User talk:EncycloPetey/Archive 7

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


This word is the 'pedia's featured article today, and so it might be worthwhile to give it a quick look-over. It seems to be in good working order, nothing embarrassing, at least. However, it might merit a little extra oomph, if you're up for it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. There's only so much I can do for a participle without spending lots of research time, but I've added a WP link and a pronunciation section. --EncycloPetey 01:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

hot dog[edit]

I'm confused about your undo. I asked a question about hot dog and got what I believed to be a reasonable answer. Believing the conversation over, I made four edits: two removing the slang label, one changing the Japanese translation, and one changing the translation definition. Your message to me is that there is an on-going discussion (the one I started, I believe). I can see putting bun back into the translation definition, but don't understand why you have undone my edits. Wakablogger 09:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Wakablogger

Because of some text moved around and the diff not lining up the text lines, I did not realize that you had changed the Japaanese translation. Obviously that is not a problem. --EncycloPetey 16:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, but do I need to wait for the Tea Room conversation to continue? I think the issue has been resolved as far as removing the slang label and the necessity of separating with and without the bun (though I have some follow-up issues for sausage, frankfurter, etc.) I never considered it to be so important as to even put up a Tea Room template on the hot dog page. Wakablogger 17:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Wakablogger.


I'm trying to make articles for some notable dinosaurs, guess I wasn't looking close enough at the book.

Form of templates[edit]

Ohh yes, ok. That was actually italic that broke my parser. Sorry. I don't really care how is done, as long as it done in same fashion... TestPilottalk to me! 03:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi, sorry about using the wrong procedure for this, but I had a little problem with this article, because I wasn't intending to move the entire "Photios" article over to Wiktionary. The Wikipedia article consisted of a disambiguation part (which stays in Wikipedia), and a section on etymology (that is the section I wanted to transwiki). Any advice? Sjakkalle 06:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: User_talk:Kittell#Interwiki links[edit]

I got your warning on my talk page about not creating interwiki links to another language's wiki, but I don't understand the problem. I created the interwiki link to a target page that didn't exist, then I used the red link to create the target page. Do you want me to do that in the reverse order? I might be missing something. Perhaps you can explain more. Using the example you left, is the page that you say doesn't exist.

Thanks, Kirk (user page | talk page) 02:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

manual of style[edit]

Please show me the manual of style regulations as to your claim that any lemmicaly related word may be used on an entry in quotations. 09:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

EP: following section is transcluded; you might want to change that? I was very surprised to see my comment end up here!

If that is not possible, than a sentence must be made up and the quotation must be replaced. 14:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 14:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:IdLoveOne/Template:archaic

Discussion at Wikipedia[edit]

As a courtesy notice, please be aware that this issue is being discussed over at WP:AN/I - [1]. Not sure what it's doing there but thought you might want to know. 00:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --EncycloPetey 03:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


Why when this is the English Wiktionary and there's an article in the English Wikipedia? --Espoo 17:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Because that's the German entry. A word in any language links to the wikipedia article in that language. Links to the English Wikipedia are only made from sections on English words. --EncycloPetey 17:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi there. Could you create {{ordinalbox}} sometime - to match. SemperBlotto 14:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that's easily done. I only held off to make sure I had a decent go with {{cardinalbox}} before proceeding. I have one more thing I want to try. Once that's done (whether it works or not), I'll create an {{ordinalbox}}. --EncycloPetey 00:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Ta. I shall finish Italian cardinal numbers in the next few days - then move on to ordinals. Question:- I have been using the prev/next boxes to point to the adjacent numbers that exist. But as the numbers get bigger (see centomila as an example) this gets a bit silly. Is it OK for them to point to the next lower and higher numbers that exist in the Wiki? I realise that pointers then have to be adjusted if a number is added in between. SemperBlotto 18:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that[edit]

Thanks the the info on WOTD - are there any written guidelines so I'll know what to do in the future? Teh Rote 13:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian possessives[edit]

I created a new declension table with possessive endings plus the case endings (hu-possessive-xx). The table is huge and does not look good when it is placed under the other declension table, see ház. If I leave out the case endings and just show the possessives, the table would be much smaller and I could even put it right next to the regular declension table. I am asking for your feedback because I'm not sure how to resolve this. Thanks. --Panda10 23:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We could combine the two into one huge table, and I started going in that direction, but changed my mind. It would have been too much to handle. The current case tables work fine for now, I'm sure I will find exceptions, but the tables are relatively small and in some cases the exceptions could be built into them. However, if I start with such a huge table, it will be really hard to make changes. I like the idea of the separate small possessive table and the appendix for the rest. I've seen someone creating two tables right next to each other and they can be opened independently. I would like to try that idea. Thanks EP. --Panda10 23:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Audio[edit]

First of all, that was a fast response. I apologize, I'm using headphones, and I'm really unable to tell very well the difference in volume. I'll turn it up somewhat. Again, thanks for the quick response. Yerich 01:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I can tell now that I'm paying attention to it. Turns out the volume meter in audacity is set to 0.1. No wonder. Yerich 01:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


Hey Hoser, Why did you delete spinfinity? At least you could have left a reason why. Kinda rude, my entire is not good enough for you to even state why it was deleted?

(n.b. starting out by calling someone you do not know a hoser is unlikely to get you a polite response, but fortunately your rudeness has so far been ignored) Robert Ullmann 17:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
You can take a look at our criteria for inclusion and see that we do not accept made-up terms (protologisms). This is not Urban Dictionary. --EncycloPetey 17:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help (Unidad)[edit]

Hey, thanks for the message! That way you showed me makes it a lot easier! Thanks for putting my new entries right too :)


Ok. My intention was not to remove any sort of pronunciation but to correct it to a more standardised form, since /ˈfoɻgo/ is obviously wrong.

in other words, there was no "US pronunciation" for me to remove, but an error instead.

i could've added an additional US pronunciation [/fɔːr'goʊ/], but i didn't, that's all.


You wrote: I have reverted this edit, since it is unclear why you chose to delete those derived terms. A simple search of Google books turns up more than 100 uses of undivining. --EncycloPetey 08:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My response: I don't understand. Why the reversion? One-hundred search instances in Google, mostly redundant, do not validate the legitimacy or substantiveness of a given word. That's sheer preposterousness.

Not in Google, in Google Books, a search of published printed books that have been uploaded into Google's database. That's at least one hundred print the use the term. Please see WT:CFI (criteria for inclusion), which states (amon other things) that English terms with a minimum of three independent citations in durably archived media (such as printed, published books) merit inclusion as an entry. --EncycloPetey 16:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Accents on Italian words' pronunciation section[edit]

Hi! I know that IPA (or SAMPA) should be sufficient, but the most Italian dictionaries don't use IPA: instead, they only write their entries with the graphic accent, so that the people can distinguish e.g. between pèsca and pésca, or between àncora and ancóra. For instance, Zingarelli 2008 and Devoto-Oli (1971) do so. I assumed it as a slight "scientific" method to show the Italian words' pronunciation, and put it into Wiktionary. Moreover, I think it's not useless: all in all there is a lot of people that don't understand IPA, but are able to read correctly "pèsca". -- Sentinella 13:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, EncycloPetey, I'll talk with SemperBlotto! Bye, Sentinella 22:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Page format[edit]

Note some of the changes I made to the page format for combinative. These are standard for Wiktionary format: (1) Synonyms, Antonyms, Related terms, and the link are indented under the part of speech section, (2) Headers with more than one word (like Relative terms) have only the initial letter capitalized, (3) Synonyms and Antonyms must be paired with a particular definition. I have done this for the Synonyms to show you how this looks, but have not done the Antonyms. --EncycloPetey 04:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I am going to put this into practice immediately. --Gabeedman 05:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Reminder: Synonyms and Antonyms are always ina single row separated by commas, even if the page currently has only one definition. Our general guide for page layout is WT:ELE, but if it seems rather daunting, you may refer to listen and parrot as examples demonstrating proper format. --EncycloPetey 03:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Quick question: If there is only one definition for a given word (e.g. irremissible), do we still place the definition before the synonyms and/or antonyms, followed by the synonyms and/or antonyms separated by commas? I will be sure to cleanup my entries immediately. Thanks again. --Gabeedman 03:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My edit to Wiktionary:Entry layout explained[edit]

I did not think I had made any change, merely provided an example that should have been exactly and fully defined by the existing textual rules. If the example made any substantive change, it's wrong, and should certainly be removed, or fixed. Does the warning you pointed out apply to any edit (in which case, the page should probably be protected) or only to changes to substance? (in which case, as I said, I don't think this was one) In any case, thanks for your vigilance. JesseW 08:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Lack of evidence for warrented administrator promotion[edit]

Instantly blocking constructively-editing users based on small edits that one does not personally approve of is largely illegal. 01:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edits were not constructive. It is not me alone, the entire community has been reverting your dubious edits. There is nothing "illegal" about blocking such users, particularly when they do not respond to postings on their talk pages. There is a problem with editing under a new account when you are blocked. --EncycloPetey 01:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Stop being rude. 2. Stop lieing. 3. They were constructive

I'd like to show you my friend i named

"Main Entry:

vam·pire Listen to the pronunciation of vampire






French, from German Vampir, from Serbian vampir


1732 "

Not only does it say that on that website..... but it also says the SAME THING on the French Wiktionary....

sooo.... in the end.... i guess adding fact to a site and standing up for the truth is blocked by the people who so very dont want that truth to get out. Its obvious why no constructivly-oriented user as myself enjoys the wiktionary editing expierience. Its because you are there to hide the truth, and block any dissent to your personal beliefs without regard for the Wiktionary RULES. 02:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The French Wiktionary entry for fr:vampire gives the English etymology as "Étymologie à compléter. (Ajouter)" and the French etymology as "Mot allemand (Vampir), du serbe." Thank you for verifying that you're making up information. And, as I said, the OED is the superior dictionary for etymologies. Our etymology before you edited said "From French vampire or German Vampir from Hungarian vámpír from Slavonic vampir (compare Russian упырь, Polish upiór, etc.)", so what constructive information were you adding from your sources that isn't already there? Nothing. The information you added is not in the sources you claim to be using. --EncycloPetey 02:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
While I have no compassion for = = at all, I would like to mention that much of his version on vampires is present (with some references I cannot verify) in a somewhat confused section of w:Vampire. Perhaps Anonymous meant this here with the word wikipaedia. -- Gauss 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I have a hard time believing that the user meant "Engish Wikipedia" when he said "French Wiktionary". I also note that what the user was trying to add is not the same as the WP information; our entry's etymology already had the WP content before he started editing. What the anon was adding traced the word back to Greek or Turkish roots, which the WP article makes no mention of. --EncycloPetey 17:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You are twisting my words, i said Turkic... NOT TURKISH... and you are wrong in another aspect in that it does mention it and always has... "...borrowed the word from a Turkic term for "witch" (e.g. Tatar ubyr)." You also claim that ""Mot allemand (Vampir), du serbe." is made up information when its clearly on the French Wiktionary.... and if we get the word from French.... it should be noted in the English Wiktionary where the French comes from.... "Mot allemand (Vampir), du serbe." means "From Allemann (meaning "German" in french) "Vampir", of Serbian origin"... Even on the English Wikipedia does it say that the french comes from German, but it also says the english comes from German as "possibly via french vampyre"... but french people have never used the word vampyre, its always been vampire in french. 20:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is exactly what the French Wiktionary says: "Mot allemand (Vampir), du serbe". That's all it says. You added information "probably from Greek, or a Turkic word" which you claimed were "facts" and cited in support of your edits other websites that said nothing of the sort. The information was made up, then you lied, and that is the problem. --EncycloPetey 20:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Latin inflection[edit]

As far as I know, there is a declension type for Latin neuter nouns that have the endings -is (gen. sg.), -i (dat. sg.), -e (abl. sg.), -a (nom. pl.), -a (acc. pl.), -ium (gen. pl.), -ibus (dat./abl pl.), for example [2]. -- Frous 18:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Only some school exercises made by my Latin teacher. Unfortunately, I don't have a book source..yet. I can contact my teacher and ask him for sources (I try to get them in English). Until then, could we please keep the template I created? -- Frous 18:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, what's the policy: in case of nouns and adjectives, should the header, under which all the forms of the word is given, be Declension or Inflection? -- Frous 18:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
According to this [3], my edit would be correct, but why should the Latin entries use Inflections [4] instead? Is there any plausible reason? :D -- Frous 18:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead. :) -- Frous 19:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


In respect of an edit including a template reference that isn't on wiktionary, Encyclopetey wrote this:

We do not merge words. Each spelling that is legitimate gets its own separate entry. This is partly because we are a multilingual dictionary, and what forms might be related in one language usually are not in another. --EncycloPetey 21:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you merge word roots, then? If equivocal, equivocate, equivocation, and equivocally stay true to their roots in English (they deviate quite a bit from latin roots--the latin word is about sound, and the English word is about meaning), and one word is more useful than the other three, should I add crosstalk or should I just make sure they're all linked to the most jeneral definition? Brewhaha at TeraByte 21:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand your quetsion, but equivocate, equivocal, equivocation, equivocally, etc. should all have separate entries. Our basic unit for separate pages is a difference in spelling. Even color and colour have separate pages, and they are the same word. Merging is appropriate to an encyclopedia, where the units of entries are topics, but not for a dictionary where the units are words or spellings. --EncycloPetey 21:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should pretty much leave creations alone. I would install redirections from Jeneral, Bujet, and Jenetiks to the Ingglish (English) equivalents, because that's the only language I speak, and you say redirection is abnormal here. Who won't get my meaning from ekstra literality? Brewhaha at TeraByte 22:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why would you redirect at all? If Jeneral, Bujet, and Jenetiks are words in some language, then they can get a full entry. While all the definitions here are given in English, the entries themselves can be for any language. Some pages contain only non-English words, like andar, which is a word in several languages and so has several language sections. Note also that Wiktionary is case-sensitive, including the first letter. An entry should only begin with a capital letter if it is always written that way. --EncycloPetey 22:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeneral, Bujet, and Jenetiks are regular spellings of English. They mean the same thing, because they sound the same way, so why would I create more than a redirection for that? For all I know, I'm the only one that uses those spellings. Brewhaha at TeraByte 22:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, they're what we call protologisms. No, we don't include those. Our criteria for inclusion requires publication in a well-known source or three durably archive and independent uses as a minimum for inclusion. --EncycloPetey 22:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think homophone describes them better than a synonym for neologism. To describe them accurately, I need two latin words: heteronymic homophone -- same sound, different spelling.Brewhaha at TeraByte 00:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Um... those aren't Latin words; they're English. Note that we make a distinction between a neologism (word in general use not yet in printed dictionaries) and protologisms (invented words not in general use). --EncycloPetey 00:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


I have asked for community comment on the issues arising for your actions here. Knepflerle 11:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


I believe some numbers are allowed here ; compare 1, 101, 666, 1337, and various other numbers with significance outside of their cardinal position. 2007 is on the wanted pages page, after all. Teh Rote 03:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that might be the case, but as 2007 is typically referred to in the year sense, would it not warrant inclusion and be "wanted" as well? Teh Rote 03:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Then I suppose it would only warrant inclusion in the number sense, and thus is not necessary to put on the PWA thingy. I see your point now, thanks. Teh Rote 06:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pyramidology; Pyramidology[edit]

In years past, I have searched through many works in trying to find out who first coined the word, "pyramidology." Yes, Piazzi Smyth, and many others, wrote about the Great Pyramid and its relevance to the Bible long before Adam Rutherford, but so far, I have not found where any writer before Adam Rutherford ever used the word "pyramidology." His definition and explanation for using this word is as follows:

[[Pyramidology is the science that deals with the Great Pyramid's scientific demonstration of Biblical truth, true Christianity and the Divine plan respecting humanity on this planet. One who is skilled in this science is therefore defined as a Pyramidologist. But it is necessary clearly to distinguish between a Pyramidologist and a Pyramidist. A Pyramidist is an Egyptologist who specializes in the study of the pyramids of Egypt, or in other words, a specialist on the Egyptian pyramids from the archeological standpoint. Hence we find some people who have a good knowledge of Pyramidology know little or nothing about Egyptology. On the other hand, an Egyptologist, or even a Pyramidist, may know nothing about Pyramidology. An expert Pyramidologist, however, knows the Great Pyramid in all its aspects, including the Egyptological, even though his knowledge of Egyptology in general may not be very wide. Apart from a few builders' marks, which include a dating and the cartouche of Khufu (the pharaoh in whose reign the Great Pyramid was erected), there are no hieroglyphics in the Great Pyramid. Hence to become a Pyramidologist, knowledge of hieroglyphics is not required, whereas it is essential for all Egyptologists including Pyramidist to be able to read hieroglyphics proficiently.]]

As you can see, his definition is quite different from the later definition given to this word. As best as I have been able to determine, this later definition was actually created by those who oppose "pyramidology' by making it appear that "pyramidology" had to do with study of all the pyramids, and also involving occultic demonic supernatural powers and somehow related to the "new age" ideas about pyramids. From this the "new age" believers and others have began to use the word "pyramidology" as applying to their beliefs about "pyramid power," etc. In reality, the word "pyramidology" was coined, not as study of "pyramids" (plural), nor to describe "pyramid power," nor did the word have anything to do with the "new age" movement, nor for the purpose of seeking "supernatural powers" in the pyramids. It was coined solely to describe the study of one pyramid, that is, the one pyramid generally referred to as "the Great Pyramid," as related to the Bible. This word, as originally defined, does indeed describe the works of Piazzi Smyth, and many others who wrote about the Great Pyramid and the Bible before Adam Rutherford. Piazzi Smyth was not concerned about finding "supernatural powers" in the pyramids, not even in the Great Pyramid. Nor were many other writers, although they are often falsely accused of such simply because of their study of the Great Pyramid, and the corrupted meaning given to the word "pyramidology" by those who wish to condemn Biblical study of the Great Pyramid.

Like I have said, so far I have not found any writer before Adam Rutherford who ever used the word "pyramidology," and he is the first writer also that gives a definition of its meaning. Thus, I usually attribute Adam Rutherford with coining the words "pyramidology" as well as "pyramidologist." However, I also admit that it is possible that his father, John Rutherford, may have actually coined the words and defined the words, but this also is unconfirmed.

My website on the Great Pyramid:

(I haven't updated this in a while; there are a tremendous amount of links I am finding on the internet that I wish to add to the page.)

Ronald Day

Restoration Light Bible Study Services

Unfortunately, the published source I noted at pyramidology clearly demonstrates use of the word in 1870, which long predates Rutherford's work. So, Rutherford cannot be credited with coining the word, and his meaning is not the original one used. --EncycloPetey 23:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Got me there. That's one book I never searched in before, thus I apologize for not having searched that particular book. Nevertheless, it is still true that Smyth was not using the word pyramidology in the sense of seeking "supernatural power" in the "pyramids," nor in any sense that the word is used today relevant to the new age movement. His work demonstrates that he was using the word similar to the way Adam Rutherford later defined the word. -- ResLight 23:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dialect formatting[edit]

Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated at User_talk:Robert_Ullmann#Standardizing_dialects. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Help:Example sentences[edit]

Thanks for updating this page. I was wondering how a user would find it. Is it listed anywhere? Maybe we should add it to Help:Index. Another thing. It might be helpful to add a sentence or two about non-lemma examples in lemma entries. Normally, I try to add examples that use the actual entry name, but in Hungarian, sometimes an inflected form has to be used. What is the recommendation for these situations? --Panda10 22:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


My bad, I was not totally sure how to add/create the entry; I certainly did not mean to go against the standard on purpose. Thanks for the link; I'll update myself accordingly.

About which conjugation its in, I don't actually know, I guess that's a no-no. I did reference which had "ieiuno (jejuno)", and which had "ieiunium : fast, abstinence, hunger / leanness, thinness". However, I assumed the first conjugation because the Spanish (Castillano) form desayunar has the -ar ending. You may also want to check the edits I made to editions to the etymology of desayunar: they may not be kosher as well. Elandres 23:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely forgot why I wandered out to these entries to begin with: the wikipedia entry for dinner [5], in which I forgot there was mention of disiunare, though I wish the Etymology in the introduction was more complete.
About the desayunar, I see you changed what I had added; that sort of confused me at first. Then upon the inspection of the evidence, I saw where my assumption and latter confusion came from. It seems desayunar is a combination of des- + ayunar "to fast" (which is itself derived from Latin ieiunare, meaning "to fast" from what I can determine from the etymology of dinner and this page [6] I referenced earlier).
So what I can conclude from all this is that desayunar and disiunare are related. Somehow, in the formation of the Latin form (of which I can only find in etymologies, and not anywhere else on the web), the "ie" (or "je" pronounced ye) is dropped from the beginning of ieiunare. However, the Spanish ayunar contains a similar consonant before the "y," which would suggest that desayunar did not derive directly from the Latin cognate. The formation of the word is still striking similar, so I am compelled to believe that the Spanish formation was influenced by other Romance or later Romance languages.
Final Remarks: I am not all certain of the existence of disiunare (which when I say the word to myself, I think of disunion), but it seems plausible to have been in use given its derivation and later derivatives.
*elAndres 01:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
But we do not include unattested words (see WT:CFI). Wikipedia is not a reliable source for the existence or usage of words. Since the word does not occur in any of the major Latin dictionaries, and is not cited in romance language dictionaries as a root form, I'd say that it may not exist at all and the Wikipedia entry should be edited to reflect this. --EncycloPetey 01:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


We need a Latin section at carpe. I'm guessing that carpe is the imperative of something, but my Latin isn't up to scratch. --Felonia 07:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. My first instince was capiō, but the imperative seems to be cape. I'm interested to see where this came from. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it the imperative of carpo? SemperBlotto 09:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's a form of carpō; I've added a Latin section. --EncycloPetey 15:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


I was mostly worried that it might have slipped your mind or something and was about to leave you a message. I wouldn't mind too much trying my hand at it, but I really think some sort of cheat sheet for the process would help any other person who would need to replace you. As is, one has to figure out how it works by themselves (And I would totally have forgotten about the archive pages). I really don't get what you mean about the "recycled pages"? I mean, they (Wiktionary:Word of the day/Recycled pages/August etc.) just use the daily templates (And I can't edit them anyway), don't they?

Those are the recylced pages, yes. There is a template for each day. If you can't edit them, them that makes it not so easy. I forgot that you're only an admin on WP.
Oh, I can edit the templates just fine. I'm not clear what the Recycled pages are supposed to be for in general, actually. They are basically a version of the last archive page with edit links in the header, but the daily template already has an edit link! Circeus 18:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The recycled pages exist (1) so that we don't have to constantly create new templates or pages to make the system work, (2) so we can just subst to create the archive, and (3) so that the system will work even if someone forgets to put in a new word the following year (or, as Connel once put it, "So WOTD will continue to work even if EP gets hit by a bus".) There have been a few times where a word became WOTD again the following year because my off-line schedule became hectic. This system ensures that we won't have an even more embarassing gap in WOTD. --EncycloPetey 19:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it's obvious in retrospective (the archive pages have to be substituted!). Circeus 19:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

At the least I'll probably go back to strike used noms and add the WOTD template on the pages for June, though. Circeus 18:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and should the joke creation of Wiktionary:Word of the day/Archive/2008/September be deleted? Circeus 18:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. --EncycloPetey 18:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

How about we try a smaller step this month, with the optional plan of having you do the whole thing next month, so as to ease you into it? I like taking a break from doing WOTD a couple of times each year, and September is likely to be busy for me anyway. What I can do is go ahead and select the words, put them in a desireable sequence, but let you tidy the definitions and set up the page templates. We can discuss later how I decided which words to use and how I determined a sequence for them. --EncycloPetey 19:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I can't do reliable recordings for the audio, though (My English is not bad, but I'm not a native speaker, and liable to be wildly off the mark). Circeus 19:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing lollipop. I'm currently fixing accord. It's not quite as bad as it looks. I'm mostly making more work for myself by tracking down as many quotes as possible. Circeus 21:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is best to ask for UK pronunciations? At least the ones where non-rhotic accents will fatally have different pronunciations (cf. accord, occur, parvenu) should definitely have them. Circeus 14:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my terrible formatting in pronunciation sections. It's probably the area I least touch on the site, so I'm pretty unfamiliar with it. Circeus 21:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


I've been meaning to bring this up for aaages. I'm slightly thrown by some of the conventions you use in IPA, well really only for the UK side, in particular using /i/. Now my understanding is that English generally distinguishes between short /ɪ/ and long /iː/ (with the exception of word-endings), and certainly, if I heard [i] I would interpret it as representing one of the other two phonemes. I feel like I've seen you do this with /u/ as well. It may be different in the States (I know the OED now use /i/ for American pronunciations) but it seems, er, unusual for UK ones. Ƿidsiþ 21:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about a particular case? I typically defer to the Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary on the matter of Lua error: Module:IPA/templates:64: The parameter "Ewe]</span>. Kindly show me where I am going wrong. Thanks.--Natsubee 14:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Two things: (1) it is better for the display text of the link to read as "Audio", since some people do not load images, (2) The link did not work because you included "Image:" in the link. If you leave that part out, the link will work. I have made [ is not used by this template. is what I want to rely on! Like for Set. As to accommodating stupid Anglophones (like me), I don't want to "create pages". Just use {{also}}. (Well, when the j page doesn't exist, perhaps we should create it, but then only as a redirect or {{only in}} page.) But I guess we simply disagree (more precisely: I guess I disagree with the accepted practice, so will in editing ignore my opinion). Happy new year, by the way!—msh210 21:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Thans, and happy Gregorian calendar New Year to you as well! It will be happier for me when I stop coughing all night. --EncycloPetey 21:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


Has finally been re-generated. Let me know if you have any issues with it. Conrad.Irwin 02:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)