Rodrigo5260

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Ultimateria (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Rodrigo5260.

Thanks much for your contributions so far.

I just wished to let you know that your replacement of the Spanish word faroés with feroés in the translation tables at Faroese has been undone, but that feroés has now been added alongside faroés in those tables.

The reason for this is that faroés and feroés are both legitimate variants of one another in Spanish. So the removal of one in favour of the other is not the best choice.

But thank you for bringing to attention that only one form of the Spanish word was listed in the translation table. Thanks to your help, both variants are now included.

I look forward to your future contributions! Tharthan (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've added your name to a page that allows a bot to add your audio files to pages (with the label "Peru"). This means you don't have to add them manually. Keep up the good work! Ultimateria (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thank you Rodrigo5260 (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I've went through your edits where you added pt-IPA and made several reverts. The module is still not finished, so it still adds incorrect pronunciations to some words. In particular, when pt-pt has an open vowel whereas pt-br does not. Please, be more careful when adding the template and in replacing current pronunciations. - Sarilho1 (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for having done that, I didn't know it wasn't finished Rodrigo5260 (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, @Rodrigo5260, please don't move the hyphen part of the pronunciation below the IPA. I think we can follow the order of hyphen, IPA, and pronunciation, for Tagalog entries. Thanks. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok, sorry, I didn't know I had to do that (sorry for replying late, I didn'know how to do that until now, also, I read this when you sent this to me) Rodrigo5260 (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The {{rfap}} message is made of an HTML table, and the MediaWiki software apparently doesn't like it when an HTML table is inside a list (*); you should write {{rfap}} without *. —Fish bowl (talk) 05:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I didn't know about that Rodrigo5260 (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi. We are a small volunteer project. We add audio when we can. Please only request it when you seriously want or need it. Equinox ◑ 02:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I was just adding them in case someone in the future wants to record some Rodrigo5260 (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Since this comment, you have added more than 70 new audio requests to entries in many different languages. Please stop - if someone wants to record a pronunciation, they can, even without a request. --Cryptex (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Stop it! Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Stop adding pronunciation templates to entries in languages you do not know. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 04:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

You're doing it again. Stop. Thanks. Thadh (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Said I'd ask you about this since you previously edited the entry...an anon has edited the etymology and removed the uses of some templates like {{bor}}. I was going to revert but it seems they also edited the actual content of the etymology so I don't feel comfortable editing it since I don't know the language. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'm going to do it.Rodrigo5260 (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Done. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Are you sure about the pronunciation of shigelosis? I probably shouldn't have added the pronunciation in the first place, as I'm not sure about anything in life... Flackofnubs (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Shigelosis derives from shigella, which comes from Kiyoshi Shiga, so I expect the g to be pronounced as hard even if it's right before that e Rodrigo5260 (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The word چماٹ (to my knowledge) is a slang used only in Karachi and is derived from Sindhi. Why did you add the Hindi translation when even this word is probably not used in Indian Urdu? Can you also tell me how to add if its from a dialect and slang in the table? ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I added it just as a reference, nothing else, and you should look at Urdu entries tagged as slang to see how to add it. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok thanks ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

>> ы was not used in Old East Slavic, ꙑ was used instead

May be I create new page - достоинꙑи, instead достоиныи? Vmelnikov2022 (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Vmelnikov2022: Yes, you should. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Vmelnikov2022 For clarity: Old East Slavic adjectives are lemmatised at the short nominative singular: достоинъ, not достоинꙑи. Also, please remember to respell the term in orv-IPA: достоинъ is actually досто́ьнъ (a post-vocalic yeri is written with an izhe). Finally, we have inflection tables. Sorry Rodrigo for using your talkpage for this. Thadh (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Thadh: I don't mind, it's ok. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding translation to Spanish entries. I noticed you used {{quoted_term}} to highlight the quoted terms. This is only necessary in cases where the original text already contains boldening. Otherwise, please use simple triple quotes: '''example''' instead of {{quoted term|example}}, as documented on Wiktionary:Quotations#Stylized text. Jberkel 05:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

ok Rodrigo5260 (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Another thing: are you using Google Translate for the translations? Translations should be done manually. See Wiktionary:Translations. Jberkel 22:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes 😬 (that's why I sometimes asked for someone to check them), but I often make corrections to make them more coherent, and I found quotes I didn't translate due to them having words I consider to be untranslatable. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

when copying from other entries make sure that the language codes match. I just had to change a few. Vininn126 (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oops 😬 Rodrigo5260 (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please don't add these to languages without consulting with the main editors, many communities opted for not using these at all. Thanks. Thadh (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I didn't know. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi I was trying to start a discussion but I think I formatted the pings wrong, I wanted to ask to be sure before I resent them. سَمِیر | sameer (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I did @Sameerhameedy. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I was just taking a nap. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

oh that's fine lmao, just wanted to make sure everyone in the discussion got the ping before I resent it. سَمِیر | sameer (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think these should be unnecessary and should belong to the appendix (specifically Appendix:Filipino surnames (1-1000) and so on). Please do not restore these whenever these get deleted, or add them when they are also listed as place names. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I didn't even try to restore them when you deleted them. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

My personal preference is to stick one, the latest, the most common version of łacinka or Belarusian in Latin script. It is not particularly spread, as you can see yourself and other varieties are not even attestable. E.g. on берагчы́ (bjerahčý) "bierahczy" is not attestable (only one hit in Google books) but "bierahčy" is.

Also, BTW, "łacinka" in Belarusian and Polish is in lower case. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

ok, thanks, I was just capitalizing it for aesthetic purposes. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

What about the main question? Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree with that, and you can remove the variants if you can. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev, @Insaneguy1083: That Google Books hit for "bierahczy" looks like some oddball 1982 dictionary style piece of text, so it's a secondary source and not very valuable. But Belarusian Wikisource has one hit from an actual 1914 book. I wouldn't be worried about attestability too much, because we know the exact mapping between the Cyrillic and the Latin alphabets. If there's just a single Łacinka quotation and two additional Cyrillic quotations of the same word, then it's probably enough to consider the Łacinka variant attested. This already safeguards us against, for example, the 21st century Belarusian neologisms in Łacinka form with obsolete digraphs cz/sz (which went out of use around 1920) and w letters (which went out of use around 1940).

Łacinka coverage on Wikisource keeps increasing and already includes more than 200 titles. But it's still far from complete and there are still large and mostly untapped sources, such as newspaper archives. For example, the newspaper Biełarus got only the first 6 issues digitized on Wikisource (out of more than 100): https://be.wikisource.org/wiki/Biełarus_(1913)/1913

Listing the "bierahczy" form in the Wiktionary article is useful, because searching for "bierahczy" on Google (after convincing Google that it's not a typo) allows to get the Wiktionary page in the search results.

Regarding the lowercase vs. uppercase "łacinka", I see that @Наименее Полезное is relentlessly changing everything to uppercase, e.g in this diff. So a consensus is necessary. --Ssvb (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ssvb, @Rodrigo5260, @Наименее Полезное, @Insaneguy1083: I have a strong opinion that we should stick to just one latest variety of łacinka without "cz", "sz".Even that variety may have a few variant spellings and we will have time verifying them all.

I aslo support just the lower case łacinka to match the Belarusian orthography. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

On some occasions, I might write a "w", "cz" and/or "sz" version of łacinka to highlight a word's (sometimes coincidental) similarity to the Polish word, e.g. światło. But in general, yes, I agree that we should probably adhere to š, č, ž, v, not least because that's what Naša Niva are using.

And in almost all of my recent entries, I've used lower case ł for łacinka. Then user Наименее comes along, changes it, and goes "don't edit entries for languages you don't know". So you can probably figure out my stance on the matter. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, since there's contention and de-facto edit wars, we probably need to update WT:ABE to list the preferred variant. Or remove one of the aliases at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Module:labels/data/lang/be#L-15 so that only the capitalized or the lowercase version remains. --Ssvb (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Insaneguy1083, @Наименее Полезное, @Atitarev: Or we can have a policy against entirely pointless style edits, which are even not visible to the end users. Both "łacinka" and "Łacinka" labels of the {{alt}} template expand into the "Łacinka (Belarusian Latin alphabet)" description. And the Wiktionary visitors don't see any difference either way. --Ssvb (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ssvb see what I mean LMAO. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Stop hindering the development of the Belarusian language, it will take me weeks to fix all the shit you did while I was away Наименее Полезное (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

We should only keep what is attested, we cannot continue to put deducted Łacinka, then we can ask Benwing and their bot to clean the entries Наименее Полезное (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Наименее Полезное, @Atitarev, @Rodrigo5260, @Insaneguy1083, @Benwing2: The rules of conversion between Cyrillic and Latin alphabets are attested and there are multiple textbooks and learning materials from around 1920 describing them. All books pretty accurately follow the expected scheme and there's never any doubt about how any of the Belarusian Łacinka words should be converted to Cyrillic. My opinion is that the word "bierahczy" is attested, because it was used in this form and there's at least one quotation with it. So the Wiktionary users may encounter this word in the wild and it's not a purely theoretical scenario. I can possibly take the still untapped archives of the Belarusian newspapers, convert them to individual images, run Tesseract OCR on all of them and then look for additional usages of "bierahczy" in the tesseract output to bring the number of quotations to 3. But what's the point and is it really worth spending time on that?

Moreover, do we count the conjugated forms, such as "bieraży" or "bieraże", towards the attestation of "bierahczy"? Also do we count the conjugated form "bierahli" towards the attestation of "bierahczy" when it's encountered in a fragment of text, which clearly uses cz in the spelling of the other words? --Ssvb (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

If we are talking about the transliteration/romanization in quotations or declension tables, then we surely need to stick to just one variety. But if we are talking about the "Alternative forms" section, then my opinion is that all forms should be preferably listed, even the obsolete ones. They effectively act as search keywords for Google search and the "bierahczy" alternative form allows Google to find the берагчы article (that's how it works right now and I think that this is good).

As for the latest variety of Łacinka having a few variant spellings, this isn't exactly true for the actual professionally printed books or newspapers. If we are talking about the mapping rules between Latin and Cyrillic letters, then there's just one variant. Pretty much each and every reputable publisher seems to pick the standard classic Łacinka with letters Š, Č, Ž, V and more importantly Ł. The professionals are apparently making their decisions based on thorough research and understand that it makes no sense to break the already established literary tradition. Just one of many such examples is https://dziejaslou.by/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Verbum.pdf (the way how they transliterate Belarusian names in English translations of Belarusian novels). Even the notorious geographical names transliteration was originally supposed to use proper unabridged Łacinka, as evidenced by the first volume "Minsk region" from the Names of settlements of the Republic of Belarus catalogue series:

• 2003, Мінская вобласць (Назвы населеных пунктаў Рэспублікі Беларусь; 1)‎^[1], →ISBN, page 42:

  Лошыца - Łošyca

I suspect that the mutilation of the geographical names transliteration and the abolishment of Ł most likely happened as an act of deliberate sabotage from some high ranked ideologist or censorship authority. --Ssvb (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Once again you're adding pronunciation templates in languages you don't know. Please stop. Ultimateria (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

If you get these errors again, notify the creator of the templates. This is a common topic here, some users make supercomplex Modules that mortals like you and I can't understand. P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I tried to talk to the creator (or at least its main editor), but apparently they didn't understand my explanation, and when I tried to explain them better, they just ghosted me 😣 due to them focusing on other conversation. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, luckily, I can be a pushy asshole when necessary, I'll pester Benwing on your behalf. P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I left a message with User talk:Benwing2P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

ok 🖒 Rodrigo5260 (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Mention of this word already found in online dictionaries. https://www.rekhtadictionary.com/meaning-of-samaapt?lang=ur

This term must be on Wiktionary.

With regards. গহীনঅরণ্য (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

A bit strange to add this word. ख़त्म is Urdu but समाप्त is Hindi. Why are you adding more tatsamas for Urdu? 178.120.51.163 18:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Bcz, this term sufficiently passes out the attestation criteria of Wiktionary.

Link of uses:

2:https://www.facebook.com/103918755700987/posts/113286171430912/?mibextid=jtWzXIAxfKx1VBOC

3:https://www.dw.com/ur/%D9%85%D8%A7%DA%BA-%D8%AC%DB%8C-%DA%A9%D8%A7-%D8%B1%DB%8C%DA%88%DB%8C%D9%88-%D8%A8%DA%86%D9%BE%D9%86-%DA%A9%D8%A7-%D8%A8%DB%8C-%D8%A8%DB%8C-%D8%B3%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%B1%D8%AD%DB%8C%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%DB%81-%DB%8C%D9%88%D8%B3%D9%81%D8%B2%D8%A6%DB%8C-%DA%A9%DB%8C-%D8%A2%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B2/a-59501164

4:https://books.google.com.bd/books?id=VyyZgZFz3cQC&q=%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%BE%D8%AA&dq=%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%BE%D8%AA&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi218_g_rmDAxXvRmwGHWt0BPEQ6AF6BAgMEAM#%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%BE%D8%AA

5:https://books.google.com.bd/books?id=tfwIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PT1&dq=%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%BE%D8%AA&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjki5y4jsCDAxUNslYBHR6oC1g4ChDoAXoECAMQAw#v=onepage&q=%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%BE%D8%AA&f=false

6:https://books.google.com.bd/books?id=CP0XAAAAIAAJ&q=%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%BE%D8%AA&dq=%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%BE%D8%AA&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjki5y4jsCDAxUNslYBHR6oC1g4ChDoAXoECAoQAw#%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%BE%D8%AA

Plz remove the rfv tags.

With regards. গহীনঅরণ্য (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe that we should not normalize the writing of this text, otherwise we will have to normalize hundreds of other pages that use obsolete writing Stríðsdrengur (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Stríðsdrengur I was just saying that coz the spelling used in that text is divergent enough from the current one to make it illegible (or at least hard to read) for most literate Portuguese speakers. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hola, Rodrigo, ¿qué tal? Tengo un problema y quería saber si me podías ayudar a resolverlo: recién creé servir concha y figura que el first-person singular present es "servo" y no "sirvo", ¿cómo se podría solucionar este problema? Gracias. 2803:9800:B0D2:843F:51F3:95FD:9778:7A41 05:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

En la plantilla es-pr había que añadir "i" entre signos de mayor y menor, revisa mi edición. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 12:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

¡Gracias! 2803:9800:B0D2:843F:F8B1:E6B9:6513:90AA 13:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's nice that you're adding IPA to Swahili but can you please stop making unrelated, stylistic changes that are just your personal preference and not an agreed-upon improvement (in fact, I strongly disagree with the removal of "t="). Examples: diff and diff. Thank you! tbm (talk) 08:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see what you see wrong with the first edit, but what about the second one? Rodrigo5260 (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're changing {{wikipedia}} to {{wp}}, {{gloss}} to {{gl}} and changing how categories are expressed.

These are stylistic changes of purely subjective preference. Why are you forcing your preference on a language that you're not involved with? Shouldn't the people involved in that language choose what style to follow?

Of course, if you can show a document saying that {{wp}} is preferred over {{wikipedia}} and {{gl}} over {{gloss}}, I'm all for updating Swahili accordingly. However, I believe there's no such policy. Like I said, I don't think you should be forcing your stylistic preference on Swahili entries.

Maybe you can explain what diff was supposed to achieve. As far as I can tell, it was a purely stylistic change. tbm (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can join the English Wiktionary Discord if you wanna discuss further. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is there really anything to discuss? Just don't go around 'fixing' stylistic things in languages you don't know and don't contribute to, I don't think that's too much to ask. Thadh (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll join this request. I think that this diff is undesired, because it removes line breaks and turns quotations into giant blobs of unwieldy text. I would prefer to have the original text and its translation listed on separate lines, so that the English translation can be easily verified and corrected if necessary. --Ssvb (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply