User talk:Mglovesfun/Archives/14

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

I am sorry.[edit]

¶ I would just like to apologize that your robot had to clean‐up so many mistakes I made. It took a while before somebody objected to my usage of {{infl}}. --Pilcrow 22:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

These things happen. I'm of the opinion you're not doing anything wrong unless you know in advance it's wrong, or someone tells you it's wrong. Like I said on the Beer Parlour, I never objected as I wasn't aware of any technical problems at the time. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am away[edit]

I am away from now (roughly) until Sunday 31-07-2011 evening. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Italian categories.[edit]

Hi Mglovesfun,

Regarding your GP request — can you give me a specific list of categories with the property that every Italian entry should belong to at least one?

RuakhTALK 18:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I do plan on answering this at some point. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Did you see my reply? —RuakhTALK 10:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Multiple audio files[edit]

I've found that in situations where there are mulitple regional pronunciations, each with their own audio files, that it helps to indent under the main pronunciation line. So, bot edits like this one distress me a little, as it means that any work done grouping pronunciations visually will be lost. Is this happening Wiktionary-wide? --EncycloPetey 01:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Dunno about 'Wiktionary-wide', I mean I do it, and the bot does it as part of its minor edits. Most of the time, there aren't multiple audio files of course. Personally I don't like the extra indenting, it means I have to look back and forth to find the start of each line. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Categories of names[edit]

The vote Categories of names is going to end soon, after receiving contributions of only a few people. (it proposes a number of renamings, in this pattern: Category:en:Rivers to Category:English names of rivers)

It would benefit very much from your vote, even one of abstention.

I assume you would be interested in this subject, as I am sending this message to everyone who didn't vote yet, but participated in the discussion that introduced the vote, and/or in this poll, which received far more attention than the vote, and is closely related to the proposal in question.

Thank you. --Daniel 16:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

es-noun-m & -f[edit]

I noticed in this edit, that your bot is not correcting parameter naming, so that the plural of sol went from soles to sols. The template {{es-noun}} does not accept the parameter name "plural=". --EncycloPetey 14:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes exactly right. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Correcting named parameters is harder than with unnamed parameters, as name parameters can be specified in any order. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

condescend[edit]

I think I agree with the anon. To condescend to someone isn't exactly the same as treating them as an inferior, is it? I mean, if I tell someone they're an idiot and I don't care what they think, I'm treating them as my inferior, but I'm not "condescending" to them. Condescension requires a sort of pretense, a sort of false kindness. (The second half of our def, "to talk down to someone", is much closer, but I worry that it's too much of an idiom to be a good definition.) —RuakhTALK 01:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose neither is all that good. "Treat as inferior" is much too imprecise, while the IP version seemed to me to be inaccurate and also too informal, not written in a tone suitable for a dictionary. Talk down to is probably closer than either of the two versions discussed. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. —RuakhTALK 18:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Serbian[edit]

Wow! You start a proposition to merge some categories, a few people talk about it with you, you then stamp it with "Proposition passes" and now you go around telling people that using the category "is not allowed here"? You sure are a funny fellow :) Nikola 07:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's official now. It's been unofficially the case for a long time, longer than I've been editing here (about two years now). You could of course, start a proposition to separate the languages again, but it has no realistic chance of passing; the community is quite united on this issue from my experience. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
No rule against Serbian translations, may I add. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Collective nouns[edit]

Be careful with the collective nouns in Serbo-Croatian (e.g. majmunčad). Although they may refer to a group of things (e.g. “monkeys”), they are always grammatically singular, so please don't add the plural marker to the entries. – Krun 09:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you encountered a Romanian noun that is actually m/f?[edit]

I can't think of any offhand. There used to be entries (in fact some may linger) that are marked as m/f which are not, because of the way Romanian gender grammar works. Neuter gender agreement (particularly with adjectives in what not) require the use of masculine forms for the singular and feminine for plural, which is why some idiots think of neuter as m/f, but anyway... I fear that allowing m/f in {{ro-noun}} without actual m/f nouns would invite this poor choice. — [Ric Laurent] — 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, gard, I added {{ro-noun|mf}} but it wouldn't accept it. FWIW {{fro-noun}} does something similar, in as much as if you add mf for the gender, it won't specific an inflection, as masculine and feminine nouns generally decline differently. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
See, that's what I'm talking about, that's a neuter noun. Those entries still float about, like I said. — [Ric Laurent] — 19:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I was merely reacting to what I found in the entry. No skin off my teeth if you revert the change to {{ro-noun}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Prescription bottle[edit]

I'm not sure if the are prescription bottles in the UK, but in the US prescription bottles are containers for medication. They're commonly found in pharmacies.

Problems saving long pages[edit]

For some reason I'm having this issue too (with the RFD and RFV pages; adding words to REE also took a while). The chance of a problem seems to be proportional to the length of the page. Moving back one page in the history and resubmitting sorts it out eventually. Equinox 10:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

template:cmn-def and template:cmn-pinyin[edit]

Since this vote has just ended, I'd like to make cmn-def obsolete and also introduce some amendments to cmn-pinyin. All pinyin entries now will have a Romanization heading, never a pos heading. It will use the {{pinyin reading of}} template in its definition lines. I would like to continue to use the cmn-pinyin header template, but eliminating its pos parameter. In other words, it will simply be a placeholder header for pinyin entries as we don't officially have another option. Let me know if you think it needs to be done differently. Thanks. JamesjiaoTC 04:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a shame, I'd rather we do it like we do for Japanese. That said, it doesn't really affect me, see also my user page ("I just think where a norm exists it should be used as widely as possible, even if I disagree with that norm."). What will stop these entries ending up in Special:UncategorizedPages, are they categorized as [[Category:Mandarin pinyin]] or what? But essentially, nothing in your proposal seems wrong to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
BTW if the Pinyin header is deprecated, my bot could orphan it. But I don't think it is, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Random surnames[edit]

The "random surnames" are from Websters 1913. They are a reference to an author who used the term. The surnames can be a clue to finding a citation. DCDuring TALK 21:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

In that specific case I searched for (George) Crabb but the citation seemed more mention than usage. Equinox 21:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Why not RfV it? DCDuring TALK 23:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Definition lines are supposed to be for definitions, a surname with no accompanying explanation help no-one. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleting attestation clues helps no one either. Perhaps {{rfex}} with the offensive name inserted as a comment? DCDuring TALK 13:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, I wouldn't have realized that a surname was an 'attestation clue', actually I assume that the surname was of the person who defined the term, so Crabb may have defined the term in an earlier dictionary, taken up by Webster. I'd say it would be analogous to put a page number like 316 without putting which book that refers to, and then letting the reader figure it out. Good luck to them! Mglovesfun (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes by language[edit]

Hi Martin, how you doin'? I wasn't around for a long time, but I'm kinda back. We had a recent changes by language feature, right? What happened to it? --OG 14:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No idea, I never used the feature much as no language that I edited other than English got enough edits for it to be useful to me. I also know know what the name of the page was, so I can't even direct you there. Try WT:GP. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Recent changes: "This feature (recent changes by language) is currently unavailable.". --Yair rand 20:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

VDL[edit]

Your turn.KlappCK 16:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Back to you again.KlappCK 17:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

syr/syc[edit]

Hi, When I try adding a translation with "syc", the language appears to be "Classical Syriac". Wouldn't be better just calling it Syriac? Just like how it's done with Classical Hebrew and Arabic words. Also, does have to be nested under Aramaic? Syriac is considered a different language and even though Aramaic is quite close but it's usually written in square letters (Hebrew). One last thing... Using syc removes the transliteration column, why is that?--Rafy 23:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It used to be called Syriac but was changed to Classical Syriac after a discussion in the Grease Pit. Re nesting, I asked 334a whether it should nest and he said it should, so I modified the script to have it nest. The removal of the transliteration column has now been fixed. --Yair rand 00:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe that the language should be at listed as Syriac under translations, that's how ethnologue defines it. My belief is that the distinction between syr and syc is very similar to ara and arb, the first one is defined as the colloquial living macro-languages to which aai, cld and tru belong (similar to how ara is defined as a macro-language that includes the colloquial arz, acm, etc...). syc on the other hand is the classical literary language found on secular and religious books, very similar to how arb. So I thank that syc should be simply called Syriac and Assyrian neo-Aramaic, Chaldean neo-Aramaic should be nested under it, just like how Egyptian Arabic is usually nested under Arabic.
I hope I'm not being to confusing (or confused)...--Rafy 10:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
My brother Rafy, calling Syriac a different language from Aramaic is like calling "Cantonese" a different language from "Chinese". Aramaic dialects/languages are written in a variety of scripts; it's not just usually Hebrew. If anything, the most "legit" Aramaic is Official/Imperial Aramaic (written in Aramaic script, not the square "Hebrew" script). Dialects written in Hebrew aren't any more "Aramaic" than Syriac is. Also, the Northwestern Neo-Aramaic languages don't directly descend from Classical Syriac, so nesting them as such poses a problem. The best way to go, I think, is to have all these languages (Classical Syriac, Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, Chaldean Neo-Aramaic, Official/Imperial Aramaic, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, Mandaic, etc.) nested under Aramaic. Whether these are considered separate languages or not does not matter; they can be tied together through a shared ancestry (much the same way the very different Mandarin and Cantonese are with Chinese).
As for changing "Classical Syriac" back to "Syriac", I voiced my opinion in the Grease Pit discussion about how nobody really calls the modern languages "Syriac" and if we were to have "Classical Syriac" then we should at least have "Neo-Syriac". "Syriac", if used at all, should definitely mean "Classical Syriac". The bare name "Syriac" should not be used for the modern languages in the same way Italian/French/Spanish/etc. shouldn't be called "Latin" and Latin shouldn't be called "Classical Latin". --334a 18:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough... Now that we agree all Syriac found here is Classical anyway, do you agree then on changing classical Syriac to Syriac?--Rafy 19:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
As per my comments in the Grease Pit discussion, no. If we are to continue this discussion though, it should probably take place there instead of on Mglovesfun's talk page. --334a 21:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I have no real feelings on the matter; the important is to use the correct ISO 639 code and use whatever name for the language that editors want, that is to say {{syc}} editors (counts me out). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

modified chest thrusts[edit]

so i was a bit confused on how to proceed here, the concept is in the plural. we don't perform modified chest thrust, we perform modified chest thrusts, but each pump is a modified chest thrust, and I know usually its the other way around and the plural get's a stub of an article saying it is the plural of x, and you click on that to see the definition. make sense?Gtroy 21:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, see for example jug, jugs meaning "breasts", where it's rare to refer to just one 'jug'. However, I feel like you sometimes get caught up with equivalence. For example in mathematics, one plus one may be the same as two but linguistically they're not the same. For example situational awareness you put " [] while multitasking". Surely one can be aware of one's situation while not multitasking. In the same way, a tall person may have big feet, but we don't have a sense "possessing big feet" at all, it's just that one may imply the other. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I spose that may be the difference between regular situational awareness used in the military and paramilitary organizations with that of emergency medicine, when performing emergency medicine you are always multitasking if not you're not performing anything. So it is really key.Gtroy 22:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying, the information is incidental rather than part of the definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page. And no it is not. The act itself is plural.
I responded on my talk page.Gtroy 21:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I again responded, this time both at the discussion for shitbum and on my talk page.Gtroy 21:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you unable to explain why the discrepancy between "at ease" and "shitbum" both having lay definitions and specialized socialectical definitions then?Gtroy 22:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
No; I just don't accept that there is a medical-only definition of shitbum. That's the whole point of the rfv, that definition is disputed and needs to be cited. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

bescheiden‎[edit]

Isn't the first citation for the adjective sense:- "I am humble." (not that I am a great German scholar). SemperBlotto 15:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"Ich bescheide mich." is a verb form I think. There's no sein is there, isn't it "I inform myself" or something similar? --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The verb "scheiden" means generally to separate something or set something apart. With the prefix "be-" added, it's a bit like 1) (as an adj) something that's been set apart in a quiet or humble way, or 2) (as a verb) setting something apart in a humble or quiet way. C.f. the verb senses listed at the bescheiden entry on the LEO online German dictionary. -- HTH, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 15:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and the legal sense seems to come more from the noun Bescheid "verdict or notice of legal decision" - more over on the DE WP entry de:w:Bescheid, and on the LEO entry. (Incidentally, de:w:Bescheiden redirects to de:w:Bescheidenheit, which is apparently about the philosophy of being modest or humble.) -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 15:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

xno[edit]

"I think that Anglo-Norman should be merged into Old French, as by any standard I know of, apart from ISO 639-3, they are the same language."

You mean there was no Old French not also Norman or Anglo-Norman? If so, Norman weren't a dialect. Lysdexia 20:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I dunno. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not talking about Norman as in the Modern Norman language anyway. Plus, dialects can have their own forms not understood by other dialects; if a speaker in Newcastle uses a word that a speak in Brighton doesn't understand or (or vice versa) it doesn't mean they aren't both speaking English, does it? With regards to your specific question, I don't see how anyone could really know the answer. Attestation can show that something exists, how can it show that something doesn't exist (or didn't exist). Plus if you define Anglo-Norman as a specific dialect of Old French, you get circular definition. Any word attested in Anglo-Norman would be by extension Old French. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

scatophelia[edit]

thanks for catching thatGtroy 21:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

佛#Japanese[edit]

Just noticed your edits over there. I'm curious why you changed the etyl for Fó​tuó from {{etyl|sa|zho}} to {{etyl|sa|ja}}? The chain of origin was from Sanskrit to Chinese, and thence to Japanese, not directly from Sanskrit to Japanese. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Because the previous categorizes in Category:Chinese terms derived from Sanskrit in a Japanese section. This is standard practice to always use the language code of the section in question for the second parameter of {{etyl}} (unless it's |en as that's the default). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't too bothered about which section this was in, as I thought cats applied to a whole page. Was I wrong in that understanding? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 22:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Quite a common mistake, but do, the second parameter is always the same as the language section in question. See for example perish; we don't categorize it in Middle English terms derived from Old French, or Old French terms derived from Latin. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

chief complaint[edit]

i really think this term merits inclusion. it would be helpful for someone studying this to be able to find it out. and it has a very idiomatic meaning in a medical sense.Gtroy 11:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It really really doesn't. And if you consistently oppose CFI, I think you can't continue to edit here. The minor should not be allow to dictate the rules to the minority. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

tra/sim rather than trad/simp[edit]

Is there a reason for this? It seems like it just adds maintenance headache. —RuakhTALK 13:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The only reason (which I consider a good one, perhaps others would not) is that other Mandarin templates use tra and sim not trad and simp. A lot of the time I'm converting {{cmn-noun}} to {{cmn-def}}, keeping only tra= and sim=, for example. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that that's a good reason. Thanks. —RuakhTALK 16:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

West Brit talk page[edit]

Hi,

Without explanation or discussion, you undid my move of Talk:West_Brit -> Talk:West_Briton.

I've reinstated the move. I presume this was just an oversight on your part. No harm done.

Gronky 11:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No of course it wasn't an oversight. Why did you move it in the first place? If your comment refers to an entry, why move it to another (albeit synonymous) entry? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I should have used a friendlier tone. Having contributions undone irritates people.
I can easily turn your questions around: why do you presume to know best about where I want to put my comment? And why do I have to justify to you (or whoever) my choice of where to put my comment?
But I'll answer the questions anyway. My comment doesn't refer exclusively to the spelling "West Brit" or to the spelling "West Briton", so both are fine candidates. My comment refers to text that was once on the "West Brit" page, but that page is now empty and its contents have been merged into "West Briton", so it's more relevant to the latter. Lastly, I wrote my comment for the purpose of helping the future development of the definition, to avoid re-making a certain mistake. No further definition development will take place at "West Brit", so having my comment there is pointless. Further definition development will take place at "West Briton", so putting my comment there is useful.
That's all pretty obvious when you look at my actions and my comment. Not seeing the obvious is an oversight.
On Dutch Wikipedia, they've a general rule of "Good faith edits should preferably not be undone". I think it's a good rule for avoiding needless conflict (over pointless small issues).
I decided to leave a comment because I think the practice of undoing other people's edits without discussion is very frustrating. No harm done here - I'm a hardened Wikipedian and won't be driven away by incivility - but if this is done to others (newcomers), we'll harm the growth of the community. Gronky 23:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Our policy is to undo bad edits no matter what the motive behind the edit was. FWIW you created Talk:West Brit, moved it to Talk:West Briton then explained that the talk page actual referred to West Brit not West Briton. The simplest solution was merely to move it back whence it came. Moral of the story; if you don't want people correcting your bad edits, don't make bad edits in the first place. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I think your discontent over where I chose to place my comment is baseless, but I'm gonna let this drop. It's not worth falling out over :-) Have a good weekend! Gronky 13:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
You too! --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

belated[edit]

Happy birthday for 2 days ago, dude. p.s. how's the new job? --Rockpilot 19:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Starts monday (26/09) should probably put that on my profile as I'll be editing here less as a result (a bit like this week). Mglovesfun (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I genuinely hope it goes well. Good luck Glovesy. --Rockpilot 19:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Bot replacement of pt-noun-m/f with pt-noun[edit]

Hi Gloves, it seems that during your bot-replacement of pt-noun-m/f the plurals got lost: The behavior of the old templates was to automatically assume regular plurals formed with s-suffix if the pl-parameter was missing. The new pt-noun-template does not do that, so most of the Portuguese nouns (the regular ones) are lacking the plural form now. Could you please try to fix that (by either changing the pt-noun-template or rerunning your bot)? Matthias Buchmeier 15:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I'd love to, the template is designed not to show a plural unless one is specified, and I oppose this. I seem to think I didn't want to tread on Daniel Carrero's toes by changing this. --Mglovesfun (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I would use exactly the same parameters as {{es-noun}} switching es for pt and Spanish for Portuguese. That may create some automatic invalid plurals, but that's no different from es-noun, {{fr-noun}} or {{en-noun}}! I just changed {{en-noun}} to {{en-noun|es}} inside mash as an example of that. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I support making the pt-noun "automatically assume regular plurals formed with s-suffix if the pl-parameter was missing", like en-noun does. --Daniel 16:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Why?[edit]

Why did you delete my page, berfily? It is a real word, and deserves as much spot in Wiktionary as any other word.--97.118.81.228 14:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Prove it. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

How do I prove it? --67.172.133.176 20:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

WT:CFI#Attestation. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What? I don't understand... --67.172.133.176 20:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a real word. It's a prank example from a blog entry about how to invent new words: [1]. Gronky 22:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I've never seen that before. But it's a real word, I just don't know how to prove it and no one will show me how to prove it!--71.196.236.182 00:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Mglovesfun has already shown you how to prove it -- just read WT:CFI#Attestation for starters. You need to be able to show at least three citations in reliably archived sources. Just FYI, you're not likely to have an easy time of it -- any definition for berfily that has to do with butter is tainted by association with the aforementioned blog article about making up spurious words, and after filtering out Urban Dictionary, wikis, and the word butter, Google only gives 54 hits: google:"berfily"+-"urban+dictionary"+-"wiki"+-"butter". Of these, the first few show usage in decidedly non-English environments such as what looks like an Egyptian brand name and maybe Malay, and many of the others border on non-English for all the misspellings and broken grammar.
Suffice it to say, you've got an uphill road to try to convince us that this word is anything but bogus. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 05:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

rusca[edit]

rusca means bark in Latin? Did you mean crusca? SemperBlotto 16:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I just changed the header from 'Medieval Latin' to plain 'Latin'. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:pt-noun again[edit]

It seems that the old pt-noun-m/f used a different plural-parameter than the new pt-noun: AFAIK plurals have been specified by 'unnamed-parameter-#1' or 'plural' previously, while the new pt-noun seems to accept 'unnamed-parameter-#2' or 'pl' but not 'plural'. At least the entries where plural had been specified with 'plural=...' have not been converted correctly by your bot-run from July. As a consequence these entries now show a wrong regular plural, see i.e. the history of informação (which I have fixed meanwhile). Could you please try to fix these problems? (IMHO either change the new template to additionally accept a 'plural' argument or rerun the bot and convert all 'plural=' arguments of pt-noun to 'pl='?Matthias Buchmeier 12:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

{{{pl|{{{plural|{{{2|}}} }}} }}} — [Ric Laurent] — 13:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I've finally found the problem with 'pt-noun' and fixed it, also for 'es-noun'. Are there any other languages using the same template? Matthias Buchmeier 15:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I've removed all the instances of {{pt-noun|<gender>|plural=, if any entries use{{pt-noun|plural=|<gender>}}those won't get caught, though that format is unlikely (and not very good). --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

cousiner[edit]

Is there an English equivalent of this French verb? Or is it best just to give an explanation instead ("to behave with someone as if you were his cousin")? (cousinable also exists but seems to be very rare). SemperBlotto 07:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've actually never come across it, the best I could do is read the French Wiktionary's entries, which I'm guessing is what you've already done. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

French past participles[edit]

Hi there. Many French past participles (see restreint as an example) do not have proper headwords. Would it be possible for your bot to find them all, and replace the simple headword with the template {{fr-past-participle}}? SemperBlotto 10:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Using regular expression, it wouldn't be all that simple, or infallible. Ideally
===Verb===
'''{{PAGENAME}}'''

# {{past participle of|foo|lang=fr}}

In that situation, you can detect the PAGENAME and replace it with {{fr-pp}}. However, someone would have to correct any errors by hand, such as pris, the masculine plural past participle is not priss. It might also skip something like {{past participle of|[[foo#French|foo]]|lang=fr}}. So it is possible, but not risk-free. In fact the chance of error is almost 1. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is realistic to eventually do them all. I can see a way of doing it. Doing them all correctly is probably not realistic though. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Now I think about it, French past participle forms are categorizes as past participles rather than past participle forms. To some extent these can be fixed by bot, but a lot of them will need picking out by hand. There are all sorts of things I can do using AWB and regular expressions. I'll give it a go; what I could do with is a list of past participle sorted alphabetically from the last letter to the first (that is, reading from right to left instead of left to right) because all the ones ending in -s will have masculine plural forms the same as the feminine plural. I can't think of any that end in -z or -z so it's the the -s ones that need treating (pris, mis, etc.). --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Am off tomorrow, so I can make some serious inroads into this (but perhaps not finish every single entry tomorrow. --Mglovesfun (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Looking at some of the remaining broken entries, most of them are by... me, back in 2009, such as initiée. But, because my format is consistent, AWB can handle it quite well. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, or at least I think so. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

sigh/vbac[edit]

that's not good, what's wrong?Gtroy 17:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I just made a lot of careless edits in a row. Quite annoying. Nothing I won't forget in the next 30 seconds. --Mglovesfun (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

lol careless?Gtroy 17:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

wings[edit]

thanks for cleaning that up for me. Where did you get that plural only thing from? I was looking for it. Is there a page that has all of them on there?Gtroy 17:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:English headword-line templates, I think for nouns those are the only two templates. You can also use {{en-noun|?}} for 'I don't know what the plural is, or even if there is one'. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

pleurement[edit]

It's in fr.wiktionary - also they say ploramen in Occitan. SemperBlotto 11:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the Old French words which have disappeared have disappeared, but made it into early Modern French (1600 or so). It's very hard to find an Old French word which hasn't survived at all at least into early Modern French. Destruiment is another candidate, Modern French would be détruiment, early Modern French would be the same. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

gl:Special:RecentChanges[edit]

Bonjour Mglovesfun. Depuis la disparation de Robert Ullmann, le bot Luckas-bot travaille quotidiennement pour mettre à jour le wikidictionnaireGL, et parfois d'autres bots aussi, dans certaines langues (en grec-EL-, par exemple) les nouvelles entrées sont reprises. Mais cela ne suffit pas pour prendre en charge toutes les nouvelles entrées. Je suis trop nulle en anglais pour comprendre WT:BOT et y formuler une demande. Si tu peux faire quelque chose pour les interwikis de gl:Special:RecentChanges, je t'en saurai gré. Cordialement --Elvire 13:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Do you have a link to other relevant editing markup/syntax information. I'd figure I'd ask while you're here and while I dont feel like digging thru a billion articles. Grazzi 76.118.229.28 22:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About German. In essence, it's better to use {{infl|de|noun}} or write Category:German nouns than to accidentally insert false information (wrong plural and so on). Mglovesfun (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

στην ώρα μου[edit]

Your patience would have been rewarded :) —Saltmarshtalk-συζήτηση 10:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Translations[edit]

Could you please explain to Biblbroks about this. And point him to translations. He seems to not understand that each translation leads to different wiktionary project (if there is a wiktionary project present). Thanks a lot. -- Bugoslav 12:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

But... why would you need me to do it? He (or she) can read, just link to my talk page. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I have done that and faced accusations about harassment. -- Bugoslav 12:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Rules? What about blanking content? Is that allowable? We all know that those translation have links to (toward) different wiktionaries. Now those links have been blanked, and there is only a link to sh:. That project has very few entries, and presents a certain POV.
Having translations to different wiktionary projects cannot be replaced by a singular (single) project.
Rules against blanking? On every project blanking could be considered an act of vandalism, especially if valuable content has been removed. There is more to it - than just - there is not any rule which prevents from blanking. -- Bugoslav 14:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I haven't seen this user blank anything, so why would I act? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for this. —This unsigned comment was added by Engirst (talkcontribs) at 3 October 2011.

I thought it was a genuine citation. The fact the cited term is right next to and rfd nominated entry isn't a coincidence, but AFAICT nobody's denying that the entry exists, which is why it's not aty RFV. So using a citation which also uses an RFD nominated term without linking to it for me doesn't pose a problem. And I'd be happy to apply that to any RFD nominated term in any language. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorting French words[edit]

I'm afraid we have a problem. I added the sort parameter to three words: français, été and liège. Unfortunately only the first one moved to the right place in both adjective and noun categories. --flyax 17:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't see what the problem is; the categories are probably so large that the server'll need time to update. The edits look fine to me. --Mglovesfun (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Have a look at étésien (noun). It has got the sort key since Oct. 2010 and is still under é in the Category:French nouns. --flyax 17:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
That suggests the template has a problem, which relatively speaking is good, as it can probably be fixed very easily. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Fixed (in seconds). Mglovesfun (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Could you change cat to sort in Template:fr-verb-form? Or do something in order to both parameters be accepted?--flyax 12:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Now it's Template:fr-past participle that is causing problems. See ébahi. --flyax 21:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
    Yes it is causing a problem, but what is it? I replaced the code with what seems to be correct, but when I'd finished it was identical to the previous version. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    I think I found it. It must be Template:past participle of that categorizes also. There is a lot of past participles without any headword template that belong to the category because of this template in the definition line. No sort parameter in this template unfortunately. --flyax 11:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    Now there is. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Another one (hoping you won't lose your patience): There is a possible conflict between the categorising statements of {{fr-verb}} and {{fr-conj}} which embeds {{fr-conj-table}} and is "inherited" by {{fr-conj-er}} and others. An example: ânonner. My personal opinion is that conjugation templates should categorize only into "French 1st/2nd/3rd group verbs", not into the general "French verbs" category. In the mean time I will be working on adjectives. --flyax 19:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    Not losing my patience, I did ask for your help after all. Yeah I know about this; I recently did a sweep so that all French verbs use {{fr-verb}}. Of course there may be a couple that now don't use fr-verb. However, yes, I'd be happy for {{fr-conj}} not to categorize apart from for group. But perhaps we should allow others to comment, eh? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    See Wiktionary:Grease_pit#Sort_key_in_French_verbs. --flyax 15:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
    While waiting for more comments on BP, could you change "cat" to "sort" in {{fr-conj-table}} and {{fr-conj}}? --flyax 11:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

英國, Nei Mongol[edit]

Hello,

I hope you understand the reasoning behind the lock of these entries and frustration about this user who makes the joint efforts to make Mandarin entries and translations better - very difficult. --Anatoli 22:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No of course I don't get it. Why would I? Sigh. But I'll wash my hands of it. For the record, I think removing the valid citation from 英國 because it contains a term which will fail RFD in a couple of days is bullshit. It's as if you're panicking that if a citation for a Wiktionary entry contains Thames河 then all of sudden everyone will change their mind and vote keep. So no, I don't get it. I sincerely hope this isn't just a case of bullying. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Pity that you don't get it. Cleaning after this guy has been Tooironic's and my job for quite some time. I have nothing to panic about but I'm worried about the quality of Mandarin entries if he gets what he wants. It's him who has bullied everyone around. I haven't avoided any blocks, don't break any rules and was elected as administrator, don't compare me with him. --Anatoli 09:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not defending his past actions, I'm simply looking at this edit (英國) in isolation, this is, judge the edit the editor. BTW I haven't mentioned Nei Mongol because I broadly agree, the his edit is nonsense and shouldn't be allowed to remain. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

converting Serbian[edit]

Hi Mglovesfun. I see you're converting Serbian to Serbo-Croatian in the Appendix namespace:). I take it you haven't seen that there are also Croatian and Bosnian lines there (and which now appear alongside Serbo-Croatian)? --JorisvS 13:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have, just since it would be tough to do by regular expressions, I was gonna do that as a separate stage. So it's a two step process (or you can do it, since I'm going out in about the next 60 seconds). Mglovesfun (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

维他命M (wéitāmìng M)[edit]

It is not vadalism, please see here 2.25.212.57 19:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait, suddenly you can talk. But can you listen. Tell me why I should reply to you? Can you first reply to me? Or do you simply think yourself above people like me. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
How long do you think it will take me to delete all 1087 entries in Category:Mandarin pinyin entries without Hanzi, given that all 1087 were created by you. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
He never replies to direct questions. If blocks don't work on him, deleting his entries in bulk could be the response. Not suggesting this yet but he should be aware of the possibility. --Anatoli 22:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm taking the view that if pinyin entries are 'glorified redirects' to Hanzi entries, then a pinyin entry without a Hanzi equivalent has 'no usable content' and can be deleted by any administrator at any time (or by any user if there's another language on the page). Clearly, nobody's objected so far. I am very obviously sick and tired of 123abc having influence here for all the wrong reasons, not good arguments and good practice but evading blocks and re-adding deleted entries with no consultation or justification. BTW I'm not suggesting in any way deleting pinyin with a valid Hanzi characters. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
For a start, all the definitions could be removed from the pinyin entries, as the recent vote mandates that. (In the vote, I opposed excluding the definitions, but that does not prevent me from supporting the result of the vote now.) That could stop him, I think. Furthermore, protecting the entries so that only auto-confirmed users can edit them seems to be in order. --Dan Polansky 08:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
One clarification / addendum I'd like to add is that any pinyin entry that points to multiple possible hanzi entries should probably include a *brief* gloss of each to aid the user in choosing the appropriate hanzi entry to view. This would be in line with how we handle romaji and kana entries for Japanese that point to multiple kanji entries, such as can be seen at kōgai and こうがい. <-- That was me, forgot to sign. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 03:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

2.25.214.180[edit]

Hello, Special:Contributions/2.25.214.180 has created some pinyin entries with no matching hanzi. àicái doesn't have tradit. version. Perhaps the rule for pinyin entries to match hanzi should be made explicit but I think it was part of the vote. --Anatoli 22:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it was actually part of the vote that the Hanzi exist, just that they be valid. We should think carefully about what we want. We could consider such entries to have 'no usable content', or consider that red links are useful for finding entries we don't have. To compound that, 123abc is well-known for making spelling/tone mistakes, which makes me even more nervous about letting these entries remain as they are. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the vote does say "whenever we have an entry" for the hanzi. I think (as I wrote) that pinyin should be allowed whether or not hanzi forms have entries yet, but I would interpret the vote to ban hanzi-less pinyin, and I think you would furthermore be right to delete pinyin in this case (from this editor) because we can't assume it's accurate. - -sche (discuss) 09:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I just found the text of the vote, "whenever we have an entry for a traditional-characters or simplified-characters spelling." That does seem to back up my deletions of toned pinyin entries with no associated Hanzi. And there was me thinking we need another vote, and we don't. NB it does say 'have an entry' as opposed to the link, even if red, merely being valid. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, 123abc's clone continue to produce mixed language entries with the person's name untranslated. I suggest we block him, what needs to be done? Do we have a lot of opposition for him being expelled? --Anatoli 22:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
No opposition that I can think of, it just seems we can't do it if he has access to unlimited IP addresses. That's why use of things like Special:Nuke and protecting pages is quite useful. I'm not going to pretend I like the idea of protecting pages for the sake of one use, but I don't have any better ideas. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a very useful tool. --Anatoli 01:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Unblocking[edit]

Hi Martin, can you unblock me? EncycloPetey (you know him well) blocked me as he/she did about a year ago (for the same reason). You can see the last conversation here. [this is OG] --78.176.214.35 07:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, administrator cannot block over personal preference issues, which is what this is. WT:ELE doesn't mention the matter. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

yánlì[edit]

Why did you delete yánlì? (I can't tell from your deletion summary.) Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Pinyin entries specifically links to it as an example. Was this discussed somewhere? - -sche (discuss) 00:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no single hanzi entry matching the pinyin, thus "whenever we have an entry for a traditional-characters or simplified-characters spelling." is not met. Pinyin entries are seldom quality-checked, it's too may of them. --Anatoli 01:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, if that was the only problem, I'll see if I can create some hanzi forms and restore it. (I wondered if it was known to have wrong tone markings or something.) It's awkward to use that vote, which held it up as a model entry, to justify deleting it, lol. - -sche (discuss) 02:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry too much about restoring. 123abc and his "clones" left a lot of entries to be fixed behind. See this talk page above, toneless pinyin and incorrectly formatted pinyin entries. Thanks to Mglovesfun, for your attention to Mandarain space and your work. --Anatoli 04:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Can someone just create an entry for one of the Hanzi listed? Then it becomes valid. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! - -sche (discuss) 07:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

marimacho[edit]

what was wrong with it, i don't see a change oh and why does it show up as if you created it now?Acdcrocks 10:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It's quicker to use WT:ACCEL, your entry was in Category:English plurals instead of Category:Spanish noun forms and didn't have a gender. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

biāndǎ and bìxū[edit]

I really don't think pinyin entries should contain anything other than a soft redirect to its hanzi equivalent(s). These two have been left with external links and pronunciation sections. I don't think that's appropriate. Was that advocated in the vote? ---> Tooironic 11:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"That a pinyin entry have only the modicum of information needed to allow readers to get to a traditional-characters or simplified-characters entry". Seems you're right, feel free to strip whatever you see fit other than the minimum. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, done. Ta. ---> Tooironic 12:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

白酒[edit]

What did you do here? ---> Tooironic 12:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I probably had two windows open and edited the wrong one. I think you probably could have reverted this without talking to me, no? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I know I just thought I'd let you know FYI. ---> Tooironic 11:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)