User talk:BoBoMisiu

Welcome

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 on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; 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.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Equinox ◑ 21:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Nosema apis

Until the proposal gets past the draft stage and gets voted on, WT:ELE governs. Also, when you lose your temper don't revert all the changes because you don't like one. DCDuring TALK 02:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky, DCDuring, ObsequiousNewt: Oh man, what a stupid mistake on my part – I had a 6 week long brain freeze about WT:ETY being a draft. Most of the troubles I had were because of that misunderstanding on my part, that is the only for my placing of references in the etymology section instead of at the end of the language section. I apologize to the three of you for my behavior. Thank you DCDuring for the above, I would have gotten more frustrated as I would have continued adding references in that WT:ETY way and others would have continued reverting my edits. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It's the kind of think I might have missed too. As you might have surmised, that particular part of the draft is not very popular outside the Etymology Scriptorium world, so it is unlikely to win in a vote. I think that overly long etymologies are not too popular either, but they can be concealed until wanted by using {{rel-top}} and its relatives. DCDuring TALK 03:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

With respect to taxonomic names of species and subspecies my personal preference is to put all the etymological information about the component terms in the Etymology sections for the component terms, eg, Nosema and Apis. I suppose that it's OK when entries for the component terms do not yet exist, but it would be better yet to actually add at least a stub entry for the missing component, IMO. BTW, I try to find images that illustrate why the specific epithet is applied to the species. DCDuring TALK 04:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Mentions and uses

I see you are entering mentions into Citations:soph, Citations:sophrosyne, Citations:sophronisterium, Citations:sophron and elsewhere. However, the citations are supposed to be uses, not mentions, of the cited terms. What you are entering are lines from dictionaries, and these are usually mentions, not uses. E.g. into Citations:sophrosyne, you have entered "Temperance, Continence.", which does not even contain the word; it is the definition line from a dictionary. See also WT:ATTEST. Since you probably won't believe me as per our previous interactions, please consider asking DCDuring or another editor; you can also ask in WT:Beer parlour. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that these are mentions, I am merely documenting on the citations pages, I didn't create Latin entry pages yet. Although there is not enough information per WT:CFI, I hope you are not proposing citation pages for deletion since they are not entries. Many Latin entries don't have any documentation at all, yet they exist. The citation into Citations:soph shows that word existed in a dictionary at that time, I may move it the entry page later as a reference to etymology, and yes, I agree it is a mention and does not count toward attesting usage. I understand what a secondary source is. I understand the mentions do not count for illustrating usage but may be good to include on the citations pages:

"In general, editors should add quotations that count toward the attestation requirement for inclusion (such as ones from dateable printed sources). However, the earliest reliably-dated quotation should be included whether or not it counts toward that requirement. (Wiktionary:Quotations#How to choose a quotation)"

Wiktionary is not paper. WT:CITE states there are two Wiktionary:Citations#Purposes:

1. "evidence that a word (or sense of a word) exists"
2. "examples of how it is used as part of the written language"

I am using #1 which does not count toward #2 for WT:ATTEST. While this is different from the previous, which WT:REF states that the Wiktionary:References#Purposes are "to give credit to sources of information used here as well as to provide authority to such information." It is similar since, "references are not considered primary sources so do not count as 'uses' for the purposes of Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Attestation. References are not mandatory for any entry, […] ."

—BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Using non-policies including Wiktionary:Citations and Wiktionary:References as an argument is rather unconvincing. In any case, contrary to what you claim above, a reference to a dictionary is not "evidence that a word (or a sense of a word) exists"; it is reference and not evidence, and the distinction between reference and evidence is central to everything evidence-based. If you continue to add mention citations to Citation namespace, they will at the very least need to be clearly marked as mentions; they will, in any case, constitute a deviation from the overwhelming previous practice. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. In my opinion, finding a word shows it exists, while attesting to the word shows it is used. Even nonce words are found here after there usage is demonstrated. I also agree with you, these are mentions and maybe I should be wrapping the instances of the mentions with {{mention}}. Not to be disrespectful, but are you a native English speaker? A mention about a word is, by the very definition of the terms, mentioning the word and referring to itself, i.e. the word, but not using it to acknowledge what the word represents. I honestly do not understand you, is it that you do not want mentions in wiktionary at all? Is it that you do not want contributors to use the available documentation to help themselves? Is it that you want the aesthetic of a paper dictionary entry?

Not everyone has the same understanding of what plagiarism is. For example, the attestations for the entry sophy are taken from OED; in my opinion, copying the many quotes in that entry is just plagiarism without crediting the source. I certainly want to give credit for where I find intellectual work. I don't need to pretend that I reinvented the wheel or a particular way of using the wheel. I want to give credit where credit is due and not pretend that I am more creative than I am. Nevertheless, references build intellectual honesty and help future contributors with some raw information, while at the same time not counting toward WT:ATTEST. I am neither questioning nor misusing WT:ATTEST, which requires a minimum of three attestations but does not state other useful information is not permitted. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

A reference mentioning a would-be word that one one ever used does not show the word exists; it only shows the reference goofed. I want the Citations namespace to be dominated by items meeting WT:ATTEST since that is what the namespace was created for. I point you again to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms and the fact that items from that page are absent from Wiktionary mainspace. As for inclusion of nonces, we are now in the process of deleting them as a result of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work 3; an example of a nonce recently deleted is "bababadalgharagh...". --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I noticed the subtle moving the goalposts from a discussion about content of an entry or citation page into a discussion about content of a namespace. Nevertheless, wiktionary includes entries that are part of the language by showing three instances of usage per WT:ATTEST, that is the policy. Your criticism, from what you wrote so far, is about including content that is not an attestation of usage – you do not want others to contribute that type of content. As for nonce words, the vote you provided is, in your words mostly about "single occurrence of a would-be word in a work" and not about demonstrating that it is not a single occurrence. The reason for adding mentions is to build enough information about a term, maybe over years by many contributors, while knowing the mention will not count toward attesting its usage. Words exist, whether by mistake or intention, that is a fact. Whether they are used is another type of fact. Gathering information about either type of fact is part of a process and not the end result; the end result, or product, is an entry page that survives a review. I think the gathering of content should be public and available to other contributors even before a entry page is created. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The putative word "mentionophilia" does not exist, and my mentioning it does not change the fact. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@Dan Polansky: you just coined it. Only the passage of time will show if it will meet the three instances of usage per WT:ATTEST, but with the right publicity... who knows, I think it would make a good album title. Ha ha. It's kind of like the 1980's phrase "nick & mat" (to cutout with an xacto knife and thumbtack to a mat) which is like cut-and-paste. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

By your logic, any putative word whose existence or non-existence gets discussed automatically exists, so all sentences of the form 'Word "<word>" does not exist' are automatically false. That is not my understanding of what it is for a word to exist, and from what I have seen, nor is it the understanding of other lexicographers. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

You just coined mentionophilia. Only you and I use it, probably for less than a day. I use it without knowing the meaning. It doesn't exist beyond us. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: Sorry, I gave you credit for coining mentionophilia, but it was used on Twitter in 2013. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: It took me while to see that your arguments, any putative word whose existence or non-existence gets discussed automatically exists, so all sentences of the form 'Word "<word>" does not exist' are automatically false, are a logical fallacy. The first part, any putative word whose existence or non-existence gets discussed automatically exists, is a false assumption, in my opinion, since putative means "commonly regarded as such", a discussion about the existence of a word "commonly regarded as such" is not a conclusion whether that "commonly regarded as such" word exists or previously existed. The second part, all sentences of the form 'Word "<word>" does not exist' are automatically false, is a logical bifurcation fallacy, it ignores the possibility that there is not enough information to form a true or false conclusion and the conclusion may be indecisive. Combining the two parts builds yet another fallacy. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Citations:چاوش

Your heading "French citations of چاوش" is incorrect. A Turkish-French dictionary is not a source for either French or Turkish usage, and usage examples are what count as citations as far as the citation page goes. If Turkish weren't a widely-documented language, a mention in a dictionary would be enough to verify the term. Since it is, references to dictionaries are merely added reading, along the same lines as links to Wikipedia. The one exception to that is etymologies, but there's no need to use the citation page for those. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Likewise, in Citations:chaouch, the "English citation"isn't a citation by Wiktionary standards. There's a sentence on p.172 of that work which uses the term- that would be a citation (though it's italicized, which is used in rfvs as evidence that it isn't considered to be be English). The line from the glossary might be nice to show what the author intended it to mean, but it would only be support for the actual citation. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no entry page yet. I understand these will not count for attestation, but they sources for the what I am doing, there will eventually be more. It is a citation of the relationship چاوش tchaouch, (le chiaoux des anciens voyageurs français). —BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Another issue I noticed: most of these clearly identify the terms as Arabic, and the reference to "ba-chouch" even has an Arabic prepositional prefix, which all points to this being transliterated Arabic, not French. I still don't think it's sunk in yet, but let me repeat: attestation is the only thing we cite on Wiktionary. One should provide references for etymologies, but those aren't considered citations. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

France had colonies and ba-chouch became part of the French language. I am gathering information now, not making the attestations. Please show me the policy that states only attestation can be added to the citations, I understand they do not count toward the three attestations. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If it were a policy, I would have simply removed them. It just seemed to me that the type of information you're gathering may be indicative of a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wiktionary entries are, so I thought I would discuss it here (unlike Dan, I feel no need to jawbone you into submission). You're a very competent, serious editor capable of excellent work, but I still have this uneasy feeling that you're building massive edifices on what will prove to be quicksand. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I will not chat about Dan. The two word clusters I am developing are chouse and chiaus, and sophy. Both seem to have a complex history that I enjoy reading about as I gather content. I understand wiktionary is based on three attestations for each sense. I feel the lack references (i.e. transparency in citing sources) are just a method for hiding massive plagiarism in everything other than sense lines. I feel lack of wikipedia reference templates (part of the culture here) promotes a lopsided model that is only good at attesting sense usage, and very bad at allowing contributors to document their contributions. I feel that is a systemic problem that will lead to wiktionary's demise. In the mean time, I add pieces to my puzzle. I feel wiktionary will not last because it has a willy-nilly humanities mindset where style trumps substance – that is incompatible with the future. My contributions will eventually be mined, so I'm not wasting my effort. I'm just building a puzzle piece-by-piece, not massive edifices. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Chiauss

So is this French or English? Language header is English, but all categories are French? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixed it, TVM. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

And refixed it —BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Redundancy in the pedophilia article.

Discussion moved to Talk:pedophilia. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

RFD and attestation

Based on your recent RFD comments, let me explain one thing. RFD is typically used to discuss idiomaticity. Both attestation and idiomaticity are required by CFI; attestation is handled in RFV and idiomaticity is handled in RFD. CFI's definition of idiomaticity is at WT:CFI#Idiomaticity. One who nominates an entry for RFD does not challenge attestation; they usually challage idiomaticity, claiming that the term is merely a sum of parts. Sometimes there are other concerns than idiomaticity in RFD but attestation isn't it. See also the top section at WT:RFD page, the one that contains this: "Scope: This page is for requests for deletion of pages, entries and senses in the main namespace for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested." Idiomaticity can be meaningfully discussed even without attesting quotations provided. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing new is presented. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's put it differently: please finish your recent series of posts to RFD about attesting quotations being absent. We know they are absent and, in RFD, we don't care. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I care. There are entries posted that should not be there had they been attested. They are in the wrong place to begin with. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC) modified 00:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

They were posted to RFD because the nominators thought the entries were sum of parts. That has nothing to do with attested. If they are not sum of parts, they should be kept in RFD even if no attesting quotations are provided. And if they are sum of parts, no amount of attesting quotations should prevent them from being deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Some are are single words. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I am talking of the following nominations to which you recently posted a comment in RFD about their not being attested: ‎Hassidic Jew, ‎sudden death, wall hanging, police protection, police brutality. --Dan Polansky (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

How does the community see that it is sum of parts if no attested usage is given. What is used to determine how idiomatic a phrase is in the RFD process if not communication about actual usage? Is there a guideline to read? Is it arbitrary? Does it just happen randomly and arbitrarily and then Wiktionary:Page deletion guidelines#Undeletion is begun with the attributed usage that failed to be included and was ignored in the RFD? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC) modified 00:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no answers to your questions. Please study the archives of RFD (the revision history of WT:RFD) to acquaint yourself with the common practice. I report to you, honestly and to the best of my remembrance, that the editors of the English Wiktionary usually do not seek attesting quotations in RFD. My experience confirms that it is usually possible to discuss idiomaticity without having attesting quotations, while attesting quotations or at least putative example sentences can sometimes help. In any case, it is not the usual procedure to complain in RFD about lack of attesting quotations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Please stop making RFV arguments in RFD discussions. Most RfD participants are native or fluent speakers of the English language, and are aware that English-language terms being discussed are in widespread use. Raising attestation as an issue merely disrupts the discussion of whether the term should be excluded even if attestation is presumed. bd2412 T 15:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, censorship of actual usage is the problem that is why these comments are placed here instead of in the RFD or RFV. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Censorship by whom? bd2412 T 18:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I've contributed all that I'm going to about pedophelia. I will not be explaining more about my opinions. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Domnus Apostolicus

I am unable to respond on the English Wikipedia to your comment on Talk:Domnus Apostolicus of that Wikipedia, but I can edit here. I hope you get to read this.

I was talking not about domnus apostolicus, but about the encyclical Grata recordatio, when I spoke of an official text (of that encyclical).

There have been two official English translations of the present Roman Missal, which does not contain the phrase domnus apostolicus. You mentioned the difference between the two ways in which those translations rendered Et cum spiritu tuo. There is no official English translation of the 1962 Roman Missal. English translations of parts of it exist, often with "thou" forms. One or more of these may be quoted, though none can be given as the English translation. In the same way English translations of the Litany of the Saints may be given in Wikipedia, preferably indicating the source, but none of them as the translation. They can be given as "the translation found in old prayer books" or "the translation used in Pope John XXIII's 1959 encyclical Grata recordatio". Neither before nor after that encyclical did the Holy See confirm any particular English translation of the Litany of the Saints, as it did for both English translations of the Roman Missal. People are still free to choose among the various versions available, none of which is forbidden: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; etc. The single website http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/english5/p03322.htm gives more than one English version; in one that it labels "traditional" it translates domnum apostolicum as "our Holy Father".

I think that, in the context of the English Wikipedia's article, "lord apostolic" is the most suitable translation, in line with "the lord king" for domnus rex. (There you can scarcely put "prelate king", and in the context of the alternating in the document between domnus rex and simply rex you simply cannot translate non-literally by rendering it as "the king", as the encyclical rendered the two words in the litany as "the Pope".) However, even if I could still edit the English Wikipedia, I would not revert a change by you or by anybody to a different translation. I notice that in the English Wikipedia's article "Litany of the Saints" the translation is "apostolic lord", which I presume is well sourced.

Perhaps, with the help of this article, you may wish to revise the English Wikipedia's article on the Litany of the Saints. I shan't be able to help. Theodoxa (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)