User talk:Vildricianus/Archive1

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an archive page that has been kept for historical purposes. The conversations on this page are no longer live.


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:

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 21:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


You haven't got the format right - please read the Welcome links. "ing-form" is not a part of speech. SemperBlotto 22:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest there be clearer information about the policy on inflections. I've done some search now and although I didn't find a clear statement, I'll follow the layout as it is done in the majority of inflected entries. I was a bit hesitant, since I think, although quite possible for the English words, it is going to be a lot of work for words in highly inflected languages like Russian. Vildricianus 10:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Lists of words to be added

You can, of course, do what you want with your user page. But we would prefer that you add lists of words to, for example, Wiktionary:Russian index. That is more useful to other contributers and our users. Cheers SemperBlotto 15:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I know; this is just a means of testing whether they are all in actual cyrillic. I'll compare both pages and then merge the useful links later on. Vildricianus 16:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


Adverbs can be a problem to define, but we can often say something about them. See vertically for example. SemperBlotto 22:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Past participles and adjectives

Many past participles are also used as adjectives. See sustained as an example. (You do say you are a perfectionist) SemperBlotto 22:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC) - OK, I've just seen pronounced SemperBlotto 22:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

About both the adverbs and the participles: I agree with you of course, but for now, I add the basic entries, unless for the very obvious and frequent, where I enlarge. Later on, I, or someone else, may then expand it. Thanks for your constructive criticism. I hope the format is right now. Cheers. Vildricianus 22:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

# not *

Definitions start with # not *.

What about hundreds meaning "lots of people"? - There were hundreds at the meeting. SemperBlotto 15:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually prefer using * when defining inflected forms. It is a mere idea under consideration, being discussed at User_talk:Ncik. Vildricianus 15:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

We have software that scans for words that have no definition. It flags all words that do not have a # entry after the headword. Anyway, what is the point of having standards if we deliberately ignore them? SemperBlotto 15:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, as you wish. Vildricianus 15:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


We already have resistant. Would you like to merge the contents? SemperBlotto 15:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Also Securely / securely

Either you have a fast computer, or you are carefully watching my actions. Mine is slower; wait a minute and I'll notice it myself. I wasn't paying attention there. Cheers. Vildricianus 15:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I patrol ALL new articles. It's one of the tasks of a sysop SemperBlotto 15:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


The problem was that Empiric redirected to empiric which redirected to empirical - this is illegal in Wiki. I have fixed it by making empiric a proper entry. Thanks for spotting it. SemperBlotto 22:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Berwick upon Tweed

I've moved it to the correct spelling - Berwick-upon-Tweed. By the way, you can add a little bit more information before it gets encyclopedic. e.g. county and country. SemperBlotto 22:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

But then


That's a redirection. I've created the full entry now (perhaps it needs revision). Don't forget your signature. Vildricianus 12:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it's an adverb. SemperBlotto 14:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't a 'conjunctive' be more adequate? Vildricianus 19:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


You listed aquella for deletion saying it was nonsense. Just letting you know that it's an actual word and I've filled in a "correct" entry. – Andyluciano 04:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I've apparently used the wrong template, it should have been rfv (because of that math thing that was there). Vildricianus 10:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Category for "badmouth"

Hello, Vildricianus. I'm new here, but I don't understand why you removed the "English verb" category from "badmouth". Is it not an English verb? Bhumiya 02:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi there - I've replied to you on my user page. — Paul G 08:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I've added an answer to your question from 24 January in "Requests for cleanup" about searching for pages containing this word. — Paul G 17:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Vildricianus, Thank you for your help today reverting the vandal and getting my attention. Unfortunately, there isn't really a great way for a non-admin to do this, other than to edit and save a previous version, as Kipmaster described. Yes, it's frustrating. I got my adminship halfway through one of our longest-running spates of vandalism, and before that all I could do was watch in disgust and try to revert the worst of it.

You're still a bit new here for adminship, I think, but it could certainly happen with a few more months of solid contributions. In the meantime, I suggest knowing who admins are, so you can get somebody's attention when it's needed. You might also want to join IRC. You can often find admins there, or just say hello to some of the other contributors. —Dvortygirl 06:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Who the hell are you?

Hey, newbie: if you want to be a team player, learn to explain your edits before changing my format. We're actually having a discussion on the article's talk page. --Primetime 09:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


Sorry about the definitions. I was writing it up starting with past. part. and then amplifying the individual senses when I got an edit conflict. I hadn't checked if the senses were ALL covered under the root but after all that typing I didn't want to throw it away. It occurred to me they might all be redundant about the time I was hitting save. Sorry about that. JillianE 15:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


The reason for the purple was simple, it is the same color as everything else on this site. That is the reason I changed it from the salmon pink color it was before. The ideal situation would be that we could have a color scheme in the css so that every new template wouldn't be a random set of colors or some bland greyscale theme, but I don't see the devs caring about asthetics at this point. I don't know who came up with the purple, but it is what is used on the main page and uniformity is one of the marks of a well developed site. I personally prefer Template:es:-ar type coloring, but that is me.

If you are going to change the color for -verb, you ought to change -noun and -ad also. - TheDaveRoss 23:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

link lang

Thanks for the information (linking esperanto). I know that's not your fault, but that's stupid. Whether we link every language, or we don't link any language. Linking only certain languages makes no sense:

  1. it's discrimination
  2. it's non consistent, and makes the Wiktionary harder to analyse with a bot.
  3. it's ugly when one looks at the list of translations. (If I may point to the beautiful French Wiktionary ;-) )

Maybe I should move this on the Beer parlour...

By the way, I'm just remembering that this template is not supposed to be used at all (afaik), so... (I just used it with a subst and saw the inconsistency) Kipmaster 12:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


Your changes to the templates for top, mid and bottom are doing strange things - see for example Wiktionary:Requested_articles:English. Jonathan Webley 21:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I see what went wrong; I forgot that top4 and mid4 also required a bottom instead of a bottom4 or something like that. It worked well with the top and mid of the translations sections, though. I reverted in the mean time, but I'll consider changing top4 and mid4, because the white boxes in the yellow tables are back now. — Vildricianus 22:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Jonathan Webley 22:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the whole lot now, it should work properly. If, however, you experience weird things again, (and since I'm off now) please rollback my few latest changes (they have a rather big impact). Thanks for warning. Cheers. — Vildricianus 22:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure that it's the changes to the bottom template, but my earlier edit of rose at [[1]] didn't have the columns messed up the way they're showing up now. (I've fixed the latest version of rose by adding the end-table pipes by hand.) Is it the bottom template, or something else? Keffy 18:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi. The problem at rose was that the columns needed a double "|}" at the end, whilst the bottom template now contains only one. The one solution is to use the templates {{top3}} and {{mid3}} instead of the manual syntax. These are prefered in the derived or related terms sections, as the coloured columns are actually to be used only in the translations section. See my changes there. — Vildricianus 20:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"For" vote

Thanks for the vote on the admin page!  :) --Dijan 21:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. — Vildricianus 16:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


If you wouldn't mind could you mark your subst: edits as minor so my Recent list is easier to navigate? Thanks, TheDaveRoss

Sorry, I forgot. It's done already, though. — Vildricianus 22:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


Hey Vildricianus,

Thanks for reverting that RfA.


Primetime 06:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry about making all those personal attacks on you.

Thanks for the tidying-up on my talk page. I have been meaning to track that down for ages, and just never got around to it. --Dvortygirl 18:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your welkome, although I've been around for ages already... ;-) I'm just more active elsewhere than on wikt:en. David 16:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Appreciated the welcome message and links as well.--Halliburton Shill 19:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Translations to be checked

This is an EXCELLENT idea! Please see my full reply on my user page. Thank you! — Paul G 15:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I'm glad to see this is gaining some momentum in the Beer parlour. I had a thought after I posted my initial proposal for the layout: perhaps the layout should look like this:
  • Dutch:
  • French:

so that information could be filled in alongside each language as it is checked (what has been done, who did it and when). What do you think? — Paul G 09:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Progress report: Javascript is working moderately well for this task. 300 (of the 800) done. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


ijs. Not ijs. This will lead us nowhere. The ligature doesn't exist in praxis. You could interchange the redirection and the entry the other way round, the one with ligature should redirect to the three-letter entry. — Vildricianus 23:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe the ligature definetly exists in practice. What if "ijs" is the first word in a sentence? It is written "IJs", not "Ijs". There is some discussion about it in w:IJ and here, with the general consensus being that when typed, you can normally use two letters I and J. But since this is an English dictionary, I believe it should be made clear we are dealing with one (atomic) character here.
-- Pbb 10:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
It's written "IJs". The use of the ligature has recently been discussed in the Tea room. I believe it's nigh impossible to enforce its use. Think for instance all the translations (ice). There's simply no need for that, we should keep it simple and have the "ij" in all Dutch words simply as i + j. And above all we should be consistent and always use either one of the two, which is the two-letter combination. — Vildricianus 10:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Reading the Wikipedia article on w:æ, I must say it has very much the same status in English as w:ij has in Dutch. No official location in the alphabeth, commonly written as two seperate letters, but causing problems in names. Compare for example w:Aeon Flux which redirects to w:Æon Flux, while w:archæology redirects to w:archaeology. My opinion is, we can keep the common usage of two letters where it doesn't really matter (as in "dijk"), but should use the correct single letter when it actually makes a difference (as in "IJmuiden"). Especially in the English Wikipedia and Wiktionary, since it is used there by non-Dutch who will not understand why "ij" is capitalized as "IJ", while "ei" is capitalized as "Ei". -- Pbb 13:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't even agree on "IJmuiden" (I had to copy-paste that), but this argument could go on endlessly. Anyway, I've interchanged redirects at ijs and I'll find some place to explain this issue for future questions. — Vildricianus 18:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine. Are you also going to add a section that "ijs" should be capitalized as "IJs"? Not every foreigner, if any at all, will understand the reason behind not writing "Ijs"... -- Pbb 20:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
That information should go in the entry for ij/ij. I have yet to clean that up. Every Dutch entry beginning wich "ij" should then ideally have a reference to this article. — Vildricianus 20:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


I unlocked the Fa template and changed it to a redirect. It was previously blocked because people kept insisting that the name should be changed to "Persian". Eclecticology 19:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


I rolled back the semi-auto change to peace. Over four pages of red categories are listed at the bottom of the previous version now.

I don't think we want these sub-categories defined. (OK, maybe one.) All that will do is clog up the Translations to be Checked category, since we don't have any good way of whacking sub-categories once they have no members.

If categories had 1) the ability to hide sub-cats with zero memebers or 2) a display on the parent category page of the number of memembers, this might be worthwhile.

But since there is only one word in all those categories, I do not think we should create them.

OTOH, a visiting translator might want to see their language represented. I dunno.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 20:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. So this must be our most (ill-)translated word then? Anyway, applying our technique here would simply destroy the page. Let's keep peace (and any other word like this) for the end, then see which categories are still red, and move those TTBC to a subpage linked from the section ==TTBC==. — Vildricianus 20:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
"members, memebers, memembers, what's next? memememembers? :-D


Apologies if I deleted one of your edits - we get so much vandalism it's shoot first ask questions later. Last night I was experiencing performance problems from Wiktionary, with updates taking several minutes to filter through. I had one of my edits deleted by another Admin. I logged off because I realised that I was dong as much harm as good. Jonathan Webley 07:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi! Serbo-Croatian is actually an incorporation of all three languages (Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian). These three languages are mutually intelligible (the only differences that exist are in the dialects of each region. Conjugation of words is the same and so are other grammatical mechanisms. Serbo-Croatian was the name of the language during Communist Yugoslavia. The idea was that since those languages are the same, they should not be called by different names. Today, that idea technically does not exist due to recent radical nationalism (although not supported by most of the population, radical views usually prevail) on the Balkans. However, many people still prefer to call the language Serbo-Croatian (just as there are many people that still label themselves as Yugoslavs, even though Yugoslavia no longer exists). Usually, if a person states that they speak Serbo-Croatian, it means that they do not prefer one dialect over the other and they use vocabulary from each langauge interchangeably. (It's a somewhat similar story to the one with Hindi and Urdu...except for the fact that they take it to the next level and actually seek to prove that those two languages are not the same. Urdu continually prefers to use Persian and Arabic words, while Hindi prefers Sanskrit vocabulary.) On the Balkans, since all three languages are Slavic and the people are very proud of their backgrounds, they prefer to use Slavic words rather than foreign. In a nut shell, Serbo-Croatian is just the name used instead of individual names (such as: Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian). Sorry if this is too long...sometimes I just go on and on without realizing that there must be an end sometime!  :) --Dijan 11:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As have been said before "A Language is a dialect with an army". Slightly offtopic but still; It reminds that of the trouble regarding home language education in Swedish schools for children of refugees from former Yugoslavia. It is entirely voluntary and payed for by the Swedish taxpayers in order to teach the children proper grammar and such things that they would have learned had they not been in Sweden.
Now since the Swedish authorities considers the "dialects" to be the same language the same teacher taught children from various parts of former Yugoslavia. This teacher is almost always himself/herself from former Yugoslavia (but not nessarily the same part) since few Swedes speaks "Serbo-Croatian" good enough. In addition this teacher often doubles up as an interpreter when Swedish schools needs to talk with the parents for various reasons. I think you can imagine the rest... The war in itself was sad enough but when then some peoples tries to take the conflict to Sweden it even sadder. --Patrik Stridvall 19:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi Vildricianus! Thanks for your message on it. wiktionary. I just came back home from Germany and I am doing the clean up of the last two weeks. Ciao! Sabine 09:56, 16 Mar 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. — Vildricianus 08:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Books of the Bible

I hope you don't mind, but I have started to complete the list. Jonathan Webley 13:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Good, I was planning it for sometime later this evening, but I don't mind you doing it. Cheers. — Vildricianus 13:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello! In the variuos pages on the Books of the Bible, you have numbered them according to the Christian (Protestant) sequence, and say that this is the same numbering used in the Hebrew Bible. This is not correct. The Hebrew Bible groups and orders the books differently, as does the Vulgate version of the Bible and the Slavic Bible. I'm not sure how best to note this in the entries, but it should be addressed that the numbering used is only one of several systems. --EncycloPetey 00:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I was aware of that issue, which is why I paused to rethink the template. I'm going to revise all the entries and leave out any numbering, which is Wikipedia's task to handle. Perhaps I should have warned Jonathan before he went on with it. Thanks for the advice, though. Cheers. — Vildricianus 08:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


Hello I'am the newbie that some people think of as vandals but really Vild if you need anything to be translated let me know! Irishnewbie 16:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer well-structured sentences and plain section titles. Translate this into Dutch for me please. — Vildricianus 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay ! don't rub it into thw wounds Ik verkies goed-gestructureerd veroordelingen en eenvoudige onderdeel titels Irishnewbie 16:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Meh, funny. Would you like to contribute elsewhere? There's plenty of websites around that will appreciate your input. — Vildricianus 16:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


ok. thanks for your advice. Kisti 17:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Brion - not developer?

Hi, Meta seems to disagree with Brion no longer being developer - do you have any other source for the "de-developer-ing"? \Mike 14:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Not on this project anymore. He reduced himself to sysop a while ago. Should we reflect that in our list? — Vildricianus 15:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, ok, I don't know for which projects someone is developer if one is developer at all... Or if one can be "developer" for a single project - though he claims to be able to "re-op" easily if desperately needed if deadmined for inactivity. Well, in short, I have no idea :) \Mike 15:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The developer flag (what shows up in Special:Listusers) is only nominally related to being a developer; there are very few developer activities that are done with that particular flag. Instead, developers have direct access to the servers that run the software, and make changes from "behind the scenes." Anytime a feature is enabled, it is a developer who has done it, and 99% of the time, it will have been done on the server-side of things.
As for the desigation, there are no project-specific developers; all developers are "the developers", who work on all projects as needed. True, some have a developer flag on one project or another, but as I said above, that is not really related to the vast majority of thier work.
In this particular case, Brion is the m:Chief Technical Officer for the Foundation, as well as having w:root access on the servers. That is to say, he has full access to all parts of the servers, and can take just about any action on any wiki run on the Foundation's servers. I don't think it really matters if "developer" is shown next to his name in the admin list; I just don't want anybody thinking he's been given the boot, since he is one of the most dedicated developers we have (not to mention, he's responsible for writing a lot of the Mediawiki code that runs the site). Essjay 15:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

1914 Century Dictionary

Hello Ec, I have a question: is it safe (in terms of copyright infringement etc.) to rely on the Century Dictionary when adding information to entries? Although the site says it's in the public domain, I'm not entirely sure. Cheers. — Vildricianus 16:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know the 1911 edition of this is available on line. This is clearly published in the US before 1923, so I don't see why there would be any concern with copyright violations at all. The first edition of the Century Dictionary was copyright in 1889, and there were indeed accusations that Whitney had plagiarized Ogilvey's dictionary, but he had in turn had legal problems with the Noah Webster estate. The whole story is quite interesting, but very convoluted. Where do you see the problem with copyright? Eclecticology 22:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
This was confusing me. But then, I may not have enough understanding about copyright. — Vildricianus 13:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Any copyright on republished public domain works is limited to the any additional formatting that was not present in the orginal work. So anybody can't just take what is on their site a republish it as they do have a some limited copyright on the formatting. Note that in many cases any additional formating is not copyrightable at all, several courts have held that it must be creative in some way. However, we are not interested in any additional formatting they might have added, so it is not a problem for us. If you find anything useful you can just take it and adapt it to our formatting, even if it is several paragraphs long. --Patrik Stridvall 17:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The "Conditions of Use" page starts right off by stating that the work is in the public domain. I agree with Patrik that there may be limited copyrights relating to formatting and layout, but that part does not interest us. We all prefer using our own formats, whatever that may turn out to be. Conditions of use that are spelled out in a website are often in a legal limbo, and often express nothing more than the webmaster's own wishful thinking. Website operators cannot grant you rights (including public domain ones) that are not theirs to give; this includes licenses. There can be no contract without agreement to be bound by a contract. Their strongest argument is some kind of moral argument that you will believe that these supposed rights should be respected because of the effort that they put into producing them. That's nice, but it has no legal standing.
I do note that the website uses a 1911 version. I have and use a 1914 printed 10 volume version as my reference. Judging only from the copyright notices printed there, these would appear to be the 15th and 17th editions respectively. It is difficult to know where the differences lie without making actual comparisions. Most of the entries are likely to be identical, but new words were constantly being added. This was a big challenge at the time if adding a new "a" word could disjoint the pagination for an entire multivolume set. If you make use of the online version, you should cite it as the 1911 edition. The difference between Primetime and Connell about what editions of a dictioary each was using is only the tip of the iceberg, and gives weight to Patrik's mention of the merger doctrine.
By and large I find the Century to be a far better reference work than the more well known Webster from the same time period. The references and quotations are much easier to track down. It is much easier to create cross-references to a Shakespeare play with its act and scene, than a quote that is simply marked as "Shakespeare". And Shakespeare is one of the easiest writers to work with at this level. Eclecticology 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Ec for your answer; it has certainly shed some light on the matter. I completely agree with you about the quality of this dictionary versus Webster (of which I have never been fond). I had already created Template:R:Century 1911 in order to refer to the correct version.

Using Templates for Language Links

Vildricianus, you have said that using templates for languages is a discouraged practice. I understand that these templates for language linking make it difficult for arranging translations in the alphabetical order and they are to be phased out. Are there any other reasons? If yes, could you let me know them or point me to a place where I can read more? Thanks. --Veeven 20:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. There has been a good deal of discussion about this matter, most of which I can't find back of course. This seems to be the most recent discussion. You could do some search in the Beer parlour archives for further ramblings. Personally, I'd say that the ordering of languages is the main argument, beside the fact that templates like these are in general confusing for newbies and anons, who are the main contributors in the translations section. — Vildricianus 20:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Now I make sure that I do not use templates for language linking. --Veeven 05:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi Richard. The category Category:Translations to be checked has been superseded by Category:Check translations. What do you exactly mean? — Vildricianus 12:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to cut out the considerable duplication of cleanup categories.See the page Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion elements. As far as I could find out, the two cateories "Check translations" and "Translations to be checked" duplicate each other. I have chosen to "keep" one nad mark the other as "Superseded".If you think there is a need for the two in the future, please put some explanation on Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion elements as to waht the two different categories are about.

Note: I'm not deleting the things out of the category. Just indicating which of the two categories should be used in the future.--Richardb 12:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Category:Translations to be checked is, as you may now, fairly new. The intent is indeed to phase the other one out, as the newer is far more useful. That will be done by removing Category:Check translations from Template:checktrans; however, we're in a too early stage of cleanup there to do this yet. So I'd say the supersession is the other way round. — Vildricianus 12:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
OK. Can you perhaps do a bit of cleanup on this then, and update the table in Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion process so that people can clearly see which is the category, template, list etc that they should be using.--Richardb 12:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

большой — deleted idioms

I wonder why you deleted the idioms on March 21? It was right after the declension table which you converted into a template, so I suspect you did this by accident. — Oleg Katsitadze 16:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oopsie! Indeed, this was by accident. I'll fix that. Thanks for telling me! Cheers. — Vildricianus 16:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've now reformatted it; such things deserve their own entry: делать большие глаза. — Vildricianus 16:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Also thanks for the Russian templates. They are surely a great help. I'll try to convert existing entries to use them. — Oleg Katsitadze 18:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine. I'm doing as much as I can for Russian here, and there are many more templates and stuff to come. I'm contemplating on a good system for verbs, which are far more complex than adjectives, as you know of course. Cheers. — Vildricianus 19:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Russian formatting.

I think the declension table you put in безграмотный is great, especially since it includes the short forms and such.  I also like the inclusion of comparative forms and stuff like that, although I think it'd be better in a different place (not that I know where that place is, though).

One thing I'm wondering, though, is why the "Declension" and "Related Terms" (and other such headings) are on the same level as "Adjective" (or noun or whatever in other Wiktionary entries)?  To me, it seems that the declension and such are sub to the part of speech, and not to the "Russian" heading.  Maybe I'm wrong?

V-ball 01:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I've been experimenting a bit with the layout for Russian, and comments are certainly more than welcome. I've been thinking to include comparative and other forms into the declension table, but I think that would clutter them up. Perhaps a small table somewhere near the =Adjective= header, as in some Dutch entries? I'll try something out for that.
As for the headers, I know that in some cases the declension may be a level up, but then, in entries like русский or other nominalized adjectives, the table stands for both the noun and the adjective. We could then include two tables of course; I haven't really considered that yet. What do you think? — Vildricianus 08:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I took a look at the Dutch entries, and I think the small table looks pretty good there.  Again, you had a good idea.  It'd be cool to see how that looks/works for Russian entries.
I hadn't really thought about things like words that are both adjectives and nouns.  When looking at the русский entry, though, I thought it might be possible for someone unfamiliar with Wiktionary to think that the declension included only applied to the adjective, and not the noun.  (Of course, maybe I'm dumber than the average Wiktionary user.)  Two tables seems like an decent idea, but it might be okay to put something like a note that says, "See declension for adjectiveal form."  I don't know, those are just a couple ideas. — V-ball 08:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm experimenting right now with the small table, and although it looks a bit like table overkill (see важный), it might look decent on entries that have more than a one-word definition.
About the two tables: I think the average user who wants to find information on Russian words is likely to find it with the current system; anyone with basic knowledge will know how this works. I think two tables in this instance (three in total then with the comparison forms) will be complete overkill :-) — Vildricianus 08:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully, someone else will give you an opinion, but I like the little boxes, and don't think it's overkill.  I've thought about it some more, and I think you're right that two declension tables on words such as русский are not necessary — one should do the trick.  I still wish there was a way for the declension to not be sub to the Russian heading, but to the parts of speech.  Oh well, I guess that should be a minor concern, huh? — V-ball 07:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the levels of the headers are not such a big concern indeed, certainly not in Russian entries. As long as things remain clear, that is. Thanks for the ideas. — Vildricianus 08:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


Woo! thanks! You just made me the happiest man on earth! My baby is on the front page! Iamnotanorange 20:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


Привет! Could you perhaps put some Babel template on your userpage? That would add you to the still very small Category:User ru (and would make your user name a blue link). Cheers. — Vildricianus 12:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, done :). — Oleg Katsitadze 20:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! — Vildricianus 20:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

-ize => -ize/Derived terms

Is that what you meant to do? SemperBlotto 15:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like the [[/subpage]] syntax doesn't work in the main namespace. Thanks. — Vildricianus 15:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

upcoming ru-verb templates

Could you perhaps take a look at User:Vildricianus/Page7 and User:Vildricianus/Page10? They're a preliminary sketch to see which forms the Russian verb templates should contain. Please let me know which ones I've missed out on. (Any other thoughts on these templates are welcome too). Thanks. — Vildricianus 16:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind my butting in, I have some comments on the stresses from User:Vildricianus/Page10:
Probably е -> ё:
As for the following, I am not sure whether these are legal forms at all. I am no linguist, but they sound strange to me as a native speaker. I hope someone can clarify this:
Hope this helps :). — Oleg Katsitadze 19:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I haven't payed much attention to the actual outcome of what I put in, my main concern at the moment was which forms I was actually missing. The next step will be refining the parameters, and splitting out the different templates. More precisely, determine where the limit will be between fully automated templates (with one, two, perhaps three forms filled in, like as the adjectives) and the complete or largely fill-in ones. — Vildricianus 19:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see now. Then I think you miss this form:
  • водить
  • вожу, водишь, водит, водим, водите, водят
  • водил, водила, водило, водили
  • води, водите
  • водя
  • водящий
  • водимый
  • водивший
  • водимый (???)
Oleg Katsitadze 20:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, what do you actually mean? Yes I miss practically all other verb types, but I meant: which inflection forms I was missing. Like, hmm, I don't know, practically speaking something I should or should not include in the templates. — Vildricianus 20:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, sorry, I'll leave it to the pros. I always hated my Russian lessons anyway ;). Sorry for the noise. — Oleg Katsitadze 20:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Hehe, I wouldn't consider myself a pro :-). Your imput is more than welcome, certainly as a native speaker. This is matter too complicated for one person to do alone. — Vildricianus 20:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)