User talk:Vininn126

Śniardwy

🤔 I don't think Śniardwa exists in the singular, but who knows? (Chyba raczej nie istnieje Śniardwa w liczbie pojedynczej, ale kto ją tam wie?) Abraham (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

typo, thanks. Vininn126 (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

What is {{temp|R:pl:NMP}}? Abraham (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

{{R:pl:NMP}} has etymologies of toponyms. Entries can get complicated fast. Vininn126 (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Alwernia...

Check in: Hasło „Alwernia” w: Wielki słownik ortograficzno-fleksyjny, red. Jerzy Podracki, Horyzont, Warszawa 2001, ISBN 83-7311-161-1, s. 20. Abraham (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham Is that syllabification or hyphenation? Syllabification is phonetic, hyphenation is orthographipcal. Vininn126 (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Abraham (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham As in it was giving hyphenation? Vininn126 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Silesian

It's not a language, according to Polish scholars. It's merely an ethnolect. Abraham (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham But that's not important here - on Wiktionary it's by technical means an L2. Start a Beer parlour discussion, but also see the edit history on w:Silesian language, etc. As it stands, it's not a dialect here. Vininn126 (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

sienkiewiczianą

Is there such a thing? Abraham (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Instrumental singular. All Polish nouns ending in -a etc end up needing that since the instrumental exists. Vininn126 (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham Scratch that, I see my mistake. Thanks. Vininn126 (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Biesokówna

The problem is that in this case, there wasn't really anything to draw inspiration from, because there wasn't a single female surname (the daughter's surname) like that. I added the first such form. And I actually wanted you to check it out. 😁 Abraham (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham Fair enough! One thing to keep in mind, by the way, is WT:CFI. Surnames also need to meet our criteria for inclusion. That being said, Middle Polish and Polish dialects have looser restrictions. Keep it up! Vininn126 (talk) 10:41, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

In the case of Biesokówna, it's not Middle Polish or Polish dialects. Such surname forms, though rarely used today, do exist. Suffice it to mention Świderkówna or Grychtołówna, among others. Young Poles, however, likely won't use such forms anymore. Abraham (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Indeed - however ISNP sometimes creates these surnames systematically with the note "not all of these exist", just something to be aware of. Vininn126 (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Bajer

Could you fix what I wrote in the bajer article? Just add it as a source: https://jezyk-polski.pl/index.php/jp/article/view/962 Thanks in advance. IgnacyPL (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@IgnacyPL To be frank, it's clear you didn't read the article but the abstract. This is problematic, because you drew a conclusion from that that the paper does not support. Don't do that. Vininn126 (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

zapowiedzi

However, "zapowiedzi" functions as a quasi-idiomatic expression. It should be a separate entry. Compare: https://wsjp.pl/haslo/podglad/32989/zapowiedz Abraham (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham We are allowed to lemmatize differently than other dictionaries. What is the point of the label plural only if not for this specific reason? The information isn't lost, it's just in a different format. Vininn126 (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Vininn126, I disagree. Abraham (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham So in your solution, we'd never use the label, create new lemmas for all such entries? And on what grounds? Because I'm saying that zapowiedzi doesn't deserve some sort of description, I only disagree on what that should look like. So why is creating a new lemma better than using a label? Please justify your belief. Vininn126 (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

And for the record, I'm not trying to force this format, but before I change it I want to understand why it should be changed, and to do that, I need an argument, not just a personal opinion. Vininn126 (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Vininn126, the reasons are given above, along with the reference, i.e., the link. There's nothing more I can do. History will judge you.Abraham (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham What the hell bro? Your reason was that WSJP has an entry. Are you worried about losing information? It's not lost, it's just in a different format. If you have a real reason why we should use a new page instead of a label, I'm all ears. Why are you so hostile? Vininn126 (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham All I did was ask for a justification. All I got in return was "I disagree" and "history will judge you". Am I wrong to ask for a justification why one system is better, especially if I'm willing to change my mind if I hear an argument? I'm not even trying to be hostile. I responded to your initial point, do you have more? Vininn126 (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Vininn126 Never mind, Winnie the Pooh, work hard. Good luck. Abraham (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

🤨 Oookay. If you end up coming up with an argument, don't be afraid to bring it up. Vininn126 (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Vininn126, wsjp.pl — They claim this word only has a plural form. And indeed, it does. There is never just one announcement, because they are always made simultaneously in both parishes. The priest says, "I will read the zapowiedzi," even if they concern one person and are read only once at that moment. The priests say: To są pierwsze zapowiedzi... To są drugie zapowiedzi... There should be a separate entry in the dictionary. Abraham (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Abraham So what is the point of our label? Vininn126 (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Vininn126,there should be a separate entry in the dictionary. Abraham (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham I'm just confused - why would we have a label "plural only"? Should we never use it, is that what you're implying? If so, why? Vininn126 (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Vininn126, as in the case of the word "zapasy", a noun without a singular form.... Abraham (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham If my grandma had wheels she'd be a bicycle. Plenty of nouns are indeed plural only, but some have normal singular forms as well. We are discussing nouns that have singular forms as well as sometimes meanings restricted to the plural, not all nouns that are plural only. Vininn126 (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Vininn126, I've already given you a link to the POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES dictionary page, where it's clearly stated that this word only has a plural form. Jak grochem o ścianę. Abraham (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I am aware - they are indeed a very important resource for us, but are we to copy their every move regardless of whether it's compliant with our practices or not? You haven't answered my fundamental question of WHY it's better, you've simply shown me that WSJP does that, but that doesn't answer my question. Why is giving it a whole page instead of a line with a label better? On a fundamental level? And that definition has a plural only form - good thing we have a label. Keep the sarcastic remarks and all caps out of this, I have not spoken to you with that kind of disrespect, but I have had my question ignored. Vininn126 (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham Vininn126 (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Vininn126, Yes, this is very polite: If my grandma had wheels she'd be a bicycle. Abraham (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

It's a common saying - I am showing you that the two things you compared are different. Yes, that meaning of zapowiedź is plural only, but it's different from say, spodnie, which has no singular to begin with. I have requested an argument why a label is insufficient and all I've gotten in return is an w:Appeal to authority. Just because WSJP does something one way does not mean that we are obliged to. Why is a whole new page better than a label in this case, and if that's true, should we never use the label? Vininn126 (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

In terms of zapasy - that could be moved to zapas. In terms of why we shouldn't always use WSJP as a bible - 1) we are a separate project 2) they also make mistakes or have different values. I have written to them multiple times with corrections and they have updated entries in the past based on that. So just because monkey see doesn't mean monkey should do. Vininn126 (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

A paralellel situation: some Polish verbs have both transitive and reflexive meanings, e.g. ogarnąć, which have two different headwords on WSJP, should we make a new page ogarnąć się? @Abraham Vininn126 (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

You already know the answer. Abraham (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I am asking you your opinion. You are the one who pushed the issue and I want a justification why and I brought up a parallel situation. Do you have a justification? Why can't I get one? @Abraham Vininn126 (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham I find it kind of crappy behavior that you're the one who pushed this whole issue and as soon as I want justification you make a fuss. Vininn126 (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Kafarnaum

I'm not sure if the syllabification is correct. Regards Abraham (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham You're right. I updated the entry. Vininn126 (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

convict

The word exists in English. It's rare, but it exists. It's not false friend. Someone even noted it on www.wikidata.org. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q113954029 Abraham (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

We are missing a sense in the English entry if that is true. A definition with example quotes would be ideal. Vininn126 (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

konwikt... belongs on konwiktor

https://sjp.pwn.pl/doroszewski/konwiktorski;5442202 ― relating to konwikt or konwiktor Abraham (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham I suppose so. I'm not sure if on Wiktionary that would be better as two definitions, but I suppose it makes sense in the headword then. Vininn126 (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Jerozolimka

Why this repetition of words? Is it intentional or coincidental? "See also: jerozolimka, jerozolimka and Jerozolimką" Abraham (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham Updated. Vininn126 (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

spiski

Why did you remove the second example from the "spiski" entry? Can't examples be added to entries like this? Abraham (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Examples are better on lemmas. Vininn126 (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The answer shows a lack of ability to understand the question. Abraham (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

??? Bro, what is your problem. I moved your example to spisek, which is the lemma, which is where examples should go. Maybe you don't understand the words I'm using. Your combativeness and rudeness is starting to get on my nerves. Change your attitude to one that is more cooperative. Vininn126 (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Why did you remove the second example from the "spiski" entry? Can't examples be added to entries like this? Abraham (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham Czy ty rozumiesz angielski? Nie usunąłem, przeniosłem na hasło, czyli obecnie się znajduje na stronie spisek, bo przykłady powinny być tam. Ile razy muszę to powtórzyć a jak długo będziesz całkiem niemiły? Staram się odpowiadać na wszelkie twoje liczne pytania a ty ciągle wrogo nastawiony. Vininn126 (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Vininn126 Stop being rude and whining. Don't be hasty in interfering with other editors' work. Answer the question precisely, without slanting. Abraham (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham You started off by being rude - I answered your question and your first response was rude. And I am not being hasty, I am fixing your mistakes. I answered your question precisely. Do you not like that I edit something after you, is that why you're constantly rude? Vininn126 (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Vininn126It is best to accuse the other person of being unpleasant while still being offensive in your actions and calling it correcting. And still all this whining. Nice acting. Abraham (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham My correction was moving your example and answering your question if they shouldn't go there, but your response was "The answer shows a lack of ability to understand the question". Then I was rude because I have the impression you are quite hostile against me when I am trying to just answer your questions, and then you are wondering why I'm hostile towards you after you make constant remarks like the quoted one. So you have the right to be rude, and it's not being rude? Vininn126 (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Zerwa

This is unbelievable. Dictionaries don't know the etymology of this plant's name, and yet you lump both words together. First, prove that the plant's name comes from this verb. Your inferences are unscientific. Abraham (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham Why so hostile? Why can't you ask in a more polite way? I added a reference either way. Vininn126 (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham I don't have a problem if you request politely etc., something like "do you really think they're related? Do we have any sources?" but if you continue to berate me this way, I will ban you, it's unnecessary and harassment. Vininn126 (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Vininn126 When deleting the work of other editors, you should immediately cite the source for your own interference. You're the one creating confusion and constantly imputing inappropriate behavior. Take a good look at yourself. Abraham (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham Since when is filling a request deleting work? Also, you should read a book on Polish morphology to understand what deverbals are - just because you haven't doesn't mean I don't understand when to use the template. We very rarely reference internal morphology, just take a look at wyrobić. Can you give an example of, especially with this word, where I was rude? Or an instance when I was rude before you started berating me? Vininn126 (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Vininn126 Constantly accusing others of inappropriate behavior is, in your opinion, what kind of behavior? It's simply the Carrenization of social life. --Abraham (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I told you how your initial message was hostile and how it didn't need to be. That is inappropriate to request you not speak to me that way? Vininn126 (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Vininn126 There is no word in this dictionary that the name of this plant comes from the verb " zerwać". Abraham (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

You are correct! Perhaps there is a journal article for now. I also don't see any reason to split the etymology, seeing that the plant is easily explained as "to, co zostało zerwane". If you feel to need to "win" and "get" me for "deleting your work" and add an rfe for plant, I suppose you could. It seems like overkill. (See, was that so hard to be civil?) Vininn126 (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham Also, if you have access to the dictionary, why not add it as a reference yourself? Seems weird to force me to do it when you could just check yourself. Some personal vendetta for me correcting you? Vininn126 (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

❤️ kto się lubi ten się czubi Abraham (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Abraham I'd prefer you not. There is absolutely no reason for any of this hostility and I'm not sure what I did to piss you off so much. Is it the corrections? You should be aware other editors are going to correct you - you're publishing information after all and there's a duty to make sure there aren't mistakes. When other editors correct me, I don't make such a scene, look at when you reminded me on sienkiewiczianą. You need to chill out. Vininn126 (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

|text= in Latin entries

Hi! I tried to get the attention of the Latin-editing community to unable the use of |text= but didn't get any traction, did you think of any way one would even do this? Saumache (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Saumache I have added Latin to the exceptions of the abuse filter; the parameter should function. Vininn126 (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Vininn126 Well, getting them mad at it is one way to have them notice I guess, we'll see, thanks. Saumache (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)