User talk:Rodasmith/Archive 2

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


I noted that you recently edited the page for , and as I was curious about this character, I had a look at the page. I don't think this one is used in Japanese. The Japanese entry would seem to be for the kanji , which I thought could be the traditional form for 厸, but looking into it over at, I find no record for 厸 at all. Japanese 隣 turns out to be traditional Chinese (I guess you could say the Japanese version is mildly dyslexic :) ), and the simplified Chinese , which I only found by searching for the Pinyin reading lin.

I'm increasingly puzzled -- 厸 is absent from my Shogakukan, which while not the cat's pyjamas is still pretty decent, nor is it in any of the online Chinese dictionaries utilized by the site linked above. Might this character be a booboo? Curious, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm, digging further, I find 厸 is actually listed in the Microsoft IME for Japanese. In that case, perhaps we should make a note on the page that this is *not* a standard kanji? Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do note it as such. The change you saw me make was just a mechanical application of the {{kanji}} template. Rod (A. Smith) 19:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Not really, because then people would have to type ". :-)" into the search bar (that is, if they wanted to get directly there, I suppose they could be redirected, but redirects are generally bad.) --Rory096 04:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As noted in the move log, leading space trumps missing character. Readers can access -) (with a leading space) through the search bar with ":-)". Redirect is to be avoided generally, but ":-)" is not the general case. Rod (A. Smith) 07:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Kanji in general[edit]

The more I poke around single-kanji entries, the more it looks like someone just dumped a kanji list and did a quick-and-dirty meaning and pronunciation lookup for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. Few of the Japanese entries seem to indicate when the kanji in question is not one of the Jōyō kanji. Aside from mentioned above, I've also run across (and fixed) , , and . does indicate the Jōyō form, using a different style than what I've been using so far.

I'm also seeing some odd readings included, such as ふるさと and さきに for and non-Jōyō variant , but I can find neither of these readings in the two dictionaries I have to hand. also listed つくる, which I'm so certain is not right that I've removed it.

Meanwhile, the meaning shown for was also previously given as homeland, which is just flat wrong -- the kanji means "village", and the supposed reading ふるさと (which by my ken should be 故郷, 故里, or 古里 in kanji) means idiomatically "home town" (which is what I've changed it to).

Categorization also appears to be very potshot, with some entries listed as "Japanese kanji", some as "Japanese nouns", some with no category, and one amusingly as "Category:讀" (since deleted, as there is no "ja:讀").

To wit, I see four basic concerns for the Japanese sections for single-kanji entries:

  1. They need to indicate if the header kanji is non-Jōyō.
  2. Readings must be double-checked.
  3. Meanings must be double-checked.
  4. Some at least semi-sane categorization should be done.

Without a category, I really don't know how to go about finding these entries, short of pulling out a Chinese dictionary and looking up each character one by one to see if it's in here, and to see if there's a Japanese section. しんどい。 I don't suppose you might have some hints for an easier way of going about this? Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 19:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

PS -- I also wonder if a template would be useful for this:
* '''Other info''': Non-[[w:Jōyō kanji|Jōyō]] alternate for [[{{{1}}}]].  Rarely used.
Or is there a better way of indicating this? Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 19:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk homosexual[edit]

See discussion there. I think we got it wrong. I am not very good at grammer though, perhaps you could give me your thoughts? Regards Andrew massyn 08:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The Kinsey scale shows the possibility for comparative usage (as opposed, for example, to "unique"). On English Wiktionary, though, citations trump speculation, so the comparative exists because it is used. Right? Rod (A. Smith) 14:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


What's that supposed to be? I know there's a test wiki out there, but I'm not sure you mean that. —Vildricianus 20:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It was my attempt to build a template-based unit test harness for Wiki templates, ala nUnit, but the quirkiness of MediaWiki parser functions limits its usefulness, so I stopped working on it. Anything in the main or template namespace referring to it should be deleted. Sorry for any inconvenience. Rod (A. Smith) 21:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


I've just made you a sysop. Congratulations! Enjoy your new responsibilities. If you need any help, contact any of the other sysops at WT:A. Please visit that page and enter your timezone in the table at the top. It would also be useful if you could create a Babel entry for your user page and to transcribe its contents into the same table. Thanks. — Paul G 07:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Congrats, and good luck with it! —Vildricianus 12:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. User:Rodasmith and WT:A now show my Babel. Rod (A. Smith) 18:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi Rod.

I read the formally description about participle, and there are similar. However, I do not think the same, and I will verify with my professor of English.

The typically ends with '-ed' or '-ing' isn’t incorrect, but incomplete because '-ing' is mentioned in an active voice, and '-ed, en, t, d' in passive voice. I was used the chapter 15 about participial phrases and gerunds of the following book:

*OSHIMA, Alice; HOGUE, Ann. Writing Academic English: a writing and sentence structure handbook. 2nd ed. [New York]: Longman, c1991. 274 p ISBN 0201514095

“A participle is a word formed from a verb that is used as an adjective to modify nouns.”

Best wishes, --Ricardo 15:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

no te preocupes[edit]

Re: embarazado: Don't worry about it. Everything looks a little better now. That example with miembro is a good one, and I hadn't thought of it. –Andyluciano 02:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Chebyshev . . .[edit]

Thanks for those. They were beyond me. By the way, I always put those sort of definitions into Category:English eponyms. SemperBlotto 07:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi. I was just looking at how it all works because I was thinking of doing the same for {{italbrac}} and {{italbrac-colon}}. I noticed that you've got it set up to generate HTML with a lot of comments in it. This doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Isn't there a way to set it up so that people editing the template see it all but the generated HTML is kept clean clean clean? — Hippietrail 18:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Although they look like HTML comments, they are actually interpreted by MediaWiki servers on the server side and stripped before rendering. See "A", and view the source of the page to see that none of the comments from {{see}} make it to the resulting page. Rod (A. Smith) 19:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi there. I have broken this template - see filter funnel. Should the plural (when not specified) just use PAGENAME+s? SemperBlotto 10:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks. That's fixed it. SemperBlotto 16:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Don't you think named params would be a better option here? It's nigh impossible to fill in 50 numbered ones without constant consultation of the template documentation. The template is massive, though! Nice work. —Vildricianus 22:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's difficult at the moment, but it's a work in progress. I'm going to create easy templates for the common conjugation classes. When I'm done, I hope it will be easy and obvious. Rod (A. Smith) 22:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Good, I'm sure you know what you're doing. Who knows, perhaps some day I'll have a better understanding of Polish verbs (I have a history of conflictuous relationships with them). —Vildricianus 09:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't be so sure I know what I'm doing. :-) I'm not terribly strong in Polish. Before I move to the next step in implementing pl-conj*, could you let me know if you think I'm missing any key inflections from the basic template, e.g. by looking at the final output of "jeść" and "pić"? Rod (A. Smith) 15:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course I could have a look at them, but that'll be it I guess. Never mind my Polish, it's nil. If you want feedback, this is the guy you may want to contact. The only thing I could do is layout, but that doesn't need any more work I guess. —Vildricianus 15:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi! I noticed that you subst templates in entries. Contrary to Wikipedia, Wiktionary does not subst templates in entries. Let me know if you have any questions about that policy. Rod (A. Smith) 20:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This reply is in reference to your comment to me. The only editing I'm doing is adding {{en-noun-reg}} links when the word doesn't link to its plural, and then creating the plural pages using the supplied plural template. Which action of mine is against the policy and where is this policy noted? Many thanks.

Zimage 21:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I didn't realize you were using a template for plurals. Somebody accidentally added "subst" to {{plural of}} in the template you're using. I've fixed it. Thanks for the explanation! Rod (A. Smith) 21:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


If you have a moment, could you take a look at the use of the ParserFunctions in there? Demonstration on its talk page. What do you think? Can it be simplified further? Recommendations? I'm already lost in {{en-infl-verb}}, that goes beyond me! — Vildricianus 13:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure! You want it to support 1-9 parameters, right? Rod (A. Smith) 23:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Not really; I guess 4 is enough for its purpose (that is, always at least one and three additional ones). While I was creating it, I was wondering whether it could be done any simpler. It works right now, but I was just wondering. Could run your eyes over the process there? Thanks. — Vildricianus 23:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Rod, that tells me another couple of things about them ParserFunctions I didn't know. I've replaced the old code with this. It was more or less what I had written first, but it got too complicated because I didn't know it wasn't necessary to specify the else parameter in #if. — Vildricianus 09:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my edits[edit]


I saw you fixed upgrade and had some comment on patch. Thanks. I've put some comment on talk:patch. You might also want to take a look at hunk, apply a patch, patch file, diff, diff file, apply, diff program, and patch program because I mucked about in those too and am both new to wikitionary and not entirely comfortable with phrases like "transitive verb". You may also be interested in the questions raised in User_talk:Connel_MacKenzie#Please_hit_me_with_a_cluestick. If you're not interested that's ok too. Thanks. --kop 22:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I at least get the {{computing}}. Now time to pay attention to the other (templates?). --kop 02:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
No worries! There are many templates and tricks available. E.g, on talk pages and Wiktionary namespace pages, you can avoid the "<nowiki>...</nowiki>" if you want via the "{{temp}}" shortcut template, e.g.: "{{temp|computing}}". As you can see, that displays as "{{computing}}". Also, FYI, we're working on simplifying the "part of speech healine templates" (a.k.a. "inflection templates"), which are used exclusively as the first line after "===Noun===", "===Verb===", etc., so you many not have to worry too much about memorizing {{en-infl-reg-other-e}} et al. Anyway, your computing entries look great. You deftly explained the proper noun sense of "patch" etc. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to have entries for everything from "abstract base class" and "backreference", to "zero-based arrays". Anyway, cheers and happy editing! Rod (A. Smith) 04:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


No, I wasn't saying "kiss my ass" to anyone in particular, nor to anyone, for that matter.  :-)

Better get that moved off to BJAODN though - I am expecting a response from CSU on my talk page...

--Connel MacKenzie T C 06:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


See Talk:dereference

You may also be interested in multidimensional array and all the related array defs I've been mucking about in. --kop 04:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

They look good to me! Rod (A. Smith) 07:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right about the binding reference being surperfluous (sp?). A case of once again getting my head around a word and then wanting to use it everywhere -- when all you have is a hammer... --kop 04:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

inflection template standardizing[edit]

Um, did you update {{new en noun}}, {{new en verb}} and the other dozen or so "new en *" templates?

I just realized how much reworking of my monobook this will force me to do. That is a good thing, though, as that reworking is long overdue anyhow.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 04:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Do you have an idea of how it can be made waterproof? Currently, it bugs when the vandal's name consists of more words:

Do you have a clue? — Vildricianus 18:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a native wiki syntax for the "page moves" link or for the "block log" link. Without a native wiki syntax, we would need StringFunctions or some other way of URL encoding the arguments to those links. Rod (A. Smith) 18:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Your pointing me to StringFunctions solved it all. We seem to have them. — Vildricianus 18:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

present participle of[edit]

Is {{present participle of}} as intended? Not all p.p. are gerunds (although they can be, not all are.) Is there a separate template for normal p.p. without the gerund thing? --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess I didn't thoroughly think that template through. After creating the "form of" templates, I realized that there actually needs to be a distinction between the "form of" templates for English and for other languages, at least in the case of verbs. The problem you cite is but one of the issues. The other is that with English verbs, we want "to" to appear in the output, but obviously not with verbs of foreign languages. I'd be quite happy to see them changed, but I haven't thought of the best convention for the template names. Any thoughts? A suggestion to resolve the "pres part/gerund" issue is to have a "ing form of" (or some other short-named) template for "present participle and gerund of to..." since that's by far the most common in English. Then "present participle of" could be used for the exceptions where the verb has no gerund. That doesn't address the English ("to") vs. non-English issue, though. I welcome any improvements. Rod (A. Smith) 18:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. "to" should indeed remain part of the template, as we may want to remove and re-add it from time to time :-)
  2. Templates for other languages are necessary, but don't need to affect the English ones. We'll need to use ISO codes then, e.g. {{fr-present participle of}} or whatever.
  3. I'd recommend keeping all names obvious, as they are now (so nothing like {{pp}} or the like).
  4. I'd also recommend to leave out the "verbal noun" thing or anything else, since these forms aren't likely to appear under a =Verb= heading. Or are they?
Cheers! (Feel free to copy this discussion over on the GP, it'll need more ideas there and I think there's already a thread on it). — Vildricianus 18:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Copied to WT:GP#form of. Rod (A. Smith) 18:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


You are busy replacing all the inflection templates, which is a Good Thing. With your revisions of etymologies, though....has it been decided that we should put etymons in italics, as you're doing? I don't really like it, did I miss a BP vote or something? Widsith 14:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we need a vote on everything? :-) AFAIK, it has always been practice to put non-English terms in italics. — Vildricianus 14:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

News to me! I know Paul for one likes to bold them. And I just like them wikified. But, whatever. Widsith 14:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, whatever. Down to personal preference I guess, unless someone objects. — Vildricianus 14:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I've been italicizing plain etymons. I do leave etymons bold if they already are bold, though. Considering print versions of Wiktionary and the fact that non-etymons like "blend" are often linked, I'm pretty sure it would be a mistake to rely only on linking only for u-m distintion. I am increasingly aware that some people are unhappy with italics. Do we need another template (e.g. "etymon") to let everyone choose their preferred display style for etymons? Rod (A. Smith) 14:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I should think we'll end up going that way! Widsith 14:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I have a gut feeling that it's a bit too far-fetched to start including every such thing in templates. I may be wrong but I think this would cross the line of being productive and useful. Grease pit? — Vildricianus 20:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
No, wait. I may have an idea. — Vildricianus 20:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Grease pit#Grease pitting. — Vildricianus 20:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
You just barely beat me to the punch. :-) Rod (A. Smith) 20:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly! :-). I should have known you were posting a chunk of ideas. — Vildricianus 20:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Personally, I like to see the templates on their pages, so I'd prefer not to includeonly them. Any specific reason I should be aware of you're doing this for? — Vildricianus 20:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling about that. The motivation was that many templates require parameters and include categories that don't work well on the template page itself, but like I said, I don't feel strongly about it so feel free to remove any "includeonly" I may have added to any template. Rod (A. Smith) 20:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Examining the code of {{en-verb}} more closely for the first time, I'm quite impressed. It's pretty well-constructed I must say. It could do without the bugs, though :-). I could track down the major one (the one including valid into each page that uses the template) back to {{isValidPageName|{{{1|valid}}}}}, more specifically to the part I have at User:Vildricianus/PageX/12. valid is listed among the included templates, together with every template used on that page (ARchar etc.). If you can, you should take a look at it and try to fix it. It has to do with the colon included in {{:{{{1|valid}}}}}, but it obviously won't work without it. Perhaps there's some work around with includeonly tags or the like, but I guess you can find that out more quickly because I can't really test whether it still works or not. Cheers. — Vildricianus 21:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing that code. When I started designing the inflection templates, I was under the impression that they could use StringFunctions to determine whether a given argument contained wiki markup. When StringFunctions turned out not to be available, I hacked up {{isValidPageName}}. I am not happy with the solution, but I couldn't find any other way to determine whether the argument contains wiki markup. Do you think the StringFunctions will eventually be installed in English Wiktionary? Rod (A. Smith) 21:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll have a look at bugzilla or wikitech-l archives, and if I can't find anything will request it. — Vildricianus 21:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Vild. I appreciate your help. Rod (A. Smith) 22:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Are you sure you can't fix it in any way? The only problem is that valid is regarded as an included page while it is not. Does includeonly help? — Vildricianus 18:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. I couldn't find a good solution using "includeonly", but I fixed it with a new hack ([1]). Thanks for pushing me on that one or I would have let it slide until the StringFunctions were installed. Let me know if there's anything else that seems odd or broken. Rod (A. Smith) 21:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, perfect! I knew it was possible. Moreover, I'm quite sure StringFunctions is not for in the near future. Thanks! Now these templates are really becoming a darn good thing. I'll be on the lookout for any more cosmetic imperfections to make sure their supremacy is undeniable :-). — Vildricianus 21:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


I don't know whether this has to do with the recent changes to isValidPageName, but this template can't be replaced by {{en-noun}}. Will it need manual fixing? — Vildricianus 12:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The search pattern is this (adjusted for whatever flavor of regex you're using):


The replacement pattern is this:


Another pass can add an sg argument for multiple-word entries. Does such a replacement scheme fail for some uses of {{en-noun2}}? Rod (A. Smith) 17:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant. It's that en-noun doesn't work with what parameters en-noun2 may take. See dozen for example.
Current use with en-noun2:

{{en-noun2|'''dozen'''|'''[[dozen]] '''when used attributive,''' [[dozens]] '''otherwise}}

Used with en-noun:

{{en-noun|'''dozen'''|'''[[dozen]] '''when used attributive,''' [[dozens]] '''otherwise}}

How to fix this? — Vildricianus 18:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

My plan was to deprecate old templates by replacing instances of their use with equivalent uses of the new templates. Thus, the 2 regex above would be applied for en-noun2. I have a more sophisticated web browser that is specialized for Wiktionary template deprecation. If you want, though, I can suport the other migration model (template redirects) by adding the syntax to {{en-noun}} to support the curent invocation pattern of en-noun2. Rod (A. Smith) 18:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No that's not necessary, but I thought you had built in something that allowed parameters containing wikisyntax. Never mind. Sophisticated web browser? Doesn't sound like you're talking about IE :-). — Vildricianus 19:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, my browser actually uses I.E. internally to apply CSS to its suggestion of new WikiText but it's definitely not I.E. Anyway, I thought you could use some immediate satisfaction so I sped up the perceived deprecation of en-noun2 by applying a crude translation in en-noun2. I'll of course continue deprecating en-noun2 properly, though. Cheers! Rod (A. Smith) 00:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
That's an quick solution! Thanks. — Vildricianus 10:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

en-noun-reg (take 2)[edit]

en-noun-reg works differently to en-noun (so I have reverted your redirect) - see the sandbox or en-noun/test (test 10). SemperBlotto 16:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Noun templates[edit]


I haven't changed my JavaScript yet, to start using your new {{en-noun}} as I still don't fully understand the usage conventions. For nouns ending in "y" what is the correct form? For countable and uncountable, what is the correct form? Or are these still being worked out? --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Connel. A dash specifies that there are uncountable senses, e.g. "{{en-noun|-}}" or, if there are also countable senses, "{en-noun|geometr|ies|-}}". Rod (A. Smith) 18:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)