User talk:ObsequiousNewt

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

I am also on IRC! If I am there it is a faster way to contact me!


Things that still don't work with module:grc-pronunciation[edit]

Pre-velar nasals:


Something or other with capitals and accent marks:


Could we possibly fix it so that it accepts the diacritic order length mark + (breathing mark) + accent mark like the rest of the entries instead of (breathing mark) + accent mark + length mark? Sorry to pester so much, but we are soooo close, and I dislike the old template sooo much. —JohnC5 05:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, the dative plural here seems to be freaking out:

You're the best! :)JohnC5 06:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

φάρυγξ and ψίξ are fixed. ᾍδης is an upstream bug with PHP ([1]). I'll look at changing the input format later; I may want to just rewrite the module (it's kind of spaghetti.) —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 19:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for these. I had tried in the past to comprehend the module, and I kept getting bored every time I tried. I certainly agree that it could be far more parsimonious and easier to edit. —JohnC5 19:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
After finally getting around to looking at the PHP code, I've managed to trace this bug back to, of all things, OpenLDAP. I have a patch submitted there, so at this point it's only a matter of time. ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 03:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
:)JohnC5 03:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi ObsequiousNewt. As I'm sure you know, πρεσβῠ́τερος is the comparative form of πρέσβῠς and, therefore, doesn't have its own comparative form (AFAIK). My use of {{grc-adecl|πρεσβῠ́τερος|πρεσβῠτέρᾱ}} in its entry autogenerates the comparative *πρεσβῠτερώτερος, the superlative *πρεσβῠτερώτᾰτος, and the adverb *πρεσβῠτέρως, none of which should be there (again, AFAIK). Is there any way to tell {{grc-adecl}} that it's declining a comparative or superlative form and, therefore, shouldn't be generating those other degrees? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know I'm aware of this problem; I've been working to fix it but my cache dropped, so it'll be a while. I can probably hack something together in the interim. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 16:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I'll leave this with you. Take as long as you need; you won't get any pressure from me. :-)  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I have hacked a solution together. I'll be trying to rewrite the module (synchronically with the rewriting of grc-conj.) —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 19:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Cool. The best of luck to you in that endeavour. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: Incidentally; what is your opinion on the appearance of the bottom row? I don't know if it would make more sense for it to look different. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 00:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you mean the "Derived forms" row (which lists the adverb and comparative and superlative degrees)? Or something else? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 04:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I suppose that the labels "Adverb", "Comparative", and "Superlative" could be emboldened for consistency with the other labels in the table; other than that, it looks fine to me. Then again, I may just be being unimaginative. What kind of change did you have in mind? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I mean the part where I put the comparative and superlative degrees in parentheses. I'm not sure if there's a better way to do it. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 18:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the ideal solution would be to omit the "derived forms" section entirely in the declension tables of comparative and superlative degrees, but is that possible? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Omitting the entire section does seem optimal to me too. —JohnC5 15:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The adverb at least needs to stay. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 00:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
@JohnC5, ObsequiousNewt: Yes, you're probably right. The relationship there looks similar to the one that exists between Latin comparative adjectives (usually -ior) and comparative adverbs (usually -ius, homographic with the neuter of -ior). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


Hi. I'm investigating the etymology of Hebrew מְלָפְפוֹן (m'laf'fón, cucumber) and the he.wikt, without any diacritics, says it comes from Greek μηλοπεπων (mēlopepōn), from μῆλον (mêlon) +‎ πέπων (pépōn). As you can see've been able to identify, verify, and diacriticize the parts of the compound, but I have not been able to verify or diacriticize the compound itself. Could you help? --WikiTiki89 21:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89: I've made μηλοπέπων (mēlopépōn). We need to add more descendants, but I'm too lazy to do it now. Hope this helps! —JohnC5 22:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Thanks! And I just realized that cucumbers are melons... --WikiTiki89 22:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Not only that, but w:Armenian cucumbers are actually a type of muskmelon, like cantaloupes and honeydews. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Evil search engine[edit]

I had a crazy idea. What if the inflection tables generated an undisplayed table of un-macroned and -breved forms so that readers can find forms in searches? — since it seems the search engine is unlikely ever to be fixed. For instance, an undisplayed table with ἱερέα ἱερέας instead of ἱερέᾱ ἱερέᾱς, so people can find the entry ἱερεύς (hiereús) when searching for the "wrong" form. Perhaps also a table without accent marks, so that people can find the entry when searching for ιερεα ιερεας.

Perhaps a crazy idea, and it would greatly add to the byte count of entries, especially for verbs. But it would be a temporary solution. — Eru·tuon 05:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know much of anything about programming, but perhaps the byte count could be lowered by only including in the undisplayed no-breve-and-macron table the forms that actually have macrons in the ordinary table. — Eru·tuon 05:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

A better solution would be to simply implement a bot to create pages for such forms. I can look into this when I am finished working on grc-conj. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 15:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Bots FTW, BTW. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Bad idea. The only good solution is for the devs to fix the search functionality. --WikiTiki89 21:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: That is probably the optimal solution (at least in the short term), but why are bot-created entries a bad idea? —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 23:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Well I guess it isn't, but it it doesn't completely solve the problem of finding forms without knowing the accent. --WikiTiki89 23:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, and I would like to get the search engine fixed if at all possible. Do you know what extension is responsible for it? —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 15:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm 90% sure it's mw:Extension:CirrusSearch. --WikiTiki89 15:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I have filed a bug report. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 22:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Excellent! I hope they respond and do something. — Eru·tuon 00:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


Is it possible for the entry to provide more details on the differences between using ἐπί (epí) with different cases? Also, what would be the correctly accented lemma form of ἐπι- (epi-) +‎ κῶμος (kômos) +‎ -ιος (-ios)? --WikiTiki89 14:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I can give that entry a once-over. The correct form should be ἐπικώμιος (ppx.), as evidenced by the form ἐπικώμιᾰ (n. pl.) in Pi.N.6.32. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 15:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I took a look at the entry for ἐπί in Perseus and it seems pretty complicated. I also notice that the "in addition to" sense is given under the dative case, while I was hoping for accusative. What I'm really wondering is how to gloss ἐπὶ κῶμον (epì kômon) and ἐπικώμιον (epikṓmion) in the etymology for אפיקומן, which is a piece of matzah that is saved for the end of the Passover meal and eaten as a "dessert", after which nothing more may be eaten or drunk. I originally thought it meant something like "in addition to the meal". --WikiTiki89 15:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: ἐπὶ κῶμον, without any other context, probably means either "during the festival" or "for the festival", although it could mean "until the festival"—that is probably the closest in meaning to what you describe. ἐπικώμιος is listed in LSJ as meaning "of, at, or for a κῶμος", but the English preposition "of" there is really just a translation of -ιος, not ἐπι-, which seems rather to simply have intensifying force. That said, ἐπι- as a prefix can mean "after"—compare ἐπιβιόω "live after, outlast"; ἐπιγίγνομαι "be born after". It's not evident that it did in the case of ἐπικώμιος, though. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 17:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't make much sense, though. Wikipedia says:
The Babylonian Talmud explains that the word "afikoman" derives from the Greek word for "dessert", the last thing eaten at a meal. The Jerusalem Talmud, however, derives the word afikoman from epikomion, meaning "after-dinner revelry" or "entertainment".
Maybe that will help. I'll try to find those quotations in the two Talmuds to see what words they use. --WikiTiki89 18:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: ἐπι-κωμιον would certainly mean "after the meal", but the only attested word is επι-κωμιος—which, while it could mean "after the meal", doesn't. Although that statement is limited to two attestations of the word. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 18:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
This might be more information than you need, so I'll collapse it:
But the gist of it seems to be that either it directly refers to dessert, or it is a phrase that alludes to desert. But note that the Talmuds are just trying to understand what the Mishnah meant, and not necessarily what the word itself actually means. It might be worth noting that the Soncino translation of the Babylonian Talmud translates the Mishnah as “One may not conclude after the paschal meal [by saying], ‘now to the entertainment! [Apikoman].’ ” --WikiTiki89 20:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: I filled out ἐπί (epí) with the meanings given in the LSJ. Wish it could be simplified. — Eru·tuon 18:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! --WikiTiki89 18:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Erutuon: I appreciate the thought, but I had stated that I was working on improving the entry. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 18:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
My apologies for presuming you had given up on it. As far as I'm concerned, you can still do anything you like to it, even if it includes deleting most of what I've added, since I'm not especially attached to the LSJ's highly confusing description. — Eru·tuon 18:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Use of Template:grc-decl in μονοειδές[edit]

Hi ObsequiousNewt. Any idea why {{grc-decl|form=N-full|μονοειδές|μονοειδέος}} and {{grc-decl|form=N-full|μονοειδές|μονοειδοῦς}} in μονοειδές (monoeidés, uniformity) are throwing up module errors? This would also affect νευροειδές (neuroeidés), which (I assume) is declined alike. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: Fixed. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 21:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that, which also worked for νευροειδές. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


Οὐκ ἐύς. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This word, I swear... —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 03:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I think it's good for now. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 03:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

US Wikimedians online meeting[edit]

Hello ObsequiousNewt,

Congratulations on the new user group. Can one or more members of your group join the next online meeting of the US Wikimedians? Meeting details are on Meta here.

--Pinetalk 20:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Which is the group being referenced here? This seems interesting (Perhaps not as intereſting as the Fraktur Kabal). —JohnC5 04:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Regional group. Wikimedians of Iowa or something. —𝔒𝔟𝔰𝔢𝔮𝔲𝔦𝔬𝔲𝔰𝔑𝔢𝔴𝔱 (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 04:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I sometimes feel like I should go to Wiki meetups or listen on other Wikimedia business, but then a remember that I have to pay attention to other sites that are not Wiktionary, and this seems like a lot of work. Would anyone recommend any of these options? I get very curious about the other people on here with whom a work so fruitfully. —JohnC5 04:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Should do a UK Wiktionary meet. This would just be me and Gloves glumly staring at each other drinking Guinness. Then Wonderfool would appear and start trolling around, like Q in Star Trek: The Next Generation. Always sort of imagined WF as being Q. Equinox 04:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
It's funny because there's actually only four of us. —ObsekuiouſNeft (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 04:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
One of the greatest intrigues of this project to me has been the narrative of WonderFool slowly unfolding through mentions and reading archived pages. Equinox, I assume you know you are mentioned on the Wiktionary article of Encyclopedia Dramatica? —JohnC5 04:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
You're not properly cool until you are mentioned on ED. Equinox 05:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Amazing. What WonderFool hath wrought upon us is more terrible than any deleted page... —ObsekuiouſNeft (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 14:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • My, these online meetings seem stupendously boring. I always said I'd attend a Wiknic or something if it turned up in my area but never actually did it. But I can't imagine anything more entertaining than the General UK Wiktionarian Meeting. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


Looks like your recent changes to MOD:grc-conj triggered a module error here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it was the last item in a long list. I've replaced it with a manual 'irregular' table—I don't think we can say confidently what all of its forms were. ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 02:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
This still has a module error. See Cat:E for 6 others. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Still module errors at βαίνω and οἶδα. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, that should be everything taken care of. ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 19:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
It certainly looks like it (knock wood...) Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Choral Doric and ἦμαρ[edit]

I noticed your edit to Module:grc:Dialects changing "Doric" to "Choral Doric". Then I happened to be looking at the LSJ entry for ἦμαρ (êmar), which links to a chorus from Oedipus at Colonus (688), in which ἤμᾰτῐ (ḗmati) is used. The entry currently says that the Choral Doric form is ἆμᾰρ (âmar) due to your edit to the module, but that apparently is not accurate. Also, Choral Doric contains "hypercorrected" forms with eta replaced with long alpha, while regular Doric does not. So (to conclude this long-winded explanation), I think Choral Doric (Athenian playwrights) and regular Doric (i.e., Pindar) should be kept separate. — Eru·tuon 21:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Erutuon: I don't have a good source on the dialects in poetry—I was actually working from this page. But that page does not mention Pindar separately, and, moreover, the very same play shows forms with long alpha (e.g. 1079), to say nothing of the other plays which have long alpha. (The weird thing about that passage is that it doesn't show any apparent Doricisms (except genitive ἄχνᾱς?) until "Μουσᾶν" in line 691. Several words [κρῆναι, Κηφισοῦ, ἀκηράτῳ] have Attic eta.) So at least Choral Doric was inconsistent, which frankly is fine with me. That said I would like to see any source that you have on Greek poetry, because I was not aware of Pindar using a separate dialect (which in any case we can't simply call "regular Doric", because it's not simply Doric, but one can easily see Lesbian forms as well), or of hypercorrection of original η. ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 01:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@ObsequiousNewt: I'm not sure where I read this thing about the Doric in Athenian plays. It was probably somewhere in Smyth. I thought it mentioned the word πηδός (pēdós) that was incorrectly modified to παδός (padós), but the LSJ entry doesn't mention it. And I guess I was under a misconception as to what "Choral Doric" even is, since the article you link to mentions Pindar as an example. It's evidently not just the Choruses in Athenian plays. Sorry for my misguided comment.
Perhaps an actual example of non-Choral Doric would be Euclid. — Eru·tuon 02:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@Erutuon: I mean, is certainly not a reputable source. Then again, I checked Buck and he seems to imply that Pindar wrote choral Doric. (Smyth doesn't seem to treat Pindar as separate—at least, not on page 2.) I'd still like a better source as to what choral Doric actually included—I have a suspicion that's list isn't exhaustive. As well as an explanation to the inconsistency in e.g. the verse you linked. Also, by Euclid I think you mean perhaps Archimedes or one of the other authors? Several of the mathematicians spoke what was essentially Corinthian. ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 04:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@ObsequiousNewt: My guess is that Choral Doric just means Doric used for choral poetry, so the name definitely applies to Pindar, whose poetry (for example) has strophes, antistrophes, and epodes.
Hmm, I did mean Archimedes. I see Euclid is Alexandrian. Oops.
Today while looking at ποιέω (poiéō) I noticed the form ποιϝέω (poiwéō) labeled as Choral Doric... That seems to actually be Inscriptional Doric, if IG in the LSJ entry means Inscriptiones Graecae. I would be surprised to see a digamma in any Doric literary works. — Eru·tuon 09:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
So this confirms what I feared, viz. that LSJ uses "Doric" to refer to any one of Choral Doric, Bucolic Doric, or one or more of the Doric (or even West Greek) dialects. I guess I should put back the dor tag for now, but we need to find and codify a solution. I suppose the best is to have separate tags cho, buc, and... I'm not really sure what to do about the last one. Notably, the entry says "Dor. ποιϝέω IG4.800 (Troezen), etc", so it's not just Argolic (?), but also other places. But those places don't really form a geographical continuum or anything, and not all of them are Doric either (ποιϝέω alone is apparently attested in Argolic, Boeotian, and Elean, and in Elean it appears alongside ποιέω; but we can't just say 'these three dialects' since it almost certainly would appear in e.g. Cyprian if any Cyprian inscriptions had the word.) I don't really know what to do about this. Tagging @JohnC5, I'm so meta even this acronym, Angr for thoughts. ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 18:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, anything apart from Homeric, Classical Attic, and Koine is beyond me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry from me, too: I mistakenly believed that Doric was more-or-less homogeneous; I had never heard of "Choral Doric", "Bucolic Doric", etc. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
It just occured to me that there's Severe Doric, which contracts (or contracts and compensatorily lengthens?) to η, ω rather than ει, ου; I wonder how it relates to these other divisions. Relevant section of Smyth: 59 D. — Eru·tuon 00:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@Erutuon: Severe Doric is a false grouping. It includes Arcado-Cyprian (East), Elean (Northwest), Laconian, Heraclean, Cretan (Doric); sometimes Argolic, Rhodian, Theran, and Coan (Doric), and sort of Boeotian (Aeolic) which has ει but ω. It doesn't really correlate well with anything else either (Smyth seems to say it correlates with raising of ε before a vowel, but the dialects which have that are Boeotian, Cyprian, Cretan, Laconian, Heraclean, and sometimes Argolic, Thessalian, Lesbian. Elean doesn't have it, Heraclean has it only in verbal forms, and the Doric dialects don't have it around original ϝ.) ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 00:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

τρίβραχυς autodeclension[edit]

Hi ObsequiousNewt. {{grc-decl|form=M-full|τρῐ́βρᾰχῠς|τρῐβρᾰ́χεος}} doesn't work for τρίβραχυς (tríbrakhus). Any idea why? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: Sorry I missed this message, but LSJ gives τρίβραχυς as an adjective, not a noun. ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 19:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
No worries. I had some reason for believing that LSJ was wrong on that, and that we should only give this as a noun, but I forget what it was. In any case, Le Grand Bailly calls this a masculine adjective with a derived substantive, which suggests that we should have a declension table that only shows the masculine forms, meaning that the autodeclension problem persists. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Because of how easily Greek uses adjective as substantives, it might be useful for the noun declension template to support single-gender paradigms of adjectives. I have no idea how hard that would be to do or how much it would actually be used in entries, though. — Eru·tuon 23:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. I need to think for a bit if there's a better way to rewrite the module—I feel like it's halfway between being redundant enough to serve the function of both nouns and adjectives, and different enough to just split it up. ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 23:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Single-gender adjectives are also a problem for Latin. It's something I intend to deal with before too long. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

3rd-declension terms with module errors[edit]

I realize you're busy right now in real life, but I'd appreciate it if you'd keep an eye on Cat:E for at least a few days after module edits. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Whoops. I somewhat embarrassingly forgot to remove a debugging line. ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 19:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Aorist aspect of ἵημι[edit]


Are the irregular forms for aorist aspect of ἵημι (that is to say, the third conjugation table, edited here) are possible? Looks weird, but I might be wrong. — Automatik (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Automatik: They are unusual, as the stem is simply ἑ-, but correct—see Smyth §777. ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 01:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. — Automatik (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
A thing strange however, is that the forms displayed in the third conjugation table for the aorist aspect are not the same as those on the French Wiktionary (third table for aorist, also), which use exactly the same template/module (and I copied the parameters from the English entry). Which one is correct? It seems that on the English Wiktionary, some parameters are not taken into account (in any case are not displayed). — Automatik (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, now I see the problem—it's missing the middle. I completely failed to notice that somehow. That's odd, let's see if I can figure out what's wrong with that... ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 04:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


The good news is that I didn't notice whatever it is you hoped no one would notice. The bad news is that there are 28 Ancient Greek entries in CAT:E, and I did notice that the ones I checked seemed to have trouble with breves and accents combined with breathing diacritics, and that they've been that way for 24 hours (so far). I hope you notice this, so I can go back to not noticing. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been trying to get through them as quickly as possible. ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 03:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
In that case, I'll let you continue with the noticing while I go off and notice something else for awhile. Pretend that you didn't notice that I noticed. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.