User talk:Sgconlaw

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from User talk:Smuconlaw)
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

  • Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
  • If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Word of the day[edit]

Thank you for updating the word of the day!! - -sche (discuss) 18:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! I was wondering why nothing was happening there. Smuconlaw (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It's tiring work, after a while. I handled it for a while (I don't recall how long) after the person before me burnt out, until I burnt out, too. Btw, sorry about that; the "rollback" button is right next to the "patrol" button, which is what I was going for :b (it marks edits by not-yet whitelisted users as non-vandalism). - -sche (discuss) 21:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Yup, it is quite laborious. Well, I'll try it for a while. Maybe it would be good to encourage experienced editors to update one or two Words of the Day for every one that they nominate, so that the backlog is worked on. Smuconlaw (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hurt or hurts?[edit]

Hi, could you check grammar in the third sentence motherfucker#Noun? Is It hurt like right? -- 08:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Both are grammatically correct, as it depends on whether or not the finger still hurts at the time the statement is made. If what is meant is that the finger was painful at the time of the accident (and perhaps is no longer so painful now), then use hurt. If the intent is to say the finger still causes pain now, then use hurts. Smuconlaw (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, you're right... I completely forgot that to hurt does not change its past form... Sorry and thanks.-- 10:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for setting WotD entries[edit]

Thank you for choosing and setting up WotD entries for this month! – b_jonas 15:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! Please help if you know how to. Smuconlaw (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for continuing to do this. If you ever get tired of doing it or are too busy with real-life things, you know you can take a break since the WOTD system will just recycle last year's words for any dates that new words aren't set for. - -sche (discuss) 09:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm happy to do it for the time being, but if anyone else would like to help they are most welcome. Smuconlaw (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

{{was wotd}} placement[edit]

Hi Smuconlaw, please place the {{was wotd}} template inside the English section (just after ==English==). — Ungoliant (falai) 14:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

OK! Smuconlaw (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Oxymorons as WOTD theme?[edit]

Hi. Good work! Nice idea to theme WOTD a bit better. How about Oxymorons as WOTD theme for a week sometime? Category:English oxymorons Might even encourage a few more entries! Cheers. -- ALGRIF talk 10:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to make a proposal with suitable words on the Nominations page! Smuconlaw (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


Hi Smuconlaw. Rhymes are listed based on the word’s phonemes starting from the stressed vowel. This means that eating should be in Rhymes:English/iːtɪŋ, not Rhymes:English/ɪŋ. — Ungoliant (falai) 05:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. Sorry. I'm not sure the words I added to Rhymes:English/ɪŋ are correct, then. Should I remove them all? Smuconlaw (talk) 05:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I’m afraid so. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
No worries. Done. So, does addling rhyme with -ɪŋ (which I added) or with -lɪŋ (no such rhyme page)? Smuconlaw (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
-ædlɪŋ, since the stressed vowel is the /æ/.
The links to the rhyme page also need to be removed. If you prefer, I can do this for you much faster since I can use the rollback button. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure. (What links to the rhyme page are you referring to? Oh, darn, did the addition of those words create links on the word page as well?) Smuconlaw (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


Sorry, I didn't see the question and thought they had just typed a single word. Thanks for answering it. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries. It happened to catch my eye. Smuconlaw (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

pdf link, cabbeling[edit]

Sorry, could you tell me what you see when you click on the link removed in this revision? I think there may be a permissions problem. Thanks for the edits, the entry is much improved! HLHJ (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! The citation says the article is at pages 484–487, but the PDF has different page numbers (even though it has the same title). I don't really read German, but the first sentence of the PDF seems to refer to the other article which starts at page 484. Smuconlaw (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Obsolete word of the day[edit]

I notice you added nudiustertian as a word of the day for March 14th. The entry says that it's obsolete and rare, and Wiktionary:Word of the day/Nominations says that obsolete words should be avoided for WOTD. I think that's a good rule—for WOTD, we should stick to words that readers can actually use. Just my two cents. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

True. We're running a little short of nominations at the moment, though. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Good point. I'll have to nominate a few. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference templates[edit]

Thank you for cleaning up and improving the reference template infrastructure, especially {{cite-book}} and {{cite-journal}}. I think soon we can mass-switch our reference templates to use these, like I did with {{R:xcl:Bedr}} and {{R:xcl:Lidén:1905-1906}}.

But we should work out some things first. Do we need {{cite-dictionary}} or {{cite-book}} will do? The latter does not allow headword functionality, but may be it is not needed. We should be able to wikilink multiple authors through author-linkn= like in Wikipedia's w:Template:Cite book. We should import the series= functionality. The translation of the title by trans-title= is also necessary. Also pinging people from the last discussion: @I'm so meta even this acronym, JohnC5, ObsequiousNewt. What do you think? --Vahag (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to help you update {{cite-book}} and {{cite-journal}}. Perhaps you can explain in more detail what additional parameters are needed and what output you would like to see. Also, I think {{cite-book}} can be used to cite dictionaries – the parameter |entry= can be used to indicate a headword. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd be fine either with {{cite-dictionary}} or {{cite-book}}, but a way to have headwords and have them link is very important. What's our current disposition about having quotation marks ⟨ “ ” ⟩ around headwords? —JohnC5 15:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@Smuconlaw, |entry= satisfies me. I would like the additional parameters lastn=, firstn=, authorlinkn=, series= and trans-title= with the functionality and output exactly as in Wikipedia's w:Template:Cite book. @JohnC5, I have no preference concerning the quotation marks around headwords. You don't like how |entry= handles headwords? --Vahag (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@Vahagn Petrosyan I'd prefer if it were first, but whatever. —JohnC5 19:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
If it were first, the names of the authors would not appear first, arranged alphabetically, easily findable when referred to in the etymology, as in թակարդ (tʿakard). --Vahag (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I am being told, that for technical reasons it is preferable to link the headword. John's preference too is to link the headword. Can we have an |entrylink= parameter that does just that? --Vahag (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that can be done. Essentially, |entry= would no longer simply be a synonym for |chapter= but would be given different treatment. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
@Vahagn Petrosyan, Smuconlaw, JohnC5: I find the effect of this on the templates I use most frequently to cite dictionaries to be difficult to visualise concretely. Could one of you please demonstrate how these changes will affect the display of {{R:L&S}}, {{R:du Cange}}, {{R:Gaffiot}}, {{R:OLD}}, {{R:Niermeyer}}, and {{R:NLW}}, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
{{R:Gaffiot}} will display like this, except the headword will be wikilinked, not the title. --Vahag (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I understand from Vahag that he (she?) would like to use {{cite-book}} as the basis for citation templates that relate to specific sources. Since I don't work on those templates, Vahag is the best person to explain what the desired effect is. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The desired effect is standardizing the display of all references in Wiktionary. PS. I have a penis. --Vahag (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
@Vahagn Petrosyan, Smuconlaw: Thank you. So, will {{R:OLD}} end up like this? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes. But I think those are editors and should be specified by |editor-lastn=, |editor-firstn=. You can use |display-editors= to control the length of the list, as described in w:Template:Cite-book. --Vahag (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@Vahagn Petrosyan: |display-editors= or not, that would be a terrible format for the OLD. Whilst I recognise the desirability of bringing some order to our reference templates, I cannot but oppose this as currently envisaged. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
If we switch to {{cite-book}}, you will not be obliged to supply the authors and editors. If you omit them, in Wikipedia's {{cite-book}} the date shows after the publisher. It looks like this. --Vahag (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@Vahagn Petrosyan: But doesn't that defeat your object of being able to list all sources in alphabetical order by the first author's surname? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
My purpose was listing the sources alphabetically by the name they are referred to. It is usual to refer to a source by an author's name plus year, but a reference work compiled by multiple editors like OLD is referred to as OLD or Oxford Latin Dictionary and not Alford et. al 1968. --Vahag (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@Vahagn Petrosyan: OK, I get you. Should all reference types be included in one reference list? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Are you worried that differing formats in one list will look ugly? There is nothing we can do about that. --Vahag (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Vahagn Petrosyan: No, I just wanted to make sure that I understood you properly. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft template[edit]

@I'm so meta even this acronym, JohnC5, Vahagn Petrosyan: I have started working on a draft template at {{cite-book/sandbox}}. At the moment, I have only altered the |entry= parameter. Do you want to have a separate |entryurl= parameter, or is it sufficient to just use |url=? Currently, the draft uses |url= to create a link for |entry=, but this means a separate URL for the book title can't be specified. You can try testing the draft template at {{cite-book/testcases}}. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. The tests are good. I think |entryurl= is not needed. If after following the link to the specific entry the user is interested in downloading the whole book, he can find the link himself. --Vahag (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Great. I have just added |author2=, |last2=, |first2= and |authorlink2= up to |author5=, |last5=, |first5= and |authorlink5=, and |series= and |trans-title=. Try them out. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
They work well, except we need separate |volume= and |seriesvolume= parameters for cases like this. Also, I would like to request an |others= parameter like in Wikipedia. See its usage here. --Vahag (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, I have created a separate |seriesvolume= parameter and added an |others= parameter. Are any other parameters required? Do you really need |editor2=, |editorlast=, |editorfirst= and |editorlink= parameters? — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. No, the editor parameters are not that important. I can manually format |editors=. But Wikipedia's template's behaviour of moving the editor in front of the date when no authors are given is preferable. Compare this and this. When neither authors nor editors are given, their template moves the title to the front. A reference starting with a date looks bad among other references. --Vahag (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Here's a thought. Since the {{cite-}} templates are not used for creating quotations in dictionary entries, the date or year doesn't have to be in front. Shall I just permanently move the date or year after the publisher's name? — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
No, it is customary to have the date near the front so you can easily identify a source when you encounter something like "J̌ahukyan 1987" in the etymology կոթող (kotʿoł). But if the requested feature is hard to implement, don't bother, it's not that important. I think {{cite-book/sandbox}} is now ready to be rolled out en masse. --Vahag (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
No problem, I can work on that. Give me a few days. In the meantime, I'll move the current version of the draft template into the main template space so that you can start working on your other citation templates. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I started moving "my" templates to {{cite-book}}. Can you add |trans-title= to {{cite-journal}}? --Vahag (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Actually, what I thought I would do is to create a meta template at {{cite-meta}}, and redesign {{cite-book}}, {{cite-journal}}, etc., to call it. In that way, the templates would be consistent with each other. Let me think about whether that is feasible. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Vahagn Petrosyan, I have updated {{cite-book}} so that |author=, |editor= and |year= behave in the way you suggested. The core template is now at {{cite-meta}}; I will gradually update the other {{cite-}} templates so that they use {{cite-meta}} and thus have consistent layouts and parameter names. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think moving the core to {{cite-meta}} is a good idea. But the migration has caused some problems, which I am sure you have already noticed and will fix. --Vahag (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not sure why some of these issues didn't arise when {{cite-book}} was applied directly, but have now become evident when {{cite-book}} calls {{cite-meta}}. I've spotted a few, but please let me know if there are any other ones. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The templates {{cite-newsgroup}} and {{cite-web}} now make use of {{cite-meta}}. I will work on {{cite-journal}} next. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I noticed a bug. There is a trailing comma when one specifies authors and an editor, but not an |entry=, as in Template:R:hy:Ghandilyan. --Vahag (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, I've fixed that. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. But now there is no space between year and entry, e.g. Template:R:hy:HBB. --Vahag (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Whoops. It should be OK now. See also {{cite-meta/testcases}}. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a problem with this. No space between year and title. --Vahag (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Wow, this is frustrating. OK, I think it works now. — SMUconlaw (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but |others= does not work anymore. See in Template:cite-book/testcases. --Vahag (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
No worries. It was in {{cite-meta}}, but I left it out of {{cite-book}} by accident. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Another minor issue. Note the weirdness between the year and editor in Template:R:hy:Revazova. There is no problem where there is no editor, e.g. Template:R:xcl:Martirosyan. --Vahag (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── All right, I think I have fixed the problem once and for all. I have also merged {{cite-journal}} into {{cite-meta}}, so you can use |trans-work= to provide an English translation of a journal name. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. But I wanted |trans-title= in {{cite-journal}}, to translate the title of the article, which is more important than the name of the journal. The format can be as in Template:R:xcl:Nalbandyan:1973. I can also add the translation manually, if you think that is better. --Vahag (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
No problem, it just means we need to add another parameter. At the moment, these are the equivalent parameters:
  • {{cite-book}}|chapter=/|entry= + |title= + |trans-title=
  • {{cite-journal}}|title= + |journal= + |trans-work= (I didn't call it |trans-title= as this would have been confusing).
Thus, {{cite-book}} needs a new parameter |trans-chapter=/|trans-entry=, and the equivalent in {{cite-journal}} can be called |trans-title=. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I could use |trans-chapter= in {{cite-book}}. I added the translation manually in a couple of places, but that is not good because we may change the format of translations in the future. --Vahag (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I have added |trans-chapter= and |trans-entry= to {{cite-book}}. The equivalent parameter in {{cite-journal}} and {{cite-web}} is |trans-title=. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I started using those. --Vahag (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The switch to the new templates is going well. Can you take a look at Template:R:tr:Nishanyan? Is the date request supposed to be there? Also, I would prefer a link from |title=, not |work=. --Vahag (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'll look into this. Regarding the link, though, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that |title= should work like |entry= in {{cite-book}}? What I can do is to make |entry= work in {{cite-web}}. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Just tested {{R:tr:Nishanyan}}. It seems to work fine when dates are provided – see the following examples. The date request only appears when no dates are stated.
SMUconlaw (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I would like an |entry= parameter in {{cite-web}}. As for the date, I have given a default date value to the Nshanyan template so the message does not appear anymore. You don't need to bother with it. --Vahag (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, I have added |entry= and |trans-entry= to {{cite-web}}. Try them out and see if they work properly. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
It's working well, thank you. --Vahag (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Smuconlaw, Vahagn Petrosyan: Have you now settled on the final form for this template? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think so. Do you think any further tweaks are needed? — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Not necessarily. My concern is how this would affect the display of {{R:Smith's DGRG}}, {{R:L&S}}, {{R:du Cange}}, {{R:Gaffiot}}, {{R:OLD}}, {{R:Niermeyer}}, and {{R:NLW}}. Unfortunately, I don't have the time at the moment to test-convert those templates to use {{cite-book}}. When I've seen how they look using that metatemplate, I'll feel more qualified to comment. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"Section" parameter[edit]

Hi, Smuconlaw. I think |pageurl= should still work when there is |section= present but no |page=. I can't link the column 197 in {{R:xcl:Tomaschek:1890}}. --Vahag (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It would probably be better to have a separate |sectionurl= parameter. I'm travelling today; let me look at it later. — SMUconlaw (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@Vahagn Petrosyan: Ha ha, I forgot that the |sectionurl= parameter already exists. Try it out. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! --Vahag (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


You need to be careful about revisions like this. The MacCulloch citation is from p. 452 of the 2010 Penguin paperback, as originally specified. You changed it for some reason to the 2009 Allen Lane hardback but left the page number the same. Is this still correct? Ƿidsiþ 13:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I checked WorldCat but found no version of the book published by Penguin in 2010 listed. If you have a copy of the paperback, could you provide its ISBN? — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
It's 978-0-141-02189-8, but not every citation needs an ISBN. Not having one is certainly no reason to leave information that you know must be wrong, simply because you think it looks more complete. Ƿidsiþ 14:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure. Funny, putting the ISBN into WorldCat now retrieves that book, though doing a search for the title did not. I'll update the quotation. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


Hi Smuc. Do you fancy being nominated for administrator? I'll set up a vote if you want. --AK and PK (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I've very much appreciated you recent work on reference templates. I would gladly support you. —JohnC5 20:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, what does that involve? I'm not sure I have time for all the duties of an administrator. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
It's pretty easy. You delete stuff and block vandals. (I'm AK and PK) --F909fef0j (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Like John, I too would support your nomination for administratorship. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, OK. — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations! You're now an admin. Try not to break anything ;-) Chuck Entz (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! (And, thanks, @Turnedlessef, for prompting me into this!) — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
4 months from nomming to promming. That's probs a record --Turnedlessef (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Ha, ha, really? — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Probably. By the way, please can you make your very first block on Wiktionary the one you perform on me? It'll be the last time anyone ever hears from me on Wiktionary. --Allkokf009 (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Erm ... not sure what is happening with you. Why do you have so many user accounts? — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
He'll be back. (One would hope, at least.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

editors / title in wrong places in {{quote-book}}[edit]

    • 1996, Thomas Payne, “17: Nuts”, in Laszlo Somogyi, Diane M. Barrett, Y. H. Hui, editors, Processing Fruits[1], page 529:
      In some countries, cashews continue to be cracked manually although cracking machinery and other shelling mechanisms have been introduced.

DTLHS (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Which part is wrong? — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to say in (editors), Title. DTLHS (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, that is the usual format. See w:Template:Cite book and search for "Citing a chapter in a book with two joint authors and an editor", for example. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Referencing the title of a work[edit]

For example, the first citation in thelaziasis. Is there a way to do this within our current set of quotation templates? Just leaving out the passage parameter means there is a colon and then nothing. DTLHS (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No, there isn't. You either have to create the quotation manually, or preferably use this method. — SMUconlaw (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
That works, thanks. DTLHS (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

hoon etymology[edit]

Smuconlaw - Hi. I notice you added an etymology for this entry - and I am loath to just delete it, esp. since you have referenced it. However, the connection with car engine noise has problems. First, it is ahistorical or achronological since the term originally mean a fool or lout (since the 1930s), then a pimp (since 1949 at least), and only picked up the driving sense in the 1960s or 1970s. Second, no citation I can find ever makes any mention of the sound of car engines. Third, the source cited merely says "Robyn Hodgkin e-mailed to tell me that the term hoon originates from the sound made by the engines of the cars that hoons drive." I don't know who Robyn Hodgkin is, but they are not a well-known expert on Australian English as far as I can see, so this seems to suggest that it is a folk etymology. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I replied at "Talk:hoon".SMUconlaw (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Rearranged quotations chronologically[edit]

There is no consensus for that. So you should not do it. We don't want some group of editors rearranging chronologically and other editors undoing it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Palm face. The dissensus is about order of definitions, not quotations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
No worries. You had me confused there – I thought it was pretty much standard for quotations to be chronological. Definitions, on the other hand ... there are arguments for having them chronological, and for relegating rare and obsolete senses to the end. Not sure if there's ever been a discussion about this. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
There's been a Beer parlour poll on it, approximately 50:50: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2012/December#Positions of obsolete senses. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


Thanks for cleaning it out. Just a note, archiving manually is obsolete now that we have aWa (enable it in your prefs). It makes archival considerably more efficient. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Please do archive the discussions rather than just removing them, though. For example, the RFV discussion of screenee should have been archived to Talk:screenee. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear, do we archive discussions to the talk pages of deleted entries? I thought we only did that if the entries still exist. Sorry about that. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, what am I saying? Screenee does exist. Must have missed it. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for archiving it. As far as I know, it is standard to archive all RFV discussions—"screenee" was just an example. Talk:Pókember, Talk:anĝeliĉo, and many others were also missed. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, the standard is to archive all discussions. It seems to me that archiving discussions of deleted entries is even more important than those that were kept. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, I will clean this up. I should have read the instructions more carefully. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@Mr. Granger, Dan Polansky, done. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. I see the ones from RFD are done, but Talk:anĝeliĉo, Talk:Pokémber, Talk:ursiĉo, and the others from RFV don't seem to be done. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Darn, I forgot that I also did some from that page. Will try and get to those shortly. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, done. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Since you seem to be archiving one discussion at a time, try doing a bunch in one go. It's a lot faster. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Is there some way to do that using the Wonderfool tool? — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Just keep clicking the archive link for as many discussions as you want to archive (checking that it's as you want it), and then actually archive them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, will try that. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Language order in der, inh, bor, cog and etyl[edit]

You made a comment here and quickly reverted yourself:,_borrowed,_loan,_loanword_%E2%86%92_bor&curid=5702090&diff=39842509&oldid=39842503

In the comment, you temporarily stated that, specifically, {{cog}}, {{der}} and {{etyl}} have the same order of language parameters, and {{bor}} is the opposite. When reverting, you said: "oh, think this has been changed already".

I'll tell you what is the actual order of languages in all the 5 main etymology templates, in case that would help you. If you already discovered it by yourself, feel free to ignore it.

  1. target code, then source code (or, you could say, the current language is the 1st parameter, like in any other template)
    • {{der|en|la|example}} = derived from Latin to English
    • {{inh|en|enm|example}} = inherited from Middle English to English
    • {{bor|en|ja|example}} = borrowed from Japanese to English
  2. the opposite of the above (this is a much older template that some people want to delete altogether and replace by the other templates)
    • {{etyl|la|en}} = derived from Latin to English
  3. only 1 code (the single parameter is OK, it's by design; it's because the template does not categorize)
    • {{cog|it|example}} = a cognate in Italian

In short, {{etyl}} seems to be the odd one out and the others are OK. This was discussed before in Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/March#etyl vs. der → inverted parameters. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note, also, that there are many uses of {{borrowing}} like this: {{borrowing|it|pizza|lang=en}} (with a different order of languages, using a "lang=" parameter that other templates don't use). Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/borrowing, borrowed, loan, loanword → bor proposes to change them all into the usual order: {{bor|en|it|pizza}}. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very comprehensive. Yes, I thought that {{bor}} was the odd one out, but it looks like it's {{etyl}}. It would be good if that one could be brought in line with the others for less confusion, but that's a discussion for another day. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion request[edit]

Can you please delete 105 again? It seems to was deleted per Talk:105 but then the persistent anon created it again. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and took care of it. Thanks for pointing it out. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 10:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you think these pages need to be protected? — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Certainly, if 105 is created by an IP again, I think semi-protecting it would be a good idea. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

pargeting cf parging[edit]

Relocated discussion to "Talk:parging".


This doesn't work; the ping has to be added with a new sig. See mw:Extension:Echo for the complete list of limitations. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh. Whoops. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


I thought the history of the word is interesting, going back to Old English and beyond. I wouldn't consider it too vulgar, compared to some words. Anyway, I'll leave it up to you. DonnanZ (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, will think about it. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

moly cow[edit]

Discussion moved to Talk:moly cow.


Discussion moved to Talk:tram.

You are[edit]

Awesome! --Quadcont (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! (Not sure why, though ...) — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


Why did you revert my edit? I don't understand. You reverted my edit when there is a duplicated parameter in the template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It was a typo. The second parameter was supposed to be |authorlink=, not |author=. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Revert on Danicize[edit]

Excuse me, but if you’re going to go around reverting substantial edits you at least have to pay attention to the actual content of the edit. Nothing in my edit implied that Danish is borrowed from Latin. Rather, it very clearly indicates that Danicize is derived from Latin danicus and NOT from Danish. Anyway, from the form of the word, Danicize /ˈdeɪnɪsaɪz/, it can be seen that it cannot be from Danish + -ize; then it would be Danishize /ˈdeɪnɪʃaɪz/. Like most of the -ize words, it is either a learned Latinate construction or borrowed and adapted from Neo-Latin or another language that uses such constructions. The word’s spelling and pronunciation both confirm this. – Krun (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we can take this discussion to the Etymology scriptorium. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Long image captions[edit]

Greetings, I saw you start adding long image captions. I for one find that inappropriate. The images are there to show what the word refers to, and, in my view, the captions should be a minimal accompaniment.

What I mean is e.g. this in radish:

  • "A bowl of radishes (Raphanus sativus or Raphanus raphanistrum subsp. sativus) (sense 2). Such radishes have a pungent taste and are usually eaten raw in salads, etc."
  • "The daikon, a cultivar or subspecies of radish. It has a mild taste and is generally cooked before eating."

In my view, "Such radishes have a pungent taste and are usually eaten raw in salads, etc." does not belong to a dictionary, nor does "It has a mild taste and is generally cooked before eating.", and even if it did, it does not belong to an image caption.

Admission: I do not remember any discussion in Beer parlour on this. I find this kind of obvious, but then, people obviously differ about what they find obvious. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure why these are "inappropriate" since they provide information to readers about the images. Happy to discuss this further at the Beer Parlour if you wish. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Readers should not be provided information about images; rather, the images should provide information about word referents. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Complexity and OCLC[edit]

I register my objection to your adding OCLC, which is identifier noise, and other complexity such as the ugly "Charlton T[homas] Lewis" to reference templates. We have a long-term tradition of beautifully simple and functional formatting as opposed to baroque formatting full of omittable items that make the text much harder to skim, and I plan to defend that tradition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Objection noted. I don't necessarily agree with you, but it's not an issue I feel strongly enough about. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The consistency argument[edit]

You have repeatedly used "consistency" as the argument to reinstate your changes. Let me clarify that this argument really does not hold water. Such an argument can be used for switching to and from by both disagreeing parties. It follows that, in the absence of consensus, consistency cannot be used as an argument by one of the disagreeing parties.

Furthermore, I have noticed multiple times that you have introduced new inconsistencies: OCLC is one example, and your moving of the linked to the word to the right contrary to the overwhelming practice is another example. Makes me wonder. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "moving of the linked to the word to the right". Could you clarify? — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I apologize; I mistakenly remembered diff as yours, which it is not. That diff resulted in "Félix Gaffiot (1934), Dictionnaire Illustré Latin-Français, Paris: Hachette, s.v. “R:Gaffiot”.", where the link to the particular entry is at the very right.
However, diff is your edit that moves the link slightly to the right.
By the way, check diff where someone is "(Removing quotes for consistency with other templates, per discussion." You see where this gets us? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I see. Anyway, I started a discussion at the Beer Parlour to see if there is a consensus for aligning our citation, reference and quotation templates. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Our attestation quotations are formatted like this, per WT:ELE I think:
* year, author, Title:
*: Quoted passage.
But that is not what you proposed in BP. I don't understand. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
That's why I said there are some differences between the templates because they serve different functions. For quotations it makes more sense to put the date in front because it can be seen at a glance the time period over which a particular entry is in use. On the other hand, this is not so vital for citations ({{cite ...}}) and references ({{R: ...}}), and I agree that for references it is useful to place the entry in front. That is also consistent with how we cite books and journals, where the chapter and article title are respectively placed in front in quotation marks. Maybe we should discuss this at the Beer Parlour? — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Image captions 2[edit]

Let me try to drive the point home by examining the captions at syllabub. There, "Los Angeles County Museum of Art" is even hyperlinked, as is Los Angeles and California. That is all wrong. The caption is about syllabub. The domain under attention is certain drinks, not museums and places. There is not reason a reader should want to navigate to Los Angeles.

On a slightly related note, showing a glass in an entry that is not about glass is misplaced, IMHO; we should be showing the things the entries are about, and not some images somewhat related to the referents. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the glass from syllabub since that is really not what the entry is about. If disagreement about what to me seems such an obvious thing develops, we'll have to take it to Beer parlour, I guess. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Quotation marks in reference templates[edit]

FYI, I removed the quotation marks that you added to {{R:OneLook}}, consistent with my preference and with status quo ante of the template. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Undoing of my revision for etymology of grisly[edit]

Discussion moved to Talk:grisly.

Please don't add </code>[...]<code> because this isn't a valid syntax.[edit]

Ex. fissgig. Every html-styled tag has to have opening and closing parts, and code isn't a generally valid tag. Yurivict (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Yurivict. Sorry, it was supposed to be <cite>, not <code>. Such a markup is OK because {{quote-meta/source}} uses <cite> tags to italicize the title. Therefore, in "</cite>[...]<cite>" the first </cite> tag ends the italicized portion of the title, and the second <cite> starts a new italicized section. I couldn't think of a better way of doing this; using the wikitext '' markup doesn't work. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:RQ:King James Version[edit]

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:King James Version#Template:RQ:King James Version.


Hi, I modified the entry to remove links to words in the Etymology section that are not descendants or cognates. This helps automation of bots and tools. In particular, I'm developing a tool that automatically extracts etymological relationships from Wiktionary pages. If you think my change does not reduce the readability or the content of the etymology please let me know. After removing links that are not necessary or after enclosing them into parentheses, parsing becomes much easier. Thanks a lot. Ester Epantaleo (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Epantaleo, I don't think that is a good solution as there is often a need to link terms in "Etymology" sections not directly related to the entry for the information of readers. Examples include terms like genitive and infinitive. I suggest that you instruct the bots and tools to only look for words that are within templates such as {{affix}}, {{blend}}, {{bor}}, {{cog}}, {{compound}}, {{der}}, {{etyl}}, {{inh}}, {{prefix}} and {{suffix}} because those would unambiguously be descendants or cognates. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of edit on adroit[edit]

I don't know about you, but I find it incredibly hard to read text that has excessive links. Not to mention that most of those links are completely unhelpful. If a user doesn't know what the word "to" or "toward" means, they certainly won't be reading Wiktionary anyway, and less so the etymology. I don't want to edit war over this, but I definitely think my edit was an improvement. If we had some way of making links without them showing up in blue, I would see no harm in making everything a link, but as it is, that etymology hurts my eyes to read. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree that such links are "completely unhelpful". You might try adjusting your browser settings to change the colour of hyperlinks or the way in which they are displayed if that is really an issue for you. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
If you don't mind me asking, in what way do you find them helpful? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
In the same way that we link words and terms in definitions, I'd say. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Adding links to glosses of {{m}} is not a common practice. I oppose this change of practice. Furthermore, the current etymology in adroit is a bad case of duplication, in which French à is traced to Indo-European *ád. Duplicating etymology of prefixes in entries that use them seem to be a very bad idea, to me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
But we don't link words like "to" in definitions. It's not our normal practice, it makes it more difficult to read, it makes page loads longer, and it's simply not useful because users reading the entry already know what "to" means. I don't doubt that you're trying to improve the entry, but I would like to revert for all of the above reasons. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


This has problems with parentheses, and there are hundreds of entries in CAT:E because of your invoking it in Template:quote-meta/source. Please do something about it. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I have just noticed it. Module:italics doesn't seem to be working as expected, so I have reverted the change for now. (@Erutuon.) — SGconlaw (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


Did you intend this? If so, why? DCDuring (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

So that other editors who wish to add further quotations will do so under the appropriate senses. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Duplicating all the definitions from the mainspace to Citations names just in case seems to be a truly poor practice to me. It has not been our practice, and I hope it will not become our practice. Current Citations:steamer has all the mainspace templates and is categorized into lemma categories; that is wrong. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the definitions from Citations:steamer. Frankly, this is insane. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
OK. I forgot that the categories would also appear. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Categories could be fixed by just removing all the labeling and further elements of the page that generate categories. Regardless, I maintain that duplicating the mainspace definition structure while providing almost no quotations is alone grossly inferior. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I hope the "steamship" heading reminds folks to record which definition the citation is supposed to be for. How should we record citations for which we can't quite determine which sense is intended? Is the Citations namespace supposed to pretend to be "finished"? Should we consign such citations to the Talk page (where they are more likely to be overlooked by someone interested in citations, ie, someone likely to work on the matter)? DCDuring (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    It is possible to place citations without any definition heading, or we might use "meaning unclear" placed in italics to indicate this is not an actual definition; or "meaning unassigned". As for being finished or not, I see Citations namespace as a kind of yard or workshop, but not junkyard, where we can place material e.g. too voluminous for the mainspace or not durably archived, etc. I like to keep there quotations that are not durably archived and mark them as such, when I cannot find enough durably archived ones. Our practice has also been to keep there quotations when we had only two of them and therefore the mainspace had to be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    If we wanted to have no heading, we would still need a separator like ----, so an informative heading like "meaning unclear" would seem appropriate. Our practice in this area is clearly evolving, not settled, so we have some freedom to select a format and usage patterns and win others over by self-evident superiority. DCDuring (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)