User talk:Jberkel/2020

The following discussion has been moved from the page User talk:Jberkel.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

This page shows conversations on my talkpage from 2020.

Dari

Regarding diff: Dari is treated as a (etymology-only) variant of Persian (following this discussion, as recorded in the central archive of such things). If the translation is valid it could be readded as fa with a qualifier. - -sche (discuss) 19:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

admin 3

Hey. you haven't been asked in at least a year. Want to become an admin? I can set up a vote for you. You're bound to pass it, as you're awesome. --AcpoKrane (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jberkel, another year has passed, and it looks like you could use it... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The word "shazaam"

Hi. I saw you reverted my edits. Is it because of wrong format or something else? Tainangwong (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, your edit is mostly copy-pasted content from other pages, there is no need to copy translations and references to each page. Your edit can be shortened to "Possibly from a sporadic spelling change from shazam". Can you source this? The information at the moment is contradictory (shazam already refers to shazaam as main form, which might be incorrect). – Jberkel 09:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Gadget pour lier Wiktionary et Wikidata

Salut,

Il me semble que ce gadget pourrais t'intéresser : fr:Discussion Projet:Coopération/Wikidata#Gadget pour créer un lien vers Wikidata depuis le Wiktionnaire. Si tu as des questions ou des commentaires, n'hésite pas.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Undo revision 59174510 by Kent Dominic (re. eponymous)

Why? --Kent Dominic (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

References should go to the bottom of the page, in the reference section, and not be added inline. You can just add {{R:Merriam-Webster}} there if you want. – Jberkel 12:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I figured as much, but I wrongly assumed that whoever knew how to do it would simply edit my addition rather than revert it and thus prompt a discussion such as this. Despite your recommendation, I still haven't worked out how to do what you've prescribed. Could you go ahead and do it so I can see how it's done? Thanks in advance. Also, in a case such as this, should the existing reference to "eponymous” in Lexico, Dictionary.com; Oxford University Press." be deleted upon adding the Merriam-Webster reference? It's no more useful than a reference to any other dictionary. Point being, the Wiktionary definition for eponymous was sourced from Merriam-Webster, not Oxford/Lexico. --Kent Dominic (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no, it's useful and should not be deleted. If you want to make the distinction, you can move the lexico template to a new section "Further reading". – Jberkel 22:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. --Kent Dominic (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

palaestra

I can find no evidence that Italian or Spanish "borrowed" this word from Latin, rather than simply inheriting it from the Latin language. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Catalan palestra "borrowed" (DCVB), French palestre "borrowed" (Tlfi), Italian palestra "probably borrowed" (wikt), Portuguese palestra "borrowed" (wikt). The fact that none of these languages have inherited the word means that it's likely a borrowing in Spanish as well. Or all these etymologies are wrong. – Jberkel 23:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

"Recorte" in Portuguese

You're the second to revert it. The first one was from 2017, which also deleted the whole section for the metaphorical and idiomatic meaning of recorte. Both of you didn't really point out the reason to revert the addition. So, what's up? João Paulo Zarelli Rocha (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Dioscorides (João Paulo Zarelli Rocha)

@João Paulo Zarelli Rocha: The first revert Special:Diff/48217108/48217273 said "looks like that's already covered", and I agree with that. It's just a clipping/summary, in this case of some academic research. But you could add it as usage example: {{ux|pt|recorte teórico|translation}}. – Jberkel 17:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Italian IPA project

We can, in theory, bot-add {{it-IPA}} with the appropriate parameters to all Italian entries that lack IPA, have {{rhymes}}, lack <z>, and lack spaces. We can also bot-add it to entries that lack {{rhymes}}, but do have {{hyph}} where stress is marked (so where one of the arguments to {{hyph}} contains a vowel with a grave accent. Finally, we can bot-add it to any disyllabic Italian entries that lack both {{rhymes}} and {{hyph}}, but lack diacritics in the pagetitle and have any of <a i u> as their first vowel — but these would have to be scanned by a human first to catch borrowings with unchanged orthography, mostly from English. (I was talking to Erutuon about this project last year, but I don't think he ever compiled the list to be botted.) If you're still interested, I would be happy to help however I can. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like I compiled this list of "titles of Italian entries that can have Template:it-IPA added based on the contents of Template:rhymes or Template:hyphenation", though I don't recall the exact criteria. It probably needs to be updated now. — Eru·tuon 01:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for digging that up! That list also includes entries that already have IPA (and did when the list was created), which seems like a very low priority. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge, Erutuon: Sounds like a worthwile project, and there's clearly a need for pronunciation in all entries, also inflected ones (these rarely have {{rhymes}} or {{hyph}}, though). I'll see if I can compile a new list based on these criteria. – Jberkel 11:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. As I see it, inflected forms are stage 2 of this project, once most lemma entries have IPA. (French is currently ready for stage 2, but that's a project for another day, I suppose.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Inadequate use of syn template

Hi. I noticed you just edited joder changing my synonyms to be inside Template:syn. I find this inadequate as these phrases are not idiomatic enough to be included in Wiktionary (I have added such things in the past only to see them deleted!). For example, in "irse a tomar por culo", "irse" should link to irse and the rest should link to the truly idiomatic a tomar por culo.

My previous format was therefore more adequate, since it doesn't produce red links that cannot be fixed. However, I completely agree it was not a happy solution as then the synonyms end up untagged, and the font size is also wrong. What do you suggest would be better?--Ser be etre shi (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The fix is simple. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: Thanks! Do you think it would be called for to use Template:l instead of bare links? I never know when it is Good to use templates and when not to, since it is also in my interest to prevent the Lua engine from running out of memory, as it does in some pages (e.g. the article on the Chinese number one, "一", and its currently unreadable Korean entry).--Ser be etre shi (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

On pages with just one language (such as joder) it's very unlikely that Lua will run out of memory, so there's no need to prematurely optimized for that. – Jberkel 05:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

More to the point, the reason we use {{l}} over bare links is to link to the correct language section, but inside of {{syn}}, bare links already know which language section to link to and do so correctly, so using {{l}} would be pointless. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

True, this is standard Wiktionary link template behaviour, but not at all obvious. – Jberkel 19:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Translation Reverted

Greetings. I noticed you reverted my translation of the word "Merda" to Portuguese in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Merda Just wanted to ask if it was because it was inappropriate, or perhaps if I misinterpreted the point of that page. (I assumed was to provide meanings and translations to the word in various different other languages as I've seen with other words). Would love to hear back from you. An Intellectual Cat (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Wiktionary is case-sensitive, so the correct place for this is https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/merda. It already has definitions for Portuguese. – Jberkel 21:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

News from the Tremendous Wiktionary User Group

Salut,

Je t’écris car tu es membre du Tremendous Wiktionary User Group, et oui !

Dans le cadre du processus en cours de changement de nom de la Wikimedia Foundation, je te propose de participer à une prise de position collective au nom du TWUG. Y est associé une proposition de communiqué à destination de la WMF, à discuter également si le cœur t’en dis. Merci d’avance !

Same in English? Well, I let you this message because you are part of the Tremendous Wiktionary User Group!

As the process of name change is ongoing for the Wikimedia Foundation, I invite you to participate to a collective opinion from the user group. There is also a proposal for a communique directed to the WMF. You are welcome to discuss it too. Thank you in advance, and I hope we can meet soon! Let me know if you plan to bike toward Lyon! Noé 15:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Noé: Merci de me prévenir et pour ton élan, j'ai ajouté un commentaire à la discussion. – Jberkel 20:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Merci ! Noé 20:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

swag

Hello, you reverted my edit, and said that if I think the reversion is in error I should leave a message on your talk page. My edit was explained in the edit summary. The entry, as it stands, is inaccurate and benefits from the correction.Cachequarto (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

What's inaccurate about it? The source states "Yet that fact stops few from reaching for acronymic explanations for a variety of far older words, especially in instances where the true etymologies aren’t crystal clear. […] Not surprisingly, none of those explanations is correct." In short, it's a common pseudo-etymology. Your edit doesn't add anything useful to the entry, and there's no need to repeat all the other incorrect derivations. – Jberkel 11:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, and I’ll respond to your question "What’s inaccurate about it?” and focus on two examples. First, the use of the word "common" in the entry is inaccurate. The source never claims that its "acronymic explanation" is "common", there is no good reason to speculate that the source would make that claim. It is incorrect for Wiktionary, in this case, to imply that "common" is supported by the source. It may be common or rare, but Wiktionary should depend on what source says. Second, I also think that the use of the hyphenated phrase “pseudo-etymology" seems extraordinary and almost grand, considering that the source refers to the same thing as a mere "claim" based on a "rumor". There’s no need to dress it up. The word and concept of "etymology" is a significant and important word in this dictionary, and should be used with care — pseudo or otherwise. And in fact, the source is being very careful not to use the word "etymology" in reference to its examples of "acronymic explanations". The only reason for replacing "rumor" with more impressive language (I think) might be a Wiktionary-editor’s desire to make the rumored content sound worthy of belonging in this dictionary. One solution to all this is simple — just adhere to the source with strict accuracy and plain language. I don’t see why not.

Regarding the examples provided by the web-page source, it’s hard to select just one, and not seem to be giving that one a spot-light for some unstated reason. By providing a couple or three, it seems (to me anyway) to give the reader a better understanding. Thanks. Cachequarto (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, an etymology is a "claim" for the origin of a word. And "Snopes" uses the word etymologies in the snippet I referenced above. A pseudo-etymology is a false claim. There's nothing grand about it. Regarding "common": the source says "that fact stops few" = "many". A Google search for "secretly we are gay" returns 400.000 hits. "to give the reader a better understanding": there's an external source linked, whoever's interested can just follow that. No need to re-propagate them all here. – Jberkel 13:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

You’re using words in a casual manner, which of course is okay, but "etymology" is not strictly a mere claim, it is a study of the historical development of languages. Why not say simply say "rumor" or "claim" (or something close to that), since that’s what the source says? And "that fact stops few" is not a reference to the derivation of "swag", as you seem to suggest, it is a reference to “explanations” of various words (plural). Why shouldn’t this entry be strictly accurate?Cachequarto (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The source obviously talks about the etymology of the word (factual and fabricated), uses the word "etymology" (twice), and says its wrong. We simply restate this. End of story. – Jberkel 15:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, you can drop this, however the source never uses the word "etymology" the way the entry does, which is to say the source never uses "etymology" in reference to an acronymic explanation (not once). The source uses the words "rumor" and “claim" (and acronymic explanation). If Wiktionary were simply repeating what the source says, it might use "rumor" or "claim" also. I think that Wiktionary spins in order to make the content sound more impressive than the source reports. The entry’s claim that it is "common" is also not supported — and of course why would anybody suggest that? I’m sorry there is not resolution in this, but it's fine. Best wishes. Cachequarto (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

al di là

You recently undid my edits on this page for failure to provide an explanation. My rationale (which I admittedly should have added to the edit summary - my mistake) is that I moved that content to al di là di, the only construction that actually means "beyond." I then added that new page under the "see also" of al di là. Is this enough to keep my previous deletion and revert back to that version of the page? Imetsia (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Imetsia: That's fine, please put something like "moved to [[al di là di]]" in the edit summary, otherwise it looks like the content was simply deleted. Your edit also left an empty reference section, which should be removed as well. – Jberkel 13:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to affiliate members to complete a survey about WMF wide Universal Code of Conduct

Hello; My name is Mervat, and I am helping the Trust and Safety team to reach out to affiliates in order to discuss the Universal Code of Conduct.  

There has been talks about the need for a global set of conduct rules in different communities over time, and finally, Wikimedia Foundation Board announced a Community Culture Statement, enacting new standards to address harassment and promote inclusivity across projects.Since the universal code of conduct that will be a binding minimum set of standards across all Wikimedia projects, will apply to all of us, staff and volunteers alike, all around the globe, and will impact our work as groups, individuals and projects, it’s of great importance that we all participate in expressing our opinions and thoughts about UCoC, its nature, what we think it should cover or include and what it shouldn’t include; how it may develop, drawback or help our groups.   This is the time to talk about it. As you are a valuable contributor to the Wikimedia movement, your voice counts. Before starting to draft the code of conduct, we would like to hear from you; We invite you to devote some minutes to take this survey; your answers will help us create a safer environment for all on Wikimedia:

(English) https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd36dNdU3C5shXEkKp9itJOhuCTx9hZE5AE-xflkxtfRMnZtg/viewform?usp=pp_url  

It’s possible that you are a member of more than one affiliate; hence you may receive this survey more than once, and you may have participated previously in the discussions or filled out a previous survey during the first round of consultations about UCoC which targeted wikipedia/wikimedia communities. We apologize for this; it is really difficult to identify if a wikimedian belongs to multiple groups that work to spread free knowledge. Looking forward to your thoughts and opinions and hoping that you can respond within the next 2 weeks.  If you have any questions about the surveys or difficulties accessing the link, please contact me by email (msalman-ctr at wikimedia.org)Results will be considered during the drafting process for the UCoCThank you for your participation

Mervat Salman - Trust & Safety (Policy) Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation. --Mervat (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mail

Hello Jberkel/2020,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@MediaWiki message delivery: "J'avais envoyé un fax pour savoir si vous aviez bien reçu mon e-mail. J'appelle pour savoir si vous avez bien reçu mon fax". (Le Chat, P. Geluck) – Jberkel 18:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Blafard

Thanks for your patience with my edit to the 'blafard" page. I was trying to add an English translation of the French in the quotation drop down, and I finally got it to take but not to format as part of the drop down. Thus is my first attempt admit editing Wiktionary. I've made corrections to Wikipedia articles in the past, but I need to find a tutorial for Wiktionary.

I ran across the word in the Jules Verne story "Round the Moon," which is the sequel / second part of "From the Earth to the Moon." I've been reading old Science Fiction on Gutenberg.org, and this one is in my current rotation. I use the ReadEra app on my phone to read EPUBs, and keep open windows for Wikipedia and Wiktionary to look up things, like places or devices on Wikipedia and odd or sold vocabulary on Wiktionary. I'd really like to figure out how to get the entire translation under the dropdown.

Thanks again for a sympathetic ear! :-) . Stargzer (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Stargzer: You have to add an additional parameter |translation= to the {{quote-book}} template. It should look like this: (I've omitted the previous values for clarity)

{{quote-book|fr|translation=Your translation here.}}

As another editor remarked, please avoid Google Translate for translations. – Jberkel 18:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give that a try. I also use another site, systranet.com, which does lot of modern languages. I like Google for their Latin translation. Personally, I think I trust the CIa and the NSA with my personal information than I do Google, but not the FBI these days. ;-) . Stargzer (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure it's the most elegant, but it's better than it was before. The translation shows up outside the drop down at first, then indented when you click the drop down arrow.

One thing I like about Wiktionary is that you can enter a word or phrase and it will figure out which language if is, so you don't have to try to figure out which dictionary to use. I can guess between French, Spanish, German, but it zone others.

Thanks again for your help with the translation tag!

Stargzer (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Stargzer: I've removed your translation again. I didn't just mean Google; you shouldn't add any translation unless you got it from a translator (who should then be credited), or you know the language well enough to translate it yourself. You clearly don't know French, as evidenced by translating on distinguait as "there was", which is unquestionably wrong. When you add incorrect or machine-made translations, you aren't helping to build the dictionary, but are instead making it less reliable by introducing errors. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

OK. I used Systranet.com, which I've used long before Google came up with its translation program. I did notice that Systranet couldn't translate blafard, but Google could, which is why I use one to check the other. My three years of high school French ended in 1969, and until Systranet came along I depended on a dictionary. In French II, a girl from Marseille was living with a family down the street and helped me with my homework. When I went to use "de la" With a feminine noun, she told me I could use the contraction "du," which is use with masculine nouns. The next day, Fr. Eric, who was a dead ringer for Vincent Price, Sid it was incorrect. "But my friend is ftom France, from Marseille!" "Non," was his reply, "We are learning Parisienne!"  :-D Stargzer (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I went back to each translation program to check "on distinguait." Systranet.com seems to have ignored it, while Google seems to have done an interpretation ("we could make out") rather than a literal interpretation ("we distinguished"). Oh, well, I don't know where my big French dictionary is. One translation it has for "donut" is "pet de nonne! Stargzer (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Pommes

German Pommes derives from French pommes (via pommes frites), and the lemma form of pommes is pomme. It would be informative to include this in the entry for pomme, but I would be open to suggestions about how best to do this. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

We usually only list direct descendants, otherwise the lists could get very long, and it's not clear how words are related. – Jberkel 22:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

There are many entries which include complicated descendants, e.g. شاه#Descendants_2. In the case of "Pommes", there are no intermediate languages, with the only complication being the word "pommes" vs. the phrase "pommes frites". I will follow the example of شاه#Descendants_2 and add a note to clarify the loan. Thanks for pointing out that it needs to be clear how the words are related. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Following this logic almost anything could be added as a descendant (and sometimes is). German Pommes is just a shortening of Pommes frites (which does not exist in this form in French), so calling it a descendant of pomme is a bit far-fetched. But well. – Jberkel 12:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it would better go under pommes frites, but that already links to a German entry. I don't think an additional descendant is necessary or useful here. @Freelance Intellectual ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I think an additional descendant is useful here because the derivation from French pommes to German Pommes is an unusual one that many readers may find surprising and interesting. Furthermore, for some German speakers at least, Pommes frites would be perceived as a compositional phrase rather than an opaque term (even for a monolingual German speaker, there are related words like frittieren "to fry"). The meaning of "Pommes" narrowed so that "Pommes frites" means "fried chips" (rather than "fried potatoes") and hence the word "frites" is superfluous. I think it is reasonable to directly point out the connection between Pommes and pomme (as the lemma of pommes). There are already 14 other descendants listed under pomme, and I don't think the logic of adding this one will lead to any more, but if there are other similar descendants, I would be happy to discuss them. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It might also be worth highlighting the fact that in the majority of the German-speaking world, "Pommes" is the standard term, rather than "Pommes frites" or "Pommfritts" or another such variant. (For example, see: [1]) So in discussing whether "Pommes" is a shortening, we need to distinguish its etymology from its use in the modern language. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It's true that in spoken German Pommes is the dominant form, but the descendants section is concerned with etymology, not use. It's an unusual relationship, but I'm not sure where it could be documented. On the other hand, the etymology information for Pommes and Pommes frites make it clear that it derives from pomme. – Jberkel 19:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

In distinguishing etymology from use, I mean that we can see Pommes as a standalone term (in contast to: Category:German_contractions) -- I think we're in agreement on this, but I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page. Tracing the etymology from Pommes to pomme is straightfoward, following wikilinks in the Etymology sections (in Pommes then Pommes frites then pommes frites). In the opposite direction, I think it should be just as straightforward to find Pommes as a descendant of pomme, looking under the Descendants sections of entries. I hope the additional clarifying note that I added is enough to indicate that this descendant is somewhat unusual, being historically strongly collocated with another word (frites). Freelance Intellectual (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Dates for German FWOTDs

Would you happen to know good, relevant dates for either Kiez or Lefze? Or if you have suggestions regarding other FWOTD nominations that is also helpful. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Hmm, don't know. I'd try to find a good pair with the WOTD, but nothing matching in the next weeks. – Jberkel 17:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

All right, thanks for your time and effort. You don't have to look for possible pairs with WOTDs by the way, because almost all the FWOTDs up to December have been set and the German one for January 2021 has been set as well. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Appendix:German pronunciation

I noticed that you reverted the phonemic transcription for “Pseudogetreide” (from /ˈpsɔʏdoɡəˌtʁaɪ̯də/ to /ˈpsɔɪ̯doɡəˌtʁaɪ̯də/). The “Appendix:German pronunciation” (IPA^(key): ) page on the English Wiktionary gives “/ɔʏ/” as the (recommended) phonemic transcription of the German diphthong in the words “Heu” and “Räuber”, but Note 5. also says “Some references transcribe this diphthong as /ɔɪ/.” Have an excellent day! Hans-Friedrich Tamke (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hans-Friedrich Tamke: "Duden Ausprachewörterbuch" and German Wiktionary use /ɔɪ̯/, we seem to have a mix: Heu has /ɔɪ̯/, Räuber /ɔʏ̯/. Looks like the appendix was based on the English Wikipedia (w:Help:IPA/Standard_German, /ɔʏ̯/). I think we should settle on one variant, /ɔɪ̯/ seems to be more prevalent. @Mahagaja, you created Appendix:German pronunciation, what's your opinion on this? – Jberkel 01:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I have a weak preference for /ɔʏ̯/ over /ɔɪ̯/ as most sources I've consulted consider the second element of the diphthong to be rounded. My 1990 print edition of the Duden Aussprachewörterbuch (→ISBN) uses /ɔ͜y/ (but I dislike using ties, whether above or below, for diphthongs), while De Gruyter's Deutsches Aussprachewörterbuch (→ISBN) has decided that German diphthongs end on open-mid vowels and writes /ɔœ̯/ as well as /aɛ̯/ and /aɔ̯/, all of which frankly make my skin crawl. Likewise various books on German phonology that I have use some form of /ʏ/ or /y/ for the second element. But /ɔɪ̯/ isn't wrong, and German Wiktionary's highly prescriptivist editors probably have a good reason for using it. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: My guess is that the German Wiktionary just follows Duden in this respect. If we decide to keep /ɔʏ̯/ we'll need some script to periodically fix the IPA, as it is often copied verbatim from there. Or we adapt /ɔɪ̯/ and change the existing /ɔʏ̯/ instances. Perhaps best to open a discussion in the BP. – Jberkel 18:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

For the word “Pseudogetreide”, the German Wiktionary gives the phonetic transcription [ˈpsɔɪ̯doɡəˌtʁaɪ̯də] and the English Wiktionary now gives the phonemic transcription /ˈpsɔɪ̯doɡəˌtʁaɪ̯də/ for the same word. Here are some other examples of various transcriptions - English Wiktionary: Leute /ˈlɔʏ̯tə/, Häuser /ˈhɔʏ̯zɐ/, Neuzeit /ˈnɔɪ̯tsaɪ̯t/, Deutsch /dɔʏ̯t͡ʃ/ (Hochdeutsch /ˈhoːxdɔʏ̯tʃ/, Plattdeutsch /ˈplatˌdɔʏ̯t͡ʃ/, Judendeutsch /ˈjuːdn̩ˌdɔɪ̯t͡ʃ/, Kiezdeutsch /ˈkiːt͡sˌdɔɪ̯t͡ʃ/); German Wiktionary: Leute [ˈlɔɪ̯tə], Häuser [ˈhɔɪ̯zɐ], Neuzeit [ˈnɔɪ̯ˌt͡saɪ̯t], Deutsch [dɔɪ̯t͡ʃ] (Hochdeutsch [ˈhoːxdɔɪ̯tʃ], Plattdeutsch [ˈplatdɔɪ̯t͡ʃ], Judendeutsch [ˈjuːdn̩ˌdɔɪ̯t͡ʃ], Kiezdeutsch [ˈkiːt͡sˌdɔɪ̯t͡ʃ]). Sometimes the English Wiktionary gives both a phonemic transcription and a phonetic transcription for various German words (e.g., Haus /haʊ̯s/, [haʊ̯s]), whereas the German Wiktionary seems to only give a phonetic transcription. Hopefully, a consistent phonemic transcription and/or a phonetic transcription can be agreed upon for German words in both the German and English wiktionaries. Hans-Friedrich Tamke (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

At German Wiktionary, the template de:Vorlage:Lautschrift automatically generates square brackets rather than slashes. I strongly doubt that most editors or readers there take that seriously to mean "this is a phonetic representation and not a phonemic one". In my opinion, there is very rarely a good reason to include a narrow phonetic transcription in a dictionary; I don't think anyone benefits from seeing "/haʊ̯s/, [haʊ̯s]" at Haus. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Here are more examples of phonemic and/or phonetic transcriptions? English Wiktionary: Bach /baχ/, Evolution /ʔevoluˈtsi̯oːn/, Furcht /fʊrçt/, [fʊʁçt], [fʊɐ̯çt], können /ˈkœnən/, [ˈkœnən], [ˈkœnn̩], Kreation /ˌkʁeː.aˈtsjoːn/, Kunst /kʊnst/, [kʰʊnst], Lache /ˈlaːxə/, [ˈläːχə] (predominant) and /ˈlaxə/, [ˈläχə] (dated or southern), Pferd /pfeːrt/, [pfeːɐ̯t] (prescriptive standard; overall rare), /feːrt/, [feːɐ̯t], [fɛɐ̯t] (common in northern and central Germany) and /pfɛrt/, [pfɛrt], [pfɛɐ̯t] (common in southern Germany, Austria, Switzerland), reich /ʁaɪ̯ç/, Reichtum /ˈʀaɪ̯çtuːm/, Taube /ˈtaʊ̯.bə/, [ˈtʰaʊ̯.bə], treu /tʁɔʏ̯/, Treue /ˈtʀɔɪ̯ə/; German Wiktionary: Bach [bax], Evolution [evoluˈt͡si̯oːn], Furcht [fʊʁçt], können [ˈkœnən], Kreation [kʁeaˈt͡si̯oːn], Kunst [kʊnst], Lache [ˈlaːxə], Pferd [p͡feːɐ̯t] (standardsprachlich gemeindeutsch) and [p͡fɛʁt] (standardsprachlich vor allem in Ostmitteldeutschland, Südwestdeutschland, Westösterreich und der Schweiz), reich [ʁaɪ̯ç], Reichtum [ˈʁaɪ̯çtuːm], Taube [ˈtaʊ̯bə], treu [tʁɔɪ̯], Treue [ˈtʁɔɪ̯ə]. We do need to strive for greater consistency in our Wiktionary transcriptions of German words. For more information, please see the English Wikipedia article: “Phonetic transcription” [2]. Have a great day! Hans-Friedrich Tamke (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Citoid

Ich freue mich sehr drauf. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Fast fertig–almost there! – Jberkel 17:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Your revert

This one should be trivial, yet you reverted. Tuvalkin (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: Hi there, I reverted your edit because it doesn't add anything to the entry, the individual words are already linked from the headword line (see Wiktionary:Etymology#Phrases, compounds, acronyms, and abbreviations). What's more interesting to know here is the origin of the expression, its first use etc, later clarified in Special:Diff/59308615/59308617. – Jberkel 08:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for explaining. However the warning that says «This etymology is missing» is misleading as it seems to invite users to add the etymology, which is what I did. The explanation of what is meant (incorrectly) as "etymology" for this kind of compounds should be summarized in this section, or maybe its heading should read instead "Origin", leaving out etymology altogether, or filling it automaticly, or replace it with a standard, transcluded warning. Or change nothing, and people like me will keep adding trivial etymologies mislead by the current warning, to be revrted by the likes of you, ad æternum. Tuvalkin (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You're right, that's why I added Special:Diff/59308615/59308617, which I've just restated a bit to make it clearer what kind of information we're after. – Jberkel 08:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Why the revert?

Why did you revert my change? Ejms07 (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you referring to Special:Diff/61193468/61193566? A dead link is no reason to remove content from a page. I agree that the reference was misleading–I restored it in a later edit. The other bits you added are missing the cited text–with content, they could go to the Citations page. – Jberkel 14:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the reference is not a real example, is a derogatory reference to a group of our society because of their political ideology and as a result gives the impression of Wikitionary is not a reliable source because anyone can vandalized the page. Ejms07 (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. The reference provides bibliographic data for the first attestation claim. Yes, things can get vandalized here, it's the nature of a wiki. – Jberkel 14:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, wrong edit, sorry. The sense you mention was probably vandalized, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English#pendejo. – Jberkel 15:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

So, how can be fixed? Ejms07 (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

If nobody can prove that it means what it claims it means it will be removed. – Jberkel 15:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! Ejms07 (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

backronym

I've created a section on Talk:backronym referencing your revert.

Meiskam (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverted contributions

Hi Jberkel! I've had my eye on Attero-D and their contributions, but since I'm not a native German speaker, I've tried to keep out of it. However, I also find some of their contributions problematic and would like to know if you feel that an admin intervention is warranted. Don't hesitate to let me know if I can help! --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Robbie SWE: Yes, it looks like they're on some agenda with removing certain content from pages ("African-German", Special:Diff/60774694/61285739) and other problematic race-related edits (Special:Diff/51652122/61288313). – Jberkel 12:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

That's what I suspected. I'll keep an eye on it, but you might want to leave a message on their talkpage just to cover all the bases. --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/2020-09/Install Citoid

Hello! Regarding this vote that was successful, I wanted to ask you how I should enable the new feature in my device. It does not appear in my preferences.

Also, I have another, general—albeit bigger—problem: apparently because I edit using mobile, the special gadgets that I have enabled for me (as well as basic things like reverting edits!) actually do not work; these do work when I switch over to desktop view, but editing in desktop view is very unwieldly on mobile. So, is it impossible to have these features while editing in mobile view?

Thank you. — inqilābī ^{‹inqilāb·zinda·bād›} 20:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: Editing support on mobile isn't great unfortunately, some features just don't exist. To use Citoid you need to edit in the visual editor, or the 2017 wikitext editor. It looks like the 2017 editor is only supported on desktop. This means you're stuck with Visual Editor on mobile, which does not work well for this use case. So you would have to activate the VisualEditor, use the "Cite" button, then switch back to the source view to make changes. – Jberkel 00:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)