User talk:Mglovesfun/Archives/3

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


Hey, can you please tell me why you reverted my edit here [1]. If that is not how you delete a redundant talk page, then how do you? No, really, I have no idea! Is there some other process? Tooironic 11:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you "mark done" though? What's the script for it? And isn't it just a waste of space to keep old and irrelevant talk pages lying around? Tooironic 12:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Just write it on the article. It doesn't seem all that relevant, I don't know any other administrators who delete talk pages just because they are 'inactive'. You're free to ask whoever you like about it. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi. Can you lend your eyes at basculer? I've never properly understood how to translate this word, especially the figurative sense (I've used "to spiral downwards" and "fall apart" and "turn upsidedown" before, but there's gotta be a better translation - I considered "be flipped upside down" and "be ripped apart" as translations too, but they're too extreme perhaps) --Rising Sun 18:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Just realised I haven't replied yet. Yes, I will have a look. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:fr:Translingual derivations[edit]

Aren't these from Latin, not Translingual? The idea of Translingual etymologies seems odd to me. --Rising Sun 22:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a calque of the New Latin Canidae (canidé, also Canidé), see WT:AMUL. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


You do know that I have a bot that can do those forms of entries for Esperanto nouns, right? If you didn't know, then that's fine too :) Just thought that I'd let you know that my bot is available :) Cheers, Razorflame 19:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I didn't make morfologii because I was researching about Ido nouns. I think it that while it has already been made to leave it, but I need to research the Ido language some more. Razorflame 19:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I was just surprised to find so many green links. How does the bot know which noun forms to create, or is it just as you find them? The time to leave a message on your talk page, just as quickly I can make three noun forms in six clicks. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The bot knows which noun forms to create when I input them into the bot program. It takes me only a few seconds to do so. User:Darkicebot/Feed is a feed page that can be used to feed the bot words for it to make. Cheers, Razorflame 19:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


hey, please have a look at this; I was importing stuff from fr.wikt and got a bit in over my head :/ So please try to add any missing meanings and sort out the synonyms/derived terms. 50 Xylophone Players talk 14:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I had a go. Not sure if all of these terms meet CFI mind you. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


Dude, you sure about this? To me it means something like "precisely" or "correctly".....for "fairly" I would always say honnêtement. Ƿidsiþ 12:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I meant fairly as "in a fair manner". I've just changed it. That meaning (justly, with justice) is on fr.wikt, but I think it's not commonly used that way. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I've seen it translated as fair enough before too. But I think rightly so could be a more precise translation. Or maybe with reason (though I doubt they'd get an English entry). I'll search for some cites. --Rising Sun 14:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Are we talking about an interjection in that sense, then? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

decategorize lojban[edit]

Why did you "decat" lojban and mraigo? Was "infl|jbo|noun" not correct for Lojban? Mutante 22:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry for jumping in.) Yep, there are no Lojban nouns (see WT:RFDO#Category:Lojban nouns). --Yair rand 22:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


Sorry, just an old reflex. Cdlt, VIGNERON 10:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Old french article templates[edit]

I'm curious why you set the title to the oblique form, rather than the nominative. Shouldn't the nominative be the lemma form, and thus be used for the header of the template box? --EncycloPetey 17:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Good question. We do the opposite according to WT:AFRO, mainly because that's what other dictionaries do. The reason for that being that Modern French has retained the oblique case, not the nominative. It has come up on the Beer Parlour, although not many people had anything to say. Try User:Widsith. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
If the oblique is to be our lemma form, and WT:AFRO says so, then that answers my question. Old French is not a subject I know much about, but I do dabble occasionally since I do have access to some resources and some knowledge of the parent language. :) --EncycloPetey 17:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It's basically because stuff like mestre would have to be moved to mestres, which looks like a plural to "us". When I started adding words here, I was doing stuff like that, and had to move about 50 pages myself lol. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


Hey, thanks for implementing this, but could you remember to check the changes actually work in future (I find that the <includeonly> tag is very unhelpful as it doesn't make synta errors immediately obvious). Conrad.Irwin 20:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

In fairness I fell asleep, but I did ask someone to take a look at it. Is it working now? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I think so, it's not as huge a problem as the one you edit-conflicted me to fix at Template:US, so let's call it square :). We'll probably have to scan through to look for non-english citations in the English cat though. Conrad.Irwin 20:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
My effort to use a sortkey didn't go well either. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh right, see Citations:estre {{frm}} automatically adds a blue link. Darn it. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
This template automatically adds the category Category:Citations of undefined terms, correct? I think that if the word is undefined it shouldn't go into a language category. Nadando 20:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it should. I can see one or two ways to get round that anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It should probably go into [[:Category:Citations of undefined {{{{{lang}}}}} terms]] instead? Conrad.Irwin 20:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully, we won't have so many of those that we need a category for each language. I'd recomend just the one category for now, and see what happens. --EncycloPetey 21:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: We definitely need language-specific implementation for this template. Witness: Citations:biceps and note especially the linguistically uninformative section headers. --EncycloPetey 21:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Any good now? (it's not that pretty, maybe we should have the heading being just the language, with a subheading showing the words that are also being cited?) I've alsio created {{citeboiler}} for use on the category pages. Conrad.Irwin 21:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed it's better, but why not start the line with the name of the language, instead of placing it parenthetically at the end? It would also make sense for the link back to the entry to link to the corresponding language section. --EncycloPetey 21:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


Thank you.

CFI and expression[edit]

It seems to me that you attribute to the term "expression" as used in CFI a meaning that it does not have. From what I understand, the term "expression" is there used as a synonym to "term", roughly meaning "a sequence of one or more words". An alternative reading of "expression" could be "multi-word term", excluding from it single-word terms AKA words. The term "rod-shaped" is an expression in either sense, as it is a multi-word term. Thus, "rod-shaped" needs to be a non-sum-of-parts AKA idiomatic to meet CFI. Likewise, "three hundred" is a multi-word term, and thus an expression either way. --Dan Polansky 10:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just one of the meanings it can have. This is why I would like to rewrite CFI almost entirely, as it's very vague, almost everywhere! I will be proposing an amendment or amendments to that paragraph, but I'm starting with the first sentence first. See User:Mglovesfun/Amendments to CFI (currently empty). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Then what is the meaning of "expression" as you use it? What are several examples of terms that are expressions and what are several examples of terms that are not expressions, according to the way you use the term "expression"? --Dan Polansky 11:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I think your definition is a "Wiktionary only one". I don't think anyone uses expression to mean "anything with a space or a hyphen in it". Note that if it meant "one or more words" as you say, I could rfd bucket as it's not idiomatic. Bare in mind I'm just trying to point out the bugs in CFI, as a devil's advocate. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I am not defending my definition; I am asking for your definition or at least examples and counterexamples, so that I can understand how you use the term "expression".
I don't get your reasoning with "bucket". CFI says: "An expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." The meaning of "bucket" cannot be derived from its separate components, as it has not separate components. Hence "bucket" passes the wording of CFI as "idiomatic" and thus inclusion-worthy. I admit that this is an abuse of the term "idiomatic", but that is how CFI defines "idiomatic" anyway.
I agree that the wording in CFI should better be improved to be clearer, but I have never felt this as a pressing need, as I have understood CFI with the help of discussions that invoke it rather than considering it alone. I think the term "expression" should be completely removed from CFI, leading to CFI speaking of "term", "single-word term" and "multi-word term". --Dan Polansky 12:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Or what I think we both want to say is that CFI should reflect how editors actually edit (good edits) rather than being an oversimplistic ambiguous document, which is how I see it. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
But I can rfd catlike and faceguard because they're not idiomatic? Single words don't get special treatment you know. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Single words do get special treatment. WT:CFI says that not only single words are acceptable, but also (for example) idioms. This means that the entire "idiomaticity" criterion gives single words a bye. —RuakhTALK 20:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

shotgun marriage[edit]

MG - you might love fun, but will you please leave shotgun marriage alone. I am trying to do something specific with it as part of debate I am abou tto launch on Beer Parlour. It's pretty damn rude of you to see someone is trying to edit a word, and then come in over the top. Or was it a mere coincidence ? I appreciate your contribution/entry. but another time, a bit later on please. --Richardb 11:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, how would I know that without being in your house? There's nothing in the recent changes. Anyway, we'll restore it when you're done. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks MG. Spooky coincidence though!--Richardb 11:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
No that was in the recent changes. Last time I was probably working on it at the same time as you, but hit save before you did. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


Ignore this text. 10:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't revert this, please. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Note that I re-created your page. Bear in mind that we get a lot of crap, and your contribution looked a lot like said crap. Note Citations:poo pirate; if you want what you create to stay, collect citations of usage in accordance with WT:CFI.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 10:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't actually delete the page either, I just nominated it for verification. And yes you are/were a nuisance for posting insults on other people's pages. But it doesn't bother me tbh. There's nothing unique about hiding behind an IP to insult people, it happens every second on WikiMedia projects. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
No, you didn't, that guy SemperBlotto deleted it and I never once said that you had. That is why I wanted him to read my message and got irritated with other people reverting it, it was a stupid page, but his reason for deleting it, that it was a protologism, was a flat lie. In fact, I have come across it a few times on the internet, and it is obvious to a UK person what it means but I came across it - on the internet - and it has several thousand usages which fulfil your requirement for inclusion of "someone is likely to come across it and wonder what it means". It would be nice if you followed your own rules is all. If you want to delete it because it's stupid and you don't want to turn into urban dictionary great, but it wasn't a protologism and shouldn't have been deleted with that reason because it makes you seem like petty despots rather than responsible stewards. Anyhow, I hope you consider what I said, I'm not going to cause anymore mischief for you. Bye.
I think had you been more polite it would have stayed, but in principle yes you have the right to reply. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


Am I correct in saying that the French translation of the noun form of the word hydrate is hydrate? That is what it says on the French Wikipedia, but I wanted to make sure that it was correct. Cheers, Razorflame 13:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Was I correct in adding the French translation? Razorflame 16:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I had never heard of it, but I checked fr:hydrate and yes, perfect. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Great! I checked the French Wikipedia page for the word, which said hydrate, so I was thinking it was correct ;). Do you know if that word is possibly defined in Old French? ;) Razorflame 16:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I suspect there isn't one. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
So do I, but maybe it wouldn't hurt to check? Razorflame 16:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh I thought you were joking. I don't have an Old French dictionary; I enter words as I find them (in texts). When I can, I go to my local library to check words (see rien which I looked up earlier today). Also the dictionary only translated Old French to Modern French, not the other way around. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • hydrate isn't used in French until the 19th century, and I don't think the concept really existed in the Middle Ages. Ƿidsiþ 16:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


I don't really equate sourcing a quotation with sourcing a definition. I would generally not source a definition from another dictionary if the source could be found elsewhere, as it can (in principle) for most of the terms which I've been working on. The problem is that it can be tough to find explicit definitions for basic biological terminology due to the length of time the terms have been in use. For example, I've just added a quote which provides a biological context for the second sense of encode. A separate definition related to molecular biology should probably be added, as there is a very specific sense which is baked into mol bio concepts and which is semantically related to the sense I've targeted; but sourcing that mol bio-specific definition would be very difficult, indeed. I guess I'm just being nit picky with myself :-) --Ceyockey 15:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


[2] - you're breaking section linking with this. I've raised the issue here. Please stop replacing section headers with this template until this is resolved. --Ivan Štambuk 11:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't actually replacing it, I was adding lang=sh, ru (whatever) as through no fault of your or anyone elses, they were appearing in [[Category:English citations]]. I've done all the non-English ones now, AFAICT. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
You've specifically removed ==Serbo-Croatian== section header above. This is needed because it's linked to by {{seeCites}} with lang=sh. I'll restore it if you don't mind. --Ivan Štambuk 12:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
You're right, I don't mind. AFAICS this can be fixed by using <span>, can't it? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea. If you ask me, the whole idea of how we currently handle citations is broken and needs to be fixed. --Ivan Štambuk 12:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for the tweaking at Alford plea. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


XD I got it after a couple of seconds. ;-) 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi, You tagged the page with "rfc" but did not express your concerns in a rfc page. Please take a look at the new text and state the outstanding concerns or de-tag. Altenmann 22:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Context templates[edit]

Before overhauling the complete context system, some discussion should be had. Now, I have to revert lots of undiscussed changes. ... unless I'm seriously misunderstanding something. Could you explain please what your changes to {{billiards}} does? --EncycloPetey 04:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC) --EncycloPetey 03:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I left a message here to which nobody has yet replied. I will put a link on the Beer Parlour too. Essentially it moves the templates from [[Category:Topical context labels]] to [[Category:Sports context labels]]. I Figured it wasn't that controversial as that's what the parameter tcat= is designed for. But I will hold off a bit. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, if that's all it does, then I did misunderstand what was happening. --EncycloPetey 17:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm delinking some more {{birds}} right now, anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for creating this. Please note, however, that WT:ELE requires that the Etymology section come before Pronunciation in standard format of most entries. --EncycloPetey 04:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Archiving WT:RFDO[edit]

Note to self: do this when I get home so I don't forget. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


I've always wondered what the difference between /sɥit/ and /swit/ is. The sound after the /s/ does seem to be a /w/ to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  • It's not easy to explain. The [ɥ] is a palatal approximant, which means that as well as the lips pursing (like with [w]), the middle of the tongue approaches the roof of the mouth. One way to think of it might be that [ɥ] is to [y] as [w] is to [u]. Although strictly speaking that probably isn't a good scientific way of describing it. Ƿidsiþ 12:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • (/swit/ in French would be spelled *souite.) Ƿidsiþ 12:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ummat al Kuffar[edit]

Please see U al K, thanks. Emeraldicus 19:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Dawnraybot in Old French?[edit]

Hi MG. Do you think there's scope in training my bot to do Old French conjugations? We don't have any {{fro-conj}} templates, do we? If not now, maybe in the future. --Rising Sun talk? 09:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I had thought about it. It's a bit perilous given how much the language varies from one place to each other. The best we could do is give a 'typical' conjugation. But as a User fro-1 I don't wanna make to many mistakes. I was thinking that avoir and estre could do with conjugations, as they are (not surprisingly) well-attested. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi Mglovesfun,

Are you sure that all entries containing {{fr-conj-table}} also contain {{fr-verb}}? (BTW, you might want to be a bit less bold in modifying protected, widely-transcluded templates. The talk-page is there for a reason.)

RuakhTALK 13:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I probably should have, but if they don't contain infl|fr|verb of fr-verb, they will show up as uncategorized which would be a good way to find them. But on reflection, what's the advantage to that? I just remember a polemic over a Dutch template that was doing the same thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

test cricket etc[edit]

I'm pretty sure that the word Test is capitalized in these terms. See, for example, Test match. SemperBlotto 14:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi, does the second noun sense (half-hour) belong there or should it be at demie, which we currently give only as an adjective form? --Thrissel 21:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, sorry for not replying earlier. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
That's quite all right. Ok, I'd better not be too bold either. --Thrissel 16:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Tusen takk![edit]

Many thanks for your help: I tried hard, but I really do not understand how all these templates and other things work. It was very kind of you to lend a hand.

Are there adopteers at Wiktionary for someone like me, who may help for different languages? Wish so much there were…

Have a nice day - ha en god dag - приємного дня вам! etc. Kąġi Oȟąko Ƭ 14:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Unified login: Help wanted![edit]

Hi again!

Though I clicked on the “Unified login” link, it seems it didn't solve everything. The problem is that on several versions of Wikipedia or Wiktionary (e.g. here and here, particularly, where I am warned as a vandal, because I thought that a redirection from the former username, “ішак” was the right thing to do).

What can be done to avoid being immediately tagged as a vandal? Could someone help me?

Thanks forward! ৵ Kąġi Oȟąko Ƭ 14:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Try User talk:SemperBlotto, as I don't know. Sorry. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of sin agua[edit]

Why did you delete sin agua? Thanks, Razorflame 13:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it's just sin + agua (without water). Compare without water, sans eau senza acqua (etc.) Mglovesfun (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
sin agua has a definite definition meaning waterless, which while I know the word means without water, if it also means waterless, doesn't that mean that it meets CFI? Here: [3] Razorflame 13:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd say no; do you want me to restore it? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


You might want to have a discussion before creating these. When we first instituted Translingual as a "language", we agreed that we didn't want to have the words in topical categories. That opinon may have changed in the community, but it's worth a check, first. Personally, I'm ambivalent on the issue. --EncycloPetey 21:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point, FWIW I was merely creating them to avoid red links in articles. Maybe mul articles should appear in [[Category:Translingual language]] but no others. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a Category:mul:Taxonomy that is used for taxonomic names, and which is automatically added when {{taxon}} is used for the definitinon line. That category makes sense to have, since it's a large class of Translingual terms. I don't think anyone pbjects to having that category. --EncycloPetey 21:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the help with the Esperanto entries. There are quite a few that need help, and I am working my way through them, but it is tough ;). Anyways, keep it up! Cheers, Razorflame 21:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Plea for support[edit]

In Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-12/Unidiomatic multi-word phrases to meet CFI when the more common spelling of a single word, I have posted the following plea for support:

"If you now change to support and the vote passes, what is becoming a common practice will be confirmed to be endorsed by the community of editors. The text of CFI can be left unmodified, and a new vote can be started with an exact wording."

I am letting you know as the last time you have posted there was on 22 December 2009. --Dan Polansky 11:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, whatever happens if it passes or not we will need a further vote with the exact wording (my worst mistake, of a few) so I kinda feel this vote is going in the trash can. What do you think? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it is important this vote passes, people often confused a failed vote with support for the opposite of what the vote says; this will hamper progress of similar ideas in the future. If you've really gone off the idea and don't want to support it, then feel free to stick with oppose, but from the sound of your reasoning, you should support this vote and then go on to clarify the result. Conrad.Irwin 11:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that if the vote passes, it will have no immediate effect on the text of CFI, and a second vote will be necessary, then the result of the passed vote will have a formally binding power nevertheless, and the formally binding power will be there already in the time period before the second vote.
I appreciate your courage to create the vote in spite of its imperfect formulation. I myself tend to require formally accurate and refined formulations, but my ability to find flaws exceeds by a wide margin my ability to write flawless formulations. I shied away from proposing this vote, as I was not confident enough with the formulation, so I repeatedly posted a prototype formulation into RFDO in defense of individual entries. Your formulation in the vote is IMHO good enough to deserve my support, and to deserve your support ;).
Also, those who opposed only because of the formulation while agreeing in principle had the option to propose a better formulation; that would show their sincere interest in getting the vote passed in a refined formulation. Most of the opposing votes, however, seem to be opposed in principle, not only because of the formulation. --Dan Polansky 12:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


Shouldn't the entries that {{warn}} is removed from be tagged with {{neologism}}? --Yair rand 18:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Debatable; I don't like that template much either as neologism is subjective; how new does something have to be? One of the entries I detagged was attested in a work of fiction from 1966. If you wanna detag some more, go for it. I'm gonna have a wikibreak. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"Cancerate" RFV.[edit]

You're too fast for me! :-)

RuakhTALK 21:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

intransitive and transitive verbs[edit]

Hello. Could you show me the templates that distinguish intransitive verbs (like dormir) from tranistive verbs (as manger)? There's still a lot of work to do for French verbs ;-) Thanks. --Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 08:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

{{transitive|lang=fr}} (add in- for the former). Mglovesfun (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. There's a template missing, however, and I can't find it. It's the indirect transitive template (like this one on the French Wiktionnaire {{tr-indir}}): e.g. parler: "parler à, avec qqn." (same in English: "speak to somedy", "talk with someone"). Could you show me which one ? (or is that tamplate still to be created?) --Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 09:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
{{context|transitive indirect}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Je ne pouvais pas le deviner, celui-là... Thanks --Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 10:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi there. One of my biggest pet peeves is when people make pages, but forget to add them to the translation tables on their respective entries. I added annélidé to the translation table for annelid for you, so you don't have to worry about it :). Cheers, Razorflame 10:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Templates[edit]

Are you referring to Category:Regional templates and Category:Usage templates? --Nemo bis 10:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand me clearly???[edit]

check my edits... --KIAKA1242 16:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

hey. u alive? lolz? --KIAKA1242 17:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you broke a lot of things. Again. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Broke, u mean fixed? --KIAKA1242 17:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
No, please stop posting on my talk page unless you have something to say, as it disrupts me when the orange banner keeps turning up. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi. What is this category for? I think categories for one or two words are useless. Maro 15:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to merge with pl:Fish, but I assume there are names of sharks, we just don't have them yet. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


The etymology of this verb is disputed by the experts. Even the RAE declines to give an etymology for the Spanish. It would be irresponsible of us to give a set etymology when the experts are uncertain. --EncycloPetey 18:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, why are they unsure? I don't mind you removing it, but if you revert you'll lose the other formatting. FWIW macter is used in texts in Old French, so I'd be curious to know what the dispute it about. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


In reply to the IP that emailed me, I cannot find any evidence of this word in use, only in lists of longest words. Therefore, even if not speedy deleted, it would very likely not pass WT:RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi there! Where did you find this word? CNRTL doesn't find it and marks it as Middle French. And also, please look at my edits at évanouissement, there was an invisible error on IPA which can be easily be checked with a converter if you add also X-SAMPA and the other strings when you create new French entries. Bye! Pharamp 12:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's so invisible I can't see it; it was a copy and paste from fr:évanouissement. For croyablement, surely it exists? You could RFV it, but surely there are easily three citations out there. Dated/obsolete, maybe, but not 'inexistant' surely not. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of course it was really invisible. When I noticed that IPAs from fr: are often incorrect, I started checking them everytime. For croyablement: it isn't inexistant, but web dictionaries say it is Middle French, not Modern French. I didn't look at all of them, but try here, they don't find it :) Pharamp 13:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Took me less than a minute to find three citations on Google Books. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I can confirm that croyablement is not modern French... I agree that the Wiktionary should welcome everything, but not anything. Do you catch the nuance? --Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 17:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Actarus, do you just believe whatever dictionaries tell you, without using your own brain? It's rare, yes, but I've found about 30-40 uses of it in Modern French just from one source. Undoubtedly, Wikisource would find at least as many as that. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
In modern French, it seems to be used mainly in a legal context (but there seems to be other uses as well). In any case, it's not used in everyday French. Lmaltier 17:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I tagged it with (rare, dated). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-12/Treatment of toneless pinyin syllables[edit]

Since voting has been light so far, I've added your proposed option and informed previous voters of this addition. Thanks! bd2412 T 00:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


On the 30th you blocked an IP for an admirably limited period of time for making a strange/poorly formed addition to Index:Hungarian/m. It turns out this is a recognized dictionary word, but probably never used outside one except as an example of a strange word. (the google search isn't very promising, imo) I told the user I'd contact you about it, which I have. - Amgine/talk 01:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Mglovesfun (comment)[edit]

Hello, Mglovesfun. I requested &papa for speedy deletion, as it was testing not a real definition. Hope, I helped and thank you again for responding to my deletion request. --Knoblauch 15:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

papa&, was the corrent version of the deletion. thank you. --Knoblauch 15:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

petite souris[edit]

Hi again. I think petite souris is a noun, not an all-uppercase proper noun --Rising Sun talk? 18:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a specific fictional character like the Tooth Fairy. Dunno really. I just went on instinct. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
It was instinct for me too. Not a big deal anyway. Personally, I'd spell both tooth fairy and petite souris in lowercase, but I'm not going to get bogged down with capitalisation. --Rising Sun talk? 19:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


I found somewhat of something, about this definition? Not sure, maybe you know, due to your deletion of yux, (fatuous entry). Anyways, this is the definition of what I have fvound you can do what you like with it. Thank you. n. & v. 1. See Yex, n. --Knoblauch 21:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think yux is valid in Scrabble, but yex and yunx are. Unless the dictionary has been updated (I don't play anymore). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)