User talk:Paul Willocx
Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- Wiktionary Tutorial
- Community Portal
- Entry layout explained
- How to edit a page
- How to start a page
- Wiktionary Sandbox (a safe place for testing syntax)
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
Gerard Foley 23:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Yeah, I sometimes forget the tildes, I'll get used to it. For the time being, I'm just adding random Dutch and sometimes French or Spanish translations where I can, fixing links, correcting typos, etc. Paul Willocx 23:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, welcome to Wiktionary. I'm glad to see we have a native Dutch speaker, and hope this means you'll be helping out with lots of Dutch entries and translations.
I see that you provided a Dutch entry on the page for dioxide. The policy in the English Wiktionary for non-English entries is to give translations into English rather than definitions. This means that if the definition is modified, there is only one to update. I have edited the page accordingly - you might like to take a look to see what have I done. Regards — Paul G 11:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw. It does make more sense than to just copy the entire definition, especially for technical words that are more or less the same in all languages like that one. As for Dutch entries and translations, yeah, that's what I'm doing mainly - making requested Dutch articles, adding Dutch translations, etc. though as you may have noted, I often just add words to the Dutch nouns with incomplete gender category, as very few Dutch speakers still know which words are male and which are female. Paul Willocx 11:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, me again :) Good stuff, please do keep it up.
Take a look at what I have now done for "oxide". When the translation is the same as the name of the page, wikifying the word makes it come out bold rather than as a link back to the same page. To link to the Dutch entry, you can write [[oxide#Dutch|oxide]] which means "link to the 'Dutch' section of the page for 'oxide', but display this link as 'oxide' (the text that comes after the "|"). Similarly for the English translation in the Dutch entry.
I hope you don't mind me pointing out these things... it looks like you are going to be a profilic contributor to Wiktionary, which is great to see. — Paul G 11:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I've replied to your question on my talk page — Paul G 13:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I saw - I created it, but made it Quebec Slang instead as that is perhaps slightly clearer to people who don't speak French. There's only one article now, but even in the Requested Articles:French there are other requests for Quebec slang already, so I'll probably add a couple more later. Paul Willocx 14:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure this is Latin? There is nothing like it in my Latin dictionary. Taxonomic names come from all sorts of places. SemperBlotto 19:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, taxonomic names tend to be considered Latin... neo-Latin at times, I'm sure, but still Latin, no? I wouldn't claim the origin is Latin, but as it is the international name for that animal, seems to me it's Latin per definition. But if you disagree, take it out, by all means. Paul Willocx 19:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Invitation to contribute
You might or might not already be aware that there is now a new system in place for marking translations that need to be checked (those that are suspected of being incorrect or those where it is not clear which sense(s) of a word the translations apply to). (See here for the Beer parlour discussion on this topic.)
Translations to be checked are now categorised by language. For example, Category:Translations_to_be_checked_(French) contains a list of all words where French translations need to be checked. This is designed to make the checking of these translations easier to maintain and work with.
I'm contacting everyone who has expressed an interest in working on translations or has indicated in Wiktionary:Babel that they have a good knowledge of a particular foreign language or languages.
If you want to reply to this message, please do so on my talk page. Thanks for your help you can provide.
— Paul G 08:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
θεος vs. θεϊσμός
I believe you are correct - θεος is God, θεϊσμός is the equivalent of putting an -ism at the end of it. I'll correct my entries (this evening - I'm off to a party now). BD2412 T 19:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Template Dutch adjectives
>> Just saw your "klein" entry (while we're at it, you may have noticed I tend to keep a close eye on your Dutch contributions to either correct small mistakes, add definitions or add words of my own inspired by yours; I hope that doesn't bother you), and there I saw "possessive: kleins" which is utter nonsense... I'm not sure what the possessive of an adjective is supposed to be, but in any case "kleins" does not exist. I'm not very good with templates, so I decided to ask you instead of messing around myself. Paul Willocx 23:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC) <<
- Ja, I noticed that, and even though I didn't say it, I appreciate it. Concerning the "klein" entry, I just did a small adjustment to correct that problem. However, could you check the list of adjectives at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:nl-adj to see if the possessive makes sense in those other cases? (It's just that I'm not familiar with this concept of Dutch adjectives having possessives, but perhaps they do.) —AugPi 23:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you removed the following text from I love you, commenting that "Flemish is not a separate language":
I do not understand your comment because the words were listed under Dutch, not Flemish. My question then is where these terms belong. I don't know the policy on Flemish, but I'm fairly certain they would go somewhere, if not on a Flemish line unto themselves, then pretty much as they were listed. You aren't arguing their existence, are you? DAVilla 23:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- It seems you're a bit confused, I suggest you take a closer look at the history: I removed the "Flemish" translation, added the two translations there to the Dutch one, and then added one of my own. As for the policy on Flemish, it would be beyond absurd to treat it as a separate language; for comparison's sake, think of the difference between American and British English. Paul Willocx 00:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I completely misread the history. I totally agree with your edit. My mistake. DAVilla 08:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Taking one look at that page, it's West-Flemish, a particular Flemish dialect, not Flemish itself. But then, there are also Wikipedias for other dialects, and iirc one for "Simple English". In any case, I'm not West-Flemish, and I'll leave it up to someone who is to offer a translation in their dialect, if they feel so inclined. Paul Willocx 09:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- There are two versions of the ISO-639-2 one is specific to the use in libraries (the registrar of the ISO-639-2 is the US Library of Congress). The vls code is part of that branch of the ISO-639-2 standard.
- There are distinct differences between Dutch and Belgian Dutch. They are certainly as marked as the difference between Australian and US English. However given the "Taal Unie" they are considered to be the same language. Identifying where something is used is however extremely useful.
- For people who learn Dutch, it makes a big difference where your teacher is coming from. GerardM 09:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I misread the history regardless. But to address that question, we really need to get away from these ISO codes, which are politically motivated, and decide for ourselves which languages are mutually intelligible. Big topic, don't want to hijack a user page. DAVilla 09:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is an extremely stupid suggestion. A dictionary is NOT about what is mutually intelligible, that is for Wikipedia. A dictionary is a registration of the words, their attributes and their usage. GerardM 09:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. Well the question about languages versus dialects seems to crop up often enough. If not as mutually intelligible, how would you define the difference? DAVilla 16:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- The person who crafts a consistent and universally applicable set of criteria for distinguishing between a language and a dialect will probably be awarded several honorary doctorates by various institutions. There just isn't a single set of criteria. Consider that the various Chinese languages share a mutually intelligible written language but mutually un-intelligible spoken languages. Russian and Macedonian are mutually intelligible, but those languages are universally considered to be separate. Meanwhile some linguists lump together Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian as a single language, even though there are significant grammatical and lexical differences; and historically these languages have used three different writing systems. (Bosnian was written with Arabic script for a long time). English is considered a single language, but I have seen a BBC documentary that added subtitles to interviews with people from Georgia (the American state, not the country). Apparently, English isn't mutually intelligible. So, the linguists will tell you: there isn't a simple solution or we would know about it by now. --EncycloPetey 16:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Removing typos from User:Robert Ullmann/Missing/a-c
Please be careful in removing typos from User:Robert Ullmann/Missing/a-c and its kin; just because you've fixed the typo at the listed page, that doesn't mean it doesn't remain at other pages. Please use the search facility to make sure. (I've gone through the ones you removed in your last edit, and all were good except accross, which still existed at unselfish. Don't worry; I've taken care of it now.)
Not a big deal, but something to keep in mind. :-)
- I wouldn't worry too much; I'll re-run the list after each XML dump, every 2-3 weeks. Of course something as likely as "accross" is probably worth searching for. If you create an entry (that belongs at the lc pagename), it probably isn't worth removing at all, it will turn blue, and disappear in the next run. Of course you may do what you like! Robert Ullmann 09:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I checked most of them for other pages... must've forgotten that one. Oh well. Paul Willocx 21:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Please pay some closer attention to the entry layout when adding new definitions. Have a look at what I did to millet after you added the nation sense. Particularly: start definitions with a capital, repeat the word in bold under the POS header, and do not mix up the order of the headers. Groetjes, henne <small>([[User talk:Hamaryns|talk)</small>]] 15:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, yes. I was aware of those, other than the "start definitions with a capital"... not sure why I messed up the other things. Thanks for ameliorating the layout, anyway. Paul Willocx 21:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
>>There are several bits of information missing on that page, but I'm not sure on how to go about adding it. Firstly, what to do with specific verb-noun combinations with a given meaning, such as "een telefoontje plegen" or "overleg plegen"? Since they require the addition of the noun to have their meaning, adding them on the "plegen" page seems a bit weird, but I don't know really... Secondly, the problem with "plegen" is that it's both strong and weak, depending on the translation (the "habitually" one is "placht" in the past tense, the other is regular/weak), see . And thirdly, I posted something on the talk page of your new o.t.t.t. page. Paul Willocx 19:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)<<
- I would advise against WT:ELE here (it is a bit too much designed for English), and have multiple inflection lines, followed by their respective definitions. The phrases een telefoontje plegen and overleg plegen are idiomatic enough to deserve their own page, I think. H. (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)