Hamaryns

Special:Contributions/Vildricianus, BTW. --Connel MacKenzie 17:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don’t understand you. What do you want to say? henne 17:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I took a moment to try to let you know that Vild has been missing here, for a while now. Therefore, it is unlikely you'll get a response any time soon. --Connel MacKenzie 17:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah, thanks. Have to try it myself, then. henne 17:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Won't work that way: #language returns the language name in the language not the English name. Robert Ullmann 11:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

You’re right, I didn’t notice. That’s a pity. Ok, revert it. We’ll have to think of something else. henne 11:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

If we could get rid of the wikilink brackets in some of the language name templates we have, we could just use #{{{{{1}}}}} ... Robert Ullmann 11:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can we do that? Get rid of those links? Or will it have too big consequences? henne 11:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi William, I am very surprised to see you changing {{OE.}} to {{ang}}, e.g. on leaf. I thought you would know that the ang template is not to be used for etymologies, right? (OE. is in Category:Etymology templates, ang is just a language template, in Wiktionary:Index to templates/languages.) henne 12:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I only put {{ang}} into non-English Etymologies to avoid incorrect categoriesation into category:Old English derivations, however I think I shouldn't really ahve used it at all and was lazzyness on my part, I'll go in and edit them. At some point in the future I'd like to make the Etymology language templates to a lang= parameter so that they can be used for foreign language etymologies too.--Williamsayers79 19:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is a reason we went to the Category:Code:Topic format. Others can provide you with more detail. --Versageek 16:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oops, ok. I wanted to follow the Danish format... henne 16:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

We've notice that in this edit of Wiktionary:Entry layout explained/POS headers you've removed the text:

However, a translation into English should normally be given instead of a definition, including a gloss to indicate which meaning of the English translation is intended. Also, the translations section should be omitted.

Could you explain why you think that to be irrelevant? Thanks! DAVilla 06:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am curious who ‘we’ is. :-) I do not think the text itself is irrelevant, but I think it is irrelevent at that specific place. It is copied over from somewhere else in ELE and I do not see the use of repeating it here. When one has read ELE already (which everyone should, right?), it looks a bit paternalistic. henne 17:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Could you help to fill in the Dutch translations for listen? Only the primary meaning currently has a Dutch translation, and this page is a pet project of mine. Thanks, --EncycloPetey 19:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Seems like AugPi has been too fast for me... henne 11:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I put the parens inside the link (bigger target to click on, otherwise hitting the pixels that belong to the parens does nothing. Also looks just a bit better I think ;-). I put back the iwiki space trick: it get eval'd at the first stage of wikitext eval, the html entity goes all the way to the browser. And nbsp doesn't render the same way. (could use & #40; ...)

The sup shouldn't be wrapped around the whole link: it is going to end up with a couple of different span's, so users can customize, the sup has to be inside. (all these details!) Robert Ullmann 15:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Never mind this comment for now; I put it back to your edit. I'll wait for the vote etc to get sorted and then tweak it. Robert Ullmann 16:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, I thought it was good. I also prefer the parens to be inside the link. And your CSS comments are probably valid. However, I think it is more clear if someone else wants to edit the template if some explicit space is used instead of the ‘iwiki space trick’. OTOH, some idioms get known and have their merit. henne 16:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

What am I missing here? I don't think the change you just made is valid. --Connel MacKenzie 23:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is. {{ang}} is a language template not an etymology template. It needs to be in that form to interact nicely with {{t}}. But what do you think it should be and why? henne 23:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Only the very most common language names are supposed to be dewikified. The assumption has been (for a long time) that languages not in the "top 40" (or that don't match the country name of origin) are likely to be unfamiliar, therefore would need a hypertext link to the explanation of that language. These are the langauge names that are subst:'ed into ==Translations=== sections everywhere, with that intent in mind.

There probably is a better way to accomplish the {{t}} mechanism. I'd better check the code I had at bs:MediaWiki:Monobook.js that did something similar.

That is, we can't go changing templates that are regularly used, just for {{t}}'s sake. This is somewhere in WT:GP, right?

--Connel MacKenzie 23:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oops. Ok, I didn’t know these templates were used for that purpose. You’ll want to have a look at {{eu}}, {{oc}}, {{nov}} and some others I changed in a similar way recently. You’ll have to talk to Robert Ullmann about this, it was his idea. I used this trick in {{Rhymes}} too, btw.

Before you start undoing stuff, see what I did (am about to commit) in do, t needs them there... henne 00:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Look: {{t}} is supposed to be a prototype and/or an example of what we can do. *sigh* it is like trans-top, which I created just as a demo because someone asked on the GP if it could be done; and still needs a lot of work before it should really be used. The trick is good, but there are other issues as you can see.

Do note that the language templates needed are the ones with their own wikts; this is a first approximation to the "top 40"; but this is still something that would need to be worked out. Robert Ullmann 00:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, no sweat, I’ll restrict my use of {{t}} to Dutch for now, until the problem is resolved. I just thought it was a nice trick for not having to pipe all those links to the appropriate language section (like [[far#Romansh|far]] in do). t does that automatically. Yes, I have a tendency to be too reactive on such things. Sorry for that. henne 00:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please do not go around adding {{t}} indiscriminately to translation tables. Doing so creates bad interwiki links, which we should not have. For instance, on the page for listen, you added many bad interwiki links, such as to no:lytte, which does not have a page. Please only add the {{t}} template when you know that the target link exists. --EncycloPetey 18:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am afraid I cannot agree with that. If I remember well, Wiktionary:Votes/2006-12/"Translations - wiki links" includes the consensus that those links should always be added. It is clearly stated like this in WT:ELE as well. henne 12:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, the vote was only for the format that link would take. We have yet to vote on their implementation. And what the ELE says is "Note also that for main namespace articles, interwikis are not used in the translation section." So we are currently testing a practice that is against what the ELE recommends. As to red links, the vote you are recalling refers to internal red links, not to exterior ones, which would show up blue whether or not the external link existed. --EncycloPetey 15:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You’re right in that the page I was talking about is not WT:ELE, but rather Wiktionary:Translations, where it points at. I quote:

2. Each translation of an "English" word should ideally have two links at least:

• an external link to the foreign word in the Wiktionary of that language.
• an internal link to the entry for that foreign word in the English Wiktionary.

I suppose this means this point has to be cleared. Should a vote be held about this, or maybe first throw it in WT:BP? henne 11:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd say BP first, to be sure all the relevant points are raised before going to a vote. That way the vote can be clearly worded, and people will already be thinking about it when the vote begins. While I strongly agree with linking to foreign words in the Wiktionary of that language (contrary to ELE), I strongly disagree with adding such links when the target does not exist. Too often, that means sending people into other less-frequently managed Wiktionary projects to create havoc. --EncycloPetey 15:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

First, the indent is essential, because the rhyme is for a particular pronunciation.

Second: see the notice at the top of the page: you want to change WT:ELE format, discuss it on WT:BP and call a vote. Adding a reference to the template would not be an issue except that it is also a change to the format. Robert Ullmann 13:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hm, funny I did not get this comment the moment I introduced that indent there, based on what I saw everywhere. But nowadays people seem to remove the indent again. Me too, since I do not really see a use for it. Note that rhymes are not for a particular pronunciation, they are always made such that it counts for both US and UK. I suppose I’ll have it discussed. henne 13:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

How is it possible that rhymes are not for a pronunciation? Which is why no-one would object to introducing the indent (we should have it for homophones too). What happens when the US and UK rhymes groupings are different? We just give up on rhyming? ;-) Robert Ullmann 13:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

To be clear: when you introduced the indent to reflect the standard practice it was not an issue; WT:ELE was wrong, and it wasn't a policy change; I was very happy you were adding a template that might help more people get it right. Robert Ullmann 13:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I removed the #Spanish since I had changed the wiki link from the (incorrect) tio to tío. tío is only spanish, though I suppose #Spanish wouldn't hurt anything. But anyways, thats why. --Eean 17:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, I didn’t see the difference with the Portuguese tio, but it is without accent. However, it does not hurt to have the section reference there: the section is always supposed to be there, be it the first... henne 17:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I undid your edits for a few reasons. First of all, I think it unwise for people to edit policy pages which they are not terribly well informed of. On your recent edit to the About Ancient Greek page, you made the pronunciation/romanization table incorrect with one of your well-intentioned edits (it has since been corrected). Secondly, since there are still a great number of entries which have the old translation format, a descriptive page should include that format. People reading the About Greek page are generally not creating new translation tables, but rather filling in existing ones. If you think that perhaps the page should note that one format is preferred over the other, you should mention that on the talk page. Saltmarsh has been editing and creating Greek entries for the better part of a year, and so is qualified to write the page himself. Most others (including myself) are more productive in making suggestions on the talk page and leaving the actual writing to the peope who know more about the issues at play. Please don't think that I took your edit for vandalism, as it clearly was not. I simply think that it was inappropriate. Atelaes 18:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

First, I apologise for the error I introduced in About Ancient Greek, that was why I added a question mark to my comment. There was something missing, though, be it an empty cell.

I do not entirely agree with your second comment: I think it would be more appropriate to give an example like it is prefered, and mention that there are still pages which use some old layout, rather than showing the old layout and mentioning that some newer pages use the (now preferred) format. You are right though that I should mention such stuff on the talk page and let the pros do the editing, which is what I will do now. henne 11:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Thanks for your questions on my user page. I have answered them there. It is good that you aim to follow WT:ELE because some people don't bother. Note that what is in WT:ELE tends to be guidelines rather than hard-and-fast rules. — Paul G 10:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Widsith, you’ll need to wikilink Jèrriais if you add translations to that language, since it is not in the WT:TOP40. See price. Cheers, H. (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bah, I hate that policy. Is it a policy? Anyway, I have no objection to others wikilinking Jèrriais but I won't be doing it myself, I think it looks messy. Widsith 16:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've been told different things about this over the years. The "system" was never quite so codified before. Like, I would be advised to link Alabama but not Chickasaw. That may have been a clarity issue though. I feel sort of obnoxious linking everything all the time. But, there it is. -E. abu Filumena 00:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

User:EncycloPetey/Languages seems to be the current "semi-official" list for the top-40 not-wikified language names. --Connel MacKenzie 06:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Connel MacKenzie 06:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fixed to do the blank lines down to all header levels and the basic header syntax. You might try it ;-) Robert Ullmann 21:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for looking at it; detailed reply on my talk page. Robert Ullmann 11:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I figured you'd have something interesting to add to this discussion and am thus formally inviting you. Atelaes 12:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I like how you rearranged the variations of b, made it much more readable. And thanks for all the variations of 'e' you added, especially the math ones :-) Keep up the good work! :) Language Lover 10:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

remember that any change has to be exactly mirrored in t-  ;-) Robert Ullmann 15:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, yes. Stupid that is. I would abandon t- altogether. Whatever. By the way your trick to filter out non-existant wiktionaries does not seem to work, see the Old Norse translation for cake. H. (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, non is in the table, but non:kaka isn't? I thought it was the same table! Very interesting. Adds to the argument for {{t!}} or whatever. Robert Ullmann 15:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don’t understand your trick, really. Maybe if you could explain, I’d be able to help find a solution. H. (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The #language parser function returns the language name, in the language, for a code in the table; if the code isn't in the table, it returns the code; so of #language:code != code, the code is in the table. I thought that was the same table it uses to decide if a xx: prefix is a wiki language code? Apparently not! There are at least two language-code tables built in ... Robert Ullmann 15:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I could’ve predicted you that would not work. The docu for #language: does not say anything about whether it is restricted to existing projects. Where do you get the idea of ‘the table’? H. (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

It isn't restricted to existing projects; but I did think it was the same table used to recognize ISO639 codes and the WM extension codes: fiu-vro:someplace is a valid link and võro is in the table. Why would there be two separate tables within the parser itself for language codes? Robert Ullmann 17:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. So many BP discussions end like that. Give me a day or so to contemplate the issues at hand. I still want the template in all the entries, but I'll see what I can't come up with a workable compromise. And yes, I think getting Stephen in on this is a good idea. Atelaes 17:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

So I apologize for the delay on this. I've considered the situation and here are the conclusions I've reached. First of all, I feel quite strongly that graphemes absolutely must have language sections. There is simply too much variation within languages on how they treat letters to avoid it. It may work for Greek letters to have all the information to be lumped under one header, but only because there is only one language which uses that script (Greek). Secondly, at least some of the information in your template needs to be within the language sections, as order changes from language to language. Also, I think it would be good to have the particular language's name for the character under the language header. However, I also think that there should be a primary header (I prefer translingual, but that's another issue), with information that transcends specific languages. A few things that should be in this "primary" header: Etymology, definitely. I agree that we should also have characters which come from this character (however, I think it should be "descendants" instead of "derived terms"). IPA would also do well in this term, as well as any unicode specifications. In addition, I think that the names for this character in various languages should also be here, in addition to the specific name being included in the specific language section. However, I think that the picture of the character in every language is redundant (not to mention messy). So, perhaps that part should be taken out of the template, and simply included within the primary header. I prefere the translingual header, if for no other reason than it will arouse less conflict, as a pre-existing header. I think that the L3 header symbol works well under the L2 header "language". I had a few other thoughts, but I'm a bit drunk right now, so I'll leave it at that. Your thoughts? Atelaes 06:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've responded on my talk page. Atelaes 15:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

And again. Atelaes 20:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding [1]: did you read WT:ELE? Please do not undo my changes if you are not 100% sure what you are doing. I have to say I appreciate your work on the article, though.

Ok, on second view, WT:ELE is not very clear about this. It only tells about putting :* before quotations. I like it better if that is done before example sentences as well though. H. (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. I'll say again thank you for bring it to RFC and for helping to clean up the article, and reminding me when I forget to re-order the translations ;)

I must say that I wasn't intentionally reverting your changes — I didn't search though the edit history to see who it was that put the #* lines there, I only corrected what I thought was a mistake. (In looking through the edit history, I see that it was User:Williamsayers79 who originally cleaned up the article and added many of the example sentences, in the *: format. See this diff) You're right that WT:ELE and WT:QUOTE are not very clear on this, but here was my understanding : WT:ELE said

===Noun===
Declension
#Meaning 1
#*Quotations

... so, quotations go on a #* line. Next I went to WT:QUOTE to determine what a quotation was ...

# First definition
#*Year, Author, Source title, Publisher, pages #–#,
#*: First quotation of word.
#*:: Translation [if applicable]

... from this I concluded that the '*' line was for dates, and ':' was for text (the '*' portion of '*:' being, I assumed, added so that it would properly parse/space). — Beobach972 02:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't anticipate this being a problem for very long, though, because I intend to find illustrative quotations from literature (the format for which we all agree on) for all of the senses. (Haha, that's one way to fix it, eh?) — Beobach972 02:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

That is a good option, although the other has to be settled as well, since example sentences are used a lot.

Please don’t forget to bolden the word in question in the quotations. And I’d prefer you use ’ instead of ' (Unicode rules!). H. (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is currently an active vote at [[2]] regarding whether regular possessive forms of modern English nouns should have their own entries or not. As part of this it has been suggested that the {{en-noun}} template might be modified to show the possessive forms in the inflection line of modern English noun entries (irrespective of the outcome of the vote). Your comments and/or votes are welcome until the end of the vote on 5th August 2007. You are receiving this note as you have edited template:en-noun and/or template talk:en-noun Thryduulf 17:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if you realize it (apparently not) but your reasoning for voting support is the exact opposite of what the vote is for. The proposal is to specifically eliminate reasonable exceptions. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-07/exclusion_of_possessive_case. --Connel MacKenzie 09:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I believe Connel has raised a legitimate point; your vote is worth reconsidering. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 13:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

How exactly is hear a "related term" to listen? Then share neither etymology nor morphology, which is what that section header is used for. --EncycloPetey 17:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I didn’t know there was that strict a policy about that header. I just wanted to merge some of the many headers there: there was twice derived terms, related terms and see also. Split them again, if you deem it necessary. H. (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Some people insist on having derived terms under the part of speech from which they are derived, others prefer them at the end. As a result, it's not uncommon to find such lists in two places. In terms of that split, I don't really care. Either way is fine to me. --EncycloPetey 18:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, is that what it's for? I learn more by reading the talk pages of other users than anything else. DAVilla 14:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'd like to nominate you for admin. Please let me know if you'd be willing to accept. DAVilla 14:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for considering. It would definitely be great to have the possibility to do some more stuff, like editing protected pages, and I think that I am worth that trust. So accept, yes, but let me say that I try to reduce my time here, so please do not expect too much from me. Maybe could you indicate whether there are special expectancies? I might want to take care of one of the open tasks at WT:DW, particularly those related to translations, but only a minor one. H. (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Apart from the trust, there are no expectations. You're certainly not required to burn yourself out. Just continue to focus on whatever contributions you feel are most appropriate. DAVilla 23:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, please accept here. DAVilla 00:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

As a Dutch speaker, I would appreciate it if you could cast your eye over hun#Dutch, WT:RFC#hun and WT:BP#Category for Template:proscribed. Thanks. Thryduulf 23:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Very good; but shouldn't it be named "RQ:Rowling Deathly Hallows"? Robert Ullmann 09:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

For consistency, probably yes, but I think the name is a better mnemonic now. You can create a redirect if you want. H. (talk) 09:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Hamaryns. You are right that {{Latn}} would be best with its own CSS class. I'm pretty sure, though, that something like "mention-Latn" would be more intuitive than "term". Is there a reason you chose that specific name in this edit? Rod (A. Smith) 15:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I chose that name since, I think, {{Latn}} is only used in {{term}}. Note that the template does not follow naming conventions, which say template names should start with lowercase. H. (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, most of our templates are supposed to begin with a lower-case letter, but in this case (as with all of the proper Category:Script templates), the template's name should be the name of the ISO 15924 code, which deliberately has an initial capital letter. Does that make sense? Rod (A. Smith) 22:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, you appear to have been confused about the intended use of italics in this edit. Transliteration will never appear in a Latin (Roman) script mention, and Latin (Roman) script mentions are the only ones that are formatted with italics. I do strongly prefer italics for transliterations to avoid potential misunderstanding when a transliteration happens to use the same sequence of letters as an English word, and I think the case can be made to prefer them everywhere in English Wiktionary. I also don't understand why you moved the English gloss outside of the parentheses. Inside parentheses, the English gloss is much less likely to be confused as the introduction of a new term, and more likely to be seen as a clarification of the mentioned term. I also don't understand why you changed the double quotes there into single quotes. Is it because UK formatting conventions are for single quotes around English glosses of non-English words? I appreciate your help ironing out any kinks. Rod (A. Smith) 16:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think the way I edited it is more conforming to the standard as it exists today. It is the style I have been using since a long time as well. But it is true that there are no fixed conventions about this. Therefore if you start a decisive vote about the topic (which I suppose you will somewhere in the near future), please do also mention the glosses and transliteration. To clarify my reasons:

• Transliterations are usually put in normal straight roman type. At least this is the convention in translation tables. Also note that they are not supposed to contain IPA symbols or non-Roman symbols. If glosses are put outside of the parentheses and between quotes, the change of confounding them gets rather small.
• Glosses are important enough to deserve their place in the main sentence. If you would read an etymology line out loud, you will probably not read the transliterations (that is, if you know the script, you won’t, and if you do not, you will only read them, but only once), but you will read the gloss out loud. It acts like a clarification to the previous word, just like if I would talk about ‘Mitterand, the former president of France’, I would not think about putting the second part between parentheses, only between commas.
• I prefer single quotes since it is not a quotation of a person, and since I think the double quotes look ugly in that case (especially if you put parentheses around them!). I do not know why you refer to UK formatting, that is probably a misunderstanding: I am not British, not even native speaker.

Note that I am very pleased with you poking up this discussion, it is something which needed to be done, cheers!

Also note that should you choose to revert my changes, please use {{italbrac}} if italics is inside brackets. H. (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the rationale. To me, there is a good reason that the OED defines a parenthesis (e.g., the comma-separated phrase in “Mitterand, the former president of France, was...”) as “An explanatory or qualifying word, clause, or sentence inserted into a passage with which it doesn't necessarily have any grammatical connection, and from which it is usually marked off by round or square brackets, dashes, or commas.”[3] To me, the English translation gloss is parenthetical and belongs in parentheses. Nevertheless, I will try to represent your position at WT:BP#Consistent format for mentioned terms, where the official formatting discussion (perhaps leading to a vote) will take place. I can add another CSS class to allow readers to choose whether transliterations should be in italics, but setting the default to non-italic transliterations would seem to invite confusion with transliterations that spell English words. E.g. If a visitor reads “From 군 (gun) + ...” and doesn't know Hangeul, he or she may think that "gun" is the meaning of 군, but “From 군 (gun) + ...” makes it clear that "gun" is a transliteration. (BTW, {{italbrac}} is a formatting-only template. It is unaware of a reader's preference for italic vs. non-italic transliterations and it cannot distinguish between a transliteration and a gloss, so it cannot be used there, but I could duplicate its functionality within {{term}}.) Regardless of my opinion, though, we will discuss that option as well in WT:BP#Consistent format for mentioned terms very soon. The reason I mentioned UK-US formatting is that a large population believes that US favors double quotes where UK favors single quotes. There are ample sources that dispute that belief, such as some who note classic British works that use double quotes. Anyway, the good news is that thanks to your advice, {{term}} and {{en-term}} now allow users to choose their prefered gloss style (single or double quotes) through WT:PREFS. Rod (A. Smith) 22:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, Hamaryns. I am about to ask for opinions at WT:BP regarding two of your suggestions: (1) not using italics for transliterations and (2) not enclosing English translation glosses in parentheses. Following is what I intend to ask, but I'd appreciate first knowing whether it represents your position accurately:

{{term}} marks transliterations with italics. By default, it marks English translation glosses that accompany a mentioned term or phrase in double quotes. (Note that readers can use WT:PREFS or WT:CUSTOM to change the double quotes to single quotes.) It also encloses transliterations and English translations in parentheses. Hamaryns points out, though, that {{t}} does not format transliterations with italics. Hamaryns also suggests that English translation glosses should not be enclosed in parentheses. For comparison, following are the current style and the one suggested by Hamaryns:

• (current): From French mot (“word”) and...
• (alternative): From French mot, “‘word’” and...
• (current): Cognate with Korean 군 (gun, “army”) and...
• (alternative): Cognate with Korean 군 (gun) (gun), “‘army’” and...
• (current): Similar to Template:en-term, but...
• (alternative): Similar to word, “‘unit of speech’”, but...

Do the "alternative" formats above represent your position accurately? Rod (A. Smith) 19:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not entirely: I prefer single quotes for glosses. Double quotes should be reserved for citations of entire sentences and the like. I see that you introduce that option with CSS, which is nice, but I’d really like to see single quotes as the default. Please also point out that there is CSS involved here is you bring it to BP. Ah you do, well, do it more explicitly. Btw, the wording of some of the options you added to WT:PREFS is wrong, I think.

Also, it is not clear to me what {{en-term}} is for, and why that would default to bold. I suppose you use the old mention class in there, but once again, I think a difference should be made between form-of definition lines and mentioned terms in etymologies and the like. They deserve bold in the first, they do not in the latter. H. (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Hamaryns. {{en-term}} is there to address a request to format English mentions differently from non-English mentions. For simplicity sake, I hope we reject it, but I want to be sure we discuss everyone's requests. I will try to be more explicit about the use of CSS. Usually, I would only discuss CSS details in WT:GP but if there is something else about that you think needs mentioned in WT:BP, please say so. Regarding the single vs. double quotes for glosses, I understand your position. I had hoped to discuss your suggestions piecemeal, and in this round just to discuss the transliteration style and whether to include the glosses within the parentheses. I was going to ask whether default gloss style should use double or single quotes in a separate topic so that each discussion point would be relatively simple. If, though, you would rather I incorporate the single vs. double quote default in the same topic, I'll do so. Finally, I reviewed the wording at WT:PREFS but I cannot identify what you think might be wrong with it. Can you offer any hints? Rod (A. Smith) 20:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy to announce that you have been promoted. Here are some basic instructions about the new tools. If you have any questions, feel free to ask any other admin, including your promoter, User:Dvortygirl. Also, please update your entry in the administrator list with any additions or corrections at WT:A. Thanks for your hard work in the past and (in advance) for the work you will be doing! ArielGlenn 05:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Congrats! Rod (A. Smith) 05:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Responding to a comment you made on my talk about 7 months ago. :) I changed the links from tio to tío, and tío is only Spanish so the #Spanish wasn't needed. --Eean 18:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The {{nolanguage}} template needs to be substed otherwise it doesn't work properly. I don't know why. SemperBlotto 10:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

When subst'd it adds a category based on date. Not the only way to do this, but the way it does it. Robert Ullmann 23:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Did you mean to revert as much as you did? —Ruakh_TALK 15:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, thanks. Still need to get used to the new tools… H. (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Just for a notice: I removed two nominations for those who are already whitelisted. Cheers! ―Tohru 01:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you use Firefox, you should go to WT:PREFS and turn on the "enhanced patrolling" options at the botton, in the sysop-only section. That way, when you view Special:Recentchanges, you'll automatically mark-as-patrolled any edit from whitelisted editors. That may prevent additional duplicate listings on WT:WL, if you get in the habit of clicking "[hide] patrolled edits" within Special:RC.

Does that make sense? --Connel MacKenzie 16:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

for the welcome! --Nino Barbieri 17:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the names of the categories should really begin with the language: Category:French first-person ..., not have (French) on the end. The template can wrap the whole category name in #ucfirst to handle the English case. Robert Ullmann 13:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC) strike that bit, the English cats would use the language name as well of course. Robert Ullmann 13:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

You said: Um, can you take a little bit more care when formatting new pages? Do you use the preview button? I have no idea what you tried to achieve by putting all those {’s in pharmacogenetic, please review my change to it. H. (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You assume they were intentional. They were in the template provided for adjectives. I saw them on preview and thought they would disappear when the page was saved. (Since you edit in both venues, you probably know that a problem common to Wiktionary & Wikipedia is markup in some templates which is visible on preview, particularly section previews, but vanishes when saved.) When they didn't, I was researching what the template was trying to achieve. Before I could finish, I lost computer access. You may not have meant it this way, but your sarcasm comes across as over the top here, unduly snide, especially when dealing with a single very minor formatting problem in a single definition from a relatively inexperienced contributor. An explanation of why all the curly brackets are in the template in the first place would be greatly appreciated, if you have one or can direct me to one. Meanwhile, thank you for patching it up while I was offline. -- Lisasmall 18:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hamaryns. Thanks for adding the ellipsis to the Edittools — I use it often! However, please reädd a (linked) · (middot) to the Misc. menu (probably best to put it at the end, out of the way) — it is used extensively in hyphenation in pronunciation sections. Also, if you’re feeling up to it, you may find it useful to add some of the numerous symbols listed in the rel-tables here. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 10:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I would appreciate if you had sent a message instead of outright blocking me.

I do not use a bot — having been a Wiktionarian for years I am fully aware of the rules. I am considering creating a bot at some time in the future, but currently my programming capabilities are not equal for the task.

If my editing speed is considered too resource-hogging, I can slow down. This is just a way to lower my stress level (and to procrastinate, d'oh).

What I'm been doing is simply copypasting the following code:

==Finnish==

===Verb===
'''{{SUBST:PAGENAME}}'''

# {{fi-form of|{{SUBST:PAGENAME}}da|type=verb|pr=third-person|pl=singular|mood=indicative|tense=present}}
# {{fi-form of|{{SUBST:PAGENAME}}da|type=verb|pr=third-person|pl=singular|mood=indicative|tense=past}}
# {{fi-form of|{{SUBST:PAGENAME}}da|type=verb|mood=indicative|tense=present connegative}}
# {{fi-form of|{{SUBST:PAGENAME}}da|type=verb|pr=second-person|pl=singular|mood=imperative|tense=present}}
# {{fi-form of|{{SUBST:PAGENAME}}da|type=verb|pr=second-person|pl=singular|mood=imperative|tense=present connegative}}

I intentionally chose verb forms that can be subst'ed. I have a list of words with corresponding inflection numbers in order to find suitably words quickly.--Jyril 10:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you provide evidence for your claim that "meme" is pronounced /mi:m/ (to rhyme with "theme") only in UK English, please? The article meme had the pronunciation /mEm/ (rhyming with "them") added for US English, and changes were made to the corresponding rhymes pages, but the change to meme has since been removed. Thanks. — Paul G 08:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I do not have that evidence. I suppose I misinterpreted that which was there when cleaning up the page. Go on and correct, if you deem necessary. H. (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

In regards to my user talk page: do you by any chance have a template I can use for a Hebrew word, that does fit into the English wiktionary conventions? Even some good sample pages would be nice. Shlomif 20:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know it was half a year ago when you made these changes, but do please be careful with translations. Any time you change the definition line substantially, the translations have to be checked. 语 means "language" in Chinese so does not apply to the second definition of a person that you split off. It and presumably most of the translations only apply to the first definition. DAVilla 21:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

In this edit you asked what the % sign means in the pronunciation. In SAMPA, % is used to indicate secondary stress - equivalent to ˌ in IPA. See w:SAMPA chart for English. Thryduulf 15:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dank voor je verbeteringen. Ik denk echter niet dat zegde Middelnederlands is. Het staat namelijk gewoon in het Groene Boekje. In het zuiden is het namelijk nog heel gebruikelijk. Jcwf 03:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Je hebt een punt, ik heb daar een beetje een slag geslagen. Maar pas wel op met zulke generaliserende beweringen: ik ben zelf Vlaming, maar zou nooit ‘zegde’ zeggen. H. (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

(Move log); 11:24 . . Hamaryns (Talk | contribs | block) (You can't judge a book by its cover moved to You can’t judge a book by its cover.: proper quote sign, dot)

I thought that the apostrophe (') is the correct symbol here, not the single quote sign (’) which should (as its name suggests) be used for quoting. Are you happy if I move it back to a title with an apostrophe, or have I misunderstood something? Conrad.Irwin 11:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Um, yes, I now remember something about that only the old-fashioned ' should be used in page titles, since this messes up the search functionality. Connel knows more about this. The ’ is however the proper sign for apostrophe as well, have a look at symbol 2019 on the unicode page, and note that I also added a dot at the end, which I think belongs there since it is an entire sentence. Therefore, you cannot just revert it. And keep the page it is at now as a redirect in any case. H. (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd forgotten about this, I've fixed it now - but for future reference char 2019 is a single quote and not an apostrophe, see http://rishida.net/scripts/uniview/getName.php?list=2019%2027 Conrad.Irwin 13:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hiya H., could you help me with the meaning of this Dutch word please? Can't find it in any online dictionaries....it seems to be some type of hospital? Widsith 11:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, in any case, in the new spelling, it gets an ‘n’: diaconessenhuis, see the official word list. I do not actively know the word. It is dated and mainly used as the name for hospitals. All I found was w:nl:Diaconessenhuis. Sorry, can’t help there. H. (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, my surce dates from the '40s so I wouldn't be surprised if it's an old spelling. Very interesting, thanks....I wonder if there is a word for this in English.. Widsith 08:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

As you can see, I had a go at it. H. (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

But I may not be quite as inspired as you like, since I believe my entry was more informative. "Real" language dictionaries often make explicit distinctions pointing out when the "general" meaning of a word applies. Normally, one assumes a foreign language word definition to be limited to the (a perhaps more intuitive) specific most common definition. It is rarer when the words are so closely that all the meanings of a word in one language port over equally to the other language.

Sometimes this concept is conveyed with the word "also," sometimes parenthesized. Often, the abbreviation (gen.) (just like that, ital and parens) is used, but I'm unaware of any convention here, and I figured it would be confusing, perhaps confused with the word gender. If there is a convention, please let me know. If there is another way to convey what I wish to convey, please inform me as well. If you know of no way to convey that, I will keep trying until I find something the police around here can live with. (Not on that entry of course, which I will leave alone.) <shrug>

Thanks again. Snakesteuben 13:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Yes, of course I have read the document you cited, and I have paid particularly close attention to all 5 lines that are actually applicable to this context, and most of what I do. I have also read the document cited therein, and found it spectacularly unhelpful as well. I would prefer that you skim the relevant portions of my conversation with Billy's page so I can avoid repeating myself. Which you can probably guess, I would do at some length. ;-) Snakesteuben 13:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think you should look at each and revert instead of reverting them all at once. Since "mmmm" is most definitely 4000.

Though if you revert it, should "mmmmm" and "mmmmmm" even exist as redirects?

It is commonly found that the two letter decrement of a lesser unit is used in "informal"/"less standard" practice. It's rare but used. (which is why it is tagged as "informal")

http://www.roman-britain.org/numerals.htm

The decrements are a maximum of a double decrement, since practice didn't usually include triple decrements. (IIX is the most common double decrement)

70.55.85.225 12:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The case with "M"/"m" is unusually, since informally, people now use M's till the end, because they don't use the macron forms, so an M count over 5 would be informal. MMMMM = macron of V, so MMMMM would properly be the largest count you'd ever see. The next one would be (macronV)M for 6000. 70.55.85.225 12:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I follow you change to template {{AF.}}, however I'd just like to check that we can now do away with Category:Anglo-French derivations? --Williamsayers79 18:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I made it into a redirect for now, can be deleted along with the template eventually, but maybe safer to keep it, in case people think of the idea that it is something different from Anglo-Norman. H. (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

[The]DaveRoss 20:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC) ;)Reply

What is the supposed problem? Validates fine for me. Robert Ullmann 14:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Have a look at yiff. The HTML Validator plugin for Firefox gives me:

Result: 0 fouten / 7 waarschuwingen

line 211 column 1 - Waarschuwing: <td> attribute "width" has invalid value "0.5%"
line 216 column 1 - Waarschuwing: <td> attribute "width" has invalid value "0.5%"
line 221 column 1 - Waarschuwing: <td> attribute "width" has invalid value "0.5%"
line 226 column 1 - Waarschuwing: <td> attribute "width" has invalid value "0.5%"
line 316 column 1 - Waarschuwing: <td> attribute "width" has invalid value "49.75%"
line 320 column 1 - Waarschuwing: <td> attribute "width" has invalid value "0.5%"
line 321 column 1 - Waarschuwing: <td> attribute "width" has invalid value "49.75%"
Informatie: Doctype given is "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
Informatie: Document content looks like XHTML 1.0 Transitional

(waarschuwing means warning, fout = error)H. (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think you are misinterpreting, it is a very strict validator: strict DTD would indeed prohibit "width" in TD at < 4.0; 4.0 provided "width" but only in pixels; in practice all browsers have implemented width (with pix or fraction or percent) in TD from all versions since tables; so "width: 0.5%;" should be treated as valid in pratice, and the page passes W3C's validator. The validator you are using is "warning" about something strictly invalid, but in general use. (Just about any software generating HTML may do this.) We could add in COL attributes and such to "fix" the strict validation, but is there a point? Robert Ullmann 16:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

See Tables in HTML, note the TD element can have width in pixels, but browsers don't apply that restriction, they just use the %length code. Robert Ullmann 16:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see; however, that page says the width attribute is deprecated. I think indeed I have the validator set to xhtml strict, which probably doesn’t have it any more, since that is supposed to be done with CSS. H. (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

My bot hasn't run Spanish verbs (or really at all) in two years... the form of templates weren't the same then as they are now, so obviously the bot didn't conform to the future versions. The entries were pretty close to the standard of the time, it is the standards which have changed. - [The]DaveRoss 19:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hallo, Hamarys. Ich habe vorhin von deinem Wunsch nach solchen Vorlagen erfahren und ich möchte eine Vorlage für die dänische Rechtschreibreform von 1948 erstellen (und dir solcherart behilflich sein), da ich sie häufig erwähne. Ich möchte mir jedoch ein Muster ansehen, denn ich würde es selbst nicht schaffen. Gibt es schon welche? Bogorm 17:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Du könntest {{de-note obsolete spelling}} als Vorbild nehmen. H. (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Danke, ich werde mich bald damit befassen. Bogorm 22:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Hamaryns. How do you reckon we categorise Category:English words suffixed with “-y”? --Borganised 11:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don’t understand your question. Are you asking how to add that category? It is indirectly done by {{suffix}}, but you could of course add it manually. Feel free to add some useful description to the category. Why do you ask me, btw? H. (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nevermind, I asked the question at WT:GP. --Borganised 11:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well i am new here and dont have exact idea how to do these things. I will try to understand formats and all stuffs.Unknown Dost 09:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi H.,

Just a heads-up: [[Wiktionary:Grease pit#Wiktionary:Requested entries.]].

—Ruakh_TALK 15:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don’t really get it. heads-up is supportive, no? (Ah, seems not so, thanks.) It seems like I went too far there. Though I do not agree with the reasoning, I will comment there. H. (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey

wat is een seut? Is dat Vlaams? Overigens is "lulletje" (in de verkleinvorm dus, net zoals sukkel -> sukkeltje) gebruikelijker om de ietwat dezelfde betekenis duidelijk te maken als dork. Doe je dit niet, dan klinkt het te hard voor de meeste mensen als je iemand lul of sukkel noemt. Fastifex heeft in mijn ogen wel vaker rare edits gemaakt, zoals op Indo en flikker. Kun jij eens naar flikker kijken? Misschien zijn het namelijk alleen Vlaamse betekenissen of zoiets. Groetjes Mallerd 20:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Het zou goed kunnen dat seut Vlaams is. Ik was er niet zeker van, maar als je het niet kent, dan kan je daar gerust {{i|Flemish}} toevoegen. Je kan ook gerust de vertalingen wat aanpassen. Ik zou er dan echter {{t|nl|lul|alt=lulletje|m}} van maken.

Ja, Fastifex gaat soms uit de bol als het om SM-achtige dingen gaat, :-) Ik kijk het na. H. (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oke, thanks. Kun jij mijn edit hier even fixen? edit. Ik snap niet hoe je een bron kunt vragen bij alleen die ene definitie, jij wel? Mallerd 16:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

This seems obvious enough to me but I decided to confirm this with you since Dutch is your native language. Is the plural here a typo?--50 Xylophone Players talk 21:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I actually don't speak Dutch so perhaps if you can could you explain simply the rule regarding agenda's? I merely asked you this because I saw that the entry didn't exist yet when I was creating plural entries and diminutives (where I could) with Conrad.Irwin's creation.js.--50 Xylophone Players talk 19:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just something else I stumbled upon while making French plurals: appelsap; is the plural really appelsapppen or is that just a typo?--50 Xylophone Players talk 22:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

That is a typo. appelsappen, though in the pure sense it should be uncountable. H. (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I note you've added the {{rfp}} to this. I wouldn't have thought it was actually pronounced, or if it was it would be as "and following" (i.e. it's meaning) by someone who knows what it means. If so I'm not certain it can be given a useful punctuation section. Thryduulf 20:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think we could use a generic template that explains this fact about abbreviations, and is included as the pronunciation section of such entries. --EncycloPetey 16:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You have introduced the pronunciation ˈʊŋkɛ to this lemma. I have never heard this word being pronounced, but based on the rules of German phonology concerning schwa and considering that the similar sounding German name Anke is pronounced [ˈaŋkə], I am quite certain that Unke is pronounced [ˈʊŋkə] instead of [ˈʊŋkɛ]. Am I wrong? --Omnipaedista 07:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Note: I wrote the above having taken for granted that ˈʊŋkɛ was a phonetic transcription. But I am under the impression that even if it is a phonemic one it is still not correct. --Omnipaedista 08:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think you’re right. Even after living in Germany for 5 years now, I am still not confident in my pronunciation. So go ahead and change, or maybe better: put an {{rfp|lang=de}} next to it, explaining your doubts, so that a native of professional can have a look at it. H. (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I remember now: I copied the pronunciation from w:de:Unken, for the reason explained above, I wouldn’t have added a pronunciation, but if I had, I would have chosen /unkə/, which is wrong, it should indeed be ʊ, thus only confirming my prudence! H. (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the hint. I still think my concerns have not been addressed by that link though. The singular could still be *[/ˈʊŋkə/] and the plural *[ˈʊŋkɛn] could correspond to */ˈʊŋkən/. Anyway, I'll probably just tag the pronunciation. --Omnipaedista 01:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just a heads-up. I took another look at the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association and confirmed that the general law goes like this: /ˈvɛːrɛ/ ~ [ˈvɛːʁə], /ˈveːgɛs/ ~ [ˈveːgəs], /ˈgɛltɛn/ ~ [ˈgɛltn̩]. --Omnipaedista 02:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Recently I was delighted to see that you created the entry for rathen, which is the 19th century spelling. What are your thoughts on allowing more similar entries such as Thal instead of Tal, the -niß ending in lieu of -nis and so on? Many more languages with reformed orthography may follow, see also User talk:Vahagn Petrosyan#orthography. Do you deem a Beer parlour discussion appropriate, so that possible opposition from reformists can be countered? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see no use for discussion at all. To me it is perfectly clear that those words should be included. With an appropriate mention of the obsoleteness of the orthogrophy, of course, like {{de-usage obsolete spelling}} (which I seem to have forgotten on rathen). H. (talk) 08:53, 11 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} 03:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I urge you to vote. (I don't know which way you'll vote, but I want more voices, especially English Wiktionarians' voices, heard in this vote.) If you've voted already, or stated that you won't, and I missed it, I apologize.​—msh210℠ 17:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is widely held myth about the etymology of pinscher dog breeds, that the word comes from the German Pinscher, which means biter.

Another idea indicates the reverse, that the German word is taken from the English word, which refers to the ears of the breeds which are often pinched or docked. I doubt that this is correct.

Yet another hypothesis also states that the German word is taken from the English word, but it describes the restrained biting action that the dogs use when catching rodents or biting people. This seems most likely to me.

What do you think? ~ heyzeuss 15:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I wonder why you ask me. I’m neither German, nor do I know anything about dogs. Anyway, I cleaned up the article a bit, let that be an answer… H. (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The content looks ok. We don't normally delete talk pages when the content is relevant. Sometimes someone suggests a change on the talk page, and someone makes it, but we don't delete the talk page afterwards. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well alright, but why? It is so totally outdated and the suggested changes were made. H. (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have no objection to this, but do you plan to do it for all of them? bd2412 T 14:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

In the long run, yes. Hopefully, someone will help, and people will start making the correct forms directly. In the even longer run, I’d like to see all entries with straight apostrophs deleted, but it will probably take some decennia before the world has evolved far enough for that to become acceptable to realists ;-) H. (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

It seems that your edit broke some entries (a few thousand). That's the only reason I revert, see the current section of WT:GP. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

FYI. —Ruakh_TALK 23:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

You have been adding RFE tags to entries on a singular basis, entry by entry. I do not see what this is good for. It is obvious that an entry is lacking etymology when it does. Finding all entries that lack etymologies is fairly easy using WT:AWB. Actually adding etymologies to entries that lack them makes much more sense to me. --Dan Polansky 15:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Most of the time, I am editing an entry for other reasons and just put it there, as part of my routine. Occasionally, I do wonder about the etymology of the word and add the rfe explicitly, without doing anything else. I also explicitly place it, and rfp, on foreign-language entries, because I have the impression people tend to forget to fill them in. I don’t mind that this could be done by a machine faster, but does it bother you? H. (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

It does bother me, as the RFE boxes are distracting. I would not want to see a RFE box in each English entry that lacks an etymology, nor even in each entry of the 1000 most frequent English words.

When working on Czech entries, I do not forget to add etymology and pronunciation: I avoid adding them on purpose. It would be fairly pointless for someone to add RFEs and RFPs to Czech entries created by me. --Dan Polansky 22:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree they are distracting, as are red links. That is the purpose, isn’t it? Work in progress?

Why don’t you add ety and pron to Czech entries? For inflection words, no etymology is needed, but I consider a pronunciation useful there as well. Otherwise, I can imagine no reason not to add those. H. (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary as a whole is work in progress. There is no point IMHO to place a handful of request boxes on each page that lacks some class of lexicographical information (pronunciation, audio pronunciation, etymology, inflection, related terms, semantic relations including synonyms, antonyms, hyponyms, etc.). Everyone seriously working on the dictionary knows that they are lacking; we do not need to state the obvious using distracting boxes. By contrast, redlinks show information that is unobvious from mere reading the current page: that the target page is non-existent.

I am not adding Czech etymology and Czech pronunciation mainly because I am focusing on what matters most to me, and possibly what matters most to many other people: semantics. Also, I am not adding Czech etymologies because I am lacking a public domain source of these; I know only of two non-free etymological dictionaries that are a bit more modern, and sourcing from only two non-free works could bother on copyvio I am afraid. I am not adding Czech pronunciation as that would require me to build a new markup skill and dilute my focus on semantics, which includes definitions and semantic relations. Apart from semantics, I am also interested a bit in etymology and morphology, though.

So it is all about focus: putting first things first, and getting concentrated instead of getting scattered across areas that do not interest me that much and in which I am lacking skills and do not want to build skills. --Dan Polansky 10:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Right, those are good reasons. They only apply to you, though. There is no reason why someone else wouldn’t add at least pronunciation of Czech. And I see your point and I will restrict my placement of these boxes, if it soothes you. H. (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. --Dan Polansky 16:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Interesting point; we have {{etyl:cel}} for [[Category:Celtic derivations]] but no template allowing to link to a section. But since "Celtic" isn't a valid language there's no point in linking to something that can't possibly exist; can we just speedy delete this template to bypass the RFD? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ah, yes, I already thought the reason must be something like this. The reason for me to make is was Arthur, where it says this is from Celtic, but not from which form. How to handle this then? Just leave artos unlinked then (there’s only Latin there)? Or rather put an {{rfe}} and hope somebody finds out which variant of Celtic? H. (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

You can actually do {{term|artos|lang=etyl:cel}}, though no section link is just as good or better, since Celtic isn't a language, it will link to something that can never exist. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Need your input here. ~ heyzeuss 19:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is the vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Deprecating less-than symbol in etymologies, which would benefit from your participation, even if only in the role of an abstainer. Right now, the results of the vote do not quite mirror the results of the poll that has preceded the vote. There is a chance that the vote will not pass. The vote, which I thought would be a mere formality, has turned out to be a real issue. You have taken part on the poll that preceded the vote, which is why I have sent you this notification. --Dan Polansky 08:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please make sure you enter any Dutch verbs you happen to create on this page to have their conjugation entries created. the same applies to adjectives for their declension. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C}

Please help remove the Dutch language entries *glome and *glomen. I was prohibited to do that for *glomen, but as far as I [a native speaker of Dutch] know, it is no Dutch verb form, nor is it a Dutch word. And they are certainly no forms of the verb `glimmen'.Redav (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

If so, it looks like User:CodeCat needs to fix Module:nl-verb, because glomen is still linked from the translation table at glimmen. But we have had both these forms since 2010. Why did they stay here for so long? Keφr 20:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hamaryns,

I have recently reverted your RFE on prime back in 2012, as I do not think the sentence "how did the symbol get its name?" makes sense in an etymological way, and that the etymology is IMO elaborated to be fairly clear. However, my change to the page was reverted by User:PalkiaX50, citing "I don't think time the request has been around should be a factor in removing an rfe" as I mentioned that the RFE is "out-of-date" in the message of my original change. Therefore I would like to ask about what the RFE meant, and if it makes sense now to remove it.

Thank you, Timothy Gu (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think the RFE is still valid. There is still no explanation of why the symbol is called prime. I think that should be explained in the etymology. You could just have called it ‘dash’ or ‘stripe’ or whatever, but someone sometime chose to call it ‘prime’ and it seems to have stuck now. H. (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Late reply since I have been busy with many things but yea, I agree with Hamaryns. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 21:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hamaryns, looking to your userpage, I noticed a deleted Template:Sister. Curious to find out what that was. :-) thnks. Lotje (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I can no longer remember, sorry. H. (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don’t know where you got this from, since I cannot undelete it, so it seems like there has never been such a template. H. (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I meant to create a page for the Catalan word "reeixida" but accidentally wrote "reexida" and didn't notice my mistake until it was too late. I was wondering if "reexida" could be deleted?

thank you

Hi!

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have removed your admin rights due to our policy on admin inactivity, as you have not used any admin tools in the past five years. This removal is without prejudice and you can request your admin rights to be restored at any time. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply