User talk:DAVilla/2008

I believe that you inserted a neologism warning in this entry. This neologism warning refers to "standardised criteria" for neologisms, but contains no link to them. Can this be corrected? I have had trouble finding said criteria. Where should I look? If a term is cited three times over nearly 150 years (as this entry is), does it meet or not meet those criteria? It certainly doesn't seem to be a neologism by most definitions. I actually would have thought of it as more nearly "dated". It is so out of date that I don't think of it as even pejorative. In the period pieces (Gravity's Rainbow!) where it is used, it seems to be intended to indicate something about the speaker. DCDuring 22:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

We do not have objective criteria for most tags. The criteria for neologisms, as linked from the template, are not policy but a semi-formal compromise. The relevant question would be if the term appears in the OED. I do not have access so I only make assumptions. I couldn't find it in any of the online dictionaries. DAVilla 17:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

My problem is only with the plain English meaning of the term neologism. Where is the new in the use of this term? DCDuring 17:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do most eye-dialect terms appear in the major dictionaries? (Which are the six, anyway? OED, AHD, MW3, RH, ?, ?) I think applying neologism to a term of such age opens WT up to ridicule. ("They don't know the meaning of 'neo-'.") DCDuring 17:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

If I can jump in and offer 2 pennies' worth here, DC seems to make sound points. It doesn't make much sense to me either to construe a term as a "neologism" when its 19th- and early 20th-century usage is documented. -- WikiPedant 18:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually I agree, but then what's the proposal? I'm sure something simple could be done immediately, but it's probably best to bring up in WT:BP. Not every word ever printed a century ago is even dictionary material. DAVilla 18:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Collins and... huh, are there only five? Certainly Penguin wouldn't have been counted? DAVilla 18:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is there a good Longman's to round us out to six. Which one?

I think the issue is whether WT inclusiveness and helpfulness is intended to extend to things like Eye dialect. I doubt that we will ever get thousands of such entries. A few of them will give the WT user reading, say, a novel with such dialogue the idea of how to read all of the author's eye-dialect. Would an Eye-dialect tag at sense-line or inflection-line level with a wikilink to a WT entry on eye-dialect do the job? I don't think that the eye-dialect category is visible or helpful enough. DCDuring 19:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, of course. That would make a lot more sense, at least in the case of eye dialects. If the sense/inflection line isn't enough, we could create {{warn|eye}}. DAVilla 19:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The warnings (such as neologism) seem a little overwhelming, especially splashed across the whole screen. A slightly less intrusive warning about the same size as the old WP link that could sit in the white space to the the right of the entry table of contents would seem good for eye-dialect and possibly non-standard (or even disputed) entries. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Were you ever going back to this, or can it get zapped. OBE by category, right? --Connel MacKenzie 00:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

A category would be insufficient, but since the implementation of {{language}} has been taken over, I haven't heard any complaints of its use. DAVilla 05:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie 01:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

If we have a log scale between p points and y years, wouldn't that imply that p₂−p₁=p₃−p₂↔y₂/y₁=y₃−y₂? Because 4−3=5−4, but 40/10≠120/40. —Ruakh_TALK 23:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I made an adjustment because a point value of 2 corresponds with 0 years, which doesn't work with the ratios as you've described them. For instance, ages of 160, 40, and 10 years don't work for consecutive point values because the next would be ${\displaystyle 10/4=2.5}$ years. The adjustment was to linearly shift the function, to subtract ${\displaystyle f(2)}$ where ${\displaystyle f}$ is exponential. You will find that 47.4/17.4 ≈ 127.4/47.4 ≈ ${\displaystyle e}$.

However, I'm completely open to any starting points, since the scale is somewhat arbitrary, and you can make your case for alternative models. I would have used 100, 30–40, and 10 except that 35 is kind of a clumsy number. DAVilla 09:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You may wish to review these edits to your WT:VOTE talk discussion. Yours Conrad.Irwin 17:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, these are my own. DAVilla 19:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

No worries, I thought that most likely - but had it not been... Conrad.Irwin 21:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused why you eliminated my vote of support with this edit: [1]. --EncycloPetey 19:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

OOps, sorry. That wasn't you. --EncycloPetey 19:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Glad you caught that. DAVilla 19:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

So you know, a phonetic transcription can be done broadly. Typically, a valid phonemic transcription can be converted into a broad but still valid phonetic transcription simply by changing the enclosing slashes into square brackets, but the reverse is not true. The specificity of a phonetic transcription is inferred based on context and the level of detail in surrounding phonetic transcriptions. E.g., [pʰ] says that there is aspiration, but [p] by itself doesn't say whether there is or isn't any aspiration. Similarly, [h] may be a broad transcription of [ɦ], but by the Maxim of Quantity, [ɦ] suggests that there's an audible contrast with [h]. And, if /h/ appears in the same set of transcriptions as /ɦ/, the author has made a specific claim of phonological contrast. Does that makes sense? Rod (A. Smith) 20:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

So phonetic transcriptions can be as specific or vague as desired. But how do you indicate that [p] represents an unaspirated /p/ outside of the presence of [pʰ]? And who decided that all of these should be in the same phoneme be default, unless otherwise noted? Frankly there are too many languages that distinguish between those two, specifically, for [pʰ] to not have a unique IPA character.

Sorry if I'm being too hostile. I actually find all of this quite fascinating. I'm going to design my own system some day, through a committee of course, and completely overtake this one. I don't have the clout yet, but be prepared because you're the first name on my long list. Hmmm... maybe my questions for the time being aren't all that hostile after all? DAVilla 23:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

When a linguist is taking about a phoneme, they are referring to a specific language, never to languages in general. Phonemes are recognized by analysis of a language. For example, we can show that /p/ and /b/ are different phonemes in English by finding minimal pairs like [pæt] and [bæt] or like [pæk] and [bæk] that demonstrate they are separate phonemes because those words are always recognized as different. However, an English speaker would probably not hear the difference between [pæt] and [pʰæt]; they would be heard and interpreted as the same word. So in English, [p] and [pʰ] are versions of the same phoneme. They are the same phoneme because the difference in sound carries no difference in meaning. --EncycloPetey 23:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I understand, and although [p] and [pʰ] are allophones in English, I wonder if most English speakers would confuse [pæt] instead with [bæt]. When I talk about "default phoneme", I mean the fact that the aspirated /p/ is written with a lower-case p and diacritic (or whatever a floaty h amounts to) while the voiced /p/ is written with an entirely different character. Who decided that aspiration is less important than voice? DAVilla 00:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I really don;t understand what you mean. Aspiration is consistently represented with a "floating" h, regardless of language, since almost any conconant sound can be aspirated. The different base symbols vary according to voice/no voice and place of articulation. I'm assuming that's because articulation and voice more often carry meaning changes in languages in general. And note that is some langugaes (like Hindi, IIRC) aspiration can change the meaning of a word, so that the aspirated and unaspirated sounds are both phonemes. --EncycloPetey 00:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Right, why indicate aspiration but not voice with a consistent change? Why indicate voice but not aspiration with a different base symbol? I'm not challenging the idea that voice carries meaning change more often than aspiration, as I really wouldn't know. But I do know it is a critical change in a number of languages, at least for /p/ or /b/ and /t/ or /d/. Besides Hindi, you can add Mandarin and Thai, which are the two most recent languages I've looked into.

Ideally the indication would be both consistent and a critical change in base. For instance, use a straight or curly version of /t/ to differentiate aspiration, and likewise straight or curly versions of /d/, /b/ and /p/. Alternatively, abandon /t/ altogether and go for /q/ and /g/ if you want to be really consistent in glyphs. But then, how many people would balk at /gen/ as the pronunciation of ten? DAVilla 00:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

To indicate specifics about a particular flavor of [p], there are additional diacritics in an extended version of IPA. To indicate the specific lack of aspiration, a sort of superscripted equal sign is used, e.g. [p⁼] invalid IPA characters (⁼). For the languages that I know of that contrast aspiration with non-aspiration, there is no phonological distinction between voiced and unvoiced. Most languages just have a two-way contrast (e.g. voice vs. unvoiced or aspirated vs. unaspirated), and so phonemic transcriptions often just adopt /p/ for one and /b/ for the other. (A similar story applies to /t/ vs. /d/ and /k/ vs. /g/.) It can be more complicated, though. For example, Korean has a three-way contrast between plain [p⁼] invalid IPA characters (⁼), aspirated [pʰ], and tense [p͈]. (Technically-speaking, there is a capital H superscript with a strike through it that extended IPA provides to indicate the tense/harsh voice, but everyone seems to use the subscript double quote mark instead, which is meant to indicate something slightly different, known as "strong" or "fortis" articulation.) Anyway, the different sounds that people make when they speak lie along a continuously variable spectrum. Each language has its own way of dividing up that sound spectrum into phonemes. When all languages are considered collectively, one goal (having a distinct base symbol for each phoneme) is at odds with another (using only diacritics to show variations of a phoneme). There's no way to create a single, translingual phonetic alphabet made up of a finite number of discrete symbols and accomodate both goals. IPA lets you relax either constraint though, so it works pretty well. For example, you can choose to apply the extended IPA symbols for voicing and devoicing if you want, and get a voiced /p̬/ and unvoiced /p̥/. There's tremendous flexibility in the current system. It's better than you might think at first glance. Rod (A. Smith) 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't they be for Al Pacino and Harry Potter? SemperBlotto 22:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

<grunt> Very well. DAVilla 22:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually the context is pretty clear, so the quotation is useless anyways. Deleted. DAVilla 22:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just stumbled across this. I just wanted to let you know that I think what you did there is absolutely fantastic. --Connel MacKenzie 04:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not my work, but happy to give it a home. DAVilla 04:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I love your {{patrol box}}. It's so cute. If the only useful thing to come out of this "reprimand" is your cute little box (and there will be other useful things), then it makes it all worthwhile in my eyes. What a nice way to put a positive spin on everything. Just for creating this cute box, I dish out my very first user-Barnstar-thingy. --Keene 20:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks. Unfortunately it seems we're somewhat divided about this as well. The community isn't going to agree to keep Connel from giving me the stars I want though, so I hope no one tries to push it to that level. I've been a big part of the hostility, it's true, but I'm tired of it already. DAVilla 20:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry about it, DAV. I think most people are tiring of it. Maybe we all need a holiday or something. --Keene 20:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wow. For some reason, I seem to be very much liked by vandals. Or is the square head more of an inside joke? Turns out even Connel isn't so interested in the patrol box... which is cute, dammit! DAVilla 04:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi DAVilla, sorry about deleting {{month}}, I should have spoken first. {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} <edit>does not</edit> achieve the same affect. Conrad.Irwin 22:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC) By the way I think your patrol box things are looking amazing.Reply

No prob, and thanks. DAVilla 22:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am not subscribed to the wiktionary-l mailing list (nor do I intend to add yet-another-mailing-list-that-I'll-never-in-a-million-years-be-able-to-stay-on-top-of) and I think you mentioned that you are. Could you please announce Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2008-02/User:TheDaveRoss there? --Connel MacKenzie 21:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm a little embarrassed to say that I'm not either. I figure as long as I'm active here there's no need to be, right? Hopefully someone will see this and pick up on it. DAVilla 22:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, I've passed it on to IRC - couple subscribers of https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l were there. --Connel MacKenzie 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, it seems to be an Information Desk for WikiMedia non-Wiktionary regulars. Since this is the only project I much care about, I don't see the point of joining. DAVilla 23:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please see and verify the etymology section, seems a bit strange and I wanted to double check that the contents are what was intended :) Thanks - [The]DaveRoss 02:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:Talk:Common Kestrel#Windfucker?. DAVilla 03:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for double checking, I assumed it was probably correct, but it was still worth looking into. [The]DaveRoss 03:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

How could it be slander by us if it is an accurate transcript from NPR? What is slanderous, the evidence that someone hesitates when speaking? DCDuring TALK 13:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's not a transcript from NPR, it's what I heard in an online broadcast. I learned a few months ago on another radio show that transcriptions are usually edited to exclude studders and filler words. I have noticed a few times when a comparison was possible that this is true. It isn't so necessary when a person is reading a text, more of a problem when speaking freely. The changes I made would be reflected in an official transcript, if not more than that. On the one hand I want to be accurate, for instance writing "gonna" instead of "going to" when it's spoken that way, and watching even small words which can be significant (see hundred). On the other hand I don't want to degrade the quotation by making the speakers sound incompetent. Just by putting what they say into symbols, that's already interpreting their speech. We don't use words to communicate, we use sounds, and there are a few of those I've had to scratch my head over (edit:) like at the end of this clip. But this is getting rather philosophical. DAVilla 16:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh. Thanks for the explanation. I still doubt that it would be slander, but it's useful to approximate the transcript standard. Actual recordings of speech must often reveal gaps between what we think we are saying (and what our audience hears) and what is actually said. The miracle of the error-correcting brain. DCDuring TALK 17:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

In managing votes, you sometimes ask people to resign. This may not confuse the knowledgable, but it has confused me. Even MW3 does not have "resign" meaning "sign again". ;)) DCDuring TALK 16:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me, I need an help: I am not American and I need to know the explanation of a sentence. Would u be so kind to translate it to me? The sentence is what the hizzle for shizzle? Thank u if u wanna help me. --89.96.198.38 10:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

See for shizzle. It's just rhyme, I think. DAVilla 10:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't see the new Wiktionary:Links page included in the list of discussions. I think working this out there first, then approving the policy as a vote might be a smoother way to hash out this issue (or at least some of it). At least the "policy" page can be adapted still, whereas a vote requires a set wording from the start. --EncycloPetey 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The what what? Oh, where did that come from? Okay, I've RFDO'd the vote. I'd like to see us reach some solid conclusions as a community, though. DAVilla 03:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't you think there is a difference between the way people see Old English and modern English and Mandarin and "plain" Chinese? Many people understand that there is a difference between Old English and modern English of which one is obsolete, but deem Mandarin the same as Chinese, although Cantonese is also a large part of the Chinese languages. Please respond. Mallerd 15:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Right, for one sense Chinese is synonymous with Mandarin. The point about English and Old English is that we do not classify languages based on the family. DAVilla 20:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

re: dated, I had misinterpreted the 2006 quote. I've readded the tag. Thanks for pointing it out.

re: informal vs. colloquial, if you'll remember the several discussions I've sparked on BP, you'll know I'm convinced the distinction is pointless and meaningless. If you look at my contributions, you'll see how accurate that is: since January, I've been moving the material from Category:Colloquial to Category:Informal (usually a couple every day, but I've been bolder recently), and just completed up to "c". One of few reverts so far just happened over at a whole 'nother, and mostly because Dmcdevit disagrees that is ought to be treated as an alternative spelling entry (if it's listed as such in a whole nother, I don't see where is the issue, I actually moved the quote there). I think the absence of actual reverts demonstrates just how accurate my point is (For some reason, I doubt the reverse changes would have gone quite as smoothly). Circeus 20:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Forgot that discussion. To me "colloquial" means "informal" + "regional", but I've been told this interpretation is incorrect. So I don't guess there's much use in distinguishing them. Why don't you rfd Template:colloquial, which could redirect to informal? DAVilla 20:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Because of the massive disagreement this sparked both times? I intend to put people before the accomplished fact around the halfway mark (probably after I'm done with the L's). And besides, it helps me fix loads of use of {{colloquial}} without language marks, and in synonym or translation sections. Circeus 22:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I need to jump in and state that this project of doing away with the colloquial tags and the related category is against community consensus, not to mention fallacious and limited to a specific POV that both tags are not indeed useful. The contributor pursues this unilateral action decisively and, I'll dare say, swiftly as with a purpose, despite "the massive disagreement this sparked both times". I'll refer you to the archived discussions here, here, and here, the last of which made a case (regarding specific entries) that both tags were useful. While contributors like Connel M heartily agreed with what seemed to be the final word on keeping the two tags, the contributor taking this action did not attempt to dispute the points made then, and currently pursues action opposing this conclusion. -- Thisis0 23:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not going to push one way or the other, but I have to say that after reading the above the distinction still isn't very clear to me. (deprecated template usage) Grandpa is a term that would be both coloquial and informal, having arisen from speech and having a more formal counterpart. DAVilla 01:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the two categories mostly overlap. It's really a matter of "flavor", or whether one tag would do more service to the entry than the other. -- Thisis0 02:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Then why don't you move them and take the word "costume" out of the title? I really don't think we need an entry on the phrase. --Dvortygirl 05:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since you have been primarily involved in the work on that page I wanted to let you know I was planning on making some changes, if you wanted to be involved. Since it is still a pretty early version I am just going to be working on it directly rather than on a /draft page or anything, please feel free to revert/change/whatever to my changes until we have something workable. - [The]DaveRoss 18:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem, go right ahead. DAVilla 01:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

What’s with the form-of discussion? I have been making form-of templates and the corresponding categories, but I seem to be the only one doing this. OTOH nobody has commented on it that it was not a good thing to do… H. (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I've pretty much dropped that altogether. I'd come to the conclusion that the ideal solution only styles the term itslef, which makes capitalization trivial, and simply does away with the dot. But who's willing to go in that direction? As far as the multilingual aspect, from what I had seen, it seems to be developing per language, but more restricted than when we had the Finnish mess. No one seems to be complaining about that either, so I'm not trying to push any standardizaiton. Particularly, no one seems to be thrilled about the prospect of renaming categories, so it's probably just as well that I'm not involved. Like they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. BUT: if there's something you see that's less than ideal, which I wouldn't have as I'm rather uninvolved, then let me know or bring it up in the Beer Parlour. As far as the work that you're doing is concerned, I don't see anything wrong with having two systems in place and possibly gravitating toward one or the other in the future. It's a contest between the superior design and the superior numbers. But since the one you've taken up was largely my idea to begin with, you might want to ask someone else for their unbiased opinion. Oh, and feel free to take it in your own direction, and ask for help, or push me to clean up some mess that I had created, such as the branching off of Category:Form-of templates from the other. DAVilla 04:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would you like to be notified whenever any major changes happen (or are about to happen) to wikisaurus?

It came up that there were quite a few people working on wikisaurus without knowing who else was doing stuff and where. It has caused a bit of bobbing and weaving in the ranks. It's true I weave, but it's a medical condition so to avoid the girly bits buying the farm I'm attempting to make an area where we--meaning anyone who does major surgery on wikisaurus--can find out what's happening. You know, like a Wikisaurus:project/improvements

Actually, I'm notifying everyone I've seen comment, that I've reopened the project page for wikisaurus and anyone who will be working on the pages I hope will sign up.

Amina

Oh, I'll just watch the space, whatever pages are set up to tune policy or what not. I'm not one who gets a lot done anyways. Some people do things efficiently in large batches and that's not me. DAVilla 06:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I happened to come across some of the reverse language templates (e.g. {{SPANISH}}), and I was just wondering if this had gone anywhere, or if it should be deleted. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think Robert decided to go his own way with the translation template, keeping {t} minimalist, and using that template for languages without a wiki instead of {t!}. If he didn't like the reverse language feature when it was suggested, then it's probably safe to say he never will. An intermediate template would have been {{langcode}}. DAVilla 22:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello. The 3-letter template space is reserved for language codes and 'mxx' is an active code for 'Mahou'. As it didn't look like anyone was using it, I converted it over to be a language code template. Hope that doesn't mess up future plans (you can just get it back from the history anyways). Thought I'd let you know. Cheers. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 22:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

No prob, this was just another template idea that never got used. DAVilla 01:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, what do you think of my proposal made at {{ws}}? Please answer there if possible. --Dan Polansky 14:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

As you seemed to have questions about the meaning of this term, I thought I'd provide some convenient reference material. MWonline: "an irreverent or careless use of a sacred name" en.wikt has a similar sense. w:Oath and, more remotely, w:Minced oath have some additional context. DCDuring TALK 10:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps there's a clearer way to explain how Jesus H. Christ is used? It's not like people put their right hand on the Bible and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me Jesus H. Christ! DAVilla 17:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I altered the CFI-related portion of Wiktionary:About sign languages in the direction suggested by your abstention comment. It now just defines how two of the conditions ("clearly widespread use" and "usage in permanently recorded media") apply to sign language entries. I also listed a few example sign languages in the introduction, but it doesn't specifically exclude common hand gestures, so I'm not sure I've actually satisfied your objection. Thinking about it further, though, I'm not sure we need to exclude common meaningful hand gestures. Assuming we could find three video citations of the following gestures, would oppose English entries (or perhaps "Translingual" entries) for them?

• (deprecated template usage) OpenA@SideNeckhigh-ThumbUp
• (deprecated template usage) OpenA@SideNeckhigh-ThumbUp OpenA@SideNeckhigh-PalmUp
• (deprecated template usage) 9@SideNeckhigh
• (deprecated template usage) !o-@SideNeckhigh-PalmBack, a.k.a. flipping the bird

Rod (A. Smith) 04:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-08/Wiktionary:About sign languages has been altered and reopened. Feel free to renew your abstension or change your vote. Rod (A. Smith) 01:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

You might want to see Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Template:reward_box.—msh210℠ 17:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's a figure of style that is completely at odds with the normal (deprecated template usage) abeille imagery (that of the busy bee in French too), it's also not in two sources that are usually overly welcoming of such figures of style (Académie and Atilf, the old Académie dictionary being a prime source of definitions at fr:). Unfortunately, it's hardly possible to do a search on it because there have been at least two important writers with "Abeille" as their family name. Circeus 15:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks a lot for the comments. I've been away from that for a little while, but it's time to move on with it in the next few days. I'll try to incorporate your suggestions, and then field-test a few templates. —Michael Z. 2009-01-27 18:26 z

Talk here moved to the link above.

I don't get it. Why did you create these sorts of pages? The main entries would not satisfy WT:CFI, would they? -- WikiPedant 21:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not as CFI is currently written, no. But there is the possibility that, in the future, out-of-context citations such as these would qualify the term, an individual's full name. DAVilla 03:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

To be fair, I'm informing you of Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2009-03/User:Equinox for admin.—msh210℠ 17:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for undeleting the open sunshine entry and adding the citations. It has been real hell getting that entry established :) Wakablogger 21:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

It wouldn't obviously fail. Some words take on a life and meaning beyond the original universe, like Klingon. --EncycloPetey 03:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The definition removed was "Any of the fictional ring-shaped wormhole-based devices used for interstellar travel in the Stargate universe." This is more specific than the first definition, which passed RFV. DAVilla 03:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

But that does not mean the second definition would not pass RFV. Consider that the ring used in the Stargate universe has specific properties not necessarily found in the general definition. The definition ought to be RFV'd rather than deleted outright. --EncycloPetey 04:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you say so. DAVilla 04:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I probably rolled-back from that diff, which essentially was an anon deleting substantive content. If I did, that also would have been the only content effected, not any additions. - Amgine/^talk 14:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

<whince> Sorry I stepped in it. It just looked wrong from the RC patrol pov. - Amgine/^talk 02:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

There are more than five missing audio files for this month. Did you look at the list of selected words at User:EncycloPetey/WOTD? Words after the 6th have not yet been loaded into the templates. --EncycloPetey 05:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, okay. Thanks for the link. DAVilla 05:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Some of these words I've never heard before. I had to pronounce them based on the IPA, but I don't feel comfortable doing so not only because of my unfamiliarity, but more worrisome the fact that the IPA isn't always right. I've had to correct a few (repechage listed UK twice, empyreal had a vowel combination not used in US English) and I would wonder if the last syllable of polyptoton isn't just /@n/. DAVilla 06:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The section for repechage had a copy-paste error I hadn't noticed. The US IPA for polyptoton is correct. For empyreal, I had to rely on published sources, since I've never heard anyone use the word that I can recall. --EncycloPetey 14:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

ISO removed Europanto from ISO 639-3, thus reducing the number of constructed languages by one. This is *not* a major change, and does *not* require a vote. Also, it's absolute nonsense to say that there are 10 languages, while only nine are listed. -- Prince Kassad 17:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, the WT:CFI page clearly states that it cannot be changed without a vote. We even had a recent vote to that effect. Accuracy of the information is not at quesiton. If you have issue with that, you should take it up in WT:BP.

Where does it say that? At the top, it says "It should not be modified without a VOTE." Note the emphasis, it does not say "must", but "should". Use common sense to determine whether this is a policy changing edit, because stuff like correcting typos and the like (which this is) does not require a vote. -- Prince Kassad 12:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also, if you want to stay consistent, you should revert this too. -- Prince Kassad 12:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think all changes before the Vote are grandfathered. We should probably consider redrafting to exclude items that more properly belong in guidelines. It is also bad legislative drafting practice to have provisions that can become contradictory without a vote. Thus having an explicit list of excluded languages but allowing changes by the ISO to override the explicit list creates an opportunity for contradiction. DCDuring TALK 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for all the input and the vote of support. I'm sorry I dragged my feet, but I've finally made a much-abbreviated version of the proposal at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/Context labels in ELE v2. —Michael Z. 2009-05-17 18:03 z

Would you mind seeing Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#hang again? I'd be curious to read your further views. Thanks.​—msh210℠ 00:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

And I've responded further there.​—msh210℠ 17:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is there still use to {{pxx}}, {{sxx}}, and {{fxx}}? They're not used, and if they won't be, I'd rather rename/remove them to get them out of the 3-letter language code space (those codes aren't currently used by ISO, but it's nice to have a tidy house). Thanks. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 03:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Back in April you commented on Template_talk:context#Lexicography. I've just added my thoughts. Not sure if you would be magically notified after all this time. Regards, Bricaniwi 15:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

After reading various scattered comments (in which your name featured actively, which is why I'm contacting you) about the difficulties with the title 'C#' (the programming language), I did a search for it the way I think most people would, i.e. typing 'C#' and hitting enter, and of course you land on plain C, so to be helpful there I have added a pointer in the "See also" sub-section C#See also 5. Hope this is OK.

Should I also have added a link there to the Wikipedia entry on C# (Wikipedia:C_Sharp_(programming_language))? What is the current policy on such out-of-project links? Should they explicitly let users know the target is a different site (and I don't think the tiny "w:" is enough clue - I would type the full "Wikipedia:")?

In the old discussions at Wiktionary:Tea room/Archive 2009/April#C.23 you say "And sign the petition" - which petition was that? Outcome? Thanks, -- Bricaniwi 16:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I can't remember if there ever was a petition. I think not, but there is more than likely a bugzilla request to support all characters in titles. Technically it's entirely feasible.

There isn't any reason to elaborate on listed terms. Certainly you can link to the Wikipedia article, but only from the entry on C# (which in this case is Appendix:Unsupported titles). Use {{pedialite}}. DAVilla 06:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do not want to come across as contumelious but please consider casting your vote for the tile logo as—besides using English—the book logo has a clear directionality of horizontal left-to-right, starkly contrasting with Arabic and Chinese, two of the six official UN languages. As such, the tile logo is the only translingual choice left and it was also elected in m:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4. Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 03:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

As there seemed to a clear majority for a change in the header, it has been changed to "Samples". The vote has been extended 7 days to allow time to (re-)consider one's position. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 03:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I didn't see that you had already created a vote when I listed this one in the voting section. Clearly the differences will have to be hammered out. Feel free to make any edits before the start date. DAVilla 09:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

The problem with setting the start date at February 23 is there are some things that need to be done before local votes can start (making the lower left-side words illegible, and making localized versions for the other wikts) and we don't know whether they'll be done by then. I think it would be better to set the start/end dates like I did here, and remove the nowiki tags when the work on the logo is done. Also, should I delete this vote as it's now redundant? --Yair rand 19:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Merge and redirect.  :-) ​—msh210℠ 17:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Re: this, are you volunteering to run the new features? If so, could you make that clear? The vote's at 15-8, 30 hours left, and most of the opposers are against the new design because nobody's really volunteered to run the new features. --Yair rand 17:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you know if there was an existing page showing who's doing what for the new features? I wasn't there during the early discussion of the redesign so I don't really know how much went into them. (Assuming that there was no such page, I started WT:Main Page/Features.) --Yair rand (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Too long ago for me to remember. Email me if this comes up for vote again. As far as volunteers, we shouldn't really dictate too much, like the names of each section which were just demonstration, rather have each volunteer take ownership in what interests them. At one time I would have been willing to coordinate volunteers, but I'm probably not the best man for the job. DAVilla 04:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

There has been some effort to come up with some formulation to criteria for the phrasebook. Controversy around I have a big penis (RfD and Vote) is significant. I don't have the right kind of experience to help much. You might find it interesting and your input could help. As the effort is still in an early stage, the criteria established need only provide a place for systematic effort on Phrasebook to begin, not to end. It could also use some useful definition of purpose (short-term, at least, and long-term) that motivates effort. So far the most cohesive, albeit obviously partial, concept is a "sex-tourism phrasebook", which has the disadvantage of alienating some contributors and users and attracting controversy that could derail the whole effort. Your perspective might be helpful even if you can't put in much time. DCDuring TALK 10:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I note that you'd already contributed to the discussion when I wrote the above. Thanks. I think it's one of the most important efforts now and could reduce some of the conflict over English entries justified mostly as "translation targets" and reduce the underlying conflict between en.wikt as monolingual English dictionary and as translating dictionary, until we have fully satisfactory technical solutions (eg, views tailored to user purposes and capabilities). DCDuring TALK 10:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I don't agree with some of your changes but I got confused of what you were trying to change after looking at multiple edits. 华语 is favoured in South-East Asia but not used in Taiwan. I think the 2nd sense is incorrect. --Anatoli 04:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Re: ...is the description really this complicated? in your edit summary of (国语). The word is often used in China to contrast it with the mainland Chinese flavour of Mandarin - 普通话, accent, vocab, etc. --Anatoli 06:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

By all mean, please correct me. I was mainly trying to move the descriptions given in synonyms/see also sections to the relevant pages. Synonyms and see also words are not annotated. DAVilla 07:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Since you participated in the deletion discussion above, I thought I might like to hear some input from you regarding this one. Thanks. TeleComNasSprVen 12:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

About the vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-12/Attestation criteria, are you planning to start the vote at some point? If not, would you withdraw the vote by leaving a note in the vote that it is withdrawn, so I could remove the vote from WT:Votes? --Dan Polansky 05:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is still interest. User:msh210 prefers that we test it out before abandoning. DAVilla 17:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would like to get the /def subpages in Wikisaurus deleted. I know they were your creation, so I am first checking with you to see how much resistence I would meet with the proposal.

The way I see it, the subpages make the thing needlessly complicated, and Wikisaurus works fine even without the subpages. One side effect of the subpages is that they turn out as pages when one uses the random page fuction in Wikisaurus namespace.

I have documented the idea of using /def subpages on the talk page of {{ws refer}}, as a historical record of proposed ideas.

What do you think? --Dan Polansky 08:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have now noticed that, just recently, Daniel Dot has deleted Wikisaurus:ephemeral/def and Wikisaurus:enrage/def, without asking anyone. Sigh. --Dan Polansky 08:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not holding them dearly. If they're not being used then delete them. If they're being used then don't delete them unless you have a better strategy. Half the stuff I've done just exemplifies an idea that no one else carries. DAVilla 17:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your research. We seem to have string (programming or musical), strong, straight, and two that I'm not sure about (the moorable boat could be a steamer, but I doubt it, and I have no idea about the scriptural one). Hmm. Equinox ◑ 00:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Other dictionaries do have steamer, so I think that's the most likely explanation.

What about strait? DAVilla 00:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, a strait can't be moored (if that's what you mean!). I'm curious about "This Ps. is introduced by an editor with a Str. taken with slight variation". Presumably the "Ps." is a post-script, but the rest leaves me confused. Equinox ◑ 00:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ha! No, I was referring to the one you've now quoted. Ps. is psalm. DAVilla 00:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate that you are abstaining in the option "Proposed Change 1: Remove", and I understand your intent. Nonetheless, the way the vote is set up, it seems you cannot really abstain in an option: either you support an option or you don't. If you want to make sure that the option 1 passes, the best thing to do is to vote "Support, although I prefer the Proposed Change 3", or of the sort. Of course, you can make this change shortly before the vote ends, so it becomes clear that you are merely giving in to the winning option, one that is good enough for you.

From one standpoint, I have to admit this seems a petty distinction: your "abstain" should be clear to any human admin closing the vote. Nonetheless, formally, the closing admin will have a harder time with "abstain". In any case, that is how it seems from when I am standing; the closing admin may see it differently. --Dan Polansky 19:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I (personally) don't like the idea of moving an entry nominated for deletion to a very different title and then replacing the entire content of the page. The net effect is the same, granted, but I think I need a bath should have been deleted and you need a bath created as a separate entry. There's a bit of confusion now over whether I need a bath has failed RFD or actually passed it. Again, nothing more than my opinion. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your feedback. I am acting out WT:BP#Proposed Phrasebook criterion. I don't think it's necessary to RFD a phrasebook entry in most cases (and never should RFV be necessary). However I should have left a more detailed note as you did. I did not strike it because I am not certain my move will be the final resting place. I agree that this looks odd since the title has turned red. Any suggestion on a process would be more than welcome. I do not consider the current process to be entirely applicable, but I do not pretend to have all the answers either. DAVilla 05:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I also read your edit comment at global marketplace which is not even a phrasebook entry. I will refrain from hijacking these ordinary nominations in the future. DAVilla 05:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your input. Always nice when admins can talk criticism without getting in a huff about it. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply