User talk:DCDuring/2022

2022

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser

Hello @DCDuring, can you add my name to Wiktionary:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage? I want to use the AutoWikiBrowser. ToprakM (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Sclerospongiae

The second Hypernyms heading should actually be Hyponyms, shouldn't it? 37.110.218.43 13:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I made that correction. I should probably do a regex search to find other uncorrected instances of that particular mistake, which I have made and corrected several times before.

Feel free to make such changes once you understand the logic, such as it is, of taxonomic entries sections. Also feel free to ask any questions about taxonomic entries. I should probably revisit WT:Taxonomic names, but it does express aspirations pretty well. We are very far from having very many fully satisfactory taxonomic name entries. My current ambition is to work on the entries for the taxonomic names close the trunk of tree of life, "highest"/oldest taxa, to provide definitions that are more fundamental, more explanatory of the differences, in evolutionary terms, between each taxon and its sister taxa. But simply adding links to best external databases for orders, families, tribes, genera, and species helps both users and contributors a lot. DCDuring (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Cotingidae

Please check the taxonomic placement. Judging by Wikispecies and Wikipedia (not to mention the hyponym section at Tyrannida), these should be suboscines in the Tyrannida, not oscines in the Passerida. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Right you are. My favorite source for avian taxonomy is Boyd's website Avian Taxonomy in Flux, apparently a one-man operation. I have not idea what my source was for the incorrect placement. DCDuring (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Citations

Hey- I wanted to ask you about something that has been dawning on me recently. As anyone who knows me knows, I've added three cites (or more) for a bunch of low-traffic words- "triákis legomenon". However, in many cases, there are other, more frequently used words inside those citations for the rare words, and the Wiktionary entry for the frequently used words often don't have even one cite yet! Is it okay to just duplicate a cite between two different words, where one of the words is rare? I know it's not exactly ideal, but since the visibility of my obscure geographical work is 0% to most readers, the overlap between the readership on my original, obscure cites and the more commonly used words should be 0.00%. Is there a policy on this? I just plan to use common sense. See my recent edits from antirevisionist to heat island for examples.[1] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not aware of any policy or even any discussion of practice. IMHO, at this stage of Wiktionary's development, any citation is better than none. Computing power and corpora are likely to improve so it will be easier to be picky about that kind of thing in the future, when correcting departure from ideal sampling of use for citations will probably be easier.

I guess I would generally recommend reusing the cites mostly for nouns that were within one's expertise or interests. Function words should probably be left to actual linguists and collocation-based sampling from large annotated corpora. I have no particular thoughts about adjectives and verbs. The experience of OED when they were dependent on volunteers to provide citations was that they had insufficient coverage of less common (but not uncommon) use of common terms and excessive coverage of the unusual (bright shiny objects). DCDuring (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

As someone who patrols Special:RecentChanges quite regularly, I've seen a number of editors who go systematically through a work of fiction that's in the public domain and add quotes from it to every entry where they're relevant, often using the same sentence in several entries. The main consideration is whether it's a good quote for the entry: does it help reader see how the term is used? Is it representative of usage? Does it provide something that the entry needs? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The other Winston Churchill comes to mind as a source of many such citations. DCDuring (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Eriocaulaceae Hypernyms

Care to create Template:Eriocaulaceae Hypernyms? It was linked at Leiothrix years ago, and you probably forgot about it Notusbutthem (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Resolved, IMO. DCDuring (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Brazil cherry

Maybe you would be able to double-check this one, versus Brazilian cherry? Thanks. Equinox ◑ 18:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Not personally active here, but I remark in passing that common names in a context such as this are chaotic and inconsistent even within a single region. In this case involving radically different plants (herbaceous and trees) in different families. (In this case Solanaceae and Myrtaceae). Even if you could, the resolution would be temporary, as such names are volatile at best. JonRichfield (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Certainly chaotic, but these two terms have overlapping, not identical referents. DCDuring (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that was the first thing I checked. But neither of the two is stable. I guarantee that you would find that the usage is inconsistent, even largely within a given region. But suit yourself; in a decade hardly anyone would know what you were talking about, and if you go down the street asking opinions, you could start fist-fights about which plant it is and whether it is Brazil or Brazilian or what not (not even to mention whether it is a cherry or not!). But, as I said, suit yourselves. I can't help you, beyond adding a word of caution. JonRichfield (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

AWB

Hi DCDuring! I'd like permission to use AWB to fix issues with Latin inflection templates. For example, all the forms of commurmuror contain an inflection-of template saying that they are a passive form of commurmurō. Even smaller jobs, like these forms linking to the non-lemma entry, would be easier to fix using AWB. Per WT:AWB, since you're a friendly sysop, I'm asking you for permission to be added to the checkpage. (I confess I asked Equinox first, but he declined on the grounds that he doesn't speak Latin.) What do you think? This, that and the other (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't speak Latin either. Some of the Latinists get touchy. Is there consensus about your proposed changes or just lack of expressed opposition? DCDuring (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Your user page is in CAT:User la, so I assumed you did. In any case, I want to use AWB for uncontroversial cleanup. I'm not going to do anything drastic - it's mainly cleaning up after SemperBlottoBot's errors over the years. This bot created non-lemma form-of entries for Latin lemmas, and given how many inflections Latin verbs (in particular) have, these entries are very tedious to clean up by hand. If one day I did decide to make some drastic change, I would of course seek to discuss it before proceeding. This, that and the other (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I only claimed la-1 and I stated it was an exaggeration on my user page. What do I have to do to give you what you need? DCDuring (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe you have to add my username under "Approved users" at Wiktionary:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. This, that and the other (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Follow the directions. DCDuring (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I believe you have added a stray ⋅ character at the end of my username - could you check and remove that? This, that and the other (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, done. DCDuring (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother you again - it turns out Wiktionary:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage has been superseded by Wiktionary:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON. Is there any chance you could add me to the latter page? Unfortunately I can't edit Wiktionary:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage to add a note that it is obsolete... This, that and the other (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Both changes made. DCDuring (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much! It works. This, that and the other (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

TaxNumber

Okay, I get the part now about adding the species. But whenever I go to wikispecies I don't see any number that you get. Where is it? Vininn126 (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

"ver" is an indication of a date when I found some reliable source for the taxonomic name in YYMMDD form. It is really just a marker of verification; I rarely use the date itself. There are lots of uses of {{taxlink}} that have no such date. I sometimes check such taxonomic names to confirm some kind of validity, even if the term is not widely accepted at present. DCDuring (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I see. So the more important thing is adding the species tag when it's present? Vininn126 (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Parameter 2 is more important. The value could be any thing from "kingdom", through "clade", "group", "taxon", "class", "parvorder", "supertribe", "genus", "species", to "variety" and "form". For most entries of a vernacular name perm 2 is "genus" or "species", though "family", "subfamily", "tribe", "subspecies", and "variety" are possible. Sometimes the sources used for vernacular names don't use the latest taxonomic name. In those cases, I will add the current taxonomic name and may change the status of the original taxonomic name to "synonym of" the latest name. But I won't look if there is a ver=YYMMDD, so it's usually better to omit it unless you are certain parm 2 is correct. It is fairly easy for me to add parm 2, in part because the suffixes of the taxonomic name often indicate what taxonomic ranks the names have and in part because I know which online (and other) sources to use. DCDuring (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Got it, it's a little complicated for me, to be honest, but I'll keep that in mind. Thanks. Vininn126 (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

That's why I don't go on crusades to get people to use {{taxlink}} "correctly". I'm happy if it gets used at all, because I otherwise can't find the taxonomic names that need to be added. DCDuring (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

tuan

Hiya - I have not heard of the brush-tailed phascogale, but you know taxonomy far better than I do, so I thought I'd flag up this obvious contender for expansion. Theknightwho (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Citations:pale male

See male, pale and stale for more acceptable ageism and racism. Equinox ◑ 13:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a UK anti-Tory thing.

Pale male seems to have achieved success as a meme:

1. It is derogatory whereas white male isn't (except in certain smallish circles), pale being more negative than white.
2. One cannot find pale females at Google News, whereas pale males is not at all uncommon.
3. In biology and genetics the term comes up a lot, making me wonder whether that has motivated some use of the term. Ie, there's the notion of paleness being bred out of a population.
4. In the center of the English-speaking universe, there was the famous red-tailed hawk called Pale Male, whose ultimately successful efforts to attract a mate garnered a lot of attention from New Yorkers.
5. It has a rhyme.

I think it has become a thing. DCDuring (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

So where do I find pale females? I'm dying here. Equinox ◑ 14:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The longer you live the higher the female-male ratio in your age cohort. Be patient. DCDuring (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)