User talk:Daniel Carrero/2015

Module:utilities

I'm wondering why you added this new function. We already have another way of retrieving language names. —CodeCat 13:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I'm just getting the hang of Lua. I tried to retrive language names directly from Module:languages but didn't seem to be able to. --Daniel 13:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No there's a separate module for template-based access. It's written so that its interface mostly mimics the Lua version. require("Module:languages").getByCode("xx"):getCanonicalName() becomes {{#invoke:languages/templates|getByCode|xx|getCanonicalName}}. The same principle is used for families, scripts and other "codes". And several other modules also have a /templates submodule, like Module:links/templates and Module:headword/templates. —CodeCat 14:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Great; thanks! I'm using the code you said and I've rolled back the new function I had added to Module:utilities. --Daniel 14:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Language and family changes

Your recent edits have caused some errors. Wintu (wnw) now has an invalid family code "qfa-wtq", while "qfa-wic" is used twice. —CodeCat 18:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Found my mistake, I've reverted my edits and did them again. I believe Wintu is working correctly this time. Sorry for the trouble. --Daniel 22:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

A tip when working on codes is to check Module:data consistency check afterwards (perhaps do a null edit first). This module checks lots of modules and reports if anything doesn't fit. —CodeCat 22:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That's nice, thank you. --Daniel 22:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Language appendices cats

If you're going to add a whole bunch of "Category:[almost unattested lect] appendices" cats to appendices, at least create the categories- you've just doubled Special:WantedCategories, and we were getting behind on creating things as it was. Or remove them, since most of those categories are going to be utterly useless- there will never be more than one appendix in them. I should also mention that some of the languages and language families referred to in those category names aren't recognized by Wiktionary. People create Swadesh lists for all kinds of speculative or obsolete language groupings, and include all kinds of minor dialects. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble with Special:WantedCategories. I love the work people did with the Swadesh lists, though the appendices' categorization really is now very much better now than it was before. I admit it is troublesome that I created red links to many language categories if in practice they are just dialects of broader workable languages. In the case of Appendix:Paleosiberian Swadesh lists and Appendix:Chumashan and Hokan Swadesh lists and others, in a prior revision I populated them with many red links to language categories that are really unmentioned subdivisions of languages mentioned. After your message I think removed almost all of those. I left all the languages that are already mentioned as individual columns in those Swadesh lists, example: Sham/Dong/Gelao/etc. in Appendix:Tai-Kadai Swadesh lists. I don't think those categories ought to be removed. Would you remove those too?

In my favor, most of the Swadesh List-ed languages are well established as languages with a sizeable number of entries here, and not expected to be treated as lects, — like Appendix:Celtic Swadesh lists has Proto-Celtic, Breton, Cornish, Welsh, Old Irish, Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Manx, — thus I'd argue the current categorization, standardized through a template that adds the appendix to categories of each language, is extra helpful for those.

As for the family codes that I created, which of those would you delete/remove from Wiktionary, if any? In particular I created qfa-tot (Totozoquean) because I needed to create qfa-tot-pro for Proto-Totozoquean (which was named "Appendix:Swadesh lists for Totozoquean languages" but only had Proto-Totozoquean). It's ugly and I'm not happy about it either, in case you're not happy with it. I did not add any other families or languages to Totozoquean since it's only a proposed group of languages and I don't intend to.

P.S. I said the categorization is now better than before because it was impossible to know for sure through categories what Swadesh lists we had for a given language because they were either in 1. only "Category:(family) languages", 2. only "Category:(language) language", 3. only "Category:(language) appendices" 4. only "Category:Swadesh lists" and nowhere else, or a combination of the first 3 plus the 4th. Now they are all in the appendix category for each language but not the root language category.

P.S.S. A few languages like Punjabi appear in more than 1 Swadesh list so they populate, for example, Category:Punjabi appendices with more appendices. --Daniel 05:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleting Appendix:The Simpsons

Please explain Why was this deleted? It has incoming links on enwp for instance. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Most appendices of fictional universes that I created years ago were decided to be deleted by the community. This is one of those that nobody did delete. I figured I could just nuke it as well. Anyway, if you want it, I restored it. No big deal. But the pages for individual words should probably be merged with the main page at least. --Daniel 06:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Consensus I can't speak to community consensus from the past--I didn't take part in those conversations--but The Simpsons is a bit broader than most media franchises as some of its coinages would have attestation in professional linguistics and dictionaries. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Citation pages for specific Pokémon toys

What's the point when they aren't showing generic use and would fail WT:BRAND? Equinox ◑ 15:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure, I'm just browsing Groups and wondering if any of Pokémon names or Pokémon-related terms would seem cite-able in the future. That last one mentioned the toys, but for most of those I was thinking WT:FICTION rather than WT:BRAND. --Daniel 15:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikisaurus redlinks

Would you be able to create a list of English Wikisaurus entries that have redlinks, together with their redlinks, and post it to my talk page? That would be cool. I mean a list formatted like this:

• WS:entry1: redlinkitem1, redlinkitem2, redlinkitem3
• WS:entry2: redlinkitem1, redlinkitem2, redlinkitem3, redlinkitem4
• ...

I know you were doing some Wikisaurus redlink reporting in the past, so maybe you have a script or something to do that? I am only interested in English entries, not, say, Portuguese entries. ---Dan Polansky (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Changes to {{citations}}

When you make a change to a template that invokes a module, you should always check Category:Pages with module errors for at least a day or two. In this case, you seem to have changed the parameter requirements, which triggered at least five module errors. It may be that someone has misused the template in these pages, but, as the person who made the last modifications to the template, you're the logical candidate for spending the time to fix whatever is wrong. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, you could say it was kind of my fault. I didn't see any problem then but I see now what happened. Before my edits, {{citation}} just categorized into "Category:(language) citations" according to the language code; if no language code was given, it gracefully assumed English. But then I implemented "Category:(language) citations of undefined terms" (Category:English citations of undefined terms, Category:Portuguese citations of undefined terms...); I didn't make the template assume English gracefully with the new categories. Most citation pages had the language code anyway and nothing wrong happened, apparently thanks to MewBot (talk • contribs) adding the code to them. But I see those 5 pages didn't have the code and generated the module errors. Thank you for fixing them. --Daniel 12:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Godai Myōō

Hi Daniel, I saw that you'd deleted the Godai Myōō page, but you gave no reason in the summary. This romanization is attestable, so I have restored the entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That's ok. Probably 五大明王 and ごだいみょうおう should link to Godai Myōō, they only link to Go Dai Myōō. I'm not sure how to make {{ja-pos}} handle two differently-spaced romanizations. Probably using the rom= parameter like: rom=Go Dai Myōō or Godai Myōō. --Daniel 12:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Cheers, thank you. About the romanization, both forms are attestable. Lexicographically, Go Dai Myōō is more correct, in that the term is 五 (go, “five”) + 大 (dai, “great”) + 明王 (myōō, “Buddhist wisdom king”). There is no Japanese term 五大 (godai). In terms of usage in English-speaking contexts, Godai Myōō is more common, due to vagaries in how Japanese has been phonetically parsed by English speakers.

I experimented with how to add two romanizations, and any addition of rom= argument values results in the entry being added to a maintenance attention category. I added a usage note instead. Please adjust as you deem appropriate. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 03:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds great. I just added an {{also}} link at the top of Godai Myōō and Go Dai Myōō now. --Daniel 10:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Extra space after Template:rfelite at Euphagus

There is extra space after the template in the Etymology section. I don't think it has to do with the template, but I don't have good diagnostic skills. Do you have any idea why this happens? Does it happen for you? I use FF and Chrome and have the same problem in both. I use rhs TOC. DCDuring TALK 21:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The code of the template looks good and I'm not seeing any extra space in the entry; all seems normal to me. Also compare this revision with this revision. The spacing in both look, and should be, identical, since the only difference is that I used plain text rather than a template in one of those revisions. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the extra space when I disable the right-hand side Table of Contents gadget. That might be the problem. I don't know how many use it. DCDuring TALK 23:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

WiktPreviewRightTOCs is the gadget. DCDuring TALK 23:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is where you'd find it. Do those "clears" do too much? DCDuring TALK 23:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The extra space goes away:

1. when I remove both {{wikipedia}} and {{wikispecies}} OR
2. when I move them "sufficiently far down", beyond where the bottom of the TOC reaches.

Any ideas? DCDuring TALK 00:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I realize that you tried a number of different places to put both boxes, separately and together, in the entry, and you currently settled for this revision with both boxes directly below ===Proper noun===. See File:Euphagus.png and File:Euphagus diff.png for how the entry appears on my computer. All looks perfectly fine to me, with or without the right-hand TOC enabled. I also checked each of the revisions of the entry to make sure. In File:Euphagus diff.png, there is actually a slight difference in spacing when you are specifically looking at a diff rather than the actual entry, because the TOC appears to move upwards a little, away from the wikipedia/wikispecies boxes. Could you upload to Wiktionary an image of how you see the entry, for diagnostic purposes? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Scisne latine loqui?

--Romanophile (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Eu não falo latim. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Daniel, você é indígeno? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 02:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Não. :) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

De onde foram os teus antecessores? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 02:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you made me notice that my previous picture was a bit darker than usual, but I guess that's just the lights in my house. Anyway, my knowledge of my ancestors is kind of crappy. Think of me as Brazilian or something. Though "Carrero" is a Spanish-sounding surname and I have close blood relations with people with Portugal-sounding surnames. If there's indian blood in me, I'm not aware, but it seems I have at least one black ancestor somewhere. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sempre te imaginei como Danny Phantom, provavelmente a causa do seu nome e o seu amor a ficção. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 03:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Now you know how I look like. About love of fiction, I have a dA account: http://dancarrero.deviantart.com/ --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Special:MyPage/common.css

You can use your own common.css page to test things out before rolling them out to MediaWiki:Common.css. --WikiTiki89 19:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I know. It was not a test as much as something that should have worked immediately, but apparently I was wrong. Usually I use User:Daniel_Carrero/vector.css. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Cruz das Almas, etc.

AWB isn't a license for mass creation of module errors. You are aware, I hope, that {{pt-proper noun}} has a mandatory gender parameter. I fixed at least a couple of those based on the gender of the component words, then realized that wasn't a good idea without knowing whether they took the gender of the components, or of the name of the type of place. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"license for mass creation of module errors" is kind of an overreaction. I see that I've caused 4 module errors which you've fixed; and now you are pointing me to Cruz das Almas and another entry, which I then fixed myself. Sorry for the trouble anyway.

(edited) I forgot about Wiktionary talk:About Portuguese#Genders of proper nouns. I really should start using proper noun genders more often because of that discussion, but I'm still going to leave it blank if I don't know the gender - entries lacking genders are better than entries having wrong genders. (the template behaves normally even without the gender anyway, unlike {{es-proper noun}}). That's a good question: Most often it's the name of the type of place, ("cidade", feminine; without getting into details about city/municipality distinction) not the gender of the components, but exceptionally Espírito Santo do Turvo really behaves as a masculine word in running text, at least on the internet (I checked). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: The discussion Wiktionary talk:About Portuguese#Genders of proper nouns was created by @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV. I noticed that he, too, sometimes creates entries of proper nouns without genders: Campo Mourão, Bom Jesus do Sul, out of his entries created for Category:pt:Municipalities of Paraná, Brazil. (he used the f gender for other entries, as far as I checked) There's nothing wrong with that. If I wanted to add genders to those genderless entries, I'm not so sure I would be able to do it accurately always, especially in these cases, where their componentes are masculine. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The bugs were caused by the lack of head=. As for lack of gender, it’s very hard to find the gender of Portuguese placenames, which is why most of the time I prefer erring on the side of caution by leaving it blank. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 04:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Rufem os tambores

Acabei de estrear Template:place. Vamos ver o quão longe conseguimos ir antes dos ludistas exigirem sua deleção. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ótimo! Eu diria que o módulo que você criou vai longe. Vou começar a utilizá-lo, também. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Chess openings

Shouldn't these be "openings" rather than "Openings"? (I know that they are often seen capitalised - but I think that's just typography) SemperBlotto (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• p.s. And also "defences" rather than "Defences".

AFAICT, no, judging from Google books, "Openings", "Defences" and other capitalized qualifiers seem to be the "standard" practice, I checked how they are used in running text. Random example: link.

There are a few examples of "Scandinavian defence" and others but they seem to be less common and thus a bit harder to find.

Interestingly, there seems to be more variation in "King's Pawn Game"/"King's Pawn game"/"King's pawn game", maybe this is treated as a broad group of openings starting with the same move, (thus more like a common noun) rather than a specific "standalone" strategical move (thus more like a proper noun).

Besides, Wikipedia uses the "Capitalized Names" -- List of chess openings. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Term cleanup

Me and Angr have been converting these to {{m}} as part of the cleanup. It's actually easier that way: doubleclick "term", then type "m|" and the language code. Could you do it that way too? —CodeCat 23:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll do it that way too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

proper nouns

when you get a chance could you help me out with my contributions? thank you. --Fdena (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. When you create proper nouns, please use {{en-proper noun}}. See the changes I've made to Tayside and Boann. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

E-mail

I sent you an e-mail, did you get it? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see the e-mail before you told me here. I answered it now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Muito obrigado! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Obrigado a você! :) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Templates de topônimos

Salve Daniel. Você vai querer manter os templates {{place:municipality of Brazil}} e similares? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Não vou querer, eles me parecem desnecessários agora que o {{place}} está funcionando a todo vapor! Resta converter os usos de "municipality of ...", coisa que pretendo fazer com o AWB mais tarde, se não houver nenhum problema. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Beleza. Finalmente terminei de percorrer Category:Portuguese proper nouns para atualizar as entradas (exceto as com esses templates, justamente porque podem ser atualizadas semiautomaticamente) e, francamente, não aguento mais ver esse maldito template na minha frente! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Eu ainda não havia notado que você percorreu a categoria completamente, bom trabalho! Uma pergunta: O que você acharia se todos os nomes de lugares em português estivessem juntos em uma categoria Category:Portuguese place names? {{place}} poderia fazer este serviço, seria uma nova subcategoria de Category:Portuguese names. (o mesmo com Category:Ukrainian place names, Category:Italian place names, etc.)

Bem, se for para eu defender um pouco o {{place:municipality of Brazil}}, direi que era melhor do que nada e serviu para termos uma porção de entradas novas. :) Mas concordo plenamente que está na hora de acabar com esse template, vou realizar este serviço mais tarde. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, o “maldito template” que eu falei é o {{place}}, não os que você criou.

Quanto às categorias, nós já temos Category:Place names; resta convencer a comunidade a aceitar usá-las para juntar todos topônimos mesmo quando já estão em subcategorias.

Uma idea parecida que eu tive é a de categorizar as entradas por país, tipo Category:pt:Place names in Croatia. Isso seria uma bênção para pessoas que estudam toponimia.

Mas antes, ainda tenho algumas coisas para fazer: resolver umas questões no nosso sistema de categorização, colocar umas funcionalidades novas que serão necessárias e terminar de adicionar os municípios paranaenses. Mas eu vou dar uma enrolada nisso, preciso de uma folga de topônimos. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:votes

Planned, running, and recent votes [edit this list]

(see also: timeline, policy)

Ends	Title	Status/Votes
Nov 27	Excluding trivial present participial adjectives	failed
Dec 24	Word of the Year	4 4 0
Dec 27	Updating COALMINE rule	5 4 1
(=3)	[Wiktionary:Table of votes]	(=23)

A while ago I moved this list to Wiktionary:Votes/Active because I don't think anything in the template namespace should have dynamic content (see here). I just realized now that you moved it back saying "it's confusing to edit a WT page transcluded by the template." I wonder what you think is so confusing about it. --WikiTiki89 18:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I admit maybe I'm at fault for undoing your move without saying anything to you or mentioning it on the BP, sorry about that. But you didn't provide any reason for doing that move before. This is new to me: "I don't think anything in the template namespace should have dynamic content".

To answer your question, IMO the current Template:votes has a nice and intuitive system of subtemplates and using "WT:Votes/Active" temporarily broke it. (though probably something better could be done with Lua, the templates are only using MW syntax at the moment)

I understand that a move from Template:votes to WT:Votes/Active could be done in theory, but I believe that it also would imply changing how the templates work and editing the documentation to reflect it, which did not happen. To elaborate:

1. The whole point of Template:votes is to have the list of votes. Even the layout of the box and the "checkdate" are kept in separate templates. It's confusing having Wiktionary:Votes and MediaWiki:Watchlist-details transclude {{votes}}, which in turn transcluded Wiktionary:Votes/Active, it added a new layer of complexity. Trying to edit Template:votes resulted in seeing the edit box only with a transclusion to the WT page, which was frustrating.
2. Also, Template:votes has the documentation at Template:votes/documentation and it uses subtemplates, including Template:votes/layout, so "Template:votes" is designed as the central point for the vote box. If a person wants to see the documentation for the vote box, she's going to visit Template:votes, so it's only natural trying to edit this template instead of looking for a separate page. Your move did not change the placement of the documentation and also the documentation did not mention the existence of WT:Votes/Active.
3. "Wiktionary:Votes/Active" is a poor name IMO, because while the list is used in Wiktionary:Votes, the box is also usable anywhere. I added the vote box to this discussion to illustrate this point, and also because I intend to visit this vote box on my talk page again in the future. Since the box is also used in the watchlist, MediaWiki:Watchlist-details/Active votes would be an equally good name. (assuming the MW software accepts using that name)
4. I have a different opinion from you. I think it's perfectly fine having a template with dynamic content.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to respond to your points:

1. I'm saying the "whole point" is wrong. The whole point of {{votes}} in my opinion, should be to display the list of votes. In that sense, it did so equally well before and after I moved it. But, in my view, the templates should contain all the infrastructure, but the list itself should be maintained outside of the template namespace. Your frustration was due only to the fact that you were not used to the fact that what you should have been editing was WT:Votes/Active, rather than Template:votes. In other words, once the list is located at WT:Votes/Active, there is no longer any reason to ever edit Template:votes unless you want to change the layout of the box.
2. Once again, the documentation in the template namespace is for the vote box, not for the list of votes.
3. Once again, the box is still in the template namespace, it's just the list that is at WT:Votes/Active. It is directly related to WT:Votes because its content depends on it. I'm not saying that I chose the best name, in fact I would have preferred if the list were located at WT:Votes itself if it were not technically difficult.
4. Let me rephrase a bit. There is nothing wrong per se about there being dynamic content in the template namespace; it's just that dynamic content usually has a better place to be. In this case, we have a list of active votes. This list should be kept closely tied with the WT:Votes page itself. The point of {{votes}} should be to automatically find the list, format the list as a box, and display the box anywhere that transcludes the template. Essentially, I want to decouple the boilerplate from the data. Boilerplate belongs in the template namespace, but data does not. Also, when the list of votes is in the template namespace, people who are less technical are less likely to watch the page and even people who are technical are more likely to ignore changes to the page, mistaking them for formatting changes and other things typical of edits in the template namespace. However, if the list of votes is in the Wiktionary namespace, people watching the page will immediately understand that you are changing content and will pay attention to the edits.

--WikiTiki89 20:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with the way you implemented that change, since Template:votes only played the role of a middle man between the watchlist and the text, as I explained before. It did not even have the box layout, just a transclusion for another page, which seemed pointless to me. But I see that especially your point 4 could be going in a good direction.

Tell you what, if you want to use WT:Votes/Active again, I won't undo that change.

Since you want to decouple the boiler from the data, you may want to try moving Template:votes/layout into Template:votes, since the layout subpage is the box proper. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

If you move Template:votes/layout into Template:votes then you won't be able to transclude the box with the list using {{votes}}. I think the way I did it before was exactly the right way to do it. Maybe Template:votes/layout should be moved to Template:votes/box, but that really doesn't matter. --WikiTiki89 18:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

This should be at Wiktionary:Votes/Active, not in the template mainspace, IMHO. I agree that templates should not have dynamic content, that is, a template should not be set up to be regularly updated. It is not of the nature of a template, and thus should not be in the template namespace. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it back to Wiktionary:Votes/Active. --WikiTiki89 16:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Capital letters in titles

I moved the capital letters in titles part back to English, just because different languages have their own rules. French capitalizes the "important words" which I think (but am not entirely sure) are the nouns and (prenominal) adjectives which take definite articles or stand on their own - the three parts of Le Seigneur des anneaux (Lord of the Rings) are: La Fraternité de l'Anneau (The Fellowship of the Ring), Les Deux Tours (The Two Towers) et Le Retour du roi (The Return of the King). anneaux and roi don't have articles so are not capitalized. German uses standard sentence case except that the first letter is always capitalized, as do Dutch and Spanish. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That's fine with me, thanks for the explanation. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

But anneaux and roi, do have definite articles, albeit contracted into the preceding de. You are mistaken about The Fellowship of the Ring, which is capitalized as La Communauté de l'anneau. So I think the rule is that the base noun of the noun phrase is capitalized along with the adjectives and articles preceding it, while the rest is not (although I may be slightly wrong). --WikiTiki89 15:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

After doing some more research, it seems that the base noun (and its preceding modifiers) is only capitalized when it is definite, thus in Une vie de bestiole (A Bug's Life), vie is not capitalized. And the first word is always capitalized. --WikiTiki89 16:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit link in Template:votes/layout

I don't think there needs to be a link in the votes box to edit the {{votes}} template. The template should be edited only by people know what they're doing and thus should be able to figure out where it is, while the list of votes should be edited by anyone creating a vote. We shouldn't be inviting people to edit the template. I realize this may be an inconvenience for you, since you are frequently making changes to the template, but you can maintain your own list of useful links in your userspace. Let me know if you disagree. --WikiTiki89 16:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think everyone should at least be invited to see the documentation of any template easily and figure out how they work.

Everyone should be invited to edit any templates too, with some caveats about high-use/complex templates.

"The template should be edited only by people know what they're doing" could be achieved by protecting the page. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't do this for any of our templates, so I don't see why this one should be different. Documentation is for people using the template, not for people looking at its output; and people using it would already know where to find the documentation. --WikiTiki89 16:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't need that link for my own convenience, Template:votes is already the first result when I type "Template:v" in my address bar. I was trying to be helpful to others. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy: from your argument, it seems that few people are ever going to edit or see the documentation of the template, but you are cutting one way for people to do so. Shouldn't we ask on the BP what would other people think?

This is not true: "We don't do this for any of our templates". I set up the table templates, such as Template:table:chess pieces/la, to have both a "layout" and a "text" link and no one complained. They've been copied by many people and at least one template has been discussed a lot, so I'm led to believe templates easier to find are a good thing. This is an odd situation anyway: having one page for the layout and another page for the text. Template:WOTD comes to mind. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

But have you ever discussed specifically that aspect of it? When we were having discussions about whether these tables were a good idea, I never even noticed that they had those links. I'm inclined to think they shouldn't have them, but I think it's slightly more useful for them than for {{votes}}. Sure, we can ask in the BP about this. --WikiTiki89 18:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It's true that I never asked about this specific aspect of the tables. "And what do you think of the separate text / layout links?" So I can't say they have consensus, I can just say nobody complained of it (except your comment above: "I'm inclined to think they shouldn't have them, but I think it's slightly more useful for them [...]"). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but...

...I just stole a penny from you. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Curses! I was really going to use that penny! :) JK, no problem. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Were you going spend a penny? ;) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I did not know that idiom. :p That aside, people replacing {{term}} with {{m}}, thus "stealing pennies" from this project is normal, so (spoiler warning) I'm afraid in the end my total payment is going to be a tiny bit less than 100% of the value initially expected. That comes with the fact that people generally prefer one template over the other, no big deal. I'm still going to have my fair share of (pardon the expression) pennies to spend. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah...I try to switch all the {{term}} usages to {{m}} on any section I edit as part of my “cleaning phase” during the editing process. I'm very against the former template. —JohnC5 15:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Merging entries

I saw elsewhere that someone gave you a donation of 10 USD to merge entries. Let me note that I oppose merging of entries in such a way that a higher-frequency form becomes marked up as "alternative spelling". In these paid edits, it is essential to operate within established consensus. Furthermore, I don't know who Søren Christensen is (the stated donator), but I believe en wikt should be governed above all by its editors, and if it is not an established editor, I view the donation with a slightly higher suspition.

Can you please link me to the Beer parlour thread where this was being discussed, if any? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I am Søren Christensen (from Denmark), I am the donator. - I have read the discussions on BP lately regarding these donations. I personally think it is a fresh initiative to the Wiktionary. This is meant to be a single donation from me. I know, I have been inactive lately. But I am not unfamiliar with Wiktionary with +1000 contributions on da.wiktionary since 2013 and also +1000 contributions on en.wiktionary. --ContraVentum (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! This is very good for transparency.

Is there a Beer parlour discussion about merging entries that I can read? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

On BP, the bottom of Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2015/November#term_cleanup_in_user_pages_and_discussion_pages. For the list: User_talk:Ungoliant_MMDCCLXIV#List_of_items_to_be_merged.

Now that my true name is revealed, I would request an administrator to hide diff [1] and [2] on my userpage. Thank you --ContraVentum (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the donation, ContraVentum. I, too, did not know your identity and Wiktionary user name until now.

I plan to act as follows:

1. Before making any edits to the entries, I will make a table specifying which entries I'd lemmatize and which entries I'd mark as alternative forms.
2. I am going to post such a table on the BP and ask if everybody agree to the edits as specified in the table.

This plan was designed based on Dan Polansky's statement: "Let me note that I oppose merging of entries in such a way that a higher-frequency form becomes marked up as 'alternative spelling'."

I'd like to make sure everyone agree with the edits beforehand. I want to avoid any need to come back and fix/undo edits over a disagreement from other people.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Chuck Entz (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. A discussion entitled "term cleanup in user pages and discussion pages" is insufficient for the purpose of determining whether editors at large support certain entry merges. At the very least, the subject would need to be captured in the discussion title, or else chances are editors would not notice the thing is being discussed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Job

Hey Daniel. How's the "job" going? Good money? --SimonP45 (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, WF. I don't think I've made a fortune, but it's all going well, thanks for asking. I have two projects pending: User:Daniel Carrero/term cleanup (about 40% done) and the #Merging entries above (I have yet to start it). About $90 (USD) went into my bank account from Wiktionary work since I started working in Oct/21. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

That is actually reasonably impressive, considering we're all volunteers. I hope it doesn't create any disharmony among the users. Perhaps some people would find a reason to squabble about it. --SimonP45 (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

About that, it's a pity that User:Cloudcuckoolander explicitly left the Wiktionary over it. (see User talk:Cloudcuckoolander/Archive 4#You’ll be back) I was being sincere when I said (in that discussion) that I was a fan of her work in fiction-related words (Potterphile, etc.) Some other people have been supportive of my paid contributions, by: 1) explicitly supporting User:Daniel Carrero/term cleanup, saying good things/arguments about it, 2) or donating money to me using this link (PayPal), more than 1 person saw fit to donate $10 =) With $25 I can pay the entirety of my phone/internet bill for the month, yay! (R$100,00) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Lol, I didn't realize we'd sold our soul. I never cared much for User:Cloudcuckoolander anyway. We never interacted, and she was a drama queen. I think it's positive that she is expressing her opinions and standing by them though. By the way, there's no way you're ever gonna get even a single centavo from me. My offer of a beer, however, is still valid. BTW, there's supposedly a Spanish word saudade. Can you make it? --SimonP45 (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer of a beer, I'm gonna accept it -- if we ever meet IRL, that is. =) I have the impression that you intend to keep your identity private.

All I can say is that our coverage of the Portuguese word saudade is accurate. It seems true that there is a Spanish word saudade: es:saudade has it. But I don't speak Spanish, so no, I wouldn't be able to do much besides copying the Portuguese section into the Spanish section and hope to God that both languages use it equally. (My user page stated I am es-2, I changed it to es-1.) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

LOL, "hope to God". Looks like CCL isn't the only drama queen. --SimonP45 (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, ok, I didn't intend to sound that way! That was just an exaggeration on my part. =P Besides, I think God is a compelling fairy tale character, I like when he shows up in movies (Deus é Brasileiro) or comics (Lucifer talking about him in Sandman), but I don't see myself in the habit of literally "hoping to God" anything. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Be sure to check that beer for roofies, or you’ll end up buried beneath Wonderfool’s crawlspace. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. Maybe he should drink the beer first, to prove it isn't poisoned. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Re:l/en

Thank you for recognizing my work here. Despite I'm used to "automatically" type {{l/en}} and {{l/pt}}, it will be no problem for me to learn to not fail in replacing the dash by the vertical bar with some mental practice. But a question: does it make actual technical differences here (like, in categorizing entries)? - Alumnum (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:we/helper

Not all helper templates need documentation. They should just be considered part of the parent template, since the only reason they are on separate pages is due to technical restrictions. --WikiTiki89 20:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Removed the {{documentation}} template. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)