this function. --Daniel. 06:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
OK - thanks —Saltmarshαπάντηση 07:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. --Daniel. 07:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


Is there any reason for creating this vote? You archived the related discussion (which implies you thought it is over). Please note the top of WT:VOTE "Votes should not be called for on this page." - if you thought the issue needed voting on, it is more correct procedure to first ensure that people agree that a vote is needed, (and secondly, in this case, that there is more than one person who might support it). Conrad.Irwin 14:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If there isn't anyone that will openly support this, just delete it. I won't support it. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, Conrad: Some people were already accepting that change; I accept too. Although it is so big that I don't see how it wouldn't need a vote. Then I created that vote to gather people's opinions. As said by the yellow box: "It has been created to solicit advice on wording and fitness to purpose."
Most BP discussions I archived were technically over, but the RFD vs RFV was not one of them. One of my next steps planned for this voting procedure is starting a new BP discussion related to the previous discussion and the vote, rather than making people re-read arguments. Mglovesfun, I didn't see a reason to delete the vote; if people somehow dislike the very existence of this vote rather than its purpose or context, I could simply move it to my userspace and continue my work. --Daniel. 14:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


Shouldn't this be adding top name categories (like Category:English names) to Category:Names by language? --Yair rand 00:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it seems like none of the categories done by this template are being added to the "by language" categories. Is it supposed to be working like this? --Yair rand 00:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I prefer to populate [[Category:Names by language]] and related categories through {{namecatboiler}} as you suggested. I've introduced this function now. --Daniel. 02:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


When using something like {{en-phrase|truly yours}}, there's no need to link the individual words in the etymology as well. This is why template have sg and head parameters. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to not follow this advice. A reason is the fact that I roughly remember one or two BP discussions about duplication of individual words between etymology and inflection line: their result (as I remember) was to not avoid such duplication, due to lack of consensus of where to place these links and how useful they theoretically would be. Personally, I would choose to remove links from all inflection lines, not etymologies, if duplication is not desirable but consistency is. Etymology sections with links to individual words are decidedly desirable for various entries, including foreign language ones such as the current toda brincadeira tem um fundo de verdade. --Daniel. 17:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Old Swedish[edit]

Unless I am wrong, you have added gmq-osw as the code for Old Swedish. I have a question; view Category talk: Old Swedish language, please. Smiddle 08:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Dawnraybot in Portuguese[edit]

Hello Daniel.. I've retrained User:Dawnraybot to add Portuguese verb forms. Please can you check his recent entries, because I've been working from templates, and from an alpha version of a bot I sent to User:Volants, who doesn't want to continue his bot. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 04:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I did spot few issues on the current verb forms of agasalhar: the past participles have repeated definitions, agasalhara and other forms were not created yet and the contributions are all labelled as "French". The rest looks fine. --Daniel. 04:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
please can you tell me which particular past participles have repeated definitions. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 05:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I've done another trial with abandonar. There's improvements --Rising Sun talk? contributions 12:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, you've fixed the past participles of agasalhar manually. I didn't see many improvements in abandonar. There are some entries with double definitions, such as abandonando, abandonámos and abandonaríeis. --Daniel. 06:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:topic cat description/Printing[edit]

Hey could you please try to fix this so that when invoked in the English category there is no "en" prefix in the link to Category:Typography? 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Daniel. 06:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

List templates in template category[edit]

Hi, I created the {{list:days of the week/hu}} template and I was wondering if these type of templates should be listed in the Template category for the appropriate language. It would be easier to find. Your thoughts, please? --Panda10 10:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a very good idea. Done. --Daniel. 10:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


I hope you're ready to fix all these now. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course I am. --Daniel. 13:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


[14]? I would have thought it better to open with a simple single-word translation, which is then clarified with a fuller explanation, rather than the other way round. --EncycloPetey 22:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, any of these two arrangements would be fine, but I see no particular improvement on this proposed emphatization of "thick" as the definition of "grosso". Both the English word and the Portuguese word have too many meanings. Anyway, I usually create definitions comprised of two to four different simple wordings such as the more recent "Offensive to morality; obscene; distasteful; vulgar." so the roles of the "single-word translation" and the "fuller explanation" are, as I see, quite interchangeable. --Daniel. 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

tc to type[edit]

Hi, please can you provide more information. Why does tc mean type? Maybe another example sentence? --Rising Sun talk? contributions 18:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can. Done. --Daniel. 04:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


There was a move to support cap= and dot= instead of nocap= and nodot=, they are more pleasant for editors, you can see arrangments and rottweillers for how they were (ab)used. Conrad.Irwin 10:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hrm, dot= is tricky, there are several hundred pages using |dot=}}, but of course that's hard to pass through meta-templates. Not sure the best thing to do, perhaps pass a sentinal value of NONE through from the templates when it is not set on the page? The cap= is also tricky to do in a meta-template, but I'll fix the few pages in which it has been used to include the article, or a bracket as well as the initial letter. Conrad.Irwin 11:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Good. The {{deftempboiler}} seems to be fully functional now, including its parameters cap= and dot=. Thank you for fixing those pages and for your suggestions. --Daniel. 11:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for fixing "everything"! Conrad.Irwin 13:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

alternative spelling template[edit]

You broke it...Please fix it. 50 Xylophone Players talk 11:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've broken the template indeed. I'm sorry for that. However, that situation was temporary. I've fixed the template before I received your message. It should be working properly now. --Daniel. 11:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Yep, it's okay now. 50 Xylophone Players talk 13:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

translation please[edit]

Hi Daniel.. I've added 2 new rules to the competition - the first allows me to create new rules ;p and the second demands a translation of the quote into English. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 19:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)--Rising Sun talk? contributions 19:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Understood. In that case, I'll translate the translations myself. :) As opposed to "stealing" the English words directly from J. K. Rowling; I have the official Harry Potter books in Portuguese but can't reach the English versions so soon to aim for fan-friendly perfection. --Daniel. 19:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


This needs a sortkey, but I'm not quite sure how to do it. See Category:Languages by script. --EncycloPetey 21:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Daniel. 22:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Gracias. --EncycloPetey 22:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
De nada. --Daniel. 22:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Related question: Why does Category:Greek script languages contain Category:Ancient Greek language, but not Category:Greek language? --EncycloPetey 22:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Because the information |el=Grek was not present at {{langscript}} when you asked this question. Prince Kassad added it seconds ago. --Daniel. 22:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


This generates the wrong category name. I suspect en-prefix will as well. --EncycloPetey 06:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --Daniel. 06:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. These are templates we should have had a long time ago. --EncycloPetey 06:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed; we should. Eventually, similar templates may be easily created by adapting their codes, like I done with {{pt-prefix}} and {{la-prefix}}. Enjoy. --Daniel. 08:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again, although Latin doesn't have very many true prefixes. Does the general template permit the specification of gender? Some suffixes in Romance languages have a particular gender, like Spanish -ción or -idad.
Trying to expand that template to cover Latin suffixes might be too much, though. Latin suffixes sometimes inflect (with a specific declension pattern), sometimes have macrons, and sometimes have gender, which has led to the several templates I've created for them that mimic the noun, adjective, and adverb templates. I spent a lot of time thinking about the problem before starting to work on Latin suffixes and creating the templates. The huge differences in number and kind of parameters needed, and keeping it all straight for editors, suggested that having several templates for Latin suffixes was preferable to an attempt to do it in one. --EncycloPetey 14:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
All right. Since the Latin suffixes are apparently well covered, I think we don't need to use {{headtempboiler}} for them. --Daniel. 01:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do let me know when you're happy with {{pt-suffix}}. I've modeled {{es-suffix}} on it, but don't want to start implementing it until all major changes are finished. --EncycloPetey 21:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with {{pt-suffix}}. All Portuguese suffixes that I could quickly find are templatized; so I believe you may implement {{es-suffix}} too. --Daniel. 01:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


Noun instead of initialism? Why? Equinox 11:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Initialism isn't really a part of speech like noun is. Consider DVD, DVDs. Ideally wherever possible they should be in both categories (IMO) with noun as a header in this case. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hear, hear! --Daniel. 17:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

the book is on the table[edit]

Hi Daniel.,

Just so you know, Rising Sun has requested verification of your entry [[the book is on the table]]. If you could add durably archived quotations demonstrating its use in Portuguese, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks in advance!
RuakhTALK 15:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Ruakh. Yes, I noticed two interesting Portuguese entries which came from English and are currently undergoing RFV: I love you and the other you mentioned. I plan to attest both soon. --Daniel. 03:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

get ready & ill-doing[edit]

Please do not create hard redirects. Wiktionary aims to define every term, including variants. If you think these are SoP, then simply don't add entries for them. ---> Tooironic 05:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't find a consensus written anywhere, including Wiktionary:Redirections, to endorse your statement; so I suppose we are merely talking about your judgement against mine. In this case, I'm planning to continue doing what I've always done: creating hard redirects when I want and think they could be useful, a decision which results in approximately 1.4 new entry redirects per year as I remember. --Daniel. 10:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, to my knowledge, Tooironic is right on this point. Our conventions frequently go uncodified in policy, so it's no surprise that you don't find his statement backed-up. IIRC, one of the few cases where hard redirects are permitted are for conjugated and declined forms of multi-word idioms, but some even object to their use in that case.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:English words spelled with diacritics[edit]

Let's see if we can empty this, and Category:English words spelled with nonstandard characters. I'll need yours (or someone else's) help, as there are some characters I don't recognize. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. A fairly considerable quantity of my help was already provided, since many members of Category:English spellings by character were moved by me. Thanks for working on this project too; you can count on me to help to empty that category from now. --Daniel. 21:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I need help with the ones with very rare characters, especially since all of them have to be in uppercase, which prevents copy-and-paste. I can do almost all of them by bot. I've done 300 already, but it's not all that quick. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(Pardon me for butting in.)

Can we give some thought to tweaking the terminology and categorization in the long run? The naming of, e.g., Category:English spellings by character and Category:English terms spelled with É is not technically correct. In the computer-encoding sense, É, é, E, and e are all different characters. But in terms of language and writing, which are the direct concern of the dictionary, they are all the same letter e (from both letter cases, with or without diacritic). This kind of lax naming leads to people saying that expose and exposé are “spelled differently”, that é is a “foreign letter,” and attributing lexical significance to every Unicode code point (e.g., creating dictionary entries referring to оу and ѹ, different encodings of the exact same letter, as “alternate spellings”). Michael Z. 2010-04-16 16:06 z

Would Category:English spellings by glyph improve things?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Not really, I think. In computer terms, glyph is still further removed from the concept, referring to the “artwork” displayed (e.g. Times Roman has a different glyph for é than Times Italic, or Helvetica Semibold). In writing/language terms, I think e is a drawn or printed glyph, and the accent is a separate mark placed over it. I believe we need to give some thought to rearranging the categories, not just picking a better name. Michael Z. 2010-04-16 16:25 z
Maybe glyph isn't incorrect, but in non-computer contexts it doesn't usually mean an English/Latin letter. Michael Z. 2010-04-16 16:54 z
In my opinion, the current categorization scheme is more useful than other approaches that I could think, like possibly a category with English terms spelled with "É", exactly as upper case letter with acute accent. Or, perhaps, a category of English terms with acute accent. --Daniel. 16:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if it be worth it, but I kind of want to see parallel “by character” and “by diacritic” categories at the same level, since diacritics get applied to characters. There may be other considerations for other languages (I think in some European languages, e.g., å is considered a single digraph letter, not a letter a with diacritic). I'm not asking anyone to do a bunch of work rearranging everything right now, but let's think about this. I'd be glad to help out. Michael Z. 2010-04-16 16:54 z
So, Michael, please inform your opinion (or clarify it) on this possible categorization scheme: The current categories English terms spelled with Á, English terms spelled with É and English terms spelled with Ó all together in a supercategory of the acute accent. --Daniel. 17:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's a proposal. Going down this road would have various repercussions on the way we handle other languages, but it would make our categories more in touch with the dictionary's content.

For each language, we'd have to determine which are considered letters (e.g., Swedish w: å, maybe Dutch w: ij) and which are considered letters with diacritics. This would be a bit of work, but then the results would better reflect the real meaning of the written symbols we are presenting.

(By the way, I don't think we should have Category:English terms spelled with ſ at all: the long s is a typographical stylistic form, used in every word containing a non-terminal S. There is no difference in the spelling of perſons and persons.) Michael Z. 2010-04-16 19:07 z

In re ſ, see Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2010/January#ſ (long s) typographic variants &c.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
From scanning over that talk, sounds like we might include it for German, but omit it for English. This would support a language-specific categorization of letters, digraphs, diacritics, etc. Does it get complicated where German ö = oe, etc? Michael Z. 2010-04-16 19:21 z
IIRC, the conclusion was to autoredirect all occurrences of ſ to s, but to have that redirection bring up a noticeable banner explaining the redirection and with a link to a page that would explain the history of use of the long ess, with special import given to such rarities as the German Wachſtube.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
So its repercussion on this topic is that there is no need for Category:English terms spelled with ſ, because its contents would consist only of autoredirect addresses, right? All I see in the category's entries are a couple of citations that should be moved to the respective modern-spelling entries. Michael Z. 2010-04-16 21:13 z
In theory, yes. Once the banner and link to an explanatory appendix is sorted, that category should be regarded as a clean-up category.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 03:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Looking at my proposal above, I see categories named “English terms spelled” and “English spellings.” But this branch is different than the majority in Category:English spellings, because it doesn't group alternate, archaic, etc, spellings of terms. It's really “English terms by character” and “diacritic.” Michael Z. 2010-04-16 21:51 z

“English terms by character” does indeed seem a much better name. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Re: Kırklareli, when you capitalize the dotless I, it just turns into a Latin capital I, so that can't appear in any categories. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, you mean it can't appear in category names? Do both Turkish i's become the same letter in caps? Could name the category Category:English terms spelled with ı or Category:English terms with dotless I. Do we need a Turkish-language category for it? I thought we were only doing this for unusual characters, not for every letter A–Z. Michael Z. 2010-04-17 00:29 z
The Turkish lower-case ı becomes the upper-case I, whereas the Turkish lower-case i becomes the upper-case İ. Consistency would require us to categorise every Turkish derivation containing I or i into their respective special-character categories because of their complimentary forms in the other case.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 03:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
So imam bayildi belongs in both Category:English terms spelled with I and Category:English terms spelled with İ? I guess we could try to put a prominent warning on the former category that only Turkish derivations belong in it, but I could see a thousand other words creeping into it. It could be named Category:Turkish derivations spelled with IMichael Z. 2010-04-17 14:37 z
Well, no, that page doesn't belong in the categories (except maybe Category:English terms spelled with İ, though it looks to me as if that spelling has just been "normalised" with ordinary Latin 'i's, although there isn't really any way of knowing). If it's also spelt imambayıldı in English (with or without a space as imam bayıldı), then that page would belong in both those categories. As you've already noted, the fact that the nomenclature uses upper-case letters as standard may be problematic; we may simply need to make an exception for ı–İ. Alternatively, the substitute category name you propose would be, IMO, the way to go.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Would Category:English terms with é include the term Étaín? --Daniel. 05:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. (I tried out lower-case letters in the category names above, because I think they are often easier to read on screen.) Michael Z. 2010-04-18 21:51 z
In my opinion, upper case letters would be easier to read on screen as some groups of lower case letters are too similar: i/j/l, c/o/q and probably others. In addition, I think that upper case is the more common version used in dictionaries, keyboards, etc. to refer to each letter. I'd also like to make another suggestion: The wording Category:English terms spelled with É is better than Category:English terms with É as consistent with other current naming system: Category:English words suffixed with -ness. --Daniel. 14:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I find that diacritics on capitals can be harder to distinguish at normal screen resolutions, especially É, È, Ë, Ě, Ĕ, Ẽ, Ē, vs é, è, ë, ě, ĕ, ẽ, ē (and by some French conventions for example, diacritics are omitted from caps, even in print). Several Greeks are identical to Latin capitals, and no text resizing will change this (Α, Β, Ε, Γ, Ζ, Η, Ι, Κ, Μ, Ν, Ρ, Τ, Υ, Χ, vs. α, β, ε, γ, ζ, η, ι, κ, μ, ν, ρ, τ, υ, χ).
Did you even notice that your argument for consistency uses an example of a category name containing English words and another with English terms? Consistency is good, but these minor inconsistencies are not a hindrance to the reader, if they're even noticeable at all. in contrast, an index intended to sort out letters and diacritics is quite broken if those letters and diacritics aren't distinguishable.
(If you have difficulty with i j l and c o q then you might have more fundamental readability problems. Maybe you should increase your browser's font size or change the font in your user style sheet.) Michael Z. 2010-04-22 16:05 z
I personally am currently stuck with a hateful 13'' screen with slightly poor focus that is probably blinding me as I write. :| Anyway, I agree with your arguments: lowercase is better than uppercase if we choose only one case to represent each "character". Although I still want the wording "spelled with" rather than simply "with" since I intuitively think that Category:Portuguese terms with à would contain "ir à Roma e não ver o papa" but wouldn't contain "àquele". --Daniel. 16:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I admire your dedication to this project. Michael Z. 2010-04-22 17:36 z
Well, thanks. --Daniel. 19:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the use of lower-case characters as standard* (with redirects from the upper-case forms, if possible) and with the wording "spelled with" per Daniel.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
* Except that the Turkish ı–İ problem still exists with that nomenclature…
I don't object strongly to “spelled with.” We could use uppercase plain letters (A B C D E F) and lowercase to emphasize the contrast with diacritics and Greeks (á β ç δ ē γ, not Á Β Ç Δ Ē Γ). This has a consistent visual logic for English, and another language may call for a different variation. Michael Z. 2010-04-22 17:36 z
Aah, that could work! So, do you mean something like Category:English terms spelled with Æ, æ, Category:English terms spelled with I, ı, and Category:English terms spelled with İ, i?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
That's another option, but, since we don't have plain-letter categories like Category:English terms spelled with A, I was still thinking of converting all the names in Category:English spellings by character to lowercase. Advantages: resolves the problems of Greek α, β, resolves the Turkish un-dotted ı, slightly improves the readability of ē, &c. Consequence: sort headings either remain in a contrasting case, or get changed to to match those common in category listings for terms. There's no reason for the Greek sort heading to be a question mark, when α clearly stands for the Greek alphabet. Michael Z. 2010-04-22 19:07 z
Converting to lower case may resolve the problem of the Turkish ı, but it creates the problem of the Turkish İ (as in İzmir). Other than a gloss (like "dotted i" or "undotted i"), giving both cases of the characters is the only way I can see to resolve the problems of both those Turkish letters whilst maintaining consistency.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a problem no matter what. Because the upper and lowercase forms correspond to different English letters, we either have to make an exception in case or include a gloss. Neither Turkish letter really corresponds to a single English one, so I would use two categories with “Turkish i” and “Turkish ı” (or Turkish İ and Turkish I). Or will these be coming from other languages too?
Or can we consider Turkish i to be the same letter as English/Latin i, with an alternate uppercase form? Michael Z. 2010-04-22 21:17 z
This affects Afyonkarahisar, bektashi, beylic, binbashi, comitadji, dervish, Dervish, devshirme, divan, haremlik, ibrik, ichoglan, imam bayildi, imbat, irade, İzmir, janissary, kilim, leblebi, mahaila (?), millet, minaret, muezzin, narghile, pilaf, rakija (?), shish, shish kebab, shisha, shishkabob, spahi, vilayet, vizier, ziamet, and zill. In theory, anyway; that list is all our Turkish derivations in English for which it isn't absolutely impossible for the Turkish i to have been preserved in English. For the vast majority of them, I am of the opinion that they are just written with normal letters i.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Nota bene w:Dotted and dotless I#Usage in other languages.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Are the above languages' alphabets derived from the Turkish? Could we still call it a Turkish(-alphabet) i/ı if it's in a word from one of those languages? It appears that the Gaelic dotless I is a stylistic variation, and not a different letter, so it should be handled by specifying an appropriate font rather than by entering a different code point (anyone know?). Michael Z. 2010-04-22 23:55 z
I would be inclined to say not, but I just wanted to make the list as comprehensive as possible. IMO, we can omit from those categories any word which does not preserve the other spelling features of its Turkish etymon (which should remove the vast majority of them). Moreover, restricting membership in the categories to direct derivations from Turkish may be a sensible regulation. Regaring the Gaelic i, in technical terms, the tittle is not graphemic; see also the last two paragraphs of w:Irish orthography#Diacritics.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
As an active Portuguese language contributor, I strongly support the addition of categories for the following plain-letter characters of that language: K, W, Y and their lowercase counterparts (that is, possibly Category:Portuguese terms spelled with K and so on). They are incredibly rare; to the point of being usually substituted by other letters when a word comes from other language. For instance, caratê means karate, quilo means kilo and Válter means Walter. --Daniel. 19:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Doremítzwr and Michael, would you object if I remove the pieces of text "a rare character in this language" or "a obsolete character in this language", which are currently present at the discussed categories? I'm not a big fan of this type of statement at that place; one reason is: Perhaps it could serve as criteria for inclusion (since A is not rare, we don't want a English terms spelled with A, but Ü is rare, so we have English terms spelled with Ü) But this criteria doesn't reflect flawlessly the current categories, because ' and * are not rare characters. --Daniel. 22:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Far from it; I'd consider the removal of those pieces of text an improvement. I've objected to "a rare character in this language" in the past. Also, when it's done with archaic, IIRC it yields "a archaic [sic] character in this language".  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The erroneous wording "a archaic" is not a serious problem; because, if we actually wanted to inform such contexts at the category descriptions, it could be easily and automatically changed to "an archaic". But, since we don't want the contexts, I removed them all. --Daniel. 19:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Wanted entries[edit]

Hi Daniel. Please ensure that when you create entries requested in that list that they satisfy the criteria for inclusion. Many of your recently-created entries are now at RFV or RFD. You're only wasting your own time and creating unnecessary work for others by making entries that are either RFD fodder or which would fail to pass a request for verification.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course I will aim to satisfy CFI when contributing to Wiktionary. Although I don't consider my edits particularly unsatisfying, be them from that list or not, because the entries created by me are usually kept, even after a healthy RFV or RFD discussion when necessary. --Daniel. 23:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to be the case with, for example, kawaiify, so do I, and neither do I. I thought it best I'd mention it, since I've noticed a pattern with the requests from Wiktionary:Wanted entries and, well, prevention is better than cure, and all that…  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The three entries you mentioned seem to be the most recent ones that were created by me and are discussed at RFV or RFD, so a consensus was not reached for them yet. When I create an entry, I suppose it will be kept, as opposed to deliberately waste time of any editors. I also check for their related discussions regularly; so, for instance, I recently formally discovered that the entry Tetris-like should not exist due to consensus, then I'll refrain from defining more English nouns ending in "-like" like that one. On the other hand, kawaiily, unownable, who are you and what have you done with someone, absent-minded professor, response time and many other entries that were created by me seem acceptable. For these reasons, I think I don't need to change my pattern of contributions based on your comments. Nonetheless, feel free to comment on my contributions anytime. --Daniel. 02:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong — I'm not saying that all your contributions are bad or that you're deliberately wasting anyone's time; most of your contributions are good. I ask, however, that you do two things: 1) Use {{b.g.c.}} and/or {{google|type=groups}} (&c.) to ensure that the terms you're adding occur with sufficient frequency in durably archived media to satisfy one or more of the CFI's attestation criteria. & 2) Think carefully as to whether your multi-word contributions are idiomatic (i.e., not SOP); for example, absent-minded professor would not be includible if it just meant "a professor who is absent-minded", but since it is a term that can be applied more broadly to any oblivious academic (or, broader still, to any person oblivious of reality), it is therefore idiomatic. Is it reasonable that I request that you take those small steps?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 02:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, frequency checking and SOP avoidance are reasonable steps to be taken by me. Although, as you certainly know, both attestability and idiomacity are not absolute references: Some terms may be considerably confusing like security through obscurity, that as Conrad pointed out at RFD, is rather considered lack of security than a SOP of "security + through + obscurity". Others are rare enough to be controversial, like kawaiiness whose meaning is supposedly not known by people without interest in Japanese culture; presumably all others at RFV and RFD are initially controversial too, so kudos to people who are creating and solving such discussions, including you. In an effort to improve my entries, I could also attest more of them by adding quotations, since I don't do this very much. --Daniel. 05:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
That would be great; thanks for your coöperation. I agree that idiomaticity is a difficult one to judge sometimes, though attestability is pretty easy, thanks to our more-or-less objective criteria for it (well, that much applies to the fourth criterion at least, and that is the most commonly invoked one). The meanings of all the terms derived from kawaii (kawaiify, kawaiily, and kawaiiness) are obvious as long as one is aware what kawaii means; however, that isn't the salient point. Kawaiily was only attestable via Google Groups; although google books:"kawaiiness" yields only two hits, there are 640 Google Groups Search hits to choose from; conversely, google books:"kawaiify" OR "kawaiifies" OR "kawaiifying" OR "kawaiified" yields nothing, whereas none of the nine Google Groups hits are valid (you must ensure that "Google Groups" is selected, not "all groups"). I hope that makes sense. Thanks again.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


We seem to lack an entry for the Portuguese verb! I'm going to do what I can, but please clean up after me, if you would. --EncycloPetey 21:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You did a good job when contributing to the entry agir. After a quick research I unsurprisingly couldn't find more than one or two definitions per dictionary (including the Portuguese Wiktionary) and you covered them all. I then splitted that definition into two, added the language-specific templates and links to other Portuguese words. So, done. --Daniel. 05:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Interlingua plurals[edit]

Come how {{poscatboiler}} doesn't allow it? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Interlingua plurals differs from the naming system present in all {{poscatboiler}} categories. Specifically, I think a category Interlingua plural forms would be more acceptable, since the word "forms" appears in all POS categories that should inherently contain non-lemma terms. Additionally, each language has plurals for different parts of speech, so the main purposes of poscatboiler would be defeated by a standardized text and place in a category tree. In my opinion, Category:Interlingua noun plural forms and Category:Interlingua adjective plural forms would be examples of categories flawlessly supported by that template. --Daniel. 14:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
So why does it accept Category:English plurals? BTW I do agree. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The category "English plurals" is not supported by poscatboiler. --Daniel. 14:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:list:Cyrillic script letter names/ru[edit]


I followed your example and created Template:list:Cyrillic script letter names/ru. Other Cyrillic based languages can be added. --Anatoli 05:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Feel free to contribute on my Wiktionary projects anytime. --Daniel. 05:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


Hey do you think you could support for duals to this? Thanks. Breton, for one, is a language that needs such a category. —This unsigned comment was added by PalkiaX50 (talkcontribs).

Yes, I can add support for dual forms. Firstly, please inform which dualized parts of speech do you need. For instance, do you expect to create categories for dual nouns, dual adjectives, dual verbs? --Daniel. 13:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, dual nouns at least. That's what Breton has (though it may have dual adjectives too, idk). I asked because I saw the Category "Breton duals" on WantedCategories. 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
As I see, the category name Breton duals, like English plurals, is not likely to enlighten a reader nor provide a suitable workspace for editors; in addition, it is named differently from other {{poscatboiler}} categories and is probably not standardizable due to the various possible descriptions and category trees of duals of each language. You may want to see the related and recent discussion Interlingua plurals at my talk page. If you want to create and/or edit the category Breton duals, please don't use poscatboiler for it. On the other hand, it is advisable to create the newly-supported categories Breton noun dual forms and Breton adjective dual forms. --Daniel. 15:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Gothic verbs conjugate to dual forms. So we definitely need support for dual verb forms. -- Prince Kassad 09:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
OK. You may use {{poscatboiler|got|verb dual form}} in Category:Gothic verb dual forms now if you want. --Daniel. 19:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:list helper format[edit]

The heading for the list has been formatted to look like a restricted-usage label (a context label). But the heading is not a context label, so this will cause confusion. (And why put the whole list into a one-item unordered list? Why does this list include “week,” which is not a day of the week?)

Instead of this:

Why not format it more simply, like this?

Days of the week: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday

Or with the structure of a definition list?

Days of the week
Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday

(You could even add semantic structure by making the whole list a DL definition list, with the heading in a DT and each item in a DD.) Michael Z. 2010-04-24 20:27 z

I know what DL, DT and DD are, but I have not fully understood what you mean by "semantic structure"; so please explain further, if you would.
The list includes the term "week" because it explains well how the items are connected. If a person does not know what is a week, he or she might learn by clicking on the link. Similarly, and more likely to be unclear, if a person sees a list of types of random access memory "(random access memory) random access memory; single data rate, double data rate, static random access memory, dynamic random access memory", he or she might learn about that hypernym easily that way.
In my opinion, the current italicized explanatory text between parentheses is not particularly confusing, neither it lacks simplicity. Specifically, I like how that text is clearly separated from the items. Let me quote your first suggestion:

Days of the week: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday

I think its overall effect is undesirable because I have to search for where the title ends and the list starts. The blue links may help, but please note that an appendix can be linked to the explanatory text (as an option of {{list}}), so another possible effect is:

Days of the week: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday

Mentally separating the text from the items is not a difficult task, but it might be avoided by some basic formatting. For that reason, I like your second suggestion:
Days of the week
Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday

--Daniel. 03:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


This template, and all others like it, will need to be revised to correctly make use of the /doc subpages. --EncycloPetey 21:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. The letter templates were revised as you asked. --Daniel. 03:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

/doc subpages are buggy[edit]

Don't know which ones, or what the cause is, but {{de-phrase/doc}} and {{pt-suffix/doc}} were the ones I noticed. Conrad.Irwin 01:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In case you are talking about the template loops, and are interested in the cause, it is: There were little pieces of code whose purpose was automatically getting each template name to create examples of usage of such templates. These "pieces of code" were not programmed for a sudden move from talk pages to /doc pages, so documentations were naturally doomed to be adapted sooner or later. I believe they are fixed now. --Daniel. 03:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Language names[edit]

Can you think of a good way to display the list of duplicate language names on both WT:LANGNAME and on the documentation of the language templates (eg {{fa/doc}})? It would be nice if the information could be shown in both places and even at the entries (eg Farsi, Persian) without too much manual updating to keep them synced. Would we want something like Template:fa/names for language templates? --Bequw τ 01:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think I could do the "think of a good way to display the list of duplicate language names on both WT:LANGNAME and on the documentation of the language templates" since I received your message. Then I created a new set of parameters from scratch. See Template:si. --Daniel. 10:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I like it. Thanks. Maybe pass it by the GP before using widely? --Bequw τ 21:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a GP discussion would be good. Then I've started one. --Daniel. 21:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I suggest you don't try to spend any more time on {langtempboiler}, as I've tried to explain, it is not possible to add another layer and expansion to these templates without blowing out the page expand limit in the parser. Whatever it is you are trying to do can not be done in the templates.

I moved "testingtest" to a user subpage, it was breaking tools. Should not be in cat. Robert Ullmann 17:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot the tools; sorry for placing "Template:testingtest" in that dangerous category and thanks for removing it from there. Thanks for your suggestions too; although I'm still planning to spend some more time on langtempboiler, at least for self-instructive reasons. I'm generally curious about the limits and possibilities of MediaWiki templates; such knowledge would help me to find and solve technical problems better, even if, as you imply, the current language templates don't have problems to be solved. --Daniel. 07:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Walloon cardinal numbers[edit]

How did I fuck up Category:Walloon cardinal numbers? You make templates too complicated for ordinary users like me --Soleil levant 08:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you may adapt the code of Category:Portuguese cardinal numerals into a Category:Walloon cardinal numerals if you want to use {{poscatboiler}}. A convenient reason is: poscatboiler relies on consistency between many languages. Currently, due to the lack of consensus, the members of a category called "[...] numbers" could possibly be either numerical symbols or words of that language. That template can't know that you want to keep words in Category:Walloon cardinal numbers, so I mercifully removed poscatboiler from that category. --Daniel. 08:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
You know damn well that if it goes to a vote that "cardinal numbers" would win out, because we speak English here. It's bad faith to continue with a policy that's against the consensus and can't possibly win out. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
You've got to get it out of your head that you own these templates. If you want to use them as "toys" use user subpages, or create your own wiki for fun and games. If your aim is to improve the Wiktionary, and I sincerely believe it is, you'll have to listen to other editors. I think you have a conflict at this level, the need to improve the Wiktionary and the need to play. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't recollect saying that I own any Wiktionary template, neither playing games that involve deliberately ignoring people here. In fact, my behaviour seems quite contrary to those concepts, since I'm inclined to help people and discuss with them. Rising Sun did not ask for Walloon cardinal numbers to be supported by {{poscatboiler}}, he just informed about "fucking up" that category, so I didn't ignore him (her?) by fixing the category without that template. I see you removed "numerals" from poscatboiler and added "numbers" to it, hence effectively removing the distinction between a symbol and a word; this fact would probably be brought up in the vote whose result you foresaw, and was pointed out by me in this very conversation. --Daniel. 11:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The fact is there already is a consensus, negating the need for a vote. You didn't answer my question, do you feel a need to create templates to "play" and use them as "toys"? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Come on Gloves, lay off him. He's a great help when it comes to templates. The best templatist known to the world of Wiktionary, in fact. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 16:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
MG, we had a vote on this, and the result was no consensus. Please do not push one view over the other with a claim that there is consensus, beacuse there isn't. Your accusations and insults do not reflect well on you; it may be time to take a wiki-break, as you do seem to be leading the entire community in number of Talk page edits. --EncycloPetey 16:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian future and adverbial participles[edit]

Hi Daniel. I wanted to use the postcatboiler template in Category:Hungarian future participles and Category:Hungarian adverbial participles, but it does not recognize them. Can you please add them? Thanks. --Panda10 17:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Daniel. 06:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. --Panda10 21:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Enjoy. --Daniel. 17:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

do you want a prize?[edit]

Hi Daniel.. For getting the highest score with a single entry in my Easter Competition, you're entitled to a prize. What would you like? It can be anything you want that'll take less than two hours of my time --Rising Sun talk? contributions 07:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the offer; then yes, I agree to command such a generous Wiktionary editor. Before choosing how I'll take (less than) two hours from your time, please say if you're good at IPA. :) --Daniel. 12:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
My IPA knowledge for French and British English is perfect. Anything else could be a bit more complicated. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 11:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Please, can it be adding pronunciation to the entries in Category:Vulgarities? Or something that involves dirty words? --Rising Sun talk? contributions 11:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
According to a new rule I'm about to add, the deadline for claiming your prize is tonight --Rising Sun talk? contributions 10:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, then. Your idea of editing vulgarities is a good one for my purposes, which include improving my own IPA knowledge. You shall make sure that the following terms have proper IPA pronunciations, in this order, if you have time:
  1. The terms fuck, fucked, fucking, fucks, fuck up, fucked up, fucking up, fucks up, fuck ups, shit, shitted, shitting, shits, worry, worried, worrying, worries, speak, spoke, speaking, speaks, dirty word, dirty words, magic word and magic words.
  2. And, I don't speak English, do you speak English, I don't speak Portuguese, how old are you, I am twenty years old, I am hungry, I am thirsty, I am tired, leave me alone, what's your name and where can I pee.
  3. The "synonyms" listed at WS:promiscuous woman.
  4. The "derivations" of the noun, adjective and verb shit.
  5. The "members" of the category English swear words.
--Daniel. 22:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Super. I'll work on it --Rising Sun talk? contributions 06:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


{{langcatboiler}} has started listing the scripts of languages as if there were four of them in every case ("Latin, , and scripts"). Could you take a look at it? --Yair rand 04:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --Daniel. 05:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


For {{symbcatboiler|iso|letter}}, the template should really read the script used from the {{langscript}} template. That's what it's there for, after all. -- Prince Kassad 11:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Granted. --Daniel. 11:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


Please don't create these. They can't be edited or tailored for individual entries, and contain no useful information about the specific templates on which they appear. Boilerplate documentation doesn't work because the templates are all different. --EncycloPetey 17:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What he said. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I suppose you are talking about the generic examples like "word1 word2" and examples with erroneous scripts, as you pointed out at RFC. Then, perhaps these documentations should be subst:'ed with headtempdocboiler and further edited, rather than not created at all. --Daniel. 18:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm talking about the whole thing. Latin prefixes need additional explanation about usage that I can't add to the boilerplate. Most people mistakenly create prefix entries for prepended prepositions, and a cautionary note needs to be added. There are similar issues on most other templates. And I disagree about creating them with "subst:" All that does is fool people into thinking the template has real documentation, when all it has is mindless substed boilerplate that may not apply to the template at all. They have the same problem on the Russian Wiktionary, but there they have boilerplated whole entries for many languages and so they have lots of pages with no content whatsoever except for the empty boilerplate. --EncycloPetey 18:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

List question[edit]

Could the hypernym parameter be modified so that items can be partially unlinked? For example, in {{list:chess pieces/es}} I would want to show pieza de ajedrez but not pieza de ajedrez. Nadando 02:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

{{wlink}} looks like it would do what I am suggesting. Nadando 02:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, this differs considerably from the original plan, but I like your suggestion, then implemented it. --Daniel. 02:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi. It's not clear to me what {{langscript}} does that {{lang2sc}} isn't meant to. (Of course, langscript has many more languages in it than lang2sc.) Can you clarify, please?​—msh210 19:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, the main difference between these two templates is that lang2sc is currently a mess while langscript isn't. Also, I'm not inclined to type some possible values for lang2sc like {{lang2sc|Japanese (alias for Han + Hiragana + Katakana)}} to get a simple "Jpan"; it would be impractical. --Daniel. 19:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that those were meant as comments. The #switch will ignore them if it doesn't encounter them, so no harm done. Anyway, can lang2sc simply be converted to a hard-redirect to langscript, then?​—msh210 20:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The hard-redirect seems a good idea. Although, apparently, the only page that uses lang2sc is User:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js/!sc, so I asked Conrad about this subject. --Daniel. 20:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
There are two differences - lang2sc is subst'able, and it defaults to Latn, langscript isn't and defaults to Xyzy. The purpose of !sc is to include the script template wherever it is not Latn - so I'm not sure that langscript can do that (though if I'm wrong, that's fine too) [also, if you can work out why (I can't) and find a better way to do it, that's groovy too]. If you want to move lang2sc into my userspace to stop other people using it that's great too. (In short, I don't care as long as nothing breaks :p). Conrad.Irwin 21:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
So what do you think about changing !sc from {{#ifeq:{{lang2sc|{{{1|en}}}}}|Latn||{{!}}sc={{lang2sc|{{{1}}}}}}} to {{#ifeq:{{langscript|{{{1|en}}}}}|Latn||{{!}}sc={{langscript|{{{1}}}}}}}? (Both of those are simplified here for legibility. Of course I'm not suggesting getting rid of the substs.) That would add (if I understand it correctly) an explicit call to Xyzy that currently is lacking — but only in the highly unusual case that a language has no script listed in langscript — and would default languages to their primary script (e.g. sh to Cyrl) where lang2sc defaults them to Latn. AFAICT there would be no other change (besides better coverage of languages natch).​—msh210 21:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Sounds alright - making langscript subst'able isn't hard now either. I imagine that Hebrew is one of the languages that is using this, so you'll be in a good position to test how it works :p. Conrad.Irwin 22:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Solar System[edit]

Having this template list just planets and not the myriad other objects in the solar system is ridiculous. Thanks for that. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 12:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a problem I have with some of the list templates that have been created. I feel like the template should only be used when there is a definite bounded set of objects in the list. For instance, I'm sure that I could find more terms fitting in {{list:sexual orientations/en}}, and there are thousands of objects in the solar system- what criteria are we using to include only some of them? Compare that to the list of planets, which can be said to be complete. Nadando 12:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Most of the objects in the Solar System are either large and identifiable, like the Planets and Pluto and Eris, or they're part of large sub-systems, like the asteroid belt, Oort cloud and Kuiper belt.
On the sexual orientations lists, the main ones are homo-, hetero-, and bi-. pan-/omni- are the same thing, a- is sorta marginal. I'm not going to include paraphilias, just the basic terms. Like the "basic colors" lists. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 12:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I used the "Criteria for inclusion" from Template:list/doc, that I wrote myself and of course may be discussed and changed if necessary; I think {{list|en|sexual orientations}} is good enough, as long as I think of it as somewhat separate from a possible {{list|en|paraphilias}}.
I consider the deletion of the former Template:solar system an improvement; to begin with, its title was apparently so inclusive that the template would never be fulfilled. Specifically, it contained only "Moon" but not other satellites, neither did it contain all dwarf planets and asteroids. And, it didn't contain me; I'm an inhabitant of the solar system and my full name would probably be shown in a {{list|en|solar system}} or {{list|en|people of the solar system}}.
In addition, the myriad of celestial bodies may all be included, but please keep them subdivided into smaller lists, like {{list|en|planets of the solar system}}, {{list|en|dwarf planets of the solar system}}, {{list|en|satellites of the solar system}}, etc. Note that all these subdivided lists would appear together in the entry solar system, so incompleteness isn't an issue. --Daniel. 15:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Appendix:I am fix requested[edit]


Could you help me fix this appendix, please? I tried to use the same structure as in Appendix:I don't speak but failed miserably :). --Anatoli 00:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, I have fixed it now using your new tags, thanks!, please have a look, you can add more languages, if you wish. If someone doesn't do it - next thing I need an interpreter in many languages. --Anatoli 01:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Good; I'm glad you could use the new tags after I made them a little easier and more intuitive. In addition, I placed some suggestions for improvement of Appendix:I am at its talk page. --Daniel. 05:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I replied there. It may work for "I am" + nationality/ethnicity but will not work for other suggestions you made. The idea is good, though. I'd like to have I need an interpreter to be easily converted into I need a doctor by replacing the key word interpreter -> doctor. So far, all the translations would need a simple replacement of FL words for interpreter to doctor, except for English, article "an" needs to be changed for "a". --Anatoli 05:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:North Germanic derivations[edit]

Hey, if you're able can you please make appropriate topic cat subtemplates for this? It's just that I'm not sure really what to say for the topic cat description (since North Germanic seems to be a group of languages not one language). 50 Xylophone Players talk 00:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, could you make {{topic cat description/English derivations}} please? :) For the English category I'd like it to say that like, it contains categories for the derivations (as obviously we do not say that English word X is "from English Y") and just have the normal derivations description for other languages. 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, *facepalm*...I had made a typo while making a category...Perhaps though you should still consider adding that functionality to the category. 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything done, or so I think. Since the standard description for Category:X derivations is the so generic "This category comprises words whose etymologies involve X roots.", I believe it can be used language families as well. The "English derivations" switch and the "North Germanic derivations" templates are done; and, I didn't find any category with typos to fix. --Daniel. 08:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Lists with one item[edit]

Surely you don't advocate using {{list}} for lists with one item? All it will do is link an entry to itself. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you are talking about the list of "moons" of Earth, because this is currently the only list with only one item. I wouldn't advocate any list merely because it contains one item, but I support the existence of {{list|en|moons of Earth}}. That template links to seven entries, including few synonyms of "satellite" and the name of our planet. Furthermore, please see the "See also" section of satellite. It would be seriously deficient if lacking Luna and Dysnomia. --Daniel. 22:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and of course there is also the current list of moons of Eris. I support its existence too. --Daniel. 23:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


I made a mess of the unblock the second time. Conrad.Irwin 23:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. --Daniel. 23:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. It seems MG has finally snapped, and feels he owns my talk page too. What should the community do? --EncycloPetey 23:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


Whatever you did, it broke the section editing in the BP. --EncycloPetey 23:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the server is still catching up with the edit. Should be resolved shortly. I almost wonder if he did it on purpose, as I think the project benefited from having that page disabled for a few minutes. If so, very shrewdly done sir. :-) -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Petey, you probably tried to click in a section link soon after I've archived the BP. When I removed some sections to place in the archive, naturally all section links have changed. Specifically, there are now thirty sections in the BP. To edit them normally, try reloading the page first: simply click here. --Daniel. 23:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've tried that several times. The month of April still shows up, even though it's now archived. Guess whatever connection I've got isn't as up-to-date as everyone else's. --EncycloPetey 23:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
It takes a little while. I tried refreshing, and cache emptying and refreshing, and it still took a few minutes for the new version to get loaded. But, if it's still not loading properly for you, you can always press the edit section link, then manually change the section number in url bar (subtract about 55 or so) and it'll work. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


Kazakhstan is in central Asia. --EncycloPetey 05:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct. And also in Europe. [15] --Daniel. 05:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Huh... Wonder why I never knew that before. --EncycloPetey 05:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Effectively because Wiktionary had not taught this to you yet. (: Well, I also never knew the exact relation between Kazakhstan, Asia and Europe before doing some quick research for the lists. --Daniel. 06:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Armenia is not in Europe. Some say it's culturally part of Europe, but I'm not sure what that means. Nor are Georgia and Azeristan in Europe. PS Add Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to the list of countries or I'll kick your ass :D --Vahagn Petrosyan 14:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The maps say that both Armenia and Georgia are located physically in both Europa and Asia. I don't know what Azeristan means. I'm not quite sure about the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic; to quote Wikipedia again, "The country remains unrecognized by any international organization or country, including Armenia."; I added it to the list of countries of Europe anyway. --Daniel. 20:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


Do you have a moment to clean this up from the following pages. Thanks. Conrad.Irwin 17:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yair already did it. --Daniel. 07:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/2010-04/Voting policy[edit]

I urge you to vote. (I don't know which way you'll vote, but I want more voices, especially English Wiktionarians' voices, heard in this vote.) If you've voted already, or stated that you won't, and I missed it, I apologize.​—msh210 17:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I need a dictionary, et al[edit]

Hi. Could you please put Chinese or Mandarin translation requests under "Chinese:" or "Chinese: ... Mandarin:" in the future? It makes it a little easier. Thanks. ---> Tooironic 13:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not noticed those little formatting issues of "Chinese:" translations when I made requests for entries of that language. Yes, I'll remember to put new requests under the proper headers in the future. --Daniel. 14:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


FYI, I've posted a response here: Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities. --Dan Polansky 09:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My Beer Parlour comments[edit]

OK you deserve a shot to reply. I've accused you of acting almost entirely in your own interests rather than in the interests of Wiktionary. I'm not saying everything you do is bad - far from it, {{poscatboiler}} and {{topic cat}} are genius, on the other hand you edit without any discussion {{past of}} of {{present participle of}} and {{third-person singular of}} and break literally tens of thousands of entries. My point is this: if your main aim is to test your own abilities at making templates, why Wiktionary? Couldn't you do that on Wikia or something? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I was going to send you a message now asking whether there was a reason for you to revert my edits in these three templates minutes ago. Thanks for the overall praise, but for your information I have not created or actively participated in the existence of the {{topic cat}}. I do apologize for forgetting about a little piece of code which recognizes English as a language that does not need to be specified with a parameter like |lang=en; I think this is the reason for you to edit those templates, although this issue was already fixed when you did that. Aside from my mistake, which was indeed not planned in discussions, the edits done by me on these three templates were already discussed beforehand. I am certainly inclined to continuously improve my own abilities as a programmer, but I don't see how my personal behavior overlaps with your accusation and suggestions. --Daniel. 10:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Funny as that was the bit I wanted a reply to. Why Wiktionary? Why not any othe wiki? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I have responded that I don't see how my behavior has something to do with your suggestions to date; that is, you haven't gave me reasons to change my patterns of edits. In fact, the "Why Wiktionary?" is probably the least important sentence in your text, since it apparently relies on the unproven assumption that I do something here that belongs somewhere else. In short, I edit Wiktionary because when I feel like contributing to a dictionary, I choose this one. --Daniel. 11:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Broken en-noun template[edit]

Did you break en-noun? See cryptex. Equinox 23:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

en-noun is fine. I've edited a subtemplate to fix cryptex as well. --Daniel. 23:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

phrasebook entries[edit]


Please add at least one translation along with your translation requests. into your phrasebook entries, e.g. Portuguese. They would qualify as real phrasebook entries then. --Anatoli 02:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I disagree with this particular criterion of qualification of "real phrasebook entries". Nonetheless, I'll certainly add Portuguese translations to them eventually. --Daniel. 02:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not a criterion as CFI (not at the moment), don't get me wrong, just a courtesy - a phrasebook is supposed to be multilingual or at least bilingual. We can end up having too many phrases without translations, if they grow too fast. The value of a phrase increases straight away with a translation. Besides, it must be easy for you, if you're fluent in Portuguese. Thanks for understanding. --Anatoli 03:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


I think you really should stop adding uncommon phrasebook entries. google:"I need petrol" has mere 137,000 hits, while google books:"I need petrol" has mere 48 hits. Phrasebook entries should be not only attestable but also common. The only requirement they are exempt from is the one of idiomacity AKA non-sum-of-partness. --Dan Polansky 10:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that both entries I need petrol and I need gasoline be either kept or deleted; since the latter existed and is restricted by regional labels, it seemed to me only natural that the other existed too, then I created it.
On the subject of commonness, the unfortunate lack of fuel for one's vehicle occurs very often. If Google hits are indeed a reliable criterion for which 48 or 137.000 results are not sufficient for a phrasebook entry to merit inclusion, perhaps different wordings but similar in effect would fill that gap: some possibilites would be "I need gas" (375.000 raw hits), "where is the gas station" (503.000) and "I ran out of gas" (516.000). --Daniel. 10:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I indeed do not deny the use case of needing petrol but rather the particular phrases. I think that both "I need petrol" and "I need gasoline" should be deleted. google books:"I ran out of gas" shows 640 hits, so this would pass the tentative criterion that I have been proposing. google:"where is the gas station" with its 510,000 hits also seems to perform acceptably well, although google books:"where is the gas station" with its 30 hits is rather unconvincing. Checking against real phrasebooks would be better in the early phase of building the phrasebook, in the phase in which the criteria of inclusion are unclear and in the making. google books:"I ran out of gas" intitle:phrasebook gives four hits, already a first indicator that the phrase is not an utter tosh as a phrasebook one.
Google hits are a mere proxy criterion, yet a better one than no criterion of commonness at all. --Dan Polansky 11:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
In BrE I'd expect "I'm out of petrol" or "I've run out of petrol". Equinox 11:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps usefulness would be other possible criterion; I, personally, and hopefully other English-speaking people would help someone whose only intelligible words are "I need gasoline" in that language, so it's useful. The alternative "where is the gas station?" seems equally useful, except that I remember something about places where gas is sold at markets in gallons.
Notably, Wikitravel (for example, its Japanese phrasebook [16]) has I need a toothbrush and I need a Japanese-English dictionary among other "I need X" variations.
Equinox, similarly to our current both I need gasoline and I need petrol, both I've run out of gasoline and I've run out of petrol would naturally be kept or deleted together. --Daniel. 11:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Usefulness alone is a poor filtering criterion. Usefulness should be a condition necessary, not sufficient, for inclusion of a phrasebook entry. It is rather subjective, and prone to lead to disputes. It fails to capture the fact that some phrases, although useful in principle, are not the primary way of how an idea is expressed in English.
Wikitravel is a project I know almost nothing about, but, from its being a wiki, it is hard to tell how well it is executed.
By sheer numbers of hits, "I'm out of petrol" performs poorly, while google books:"I've run out of petrol" gives decent 418 hits, and performs really well in google books:"I've run out of petrol" intitle:phrasebook with 54 hits. These 54 hits may be misleading, though, in that many of the various hits are from the same publisher, Lonely Planet, who probably uses the same underlying database of phrases as a basis for phrasebooks in various languages. --Dan Polansky 12:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Usefulness is completely subjective. Some of us would use I have a big penis 17,809 times and use I need a diaper...never.
Wikitravel kinda sucks. They're kinda like a "real phrasebook"'s retarded cousin who wears a football helmet everywhere. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 12:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Elder people and parents of babies (and actors who play babies, and sellers of diapers, etc.) need diapers; so, like I said above about petrol, I think we should have either I need a diaper or something similar with different words.
Both that wiki and Lonely Planet apparently fall under the staple rule of "if lemmings have that particular phrase, we may consider having it too" merely because they are phrasebooks, so they'll probably appear in further discussions.
Wikitravel does seem to have some basic thus useful terms like "hello" and "excuse me", but I have to agree with Opiaterein on its apparent retardness after reading that from the Portuguese phrasebook [17]: "I swear I didn't do it, Mr. Officer.", which sound funnily weird even when translated. --Daniel. 14:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

WT:BP#Suggestion for sorting[edit]

I had this idea to templatize organization of phrasebook stuff. I figured since you've worked so much on the list stuff and the category boilers that it'd be right up your alley. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 16:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking, for the phrasebook entries in the main namespace a template format like... {{phrasebook/en/<situation>}} would work, with the usage on the page itself like the list templates. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 16:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User name[edit]

Have you ever considered changing your username to one without a period at the end? When I write your user name in the middle of a sentence in full, the period appears to end the sentence. I can simply write "Daniel" instead of "Daniel.", admittedly, but that does not match the user name perfectly. --Dan Polansky 09:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, apparently I'm the only "Daniel" here as long as the other Daniel [18] keeps unproductive and linking to me. I think you may simply type Daniel, without the period, if you prefer. --Daniel. 10:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
He could also say Daniel Dot, that should make sense. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikisaurus - instances[edit]

Please do not turn instances to hyponyms in Wikisaurus. These are different things. --Dan Polansky 12:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how you differentiate "Instances" from "Hyponyms" and "Meronyms". If possible, provide examples and mention specific mistakes that I have done, since I prefer not to simply follow an instruction to blindly "never rename from that title to that other title."
I noticed that you tend to occasionally "fix" my Wikisaurus edits, then leave a note mentioning how you're returning the page to the "correct" state. Apparently, your comments are the first signal that I've done something wrong, since consensus is unspoken or nonexistent; and rules are unwritten.
I've not found the word "Instances" either in Wiktionary:Wikisaurus or in Wiktionary:Wikisaurus/Format; I've only found it naming sets of hyponyms and meronyms, so it's only natural that I fix them, unless I'm ignoring a distinction. --Daniel. 14:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

On a broader note, can you please leave things that I have done in Wikisaurus alone unless you are very sure you know what you are doing? I do not get why you have removed meronyms from "Wikisaurus:computer", to take another instance. There is a lot of things you can do in Wikisaurus without turning things upside down. --Dan Polansky 12:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you said that "software' is not a meronym of "computer"; I believe your statement is incorrect. Without software, there is no instruction on how to compute effectively (at least in modern computers which don't require to be rewired). I can fathom that there is a lot of things to be done in Wikisaurus, but most of them are not listed in the 8,788 bytes of Wiktionary:Wikisaurus/Requested entries, which leaves me with either (1) adding new pages or (2) improving old pages as I see fit. I've been doing both.
Since a computer has large sets of hardware and software as meronyms, I've added them to both respective lists: WS:hardware and WS:software. They help to understand the distinction and may have additional hypernyms, hyponyms and meronyms. --Daniel. 14:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems you should first get a clear idea of hyponymy and meronymy. You have entered "chess" as hypernym of "chess piece" into Wikisaurus, an obviously wrong thing to do. A computer is equiped with software, right, but it does not consist of software. An apartment does not consist of furniture either, although it is of not much use without it. A taxi does not consist of a taxi driver, although without a taxi driver no taxi can go anywhere. And a car does not consist of gasoline.
By example, "Mars" is an instance of "planet", while "planet" is a hyponym of "celestial body"; each planet is a celestial body, while "each Mars" is meaningless unless you read Mars as a common noun. "Each chess" is meaningless, while "chess is a game" is meaningful. If you want to see a set-theoretic characterization of the distinction, see User:Dan Polansky/Wikisaurus#Semantic_relations.
Before you start renaming the heading "Instances", intentionally entered by the only long-term contributor to Wikisaurus, I would think it proper to first ask the contributor what the intention was. Anyway. --Dan Polansky 15:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


Would it be possible to have it so we don't have to make an addition to list every time we add a new topic? Check out Appendix:English phrasebook/Love[ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 12:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added love to the list. Your request of not having to make additions to it can be easily fulfilled, but why? Apparently, the PB will not have more than ten sections. When these sections are created, either (1) we are happy with them and definitely would not want additions such as Appendix:English phrasebook/How to ask for woman-on-top sexual positions; or (2) we do want such new sections, but they would be subsections, which would require specific and reasonably complex codes in the list. --Daniel. 14:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure 10 would be quite enough... but since I'm having trouble thinking of more... heh. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


Was it one of your recent edits that caused [[Reader's Digest version]] to have its plural not a link? If so, can you fix it? Thanks.​—msh210 17:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. When I reverted my edits, the link was restored, thus I discovered that the lack of it was my fault. Thanks for pointing me to that bug. I'll have to analyze the template later to restore the other functions that I have added to it while keeping "Reader's Digest version" intact. --Daniel. 17:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)