User talk:Sgconlaw/Archive 2014–2019

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! Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Word of the day

Thank you for updating the word of the day!! - -sche (discuss) 18:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! I was wondering why nothing was happening there. Smuconlaw (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It's tiring work, after a while. I handled it for a while (I don't recall how long) after the person before me burnt out, until I burnt out, too. Btw, sorry about that; the "rollback" button is right next to the "patrol" button, which is what I was going for :b (it marks edits by not-yet whitelisted users as non-vandalism). - -sche (discuss) 21:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup, it is quite laborious. Well, I'll try it for a while. Maybe it would be good to encourage experienced editors to update one or two Words of the Day for every one that they nominate, so that the backlog is worked on. Smuconlaw (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hurt or hurts?

Hi, could you check grammar in the third sentence motherfucker#Noun? Is It hurt like right? --95.233.187.75 08:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Both are grammatically correct, as it depends on whether or not the finger still hurts at the time the statement is made. If what is meant is that the finger was painful at the time of the accident (and perhaps is no longer so painful now), then use hurt. If the intent is to say the finger still causes pain now, then use hurts. Smuconlaw (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, you're right... I completely forgot that to hurt does not change its past form... Sorry and thanks.--95.233.187.75 10:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for setting WotD entries

Thank you for choosing and setting up WotD entries for this month! – b_jonas 15:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! Please help if you know how to. Smuconlaw (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing to do this. If you ever get tired of doing it or are too busy with real-life things, you know you can take a break since the WOTD system will just recycle last year's words for any dates that new words aren't set for. - -sche (discuss) 09:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm happy to do it for the time being, but if anyone else would like to help they are most welcome. Smuconlaw (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

{{was wotd}} placement

Hi Smuconlaw, please place the {{was wotd}} template inside the English section (just after ==English==). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

OK! Smuconlaw (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Oxymorons as WOTD theme?

Hi. Good work! Nice idea to theme WOTD a bit better. How about Oxymorons as WOTD theme for a week sometime? Category:English oxymorons Might even encourage a few more entries! Cheers. -- ALGRIF talk 10:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to make a proposal with suitable words on the Nominations page! Smuconlaw (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Rhymes

Hi Smuconlaw. Rhymes are listed based on the word’s phonemes starting from the stressed vowel. This means that eating should be in Rhymes:English/iːtɪŋ, not Rhymes:English/ɪŋ. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 05:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. Sorry. I'm not sure the words I added to Rhymes:English/ɪŋ are correct, then. Should I remove them all? Smuconlaw (talk) 05:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I’m afraid so. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Done. So, does addling rhyme with -ɪŋ (which I added) or with -lɪŋ (no such rhyme page)? Smuconlaw (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

-ædlɪŋ, since the stressed vowel is the /æ/.

The links to the rhyme page also need to be removed. If you prefer, I can do this for you much faster since I can use the rollback button. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure. (What links to the rhyme page are you referring to? Oh, darn, did the addition of those words create links on the word page as well?) Smuconlaw (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Feedback

Sorry, I didn't see the question and thought they had just typed a single word. Thanks for answering it. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries. It happened to catch my eye. Smuconlaw (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

pdf link, cabbeling

Sorry, could you tell me what you see when you click on the link removed in this revision? I think there may be a permissions problem. Thanks for the edits, the entry is much improved! HLHJ (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! The citation says the article is at pages 484–487, but the PDF has different page numbers (even though it has the same title). I don't really read German, but the first sentence of the PDF seems to refer to the other article which starts at page 484. Smuconlaw (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Obsolete word of the day

I notice you added nudiustertian as a word of the day for March 14th. The entry says that it's obsolete and rare, and Wiktionary:Word of the day/Nominations says that obsolete words should be avoided for WOTD. I think that's a good rule—for WOTD, we should stick to words that readers can actually use. Just my two cents. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

True. We're running a little short of nominations at the moment, though. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I'll have to nominate a few. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference templates

Thank you for cleaning up and improving the reference template infrastructure, especially {{cite-book}} and {{cite-journal}}. I think soon we can mass-switch our reference templates to use these, like I did with {{R:xcl:Bedr}} and {{R:xcl:Lidén:1905-1906}}.

But we should work out some things first. Do we need {{cite-dictionary}} or {{cite-book}} will do? The latter does not allow headword functionality, but may be it is not needed. We should be able to wikilink multiple authors through author-linkn= like in Wikipedia's w:Template:Cite book. We should import the series= functionality. The translation of the title by trans-title= is also necessary. Also pinging people from the last discussion: @I'm so meta even this acronym, JohnC5, ObsequiousNewt. What do you think? --Vahag (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to help you update {{cite-book}} and {{cite-journal}}. Perhaps you can explain in more detail what additional parameters are needed and what output you would like to see. Also, I think {{cite-book}} can be used to cite dictionaries – the parameter |entry= can be used to indicate a headword. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd be fine either with {{cite-dictionary}} or {{cite-book}}, but a way to have headwords and have them link is very important. What's our current disposition about having quotation marks ⟨ “ ” ⟩ around headwords? —JohnC5 15:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Smuconlaw, |entry= satisfies me. I would like the additional parameters lastn=, firstn=, authorlinkn=, series= and trans-title= with the functionality and output exactly as in Wikipedia's w:Template:Cite book. @JohnC5, I have no preference concerning the quotation marks around headwords. You don't like how |entry= handles headwords? --Vahag (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan I'd prefer if it were first, but whatever. —JohnC5 19:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

If it were first, the names of the authors would not appear first, arranged alphabetically, easily findable when referred to in the etymology, as in թակարդ (tʻakard). --Vahag (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I am being told, that for technical reasons it is preferable to link the headword. John's preference too is to link the headword. Can we have an |entrylink= parameter that does just that? --Vahag (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that can be done. Essentially, |entry= would no longer simply be a synonym for |chapter= but would be given different treatment. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan, Smuconlaw, JohnC5: I find the effect of this on the templates I use most frequently to cite dictionaries to be difficult to visualise concretely. Could one of you please demonstrate how these changes will affect the display of {{R:L&S}}, {{R:du Cange}}, {{R:Gaffiot}}, {{R:OLD}}, {{R:Niermeyer}}, and {{R:NLW}}, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

{{R:Gaffiot}} will display like this, except the headword will be wikilinked, not the title. --Vahag (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I understand from Vahag that he (she?) would like to use {{cite-book}} as the basis for citation templates that relate to specific sources. Since I don't work on those templates, Vahag is the best person to explain what the desired effect is. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The desired effect is standardizing the display of all references in Wiktionary. PS. I have a penis. --Vahag (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan, Smuconlaw: Thank you. So, will {{R:OLD}} end up like this? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. But I think those are editors and should be specified by |editor-lastn=, |editor-firstn=. You can use |display-editors= to control the length of the list, as described in w:Template:Cite-book. --Vahag (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: |display-editors= or not, that would be a terrible format for the OLD. Whilst I recognise the desirability of bringing some order to our reference templates, I cannot but oppose this as currently envisaged. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

If we switch to {{cite-book}}, you will not be obliged to supply the authors and editors. If you omit them, in Wikipedia's {{cite-book}} the date shows after the publisher. It looks like this. --Vahag (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: But doesn't that defeat your object of being able to list all sources in alphabetical order by the first author's surname? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

My purpose was listing the sources alphabetically by the name they are referred to. It is usual to refer to a source by an author's name plus year, but a reference work compiled by multiple editors like OLD is referred to as OLD or Oxford Latin Dictionary and not Alford et. al 1968. --Vahag (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: OK, I get you. Should all reference types be included in one reference list? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Are you worried that differing formats in one list will look ugly? There is nothing we can do about that. --Vahag (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Vahagn Petrosyan: No, I just wanted to make sure that I understood you properly. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft template

@I'm so meta even this acronym, JohnC5, Vahagn Petrosyan: I have started working on a draft template at {{cite-book/sandbox}}. At the moment, I have only altered the |entry= parameter. Do you want to have a separate |entryurl= parameter, or is it sufficient to just use |url=? Currently, the draft uses |url= to create a link for |entry=, but this means a separate URL for the book title can't be specified. You can try testing the draft template at {{cite-book/testcases}}. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. The tests are good. I think |entryurl= is not needed. If after following the link to the specific entry the user is interested in downloading the whole book, he can find the link himself. --Vahag (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Great. I have just added |author2=, |last2=, |first2= and |authorlink2= up to |author5=, |last5=, |first5= and |authorlink5=, and |series= and |trans-title=. Try them out. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

They work well, except we need separate |volume= and |seriesvolume= parameters for cases like this. Also, I would like to request an |others= parameter like in Wikipedia. See its usage here. --Vahag (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have created a separate |seriesvolume= parameter and added an |others= parameter. Are any other parameters required? Do you really need |editor2=, |editorlast=, |editorfirst= and |editorlink= parameters? — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. No, the editor parameters are not that important. I can manually format |editors=. But Wikipedia's template's behaviour of moving the editor in front of the date when no authors are given is preferable. Compare this and this. When neither authors nor editors are given, their template moves the title to the front. A reference starting with a date looks bad among other references. --Vahag (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's a thought. Since the {{cite-}} templates are not used for creating quotations in dictionary entries, the date or year doesn't have to be in front. Shall I just permanently move the date or year after the publisher's name? — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it is customary to have the date near the front so you can easily identify a source when you encounter something like "J̌ahukyan 1987" in the etymology կոթող (kotʻoł). But if the requested feature is hard to implement, don't bother, it's not that important. I think {{cite-book/sandbox}} is now ready to be rolled out en masse. --Vahag (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I can work on that. Give me a few days. In the meantime, I'll move the current version of the draft template into the main template space so that you can start working on your other citation templates. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I started moving "my" templates to {{cite-book}}. Can you add |trans-title= to {{cite-journal}}? --Vahag (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Actually, what I thought I would do is to create a meta template at {{cite-meta}}, and redesign {{cite-book}}, {{cite-journal}}, etc., to call it. In that way, the templates would be consistent with each other. Let me think about whether that is feasible. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Vahagn Petrosyan, I have updated {{cite-book}} so that |author=, |editor= and |year= behave in the way you suggested. The core template is now at {{cite-meta}}; I will gradually update the other {{cite-}} templates so that they use {{cite-meta}} and thus have consistent layouts and parameter names. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think moving the core to {{cite-meta}} is a good idea. But the migration has caused some problems, which I am sure you have already noticed and will fix. --Vahag (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure why some of these issues didn't arise when {{cite-book}} was applied directly, but have now become evident when {{cite-book}} calls {{cite-meta}}. I've spotted a few, but please let me know if there are any other ones. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The templates {{cite-newsgroup}} and {{cite-web}} now make use of {{cite-meta}}. I will work on {{cite-journal}} next. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I noticed a bug. There is a trailing comma when one specifies authors and an editor, but not an |entry=, as in Template:R:hy:Ghandilyan. --Vahag (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed that. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. But now there is no space between year and entry, e.g. Template:R:hy:HBB. --Vahag (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Whoops. It should be OK now. See also {{cite-meta/testcases}}. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a problem with this. No space between year and title. --Vahag (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow, this is frustrating. OK, I think it works now. — SMUconlaw (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but |others= does not work anymore. See in Template:cite-book/testcases. --Vahag (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No worries. It was in {{cite-meta}}, but I left it out of {{cite-book}} by accident. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Another minor issue. Note the weirdness between the year and editor in Template:R:hy:Revazova. There is no problem where there is no editor, e.g. Template:R:xcl:Martirosyan. --Vahag (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ All right, I think I have fixed the problem once and for all. I have also merged {{cite-journal}} into {{cite-meta}}, so you can use |trans-work= to provide an English translation of a journal name. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. But I wanted |trans-title= in {{cite-journal}}, to translate the title of the article, which is more important than the name of the journal. The format can be as in Template:R:xcl:Nalbandyan:1973. I can also add the translation manually, if you think that is better. --Vahag (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, it just means we need to add another parameter. At the moment, these are the equivalent parameters:

• {{cite-book}} – |chapter=/|entry= + |title= + |trans-title=
• {{cite-journal}} – |title= + |journal= + |trans-work= (I didn't call it |trans-title= as this would have been confusing).

Thus, {{cite-book}} needs a new parameter |trans-chapter=/|trans-entry=, and the equivalent in {{cite-journal}} can be called |trans-title=. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I could use |trans-chapter= in {{cite-book}}. I added the translation manually in a couple of places, but that is not good because we may change the format of translations in the future. --Vahag (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I have added |trans-chapter= and |trans-entry= to {{cite-book}}. The equivalent parameter in {{cite-journal}} and {{cite-web}} is |trans-title=. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I started using those. --Vahag (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The switch to the new templates is going well. Can you take a look at Template:R:tr:Nishanyan? Is the date request supposed to be there? Also, I would prefer a link from |title=, not |work=. --Vahag (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'll look into this. Regarding the link, though, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that |title= should work like |entry= in {{cite-book}}? What I can do is to make |entry= work in {{cite-web}}. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Just tested {{R:tr:Nishanyan}}. It seems to work fine when dates are provided – see the following examples. The date request only appears when no dates are stated.

• Nişanyan, Sevan (1 January 2016) “testing”, in Nişanyan Sözlük, retrieved 21 March 2016
• Nişanyan, Sevan (1 January 2016) “testing”, in Nişanyan Sözlük
• Nişanyan, Sevan (2002–) “testing”, in Nişanyan Sözlük, retrieved 21 March 2016

— SMUconlaw (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I would like an |entry= parameter in {{cite-web}}. As for the date, I have given a default date value to the Nshanyan template so the message does not appear anymore. You don't need to bother with it. --Vahag (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have added |entry= and |trans-entry= to {{cite-web}}. Try them out and see if they work properly. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

It's working well, thank you. --Vahag (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Smuconlaw, Vahagn Petrosyan: Have you now settled on the final form for this template? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think so. Do you think any further tweaks are needed? — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily. My concern is how this would affect the display of {{R:Smith's DGRG}}, {{R:L&S}}, {{R:du Cange}}, {{R:Gaffiot}}, {{R:OLD}}, {{R:Niermeyer}}, and {{R:NLW}}. Unfortunately, I don't have the time at the moment to test-convert those templates to use {{cite-book}}. When I've seen how they look using that metatemplate, I'll feel more qualified to comment. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"Section" parameter

Hi, Smuconlaw. I think |pageurl= should still work when there is |section= present but no |page=. I can't link the column 197 in {{R:xcl:Tomaschek:1890}}. --Vahag (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It would probably be better to have a separate |sectionurl= parameter. I'm travelling today; let me look at it later. — SMUconlaw (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: Ha ha, I forgot that the |sectionurl= parameter already exists. Try it out. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Vahag (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Editions

You need to be careful about revisions like this. The MacCulloch citation is from p. 452 of the 2010 Penguin paperback, as originally specified. You changed it for some reason to the 2009 Allen Lane hardback but left the page number the same. Is this still correct? Ƿidsiþ 13:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I checked WorldCat but found no version of the book published by Penguin in 2010 listed. If you have a copy of the paperback, could you provide its ISBN? — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It's 978-0-141-02189-8, but not every citation needs an ISBN. Not having one is certainly no reason to leave information that you know must be wrong, simply because you think it looks more complete. Ƿidsiþ 14:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Funny, putting the ISBN into WorldCat now retrieves that book, though doing a search for the title did not. I'll update the quotation. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Admin

Hi Smuc. Do you fancy being nominated for administrator? I'll set up a vote if you want. --AK and PK (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I've very much appreciated you recent work on reference templates. I would gladly support you. —JohnC5 20:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, what does that involve? I'm not sure I have time for all the duties of an administrator. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty easy. You delete stuff and block vandals. (I'm AK and PK) --F909fef0j (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Like John, I too would support your nomination for administratorship. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Please accept here (I'm also AK and PK). --Turnedlessef (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, OK. — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations! You're now an admin. Try not to break anything ;-) Chuck Entz (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! (And, thanks, @Turnedlessef, for prompting me into this!) — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

4 months from nomming to promming. That's probs a record --Turnedlessef (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Ha, ha, really? — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably. By the way, please can you make your very first block on Wiktionary the one you perform on me? It'll be the last time anyone ever hears from me on Wiktionary. --Allkokf009 (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Erm ... not sure what is happening with you. Why do you have so many user accounts? — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

He'll be back. (One would hope, at least.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

editors / title in wrong places in {{quote-book}}

DTLHS (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Which part is wrong? — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to say in (editors), Title. DTLHS (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that is the usual format. See w:Template:Cite book and search for "Citing a chapter in a book with two joint authors and an editor", for example. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Referencing the title of a work

For example, the first citation in thelaziasis. Is there a way to do this within our current set of quotation templates? Just leaving out the passage parameter means there is a colon and then nothing. DTLHS (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No, there isn't. You either have to create the quotation manually, or preferably use this method. — SMUconlaw (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

That works, thanks. DTLHS (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

hoon etymology

Smuconlaw - Hi. I notice you added an etymology for this entry - and I am loath to just delete it, esp. since you have referenced it. However, the connection with car engine noise has problems. First, it is ahistorical or achronological since the term originally mean a fool or lout (since the 1930s), then a pimp (since 1949 at least), and only picked up the driving sense in the 1960s or 1970s. Second, no citation I can find ever makes any mention of the sound of car engines. Third, the source cited merely says "Robyn Hodgkin e-mailed to tell me that the term hoon originates from the sound made by the engines of the cars that hoons drive." I don't know who Robyn Hodgkin is, but they are not a well-known expert on Australian English as far as I can see, so this seems to suggest that it is a folk etymology. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I replied at "Talk:hoon". — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Rearranged quotations chronologically

There is no consensus for that. So you should not do it. We don't want some group of editors rearranging chronologically and other editors undoing it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Palm face. The dissensus is about order of definitions, not quotations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

No worries. You had me confused there – I thought it was pretty much standard for quotations to be chronological. Definitions, on the other hand ... there are arguments for having them chronological, and for relegating rare and obsolete senses to the end. Not sure if there's ever been a discussion about this. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

There's been a Beer parlour poll on it, approximately 50:50: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2012/December#Positions of obsolete senses. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

RFD

Thanks for cleaning it out. Just a note, archiving manually is obsolete now that we have aWa (enable it in your prefs). It makes archival considerably more efficient. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Please do archive the discussions rather than just removing them, though. For example, the RFV discussion of screenee should have been archived to Talk:screenee. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, do we archive discussions to the talk pages of deleted entries? I thought we only did that if the entries still exist. Sorry about that. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, what am I saying? Screenee does exist. Must have missed it. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving it. As far as I know, it is standard to archive all RFV discussions—"screenee" was just an example. Talk:Pókember, Talk:anĝeliĉo, and many others were also missed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the standard is to archive all discussions. It seems to me that archiving discussions of deleted entries is even more important than those that were kept. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will clean this up. I should have read the instructions more carefully. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mr. Granger, Dan Polansky, done. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I see the ones from RFD are done, but Talk:anĝeliĉo, Talk:Pokémber, Talk:ursiĉo, and the others from RFV don't seem to be done. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Darn, I forgot that I also did some from that page. Will try and get to those shortly. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, done. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Since you seem to be archiving one discussion at a time, try doing a bunch in one go. It's a lot faster. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there some way to do that using the Wonderfool tool? — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Just keep clicking the archive link for as many discussions as you want to archive (checking that it's as you want it), and then actually archive them. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, will try that. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Language order in der, inh, bor, cog and etyl

You made a comment here and quickly reverted yourself:

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/borrowing,_borrowed,_loan,_loanword_%E2%86%92_bor&curid=5702090&diff=39842509&oldid=39842503

In the comment, you temporarily stated that, specifically, {{cog}}, {{der}} and {{etyl}} have the same order of language parameters, and {{bor}} is the opposite. When reverting, you said: "oh, think this has been changed already".

I'll tell you what is the actual order of languages in all the 5 main etymology templates, in case that would help you. If you already discovered it by yourself, feel free to ignore it.

1. target code, then source code (or, you could say, the current language is the 1st parameter, like in any other template)
   • {{der|en|la|example}} = derived from Latin to English
   • {{inh|en|enm|example}} = inherited from Middle English to English
   • {{bor|en|ja|example}} = borrowed from Japanese to English
2. the opposite of the above (this is a much older template that some people want to delete altogether and replace by the other templates)
   • {{etyl|la|en}} = derived from Latin to English
3. only 1 code (the single parameter is OK, it's by design; it's because the template does not categorize)
   • {{cog|it|example}} = a cognate in Italian

In short, {{etyl}} seems to be the odd one out and the others are OK. This was discussed before in Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/March#etyl vs. der → inverted parameters. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note, also, that there are many uses of {{borrowing}} like this: {{borrowing|it|pizza|lang=en}} (with a different order of languages, using a "lang=" parameter that other templates don't use). Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/borrowing, borrowed, loan, loanword → bor proposes to change them all into the usual order: {{bor|en|it|pizza}}. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very comprehensive. Yes, I thought that {{bor}} was the odd one out, but it looks like it's {{etyl}}. It would be good if that one could be brought in line with the others for less confusion, but that's a discussion for another day. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion request

Can you please delete 105 again? It seems to was deleted per Talk:105 but then the persistent anon created it again. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and took care of it. Thanks for pointing it out. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 10:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you think these pages need to be protected? — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Certainly, if 105 is created by an IP again, I think semi-protecting it would be a good idea. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

pargeting cf parging

Relocated discussion to "Talk:parging".

Pinging

This doesn't work; the ping has to be added with a new sig. See mw:Extension:Echo for the complete list of limitations. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh. Whoops. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

turd

I thought the history of the word is interesting, going back to Old English and beyond. I wouldn't consider it too vulgar, compared to some words. Anyway, I'll leave it up to you. DonnanZ (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, will think about it. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

moly cow

Discussion moved to Talk:moly cow.

tram

Discussion moved to Talk:tram.

You are

Awesome! --Quadcont (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! (Not sure why, though ...) — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

kooky

Why did you revert my edit? I don't understand. You reverted my edit when there is a duplicated parameter in the template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It was a typo. The second parameter was supposed to be |authorlink=, not |author=. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Revert on Danicize

Excuse me, but if you’re going to go around reverting substantial edits you at least have to pay attention to the actual content of the edit. Nothing in my edit implied that Danish is borrowed from Latin. Rather, it very clearly indicates that Danicize is derived from Latin danicus and NOT from Danish. Anyway, from the form of the word, Danicize /ˈdeɪnɪsaɪz/, it can be seen that it cannot be from Danish + -ize; then it would be Danishize /ˈdeɪnɪʃaɪz/. Like most of the -ize words, it is either a learned Latinate construction or borrowed and adapted from Neo-Latin or another language that uses such constructions. The word’s spelling and pronunciation both confirm this. – Krun (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we can take this discussion to the Etymology scriptorium. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Long image captions

Greetings, I saw you start adding long image captions. I for one find that inappropriate. The images are there to show what the word refers to, and, in my view, the captions should be a minimal accompaniment.

What I mean is e.g. this in radish:

• "A bowl of radishes (Raphanus sativus or Raphanus raphanistrum subsp. sativus) (sense 2). Such radishes have a pungent taste and are usually eaten raw in salads, etc."
• "The daikon, a cultivar or subspecies of radish. It has a mild taste and is generally cooked before eating."

In my view, "Such radishes have a pungent taste and are usually eaten raw in salads, etc." does not belong to a dictionary, nor does "It has a mild taste and is generally cooked before eating.", and even if it did, it does not belong to an image caption.

Admission: I do not remember any discussion in Beer parlour on this. I find this kind of obvious, but then, people obviously differ about what they find obvious. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure why these are "inappropriate" since they provide information to readers about the images. Happy to discuss this further at the Beer Parlour if you wish. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Readers should not be provided information about images; rather, the images should provide information about word referents. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Complexity and OCLC

I register my objection to your adding OCLC, which is identifier noise, and other complexity such as the ugly "Charlton T[homas] Lewis" to reference templates. We have a long-term tradition of beautifully simple and functional formatting as opposed to baroque formatting full of omittable items that make the text much harder to skim, and I plan to defend that tradition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Objection noted. I don't necessarily agree with you, but it's not an issue I feel strongly enough about. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The consistency argument

You have repeatedly used "consistency" as the argument to reinstate your changes. Let me clarify that this argument really does not hold water. Such an argument can be used for switching to and from by both disagreeing parties. It follows that, in the absence of consensus, consistency cannot be used as an argument by one of the disagreeing parties.

Furthermore, I have noticed multiple times that you have introduced new inconsistencies: OCLC is one example, and your moving of the linked to the word to the right contrary to the overwhelming practice is another example. Makes me wonder. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "moving of the linked to the word to the right". Could you clarify? — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I apologize; I mistakenly remembered diff as yours, which it is not. That diff resulted in "Félix Gaffiot (1934), Dictionnaire Illustré Latin-Français, Paris: Hachette, s.v. “R:Gaffiot”.", where the link to the particular entry is at the very right.

However, diff is your edit that moves the link slightly to the right.

By the way, check diff where someone is "(Removing quotes for consistency with other templates, per discussion." You see where this gets us? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I see. Anyway, I started a discussion at the Beer Parlour to see if there is a consensus for aligning our citation, reference and quotation templates. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Our attestation quotations are formatted like this, per WT:ELE I think:

* year, author, Title:

*: Quoted passage.

But that is not what you proposed in BP. I don't understand. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

That's why I said there are some differences between the templates because they serve different functions. For quotations it makes more sense to put the date in front because it can be seen at a glance the time period over which a particular entry is in use. On the other hand, this is not so vital for citations ({{cite ...}}) and references ({{R: ...}}), and I agree that for references it is useful to place the entry in front. That is also consistent with how we cite books and journals, where the chapter and article title are respectively placed in front in quotation marks. Maybe we should discuss this at the Beer Parlour? — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Image captions 2

Let me try to drive the point home by examining the captions at syllabub. There, "Los Angeles County Museum of Art" is even hyperlinked, as is Los Angeles and California. That is all wrong. The caption is about syllabub. The domain under attention is certain drinks, not museums and places. There is not reason a reader should want to navigate to Los Angeles.

On a slightly related note, showing a glass in an entry that is not about glass is misplaced, IMHO; we should be showing the things the entries are about, and not some images somewhat related to the referents. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the glass from syllabub since that is really not what the entry is about. If disagreement about what to me seems such an obvious thing develops, we'll have to take it to Beer parlour, I guess. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Quotation marks in reference templates

FYI, I removed the quotation marks that you added to {{R:OneLook}}, consistent with my preference and with status quo ante of the template. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Undoing of my revision for etymology of grisly

Discussion moved to Talk:grisly.

Please don't add </code>[...]<code> because this isn't a valid syntax.

Ex. fissgig. Every html-styled tag has to have opening and closing parts, and code isn't a generally valid tag. Yurivict (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Yurivict. Sorry, it was supposed to be <cite>, not <code>. Such a markup is OK because {{quote-meta/source}} uses <cite> tags to italicize the title. Therefore, in "</cite>[...]<cite>" the first </cite> tag ends the italicized portion of the title, and the second <cite> starts a new italicized section. I couldn't think of a better way of doing this; using the wikitext '' markup doesn't work. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:RQ:King James Version

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:King James Version#Template:RQ:King James Version.

surrey

Hi, I modified the entry to remove links to words in the Etymology section that are not descendants or cognates. This helps automation of bots and tools. In particular, I'm developing a tool that automatically extracts etymological relationships from Wiktionary pages. If you think my change does not reduce the readability or the content of the etymology please let me know. After removing links that are not necessary or after enclosing them into parentheses, parsing becomes much easier. Thanks a lot. Ester Epantaleo (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Epantaleo, I don't think that is a good solution as there is often a need to link terms in "Etymology" sections not directly related to the entry for the information of readers. Examples include terms like genitive and infinitive. I suggest that you instruct the bots and tools to only look for words that are within templates such as {{affix}}, {{blend}}, {{bor}}, {{cog}}, {{compound}}, {{der}}, {{etyl}}, {{inh}}, {{prefix}} and {{suffix}} because those would unambiguously be descendants or cognates. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of edit on adroit

I don't know about you, but I find it incredibly hard to read text that has excessive links. Not to mention that most of those links are completely unhelpful. If a user doesn't know what the word "to" or "toward" means, they certainly won't be reading Wiktionary anyway, and less so the etymology. I don't want to edit war over this, but I definitely think my edit was an improvement. If we had some way of making links without them showing up in blue, I would see no harm in making everything a link, but as it is, that etymology hurts my eyes to read. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree that such links are "completely unhelpful". You might try adjusting your browser settings to change the colour of hyperlinks or the way in which they are displayed if that is really an issue for you. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking, in what way do you find them helpful? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

In the same way that we link words and terms in definitions, I'd say. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding links to glosses of {{m}} is not a common practice. I oppose this change of practice. Furthermore, the current etymology in adroit is a bad case of duplication, in which French à is traced to Indo-European *ád. Duplicating etymology of prefixes in entries that use them seem to be a very bad idea, to me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

But we don't link words like "to" in definitions. It's not our normal practice, it makes it more difficult to read, it makes page loads longer, and it's simply not useful because users reading the entry already know what "to" means. I don't doubt that you're trying to improve the entry, but I would like to revert for all of the above reasons. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Module:italics

This has problems with parentheses, and there are hundreds of entries in CAT:E because of your invoking it in Template:quote-meta/source. Please do something about it. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I have just noticed it. Module:italics doesn't seem to be working as expected, so I have reverted the change for now. (@Erutuon.) — SGconlaw (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Citations:steamer

Did you intend this? If so, why? DCDuring (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

So that other editors who wish to add further quotations will do so under the appropriate senses. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Duplicating all the definitions from the mainspace to Citations names just in case seems to be a truly poor practice to me. It has not been our practice, and I hope it will not become our practice. Current Citations:steamer has all the mainspace templates and is categorized into lemma categories; that is wrong. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the definitions from Citations:steamer. Frankly, this is insane. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. I forgot that the categories would also appear. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Categories could be fixed by just removing all the labeling and further elements of the page that generate categories. Regardless, I maintain that duplicating the mainspace definition structure while providing almost no quotations is alone grossly inferior. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• I hope the "steamship" heading reminds folks to record which definition the citation is supposed to be for. How should we record citations for which we can't quite determine which sense is intended? Is the Citations namespace supposed to pretend to be "finished"? Should we consign such citations to the Talk page (where they are more likely to be overlooked by someone interested in citations, ie, someone likely to work on the matter)? DCDuring (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  It is possible to place citations without any definition heading, or we might use "meaning unclear" placed in italics to indicate this is not an actual definition; or "meaning unassigned". As for being finished or not, I see Citations namespace as a kind of yard or workshop, but not junkyard, where we can place material e.g. too voluminous for the mainspace or not durably archived, etc. I like to keep there quotations that are not durably archived and mark them as such, when I cannot find enough durably archived ones. Our practice has also been to keep there quotations when we had only two of them and therefore the mainspace had to be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  If we wanted to have no heading, we would still need a separator like ----, so an informative heading like "meaning unclear" would seem appropriate. Our practice in this area is clearly evolving, not settled, so we have some freedom to select a format and usage patterns and win others over by self-evident superiority. DCDuring (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Archiving discussions not closed

Discussion moved to Talk:air your dirty laundry in the public.

Quotations

Thanks for adding them! I see you've added many to WOTD entries. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 22:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! Yes, I mostly try to improve WOTD entries. — SGconlaw (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

hamelen

Discussion moved to Talk:hamelen.

RFD closure

Discussion moved to Talk:spelling Nazi.

emasculate

Discussion moved to Talk:emasculate#Female equivalent.

RFD closure (again)

In reference to Talk:afarų kalba, you archived the discussion without it having been concluded, let alone given its due 30 days. Moreover, you did not even check to see whether the RFD tag was still on the entry (it is). Please be more careful in the future. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

P5Nd2 struck out the heading; I assumed this meant he or she had withdrawn the query and the matter had been resolved. Isn't it the responsibility of the person who closes the discussion (in this case P5Nd2) to make sure that the matter is fully concluded and all tags removed? I only archived the already closed discussion. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

No, you are still responsible. You can't assume that WF will actually clean things up. Note: you still have to remove the tag from the entry or repost it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, but what's WF? — SGconlaw (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

WF (Wonderfool) is a long-term Wiktionary editor who frequently switches accounts and mixes troublemaking with useful contributions. P5Nd2 is one of Wonderfool's many sockpuppets. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I see. This seems to have been before my time. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• This kind of problem is still happening. You have been reminded by different people, multiple times. You archived Talk:broc-chú without it being formally closed, which was fine to do, since it was withdrawn by the nominator. However, you failed to check if the RFV tag had been removed (it hadn't). Please be more careful. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 10:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Word of the Day Nominations

I apologize. I don't recall ever making that weird wrongful rollback. That's extremely strange... it may have been me touching my phone while it was on and Wiktionary was open. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

No worries – I figured it must be a mistake because the IP's edit was clearly nonsensical. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, the same thing happened again with the RFC revert. I don't remember ever doing that either. Sorry. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to stop using Wiktionary on my phone as much as possible now. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

:-D — SGconlaw (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

108.24.136.226

Are we doing fictional place names? - Amgine/ ^t·e 16:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Heh, sorry, you were dealing with it. - Amgine/ ^t·e 16:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you think it's just vandalism? I am just about to tag it with {{rfv}}. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

IP editing a range of topics including non-english. I would guess not random, but not necessarily malicious. - Amgine/ ^t·e 16:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Many of the edits seem to be unconstructive, though. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I believe some users are making what they view as positive edits which, in practice, are harmful. So, unintentional vandalism. - Amgine/ ^t·e 16:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll monitor it for a while, and if the unconstructive edits continue I'll block the IP. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! - Amgine/ ^t·e 16:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

ompide - Amgine/ ^t·e 17:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, that's enough. Blocked. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

template:R:Collins English Dictionary

Discussion moved to Template talk:R:Collins English Dictionary.

Afflatus

Discussion moved to Talk:afflatus.

Barnstar

en.Wiktionary doesn't use these much, but:

		Barnstar
		For your ongoing work maintaining the Word of the Day. Having done it myself, I know how much effort it takes.  - -sche (discuss) 04:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Awww, thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Lint errors regression caused by edit to Template:edit

Greetings! Please see Template_talk:audio#Fixing_multiline-html-table_linter_error_caused_by_this_template. I don't have edit rights to fix this. but it would be great if you could suppress the newline break before </table> SSastry (WMF) (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I’ve done that. Let me know if the problem is fixed. (I’ve never heard of this issue before.) — SGconlaw (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup, looks like all is well again. These linter errors are being identified as part of the plan to replace Tidy on wikimedia wikis. SSastry (WMF) (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:tpi-cite-bible

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Buk Baibel.

IPA cleanup: memory lane

Thank you for adding IPA to memory lane. I noticed you used /e͡ɪ/, which I don't see on the English pronunciation appendix. Based on recent conversation, I think it should be changed to /eɪ/? Also, I'm working on a table of IPA symbol suggestions. —Darxus (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure, I’m afraid. I simply followed lane. I suppose your proposed change looks OK. You may want to consult @Nloveladyallen who is more knowledgeable than me about IPA. — SGconlaw (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it’s incorrect, and it’s now fixed on both pages. Nloveladyallen (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Nloveladyallen! — SGconlaw (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

caveat

Discussion moved to Talk:caveat.

Heritage law?

This is out of curiosity, but can you explain to me what heritage law is? At least a definition for the term will do. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The law that relates to the preservation and protection of cultural heritage. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

"Citations talk"

Please try not to archive stuff to the "Citations talk" namespace as that namespace isn't supposed to be used.

Unless I'm mistaken that that is common practice. Might it be a good idea to challenge this elsewhere, perhaps at BP? PseudoSkull (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know there was any rule about this. The tool used for archiving RFD, RFV, etc., discussions automatically archives discussions to the talk page of the entry under discussion, and in the case of a "Citations" page, that would be "Citations talk". Are you suggesting that they should be archived to the entry talk page instead? — SGconlaw (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Does the existence of a Citations talk page cause a tab to be added to the entry page? If not, it would seem that archiving to Citations talk makes what is so archived inaccessible. DCDuring (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I created such a page and AFAICT it doesn't lead to generation of the tab. How would one find all existing Citations_talk pages? DCDuring (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you're right that no "Citations talk" tab is created. I suppose one has to click on the "Citations" page, and then on "Discussion". I guess it would be better to archive discussions to the entry talk page, but in that case administrators who archive discussions have to remember to manually select the location in the archiving tool. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how one gets to it. Can't the logic for the automagical archiving mechanism be revised? DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It is a Wonderfool tool – he's no longer around, or no longer working on these tools, is he? You could try posting a message at the Grease Pit for Erutuon to see if he can help. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for not clarifying the motivation before. In my understanding, "Citations talk:" only exists as a namespace for technical reasons. It's not very easily accessible to readers, since it's blocked out of view unless you type it in manually. So, discussion about the citations is normally done on the talk page of said entry. I tend to keep watch of the namespace, in case of any uncaught vandalism, inappropriate pages, etc. I would support modifying the archiving tool. I also wonder if there's a way to protect the namespace from being used at all, since I can't think of a situation where it would be necessary. Locking it may be equally unnecessary though, possibly. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible to create an abuse filter on that namespace (id 115). DTLHS (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Rhymes (again)

The rhymes "bigmouth" and "birdsmouth" that you added I have moved into a "Partial rhymes" section, as these are not stressed on the final syllable. Could you check to see if there any other pages where you have added rhymes incorrectly, and correct them as need be? Thanks. — 89.197.103.111 12:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I’m afraid these were added by me a long time ago when I was less familiar with the “Rhymes:” pages. I have no idea what other rhymes I added at that time. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

anarchie militaire as French for barracks emperor

Discussion moved to Talk:barracks emperor#French translation.

kummerbunds etc.

If you want a dot after plurals, please discuss making the template do this, rather than adding them by hand. Equinox ◑ 14:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, where? At the Beer Parlour? — SGconlaw (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

utopographer related terms

Discussion moved to Talk:utopographer.

WOTD

Guidance updated? - Amgine/ ^t·e 20:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, I have to say I haven't really been sticking strictly to that advice, since a fair number of the terms that are nominated for WOTD by other editors don't really follow that guideline. Personally, I don't mind some obsolete, archaic or rare words from time to time. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:quote-book

Discussion moved to Template talk:quote-book.

"Rastafarianism"

Discussion moved to Category talk:en:Rastafari.

Template:quote-journal/testcases

This has had a module error for quite some time. You seem to be the person most likely to be able to fix this- would you? Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: OK, will get to it presently. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

plesionym

Just wondering, what connection does this word have with World Teachers' Day? DTLHS (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking it was something that English teachers might teach … oh, never mind! — SGconlaw (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

colmar

Please don't remove information just because an entry has been deleted. Just change the link instead, as I've done. Thanks. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:RQ:Burton Melancholy

1. I note that most uses of this template (377/406) seem to display some text requesting "partition". This would not seem appropriate to be read by normal users. If indeed it is useful at all, wouldn't it be better to place the entry in a suitably name maintenance category.
2. I also note that the template seems to force any text following it onto the following line, which is unsightly. See [[continue]]. If this is due to someone not following the documentation, it seems more to be a fault of the complexity of the template than any inadequacy of the contributor.
3. Finally, in most application the bibliographic information is two-three times as long as the passage.

I don't have the ability or patience to try to resolve these matters, short of eliminating the baroque style and near-encyclopedic quantity of bibliographic information presented. DCDuring (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm working with Benwing2 to do a bot run and try to resolve the more routine issues. Some uses which are in a non-standard format will just have to be edited by hand as and when spotted. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

hydrophobia

I know you often get flak for including images for WOTD, but yesterday's image was very good. I was also surprised and impressed to see watervrees under "rabies". ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Can't take credit for watervrees though – that wasn't added by me. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I meant that you added the translation here. diff Either way, also updating translations is a very thorough approach to WOTD. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Ha, ha, I must have forgotten. Please feel free to help add translations! — SGconlaw (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit to citation (ply, Etymology 2)

I've reverted this edit as I can't see any reason for it. Do let me know if there was something wrong with the original citation that you feel you were correcting. Aabull2016 (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Aabull2016 That's odd; the English Wikipedia seemed to indicate that the 1692 edition of the work was the earliest, but it does appear that there is an earlier 1669 edition (and it is the third, so presumably there is an even earlier first edition). Let me investigate, and update {{RQ:L'Estrange Fables of Aesop}}. Thanks for highlighting this. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Aabull2016 It looks like "1669" was a misprint. The third edition of L'Estrange's work was published in 1699. Thus, it would be better to quote from the 1st (1692) edition. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into it, and for your quick response! Aabull2016 (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Aabull2016: no worries! — SGconlaw (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I notice you've revised a quotation under curious. The only difference I can see here is the substitution of long s, unless I'm missing something? Aabull2016 (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I applied {{RQ:Smith Generall Historie}} which standardizes quotations to that work, and adds the entries to "Category:English terms with quotations". — SGconlaw (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Aabull2016 (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: Muliebrity edit

Whoops, my apologies for that, and thanks for the revert! I somehow completely missed the coordinate terms lists there… 76.10.184.83 03:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

No worries! — SGconlaw (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

irregardless

Hey mate, you were right, I hadn't noticed that the Wiki link was redundant. I went ahead and deleted the "Further reading" section since the only link listed directed to Wikipedia and this is the exact purpose for the {{wikipedia}} template. I think this is especially true in cases like this where the Wiki article is about the word itself rather than a concept. Cheers! Enix150 (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I’ve reverted the change. From experience we are standardizing with {{pedia}} rather than with {{wikipedia}}, which is arguably unnecessarily prominent. You may want to bring the matter up for discussion at Wiktionary:Beer parlour, if you wish. — SGconlaw (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Empty sections

When it comes to empty sections, you have to think about readers more than editors; they may make things easier for editors, but for readers, they just look outright nonsensical: "Why is this even here?" Esszet (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

A translation section with a translation box template in it is not empty. DTLHS (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's not forget that some editors are not familiar with wikitext. Having a translation table added to the entry page means they can enter translations using the gadget provided instead of having to know where in the entry the translation table is supposed to be inserted, and to deal with {{trans-top}}, {{trans-mid}} and {{trans-bottom}}. It also encourages editors to add translations. As for readers, I hardly think a translation table that has not been filled in yet would cause much confusion. I think they are aware that wikis are always works in progress. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

DTLHS: What do you want me to say, sections devoid of informational content that would be of interest to the reader? Shit. And yes, I know, newer editors may not be familiar with it, but you're still thinking about editors too much. This is a dictionary; it's primarily for people to read, not edit. And even if editors are't familiar with it, they're going to have to learn sooner or later if they want to stick around. Esszet (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Esszet: In case you didn't realize it, Wiktionary is not close to being a finished product. The scaffolding is visible in many places. We hope that some Wiktionary users will become contributors. The abundant evidence of work to be done should be seen as a reason to become active in the project. I think it also is a disservice to users to believe that an elite group of experts will provide unquestionable truth without their participation. A passive approach to knowledge is something to be discouraged IMO. DCDuring (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what? Uh, what? The non-existence of empty translation sections somehow encourages readers to think that Wiktionary is run by an elite group of experts? What? Esszet (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Empty translation sections, at least with {{trans-top}}, are the scaffolding for translation sections with content. Or you could say they are invitations to put another brick in the wall, ie, a translation in a language a potential contributor knows. DCDuring (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I have never created any empty translation sections, but I have no objection to it. However, I have created many translation sections with an entry or two, when I have found that an entry lacks one. I often find that other users build on that. DonnanZ (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

That’s my experience too. — SGconlaw (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

If you want to invite people to contribute, fine, but a) you still have to think about the people who aren't going to contribute (it just looks totally ridiculous to them) b) if you are going to add translation sections, the least you can do is actually add a translation yourself, it seems pretty lazy not to. Where else is this scaffolding, anyway? I've been around here a long time, and I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Esszet (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It's all very well calling us lazy, but translations have to be found first, and double-checked too. It's not as easy as falling off a log. DonnanZ(talk) 15:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Then why don't you, uh, look? Esszet (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

You too. We are all unpaid volunteers, don't forget. DonnanZ (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and if I was the one adding translation sections, I certainly would. The onus is on you to make things at least somewhat presentable when you make edits, even if what you're doing isn't finished by any means at all. If you just want to keep coming up with excuses why you shouldn't, just delete the section and come back to it later on. Esszet (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm really sorry I was so harsh there, I actually know exactly what you guys are talking about with scaffolding: {{rfv}}, {{rfe}}, {{rfinfl}}, etc. I'm not a big fan of these things, but I've never really had any problems with them because it is clearly scaffolding, not just an empty translation box or something that appears to have been left there for no good reason (and could thus easily drive people away). I would therefore (somewhat weakly) support the creation of an {{rftr}} template (or whatever you want to call it) that would clearly state that translations are needed. The template would obviously have a link to something that explains how to add translation boxes for new editors or whoever else doesn't know how. Again, I'm sorry I was so harsh before, I just really forgot about all of the scaffolding that's all over the place on here. Esszet (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:quote-book

Discussion moved to Template talk:quote-meta#Issue with language parameters.

Template:maz-noun

Something doesn't seem right about this template, even though I implemented a temporary fix, I think something may have been left out when someown converted it from elsewhere. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Once again something broke because someone tried to be "too clever"

Here, https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=genkan&action=edit&section=2 the tr parameter is being (misued) to provide a transliteration into hirigana form, and into english. The tr parameter is rendered in italics. However the use of <noiwki>hirgana is not ideal as it confuses the parser and Linter scanner. I've implemented a temporary fix {{upright}} until the underlying module can be re-built to accomodate the intended use-case more directly.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I’m afraid I’m not familiar with how these templates work. Perhaps @Erutuon can assist. — SGconlaw (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything clever going on here at all, just a misuse of various templates. I've fixed it now. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: (edit conflict) What is the the "parser or Linter scanner"? I don't know what you're referring to.

No one has not come up with a way to accommodate both hiragana and romaji in the linking templates (not only {{m}}, but also {{l}}, {{t}}, and various etymology templates), so usually both are just stuck in the |tr= parameter, or a Japanese-specific template like {{ja-r}} or {{ja-l}} is used. It's not ideal to stick both scripts in the same parameter because the hiragana should have the Hira class added to it as well as not being italicized. I'm reluctant to tackle this question because there have been acrimonious fights when issues relating to the accommodation of East and Southeast Asian languages have been raised. — Eru·tuon 00:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The "Linter scanner" is presumably Special:LintErrors (w:WP:Linter). - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Quotation template issue

Do you think you could sort out how the quote at پست ought to be formatted? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The quotation templates fail when there are line breaks. I wish they wouldn’t and I could preserve original line feeds and vertical tabs (joke), wasting time with cropping poems together into a write-only state, but I never thought someone would just unironically ignore any quotation nesting and do like in پست. Fay Freak (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge, Fay Freak: it looks like quotation templates don't always handle right-to-left languages well, but this appears to be a wikitext issue rather than a problem with the template coding. I can get the quotation to display properly using {{quote-book}}, but to prevent the first line from remaining left-aligned I have to insert a carriage return after |passage=:

• 2018, Mehdi Akhavan-Sales, Khan-e Hashtom:

  پهلوان هفت خوان، اکنون
  طعمه ی دام و دهان خوان هشتم بود
  و می اندیشید
  که نبایستی بگوید، هیچ
  بس که بی شرمانه و پست است این تزویر.

  The hero of the Seven Labours,
  Was the prey of trap and mouth of the eighth labour now.
  And he was thinking
  That he should not say anything
  For this trick is such a shameless and ignoble one.

Pinging @Erutuon to see if he has advice on this. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the original version was generating faulty HTML because the template in the list item had double line breaks in it. br tags should be used instead. In general, the MediaWiki parser often generates bad HTML when something containing line breaks is in a list item because line breaks are part of the syntax of lists. I don't know why some of the lines of the poem were right-aligned though.

In my browser the passage is left-aligned whether or not there's a line break after |passage=. Anyway, it should be left-aligned; if it were right-aligned, it would be way over on the right side of the content area. — Eru·tuon 21:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Erutuon: oh, hmmm. I did also try inserting a line break tag before the first line. That forces the first line to start on a new line which solved the alignment issue for me, but led to an undesirable blank line appearing. — SGconlaw (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, when I said "line break" I meant the line break character (what you get when you press the enter key), not the HTML br tag. I didn't try adding a br tag. I guess I don't know what you mean by alignment issue. The {{quote-book}} in your post above looks fine to me. Are you referring to the "original version" that I linked to? — Eru·tuon 02:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

What I meant was that if the Persian quotation started immediately after |passage= without a line break, the first line would become right-aligned. However, strangely enough, I can't replicate the problem. Now if I remove the line break after |passage= it seems to work fine:

• 2018, Mehdi Akhavan-Sales, Khan-e Hashtom:

  پهلوان هفت خوان، اکنون
  طعمه ی دام و دهان خوان هشتم بود
  و می اندیشید
  که نبایستی بگوید، هیچ
  بس که بی شرمانه و پست است این تزویر.

  The hero of the Seven Labours,
  Was the prey of trap and mouth of the eighth labour now.
  And he was thinking
  That he should not say anything
  For this trick is such a shameless and ignoble one.

All other lines after line breaks appeared correctly. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

 — (for me all the Persian text is left-aligned). Fay Freak (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

 — BTW I want to note a parsing difference between {{quote-book}} and so on and {{quote}}. Normally I always use {{quote}} for Arabic because it handles right-to-left correctly, but when I try to mimick formatting of quotes sources using the HTML parameter |style= as I for example wanted to make شبرم as in the Avicenna printing larger it tries to parse this |style= and thus throws a Lua error, which does not happen with {{quote-book}}, see Burkane (1823 quote “10. Burkanen-Pudding”) where it works in {{quote-book}} – this <span style="font-size:115%"> works in {{quote-book|passage=}} but not {{quote}}. Drop this comment elsewhere if it suits you. Fay Freak (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to do things like increase the font size for headings in quotations? I would have thought not. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

{{quote-book}} and {{quote}} are not currently connected at all. I advocate for using {{quote}} in the former since we would get things like automatic transliteration if desired. DTLHS (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll look into that. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:quote-song/documentation

Discussion moved to Template talk:quote-song.

Missing italics/bold.

Much appreciated if you could review the efforts I'm making, because whilst I am trying to follow what's in the Entries in terms of formatting styles, a second pair of eyes on it , would be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: I’m not quite following what you mean. Could you please clarify? — SGconlaw (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd been attempting to fix Linter identified missing tags which are (barring one major template transclusion) typically missing terminations of italic or bold markup. The review would be as to whether I was using the correct style in where to terminate the formatting. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Audio files

Hi Sgconlaw, you posted on my talk page but I am having trouble seeing my reply. I will paste it below:

I don't think I can see the black circle but I am guessing you are referring to User:Yair rand/AddAudio.js, which has been added to your personal scripts page.

The concept of the tool is great but I simply don't have the skills to repair it.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Commander Keane: thanks, I did see your reply on your talk page after I received an alert. It seems to take some time for messages to appear after being posted; not sure why. Can't say I'm much of a fan of the threaded discussions feature. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

WOTD problem foofaraw

Hi. There's a red link at foofaraw connected to the WOTD feature. Did something break? --Wonderfool late January 2019 (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. There doesn't seem to ever have been a proper archive page called "Wiktionary:Word of the day/Archive/2013/December", just some vandalism that was deleted by an administrator. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I redirected it, for lack of better idea --Wonderfool late January 2019 (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Discord

Hey Sgconlaw, some of us were hoping you would join the Discord server. --{{victar|talk}} 06:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Er, OK, but what is it for? Discussions? How’s it different from using talk pages here? — SGconlaw (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes chat can be far more productive. --{{victar|talk}} 15:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: oui, c’est moi! — SGconlaw (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Ping. --{{victar|talk}} 22:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That’s odd, didn’t get any notifications from Discord itself. — SGconlaw (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

quote-* templates

Discussion moved to Template talk:quote-meta#quote-* templates.

Teething troubles

Discussion moved to Talk:teething troubles.

Accuracy in edit summaries

diff says "corrected typo", where in fact, "lang=en" was added. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

It was a typo on my part. I forgot to add it. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The definition is at typo; it was not a typo. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Seriously? It was "[a] mistake made during the process of typing". I meant to type it, but forgot. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Omissions are not typos. Our def is "typographical error", not "a mistake made during the process of typing"; compare “typo”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. A prototypical typo is concieve; again, an omission is not a typo. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't mind Dan. He's just trying to wind you up and get you to say something he can use against you later. —Rua (mew) 13:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Rua. @Dan Polansky: and "[a] mistake made during the process of typing" is our definition of typographical error. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Our full def at typographical error is "A mistake made during the process of typing, especially one caused by a slip of the fingers". My position and understanding is that an omission of a word or a whole block such as "lang=en" is not a typo and not a typographical error. I checked “typographical error”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

That may be your understanding but I do not see any evidence from other dictionaries such as the American Heritage Dictionary or the Merriam–Webster that a typographical error means a misspelling and nothing else. In fact, this is reflected in our definition of typographical error: the use of especially in the definition means that an error of this nature might be the paradigm but that the term covers other types of errors as well. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem with these definitions is that they leave a lot to wish. Consider M-W's "a mistake (such as a misspelled word) in typed or printed text": if you allow that "(such as a misspelled word)" is omittable since in brackets, you get "a mistake in typed or printed text", which covers all sorts of mistake, including factual mistakes. M-W's definition does not work unless the bracket "such as a misspelled word" is taken seriously and unless the adjective "typographical" in the term "typographical error" is taken seriously as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I've taken to reading law books since Dan's not been here as often to provide similar argumentation. DCDuring (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Audio files for examples

Hi, there. I added a link for audio file for an example sentence in system, and I noticed you deleted it. You said it is "unnecessary" but, in my opinion, it is very useful for English learner like me. Please consider again it. HappyMidnight (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

There are already audio recordings indicating how the word system is pronounced. It isn't necessary to have a full recording of a news article in the entry. However, feel free to raise the matter for further discussion at "Wiktionary:Beer parlour". — SGconlaw (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Jar (verb) synonyms for the sense "preserve in a jar"

Discussion moved to Talk:jar.

Recent wikipedia related changes on onager

Discussion moved to Talk:onager.

kite

You may be gilding the lily. DCDuring (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Elaborate? — SGconlaw (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Quotation "updates"

May I request that you respect the decisions of other contributors rather than make edits that involve simply replacing "s" with "ſ"? This issue has arisen in the past and it is clear that there is no consensus on it. I do not want to engage in a "reversion battle"; however, I am thoughtful and purposeful about the form of the citations I add, and I believe there are better ways to use one's time than making this kind of adjustment to other people's contributions. Thanks! Aabull2016 (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Which particular quotations are you referring to? It’s difficult to tell which editor has made which edits. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The majority appear to be from A General History of the Pyrates, in such entries as necessitous, nest, jet, neuter, salacity. Aabull2016 (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, change the long esses back to ordinary esses if you wish. The main edit I did was not to alter the esses but to implement {{RQ:Johnson History of the Pyrates}} (though I usually check that the quotation matches the text in the work). — SGconlaw (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The distribution of the two characters is entirely predictable and thus adds no useful information, but simply provides a barrier for users (in addition to archaic orthography, which should be preserved). To reproduce the obsolete character is equivalent to insisting on the use of blackletter when citing a 16th-century publication. Furthermore, with very few exceptions, contemporary editions of pre-19th century texts do not reproduce long ess even when they preserve the original orthography. In any case, I respect the decisions of other contributors but would just prefer that my contributions not be edited in this way. Aabull2016 (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Etymology of English sere (2)

Discussion moved to Talk:sere.

BANANA

The definition didn't include...broad...bananaism (i.e. not wanting to build a certain type of structure anywhere, such as nuclear power plants), so I added it in. I realize it's pretty late at this point, but you might as well update the WOTD as well. Esszet (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, screw it. Esszet (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

A bit late to update the WOTD, but thanks for improving the entry anyway. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

---

WOTD 20 July

Two words have been set for today, lunar and carrier wave. Lunar must be a substitution, but carrier wave (my nomination) doesn't have a new date. DonnanZ (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Donnanz: whoops, will fix that. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, set for 27 July 2020 (anniversary of Marconi's first public transmission of wireless signals). — SGconlaw (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, Marconi, that rings a bell. Cheers. DonnanZ (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

2020! OK. DonnanZ (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Donnanz: oh yeah, why not 2019? Let me work on that. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Donnanz:  Done: now fixed for 27 July 2019. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks. I took the liberty of correcting the "was WOTD" date at the top of the page. I think all is fine now. DonnanZ (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Piparsveinn

I reverted an edit by this user where he set hogshead, a recent nomination, for October 13. I think he edited the date status too. DonnanZ (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Donnanz: I don’t really have an issue if other editors want to help with WOTD, though. This is a wiki so I’d be the last to claim “ownership” over any part of the project. I suggest letting the edits stand, but suggesting to Piparsveinn on his or her user talk page that it is better to set the older nominations first. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, I have undone the revert. I get your point, anyone can do it if they are competent, and none of us will be around for ever. What concerned me most of all was taking a nomination from near the top of the list instead of the bottom. I have never tried setting WOTD dates before, being content to leave that to yourself. But I do try to make your task a little easier by adding images and references here and there, as well as verb inflections in some cases. DonnanZ (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Donnanz: your help is much appreciated! — SGconlaw (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

That's always nice to know, cheers. BTW, hopefully Piparsveinn will get the message through the revert. DonnanZ (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Donnanz: Do think about leaving a message on his or her talk page as suggested above. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you want to convey gets across clearly. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

OK,  done. DonnanZ (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

---

"Updates" to citations

A correction to an actual error in an existing citation is obviously a useful edit. Simply to replace a perfectly correct citation with a template is not. I am careful to replace citations from other contributors only where there is a good reason to do so — not just to introduce a format I prefer — and I would appreciate the same courtesy from others. My own view is that the citation templates with which my contributions have been replaced are unnecessarily lengthy and pedantic, making them less accessible and useful to the majority of user. Similarly, I do not believe the introduction of long s to reflect pre-nineteenth-century typography is either necessary (as its use is entirely predictable) or useful. However, I do not edit the work of other contributors who prefer to use it. Given the fact that there is no set policy either on the use of citation templates or on the reproduction of typography from first editions, it seems best to leave decisions on these issues to each contributor and not to "update" their work purely to make changes of this nature. (Aabull2016 (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC))

@Aabull2016: I'm afraid it is simply not very practical to scan through all entries to see whether particular editors have edited them, and to then treat those entries differently. I also disagree that the only useful edits to citations are those that correct errors. There is also utility and value in citing the first editions of works, providing imprint information that clearly identifies which edition of a work is being cited, and standardizing the formats of citations, all things that quotation templates strive to achieve. However, I note your views on the use of the long-s and will try to avoid changing those if I happen to notice that you have edited an entry. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I still hope that Sgconlaw is in the minority and that we will be able to prevent him from further harming the usability of the English Wiktionary. Some discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/May#Some principles for citations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, and thanks for that link, Dan. Aabull2016 (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Please remember that all contributions to Wikimedia projects are subject to unlimited revision, including deletion, by others, subject to each project's policies and practices. "Courtesy" is not an essential part of these projects. To the extent that we are courteous, that courtesy includes not claiming some imagined immunity from others arbitrarily revising (not merely "correcting" or "improving") one's contributions. DCDuring (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I stand in long-term objection to what Sgconlaw is doing to templates and quotation identification. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

"Unlimited revision" includes the possibility of unlimited reversion, which I'm sure you will agree is best avoided. One way to avoid it is to have an understanding on issues that are not covered by definitive policies, and this includes respecting the decisions of other contributors.

"Respecting the decision of other contributors" goes both ways. If there is a contentious issue that is not covered by definitive policies the solution is to create that policy. DTLHS (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

That would certainly be the ideal solution. Aabull2016 (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

overfurious

Discussion moved to Talk:overfurious.

Edit summary

The edit summary "Updated template" tells us nothing; better leave the summary empty, in my view. Alternatively, it is fine to indicate what one is actually doing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

audios

Hey S. If you like my voice and wish to request an audio for a WOTD, you can message me directly if you like. Or perhaps make a category "WOTDs without audio files" --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gibraltar Rocks: OK, sure. You're also welcome to work through the list of forthcoming WOTDs and add recordings to entries that don't already have any. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

chameleonize

Please do not change […] to [...]. The former has semantic meaning: the software can tell it's elided text. The latter has no meaning. Equinox ◑ 18:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

If no value has been supplied to the template (e.g., {{...|blah blah blah}}), what purpose does templatizing the ellipsis serve? — SGconlaw (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The software can tell it's elided text and that the dots and brackets didn't appear in the original. A bit like how it's better in HTML to use a <hr> tag to divide sections (which has meaning) than to insert an image that just looks like a separator bar. It might not matter today but moving towards semantic markup is important, and "[...]" is just not machine-readable. In the future maybe screen-readers for the blind will read it aloud as "material omitted", or some horrible AI we cannot yet imagine will go digging to find the missing text, who knows. Equinox ◑ 02:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

That all seems rather speculative. If indeed someone creates a screen-reader that interprets ellipses in brackets, I'm sure it will cope quite fine with "[...]". — SGconlaw (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you so strongly committed to using "[...]" and refusing " […] "? Why?! I mean, yes, screen-readers already try to cope with various awful messes but that's a struggle they are forced into, because a lot of designers refuse to do it properly. Wiktionary has the double-curly semantic convention. "[...]" is just five random characters you chose, which will have to be a special exception. Equinox ◑ 03:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Just want to say that I agree. The cleaner our conventions, the more easily we can progress toward a dictionary with unambiguous input and machine-readable output. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Whom do you agree with? No, I guess I'm fine either way. It just seems very unnecessary to templatize something like ellipses. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Having thought about it, the amount of computing power required to find one sort of dots and replace with another sort of dots in a couple of million files is not much. So do what you want. <3 Equinox ◑ 05:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

wheel war

Hey. Please cease the wheel war with Aabull2016 (talk • contribs), and engage in civilised discussion with the friendly user --Mélange a trois (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, this is really lame --Mélange a trois (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Sgconlaw/Archive 2014–2019,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wiktionary and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

My Reply at Feedback

I spent a lot of time composing my reply at the Grease pit, so by the time I got to replying to your post at Feedback I was in a bit of a hurry and didn't choose my words well. Reading it now, it comes across as dismissive, and maybe a little hostile- that wasn't what I intended at all. Sorry! Chuck Entz (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: oh, no problem, I didn’t take it that way. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Sgconlaw/Archive 2014–2019,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Wait...

I learned some phrases was Wonderfool?

I have no idea why he keeps playing this game. What does he gain from it? It's almost like the concept of the "good hand", "bad hand" accounts that vandals often use, but with him, he just flips back and forth. Tharthan (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I think I have some feeling for WF. He clearly enjoys doing some amount of work on here or he wouldn't have wasted so much time on it over so many years. But he also won't take it seriously and likes to f--k about. Frankly I think he is good for us and I am glad we can short-term block him but also glad we can't permanently block him. You might equally ask why #1 editor by volume (me) is such a problematic bastard who upsets everyone. Also maybe there's something about loving words and being a psycho? See William Chester Minor. SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING, NOT SORRY. Equinox ◑ 02:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I was recently informed that I learned some phrases was Wonderfool, but the whole Wonderfool incident is before my time so I don't really know much about it or what sort of disruption he was/is responsible for. (@Equinox :-D) — SGconlaw (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Whenever I've become seriously active on a site like this, I've always gone back through the old forums to get an understanding of the history. WF, as an admin, was the first to discover that admins can unblock themselves. At one point he deleted the main page and blocked all the other admins- who didn't know about unblocking oneself yet. He's also posed as a native speaker in a couple of different languages- once with a bot. In general, he's been mostly reliable as contributor and sometimes as an admin, but sometimes deliberately causes chaos. The current arrangement came about because keeping people from recognizing you all the time takes a lot of effort, and he got tired of it. I think he's also matured some, as well. He does a lot of good work, although there's always a certain percentage of sloppiness due to his focus on volume. The best rule is to treat him as a valued member of the community- but never, ever trust him completely. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I see – OK, noted. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

WF "was the first to discover that admins can unblock themselves", HAHAHAHAHA, I never knew that. I'm crying. Anyway I only came here to post the list of previous Wonderfool aliases, at User:AryamanA/Wonderfool. "Don't feed the troll" doesn't really apply when we're this deep. Also he is quite funny, but also really annoying. I think one funny, annoying person is worth 20 bland, characterless people. Do you want a hug? Equinox ◑ 16:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Malformed edit

See here, specifically where you edited around "anosmia". It seems like this is a semi-automated edit; can you please take a look at other edits using this method to ensure that they didn't break other entries? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Transferring images to Commons

Hi, you did this for me once before. I know how to use the uploader to upload images I have taken myself, but this baffles me. This image is available but not uploaded, and I would like to use it for a new entry for home signal. Can you please help? DonnanZ (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Donnanz:  Done; the file is now on the Commons at commons:File:British home and distant railway semaphore RYG signals.jpg, though note that there is a higher quality SVG version, commons:File:British home and distant railway semaphore RYG signals.svg, which you may wish to use instead. You can transfer files from Wikipedia to the Wikimedia Commons using the CommonsHelper tool. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, I will have to figure out how to do it. I looked at both files, and preferred the one you have just added. DonnanZ (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Few questions

Hi, I had few questions about quotations, which you might address. Firstly, what is the significance of putting a whole quote within brackets (using {{brackets=on}})? Secondly, what does it signify by putting the first letter of a chapter within square brackets? Thirdly, I have now realised that when we use pronouns and some indefinite nouns, to refer to persons, characters etc., then we give its actual name beside within square brackets, but I think I have bungled here by giving link to such words themselves, so could you please fix that entry? Lastly, is it the rule regarding displaying of the names of characters that, say, [Pro]spero is preferred over Pro.? I feel that, in this case, it is better to show the style used in the original work. That's all, & thanks for the attention! —Lbdñk (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw, seems that you did not get the notification? —Lbdñk (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lbdñk: sorry, I'm in the middle of an overseas trip and so have not had much time to respond to messages. Here are my replies:

• A quotation should be enclosed in brackets using |brackets=on when it doesn't contain the entry term exactly, but nonetheless sheds light on the history of the term. (This is explained at {{quote-book}}.) For example, in the entry fullness of time, the first quotation from the King James Bible is placed in brackets because it uses the phrase fulnes of the time, which is not exactly the same as fullness of time. Nonetheless, the quotation is useful because it shows that a similar phrase was in use in 1611.
• Generally, a single letter is placed in brackets if it has been changed to a different case from the quotation (from lowercase to uppercase, or vice versa). For example, if the original quotation was "Hence it is often said that walking is a good form of exercise" but one only wishes to quote the part of the sentence starting from the word walking, one could indicate the quotation as "[W]alking is a good form of exercise" to show that in the original quotation the first letter of the word walking was actually not a capital letter.
• I don't think there is any hard and fast rule about identifying people in quotations. It depends on whether an editor thinks it may be helpful to the reader to enable him or her to better understand the context of the quotation.
• Again, I don't think there is any hard and fast rule about spelling out abbreviations in quotations in full. I suppose if it is helpful to the reader, then the rest of the abbreviated word can be provided in brackets as you have indicated in the example in your message above: "Pro[spero]".

— SGconlaw (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Understood and noted. Thank you for the detailed explanation! Well, as for your third point, I just wanted to know how you prefer identifying people in quotations, i.e., for example, as "he" or "he [Ferdinand]"? —Lbdñk (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

sportswomanship

Discussion moved to Talk:sportswomanship.

Sorting

I think I know your rationale here but just wanted to confirm: you sorted this with a space because it's not an instance of a meat but just a term related to the concept of meat, correct (like the distinct between a set and topic category at en.wp)? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, since the category is for “types of meats” and not “words relating to meats”. Don’t know if we have consensus for this, though. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Reversion

I assumed that the comment was put there in good faith, so adding the "unsigned" tag to the end of the comment made sense (IP address having left an unsigned post), and giving an honest answer seemed fair enough.

Do you think that it is better to just leave the response unaddressed? Is this a known vandal or something? Tharthan (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tharthan: sorry, seems to have been a mistake on my part. I thought I was reverting a blank entry. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

"de toda la vida"

Discussion moved to Talk:as ever trod shoe-leather.

Zollenstein on Book Search.

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Ferguson Zollenstein.