User talk:Epantaleo
Hi Epantaleo. This template should only be used when the term is a direct calque into the language in question, otherwise it will add incorrect categories to the page. For example, you edit had added Christ to Category:Ancient Greek terms derived from Hebrew, Category:Ancient Greek terms borrowed from Hebrew and Category:Ancient Greek calques. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I see, thanks! I'll go back to my changes soon then. Can we have a chat, as I am trying to export data into a database: see my IEG project https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/A_graphical_and_interactive_etymology_dictionary_based_on_Wiktionary ? — This unsigned comment was added by Epantaleo (talk • contribs).
- Absolutely! Which platform do you prefer for the chat? — Ungoliant (falai) 13:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Unconstructive edits
[edit]Edits like this are very unhelpful. The editor specifically chose to give a helpful link to a Wikipedia article that explains the phenomenon under discussion, and then you replaced that link with an entirely unhelpful one to our glossary. Please look carefully at why a link was chosen before replacing it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi I'm sorry, the reason why I am doing this is to help data extraction, because it is easier to recognise that a word is descriptive and not an ancestor or cognate (in the etymology section) if it links to the glossary and not a Wikipedia link, which is instead generic. but I understand why you are concerned. Can we have a quick chat? Maybe you have suggestions for me and i can show how automatic extraction is working. Epantaleo (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: mentioning you, please see above Epantaleo (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- I know about your project, but you have to remember that you cannot make Wiktionary's etymology sections worse for the sake of your project being better. Shouldn't it be relatively easy for you to recognise a direct Wikipedia link and disregard it? Anyway, I'm not the best person for a chat, but you can feel free to ping me if you want to know in advance whether you should be making certain changes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: I have no intention of making it worse. And I see your point now on the specific problem. The thing is that very often links to wikipedia are used for ancestors, so I can't just ignore them. I could, and I would lose a lot of information. I probably will. Anyways, do you think that linking to the glossary but also improving the glossary entry would help? Or linking from the glossary to Wikipedia? Wouldn't it be nice to be directed to the glossary in etymology sections, to make Wiktionary self-consistent and somehow independent of Wikipedia? To me it seems cleaner. Epantaleo (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Direct links to Wikipedia for ancestors should never happen, and if you see it, it should be fixed. Ancestors' Wikipedia articles should be linked to via templates like
{{der}}and{{etyl}}. (Plus, you'd have to distinguish that from stuff like{{cog}}anyway.) The glossary does not need to be expanded to explain all the PIE grades; that is a complicated topic best addressed in a Wikipedia entry (which it is). There is no reason that Wiktionary needs to host all linguistic information when we can link to an encyclopaedia that has great coverage of linguistics. (And there is no "cleanness" in independence, but rather something wonderful in two reference wikis that can link between each other so seamlessly.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Hungarian etymology edits
[edit]Hi Epantaleo, what is the reason you changed the structure of the etymology in szimpatikus, tragikus, mechanikus, and botanikus? --Panda10 (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've just noticed your comment in [1]. I replied there. --Panda10 (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)