User talk:Fytcha

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


RFD closures[edit]

In most cases the entry should be deleted, not stubbed. Equinox 05:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Equinox: Are you referring to Sorani alphabet? I did that only for consistency's sake. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 05:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ELIZA and others; see my recent edits. Equinox 05:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Equinox: I'm sure you're aware I wasn't the one who created those stubs (except for Sorani alphabet). They've existed for some time now, I've only changed the template parameter now: diff. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 05:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Never mind. As long as RFDs (request for deletion) are not being closed by stubbing. Equinox 13:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Equinox: I don't quite understand either: ELIZA sat there as a stub since January 9, 2013; I had nothing to do with that. To me it seemed like you thought I had created all of those 30 or so stubs that I've recently changed a parameter in; just wanted to tell you that's not the case. However, I did create some stubs (Sorani alphabet for one), so I will take your advice to heart. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 13:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that a template change caused the change in the entries. But I thought this was related to some RFDs, jeez, I dunno. I'll get off your back now. Equinox 01:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deletion[edit]

Hi. I'm not objecting your recent deletion of Göteborgs Rapé. But I'm curious about the reason, to prevent further mistakes like it. In the comment you say "as per RFD and RFDO", but I couldn't make heads or tails of them. Can you point me in the right direction? --Christoffre (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Christoffre: Hey. RFD is a process by which editors can propose entries to be deleted (the details of which are described in the link). The article was proposed for such a deletion on March 11, 2021 by User:Glades12. The deletion discussion can be found here: Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#Göteborgs_Rapé. I've decided to close this almost 1 year old request because two native speakers voted to delete it with nobody opposing the deletion. If you object (it's your right to do so), please comment on that discussion with "Keep" and I will (temporarily) undelete it (as you might not have been aware of this RFD, which is unfair to you) until we get a clearer consensus or until some more time has passed. Hope this helps! — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 00:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No, the reason is valid. It's nothing more than a brand name. Christoffre (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My accidental revert[edit]

I accidentally rollbacked your edit in error at star up. Sorry! —Svārtava [tcur] 08:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Svartava: No worries! It happens. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 12:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[edit]


You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hello and thank you for the advice, I will use them. Rex65mya (talk)


Does the Fr in this sentence: {{fr-noun|m|?}} means french or a coding thing? Thanks-User:Rex65mya

@Rex65mya: It means French. Under ===Noun=== in a French entry you should use {{fr-noun}}, under ===Adjective=== {{fr-adj}} and so on. If you don't know what to do, just have a look at a couple of similar articles. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 03:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I don't want to start a fight or anything at all, but you corrected me that перде is in Macedonian. While that may be true, I am not denying it, please check when was the Macedonian language officially created (1945), from what language is deriving, and from when is the modern Bulgarian dating back (from around 16th century). So, I believe it would be fair to have at least both languages in display :) 2600:6C5A:97F:F7BA:10E1:5862:5731:FB6D 15:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this word also exists in Bulgarian, then an entry for that should definitely also be created, no doubt about that. The reason why I reverted your edit is because you can't just change the L2 language header like that because:
  1. It effectively removes a Macedonian entry, however, removals are done via WT:RFD or WT:RFV.
  2. The article uses Macedonian templates which also place it into the corresponding Macedonian categories (see instances of mk on that page).
If you want to create a Bulgarian article for the same grapheme, you could start by copy-pasting the Macedonian one, substituting "Macedonian" with "Bulgarian" and "mk" with "bg". Note also that the languages on a page should be sorted alphabetically. I hope this helps. :) — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This has a hidden module error: when you feed a module invocation into a parser function, any error messages generated by the module are treated by the parser function as just more text, and {{#ifeq}} doesn't actually display anything. I only know this after spending many, many hours in the past trying to figure out why entries were in CAT:E when there was nothing visibly wrong. The worst part is that there's usually nothing obvious to show which template has the error, so a page with hundreds of templates can be very hard to debug.

Although the current module error could be easily fixed with <noinclude></noinclude>, I would strongly recommend testing your parameters outside of the parser functions and throwing an error there if there's a problem- it's just too easy to get the template syntax wrong or to make a typo.

Also, has this new template been discussed at all? Aside from whether it's a better approach than {{t-check}}, it's going to increase traffic on RFVN and RFVCJK. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Entz: Ah, thank you, I actually saw the hidden category but couldn't figure out what the issue was because - as you said - there's no visual indication of an error. I'm still not done with the template and I'll take care of this shortly.
It has not been discussed but I believe that this is a very sensible template to have. The idea was born out of the edit warring of two Turkish redlink translations in astronaut that I've tried to settle by creating a potentially nonsense article (uçurcu) only to immediately send it to RFV (there are a small number of other Turkish redlink translations with the same issue). The work of creating such articles (and the damage inflicted by having incorrect information as standalone articles) could be saved by this template. Also, I have at multiple times in the past wondered what the correct process to send a translation-box-only term to RFV; I'm sure others have wondered the same. What's more, as WT:TRANS states that translation box entries must meet our attestation criteria, I don't think we should have a different process by which to verify the attestation of a term depending on whether it has a standalone article or not. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 20:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between suitable for an entry and suitable for a translation. Having an entry is covered by CFI, and we try to cover everything in actual use, except for things covered by WT:BRAND and WT:FICTION (SOP terms are covered at the entries for their parts). Translations, on the other hand, are for the purpose of knowing how to say something in other languages, not to cover everything. They aren't addressed by CFI, though in practice we shouldn't be redlinking to anything that's not suitable to be an entry. Adding a non-standard translation that will only be understood by a few thousand out of 70+ million speakers gives it undue weight and should be reverted on sight. The same goes for obsolete terms in modern languages- those should be covered in synonym sections for the current equivalents. Dead and poorly-documented languages are different, since it's helpful for finding things that you can't find any other way.
In other words, you're developing procedures for things you don't need to do in the first place: it doesn't matter whether there's an entry for it, if it's not useful as a translation or useful for some other legitimate purpose, just revert it. If someone persists in adding such content, block them.
Of course, there are edge cases where such a template and procedures might be actually useful, so I'm not rejecting the idea out of hand. I just think it should be discussed. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuck Entz: I am aware that our criteria for inclusion are different for entries and translations; however, WT:TRANS expressly states that attestation criteria (a subset of WT:CFI) still apply for translations. As RFV is concerned with the attestation part of WT:CFI only, it makes sense that translations be incorporated in the RFV process, hence my template.
I see your points and I agree for the most part, though I still hold that the template has legitimate uses, for instance the following somewhat common scenario: 1. the English term is very specialized 2. there is only one translation provided in that language 3. the translation is a redlink and 4. the lemma looks somewhat legitimate though all I can find offhand in terms of attestations is, say, one valid cite. No other procedure is satisfactory in this scenario: {{t-check}} and it may still remain there for another decade; simply removing it is also out of the question for a variety of reasons; just leaving it be and continuing to promote a potential protologism is also not something I would accept.
As per your wish, I will open a BP discussion. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 01:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback on Kino[edit]

I think you made an error rolling back my edits, so I am posting to your talk page as requested. The word "kino" as used in those contexts absolutely is 4chan vernacular, and I think it should be categorized as such. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 01:06, 8 January 2022.

Yep, you're right. My rollback was a mistake. Sorry! — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 01:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Merhaba @Fytcha, can you add my name to Wiktionary:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage? I want to use the AutoWikiBrowser. ToprakM (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merhaba @ToprakM. I honestly don't feel comfortable adding you there because you're not whitelisted, which means your edits would flood the patrol queue. Sorry! — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone will nominate me soon. Thank you anyway. ToprakM (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I can't see where you tagged me. I must use a computer to see it. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahmudmasri: That must have been here: Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#أشهد_أن_عليا_ولي_الله. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 04:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]