User talk:Sgconlaw

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
2014–2019 · 2020–2024

How we will see unregistered users[edit]


You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Your reverts on Shakey temps...[edit]

Thanks for spotting this. I added it because there were a few instances (probably all Wonderfool's fault) where there was an url included, but it didn't show up on the page. The idea was that an url= bit would overrule the pageurl= bit. But whatever, I really don't understand complicated templates. Br00pVain (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quotation marks[edit]

Why do you change curly quotation marks to straight ones (Special:Diff/65661696)? I use whichever is used in the work. J3133 (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@J3133: ah, I didn't know you did that. I generally change them to straight quotes for consistency (especially since most people don't type curly quotes in the quotations), unless it interferes with wikitext markup (for example, "'''nature''''s"). But I'll leave them unchanged if you prefer. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:RQ:Stevenson Dynamiter[edit]

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Stevenson Dynamiter.

Template redirects[edit]

Hi again! You'll be pleased to know that I made a whole bunch more RQ: template redirects for you to unnecessarily delete VealSociedad (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:RQ:Orczy Eldorado/documentation and similar docs[edit]

I noticed in this documentation and also Template:RQ:Defoe Great Britain/documentation you refer to "Wikipedia entry pages", but this is not Wikipedia of course...could you correct this and any other docs you might have made this error in please? 14:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strange, I wonder how this error crept in. I'll request a bot edit. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Shakespeare Romeo and Juliet Q1-2.

double dates[edit]

Hey. In my recent edit at uberly, I saw a date repeated, so decided to just keep one. I've done this loads, by the way, but only just realized there might have actually been a perfectly good reason for this. What's your opinion on the matter? Notusbutthem (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Notusbutthem: yeah, I don't think it's necessary for the date to be repeated unless one is the date when the work is written (for first performed, in the case of a play) and the other the date of publication, in which case it should be set out clearly what the dates mean. For example, where the date of writing differs from the publication date, I'll indicate |month=(date written), |year=1810, and |year_published=1825. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks goodness for that. I was expecting your mighty wrath (ooh, that could be WOTD, I see you have a current fetish for 5-letter words...) Notusbutthem (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Notusbutthem: yes, thought a Wordle-themed series might be fun. But I think we have enough five-lettered words from 2019. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kinda makes me want to redo WT's multilingual Scrabble game. Notusbutthem (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

useless urls[edit]

Another corner I like cutting is adding url= to certain templates. I know many of the url= parameters actually do nothing. Maybe we can generate a list of them. But we probably shouldn't really give a damn Notusbutthem (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:RQ:Fuller Holy Warre[edit]

Discussion moved to Talk:skill.

Template:RQ:Shakespeare Passionate Pilgrim[edit]

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Passionate Pilgrime.

Template:RQ:Marlowe Edward II[edit]

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Marlowe Edward 2.

Template:RQ:Burton 1000[edit]

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:R. F. Burton Arabian Nights.

Template:RQ:Richardson Clarissa[edit]

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Richardson Clarissa.

Template:RQ:Shakespeare As You Like It[edit]

Discussion moved to Talk:smirch.

Template:RQ:Mandela Long Walk for Freedom[edit]

Another book commonly quoted in WT that could do with an RQ template VealSociedad (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:RQ:Austen Emma[edit]

Needs allowing for non-Roman numerals. In fact, I'm surprised this isn't covered in {{quote-book}}, as it seems like a very reasonable thing to do VealSociedad (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:RQ:Shakespeare Love's Labour's Lost[edit]

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Shakespeare Love's Labour's Lost.

Template:RQ:Fielding Amelia[edit]

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Fielding Amelia.


Hello! I know sortieing is a valid verb inflection of sortie, but I removed it because we don't (AFAIK, as a rule) add these things as "derived terms" when they are already in the verb inflection line! Are you saying it's an important adjective? If so, maybe you'd like to cite it at sortieing separate from the verb? Equinox 07:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, we should probably add an “Adjective” heading at sortieing, but I don’t always have the time or inclination to edit all the entries that are related to the entry I’m actually working on. It becomes a neverending rabbit hole so sometimes I just draw a line and decide to leave it to another editor to deal with. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. The fact that all the verb-derived adjs are actually verb forms suggests it's something that some stupid AI bot can do in a few years. Go figure. — Or to be a bit more blunt, I could spend my hours here fixing ISBN numbers and templates, or I could do something useful like creating new entries and finding citations. It makes me sad to see people doing stuff that a machine can do. There is/was a discussion about whether we should bother with those adj-verb forms, but I can't remember where it is. "A hoisting compiler": whom does it benefit to add "hoisting" as a... well, you see where I'm coming from. Equinox 07:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Discussion moved to Talk:pentimento.

Rhymes and spaces[edit]

Thank you for your recent correction. Do you think it would have been appropriate to list /-ʌtaʊt/ (without no space) as a rhyme instead? In other words, should spaces in IPA pronunciations be preserved in rhymes when the primary stress of the phrase is not in the last word? - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 20:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ExcarnateSojourner: ehhh, don’t think it’s a good idea, especially since (as I’ve mentioned to you before) it’s not a good idea to create rhymes pages for entries which are unlikely to have rhymes. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citations:strangle the parrot[edit]

I knew it was not idiomatic; I was intending to add it as an {{&lit}} on the page, but it was protected. FWIW, on the first SERP of Google Books, there are at least as many literal uses of the phrase as figurative. 16:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally, I think literal senses are completely useless. Why anyone would bother to look them up is beyond me. At most, they may be useful for phrasal verbs (e.g., walk through), but really not for terms like strange the parrot. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Spenser Faerie Queene.


Hi SG. Could you please make 5K the 5000th Word of the Day? Zumbacool (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zumbacool: how do we know how many WOTDs we have already set? — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
this is a good start. I count 4973 main namespace pages Zumbacool (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zumbacool: ah, good idea. However, is 5K not potentially SoP? — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not gonna send it to RFV Zumbacool (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zumbacool: I'd rather not feature it if it's going to be deleted. I've raised this at the Tea Room. In the meantime you might want to think of a backup nomination. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sgconlaw: How about hundreds and thousands? For October 15 2022 which is apparently Sweetest Day. That would be sweet. Zumbacool (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zumbacool: sure. By the way, you can make such nominations at "Wiktionary:Word of the day/Nominations#Nominations for particular day". — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:RQ:Dickens Christmas Carol[edit]

Hi. Can you put a stave= bit in the template that links to Wikisource? To make the quote at bitterer a bit better. Zumbacool (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:RQ:Richardson Clarissa[edit]

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Richardson Clarissa.

Template:RQ:Dickens Great Expectations[edit]

Hi. Can you add something that makes the chapter= bit work at malignity? Zumbacool (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When mass-adding translations...[edit]

...please either specify the gender (it can easily be looked up online) or at the very least add |? (places it in a maintenance category) so that other people can clean it up later. This is in reference to rhapsody and false dichotomy. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 23:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fytcha: I try to add the gender when I can find out what it is, but I can’t always easily find the information. I didn’t know about adding the extra pipe; I’ll do that in the future. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WOTD prediction[edit]

On 1 August 2016, did you predict the Word of the Day would be "scuffle" on the 27th of that month? When it would actually be much later, in October? (I've applied a fix.) Henstepl (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Henstepl: wow, this was so long ago I don't recall. Must have been a typo. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:RQ:Burton 1000[edit]

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:R. F. Burton Arabian Nights.

Broken Wikipedia links[edit]

A large portion of the broken Wikipedia links identified by User:This, that and the other and listed here are for authors and words in quotations. Some look like they may be yours.

I've been cleaning up similarly broken links in Translingual entries. There is a certain satisfaction to be found in cleaning up one's actual own messes and messes ascribable to one. DCDuring (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DCDuring: the link you provided doesn't seem to be an extant page. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Corrected the link above. DCDuring (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DCDuring: thanks. I'm not sure I fully understand what the page means (for example, what is "Section e-w*-4"?). It doesn't look like any of the broken links are caused by quotation templates created by me, though. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many of the headings mean something only to the author thereof. I was hoping some were yours because it would be hard to track down a dispersed group of contributors. It is possible that some active on RfV are responsible for many of them. DCDuring (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DCDuring: I had a look at two or three of the entries. They're quotations entered by various editors but not by me, I'm afraid. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lots of the errors were mine, which comes as no surprise to anyone... I actually fixed some too, and not just mine xxx Zumbacool (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:RQ:Richardson Clarissa[edit]

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Richardson Clarissa.

4999 WOTDs[edit]

Discussion moved to Talk:hundreds and thousands.

User:This, that and the other/broken interwiki links/2022-07-01/wikisource[edit]

User:This, that and the other/broken interwiki links/2022-07-01/wikisource is a new cleanup page which may or not correspond to your wikiing. Dunderdool (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Discussion moved to Talk:autobus.


Hi. Just FYI this term is real. There is a well-known movie by Spike Lee with this title, and Googling yields tons of hits. It is not similar to "Apelanta" and "Chimpcongo", which are made-up terms. Benwing2 (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Benwing2: well, then hopefully someone will add the required three quotations to the entry. — Sgconlaw (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:RQ:Spenser Mother Hubberd's Tale[edit]

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Spenser Complaints.

Clown World Order[edit]

How does this term fall under the purview of WT:DEROGATORY? — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 13:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was once used by a conservative 😂 😂 Equinox 13:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same goes for blackophilia. I suggest you read WT:DEROGATORY before doing any further "work" in this direction. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 17:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fytcha: Looking at Clown World Order, it appears I accepted the assessment of the editor who tagged the entry (User: at face value. On review, I agree that it does not clearly fall within WT:DEROGATORY, and so sending the entry to WT:RFV is appropriate.
Blackophilia, on the other hand, seems to me to clearly fall within WT:DEROGATORY clearly. It indicates a fondness for or interest in black people, with a connotation that this is something strange or to be abhorred. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]