User talk:Jberkel

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

Lists/wanted for Translingual (Roman script)[edit]

It would be handy if you could add "Translingual" to your list of languages, at least if you could include only terms in Roman script (no diacritics etc). Though I am successfully using {{taxlink}} to capture Translingual taxonomic name redlinks, contributors add taxonomic names to definitions etc. without using the template. I assume that you only assign links to languages if they use {{l}} ({{ll}}?) or translation templates. If this is not readily done, I will continue the current practice of occasionally searching for regexes that generate taxonomic names not enclosed in {{taxlink}}. DCDuring (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DCDuring: Yes, if someone writes [[Foobarxia]], there's no way to know if English is intended or Translingual. Right now the script only works with the most common link templates, but I'm going to do a new version which will look at all the links. If the links are in a template ({{m|mul|Foobarxia}}), it's obviously easy to filter them out, otherwise they'll get lumped together with the English missing links. But maybe we can think of some heuristics to detect them (capitals, italics, your regexes, etc.) – Jberkel 20:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My regexes, used in the search box, are usually targeted to lemmas in a specific language when I stumble across a user contributing in that language who isn't using {{taxlink}}. I have also looked at uses of {{w}} and occurrences of <nowiki>[[w: and [[wikispecies:<nowiki>, the latter being expensive without other restrictions. Italics and initial capitals help but need even more clever restrictions to successfully run and not generate too many false positives. Collocation with taxonomic terms like family, species, genus, clade, order, tribe, phylum, etc, some with possible prefixes like super-, sub-, infra-, parv- can help. DCDuring (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DCDuring: Maybe another approach would be to use a species database and check each (untagged/mul) link against it? Jberkel 00:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Catalogue of Life has nearly 2MM species, about 90% of described species, less than 100MB, and 2MM synonyms. They have some 400K names of other ranks, about 200K genera. How many potentially relevant unduplicated links do we have? Would this take hours or days to run on a PC or could we get time on some server? If necessary we could do some simple pre-processing of the links to limit the linked terms to those of two words and eliminate those using any characters not used in taxonomic names. We could do something similar with names of genus rank and ranks below species. DCDuring (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DCDuring: I have no idea how many links we have in total, but checking against a fixed list of names is very fast. We can run this on WMF infrastructure, as it already happens with the wanted entries generation. Jberkel 13:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another thing that should be done with the Catalog of Life ("CoL") data is spell-checking the taxa enclosed in {{taxlink}} and in the various project templates like pedialite and specieslite, and also the existing taxonomic headwords. Those of rank above genus could be spell-checked against Wikispecies with the balance of the supergeneric names checked against WP. User:This, that and the other has found many instances of wrong names in project links to commons, species, and WP, which I am working to correct. Spelling errors, not all mine, are fairly common since folks using taxonomic names in entries usually don't check them, even against Wikispecies when the taxon is already enclosed in {{taxlink}}.
I think the most productive thing would be to extract 2-grams from enwikt with the first word being [A-Z][a-z]+ and the second being [a-z]+ with optionally "[", "]", "{", "}", "_", "(", and ")" appearing in between and one or two ordinary spaces in between. These could be run against the CoL species list, including synonyms. Some stop words for the first word of the 2-grams would be the capitalized determiners, including "The".
I can easily produce lists of species and genera enclosed by {{taxlink}}. There are also taxonomic name categories for species and genus names. With effort and help I might be able to produce lists of taxa enclosed by the various project templates.
As you can probably tell, I am much better at making mistakes and cleaning up the ones I and others make than I am at any programming task. I hope I can identify worthwhile tasks for improving enwikt's use of taxonomic names. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. DCDuring (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DCDuring: The wanted lists are now based on the HTML dumps. Once everything works there I'll look at adding checks specifically for Translingual. – Jberkel 09:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I'm still interested. Any lists, of possible misspellings, of missing taxa, of obsolete names, of homonyms (eg, genus name used for both plants and animals, or name used for both genus and higher taxon), etc., even if rather imperfect, would be appreciated. But highly selective lists are the best. In the meantime, I have plenty of clean-up to do, so no rush. DCDuring (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DCDuring Here's a first attempt: User:Jberkel/lists/wanted/20220320/mul. The bluelinks are redirects, they aren't correctly handled yet. It only looks for redlinks, and only checks "bare" links (not targeting "mul"). – Jberkel 22:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot. I'll start in on entries for the high-frequency ones. I may just add taxlink to the others. That might be enough to put some taxa over the top in total taxlink count. DCDuring (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't worry about redirects. They are often problematic and need fixing from my PoV. The blue links are mostly recent entries (since the last dump). We needed Alpinia officinarum but the Chinese contributors don't always use {{taxlink}}. Boraginales should not ever have been a redirect. I'll get to the others by and by. DCDuring (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How can I put an editable version of this somewhere (eg, a subpage of my user page). That way I can mark off items I've completed. I find that browser searches of the list, looking for simple common characteristics can speed the correction process. Striking or deleting the corrected items helps. DCDuring (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DCDuring: I've just subst'ed the module call and you can now directly edit the page (or copy it to your user space if you prefer). – Jberkel 07:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't sure that subst'ing would work and dreaded an experiment gone wrong. You've taught me something. Thanks. DCDuring (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ratchet wheel[edit]

Is that German translation really right? "Sperrrad" with 3 Rs? 10:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, Sperrad is the pre-1996 reform spelling. – Jberkel 10:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incomplete Russian translation[edit]

It looks like you forgot to complete the gloss for the Russian translation you added here. Happy editing! JeffDoozan (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, yes, thanks. Yes check.svg Done. – Jberkel 21:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The page amuck gives the only definition as an alternative spelling of amok, i.e. the same word, and a word cannot be a homophone of itself. That'd be like listing donut as a homophone of doughnut. What are you saying is ”not obvious”? The page amok already lists amuck as an alternative form, and it gives enough information for the reader to understand the pronunciation variants. Listing amuck as a homophone implies it as a separate word, which is only confusing for the reader, especially once they go to that page and don't see a definition there. Instead, we can make a note on amok that the spelling amuck only applies to the pronunciation /əˈmʌk/ (which is in fact obvious, based on how English spelling works, but can be explained anyway for the few readers who might not know that), even though this is already clear from the fact that the page amuck only lists that pronunciation. So not only is listing amuck as a homophone confusing and misleading, but also completely unnecessary as it is a solution to a nonexistent problem. — 19:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello 69.120, I agree that it might be be misleading, I've removed it. – Jberkel 21:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

admin 4[edit]

Dear Jberkel, we need you as an admin already. Notusbutthem (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a good idea, I'm a small-minded, nit-picking OCD authoritarian and part-time wikiwarrior. – Jberkel 09:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perfect attributes, IMHO Zumbacool (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Determiner vs Determinative[edit]

Hi! Sorry, I had to revert all your edit that turned Akkadian and Sumerian Determinatives into Determiner. The two terms sound similar but are two completely different things. Determinative is the term normally used for cuneiform languages. If it needs to be added to WT:EL, then let's make it happen. Sartma (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sartma: No problem, I didn't see it listed in WT:EL and assumed it was nonstandard. Also, determinative lists determiner as a synonym, but this is sense 1) then? Maybe you could add some Akkadian/Sumerian as an example for 1) – Jberkel 21:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jberkel: Yes; equivalent to a classifier, which is explicitly mentioned in WT:EL, save for the determinative not being spoken. Both “Classifier” and “Determinative” are hence in User:Erutuon/mainspace headers/whitelist, which is more complete. Fay Freak (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, that list is useful, I forgot about it. Ideally we should have only one place where these things are documented, though. – Jberkel 22:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct template for Images ( File: vs Image: )[edit]

@Jberkel Hi ! I would like to ask about the "correct" way of adding images to German words. I have seen 2 different templates: Image:xxx and also File:xxx

Both ways of adding images seem to work. Is there any reason to prefer one over the other "template" ?

The German Wiktionary has clear instructions regarding images, but I did not find such detailed instructions on the English Wiktionary. I am planning to add >1000 images to German words in the English Wiktionary. Thanks in advance ! Marreromarco (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just found the answer on the Discord Server:
So, Image:xxx is the legacy format and should be avoided. Thanks for one of your edits that corrected me :D Marreromarco (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marreromarco:, yes, that's correct. We don't really have a concrete (written) policy for images here, but there are some things you should keep in mind when adding them to an entry, most importantly, is the image contributing to a user's understanding of an entry? Does it make sense to add an image for this specific entry? I find that images help most when added to very specific entries and senses, and not so much when added to more "generic" entries, which (in the case of German) might already have good illustrations in the corresponding English entry. Don't forget that images take up space and distract from the rest of the content. However, they can be useful when there are many different senses, and you want to show differences. As an example, the ones you added to Schlinge are useful. Images added on Leute and Treibhaus not so much. (Treibhaus links to greenhouse which already has two images). Finally, images to illustrate verbs are always tricky and can be ambiguous, I think it'd better to avoid them in most cases. musizieren is a very generic term, so adding an image to it might confuse readers, (is musizieren only playing the piano and flute?). aufwachen, springen, vergiften have similar problems. vergiften is also confusing, I've noticed you added this to de:vergiften as well, the problem is that it's illustrating only one of the different senses of “to poison”. Instead of mass-adding thousands of images to entries, please take a moment and consider if the image really does help to unambiguously illustrate the entry/concept in question. – Jberkel 16:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I heard the audio files and two of them out of three I heard the voiced /b/ instead of /p/. --Bankster (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bankster: The normal pronunciation is /p/, but in some recordings it's not quite clear, it might be a form of hypercorrection or dialectal pronunciation. In any case it is preferable to change the transcription for the recording, and not for the entry. Do you hear Abgrund, abkommen as /b/ as well? –Jberkel 12:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, in those I hear them as /p/. I guess you're right. --Bankster (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hungarian suffix adjective categories[edit]

Edits like this insert a deleted, redundant category. Please don't edit like this. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don’t care about the categories. The links are broken. We should (optionally) decouple the id linking from the categories. Jberkel 15:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CO₂, Deklination[edit]

Hallo Jberkel, ich ergänzte gerade den Eintrag um die deutsche Abkürzung. Nach dem deutschen Wiktionary ist der Genitiv ohne 's'. Nach kurzer Recherche auf CO₂s (keine Ergebnisse, beim Duden online brauchst Du nicht zu schauen, sie geben keine Flexion an) denke ich, dass der Genitiv ohne 's' korrekt ist. Wie kriege ich es hin, dass, anders als momentan unter Noun und Declension, das Genitiv-'s' verhindert wird? Vielen Dank im voraus. Viele Grüße Jeuwre 06:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo @Jeuwre: mit {{de-noun|n,}} und {{de-ndecl|n,}} – Jberkel 07:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Großartig, vielen Dank und Dir einen schönen Tag Jeuwre 08:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How is this revert an improvement? A missing adjective inflection template is better than an incorrect noun meaning. The word maraging is never used as a noun for the steel. It is always the compound maraging steel. But it occurs as an adjective in, for instance, maraging process. If you think it is so used, please provide a citation or two.

In addition, your edit has restored a typo. SpinningSpark 16:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Spinningspark: Sorry, I've been fixing a lot of missing headword templates today… If it's not a noun, why did you keep the noun? The quote seems to be misplaced as well. Your edit looked like a half-finished job, so I reverted it. – Jberkel 16:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be clear, my edit did not mean that maraging is never a noun. It meant that the sense that said maraging was the steel produced rather than the process of production is clearly wrong. In the phrase maraging steel, the word maraging is either an adjective, or the noun of the first sense used adjectivally. SpinningSpark 09:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why the revert[edit]

Just by case why the edit made on impeachment was undone, all changes there are fine.--Udutdut (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You didn't even wait for my answer. – Jberkel 18:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deletionists are slow to explain why they delete.--Udutdut (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See exactly what I said. Keep the revert if it make you feel superior.--Udutdut (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There were already three usexes (Bock) so the immediate worry that a joke would obscure the meaning of the usex is effectively mitigated. What else could possibly be the problem?

Also, do "generally" and "in general" parallel "regelmäßig" and "in der Regel" respectively? Where is the general and why are you using military jargon? ApisAzuli (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ApisAzuli: See WT:USEX. It doesn't explicitly mention puns, but see "Natural examples" and "Clear context". A joke isn't a natural example (talking/dancing goats?), and the context often isn't clear (part of the pun). – Jberkel 21:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. a) It's not a joke edit that I made up on the spot, but an actual joke. b) Ziege can be said of people, which may be naturally jocular, possibly part of the joke. 2. As said, the three prior usex's and even the ety as written do provide sufficiently clear context.
If you object all low brow to jokes, you know, it might be you looking into the edit through a normative lense out of context, ie. "Does it make sense ...?" (as per the above "image" thread). ApisAzuli (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC) I meant highbrow but with lowered eyebrows as in the emoji 🤔. ApisAzuli (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ApisAzuli: I'm not sure what you mean by "normative lense out of context", it's just that jokes are not good usage examples. It's a pun, so you could add the exact same sentence to the first etymology. This kind of ambiguity makes it a poor example sentence. I never said anything against "low brow jokes". – Jberkel 21:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TL;DR: "Bock" is ambiguous but not context sensitive, "Ziege" has polysemy (metonymy: Fem.) – cf. polysemy in "uncle" and ambiguous "bank" respectively [1]. The joke is precisely from the observation that it'd border on the absurd if put under any other ety. This is overt because the page supplies the necessary context.
  • See also de:Hungerast and Knast, [2] for comparison in view of the etymon. I-uhm, imagine hopefully Vedic witnesses (not to say witty Witze) exist in some other senses. From Prakrit, the Sanskrit etymon confers "desire" beside "hunger" already.
  • A German quotation is likely citable in some form but not attributable. A qualified second hand source is of course welcome, but I don't reckon with it. Etys don't use bare "Unknown." Thus anon. is to be avoided too. In the meantime I meant to leave a breadcrumb.
  • Cp. Autoantonym vb. bocken, 'jmd. bockt, ist bockig', but 'das bockt voll'; contranym (sturer oder geiler) Bock. So, some ambiguity is inherent and can be turned out. Here you may be right that my following the ety is as arbitrary as the ety itself, where the "influence" is debatable. Therefore I tried supply some evidence.
  • Though, turns out the modal verb is the arbitrary part. [3]
With respect to Normativity – it applies recursively, once to the language where I think you will be fairly neutral, and twice the norms of the project. So, you may use pun (although the word's representation is not in any way obscured) however you want, it's not the only criterion.
Not context sensitive. It is however underspecified and so substantive senses are fairly well subsumed.
PS: So I intendo addit back, question's just if a g-books quotation wouldn't work better for you. ApisAzuli (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, as a quotation it’s fine. Jberkel 14:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now the template is asking me to translate this. That's one reason why usex seems preferable. ApisAzuli (talk) 08:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ApisAzuli: That's a strange reason. Besides, {{ux}} also asks for a translation. You can use |lit= to provide a literal translation, or |footer= to add some extra explanation, if needed. Or just leave it untranslated. – Jberkel 08:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hidden Material[edit]

Hey Jberkel. I noticed you were getting rid of some hidden material (material surrounded by < !-- -- >). I was wondering: would you want to remove the hidden content of this diff? I want to kind of understand your thought process so I don't create more work for you. Thanks for any pointers. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Geographyinitiative: I'm trying to help clear out User:This, that and the other/broken interwiki links/2022-05-20/wikipedia, and the hidden wikipedia links get detected as broken links. Maybe this is something @This, that and the other can fix, but I also don't see the benefit of having these hidden, non-working links in the source. —Jberkel 15:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They might make sense in some circumstances, eg, if someone is expected to follow up quickly on the commented-out material, esp. if person is pinged in edit comment. But it does complicate regexes quite a bit to have such parsing needs. DCDuring (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those Wikipedia links were hidden a long time ago when I was adding links to Wikipedia without checking to see if Wikipedia really had such a page. I wasn't sure what to do; I just assumed that the pages would be created one day and hence hiding them was better than deletion. But I now understand that this was causing an unintentional problem; if I see any more of these I will try to remember to delete them. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


If this is obsolete, is there an English term for this in current use..? Acolyte of Ice (talk) 09:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no idea! Most English sources I found use the German term Feuerzangenbowle. – Jberkel 10:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, crambambuli‎ seems to refer to a precursor of Feuerzangenbowle. – Jberkel 12:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing my definitions[edit]

Hi 👋 I wanted to ask that why did you remove my definitions , thank you. 09:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiktionary is case-sensitive. You've added definitions to the wrong page, there are already definitions for those terms. See vitamin, enzyme, protein. Please take a look at Wiktionary:Welcome, newcomers before editing here. – Jberkel 09:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I was just curious about using WT:ACCEL to create adjective forms for this but when I tested it the generated pages were throwing Lua you have any idea what's wrong? Acolyte of Ice (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Acolyte of Ice: Yes, you need to delete the |de| from the generated code. I haven't had time to look into this. – Jberkel 12:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Benwing2Jberkel 12:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This fixes it. — Eru·tuon 17:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

German request[edit]

Hi again, I was wondering could you create an entry for the word Kommunikationswissenschaft please? :) It just kind of happened to stand out to me when I was looking through references in a Proto language entry or something like that. It seems to be featured in quite a few entries, so having an entry for it would be nice I think. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg DoneJberkel 14:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Check out my revision (diff) of your diff. I can't see the full article. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a bit hair-splitting, IMO. But if we assume it was coined/first used on social media, then 2013 is "more correct". –Jberkel 08:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I bring this to your attention specifically because I believe this is not at all hair-splitting as such, and I'd like to share why in a friendly manner if that would be okay. The goal of the NYT research (an intern's project of trawling through the wasteland of an ancient social media hellscape) was to get at the origins of the term in question. I suspect (without knowing) that their goal was not to find the first usage on social media (who cares, unless this is a hyper-focused academic research?), but to find the first usage or mention of the term anywhere (more interesting and useful information- something journalism likes to see). Therefore, to blunt the conclusion given by the NYT that "the earliest reference The New York Times could find on social media was a 2013 tweet" with the phrasing "early 2010s" is editorialize outside the scope of the results of the NYT source and misrepresent what they asserted. Accuracy & precision is not hair-splitting, it is accuracy & precision-- and it is valuable and worthwhile. "more correct" is objectively better than "less correct"; to add scare quotes around "more correct" is to attempt to undermine the value of truth. The original forms of Bigfoot (as understood in the modern context) can be dated to certain months in 1958; nothing wrong with telling readers that if it can be shown by cites and/or scholars. If you personally believe the BIPOC term was already extant in 2012, I would say: find a cite like that and add it to the page; at that point "early 2010s" would be more justified by combining a pre-2013 example with the NYT research result. If there were 2013 citations on the page, I personally might go so far as to say "2013" or "likely 2013" instead of "circa 2013", but I don't actually have examples from 2013 or 2014 on that entry page; idk if the NYT research is unfounded, so I don't actually know if the word existed in 2013. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, 2013 is in the early 2010s, isn't it? The point of this phrasing was not to diminish (or "blunt") the NYT research, it was just to indicate a degree of uncertainty: finding a tweet from 2013 means that it was probably in use a bit before that (not necessarily in print/online though), so I don't see how "early 2010s" is a misrepresentation as you claim. Note that the NYT reference includes a quote, so anyone interested in details can just follow the hatnote, and they will find the precise year there. If you however assume that the term was coined on Twitter, and then spread from there, stating the year of that tweet makes sense. (That's what I meant with "more correct"). But we don't know this (maybe the content of that Tweet has some clues). Not every word leaves big tracks like Bigfoot. – Jberkel 00:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I wanted to create a translation hub for this kind of word that is present in many German lects in one form or another (East Central German Ätsche) but I didn't know what to call it. A Glatze is roughly something like "a hairstyle of being bald" or "a bald scalp" according to my Sprachgefühl. Neither baldness nor bald head reflects the meaning accurately IMO; baldness is Glatzköpfigkeit, an abstractum, the general state of being bald whereas a bald person has exactly their particular Glatze. Do you have any suggestions? — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 22:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're looking for a one-word equivalent? I have no idea. Yes, it does seem that in English it's seen as a (quasi) medical condition/state, whereas in German it could also be a style, as in a deliberate decision to have a Glatze. – Jberkel 09:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A one-word equivalent likely doesn't exist so the least painful periphrase is what I'm looking for (which is what I did for ravenous hunger). — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 12:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fytcha: You gave three different senses, so a single periphrasis is as unlikely as a single word translation. I think scalp is close enough, if it can be infered from context that it is hairless. Skinhead also exists. ApisAzuli (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I saw an anon made this barebones entry, can you add a declension template to it? Acolyte of Ice (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg DoneJberkel 12:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now that I think of it, you may be interested in reviewing Special:Contributions/2A01:CB00:4C3:D500:9136:B706:2CCC:BD1F altogether and expanding the handful of other German terms they've added today. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spießrutenlaufen uncountable?[edit]

The current lemma entry, Spießrutenlauf, is marked as countable...which is it? Countable or no? Or both, depending on the sense? Acolyte of Ice (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it probably shouldn't be an altform. It looks like it's an agent noun of Spießruten laufen. – Jberkel 12:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Erm, gerund, yes :) It probably needs some more adjustments, I'll see if I can get to it later. –Jberkel 12:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could you expand this please? Like, etymology, pronunciation, declension if you know them. :) Acolyte of Ice (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jberkel Would you be able to add this info when you have time perhaps? Also if it's not too much trouble I'd like it if you could add a declension table to Nupsi and translate the example sentences. :) Acolyte of Ice (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Acolyte of Ice: I've never encountered Nupsi, probably needs some quotations first. Maybe it's a regional term. – Jberkel 10:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Module etymology languages[edit]

I recommend using "Belgian Dutch" instead of "Flemish"; the latter also has a geographical and a dialectal meaning. E.g. {{lb|nl|Flemish}} produces (East and West Flanders). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I've changed it. – Jberkel 18:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Historical Dictionary[edit]

Hey there @Jberkel :)

I'm new here and searched around on meta, but couldn't find an answer to my question, maybe you can help.

Have there been discussions around creating a historical dictionary spanning all languages, akin to OED (paywalled), TLFi, DWB (out of date), etc.?

With more and more old primary sources now being available online, this would allow to link to the passage itself via WikiData (or similar) and see the original manuscript. For those of us interested in history, this could be very valuable.

What do you think? Or, what might be a better place surface this idea? 'wɪnd (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@'wɪnd: Oh, I don't know. How exactly would this be different to Wiktionary as it is now? There are already links to old primary sources, and some coverage of obsolete senses. Having a separate project would lead to duplication and split efforts, I think. – Jberkel 06:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the question. Maybe it helps to look at an example:
The OED (and other historical dictionaries) have a common type of layout:
1. The senses are ordered chronologically, the earliest known sense at the top;
2. etymology with link to sources;
3. for each sense, a list of attestations show the earliest place where the words occurred. (And latest if it is obsolete.)
Compare that to say:
It is unclear to me if the order is chronological here, the etymology has no sources, and the attestations don't show earliest known usages. (However, they do link to the primary sources! :))
All of this could of course be added as criteria, but it is unclear to me if the project has any such ambitions. Another possibility is to hear with the people over at Wikidata. Maybe one could write a script to import attestations of an out-of-copyright version of OED and link it with the Lemma-items.
Does this make sense? What do you think? 'wɪnd (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Traditionally, some entries here were formatted in a way that the oldest and often obsolete senses came first, the way you outlined. However, it turns out that the majority of users are more interested in the contemporary usage of a word, so the current style guides advocate listing obsolete senses last. There's a conflict of priorities here, and unfortunately it's impossible to change the layout of pages dynamically. Maybe Wikidata could help: you could associate a timespan with a sense and then change the ordering of senses dynamically. But I'm not sure if that currently works. – Jberkel 11:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@'wɪnd: In the easier cases the most likely sought senses and thus likely the most used ones (this can be incommensurable when the senses are from different fields, e.g. one can’t tell whether the music sense or military sense of German Vorhalt is more relevant, I just take the stance that the artillerist is more important than the musician) come first. Chronological or etymological order still makes sense if you try to make a point or to make the order less confusing and increase readability as compared to frequency order: otherwise, for extensive words with many shades of meaning (often debatably described by way of abstraction anyway; e.g. from my creations center, field) one may try to group into senses by some rational order that is not based on frequency because if you just list dozens of senses people are increasingly likely to be unwilling to read the page. Fay Freak (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jberkel @Fay Freak It seems then, to me, that a dynamic interface is maybe the way forward. The default view would accommodate popular use, as now. However, if wanted, one could switch to a, possibly more complex, chronological view. Maybe a first step could be to import some data into Wikidata and prototype some example interfaces pulling said data from Wikidata?
As an aside: What excites me about this, is that it could allow inter-language timelines for the same sense. You could have attestations going from Greek, to Latin, and all the way to English. It would show how language naturally evolves beyond our arbitrary linear language labels such as "Modern English", "Old English", "Frühneuhochdeutsch", etc. 'wɪnd (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]