User talk:Kevlar67

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

Hi, is good; it is odd to have it in Portuguese and Galician cats w/o those being languages in the entry? Robert Ullmann 23:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

oh, good! Robert Ullmann 23:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


The correct parent category for Category:fr:History is Category:fr:*Topics not Category:fr:Topics. This is an easy mistake to make, as the "*" in the root category for Topics is a little odd. I've fixed all the affect categories and used the {{nav}} template which simplifies things enormously. Regards, --Williamsayers79 14:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


Not sure, but it may be що за комедія! (ščo za komédija [wikt:], or shcho za komédiya [w:]), meaning literally “what a comedy.” Що is “what,” and за is an article whose exact meaning is hard to explain in this usage. Or maybe яка комедія (jaká or yaká —, meaning “what kind of —”)

I don't think either would deserve an entry, because they are sum-of-parts phrases. “What a gong show” does capture the sentiment perfectly.

I love the way you use gido. In parts of the Canadian Prairies, a number of non-Ukrainian speakers know their grandparents as baba and gigi, dido, or gido, but I've never seen these in any English dictionary.

[sorry for the delay, I've been so busy I haven't even looked at Wiktionary in weeks.] Michael Z. 2009-11-16 00:56 z


alt is actually for an alternative display word, not an alternative translation. So when there are three translations, use {{t}} three times. Otherwise, good work, keep add {{t}} to translation tables, thanks. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian toasts[edit]

My late reply at User_talk:Mzajac#Ukrainian_toastsMichael Z. 2012-08-12 15:01 z


I don't think that Ukrainian used the letter ъ at the ends of words (or even at all) since 1918. So marking these spellings as pre-1990 is wrong. --WikiTiki89 23:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It was used in the Maksymovychivka system which, while no longer taught in shcools anywhere after 1895, was still used by some publications until 1935. Kevlar67 (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The point is that "pre-1990" is wrong if it wasn't used since 1935. --WikiTiki89 23:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not "wrong" it's just less precise than would be ideal. I picked this date (1990) since it is the date of the current spelling system, and therefore ALL archaic spellings can go into this category, not just Maksymovychivka ones, but those of the other rival spellings as well. Do you have a counter proposal? Kevlar67 (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
It is wrong, because "pre-1990" implies that it was in use immediately before 1990. --WikiTiki89 18:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
You get that implication, I wouldn't have. Point is, how shall we proceed with something more to your liking? Kevlar67 (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
You could make separate templates for different orthography reforms. Or you could just use {{obsolete spelling of}}. --WikiTiki89 18:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)