text:
User talk:EncycloPetey/Archive 7

conatus
This word is the 'pedia's featured article today, and so it might be worthwhile to give it a quick look-over. It seems to be in good working order, nothing embarrassing, at least. However, it might merit a little extra oomph, if you're up for it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. There's only so much I can do for a participle without spending lots of research time, but I've added a WP link and a pronunciation section. --EncycloPetey 01:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

hot dog
I'm confused about your undo. I asked a question about hot dog and got what I believed to be a reasonable answer. Believing the conversation over, I made four edits: two removing the slang label, one changing the Japanese translation, and one changing the translation definition. Your message to me is that there is an on-going discussion (the one I started, I believe). I can see putting bun back into the translation definition, but don't understand why you have undone my edits. Wakablogger 09:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Wakablogger
 * Because of some text moved around and the diff not lining up the text lines, I did not realize that you had changed the Japaanese translation. Obviously that is not a problem. --EncycloPetey 16:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

 * That's fine, but do I need to wait for the Tea Room conversation to continue? I think the issue has been resolved as far as removing the slang label and the necessity of separating with and without the bun (though I have some follow-up issues for sausage, frankfurter, etc.) I never considered it to be so important as to even put up a Tea Room template on the hot dog page. Wakablogger 17:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Wakablogger.

Sorry
I'm trying to make articles for some notable dinosaurs, guess I wasn't looking close enough at the book.

Form of templates
Ohh yes, ok. That was actually italic that broke my parser. Sorry. I don't really care how is done, as long as it done in same fashion...  TestPilot talk to me! 03:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Photios
Hi, sorry about using the wrong procedure for this, but I had a little problem with this article, because I wasn't intending to move the entire "Photios" article over to Wiktionary. The Wikipedia article consisted of a disambiguation part (which stays in Wikipedia), and a section on etymology (that is the section I wanted to transwiki). Any advice? Sjakkalle 06:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: User_talk:Kittell
I got your warning on my talk page about not creating interwiki links to another language's wiki, but I don't understand the problem. I created the interwiki link to a target page that didn't exist, then I used the red link to create the target page. Do you want me to do that in the reverse order? I might be missing something. Perhaps you can explain more. Using the example you left, http://pa.wiktionary.org/wiki/twelve is the page that you say doesn't exist.

Thanks, Kirk (user page | talk page) 02:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

manual of style
Please show me the manual of style regulations as to your claim that any lemmicaly related word may be used on an entry in quotations.68.148.164.166 09:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

''EP: following section is transcluded; you might want to change that? I was very surprised to see my comment end up here!''

 * If that is not possible, than a sentence must be made up and the quotation must be replaced.68.148.164.166 14:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)68.148.164.166 14:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia
As a courtesy notice, please be aware that this issue is being discussed over at WP:AN/I -. Not sure what it's doing there but thought you might want to know. 70.7.76.14 00:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --EncycloPetey 03:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Bourgeoisie
Why http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Bourgeoisie&diff=4811019&oldid=4811016 when this is the English Wiktionary and there's an article in the English Wikipedia? --Espoo 17:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because that's the German entry. A word in any language links to the wikipedia article in that language.  Links to the English Wikipedia are only made from sections on English words. --EncycloPetey 17:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Could you create sometime - to match. SemperBlotto 14:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's easily done. I only held off to make sure I had a decent go with  before proceeding.  I have one more thing I want to try.  Once that's done (whether it works or not), I'll create an . --EncycloPetey 00:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ta. I shall finish Italian cardinal numbers in the next few days - then move on to ordinals. Question:- I have been using the prev/next boxes to point to the adjacent numbers that exist. But as the numbers get bigger (see centomila as an example) this gets a bit silly. Is it OK for them to point to the next lower and higher numbers that exist in the Wiki? I realise that pointers then have to be adjusted if a number is added in between. SemperBlotto 18:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that
Thanks the the info on WOTD - are there any written guidelines so I'll know what to do in the future? Teh Rote 13:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian possessives
I created a new declension table with possessive endings plus the case endings (hu-possessive-xx). The table is huge and does not look good when it is placed under the other declension table, see ház. If I leave out the case endings and just show the possessives, the table would be much smaller and I could even put it right next to the regular declension table. I am asking for your feedback because I'm not sure how to resolve this. Thanks. --Panda10 23:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

 * We could combine the two into one huge table, and I started going in that direction, but changed my mind. It would have been too much to handle. The current case tables work fine for now, I'm sure I will find exceptions, but the tables are relatively small and in some cases the exceptions could be built into them. However, if I start with such a huge table, it will be really hard to make changes. I like the idea of the separate small possessive table and the appendix for the rest. I've seen someone creating two tables right next to each other and they can be opened independently. I would like to try that idea. Thanks EP. --Panda10 23:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Audio
First of all, that was a fast response. I apologize, I'm using headphones, and I'm really unable to tell very well the difference in volume. I'll turn it up somewhat. Again, thanks for the quick response. Yerich 01:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I can tell now that I'm paying attention to it. Turns out the volume meter in audacity is set to 0.1. No wonder. Yerich 01:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

spinfinity
Hey Hoser, Why did you delete spinfinity? At least you could have left a reason why. Kinda rude, my entire is not good enough for you to even state why it was deleted?

 * (n.b. starting out by calling someone you do not know a hoser is unlikely to get you a polite response, but fortunately your rudeness has so far been ignored) Robert Ullmann 17:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

 * You can take a look at our criteria for inclusion and see that we do not accept made-up terms (protologisms). This is not Urban Dictionary. --EncycloPetey 17:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help (Unidad)
Hey, thanks for the message! That way you showed me makes it a lot easier! Thanks for putting my new entries right too :)

Re:
Ok. My intention was not to remove any sort of pronunciation but to correct it to a more standardised form, since /ˈfoɻgo/ is obviously wrong.

in other words, there was no "US pronunciation" for me to remove, but an error instead.

i could've added an additional US pronunciation [/fɔːr'goʊ/], but i didn't, that's all.

Undivining
You wrote: I have reverted this edit, since it is unclear why you chose to delete those derived terms. A simple search of Google books turns up more than 100 uses of undivining. --EncycloPetey 08:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My response: I don't understand. Why the reversion? One-hundred search instances in Google, mostly redundant, do not validate the legitimacy or substantiveness of a given word. That's sheer preposterousness.

 * Not in Google, in Google Books, a search of published printed books that have been uploaded into Google's database. That's at least one hundred print the use the term.  Please see WT:CFI (criteria for inclusion), which states (amon other things) that English terms with a minimum of three independent citations in durably archived media (such as printed, published books) merit inclusion as an entry.  --EncycloPetey 16:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Accents on Italian words' pronunciation section
Hi! I know that IPA (or SAMPA) should be sufficient, but the most Italian dictionaries don't use IPA: instead, they only write their entries with the graphic accent, so that the people can distinguish e.g. between pèsca and pésca, or between àncora and ancóra. For instance, Zingarelli 2008 and Devoto-Oli (1971) do so. I assumed it as a slight "scientific" method to show the Italian words' pronunciation, and put it into Wiktionary. Moreover, I think it's not useless: all in all there is a lot of people that don't understand IPA, but are able to read correctly "pèsca". -- Sentinella 13:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, EncycloPetey, I'll talk with SemperBlotto! Bye, Sentinella 22:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Page format
Note some of the changes I made to the page format for combinative. These are standard for Wiktionary format: (1) Synonyms, Antonyms, Related terms, and the link are indented under the part of speech section, (2) Headers with more than one word (like Relative terms) have only the initial letter capitalized, (3) Synonyms and Antonyms must be paired with a particular definition. I have done this for the Synonyms to show you how this looks, but have not done the Antonyms. --EncycloPetey 04:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Thank you. I am going to put this into practice immediately. --Gabeedman 05:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Reminder: Synonyms and Antonyms are always ina single row separated by commas, even if the page currently has only one definition. Our general guide for page layout is WT:ELE, but if it seems rather daunting, you may refer to listen and parrot as examples demonstrating proper format. --EncycloPetey 03:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Quick question: If there is only one definition for a given word (e.g. irremissible), do we still place the definition before the synonyms and/or antonyms, followed by the synonyms and/or antonyms separated by commas? I will be sure to cleanup my entries immediately. Thanks again. --Gabeedman 03:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My edit to Entry layout explained
I did not think I had made any change, merely provided an example that should have been exactly and fully defined by the existing textual rules. If the example made any substantive change, it's wrong, and should certainly be removed, or fixed. Does the warning you pointed out apply to any edit (in which case, the page should probably be protected) or only to changes to substance? (in which case, as I said, I don't think this was one) In any case, thanks for your vigilance. JesseW 08:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Lack of evidence for warrented administrator promotion
Instantly blocking constructively-editing users based on small edits that one does not personally approve of is largely illegal.216.221.112.199 01:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edits were not constructive. It is not me alone, the entire community has been reverting your dubious edits.  There is nothing "illegal" about blocking such users, particularly when they do not respond to postings on their talk pages.  There is a problem with editing under a new account when you are blocked. --EncycloPetey 01:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Stop being rude. 2. Stop lieing. 3. They were constructive

I'd like to show you my friend i named Merriam-Webster.com

"Main Entry:
 * vam·pire Listen to the pronunciation of vampire

Pronunciation:
 * \ˈvam-ˌpī(-ə)r\

Function:
 * noun

Etymology:
 * French, from German Vampir, from Serbian vampir

Date:
 * 1732 "

Not only does it say that on that website..... but it also says the SAME THING on the French Wiktionary....

sooo.... in the end.... i guess adding fact to a site and standing up for the truth is blocked by the people who so very dont want that truth to get out. Its obvious why no constructivly-oriented user as myself enjoys the wiktionary editing expierience. Its because you are there to hide the truth, and block any dissent to your personal beliefs without regard for the Wiktionary RULES. 216.221.122.250 02:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The French Wiktionary entry for fr:vampire gives the English etymology as "Étymologie à compléter. (Ajouter)" and the French etymology as "Mot allemand (Vampir), du serbe." Thank you for verifying that you're making up information.  And, as I said, the OED is the superior dictionary for etymologies.  Our etymology before you edited said "From French vampire or German Vampir from Hungarian vámpír from Slavonic vampir (compare Russian упырь, Polish upiór, etc.)", so what constructive information were you adding from your sources that isn't already there?  Nothing. The information you added is not in the sources you claim to be using. --EncycloPetey 02:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * While I have no compassion for 24.111.234.4 = 216.221.112.199 = 216.221.122.250 at all, I would like to mention that much of his version on vampires is present (with some references I cannot verify) in a somewhat confused section of w:Vampire. Perhaps Anonymous meant this here with the word wikipaedia. -- Gauss 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a hard time believing that the user meant "Engish Wikipedia" when he said "French Wiktionary". I also note that what the user was trying to add is not the same as the WP information; our entry's etymology already had the WP content before he started editing.  What the anon was adding traced the word back to Greek or Turkish roots, which the WP article makes no mention of. --EncycloPetey 17:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You are twisting my words, i said Turkic... NOT TURKISH... and you are wrong in another aspect in that it does mention it and always has... "...borrowed the word from a Turkic term for "witch" (e.g. Tatar ubyr)." You also claim that ""Mot allemand (Vampir), du serbe." is made up information when its clearly on the French Wiktionary.... and if we get the word from French.... it should be noted in the English Wiktionary where the French comes from.... "Mot allemand (Vampir), du serbe." means "From Allemann (meaning "German" in french) "Vampir", of Serbian origin"... Even on the English Wikipedia does it say that the french comes from German, but it also says the english comes from German as "possibly via french vampyre"... but french people have never used the word vampyre, its always been vampire in french.24.111.234.4 20:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Here is exactly what the French Wiktionary says: "Mot allemand (Vampir), du serbe". That's all it says.  You added information "probably from Greek, or a Turkic word" which you claimed were "facts" and cited in support of your edits other websites that said nothing of the sort.  The information was made up, then you lied, and that is the problem.  --EncycloPetey 20:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Latin inflection
As far as I know, there is a declension type for Latin neuter nouns that have the endings -is (gen. sg.), -i (dat. sg.), -e (abl. sg.), -a (nom. pl.), -a (acc. pl.), -ium (gen. pl.), -ibus (dat./abl pl.), for example. -- Frous 18:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Only some school exercises made by my Latin teacher. Unfortunately, I don't have a book source..yet. I can contact my teacher and ask him for sources (I try to get them in English). Until then, could we please keep the template I created? -- Frous 18:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * By the way, what's the policy: in case of nouns and adjectives, should the header, under which all the forms of the word is given, be Declension or Inflection? -- Frous 18:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * According to this, my edit would be correct, but why should the Latin entries use Inflections instead? Is there any plausible reason? :D -- Frous 18:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Go ahead. :) -- Frous 19:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Merging
In respect of an edit including a template reference that isn't on wiktionary, Encyclopetey wrote this:

 * We do not merge words. Each spelling that is legitimate gets its own separate entry.  This is partly because we are a multilingual dictionary, and what forms might be related in one language usually are not in another. --EncycloPetey 21:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you merge word roots, then? If equivocal, equivocate, equivocation, and equivocally stay true to their roots in English (they deviate quite a bit from latin roots--the latin word is about sound, and the English word is about meaning), and one word is more useful than the other three, should I add crosstalk or should I just make sure they're all linked to the most jeneral definition? Brewhaha at TeraByte 21:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure that I understand your quetsion, but equivocate, equivocal, equivocation, equivocally, etc. should all have separate entries. Our basic unit for separate pages is a difference in spelling.  Even color and colour have separate pages, and they are the same word.  Merging is appropriate to an encyclopedia, where the units of entries are topics, but not for a dictionary where the units are words or spellings. --EncycloPetey 21:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should pretty much leave creations alone. I would install redirections from Jeneral, Bujet, and Jenetiks to the Ingglish (English) equivalents, because that's the only language I speak, and you say redirection is abnormal here. Who won't get my meaning from ekstra literality? Brewhaha at TeraByte 22:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't understand. Why would you redirect at all? If Jeneral, Bujet, and Jenetiks are words in some language, then they can get a full entry.  While all the definitions here are given in English, the entries themselves can be for any language.  Some pages contain only non-English words, like andar:, which is a word in several languages and so has several language sections.  Note also that Wiktionary is case-sensitive, including the first letter.  An entry should only begin with a capital letter if it is always written that way. --EncycloPetey 22:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeneral, Bujet, and Jenetiks are regular spellings of English. They mean the same thing, because they sound the same way, so why would I create more than a redirection for that? For all I know, I'm the only one that uses those spellings. Brewhaha at TeraByte 22:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Ah, they're what we call protologisms. No, we don't include those.  Our criteria for inclusion requires publication in a well-known source or three durably archive and independent uses as a minimum for inclusion. --EncycloPetey 22:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think homophone describes them better than a synonym for neologism. To describe them accurately, I need two latin words: heteronymic homophone -- same sound, different spelling.Brewhaha at TeraByte 00:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Um... those aren't Latin words; they're English. Note that we make a distinction between a neologism (word in general use not yet in printed dictionaries) and protologisms (invented words not in general use). --EncycloPetey 00:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Notice
I have asked for community comment on the issues arising for your actions here. Knepflerle 11:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

2007
I believe some numbers are allowed here ; compare 1, 101, 666, 1337, and various other numbers with significance outside of their cardinal position. 2007 is on the wanted pages page, after all. Teh Rote 03:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I suppose that might be the case, but as 2007 is typically referred to in the year sense, would it not warrant inclusion and be "wanted" as well? Teh Rote 03:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Then I suppose it would only warrant inclusion in the number sense, and thus is not necessary to put on the PWA thingy. I see your point now, thanks. Teh Rote 06:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pyramidology; Pyramidology
In years past, I have searched through many works in trying to find out who first coined the word, "pyramidology." Yes, Piazzi Smyth, and many others, wrote about the Great Pyramid and its relevance to the Bible long before Adam Rutherford, but so far, I have not found where any writer before Adam Rutherford ever used the word "pyramidology." His definition and explanation for using this word is as follows:

Pyramidology is the science that deals with the Great Pyramid's scientific demonstration of Biblical truth, true Christianity and the Divine plan respecting humanity on this planet. One who is skilled in this science is therefore defined as a Pyramidologist. But it is necessary clearly to distinguish between a Pyramidologist and a Pyramidist. A Pyramidist is an Egyptologist who specializes in the study of the pyramids of Egypt, or in other words, a specialist on the Egyptian pyramids from the archeological standpoint. Hence we find some people who have a good knowledge of Pyramidology know little or nothing about Egyptology. On the other hand, an Egyptologist, or even a Pyramidist, may know nothing about Pyramidology. An expert Pyramidologist, however, knows the Great Pyramid in all its aspects, including the Egyptological, even though his knowledge of Egyptology in general may not be very wide. Apart from a few builders' marks, which include a dating and the cartouche of Khufu (the pharaoh in whose reign the Great Pyramid was erected), there are no hieroglyphics in the Great Pyramid. Hence to become a Pyramidologist, knowledge of hieroglyphics is not required, whereas it is essential for all Egyptologists including Pyramidist to be able to read hieroglyphics proficiently.

http://www.41f8.com/Pyramidology_1.htm

As you can see, his definition is quite different from the later definition given to this word. As best as I have been able to determine, this later definition was actually created by those who oppose "pyramidology' by making it appear that "pyramidology" had to do with study of all the pyramids, and also involving occultic demonic supernatural powers and somehow related to the "new age" ideas about pyramids. From this the "new age" believers and others have began to use the word "pyramidology" as applying to their beliefs about "pyramid power," etc. In reality, the word "pyramidology" was coined, not as study of "pyramids" (plural), nor to describe "pyramid power," nor did the word have anything to do with the "new age" movement, nor for the purpose of seeking "supernatural powers" in the pyramids. It was coined solely to describe the study of one pyramid, that is, the one pyramid generally referred to as "the Great Pyramid," as related to the Bible. This word, as originally defined, does indeed describe the works of Piazzi Smyth, and many others who wrote about the Great Pyramid and the Bible before Adam Rutherford. Piazzi Smyth was not concerned about finding "supernatural powers" in the pyramids, not even in the Great Pyramid. Nor were many other writers, although they are often falsely accused of such simply because of their study of the Great Pyramid, and the corrupted meaning given to the word "pyramidology" by those who wish to condemn Biblical study of the Great Pyramid.

Like I have said, so far I have not found any writer before Adam Rutherford who ever used the word "pyramidology," and he is the first writer also that gives a definition of its meaning. Thus, I usually attribute Adam Rutherford with coining the words "pyramidology" as well as "pyramidologist." However, I also admit that it is possible that his father, John Rutherford, may have actually coined the words and defined the words, but this also is unconfirmed.

My website on the Great Pyramid:

http://gp.reslight.net

(I haven't updated this in a while; there are a tremendous amount of links I am finding on the internet that I wish to add to the page.)

Ronald Day

Restoration Light Bible Study Services

 * Unfortunately, the published source I noted at pyramidology clearly demonstrates use of the word in 1870, which long predates Rutherford's work. So, Rutherford cannot be credited with coining the word, and his meaning is not the original one used. --EncycloPetey 23:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Got me there. That's one book I never searched in before, thus I apologize for not having searched that particular book. Nevertheless, it is still true that Smyth was not using the word pyramidology in the sense of seeking "supernatural power" in the "pyramids," nor in any sense that the word is used today relevant to the new age movement. His work demonstrates that he was using the word similar to the way Adam Rutherford later defined the word. -- ResLight 23:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dialect formatting
Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated at User_talk:Robert_Ullmann. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Help:Example sentences
Thanks for updating this page. I was wondering how a user would find it. Is it listed anywhere? Maybe we should add it to Help:Index. Another thing. It might be helpful to add a sentence or two about non-lemma examples in lemma entries. Normally, I try to add examples that use the actual entry name, but in Hungarian, sometimes an inflected form has to be used. What is the recommendation for these situations? --Panda10 22:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

disiunare
My bad, I was not totally sure how to add/create the entry; I certainly did not mean to go against the standard on purpose. Thanks for the link; I'll update myself accordingly.

About which conjugation its in, I don't actually know, I guess that's a no-no. I did reference http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/1108 which had "ieiuno (jejuno)", and http://archives.nd.edu/iii.htm which had "ieiunium : fast, abstinence, hunger / leanness, thinness". However, I assumed the first conjugation because the Spanish (Castillano) form desayunar has the -ar ending. You may also want to check the edits I made to editions to the etymology of desayunar: they may not be kosher as well. Elandres 23:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely forgot why I wandered out to these entries to begin with: the wikipedia entry for dinner, in which I forgot there was mention of disiunare, though I wish the Etymology in the introduction was more complete.
 * About the desayunar, I see you changed what I had added; that sort of confused me at first. Then upon the inspection of the evidence, I saw where my assumption and latter confusion came from. It seems desayunar is a combination of des- + ayunar "to fast" (which is itself derived from Latin ieiunare, meaning "to fast" from what I can determine from the etymology of dinner and this page I referenced earlier).
 * So what I can conclude from all this is that desayunar and disiunare are related. Somehow, in the formation of the Latin form (of which I can only find in etymologies, and not anywhere else on the web), the "ie" (or "je" pronounced ye) is dropped from the beginning of ieiunare. However, the Spanish ayunar contains a similar consonant before the "y," which would suggest that desayunar did not derive directly from the Latin cognate. The formation of the word is still striking similar, so I am compelled to believe that the Spanish formation was influenced by other Romance or later Romance languages.
 * Final Remarks: I am not all certain of the existence of disiunare (which when I say the word to myself, I think of disunion), but it seems plausible to have been in use given its derivation and later derivatives.
 * *elAndres 01:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But we do not include unattested words (see WT:CFI). Wikipedia is not a reliable source for the existence or usage of words.  Since the word does not occur in any of the major Latin dictionaries, and is not cited in romance language dictionaries as a root form, I'd say that it may not exist at all and the Wikipedia entry should be edited to reflect this. --EncycloPetey 01:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

carpe
We need a Latin section at carpe. I'm guessing that carpe is the imperative of something, but my Latin isn't up to scratch. --Felonia 07:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Indeed. My first instince was capiō, but the imperative seems to be cape.  I'm interested to see where this came from.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't it the imperative of carpo? SemperBlotto 09:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a form of carpō; I've added a Latin section. --EncycloPetey 15:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WOTD
I was mostly worried that it might have slipped your mind or something and was about to leave you a message. I wouldn't mind too much trying my hand at it, but I really think some sort of cheat sheet for the process would help any other person who would need to replace you. As is, one has to figure out how it works by themselves (And I would totally have forgotten about the archive pages). I really don't get what you mean about the "recycled pages"? I mean, they (Word of the day/Recycled pages/August etc.) just use the daily templates (And I can't edit them anyway), don't they?

 * Those are the recylced pages, yes. There is a template for each day.  If you can't edit them, them that makes it not so easy.  I forgot that you're only an admin on WP.
 * Oh, I can edit the templates just fine. I'm not clear what the Recycled pages are supposed to be for in general, actually. They are basically a version of the last archive page with edit links in the header, but the daily template already has an edit link! Circeus 18:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The recycled pages exist (1) so that we don't have to constantly create new templates or pages to make the system work, (2) so we can just subst to create the archive, and (3) so that the system will work even if someone forgets to put in a new word the following year (or, as Connel once put it, "So WOTD will continue to work even if EP gets hit by a bus".) There have been a few times where a word became WOTD again the following year because my off-line schedule became hectic.  This system ensures that we won't have an even more embarassing gap in WOTD. --EncycloPetey 19:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's obvious in retrospective (the archive pages have to be substituted!). Circeus 19:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

At the least I'll probably go back to strike used noms and add the WOTD template on the pages for June, though. Circeus 18:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and should the joke creation of Word of the day/Archive/2008/September be deleted? Circeus 18:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --EncycloPetey 18:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

How about we try a smaller step this month, with the optional plan of having you do the whole thing next month, so as to ease you into it? I like taking a break from doing WOTD a couple of times each year, and September is likely to be busy for me anyway. What I can do is go ahead and select the words, put them in a desireable sequence, but let you tidy the definitions and set up the page templates. We can discuss later how I decided which words to use and how I determined a sequence for them. --EncycloPetey 19:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. I can't do reliable recordings for the audio, though (My English is not bad, but I'm not a native speaker, and liable to be wildly off the mark). Circeus 19:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing lollipop. I'm currently fixing accord. It's not quite as bad as it looks. I'm mostly making more work for myself by tracking down as many quotes as possible. Circeus 21:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is best to ask for UK pronunciations? At least the ones where non-rhotic accents will fatally have different pronunciations (cf. accord, occur, parvenu) should definitely have them. Circeus 14:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for pointing out my terrible formatting in pronunciation sections. It's probably the area I least touch on the site, so I'm pretty unfamiliar with it. Circeus 21:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciations
I've been meaning to bring this up for aaages. I'm slightly thrown by some of the conventions you use in IPA, well really only for the UK side, in particular using. Now my understanding is that English generally distinguishes between short and long  (with the exception of word-endings), and certainly, if I heard  I would interpret it as representing one of the other two phonemes. I feel like I've seen you do this with as well. It may be different in the States (I know the OED now use for American pronunciations) but it seems, er, unusual for UK ones. Ƿidsiþ 21:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific about a particular case? I typically defer to the Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary on the matter of {{IPAchar|/i/, /ɪ/, and /iː/ in British pronunications.   My ear doesn't always pick up the difference unless I'm listening very carefully to an immediate British recording, and the distinctions seem to differ from US norms.  It may be that the EPD itself is inconsistent, or that they're basing their pronunciations on RP. --EncycloPetey 21:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The terminal vowel on this side of the Pond is {{IPAchar|/ɝ/}}. --EncycloPetey 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

 * OK then. I have been following the OED in reading {{IPAchar|/ɜː/}} as {{IPAchar|/əː/}} ({{IPAchar|[ɜ]}} is no longer used really on this side of the Atlantic at least). We need to get these conventions down at Pronunciation so we're all using the same system...  Ƿidsiþ 17:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

 * That would mark another major vowel difference between the OED and Cambridge use of IPA. I think Cambridge is correct in this for the US, although they mark vowel length for US pronunciations, which we've established already is incorrect. --EncycloPetey 17:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

 * If you have access to the OED, check out any of the new revised entries (essentailly, anything from M through to about Q) – they are now including US pronunciations, though it's not clear exactly by what scheme. Prerogative, for example, they transcribe as {{IPAchar|/p(r)əˈrɑgədɪv/}}, which certainly makes the T-voicing quite explicit.  It's hard to see how Wiktionary can interpret so many different schemes, and giving lots of different transcriptions would be a pretty horrible solution for us too in terms of useability.  Ƿidsiþ 17:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

licere
Would you take a look at this and its connection to licit? The definition given at licit, which agrees with all my etymology sources, is "to allow, permit", but this is not the def I'm finding in Lewis and Short, nor my little Langenscheidt. Also, needs to be moved to proper lemma, etc. Many thanks. If you do end up passing the reigns of WOtD, even for a short while, it opens you up to being harped on as the resident Latin expert. :P -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, what fun! This should be under the lemma form licet.  It is a defective verb, with only a few known conjugational forms, most of them third-person, infinitives, and participles.  There do not seem to be any first- or second-person forms unless you count the single known imperative form.  This will take some work, because I'll have to ove a lot of information and create a hard-coded conjugation table. --EncycloPetey 05:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Ah, I see. I've fixed the etymology for licit.  Thanks.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Oh, and thanks for choosing a complete month of Greek free WotD's. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't thank me...thank the nominators. :P --EncycloPetey 16:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:En-us-The_Doors.ogg
Hi, I'm from Czech Wikipedia and I have wriiten article about The Doors. It's close to Featured Article on my Wikipedia, but I need some source with pronunciation of "The Doors". So I would like to ask you if you could record the tittle "The Doors", beacause I would like to use it in "my" article. Best regards, --Podzemnik 08:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Cree
Could you explain what you were trying to do in this edit? It does not match our formatting conventions. We use only a single transcription system, not three, and "NA" is not a gender. --EncycloPetey 22:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have several books on the Cree language, including the Cree-English English-Cree dictionaries: (a) "The Student's Dictionary of Literary Plains Cree" by Chris Wolfart & Freda Ahenakew and (b) "CREE: WORDS" (Vol. 1: Cree-English, Vol. 2: English-Cree; It includes Cree syllabics, Latinized/ Romanized Cree.) by Arok Wolvengrey. In the first dictionary the Cree word for "duck" is spelled sîsîp [in Latinized Cree] (using "i circumflex" for the long vowels) and in the second dictionary it is spelled sīsīp (using "i macron" to mark the long vowels). None of the books I have on/in Cree use the "double i" spelling siisiip for "duck", even though this seems to be the most common online spelling of the word. The conventional abbreviations "NA" and "NI" stand for "animate noun" and "inanimate noun" in Cree. The noun gender of "duck" in Cree is "animate noun" (sîsîp NA). So, in conclusion, I would say that all three spellings for "duck" (sîsîp, sīsīp, siisiip) are used (and are acceptable) as possible Latinized spellings, if the person writing Cree is not using Cree syllabics. Hans-Friedrich Tamke 20:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

purport
I had inserted an etymology in response to an rfe, which you carelessly (I hope) rolled back. It had been mentioned in the edit summary. Please respect contributions made by others. DCDuring TALK 04:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is one of the problems of a complete restructuring of a page in multiple steps; it is extremely difficult to determine whether there is new material, removed material, or simply changes. Sorry about losing some of your additions. --EncycloPetey 18:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was snippy, but edit summary had the info.
 * BTW, I am beginning to understand better the problem with pronunciation headings. AFAICT, Pronunciation, being in principle an attribute of each inflected form of each PoS, makes a particularly poor choice as a "structuring" heading. I wish that we had a compact means of inserting a pronunciation link at every single place in an entry that might need one without taking as much space as the pronunciation section now takes. Cambridge International uses a show/hide approach to the problem. DCDuring TALK 20:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For uninflected or partially inflected languages, this isn't usually a problem. In those languages, a different pronunciation is usually indicative of a different meaning or different word.  You run into problems using almost any section headers, even part of speech, but some data structure is necessary, and pronunciation along with etymology are the standard ways dictionaries have grouped words, so it's something our users will not be surprised by. --EncycloPetey 18:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ref.interwiki link and topical category
I edited only line 5 in orange. I really don't know how so many lines got edited automatically. Some serious error Vayalir 02:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

oesophagus
Hi there! Do you know (or happen to know of someone around here who knows) anything about Late Latin? Oesophagus currently has "oesophagus" for the Latin translation. The classical term, however, is, so I would assume this to be the Late Latin (and a borrowing from the Greek at that). L&S doesn't seem to have anything, but my Italian etymological dictionary suggests the Late Latin form to be "aesophagus" and my English "oesophagus" or "ēsophagus." Any ideas? Thanks! Medellia 18:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it looks like a Greek borrowing, albeit partially Latinized. That spelling does not turn up in Calepinus, Facciolati, or Souter, so I can't say if the word was ever used in mainstream Latin.  It is certainly "Medical Latin" and turns up in Dutch as well.  Sorry, but I don't know anyone working in Late Latin on the Wiktionaries.  --EncycloPetey 18:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Frustrated as I'll be, I think I'll just have to add it to my list of entries to do more research on once I can get back into the classics library. Medellia 15:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I did some more research. Niermeyer's Mediae Latinatis Lexicon Minus does not have this word in any spelling.  Du Conge's Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinatis has one cite for isofagus:, but no other spellings.  Howlett's Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources has a header for oesophagus, but the only cited spellings are isophagus: and ysophagus:.  So, if oesophagus is Latin at all, then it's New Latin. --EncycloPetey 18:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it. By the way, About Latin looks amazing. Medellia 20:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

excise /cordial
I adjusted the etymology for the "cut out" meaning, but I don't know whether the i in excisus needs a macron. Circeus 02:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to capitulate in regard to cordial's pronunciation. Sources are just way too contradictory. They variously give any or combinations of "corial", "cordyal", and "corjal", but it's at the very best unclear whether the noun is pronounced differently. Circeus 20:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Beer parlour
As you have previously commented on Category:Pronunciations wildly different accross the pond, you will probably be interested in the Beer Parlour discussion I have just started about it. See Beer parlour. Thryduulf 13:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

octopus
Would you double-check the Latin in the usage note of this entry please? The impression that I get from my sources is that this did come from Latin (scientific Latin), but that the -us was simply a romanization of the grc -ους, not a grammatical ending. I don't suppose there's any way if you could find out if it ever was inflected in Latin, and if so what the plural would be, is there? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's not listed in any of my several Latin dictionaries and does not appear in the corpus of texts on Latin Wikisource. A search of Google Books finds only a couple of examples of octopis in a Latin context, which at least suggests it is being treated as a second declension noun by a couple of people.  I find no octopibus or octupum in Latin, so it's not a fifth declension noun.  However, this is very weak evidence.  I tried comparing with apus, which is similarly borrowed from Greek, and it is a third-declension noun.  A Google books search turned up many examples of octopodis, so it looks as though this is being treated similarly as a third-declension noun.  I'll add the relevant info for a Latin section. --EncycloPetey 15:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

haber
Whaddya mean "verb" is not a language? I know people who speak verb. Particularly mothers of small children. Mostly in the imperative: "Sit! Eat! Quiet! Sleep! Wake up!" ... fixed code to case match when seeing if it is a known header. Thanks, Robert Ullmann 18:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

soy
Thanks for your input. I've been following format I see in numerous extant entries that I (mistakenly) assumed are okay. The Wiktionary:quotation and some other "Help" entries aren't congruent with your admonition re my work at soy.

To not cite or reference old (out-of-copyright out-of-print) dictionaries is a mind-boggling disregard of precedent and prior research. The 1897 UDEL cite with its included 1885 quote that I used belong somewhere with Wiktionary's SOY entry, not just in Wikipedia; or worse, buried in "Discussion" and "Talk". Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas 04:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Twi entries
I re-categorized all (your) entries in Category:twi:Cardinal numbers to Category:tw:Cardinal numbers. The 2-letter code (tw) exists and is used by other categories for Twi. Thought I'd let you know I standardized them. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 10:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I did not know it had a two-letter code. --EncycloPetey 15:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Papst
Doh! I'm just going through doing some Mismatched wikisyntax corrections, which takes me direct to the offending section, I misread this as papist:, saw the section was 2 and assumed it was the English ety section (had I not misread it as an English word I'd have checked the language). Cheers for pointing it out. Thryduulf 17:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

non-language code templates in the 3-letter domain
Hey, another things about language codes. As you know, the 3-letter domain is supposed to be reserved for language code templates. Well I made up a list of "offending" templates at User:Bequw/alpha-3. Do you think we should do anything about some or all of these? Some of the redirects and uncommon ones could be changed easily, but it might be herculean to change see for example. Thanks --Bequw → ¢ • τ 00:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of these may need to be done by bot, as I certainly wouldn't want to do all the and  replacements.  Those two may end up being perennial problems, if they're being used on other WM projects. I think for these, a BP announcement should be made for each major template being deprecated and orphaned before the cleanup begins (say a week or so).  That way, the community is also aware of these major changes.  Template  is the one non-request template that could be a problem.  We may have to live with that one for the forseeable future.  --EncycloPetey 00:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Another question being, do we want to be pro-active and move them out now or wait until a contributor is faced with the problem? Some may feel annoyed at having to change habits for non-existent contributors. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 05:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, the discussion about, , etc. has already happened and we agreed to retool them, so the grammatically named templates can be done now without further discussion. The same is true of  and med:, although those may need a bot to do them because of the high number of uses.  The little-used templates ought to be doable now, although  and  might merit a discussion first as a formality. However, I don't expect to have the time in the coming few months to do that kind of major editing spree.  I'm having what may be a final summer blowout, and will then have to cut back on Wiktionary for a while. --EncycloPetey 05:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Where were and  going to be moved to?  (table top) and ? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 21:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, to and, as those templates were only ever for the Translations sections.  For other kinds of sections, we have , , etc. --EncycloPetey 17:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

mouton enragé
Sorry to spring this one on you, but I just found out that my mic had been taken away by the hauler people (my landlords are having the flooring in the basement replaced, and almost everything in my room was hauled away), and can't record anything for the article. The operation was already complicated by the lack of Internet at home, but is now outright impossible. Circeus 18:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd already uploaded an audio file just in case. All the audio is in and linked through the 30 Aug WOTD.  When you've selected a word for 31 August, I can record that one too.  Just give me a few days notice in case I develop a busy schedule.  --EncycloPetey 17:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's going to be either conurbation, accursed or ossify (I haven't really checked which POS would be ideal, so just pick whichever you want to record and I'll be fine with it). Circeus 17:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and please block, who's been vandalising today's WOTD. Circeus 17:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of quotation
"We do not normally put more than one quotation inline. --EncycloPetey 01:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)"

 * How do you decide which of the quotations to leave with the definition? -- dougher 22:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We usually put copies of all quotations in the Citations page. To select one or two as examples, we look for (1) context in the quote to show meaning, (2) quotes using simpler English, and (3) brevity, (4) dates showing early and current use.  When these options conflict, we do the best we can, or look for additional quotations. --EncycloPetey 22:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

soy -- continued
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I will carefully study the entries at listen and parrot. Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

user talk:circeus
I've begun reading your written guidance for Circeus herein. Thanks. Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas 16:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Minesweeper
Hello. You deleted Minesweeper. Perhaps you'd like to do the same for Tetris, whose existence had caused me to think Minesweeper might be a relevant entry. (Personally, I'd say both games have been cloned widely enough to be considered more or less generic terms.) 86.131.86.108 23:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at the discussion attached to the Tetris entry, you'll see that a vote decided to keep that entry. --EncycloPetey 23:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

re: homogenous
For homogenous, how about re-adding that secondary definition instead of completely reverting my edit? Would that satisfy descriptivity while maintaining an informative usage note? Perhaps the second entry could be tagged with whatever tag is usually used to designate common but possibly inaccurate usages (and I have no idea what tag that would be). Mazin07C₪T 05:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "inaccurate usage"? If the word is commonly used that way, then that's what we describe. --EncycloPetey 20:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

August 31 audio
I thought I was clear you got to record whichever you wanted to (mostly because I wasn't sure about the PoS best to use). Oh well... Given the preceding days' patterns, I figure accursed is a good choice (a noun would be a bad idea, and I've slotted a verb for August 1). I've selected words for August just earlier. I'll post it in my userspace later, in case you're interested in looking at it. Circeus 21:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Gonna fix that in a few minutes. I had just spent ~20 minutes fixing it up and continued like an idiot. I'm prettifying accursed right now. Circeus 22:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * accursed: done. List is at User:Circeus/Notes. I'm a bit annoyed at having four verbs in -ate, but verbs in general tends to get the short end of the stick at WOTD noms, and I was a bit wary of using my own noms. Circeus 23:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like a good list. And, for the record, there are fewer verbs in English than nouns or adjectives, so sometimes I'll have feweer of them in a month.  And other times I'll keep an eye out for recently edited verb entries that look interesting.  That way, even though it's my own "nom", it's someone else's work being featured.  --EncycloPetey 23:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Constructed languages in CFI
After futzing about Europanto in the CFI, I realized there's bunch of other discrepancies. Can you shed light on any of this as you know more history? Thanks. I feel like suddenly I'm the lang-code captain:) --Bequw → ¢ • τ 11:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) There are ISO 639-3 coded languages not mentioned on the CFI: Blissymbols (created Aug '07) and Kotava (Jan '08). Are these just updates?
 * 2) There are also ones on the CFI list that say they have ISO codes, which I can't find (Ceqli, Delason, Jakelimotu, Linga, Tceqli). Did these ever have codes? Should they be moved to the no-ISO-definitely-not line?
 * 3) CFI mentions Glosa and Interglossa separately, implying they both have ISO codes, though only Interglossa does (igs). Maybe some people consider them two periods of the same language?

 * I've taken a look, and here is what I know:
 * Yes, those two languages simply didn't have codes before, and so were not listed. Blissymbols also has technical problems for inclusion, since the individual characters can't be coded.
 * According to the Wikipedia index, Jakelimotu is jkl, Ceqli is cql, Tceqli is tcj, Delason is dea, Linga is lnq. However, these codes do not appear in the SIL database.  I do not know whether they are proposed codes pending approval or what.
 * It's possible. Interglossa seems to be defunct, but Glosa is built upon Interglosa, so I would assume they're considered the "same" for purposes of coding.
 * --EncycloPetey 15:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Do these factual changes require a BP discussion (I can post it)? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 18:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * As a factual change, I would think you can make the change with a vote or discussion, but I recommend that you post a courtesy note in the BP stating what was changed and why (and possibly including that same note on the CFI talk page for future reference). --EncycloPetey

18:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Great. Thanks for the advice by the way. I'd post on the CFI talk page but it's protected (I *could* post, but the point is to probably not post there). PS - Orcish looks like it was wrongly thought to have a code as well. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 05:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Orcish was orq in ISO/DIS 639-3, then removed before approval. The WP table still shows it, it was certainly built from a draft. We should just update CFI to remove it. Likewise, cql for Ceqli is in ISO/DIS 639-3.5 (ISO TC 37/SC 2/WG) but not in the final. Robert Ullmann 09:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

absinth
Thank you for the snotty message you left on my talk page.

Can you please explain why we are linking this to the German entry? Ought we not also to link it to, for instance, French, Russian, Chinese, and Urdu? Wahrmund 22:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll quote from AGF: " Yelling “assume good faith” at fellow editors does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and if you find yourself doing it often, it's probably a sign that you're doing something seriously wrong:"  22:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * When you do not understand something, you should ask not immediately delete. You are a newcomer here who has made a mistake and I have alerted you to the problem.  Please re-read the quote you posted, and note the words "editors and often''.  Niether has happened here. --EncycloPetey 23:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

newbie errors...
...wiktionary editing newbie error. Thanks--Esteban.barahona 03:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry, I had a different understanding of wiktionary (en.wiktionary is just english words, es.wiktionary son solo palabras en español)... I understand now that it's not that way; and actually I like how it really is :) --Esteban.barahona 04:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Phrasal verbs
Hello EncycloPetey!

I've seen the change of the interwiki of Category:Phrasal verbs, at en:wikt and ca:wikt. But it is not an error. There is no translation into catalan nor spanish of "phrasal verbs", so in both languages we use the english words "phrasal verb", instead of "frase verbal" which is reserved to (w:s:Frase verbal=perífrasis verbal, which I am not sure it is the same that the Wikipedia interwiki w:periphrasis...). So, there won't be at catalan wiktionary a category named "latin phrasal verbs" nor for any other language but english. I mean, in catalan "phrasal verb" is implicitly and unique for english; saying "Category:Phrasal verbs en anglès" is too redundant.

Can I change it again? Best regards, -Aleator 20:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Catalan category you linked is not specific to English. ¿? Yes it was. It is not, from the point of view of wikt:en, but it is not a wikt:en category, it is an interwiki of a wikt:ca one. -Aleator 20:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you know that it is English-specific?  Because it is written in english. In catalan nor spanish there is no "Phrasal verbs en ". Saying "phrasal verb" in catalan and spanish means "english phrasal verb" in english. I don't know how to demostrate. For example search "phrasal verb" at Google in catalan language: you won't see any other reference to a language than English: . And the same for a Spanish research: . -Aleator 20:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you'll agree with ca:Category:Locucions verbals en anglès, and ca:Category:Locucions verbals. I do the interwiki fixes. -Aleator 05:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for saving me from doing too many more of those mistaken ones. DCDuring TALK 02:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary talk:Quotations colon discussion
I am formally requesting at Wiktionary talk:Quotations that we end citation lines with a colon. If we don't do this, I will positively go insane. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

possum
Thanks for cleaning up the infinitive, but the conjugation you added to the lemma entry was incorrect. The verb possum does not conjugate like a compound of sum, but instead has further irregularities. --EncycloPetey 15:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the catch; I neglected to consult my Wheelock's before adding that. --Wikiacc (¶) 15:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick Latin spelling check
Do you think you can double check my spelling (i.e. the macrons) and definitions in the etymologies for ossify and forensic? Circeus 21:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The macrons look OK, but "forēns" isn't in my Latin dictionaries. The adjective is forēnsis.  --EncycloPetey 21:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the OED that gives it as "forens-is", so I thought it was a relevant form or something (like the way many nouns are derived from a Latin genitive). Circeus 23:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think they were just noting that forens is the stem, and -is is the nominative singular ending. --EncycloPetey 23:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

iglu
Sorry about that I don't come here very often and wasn't sure of the correct way to get it in. I added it to iglu and sort of fixed igloo. I seem to have got a bit stuck with the etymology though. Right now it links to Inuktitut language which is a redirect to Inuktitut but should, in this case, go to Inuit language. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only that but the whole dialect/language issue is very contentious up here and has been for many years. Right now there are only two words that I can think of that should go to Inuit language rather than Inuktitut, iglu and Inuk. Other words like inukshuk should go to Inuktitut. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations for scape
I propose to add in formal citation to support etymology of scape, using authentic French resources. Why delete what I propose? (MihalOrela 16:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC))
 * It was not a citation. It was a reference.  The Citations namespace is for citations. See Citations:listen for an example. --EncycloPetey 16:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:l
Thanks for the tip on using instead of  in lists – I’ve added your note to both of their documentation?

Is the problem that italicizes entries?

Could be augmented so that it supports more of ’s features, like glosses, transcriptions, and script selection? I ask because I use these later features a lot in foreign languages (esp. Japanese).

Actually, is it ok to use in lists for Asian languages, as then the entry is not italicized?

Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Ok, I see that has the desired features, but is not standard.
 * …and that one should use separate templates for running texts and lists, so that these cases can be treated and formatted differently.
 * What should I do meanwhile, if I want to include glosses in lists (for instance, in lists of kanji compounds)? I can think of 3 solutions:
 * Don’t use templates (or use and then add gloss, transcription, and script selection manually) – just include manually.
 * Use.
 * Use.
 * None of these is entirely satisfactory, though using term or onym would allow the entries to be migrated automatically later though (if onym → l, it’s just a matter of redirecting/changing the name; if l gets the added features, it’s easy to find uses of term in lists by searching for # {{term or the like).
 * Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Regarding glosses in lists – hmm…if it’s included in a template, people can choose to include them or not, no?
 * Could you point me to a discussion? I’d like to understand the issues.
 * The reason I took it for granted that people wanted glosses in lists is because they are extremely helpful in Chinese compounds. If you can’t read Chinese (or Japanese) (as you don’t, and I barely do), a list of Chinese compounds is daunting, and glosses help immeasurably:
 * compare 水 to 日.
 * Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

 * You know, I've been thinking a lot about this the last few months, and here is what I've come up with. First, I've been using  for bulleted lists in a number of cases, as, quite frankly, it does things that I want it to do, which  doesn't.  I realize your concern about this, EP, and agree that the situation is less than ideal.  Also, nearly every link on Wiktionary which lies outside of the definitions section needs something more than the standard brackets.  First of all, basically everything should have the language specified.  All words in non-Latin scripts need transliterations and script templating.  Many, many words need a gloss.  Ultimately, I think that we need a single, unified template to handle all this.  Here's what I think should happen:  All instances of  should be changed to specify the language via a named parameter (i.e. use lang=grc, instead of grc simply being the first parameter).  Second, a whole bunch of capabilities need to be added to {{temp|l}}, including everything that  can do, such as the capacity for transliterations, glosses, etc., as well as some other things.  These other things include specifying the formatting context (i.e. in a list or in running text), as well as specifying the relationship to the word whose entry it's in (e.g. cognate, etymon, descendant, etc.)  This may seem like a lot of useless info, but I am absolutely positive that we could make considerable use from it (e.g. a bot writing derived terms lists based off entries which cite the word as their etymon).  Also, I think that basically everything should take a named parameter, because I think it's stupid that most instances of  have a blank parameter (the parameter used for the display, if it differs from the link).  Thoughts?  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? What about the Descendants lists, where the language is already specified?  What about in lists of synonyms, antonyms, related terms, etc., where the language is obvious from the context of the section?  Would each word in the list have a pointless little language identifier next to it? There are many, many cases where lists of words need not have such identification, and even should not because it will add needless visual clutter.--EncycloPetey 06:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

 * The specified language has no bearing on how the term displays in the entry, silly. It's all about linking to the proper section of an entry.  Duh.  :P  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Oh, and it's also about getting the correct link colour (once we have yellow/orange links up and running). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I misunderstood them. But IIUC now, I dislike forcing all the English terms to make use of the template.  Keeping track of all the ISO codes becomes difficult, and it's unnecessary burden on new users .  I've seen where exceesive template use has gone on some of the other Wiktionaries, and think that, which the templates are fine and useful in FL cases, it isn't worthwhile for English.  So, making the template use 100% consistent everywhere seems a bad idea to me.  What you suggest is fine for FL entries, but excessive for English.
 * I also dislike the idea of burdening long lists of words with additional visual baggage in the form of the kinds of information you're proposing we include. However, this is more a BP discussion. --EncycloPetey 06:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

 * First of all yes, this definitely is a BP convo, but I thought I'd bounce a few ideas off you first (as you never seem to have any problem disagreeing with me, which I appreciate). Second, bear in mind that almost none of this is required, it's all optional.  So, if a new user doesn't know (or simply doesn't want to add) all that stuff, they can simply do {{l|word}} and it'll work just fine.  People can come in and add all that stuff as time and motivation permit.  Secondly, very little of this info would actually be displayed (only the transliteration and gloss).  The rest of the stuff is for technical reasons, for automation, for display customization, for linking, etc.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

About Japanese Four Character Compounds
First, thank you for correcting me on the redirect and category naming issues. With these corrections, you also merged a category I want to create to.

On that topic, it may seem to someone not familiar with the concept that having a category for four characters idioms is like having a category for idioms with three characters, or for ones that include the character 成. Completely random and cluttering. However, four character idiomatic compounds (四字熟語) are a unique feature of the Japanese language and its education (see the Wikipedia article on Yojijukugo) and stand independent of regular idioms. Estemi 23:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The best place to raise the issue and get other people to help out is About Japanese. I suggest you propose this category on the talk page there. and see if other people will help. --EncycloPetey 23:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

germino
I started running the bot against this verb, but stopped it as it seemed to be creating strange characters. See germinas, and "New pages" at 08:14 (germinat to germinabunt) SemperBlotto 08:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

p.s. The strange characters are as they appear in your email. So, if it is a mac => pc situation, you could put the file on the wiki somewhere (here?) and make sure it looks good, then I could copy it from here. SemperBlotto 08:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Quotations of Octavia
I know that quotations should come before translations, but in given name entries, they are more like entertainment. They don't really explain how the word is used. That's why I put them in the bottom. But it's a matter of opinion. Nice to know that somebody reads them, though. I don't know any Latin, I keep wishing you'd add Latin entries.--Makaokalani 15:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

kali lipat
Hi, I've created this entry. It is somekind of prefix I guess, but I want to ask a native English speaker (with knowledge of Dutch) what a good translation of "drievoudig kampioen" is. I translated it (as you can see in the kali lipat entry) as "threefold champion", omitting champion. Is that correct? Thanks Mallerd 18:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The usual English translation would be "three-time champion". --EncycloPetey 18:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Another question before I forget, how do I request (with a template) a translation within a translation table? I've seen it a couple of times. It would say something as: *Dutch: Please add a translation. Thanks Mallerd 18:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I can't remember what that template is called either, and don't see it listed in any of the categories for request or cleanup templates. --EncycloPetey 18:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be I believe. Nadando 18:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Thank you guys, by the way Petey, Indonesian minute = menit, minit or minuta although menit is used most :) Bye Mallerd 19:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indonesian is not a language I know much about; Austronesian languages do things I don't quite understand. The translations came via the Indonesian Wikipedia article on units of time, checked against the two Indonesian dictionaries I have.  If there are other words in use, then they should definitely be added. --EncycloPetey 19:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I noticed after I left that request for him that his last edit was on the 28th. I was like...shit. But yeah, thanks a million. That'll save me some patience. :) — [ ric ] opiaterein — 19:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

wise
Heya Petey,

I was thinking, I was just adding some I guess Indonesian anatomical entries, when I found out that I actually don't know any correct English terms. I can translate Indonesian to Dutch of course, which I do constantly before I translate into English. When I came to tulang rahang, I thought "what the hell is kaakbeen in English?" I searched around wikipedia a bit and found "jawbone" in the mandible article. So my question is, is it wise to continue to add such professional terms? I can continue to add other words of course, which most of the time are easier. I can understand that it is better to leave the other translations to people who speak English fluently. Mallerd 19:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you know the context in which the term is used, then it's probably safe to add it. In this case, "jawbone" is the everyday word people use in English, but "mandible" is a technical term used by doctors and biologists.  In cases where you don't know the context of use, it's safer not to add the term.  I've had to leave out some Galician verbs recently, because I'm not sure how best to translate them into English becuase I don't feel certain about the context of use.  However, for anatomical words, you might be able to get a feel for them by checking the Indonesian Wikipedia to see if they have a decent article.  Sometimes, you can tell from such articles whether the term is an everyday word or jargon. --EncycloPetey 20:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Index:Galician
Hi, I've done draft one, if I've done something silly let me know and I'll fix it. Conrad.Irwin 20:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it in more detail later, but what jumps out at me is that a: is indexed under "P", is listed there twice, and has the wrong part(s) of speech both times. The word a: is an article and preposition, not a pronoun.  Some other words whose POS is Article have similar listing problems, though they seem to end up in the correct location. Also, the words  and  aren't on the list at all.  Did you look for words that begin with an accented vowel? --EncycloPetey 21:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Draft 2 complete. I have not included é as it is a verb form. (Technical excuses, I'd not allowed for a word to appear more than once on my intermediary lists, from the xml file they don't but from categories they did, which severely mucked up a lot of stuff. I also tried to cheat and used my English word splitter without modification, which is how a got sorted under p for pronoun and p for preposition...) Conrad.Irwin 21:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well...lol
I've actually been changing all the old entries since I made that change. I want to do more to the template, but the tr= had to be changed to 1= before I start adding plural forms and other stuff. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 17:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Los Andželes/Лос Анџелес
Serbian has two equal alphabets, Latin and Cyrillic, and each one has the same 30 letters, so I really believe creating separate entries for each alphabet would be totally redundant, as Cyrillic spelling can be derived from Latin and vice versa. Admiral Norton 17:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I see. I created a separate entry for Лос Анџелес. Admiral Norton 21:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing advice
Thank you for the pointers. I didn't know what those lines were for. I'll be more careful from now on.

How does one make the section editable (where the "edit" link shows up on the right)? Thicks001 06:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All sections are editable. A section is marked by any section header, such as ===Pronunciation=== or ===Anagrams===.  The paired equal signs mark a section header for the software, which then provides all the section-related features.  A section includes everything after a section header until another section header of the same or higher level.  Any following sections of a lower level (with more equals) are considered part of the same section. --EncycloPetey 05:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Catalan nouns
Is there any (good) reason not to categorize nouns by its gender or it's just because "We do not categorize nouns by gender in any Iberian language"? Why do we categorize plurals then? Why countable, uncountable, invariant, collective, abstract, irregular plurals and so on, and not the gender?

At least for me, it was helpful to have this division, because it was easier then to work with them.--Xtv 07:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't categorize anything for nouns but "noun" for the lemma and "plural" for the plurals. Any other categories that might be added can be discussed, but should not eliminate the standard categories.  The particular categories you mention are used for English nouns, because this is the English Wiktionary.  Is there any (good) reason to split the Catalan noun category in half, or is it just for your convenience? --EncycloPetey 07:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So, if the problem it's just emptying the category of nouns, we can simply double categorize Catalan nouns, as you do in English (p.e. ambisexuality).
 * Since you haven't created (yet?) the discussion page with the proper justification, I'd appreciate you to tell me why have you requested Template:ca-noun-fp for delete. I think it is a useful template for feminine plurals, not only because of the categorization, but because it writes also the f after the word entry.
 * Could you be so kind to answer me in my talk page? I still do not have your talk page in my watchlist... Thanks!--Xtv 08:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not want (yet) to change any community norm, I just was asking you if such a norm exists (that is, the good reason). If you show me where does it say that the category I created is stranger than an "uncountable" category and therefore it can not be created, I'll accept it. So, categorizing nouns also by gender (allowing them also to live freely in "Catalan nouns" category) is not an exception to the "single master category" norm.
 * About, you have not completed the request with the corresponding justification. About the specialization, why do all the following templates exist?     ? they can be all reduced to one template with 1 variable! And        ? Also one template with one variable would be enough! So, I honestly do not see the big number of specialized templates, if we compare it with other similar languages. I do not think that this is treating Catalan differently than all other languages...--Xtv 08:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Mismatch wikisyntax
If you find something flagged that shouldn't be, e.g. "1), 2)", etc then just list it at User:Robert Ullmann/Pronunciation exceptions/stops (linked at the top of the report page).

If the problem is cause by a template that is (and should be) used over multiple lines then list the template at User:Robert Ullmann/Mismatched wikisyntax/multiline. Thryduulf 20:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but that doesn't apply to either case. I'll ask Robert directly.  The links you provided are still likely to be useful in future, though. --EncycloPetey 20:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's becuase of my error - the first link should have been User:Robert Ullmann/Mismatched wikisyntax/stops (I copied it from the wrong report!). Mitteleuropa is not the only entry to have this issue, anthropophilic and several others are listed on the stops page for the same reason. Thryduulf 21:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Verbs
Köszönöm for warning me :)

Sinek 22:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, yes. Comparative is "daha adjective", superlative is "en adjective".. Heyy, thanks! Sinek 22:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It works very well, thanks a lot. I tried to do something to "en", I don't know if it's better now.. Sinek 22:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering
Regarding some of the Latin words I've seen around here, often the text with read something like "lēgō" but the link will go to "lego". Is there any particular reason for this? Teh Rote 22:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The macrons are necessary to distinguish various words and forms of the same word, but are generally not found in the written language in Classical or medieval texts. They are the modern convention for Latin textbooks, dictionaries, and many other publications, so they are used within entries, but name in the pagename itself.  See WT:ALA. --EncycloPetey 22:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

entenada
maybe in other countries of central america, but not in nicaragua

Obnosis
What needs to be done to clear the tag you just entered please?
 * The word needs to be cited in accordance with WT:CFI, preferrably with three documented quotations from durably archived media. --EncycloPetey 04:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 * This has been done a few times since 6 September 2008. Can we clear it please?  Or do you have more suggestions?  LisaKachold 02:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclude the RfV discussion. While there is an active unsettled discussion, the tag provides the link to the discussion. --EncycloPetey 08:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing progress
As about your edit, the different numbers are from either Special:Uncategorizedpages (756 at that time) or from (736 at that time, now down to 710). My script is sometimes more up to date, because some pages are categorized but the Special page seems to forget to remove them until after a second or even third update. There seem to be minor glitches in the way the Special page identified uncategorizedpages. I am not sure how Goldenrowley got the 679 though. Greets, Mutante 12:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, ran another update and saw that all those twelve-XXX pages have been deleted. So i would say we are actually down to 526. Mutante 12:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:la:Archaic
This category presents an interesting question about what exactly we're doing with Latin here on Wiktionary. Now, one could argue that Latin is sort of, almost, nearly a living language.....kind of, in that it's still spoken in the Vatican, right? But, at the same time, we're not really treating it as a living language, are we? We're treating it as a dead language. If so, it probably wouldn't be appropriate to label anything as archaic, as, well, the whole thing's archaic, 'cuz it's dead. Certainly some stuff is older than others, but I would think we're treating it all equally. Your thoughts, Mr. Latin? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I am using this category for words that were archaic by the period of Classical Latin. There are Old Latin forms, and we have no ISO code for Old Latin, nor are we likely to, since records of that period are especially fragmentary.  This seems like a suitable way to handle the problem, at least for now. --EncycloPetey 20:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree with you, EncycloPetey. —Ruakh TALK 23:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Then that begs the question, is the Latin section of Wiktionary ever going to go beyond Classical? While I understand (and agree with) Classical taking priority, but I imagine we would like to, eventually, have Medieval Latin, New Latin, etc.  It seems like "Old Latin" as a qualifier would be more practical, in the long term, than "archaic".  Now, I don't want to press the issue, as it is not a terribly important one, certainly not now, and additionally because you do Latin like it's the new black, but I think the long-term issues should at least be considered.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Long-term issues are always on my mind. That's why I held off conjugating Latin verbs for two years: I wanted to be sure some of the long-term issues were seettled first.  Our Latin coverage already does go beyond Classical, and I've set up some templates to handle IPA for Ecclesiatical Latin.  We have some Medieval Latin and New Latin entries/senses already.  With "Old Latin", though, I don't have access to any really good resources.  I do mark words as "archaic" when they are identified as pre-Classical in Latin resources, but such identifications are sporadic.  The cut-off date is somewhat arbitrary at 75 BCE. Much earlier than that, you're clearly dealing with a different period in Latin, but I'd be reluctant to declare documents from 76 BCE "Old Latin" and 74 BCE "Classical Latin", and then treating them as separate languages.  There just isn't enough surviving text either to make the effort of categorizing Old Latin really worthwhile, and some of the changes between Old and Classical are inflectional endings only.  It's not as drastic a change as happened between Old English and Middle English, for example, or between MHG and Modern German.  There might be enough Old Latin to make a good Appendix, but that's about all I could imagine.  --EncycloPetey 03:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Latin is hardly "dead". It has more native speakers than quite a number of clearly living languages, and a current literature (don't underestimate the Vatican, we are talking about thousands of people all over the world). But as EP points out, it does have a number of periods, which we do want to identify. And most of those are not current of course. Robert Ullmann 18:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Panjabi
While it's fine to choose one language name as standard for language categories, we cannot and do not do this with entries. Each valid spelling gets its own entry. Consider that the pronunciation may not be the same; the quotes will not be the same; and there may be regional differences in preference of spelling. --EncycloPetey 04:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

 * You're right, I missed the difference in the pronunciations (I never do much with them and my eyes just glossed over it all). The Etymologies are the same, and I can't find any regional difference in usage. What about leaving each POS header with just a ? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 04:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Video games & Category:Electronic games
If you were to start the move of Category:Electronic games back to Category:Video games, I'd support the it. (I can't find anything in the docs on what the process is here). CyberSkull 06:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Spanish
But Petey, it was a disambig page it led to. Mallerd 09:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Why do the templates lead to a disambig page when the language is always meant? Mallerd 20:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Mallerd 12:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

discedo
Does this verb have a passive conjugation? --EncycloPetey 21:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

 * It appears to be a compound of cedo, which does (cedor - to be yielded to, or something to that extent). I can't think of how to translate discedor into English, but it seems to exist. --Wikiacc (¶) 21:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WOTD progress
I'm doing fine. These days I'm spending more time on Internet at home than at uni, though, and ironically it's slowed my progress because I prefer working at school (I have access to the online OED for quick checks over the public Wi Fi). Gonna have to fix that lol. What's causing me the most hassle is definitely my insistence on having citations. If it wasn't for that, things'd go much faster! I'm rather surprised at just how frequently I'm adding definitions (I'm proud of the ones at ossify and undergrounder; it demonstrate that we do add stuff that should probably be in traditional dictionaries).

So far, I think the most troublesome word were wane and incur. The former because of the time I spent figuring the Scottish English definition (still pulling my hair over it!), and the latter because of his long history that resulted into the fourth definition lumping a series of obsolete latinisms *shifty* Circeus 21:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I could probably do the full month, but I'll go safe and give you the first half so I can breath a bit XD.
 * I actually don,t mind adding forgotten (old/rare/recent/dialectal) meanings all that much. It's the mess of unfurling mixed etymology that irritates me. Because I (typically) add a lot of stuff to the one entry I edit (synonyms, splitting/rewording/refining definitions, usage notes, related terms...), I typically don't bother with adding extra etymologies, or even with editing the other PoS section for the word. Ought I to take greater care of those? (I don't think I will be able to afford the time I spent looking for good citation then, though). Circeus 22:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick question: I'm just done with discus:, having forgot to do a check at wp and discovered they are also aquarium fishes. It appears that these fishes have "discus" as their usual plural, but I have no idea how to put it in the entry (an alternative plural does not appear appropriate here). It's in a context tag ATM, but I'm not happy with that solution. Any ideas? Circeus 22:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * When one sense has a different plural than all the others (but the same etymology), then that's really the best solution we have. The only "out" I can think of is if the fish name actually derives from a scientific name Discus, in which case it could appear in a separate etymology and thus have its own inflection line.  Unfortunately, that's not the case here since the animal genus Discus is a group of snails. --EncycloPetey 22:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So... yeah. I'll try to compile a word selection by the end of next week ^_^;;; Circeus 07:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There we go. Circeus 19:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad. Feel free to replace whichever half. I'll adjust accordingly. Circeus 19:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The nominators had one, here are a few more:, , ("Came diving out the tulgey cloud And let his bullets fly."), ,  ("continually through woods that became more and more tulgey as the weeks went on. "),.

RE: Wikisaurus and type
Just replied at my talk page. --Dan Polansky 19:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

PetaBot
Are you using the page-from-file version from SB? It is set up to automatically add a language section to an existing entry when needed, and tag it for AF to sort out the sections. That was you don't need to do the occasional page by hand when the entry exists. (I don't recall if that version also replaced redirects automatically.) It also is a bit simpler than the one from the framework package, which has various useless stuff in it. Robert Ullmann 19:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-08/Wiktionary:About sign languages
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-08/Wiktionary:About sign languages has been altered to address issues raised by Robert and DAVilla. Feel free to renew or change your vote. :-) Rod (A. Smith) 01:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
Gah, sorry about the WOTD stuff. I couldn't find anything about adding them on the project page...perhaps I should just stick to nominating? Thanks for telling me. Teh Rote 23:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami
Hi EP, at the behest of someone on IRC (coming from WP:AN (sigh)), I have unblocked this account as I agreed the block was too hasty. Feel free to un-undo, but it might be best to communicate your concerns more clearly first. Sorry for the hassle. Conrad.Irwin 21:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Responding to requests made through Wikipedia sets a bad precedent for us. We are already having to tell people over and over that the two projects are separate.  The block, I do not think, was too hasty.  The user began another series of reversions instead of asking questions of people to learn why the eidts to "his" pages were made.  The block was for 15 minutes to give the user time to read formatting policy and prepare questions. --EncycloPetey 21:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Or you can just ask Kwami, and Kwami would have responded to a gentle nudge, and not an allmighty blow from the banhammer. Do you realise that blocks put people off editing? And that you could've prevented further damage by simple asking or pointing out the relevant policy/guideline/essay/rule to Kwami? Maxim 21:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Users who claim ownership of pages by their actions, whose behavior is confrontational and standoffish, and who do not ask questions before reverting multiple other experienced users, are often prone to blowing up regardless of any actions taken. I would have also appreciated an assumption of good faith on your part, rather than the presumptive and judgemental responses you made at Wikipedia, to which I have responded there. --EncycloPetey 21:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What in the world are you talking about?? I make a single formatting error, and you block me without warning? How could I possibly have been "confrontational" when there was no discussion? You block first, and then post a note on my talk page asking me to "please" check the template discussion? What's the hypocritical "please" for? You didn't even allow me to respond to you or to post on my own talk page! There was no indication of when the block might expire, and I did try saving my work after 15 minutes, to no avail. Kwamikagami 22:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds as though you need a little time away before pursuing this discussion. You are focussing only on one of the questionable edits you had made, and failing to note that you had made the edit, then reverted the correction without waiting for the explanation, which was in the process of being written.  You had also jsut reverted edits made by other editors to pages that your edits had claimed ownsership over.  Failure on your part to understand those edits should have prompted questions, not reversions.  you were blovked to give us time to start engaging you in discussion and provde explanation, which time you chose to use taking the issue to another wiki and placing vulgarities on my user page there.  That behavior is never appropriate.   --22:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You, and another admin, were simply rollbacking kwami without any explanation nor communicating. What do you expect kwami to do? kwami didn't know why you reverted a seemingly good edit, so he reverted you. Then you just block him, again without warning. Maxim 21:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the points Maxim made- explain first, then block, not the other way around. Nadando 22:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Kwami did not understand, so he reverted." That is not justification for reverting.  I was preparing to write to him, when his reversion happened.  If he had held off reverting, he would have gotten that explanation.  Instead, he rushed to revert without any attempt at discussion.  I blocked so that the situation would remain stable while the explanation began.  It feels as though you are trying to impose Wikipedia norms and standards onto another project. Please understand that Wiktionary is not Wikipedia; we have different goals, different policies, diferent content, and a very different working environment as a result.  --EncycloPetey 22:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly understand this is a different project—my welcome message was a warning that since I'm experienced with WP, I should prepare to be blocked. I very strongly suggest that you use an edit summary when reverting, and not the rollback button. See, if you had not rollbacked, there would be no need for the block and the resulting brouhaha that followed. Maxim 22:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me note again that you are applying Wikipedia standards to a project where they do not apply. This is why new Wikipedia users often get that "warning" message.  We are frankly growing tired of the misapplication of their policies here.  Edit summaries are not often used here for such edits, and there are many, many reasons for that.  The key reason being that 99 times out of 100, the edit was incorrect and the person who made it made only that edit (or one or two others) and never returns.  We also have a very low number of sysops and editors compared to Wikipedia...VERY low.  That 99% ratio means that our time is better spent in editing rather than explaining every edit made.  We expect rather, that seriously interested users will show initiative to ask questions and seek help.  We have even limited the number of discussion fora here to make it easier to find and respond to discussions. --EncycloPetey 22:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course they don't return, the rollbacking scares them off. Maxim 22:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My opinion may mean nothing, as an admin on the English Wikipedia who came here after seeing the note an WP:AN, but I have to say this block doesn't just go against Wikipedia's rules, but Wiktionary's $blocking policy. It specifically lists "reverters" under the Don't block section, and states blocks of this type (1/4 - 24 hours, to get the user's attention/communication) should not be placed by the admin looking to communicate. Philosophical differences between the two projects aside, this was still a bad block. Sorry to barge in, AuburnPilot 22:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WRT "reverters", you're are reading advice about the fact that Wiktionary has no 3R policy, not a general indication about blocking. You need to read that entire paragraph for context.  As I noted above, the user was acting first and not asking questions nor permitting time enough for response.  I suppose that I might have locked the page instead, but that cannot be done to good purpose at this point. --EncycloPetey 22:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I think I see part of what EP was objecting to: I had added a synonym under the mistaken impression that the 'see'/'also' template was analogous to pedia's 'see also' template. (I just now got a welcome message, and at the time had been unable to find wiktionary's formatting standards, and so used an existing article as a (bad) example.) I then noticed that I had forgotten to capitalize the word and got a red link, so I corrected the capitalization. Evidently that is what got me blocked. Apparently, correcting my spelling shows that I am claiming ownership over the article. I can understand that EP may not want to fix formatting errors, if he has a lot on his watch list, and so simply reverts any contributions that contain errors. However, I am perfectly willing to clean up my own messes if anyone takes the time to explain to me where they are.

 * That aside, the block had been for one hour, not 15 minutes like EP claims. Also, how do you expect anyone to learn to edit properly, if they're blocked every time they make a mistake? Kwamikagami 22:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

 * You do see part, but you are still dwelling on only one of the multiple mistakes you made. So, the first point you should be aware of is that you were not blocked every time you made a amistake.  If that were true you would have more than 20 blocks.  Let's therefore clear out the hyperbole.  The problem was multiple bad edits, including reversions of corrections to those edits.  A starting explanation was coming, but you rushed to revert the latest correction before I could even finish preparing that explanation.  If you are willing to ask questions, there are plenty of people here eager to help. --EncycloPetey 22:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

 * It's not hyperbole: I was taking you at your word. I could only go on the reason you gave, and that was for a single mistake. Nothing else was brought to my attention. I also waited 15 minutes in case in was a short block, and only went to pedia adminship when that failed. Your latest post on my talk page is friendly and helpful, so I apologize for abusing you on your pedia page. Kwamikagami 23:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

 * BTW, unless I come across another translation or particularly apt quote, I've finished editing Usonian for the time being. I've moved on to its derivatives. Kwamikagami 23:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Okay, I'm done for now.

 * I just received an email from a good pedia editor who quit contributing to wiktionary because of getting blocked like this. Kwamikagami 00:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I cannot respond to anonymous cases where I do not know the circumstances. There are people I have blocked here, mostly vandals, but also people who brought unpleasant agendas that were pushed on the community without being willing to discuss issues.  We have also had Pedians come in and refuse to follow Wiktionary editing standards, which is one reason for blocking here.  Format here is far more important than on WP, and some Pedians either cannot or will not believe that it is a problem to violate formatting policy.  Agood pedia editor is not the same thing as a good Wiktionary editor.  Some skills and approaches translate well between the two projects, but many do not. --EncycloPetey 01:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

 * As I notice that EP is being overwhelmed by a number of 'pedia users here, let me put in the viewpoint of another Wiktionary admin. EP's block was entirely justified.  When a brand new user comes in and starts reverting the edits of seasoned editors, that clearly shows an incorrect attitude.  As EP said, it was a short block, simply given to allow him to fix the entry.  As has been stated, time and time again, our policy is generally poorly documented and often not in line with actual policy (actual meaning de facto, that which our admins are really doing).  Again, this is a very different culture than that of Wikipedia, but it is one which works for our editors.  We simply do not have the time (nor the patience) to fight against new users who think they know best.  I am glad to see that this matter has calmed down somewhat, and that it looks to be resolved a bit more diplomatically.  Again, EP's block was entirely justified and in accordance with Wiktionary policy.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If the block was for, as you say, the wholesale reverting of stuff, then why does the block log clearly imply a content dispute/minor formatting error? Furthermore, you state "it was a short block, simply given to allow him to fix the entry" -- how on Earth is he to fix the entry while blocked? Why not leave a talk page note asking to fix the entry, rather than removing his ability to do so? You also state that this is a different culture to Wikipedia's, and that your policies are often out of date and poorly written... indeed, it is very different. Do you want to confuse people by pointing them to policies that everyone else actively goes against, because the de facto policy differs? Sure, it works for your seasoned editors, but don't you want new blood? This is awfully like a closed shop. Nobody is trying to fight against you (do you have an AGF policy, or is it out of date too?). A good faith newbie was trying to contribute and was blocked because an admin disagreed with the formatting used. That's not right. EP's block may have been inline with one of the versions of the out of date and not updated policy (though according to AuburnPilot, it's not the current version), but it sure as hell was against common sense. Signed, regular reader of Wiktionary. Giggy 06:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Assumed "he". Sorry if I'm wrong.

 * A couple of clarifications: First, as EP has already stated, formatting is not a minor thing here, it is a huge thing.  Second of all, as EP has already stated, it was not simply for this one edit, but rather for a series of bad edits, and then reversions of more experienced editors cleaning up those bad edits.  The block summary was a combination of justification and explanation.  As has been stated, often the block summary is all people get here.  And when I say "allow him time to fix the entry", the him is EP.  Blocking Kwamikagami allows EP a little breathing time to go through and fix the edits, without having them reverted.  I fail to see how everyone seems to be completely ignoring/missing the fact that Kwamikagami had established a track record of reverting edits made by admins (and followed up the block with a round of profanity on EP's pedia talk page).  Yes, perhaps there should have been some explanation, but as EP has already said, we generally don't bother with them, because most incorrect edits are one-time hits.  It seems to me that, if I were new on a project, and someone who had been on it for awhile undid an edit of mine, I would ask them what I did wrong (in fact, I did, when I was new here).  Reverting an admin roll-back is a clearly blockable offense, and none of our admins are confused by this (oh, perhaps it should be borne in mind that EP is not some rogue bully here, he's one of our most experienced and level-headed admins).  Now, this is where the fundamental distinction between 'pedia and Wiktionary comes into play.  Wikipedia will allow a well-intentioned, but ultimately destructive user go on for years.  I've seen it happen.  Over and over again, revert, tell the user what they did wrong, repeat.  That certainly is a kinder, gentler approach.  But here, we're not here to babysit.  If someone is screwing things up, we get them out of the way.  Yes, it can be cruel, but it results in a hell of a lot less wasted time (except for when Wikipedia admins come in).  Rest assured that there are plenty (plenty being a relative term; there are far less people interested in words, compared to....well.....everything) of newbies who manage to find their way around here if they show a bit of respect to folks with more experience and ask questions, which we're positively ecstatic to answer.  Finally, written policy simply does not work well here, as we're constantly changing things.  The edit which this whole conversation is about was to a template which was just invented a week or two ago, half our editors don't even know what it is (although its predecessor has a fairly long history).  However, telling half our editors takes less time than updating all of our policy pages.  So there you have it, the two primary differences between us and you: we communicate directly with each other (which we're small enough to practically do) instead of writing things down on policy pages, and we're here to write a dictionary, with basically everything else basically being a distraction.  Explaining things to a user who's eager to learn is worth the time spent, wheel-warring with someone who is not is not.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Responding to requests made through Wikipedia sets a bad precedent for us - then you should respond to requests made through Wiktionary. Oh, sorry, rather I meant to say you should allow requests to be made through Wiktionary. Random832 06:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm one of those coming from the "wrong" culture, being active in Wikipedia rather than Wiktionary, but it seems to me that a "block first, explain later" policy is unnecessarily "biting" to newbies, and might result in some potentially good contributors leaving in anger. Also, having the written policy be at variance with actual practice seems to expect those newbies to have some sort of E.S.P. in order to read the minds of admins who might take harsh action against them for violating unwritten rules. Dtobias 13:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I would stop complaining about the admin/page ratio as long as you treat new editors like they're trespassing. If you want your project to grow, rather than snatching your shotgun from the closet, welcome them as guests, show them your ways (hopefully after you improve them) and hope they decide to stay. Jennavecia 13:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion ends here, it is no-longer relevant to the specific issue. If you want to complain about Wiktionary, please do so on one of our public fora after you have read the relevant archives - nothing new is being said. Conrad.Irwin 13:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User:タチコマ robot
Hello EncycloPetey, I was on #wiktionary saw that You blocked this user indefinit. I would like to politely protest against an indefinit block of that user because: I would like to let You know, that I personally am the strong opinion that blocks should only be done to prevent damage to a project, which in this case was not given, and that the indefinit block is imho not appropriate.
 * 1) the user was asked in this discussion by Conrad.Irwin to start his bot without flag, "It is probably better to run with the flag off until you begin to annoy the RC patrollers.".
 * 2) the user made useful, uncontroversial edits,
 * 3) the user got not warned before and got blocked the first time indefinit for non vandal but useful edits.

I hope You can agree to this and lift the block, thanks, --birdy (:> )= 22:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I would disagree that editing user pages without permission of either the community or the users themselves is "uncontroversial". It is also not possible to run a bot here without getting a warning that the bot may be blocked; that message comes through any time a bot flag is not present on the account.  The user had been sent to the Bot Policy page as early as March, when the last appeal for bot use here was made.

 * In any case, the block was only on the bot, not the user, and was made in accordance with our Bot policy: WT:BOT. The user has violated that policy knowingly in that he has set up NO bot explanation here (I quote from policy: "The bot account's name should contain your own username, and an indication of the kind of tasks the bot will be performing") and has NOT provided any of the bot's code.  Despite all this, the bot was run.  The user in question has been directed more than once to our Bot use policy, which clearly outlines the steps that must be taken.  The overall tone of the conversation in the BeerParlour (in March) was negative about running the bot here, and the consensus was thus against the bot.  The User proceded to run the bot months later without any further explanation of what it was intended to do.  If the user will satisfy these problems, I would be more than happy to lift the block so that he may proceed: (1) posting the code through the Bot's page for approval and (2) stating the specific tasks the bot will perform ("making repetitive edits" is not specific enough). --EncycloPetey 22:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hiya! Thanks for welcoming me to Wiktionary. I've used a term (medical student) that was the subject of a dispute I was mediator for on Wikipedia as my first entry here. I would have thought that it would have been here already. I checked the contribution criteria and it said that compound terms were allowed so ... Did I reference it okay? It said that I should list where I saw it in use, which is of course different from what we expect from evidence at Wikipedia where I   full 3rd-party sources for verification. :-) Anyway, thanks for the welcome! It's nice to be here and I'm sure I'll get active soon! :-) Fr33kman talk APW 00:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the main method of reference is listing a book or other written source (see how I did it on medical student). Nadando 00:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! Fr33kman talk APW 00:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Received your note...
Hi EncycloPetey

Thanks for clarifying about the difference between citations and Wikipedia references. I edited the wheel war page because I was working on the Wikipedia version of the page, and after very extensive searching, I could not find anything to support the Wikipedia definition, so I added a citation-request on Wikipedia, but removed it from here since there was no basis to support it.

By the way, the other definition that you removed as a copyvio appears to be in the public domain, so maybe it's OK to use it here. I'm not familiar with Wiktionary policies, so I'll leave it to you if you want to re-add it or not.

I was not the editor who initially added that text, but I did run across it as part of my search. It came from this page in the Jargon File, a collection of hacker slang developed over many years. The home page of that project states that the text is in the public domain. --Jack-A-Roe 06:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

demonstrandum
Hi there. An anon has pointed this at demonstro. This seems reasonable, but it is not in the table. Is it a passive future participle of some sort? SemperBlotto 14:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the accusative gerund and neuter nominative gerundive form. These forms do not appear in the Latin conjugation tables, and I haven't decided how I'd like to handle them yet.  They function as nouns or adjectives in Latin, rather than as verb forms, and they have their own inflection patterns. --EncycloPetey 17:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Turkish template
Ah OK, thank you very much for warning me. Sinek 18:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Audio problems
I added an audio file through the for the Ewe version of Abraham. Unfortunately, I am having problems with the link at Abraham|Ewe. Kindly show me where I am going wrong. Thanks.--Natsubee 14:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Two things: (1) it is better for the display text of the link to read as "Audio", since some people do not load images, (2) The link did not work because you included "Image:" in the link. If you leave that part out, the link will work.  I have made these corrections, and the link now works. --EncycloPetey 17:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help.--Natsubee 00:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Audios for WOTD
Just to say I've noticed audios for entries starting Sep 22 (except yarmulke: and taupe:) are missing. Maybe you can help me decide whether the /u/ in peruse: is long too? OED gives an American short vowel, but MW appears to disagree. Circeus 22:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't done the audio recordings for the last few days yet. I may find time later today or tomorrow.  I had planned on recording them yesterday, but wasn't feeling well.  Wehn I link in the audio recordings, I'll fix the IPA as needed. --EncycloPetey 22:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank You
Gratefull for your explanation regarding the deletion of my submission. The word "humanaura" is a protologism. thank you for reading Sencyman 03:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Grawp
==English==

From the Spanish El Grawpo meaning "The giant one". First used during the early 16th century by Spanish traders of the Atlantic refering to pirates. By the 17th century, it was widespread across English navigators.

Noun

 * 1) A pirate.
 * 2) A character from Harry Potter, who is a giant and half brother of Rubeus Hagrid.
 * 3) A page moving vandal on Wikipedia.

FitBot
Bot status now granted. SemperBlotto 10:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

fodere
Hi. Thanks for pointing that out - I don't know much Latin (I learnt a bit, more than 20 years ago) but I've changed the entry to point to fodio, assuming this is correct. I'd rather not tackle writing a proper entry for fodio, I hope you understand. --Jackofclubs 09:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

kitscher, kitschest
Shouldn't these be kitschier and kitschiest? The word kitsch is a noun, the adjecitve is kitschy. --EncycloPetey 19:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are some references to kitsch used as an adjective in the same way as the spelling kitschy, therefore I'd say that the forms are okay, however they may not stand up scrutiny as it may only be bad English. I'll tidy it up. --Williamsayers79 20:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Now tidied up - your comment on amendment of kitsch explained it best.--Williamsayers79 20:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Added citations for "kitscher". Rare, but existing (common family name too, making things more complicated). Kitschest is WAY easier to cite, so I did not even bother, even though the forms are probably more commonly replaced by those of kitschy. Circeus 22:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The question then becomes: Are these forms of an (as yet) uncited adjective sense of kitsch, or just alternative forms of kitschier and kitschiest? --EncycloPetey 22:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * kitsch IS an adjective as well as a noun! You can say that a decoration is the "most kitsch ever", but even though you can have an office bvuilding (attributive), you can have no such thing as a "more office building". QED. There must be SOME reason most dictionaries list it as an adjective in addition to a noun, after all. Circeus 22:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But it's unattested, yes? I have looked in the major dictionaries I have at hand, and they do not list an adjective sense.  William did some checking and found only attributive uses, not adjectival. Personally, I wouldn't say "most kitsch ever", and the people I socialize with wouldn't (thought he word seldom comes up at all around here). --EncycloPetey 22:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , etc. etc. Circeus
 * None of those are citations by Wiktionary standards. Just post citations on the article. Pestering me over this on my personal talk page is pointless. --EncycloPetey 22:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going through the AMerican Corpus site right now looking for additional clearly adjectival use of the words. Not difficult. Expect additions. My stupidity was in making an exceedingly poor choice of quotation. THe words was used as a noun first, but denying it's an adjective now is nonsense. Circeus 22:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Denying" something for which there is no evidence, and no personal experience is hardly "nonsense". --EncycloPetey 22:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My bad for the flooding. For some reason I had thought this was the Tea Room or some other general discussion page. Circeus 23:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits to sack
Just seeking a second opinion before I make an ass of myself: I'm really, really tempted to revert this as it seems to go against two major points. Etymology two is not directly derived from one (at least not from the English meaning), hence the merging was not only unnecessary, but downright inappropriate. Also, if a word has a meaning only in a certain expression, then it belongs in that expression's entry, not here (or at least accurately marked "obsolete" if the word was once used outside that expression). Does that make sense or am I just being possessive? Circeus 05:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have to look at this in more detail tomorrow. "Simple" words are often difficult to parse when it comes to Etymologies.  I'd recommend also getting an opinion from Widsith, whose opinions about English etymologies I find valuable. --EncycloPetey 05:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Phrasal verbs
Hi, is there a Wiktionary policy on under which heading should phrasal verbs be listed? I just added show off and show up under Derived terms on the page for show, only to find out (after saving this, mea culpa) they'd already been listed under See also. Which should I delete so that there isn't an unnecessary duplication? Derived terms seem more logical to me (and indeed I found it arranged thus at entries for put and go). Duncan MacCall 15:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Derived terms is the better place for them. See also should be used only as a last resort when no other appropriate header exists.  Your instinct was correct to use Deirved terms for phrasal verbs. --EncycloPetey 03:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Edittools
Kindly take a look at this request on MediaWiki:Edittools Talk page and see whether anything can be done about it. Thanks--Natsubee 19:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

statwhore
About "Gamerscore whore": Gamerscore (thus capitalised) is the official -- and quite recently created -- Xbox term for this metric, probably a trademark. Anybody writing it in lower case is probably being lazy, in the same way they might write "xbox". 86.154.56.36 11:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I created an account. You can reply there if you like. Equinox 12:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

“Latin” pronunciations
Latin is not a dialect, and certainly not a dialect of English, so please do not add a "Latin" pronunciation to an English section. It uses different phonemes and pronounces its vowels very differently from English. Please do not add Latin IPA pronunciations when you do not know the IPA coding for Latin pronunciations. --EncycloPetey 22:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I didn’t intend to imply that it was. However, there will be people who will want to know how to pronounce it as in the original Latin. Nota that I provided a phonetic — not phonemic — transcription, so the phonemes arguments does not apply. If I got the pronunciations wrong, then I apologise; I got what I know from Wikipedia. If that is the case, please point me somewhither where I can relearn how to write Latin pronunciatory transcriptions properly. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I recommend reviewing basic Latin grammar before trying to add IPA. Your etymology, pronunciation, and plural were all incorrect for nomen nescio.  Adding entries for languages you don't know is never a good idea. --EncycloPetey 22:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 * The incorrect etymology I got from Wikipedia. I based the plural on it. I figured that the plural of “I do not know the name” would be “I do not know the names”, not “we do not know the names”. Regarding the pronunciation, my writing instead of  was a genuine error stemming from my own nescience, whereas my use of  instead of  was a mere careless . I’m starting a Latin degree course in two weeks, so I should have plenty of opportunity to brush up on my Latin grammar; consequently my Latin contributions here will probably increased both in quality and in quantity. <font style="color:darkred">†  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 * If they want the Latin, then they should look in the Latin section. Putting the Latin pronunciation in the English section is never correct. --EncycloPetey 22:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 * What if, as in this case, there is no Latin section? <font style="color:darkred">†  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Then you can add the word to Wiktionary:Requested entries:Latin. --EncycloPetey 22:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Both added. I guess there may be a problem with this solution in re . <font style="color:darkred">†  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 * No, no problem. Users can look up the individual words. --EncycloPetey 01:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

 * What about “non–sum-of-parts” changes in pronunciation caused by certain words occurring in sequence? That may not be an issue for Latin, but it is for English, and I can imagine that it would be for other languages as well. It would be far simpler to just allow such foreign pronunciations to be included in other languages’ <tt>Pronunciation</tt> sections — especially in the case of words and phrases that are patently unnaturalised and thus will tend to be pronounced in the original, foreign-language way anyhow. Come on: what harm could it do? <font style="color:darkred">†  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Your proposal and the argument in favor of it are patently ridiculous. You are suggesting that we ignore the separation of languages, which is the fundamental division of organization within a page.  I see no point in discussing this further. --EncycloPetey 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I’ve news for you: Native speakers and writers often “ignore the separation of languages” — namely by using unnaturalised foreign phrases in writs and conversation. An average, educated English speaker will occasionally slip in a French or Latin phrase, which he will know is a foreign phrase, and he will probably attempt to pronounce it in a manner faithful to the phrase’s language of origin (and, depending on his company, may need to do so to avoid losing face). “[T]he fundamental division of organization within [our] page[s]” matters a lot less than our utility as a dictionary to our readers; we do them a disservice by obfuscating pertinent information on the grounds of the formalities (and not even the functionality!) of our structural distinctions. <font style="color:darkred">†  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Or use if the Latin exists but lacks pronunciation, as many do.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Shall do. <font style="color:darkred">†  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for sorting and  so quickly. <font style="color:darkred">†  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Turkish
Sure, I'll take a look. If you have any questions about Turkish or other Turkic languages such as Azeri, Crimean Tatar, Kyrgyz, Kazakh... you can ask me without hesitating. Best wishes! Sinek 19:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Mongolian, Malagasy
Thank you for the explanation. I changed the presentation of Tsimihety Malagasy translation. As far as I know, the recommended template for translations is not " * Portuguese: fooblo m " but " * Portuguese: fooblo ", displayed respectively as Wiktionary:Translations The big advantage is that there is a much higher probability that a Portuguese speaking person reads and corrects the Portuguese wiktionary than the English one. So the former is likely to be much more accurate than the latter as far as Portuguese words are concerned. There are quite many mistakes about French in the English wiktionary, but I don't mind very much: when I look for a word of my mother tongue, I of course look in the French Wiktionaire, no in the English Wiktionary. So the link to the native wiktionary is important. --Henri de Solages 13:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Portuguese: fooblo m
 * Portuguese: fooblo

If ligatures are banned in Latin entries…
…what happens to spellings that use the instead of the Classical digraphical spelling? <font style="color:darkred">†  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

 * They are similarly not given entries. When such forms can be documented, they can be listed in quotations, but this is a regular orthographic variant for certain hands that, like ligatures, applies to all first declension Latin nouns, all first and second declension adjectives, all perfect participles, etc.  Our Latin entries treat this in the same way we treat the variation between  and  in English.  We don't have separate pages for spellings with the two orthographic variants of "a" in English, and we don't have separate pages for similar sorts of hand variation in Latin. --EncycloPetey 23:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I’ll get back to you at some point about this issue (when I’ve thought about it for longer). BTW, out of interest, what’s your opinion in re English-language entries which contain typographical ligatures, namely ﬀ, ﬁ, ﬂ, ﬃ, and/or ﬄ? –How ‛bout ﬆ? <font style="color:darkred">†  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't think those particular ligatures are worth including as separate entries. Such ligatures occur in hands and printing across all European languages with those letter combinations.  They're not a feature of English spelling, but rather of typography. --EncycloPetey 01:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Hmm. I’m in two minds myself. Certainly, the copy–paste argument is a strong one for having them — at least as redirects. (Users copying and pasting a word from an on-line document using the ligatures will be unlikely to notice, for example, that the reason we have no entry for is because of its being spelt with  — few would think to split the ligature to get  — most would end up thinking that we simply lacked the entry.) However, this argument only justifies strong redirects, not full entries; perhaps the best solution is that the ligated spellings exist as redirects, with looped links in <tt>Alternative forms</tt> sections with <tt>  </tt> following it for context (for those who can’t see the small difference). Accepting any arguments against, , , , and/or , I believe that  is a different case, and that words spelt therewith deserve full entries, owing to the glyph’s visible difference from the digraph . <font style="color:darkred">†  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 09:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

 * The search software already equates é and e and ē for search purposes when an entry does not exist. I think a better solution is to ensure more of these equivalencies are taught to whatever search algorithm os being used.  --EncycloPetey 18:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Agreed, but the looped links for the typographical ligatures ought also to remain, IMO. <font style="color:darkred">†  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

 * For what purpose? The ligatures are not alternative spellings; they're merely an artifact of using a different font. --EncycloPetey 21:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Firstly, because my typing <tt>wikt:inﬁbulate</tt> into my Firefox Wikipedia search box will bypass any æquivalencies built into the software; and secondly because they are such common, albethey minor, orthographic variants, of which our users ought to be made aware whenever possible. <font style="color:darkred">†  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent About Latin edit
Since it is your comment, I will leave this stand. However, in general, I think it completely inappropriate for people to correct the language/spelling/grammar of the comments of others in discussion pages. You should suffer the embarrassment of that typo for all of eternity. :P -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, in this case it is OK for me to make a correction to my own comments, which is what this amounts to in the end. --EncycloPetey 04:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Agreed. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Drew
Hello, as I am brand new to Wiktionary perhaps you can help me format my edit, but I was under the impression that etymologies were appropriate? I have not really added content that is specifically encylopedic, imo. Brando130 19:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Etymologies are not appropriate as definitions. The definition should simply state the meaning of the word.  The encyclopedic content you have added is the history of the name and various French families, which doe snot pertain to the word as used in English. --EncycloPetey 19:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I think I understand. Rather than continue to submit revisions to be reverted, I still need to ask how best to format the fact that Drew is not always derived from Andrew. Is the following acceptable?

 * A male given name derived from Germanic Drogo, through French variants Drogon, Dreus, Drues, Dreux. It is a cognate of the English given names Drieu, Drue

 * Or do the derivations need to go in a separate etymology section? Brando130 19:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

 * You're still including the etymology and foreign language equivalents in the definition. Wiktionary formatting is strict to keep particular kinds of information in predictable locations.  Look at ovatam for a model of how the page ought to be organized.  Since there are two etymologies, there ought to be two Etymology sections, each with definitions under them.  This sort of page restructuring happens from time to time when an additional etymology is added.  You don't need to worry about including pronunciations.  I can help with that afterwards. --EncycloPetey 19:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I have reformatted the info. Please, both of you, take a look at the entry and see if it is acceptable.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I corrected some structure and IPA problems. I;m also not certain the "Drogo" is properly a German name, or whether the derivation is through OHG. --EncycloPetey 20:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Ah, I didn't realize the pronunciation applied to both. As for the de/goh bit, I think you're right.  Old High German goes until 1000 or so, and if Drogo lived in the 9th century.....well, it sort of becomes mathematical at that point.  Also, it wouldn't be French, but rather.....Old French (hell, it might even be Vulgar Latin at that point).  I'll make the switches.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

de acuerdo
Hi. Sorry to bother you, but I want to make an entry for Spanish de acuerdo and I'm stumped. POS? adj for sure, but anything else? Formatting for the entry in Spanish for the adj form? I'm getting bogged down. Could you put me straight please, when you get a moment? Many thanks. -- <i>A LGRIF </i ><font color="#FFD700"> talk 15:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Adjective is the only POS I can imagine it used as. I'm not sure what's bogging you down, but if you get the entry started, I may be able to help. --EncycloPetey 17:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Lego Brick
Unlike Wikipedia, we do not tolerate abusive language on Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey 01:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I attempt to censor my words on the uneditable spaces here, like the edit summaries. That not good enough for you? And besides, I was striving to be an admin someday, because I feel a need to somehow whip up Wiktionary into one of the more supreme-reigning dictionaries on the whole WWW. I think blocks are a one-strike-you're-out kind of deal. How do I earn getting my block expunged from my record? --YAAM 16:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

encyst
Interesting, then I suggest you note it as such with a qualifier of "in some accents", being more specific if you can. It surprises me that it is (they're similar but not identical), and DCDuring presumbly feels the same given he questioned it. I don't have time to do any more editing this evening Thryduulf 18:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Planet Venus, not Prince of Darkness
Greetings EncycloPetey. My name is Lucifer. Pleasure to meet you, sir. I would like to know why you undid my changes to the Lucifer entry. The definition of Lucifer as referring to the planet Venus LONG predates that of Christians using it as a name for Satan by multiple thousands of years. Since Christians (nor any other religion, for that matter) do not have exclusivity to the name Lucifer, it is my belief that an astronomical definition should not be superseded by a religious one. Furthermore, I would like to refer you to the Wikipedia entry for Lucifer, which states:

Lucifer is a name frequently given to Satan in CHRISTIAN belief. This usage stems from A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION, as a reference to a fallen angel, of a passage in the Bible (Isaiah 14:3-20) that speaks of someone who is given the name of "Day Star" or "Morning Star" (in Latin, Lucifer) as fallen from heaven. The same Latin word is used of the morning star in 2 Peter 1:19 and elsewhere WITH NO RELATION TO SATAN. But Satan is called Lucifer in many writings LATER than the Bible, notably in Milton's Paradise Lost.

In Latin, THE WORD "LUCIFER", meaning "Light-Bringer" (from lux, lucis, "light", and ferre, "to bear, bring"), IS A NAME FOR the "Morning Star" (THE PLANET VENUS IN ITS DAWN APPEARANCES; cf. Romanian Luceafăr). The Latin Vulgate version of the Bible used this word twice to refer to the Morning Star: once in 2 Peter 1:19 to translate the Greek word "Φωσφόρος" (Phosphoros), which has exactly the same literal meaning of "Light-Bringer" that "Lucifer" has in Latin; and once in Isaiah 14:12 to translate "הילל" (Hêlēl), which also means "Morning Star". In the latter passage the title of "Morning Star" is given to the tyrannous Babylonian king, who the prophet says is destined to fall. This passage was LATER applied to the prince of the demons, and so the name "Lucifer" came to be used for Satan, and was popularized in works such as Dante's Inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost, but for English speakers the greatest influence has been its use in the King James Version for what more modern English versions translate as "Morning Star" or "Day Star".

I think it is unjust for a public institution such as Wiktionary to prioritize religion over anything else. Moreover, as someone who is named Lucifer, I would thank a public institution like Wiktionary for limiting the propagation of a largely misinterpreted reference to my name. While I would never ask for the removal of said information, as it is part of all our history, I beseech you to reconsider your undoing of my reprioritization. (I know, not a real word but I'm sure you know what I mean)

I am optimistic that we can resolve this matter amicably and I wish you a good day, sir. =o)

 * Three points: (1) The order has nothing to do with religion. You are mistaken on that point.. (2)  The earliest OED citation for Lucifer as Satan predates the earliest OED citation for Lucifer as the morning star, so your facts are incorrect.  The older meaning in English is as "Satan", and predates any evidence for use meaning "Venus" by at least 50 years.  Which meaning is older in Latin is irrelevant for an English word entry.  (3) The more common definition is first, which is preferrable for people less familiar with English.  Few people will come to a dictionary to look up the oldest definition, but many will come to look up the common definition. --EncycloPetey 02:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That actually seems like two points, since your third one basically explains the first. As for your second point, the OED isn't even 150 years old and gives little detail as to the origin of the name Lucifer, so the oldest text containing Lucifer that I can refer you to is the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, written in the eighth century BC. Lucifer appears at the twelfth verse: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"; and then nowhere else. Many mistakenly try to make this verse refer to Satan because of the reference to “falling from heaven.” To do so is to take it out of context, however. This verse must be read as part of the whole passage, Isaiah 14:4-27, which is very clearly speaking about the kingship of Babylon. But he had to get the name from somewhere, didn't he? Pretty sure it wasn't from the OED.

However, in our case, I will concede that the oldest ENGLISH reference takes precedence over any other. But I will say that no matter whether someone is looking for a common definition or the oldest, they are still presented with all of them. I just figured the more important definition would be the one that did not arise from translations of translations and speculation. See yas. =oP

WOTD sorry
Sorry about nominating curmudgeon at WOTD. I'd intended to nominate curmudgeonly but though the noun would be more useful and hadn't checked other forms of the word. RJFJR 14:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Using to links to words in head of phrase?
Hi EncycloPetey,

You’d mentioned to me earlier; I was wondering about using it in the head of a phrase (to link to individual words w/o italicizing), and was wondering if this was ok, so I started a discussion or two that I thought you’d be interested in:
 * Beer parlour
 * Template talk:l

Thanks!

Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
And for cleaning up my entry. I'm a bit confused about the pronounciation stuff. Where did you get your respelling from? Is there an "idiot's guide" for this? --Rogerb67 20:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Language mess
So.....check out Template:apm, Template:apc, this, and this....oh and also Category:Chiricahua language and Category:Mescalero language. Any thoughts on how this should be sorted, so that, for example, طيز can be taken care of. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would go with calling the language Chiricahua, but acknowledge on the Category page that is is also called Mescalero-Chiricahua Apache. I've only ever heard the language itself called Chiricahua. --EncycloPetey 20:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Done. All that remains is to rename, for which I'm waiting on response from Hakeem.  Thanks for your help EP.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

pt-conj
Yes, there are gender and number variants for past participles in Portuguese. As for compound verbs, they are mostly used to show results of a previous action. If that action affects the subject, you say estar + past participle: "Minha casa está bagunçada." (My house is messed up.) If that action affects the object, you say ter + past participle: "Tenho escritas duas cartas." (Two letters were written by me.) Additionally, infinitive, present participle and past participle are called Formas nominais because they can be used as other parts of speech. An infinitive may work as a noun: "Recordar é viver." can be translated as "Remembrance is life."; a present participle may work as an adverb or adjective: "Óleo fervendo." (Boiling oil.); and a past participle may work as an adjective: "Pão mordido." (Bitten bread.), "Mesas quebradas." (Broken tables.) Some examples of past participles in Portuguese can be found here: http://www.sualingua.com.br/01/01_concordancia_participio.htm Daniel. 09:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 * You've not quite answered my question. I did not ask about infinitives or about adjective use of the participles.  I am only asking about verb use of the participle. You see, in Spanish there are feminine forms of "participles" like the ones you describe, but they are used only as adjectives, not as part of a compound verb.  The same is true in French.  Are you saying that Portuguese is different from both of these languages?  I am asking only about uses in compound verb constructions with auxillary verbs like ter.  Uses with estar aren't meaningful for this discussion because that verb is a copula, so "participles" used with it are being used as adjectives.  I have limited resources on Portuguese grammar, but none of them show feminine participles used in compound verbs; all verb usage is of the "masculine" only.  --EncycloPetey 15:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Actually, that's not true in French (consider « la lettre qu'il a envoyé e »), and I'd argue that it's not completely true in Spanish, either. (undefined: is indeed a copula, but I'm in good company when I argue that in the passive voice proper, it's acting as an auxiliary verb. I don't think it's possible to explain the difference between “La casa fue construida” and “La casa está construida” in terms of the other differences between undefined: and undefined:.) —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 16:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 * It still does not address the original question. Can you answer the original question, or just add additional complications?  To put it another way: Do these Romance languages have true paerticiples in the Classical sense, with both "genders" functioning in all possible verb situations as well as adjectives?  Or are these words in Spanish and Portuguese (and French) degenerate descendants, such that only the masculine forns carry the full range of functions associated with participles, leaving the feminine to function adjectivally.  If the former situation is true, then previous disucssion about French was wrong, and we need to recognize a separate POS in these langauges of Participle.  If the latter, then these words need separate Verb and Adjective sections, and the Portuguese conjugation templates need to be reverted. --EncycloPetey 17:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I believe I can answer the original question, by quoting a portion of Daniel.'s comment that you don't seem to have noticed:
 * If that action affects the object, you say ter + past participle: "Tenho escritas duas cartas." (Two letters were written by me.)
 * As I'm sure you can tell, "escritas" is the feminine plural form.
 * If that doesn't answer the original question, then please restate the original question in objective terms, with specific examples.
 * —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 17:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I noticed it, but it does not really answer the question. The "participle" in this case can be interpreted as an adjective modifying cartas.  I am looking for clear examples that cannot be so interpreted, where the participle is clearly and unambiguously a verb form.  This small part of his reply is the only part that comes close to addressing the original question as I intended it.  I'd be happiest with published citations of such a construction that lack a direct object, but I'm not sure which verbs might have grammar that would support such a thing.  So, ideally, the referent (direct object) would be identified in a separate phrase, clause, or sentence from the participle. Something akin to the English: "My friend received two letters which I had written while on vacation." --EncycloPetey 18:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Semantically it does seem to modify cartas, which is apparently what licenses the agreement, but syntactically you can see that it's part of the verb form. I don't see how your example would clarify anything, since "which" is the wh-moved direct object and retains its antecedent's gender and number in most languages (though not, I think, its case), but FWIW, in French that would be something like « Mon ami(e) a reçu deux lettres que j'avais écrites en vacances. », with the first participle not agreeing and the second one yes agreeing. (It's a totally artificial rule — a medieval poet invented it in an attempt to mimic Italian — but it's still obeyed in formal speech and writing, and it's still considered incorrect to flout it as many or most people do in informal speech and writing.) —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 19:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 * By the way, I don't think previous discussion of French has been wrong: we include only masculine singular past participles in the conjugation tables because the other forms are perfectly regular, and because (for regular grammatical reasons) they don't exist for all verbs so it would be misleading to include them always and difficult to include them only sometimes; but all participle forms get Verb and Adjective sections if they're used both as verbs and as adjectives. If you feel we should use the Participle POS header instead, feel free to propose that, but I see no basis for the claim that it's wrong to do otherwise for French. (Latin and other languages have their own considerations, such as tradition. We don't necessarily have to force the modern Romance languages into its mold.) —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 17:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 * It is not about forcing any mold. I am perfectly willing to break with a tradition if that tradition is found to be unsuitable for description of the grammar.  The issue with participles is that they have grammar that is not found in other verb forms. A Participle is a word that is conjugated from a verb (and therefore has tense/time) but also declines and has gender (which verbs do not).   Saying that it's a verb and and an adjective is silly when both uses have exactly the same set of meanings.  The grammar is a complete mix of properties, but all the meanings remain the same for both situations.

 * In any case, it is also possible that this regularity and potential for not all forms existing for many verbs could apply to Portuguese. I simply don't know that language well enough to argue for a decision one way or the other. --EncycloPetey 18:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I think the "Participle" POS would really mean the same thing as the "Verb" POS. The reason we also have the "Adjective" POS is that many participles produce derived adjectives. (The distinction is clearer in the present participle, since the present participle doesn't inflect for gender and number, whereas its derived adjectives do. In the past participle, the participle itself sometimes inflects for gender and number, which results in a slightly fuzzy distinction between it and adjectives derived from it.) —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 19:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Since my childhood I have learned to conjugate verbs using that method, and also researched in books like Moderna Gramática Portuguesa that explain the roles of gender and number in verb conjugations, as in passive voice "A casa foi construída" – that is also quoted at this Wiktionary entry : Auxiliary verb for the passive voice, precedes verb in participle; to be. "O carro foi vendido pelo seu antigo dono." Another example in this context would be "A caixa foi aberta por fora." (The box has been opened by outside.) As for participles that produce derived adjectives, we need both parts of speech. For example, the word "matar" (to kill) has two past participles in masculine singular form: matado and morto. "Três vítimas foram mortas por ele ontem." (Three victims were killed by him yesterday.), "O réu foi acusado de tê-la matado." (The defendant was accused of killing her.) And the word "morto" is also an adjective meaning "dead", whatever is the causa mortis. Daniel. 10:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

arrodillarse
Hi. I like the work you've done with the es-verb template. Well done!. I'm having trouble getting the conjugation table to work properly for the above entry. Why doesn't it show correctly as the reflexive form? What am I doing wrong? Thanks in advance for your advice. -- <i>A LGRIF </i ><font color="#FFD700"> talk 13:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You needed to include the parameter "ref_stem=arrodill". I've added this. --EncycloPetey 15:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Conjugation
Thanks for telling me :) I'll fix them :) --Ooswesthoesbes 15:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese conjugation templates
The template is linked by less than 200 pages, so I don't think it's really a "high-use" template - by the way, the low number of Portuguese words in Wiktionary is something I would like to change. As for the convention of "pt-conj-ar" instead of "pt-conj/ar" and so forth, I would be happy to change them back; however, I would want to continue editing some more (in other words, copying carefully the product of hours of work). I was already fixing the headers among other things, but thanks for warning me - they are working now. Daniel. 07:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Maybe similar work could be made for other languages? Daniel. 10:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Limburgish adjectives
Some regular examples: root - comparative - superlative - superlative The first superlative is placed in front of the noun, while the second isn't. --Ooswesthoesbes 18:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) diek - dieker - dieks - 't dieks (thick)
 * 2) vet - vètter - vèts - 't vèts (fat)
 * 3) aad - aajer - aajs - 't aajs (old)
 * 4) buugzem - buugzamer - buugzems - 't buugzems (flexible)
 * 5) dóf - dóffer - dófs - 't dófs (vague, dull)
 * 6) slech - slechter - slechs - 't slèchs (bad)
 * 7) lank - langer - lanks - 't lanks (long)
 * 8) król - króller - króls - 't króls (curly)
 * 9) hel - helder - hels - 't hèls (hard, loud)

Latin homographs
I've created the entry for infectus, which is both an adjective and the perfect passive participle of inficio. Since the homographs section at WT:ALA is under construction, I'm not quite sure what to do for the entry, so could you look it over? Thanks, Wikiacc (¶) 15:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good; it just needed an etymology for the adjective. Also, there is a noun sense for the participial derivation, and I've added that. --EncycloPetey 17:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I can't tell if inficio is regular in the passive or if it follows facio. --Wikiacc (¶) 15:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a regular mixed declension verb. The entry was missing a macron on the third principal part, and the definitions needed to be expressed in the first person, but otherwise the entry was just fine. --EncycloPetey 17:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks. --Wikiacc (¶) 19:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Limburgish conjugation template
Hi, could you look at the template I created here? (based on bestósse, blósse, bäöke etc.). I wasn't sure where to put the "adjective", "adverb", and "noun" forms. Also it might need some rearranging. Thanks. Nadando 03:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

la words needing attention
I've changed AF to tag pron N headers differently (see ) while this is sorted. There may be entries that show up in the la attention cat for a bit; if this is the issue, they will go away again. Robert Ullmann 00:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --EncycloPetey 14:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ziploc
I think it should be an adjective, firstly because of phrases like "Ziploc bag", and secondly because trademarks are only supposed to be used adjectivally. To use them as nouns risks genericide, and the owners try to avoid it. If you know a lot of cases where people talk about "a Ziploc" or "Ziplocs" then perhaps the noun is worth adding as an additional part of speech. Equinox 01:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

 * IMHO EP's edit was quite right. If you search b.g.c. for, , and so on, you'll find plenty of hits using Ziploc: as a noun. I think you mean that trademarks are to be used attributively; I don't think Ziploc's people would be any happier with "that bag is very Ziploc", for example (not that their happiness is part of our CFI anyway), and searching b.g.c. for obviously adjectival uses, I come up short. (For example, gets no hits, and while  gets three, two are in "is Ziploc bags" and the third is actually using it as a predicate noun meaning "the Ziploc brand".) So I think it's quite clear that Ziploc: is a noun, and while it may also be an adjective (I simply don't know), I myself haven't seen any clear evidence of that. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 05:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

nimbus
Hi Petey,

My native language is not English, so you stand a better chance of determining whether nimbus and rain cloud are real synonyms or not. Sorry I turned it into a link where it was not appropriate. I didn't know how to do it properly. Polyglot 01:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "fifth"
I've started a tearoom discussion about this, please see Tea room. Thryduulf 14:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct Pronunciation of the state of Nevada
Please correct your audio file to reflect the -proper- way to pronounce the state of Nevada.

It's Nuh-VAD-uh, not Nuh-VAH-duh. As even stated in the content of the wiki article. In addition --J.Hogan
 * The is no such thing as a "correct" way to pronounce an English word. Wiktionary does not dictate pronunciations, it reports them. --EncycloPetey 06:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Those pesky ordinal numbers
See user_talk:Equinox for an update on this. Thanks. Equinox 22:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

 * (On popes not exceeding XXIII) That is true, but aren't Roman numerals used in other contexts than hereditary titles, even in English? Perhaps the Roman version doesn't even need the pope/monarch gloss? (I can't seem to think of any good examples, but perhaps tombstones etc.) I see we have things like LXII in Wiktionary marked as translingual. Equinox 16:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Since writing that, I've remembered that these are all ordinal numbers, so things like years on tombstones are irrelevant. I think I'll go with what you originally said and drop the Roman numerals after (arbitrarily, but hopefully realistically) 30: XXX. Equinox 23:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

A few new pages in "la-attention"
I just put into: eapropter, bellipotens, pollens, pollentis. Mutante 23:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. These are all taken care of now. --EncycloPetey 02:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Keene
Are there other users who can help with a Czech bot? --Ro-manB 20:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Category:Syriac cardinal numbers
Thanks for the tip. I'll be sure to make the corresponding appendix when I have the time/energy. --334a 21:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

meta-data
Which is the thread that discussed what you're doing here? I'd like to follow the progression of this, and possibly edit Romance language templates accordingly once I understand what's happening. --EncycloPetey 19:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WT%3ABP. Conrad.Irwin 19:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Entries requiring case endings
Hi EP, I am asking your advice about a good way to indicate case endings that follow a word or expression. For example, the verb lát (see) is usually followed by a word in accusative case (lát valamit, lát egy virágot). Dictionaries usually add vmt, vkt (meaning valamit - something, valakit - someone). Please take a look at kesztyűs kézzel bánik. Should I take this subject to BP? I'm sure there are other languages with the same question. Thanks. --Panda10 14:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a similar issue with Latin prepositions, which take objects inflected in a particular case or whose meaning depends upon the case of the object. Similar issues occur in Ancient Greek.  Those of us who work in those languages have tries a couple of different approches, but I haven't seen a good, concise solution that I'm happy with.  A BP discussion is probably a good idea, since we have a lot of new folks here since the last time I remember the issue being discussed. --EncycloPetey 22:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Spanish verbs that end in -ír
Do we need a separate category for Spanish verbs that end in -ír, opposed to Spanish verbs that end in -ir without a diacritical mark? They don't seem to be so independent of each other. Daniel. 10:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They do have a separate inflectional pattern as a result of the accent in the infinitive. Galician has this also.  In any case, all the Spanish verbs ending in -ír are categorized in both places (as -ir and -ír verbs). --EncycloPetey 22:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

 * So you want to make a different category just for this pattern of rules, or the others should have their own categories too? (guir, cer...) If the latter, really doesn't sound a good idea: readers who do not know that there are slightly different branches of conjugation rules will likely be confused, for it is difficult to explain only gathering the exceptions in different places, organized by suffix (Maybe an appendix would be a better option in this case, or even, let's just continue to use the "Rules" at conjugation tables.) Compare with a possible Category:English verbs ending in -p, to remind the -pp- change in the last letters. Daniel. 01:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

 * From a Spanish perspective, this category would make little sense since they think of the letter  'i' the same regardless of its accent. It *might* make sense from an English perspective since we use accented vowels so infrequently that they are interesting in their own right (though I wouldn't have created it). It shouldn't get its own category though just for the conjugation pattern. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 02:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:langcatboiler
Actually, this information is tracked since a long time ago. Please see Category:Constructed languages and Category:Extinct languages. Daniel. 20:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, living langauges are not tracked. The template has other operational problems, and I have started a Grease Pit discussion about it.  --EncycloPetey 20:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm curious why "revived", "endangered", "extinct", "constructed", and finally "living" can not be tracked; If that is the case, I don't understand the point of the two existing categories at all. Daniel. 21:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Both "extinct" and "constructed" ought to be tracked. These are relevant to Wiktionary issues and affect a number of aspects of how we treat those languages here.  However, "endangered" is a highly subjective term, and so should not be tracked (I've proposed we delete it).  And "living" is a useless categorization; it serves no purpose on Wiktionary at all. --EncycloPetey 22:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 * You are saying that "living" is an useless categorization, even if it serves the same purpose as the others discussed here: to provide a generic way to know rapidly how and when a language is used. This is relevant information that should be kept and categorized. Daniel. 22:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 * No, because that is not the purpose of those categories. These is no reason at all to have a separate category for living languages. --EncycloPetey 23:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 * These are relevant to Wiktionary issues and affect a number of aspects of how we treat those languages here. — That's you who said it; from an Wiktionary editor point of view, I think that is the same of a generic way to know rapidly how and when a language is used. Both definitions would comprise all categories in my reply to your request for deletion. I just prefer mine, because it goes far enough to say that even unexperienced users could appreciate an interesting information. Daniel. 14:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Tractate
Sorry, but you're not correct. "Treatise" comes from the exact same etymological origin as "tractate". The Man in Question 22:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Middle French equivalents are related, but the English words came into English via separate origins from different languages. --EncycloPetey 22:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

ovātōnis
Would it be possible for you to simply write some abstract-like texts and make this discussion and the problems that caused it go away? -- DrCyCoe 19:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Double categories of Spanish verb forms
Hi, can you edit the template esbot:conjugation? That puts the verb forms into a superfluous category so could you please change the category in the template simply to Spanish verb forms? It's quite obvious that the category Spanish:Conjugated verb forms doesn't conform to standards. -- Frous 21:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks as though Atelaes has already made this change.  Thank you for bringing the issue to attention. --EncycloPetey 23:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Other people's comments
Hello. You are obviously concerned about my editing, as you stated here. Really, I'm only correcting typos and removing unnecessary formating. Please do not worry about it.--Mr. I. P. O'de la Qwerty-Address 18:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Latin help
Hi EncycloPetey,

I'm translating this paper from Spanish on Wikisource. Do you think you could help with a translation of that Latin motto at the top? It reads: "¡LUCE BEET POPULOS, SOMNOS EXPELLAT, ET UMBRAS!" Thanks! Dmcdevit·t 05:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The grammar looks a little off to me, unless this is a quote from some other source. The first word ought to be  if it's the subject of the sentence.  If it isn;t the subject, then the subject is missing.  I translate this as: "May light bless the people, driving away sleep and shadows!" --EncycloPetey 19:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: unwanted Etymology 1 headers
does this User_talk:Bequw explain it better? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 04:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of the explanation. I understood why you wanted to implement this, but it's still wrong in every other possible way. --EncycloPetey 04:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

toe jam
Thanks for cleaning up after me. (Why couldn't i figure that out??!) --Jerzy•t 06:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The template is one that has really good documentation with examples.  Not all the templates are so well explained! --EncycloPetey 06:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Bibiliya
Hey, I thought I'd let you know that the L2 you put here doesn't match up with. I switched it before realizing that perhaps should be changed instead. I'll leave it in your hands, as I know nothing of the language. In any case, either Category:Kirundi language or Category:Rundi language should be deleted. Cheers. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be Kirundi. I've done some investigation, and the prefix is not optional.  The "word" Rundi, without the prefix, is a naked root form and would not be used as a word in the language.  Removing the prefix in Kirundi is kind of like removing the inflectional ending of a Latin or Greek word.  The result is almost understandable, but isn't a word. --EncycloPetey 16:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki
Hi EncycloPetey, let's take it for caracal. With this point of view the Turkish equivalent in tr.wiktionary.org should be the same word, namely caracal. Am I right? If so, I should go on like that. Regards. --Chapultepec 16:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is a turkish word caracal, then yes. If there is no such word in Turkish, then tr.wiktionary.org would need an entry for the English, Dutch, or Italian word caracal.  It might be easier to explain with a situation where the Turkish and English are clearly different.  Take the en.wiktionary.org entry for parrot.  If tr.wiktionary.org has parrot, then those two entries will be linked by interwiki.  The tr.wiktionary.org entry for papağan would not be linked from parrot.  However, en.wiktionary.org has an entry for papağan, and it is linked to papağan, and that tr.wiktionary.org entry is linked back to papağan here.  Only identical spellings are linked by interwiki, never anything else. --EncycloPetey 16:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Now, I got it. Thanks for your warning. Then I will continue like that. Best regards. --Chapultepec 16:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Headers
I understood, so I should change the headers to "References" wherever I wrote "Links" or "Sources". Wiktionary is really harder than I thought...:) Thank you, best wishes. --Chapultepec 18:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

brachyura
OK, but that's exactly what I asked on Tea Room. If we don't need the non-word, can we delete the Wanted Words entry? No one answered that for me. I'd like to zap the word from the list so I can find another word to work on. -- Pinkfud 21:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Etyl template
Hi, is there a page that I can get all the regional variations of "etyl" template? For instance, I would like to learn whether there is a template for Middle French or Old Provençal etc. I would appreciate your assistance thereon. Thanks. --Chapultepec 15:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So much the better. Thanks a lot. --Chapultepec 16:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

False trail?
How was my edit to Game 4 a false trail? the u in atzucac is found in cacahuate. --50 Xylophone Players talk 17:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But only through rearrangement, which isn't allowed. Think of it this way: the interposing word should be visiable as a "hidden" word when the preceding and following words are written together, one after the other...like in a word search. --EncycloPetey 17:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * oh yeah... I get you now 50 Xylophone Players talk 17:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

dgêle at Christmas Competition

 * tedge (dgêle) Electra complex

Five letters: false trail? --Daniel. 21:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh bleh, I missed that one. Yes, it's a false trail. --EncycloPetey 21:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Nigerian pidgin
Thank you for help with categories for Nigerian Pidgin. 24.29.228.33 21:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

callipygean
Are you sure? 100+ matches in Google Books, and it's in the Collins Dictionary. Equinox 00:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Oh, I see. The confusion was compounded by the fact that I glanced back at callipygean and saw it had been deleted — but that was in 2006. Equinox 00:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomic names
I was wondering about this; if you create an entry for a taxonomic name (which is Translingual obviously) how do you list any English names that are used as non-scientific names?--50 Xylophone Players talk 19:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Forms of borealis
It is nice to see someone eager to add forms of Latin adjectives. However, your formatting is incorrect. You can see correct formatting in the forms of the adjecitve albus:. Also, a bot exists that will be adding these forms, so doing them by hand is not necessary. --EncycloPetey 22:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Hi, and thanks for noticing. If there is a bot doing exactly this, I see no point in continuing. I have only recently come to Wiktionary after lurking/editing on Wikipedia on a frequent basis, and I was looking for something simple to do; to understand all the new constructs (e.g., Wiktionary seems to use templates for virtually everything). I shall be more careful next time. Cheers, HymylyT@C 23:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the help. Cheers, HymylyT@C 23:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC).

 * I was wondering what relationship aurora borealis: should have with borealis:. Can it be a derived term in a different language? SemperBlotto 23:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The term "aurora borealis" is both English and New Latin. The interrelationship can be reflected in the etymology of the English section, and more fully in the (eventual) Latin section. --EncycloPetey 23:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

warm welcome
Hi EncycloPetey.

Thanks for the warm welcome!

I hope I am putting this message in the right place.

Thanks again,

MorrowindLover 17:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomic troubles
I seem to have run into a problem here: Chromista says that it is a taxon within a subkingdom but in the following page (that I am giving a link for) it's classed as a kingdom

Now if you don't mind me saying so WTF is up with that? 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for your reply, I actually don't know a lot about taxonomy barring most of the various taxons but I was adding these entries by referencing wikipedia for a given species after seeing it in a little book I have called A Beginner's Guide to Ireland's Seashore. Now that I know of the problems with algae I'll just move onto something else. But before I do so on question: Would be best to abandon everything in the seaweed section for now? 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering for the Christmas competetion would the following kind of expansion be allowed:

X=letter of preceding word Y=letter of following word
 * XXXXXXX (XXXYYYY) YYYY

i.e. can the interposing word's ending be all of the following word? 50 Xylophone Players talk 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. We've had a few expansions that did that. --EncycloPetey 00:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Being back
I've sort of dropped off the face of the project after the sack: debacle. I needed a pause (I was stressed/annoyed over other things over at WP at the time), and I'm sorry I vanished like that. I've been keeping a close eye again on the WOTD for reasons completely unrelated, though I'll probably continue adding French-related material and cleaning up English entries, I want to keep my contributions simple at the moment. Circeus 18:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

imaginitis
Hi; do you remember deleting this recently? I created it as somebody's "requested entry" and included (I thought) several acceptable citations. The deletion date appears to be June 2007, which is ages ago, so I'm wondering whether it was automatically deleted as a supposed recreation of an earlier bad stub. Equinox 22:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't create it, an anon did. The entry was fatuous and contained no formatting or headers of any kind. --EncycloPetey 22:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

above ground
Thank you for your kind note. I wasn't certain above ground was a valid spelling for aboveground, though one does see it, and made the redirect to bring users to the proper entry in lieu of an actual entry. I'm happy to make an entry for it, in place of the redirect, if I can gather citations for this spelling. 24.29.228.33 01:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Do your sources show that above ground is a valid alternate spelling for aboveground (keeping in mind that the term can be used literally (i.e., above the ground) or figuratively (i.e., not hidden). 24.29.228.33 21:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. All right, then, I've created an embryonic entry (which I presume you could have done by changing the redirect into an actual entry, the way I have just done). 24.29.228.33 21:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I find the templates very complex to remember and use. Just wondering, how do you remember them? Do you always copy and paste them from a similar entry when creating a new entry? 24.29.228.33 21:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that should be [Above Ground] not[above ground]. Don't you agree???
 * No, I don't see any reason for it to be capitalized. --EncycloPetey 01:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

responce;ejercicio
From the page exercitium, it showed a word that the latin word was from, which in part is a derivative of the word anyway(prabably like a base, or root), I just thought it seemed that the word was more similiar. But if you think I'm incorrect you can freely change it back. Bugboy52.4 21:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

tho it seems you took it upon yourself to change it back, but does it not seem that the latin word, exerceō is seemingly more related then  exercitium. And even if I where wrong, the page, exercitium, says that it is from exerceō,Ejercicio < exercitium < exerceō, so technically I am still correct.

Category:la:Agnomen, Cognomen, Gens, Praenomen
These are parts of speech, so how would you like to have them renamed? "Category:Latin gens names", maybe, but what is the plural for others? I will move the pages if you choose the new names. What about creating "Category:Latin personal names" and putting them all there, so that a person who doesn't know the Roman naming system can find them?

Ruakh didn't seem to take our arguments on male/masculine very seriously...The surname categories will be renamed too, so please tell in the BP if you have strong ideas about them. I've always meant to ask you, just which medieval European languages are you interested in, in your given names hobby? Etymology only, or also statistics? I'm no etymologist, and I'm always happy when somebody adds a good etymology. And I'm mostly concerned about statistics since ca. 1800, because before that, Finnish names were always recorded in Swedish or Latin.--Makaokalani 14:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

 * In terms of onomastics, I've studied and own a significant number of books each on English, Dutch, German, Hungarian, Czech, Polish, Croat, Slovene, Russian, Romanian, and Latin personal names. I have a one or two books each on Welsh, Irish, Scottish (Scots mostly), Old Norse, Italian, Spanish, Lithuanian, and Finnish names.  My focus is primarily on the use of names between about 1150 and 1650 (except for Latin, of course), but I own some books on modern names for purposes of comparison and interpretation.  My onomastic interests include etymology, statistics, orthography, and name construction patterns (such as determining when bynames in a region began to be inherited, and whether women took their husband's name upon marriage).  I also have a few books on English, Dutch, German, and Hungarian place names.

 * I've been wrestling with the question of how to rename the Latin names categories for a long time (it was one of the first category problems I noticed on Wiktionary, back when I first started here). Give me another day or so to think it over, and I'll state a preference.  --EncycloPetey 17:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hola
Creo que hay un bot que lo hace despues de cada cambio no ? Así que no pasa nada si sigo haciendolo de manera más fácil. - Francis Tyers 22:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My primary language is English. Yes, there is a bot that makes changes, but it doesn't always make them correctly (just 99.99% of the time).  If you make an error in header level (which is easy to do), the page could be reformatted incorrectly by the bot.  It is therefore better practice to put the items in order to begin with. --EncycloPetey 22:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

*sighs* not again...
The third line up from the bottom in game 6 seems to be a false trail. I think you should stress the rules to this Tormod person. 50 Xylophone Players talk 09:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I already did...shortly after the additions (to 3 games) were made.  I had to go offline then, and so couldn't follow up. --EncycloPetey 09:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Death House
Death House refers to a specific death house, such as the one that used to be in Hunstville, Texas. A redirect is proper according to Redirections "It is possible, however, that a word can take both forms. In such instance, a reference on both the lower- and the uppercase page must be made to one another."

Should there be two distinct entries, or should the entries be combined as a redirect?

Davidwr 19:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize
I have already an account (although I think i did not create my user page), I logged in several days ago, choosing the option "remember me", I did not notice when system logged out me, or were deleted related cookies on my computer, I will check often this situation. Thanks. Renebeto.

anatomia
I've created this entry per the information you left:

 * anatomia Needs Latin section. See this request for the motivation.  A quote from the original text would be greatly appreciated, if it can be procured.  Many thanks.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

However, without knowing which of the works (or where in the fragmentary works) of Caelius Aurelianus to examine, I can't provide a quote. Searching for "anatomia" on the web in various ways (even with a conjunctive search for "Caelius Aurelianus") is not proving fruitful, and Wikisource does not have his texts. --EncycloPetey 00:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 * OED says "quoted by Cælius Aurelianus c420 ‘apertionem quam Græci anatomiam dicunt’." Does that help?  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it gave me a little more to search for, but I turned up nothing. I've checked the OED's listings of cited works, and there's nothing given there either.  In order to find it, I'd have to acquire a copy of Aurelianus' surviving works and do a page by page visual inspection, which doesn't seem like a terribly productive thing to do. --EncycloPetey 08:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 * No, it does not. Well, thanks for nothing. :P  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a way to improve the elements template that displays the previous and next element in the periodic table. There is a very nice solution on the Hungarian wikipedia, see at Oxigén. Can we take some of the ideas from there and implement it in our template? --Panda10 02:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC) I link points to the English wikipedia. Please look at the Hungarian. http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxig%C3%A9n
 * That's more than a dictionary needs. There is already an Appendix:Chemical elements; it might be just as well to change the template to link there instead of to the entry on chemical element. --EncycloPetey 04:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to implement the entire structure, just some ideas from it. How about using the structure and code from your cardinalbox? The current elements template doesn't look professional. The top of the symbol is chopped off. --Panda10 23:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

libello
Another of these bad Latin entries. I'm sure that I've seen others - can you think of a way of finding them all? SemperBlotto 12:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC) p.s. I've already asked Medellia to fix this one.
 * It should be popssible for a bot to check for any calls to that link to a Latin language section (using #Latin), and then determine whether or not the first parameter after the pipe  is wikilinked.  If it isn't, then it needs to be fixed.  --EncycloPetey 19:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Related terms
Please note that "Related terms" has a very specific meaning as a Wiktionary header. It is applied only to etymologically related terms, not to related ideas. See this edit for an example of how this is handled. --EncycloPetey 00:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, thank you very much for the correction! Cirt (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Categories
You should know that:
 * 1) The Portuguese categories you have edited are "form of" catgeories, and so a category like Category:Portuguese plural nouns should be included in Category:Portuguese nouns, not in the main language category.  Likewise, most categories with an ISO prefix should be in the corresponding *Topics category, and there is a template to do this.  you might want to learn a little more about how categories are organized before putting in all that work.
 * 2) Some of the verb-forms categories are being discussed for deletion, so categorizing them now may not be worthwhile.

--EncycloPetey 01:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah okay thank you very much for this note, I will change that above category. Cirt (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

was - why undo all 4 edits?
with was, I understand why you want to undo the audio edit. But, why did you undo the other 3 edits? --AZard 03:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An accident. Reverting undoes to the last edit not done by the previous editor, and I forgot this.  --EncycloPetey 03:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Third declension nouns
Thank you for the explanation on third declension nouns. I don't understand, in the case of the I-stem nouns, why ars, artis is said to be "obviously" a non-I-stem noun on the Wikipedia Latin declensions article. Could you explain that to me? Caladon 17:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In the case of a noun ending in -eus in the nominative singular, is it correct to use the normal 2nd declension template or not? The entry araneus is missing inflections for both the noun and the adjective and in the case of diminutives, do we create separate articles for them? Caladon 17:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For a the noun, yes, the 2nd declension template is correct. For the adjectie, no, because the adjective is 1st and second delension.  There are separate declension tables for adjectives.  Yes, we create separate entries for the diminutives. --EncycloPetey 20:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Concerning verbs, I tried to work out how to add verbs and I have added two more - respicio and viduo - have I done these correctly and how would you recognize that a verb does not have a passive form?
 * Yes, those look fine to me. I usually create the infinitive form page as well (see narrare for a simple example).  Many etymologies incorrectly link to the infinitive, so having the infinitive, which links to the main entry, is usually helpful.  To determine if a verb has an incomplete conjugation, you have to have verb-specific references.  I have several, and can check when I am uncertain.  Lewis & Short sometimes indicate this, but I've found that they're not always right, since there has been 100 years of additional research since they published. --EncycloPetey 17:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the bot which adds missing verb forms currently working? Caladon 17:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's not running continuously. I generate the data for a particular verb, then start the bot to add the information.  Right now, I have master files for 1st and 4th conjugation verbs and have been working on adding those (although not for the past several weeks, as I have had other issues taking my time).  As I add forms, I keep track of them here. --EncycloPetey 17:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any point in adding noun forms and adjective forms in the near future or will a bot be doing them? Caladon 15:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In the case of words with the prefix tene-, is there a macron on the second "e" or not? Does the verb appropinquo have a passive or not and is it intransitive or transitive? And also concerning verbs, have I been correct in assuming that tenebrico has no passive?
 * What's this new template that has been created: Template:la-decl-3rd-PAR-navis ? Caladon 20:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Specifically on Lewis and Short's dictionary, on here, what do the the letters a. and n. stand for after a verb (compare tenebrico's and amo's entries which have an n. and a. after their parts respectively). Caladon 22:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a very good question. They do not explain these abbreviations in their list at the front of the book, and every time I think I've figured it out, I find an exception to my new best guess.  I think they intended to use a. for verbs that have an active meaning and n. for those that have an active form conjugation but an inherently passive meaning (and thus have no passive conjugation, or only a limited passive).  This interpretation is the most consistent one I've come up with, but as I said, there are exceptions and they don't explain this anywhere explicitly.  The exceptions may be the result of occasional errors, of a change during their work that was incompletely implemented, or the result of additional scholarship since their dictionary was published.  --EncycloPetey 22:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fast reply. I searched for the largest modern dictionary for Latin I could find on the internet to find the Oxford Latin one, however they price it at $200/£200 on Amazon.com/Amazon.co.uk and it seems quite a lot, though probably worth that. Is this the one that you use besides the Lewis and Short one?
 * The largest modern dictionary is the one of Dvoretsky and Korol'kov (largest issued in the 20th century) with 200 000 words, is available completely free in its entirety here and the only thing you need is to know Russian. Bogorm 16:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

kudos
Kudos on the competition. I like it myself, and it's obviously a hit. Great idea.—msh210 ℠  20:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm gratified, and happy most of all that people are enjoying it. --EncycloPetey 20:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've added the temporary shortcut WT:FUN, which can be reused for later competitions and things, natch.—msh210 ℠  21:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!
I just wanted to thank you for helping me with the entry "sulfur." I will try to remember what you told me about defining adjectives on Wiktionary.71.30.224.125 21:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A minus and A negative
G'day! Looks like I need to toss some of your own arguments back at you. A minus is "not a bird"? Well I hope not, since it's a plant. It is, in fact, a very noxious plant, of great importance to agriculture throughout the U.S. and Canada. While you're correct that it should be spelled A. minus, it's commonly used without the period by farmers and ranchers who may not even know what the A stands for, and who certainly wouldn't use it that way if they searched here. 288 references in the Invasive Species database at University of Montana, numerous papers by or referenced by the USDA, tons of research going on as to how this weed can be eradicated without damaging other species. If it doesn't fit within A minus, then it needs to be written as a new article A. minus.

A negative as an adjective? Sure, it's commonly used that way, as in "You have A negative blood". But in medicine, or more specifically in medical laboratory usage, it's a standalone thing - the result of the ABO/Rh test. In that context, it's not descriptive of blood or, in fact, any other tissue, it's simply a value. (If your blood is A negative, then so are your bones. Do you say you have A negative bones? No, you are (genetically) A negative, meaning that was your test result. Can an A negative person have other ABO types in his body? Yes! You can, for example, transfuse O negative blood into him. The O negative blood does not "change", it simply coexists without adverse effect - and if now tested, that person will be both A negative and O negative. (He will soon revert, but that would be the result right after the transfusion). Consider this analogy: If a person's blood test reveals a positive troponin value, it means there has been damage to the heart. Does this person then have a "troponin-positive heart"? No, it simply means that was the result of the lab test. Everyone has a troponin value - it's normally negative, but it exists. Now, that's not a perfect analogy since "troponin" is a noun (chemical substance) and "positive" is an adjective that modifies it. In the ABO/Rh system though, positive or negative are simply yes-or-no values - the Rh factor is or is not present - and do not modify the ABO phenotype directly. The ABO/Rh is a standalone lab value, with its own meaning, just as "sodium 106", "PTT 37", or any other laboratory test result. I suppose you will make the same objection that this is only a special case of adjectival usage, and perhaps it is - but it's the common usage within its field of application - and that's where it counts most. -- Pinkfud 00:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Regarding the taxonomic name. There has been discussion about eliminating these sorts of species abbreviations entirely.  The ones that do exist all use the period for the abbreviation.

 * Regarding the blood type. It is a predicate-only adjective.  They do exist.  Such adjectives cannot be placed before nouns, but can appear in the predicate after a copula.  If you can provide citations to show that the grammar of the word in the published specialist literature is that of a proper noun, then a jargon-specific definition might be added, but everything I've seen points to adjective.  It is used to describe someone's blood, tissue, or even the person (in biology texts discussing genetics I can find statements like "The children will all be A negative.").  I am well aware of the blood type chemistry, as my degree is in biology. --EncycloPetey 00:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, you probably aren't going to find the specific term "A negative" in the context you want, because that's informal. It's normally referred to by the term histo-blood group antigen, the property that is actually measured by an ABO grouping. If you accept that terminology, then I can direct you to the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, through whose pubmed.gov portal you can view abstracts in their myriads - though you'll need a membership to read farther. I cite, for example:

 * Skovlund VR.
 * Department of Pathology, Rigshospitalet, Denmark.
 * ABH and related histo-blood group antigens in normal & malignant human endometrium in relation to genetic and hormonal factors.
 * APMIS Suppl. 1997;69:1-33.
 * histo-blood group antigens [are] carbohydrate determinants [which] are present not only on erythrocytes but are also expressed by epithelial cells. Their expression herein has been shown to be related to the genetic status of the individual in terms of the ABO, Lewis and ABH-secretor type.

 * Clearly, Skovlund is referring to a specific chemical species that has been measured, is being used as data, and does not merely describe a blood type. By the way, if you actually found the line you quoted above, it's incorrect. There have been documented cases where, due to DNA transcription errors, children have phenotypes that differ from either parent, so you can't make a broad statement like that. -- Pinkfud 03:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I realize that broad statements like that are technically incorrect, but they're made nonetheless. The quote you've provided isn't made quite so clearly, no.  If you expand the end of that statement for the implied connections, you'll see it's "ABO type, Lewis type, and ABH-secretor type".  Such a usage (before the noun type) is adjectival.  Now, it could be attributive use of a noun, or it could be straight adjectival; we'd need a larger dataset to be sure.  When states of a condition are used as data, it is not at all unusual for an adjective to then take of characteristics of a noun.  I did research where adjectives are often abused as nouns in highly specialized literature because they were descriptive labels for character states.  However, if we can't find usage of the term "A minus" used as a proper noun (or common noun), then we shouldn't list it as such.    Our primary push has always been to make Wiktionary descriptive, not prescriptive.  I don't always like the results either, but ultimately I have to agree that Wiktionary serves people better if we decribe what language is actually doing, rather than what it ought to be doing.  Likewise, we do describe standard common usage, and if specialist jargon uses a term differently, we should note that fact.  However, such claims need to be backable with evidence of the kind we look for in CFI.  If "A minus" is informal, and isn't used by the specialists because they use another term, then we simply describe the use it does have. --EncycloPetey 17:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it probably doesn't even matter. I think I'm close to being done here again anyway. Part of the reason I left for nearly 4 years was exactly this - I see the Wikimedia Projects as having the potential to be the greatest literary resource of all time, far eclipsing the wildest dreams of what might have been in the Great Library of Alexandria. But that potential is never going to be realized, because no one cares enough. "It's good enough, leave it alone". No, it's never good enough. And all I'm doing is aggravating my ulcers here. (The other reason I left before has, thankfully, gone away. A certain named user took it in his head that I was the infamous AP vandal. Just had to be. He accused me of it so many times that I finally became unwilling to log in and see his latest rant. At least he doesn't seem to be active anymore). Anyway, I'm going to think on it. I may return, or I may not. -- Pinkfud 04:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that. I had thought you were a talented new user until I looked for your earliest contribution and noticed how long ago it was made.  Then, I realized the talent was as much experience as anything.  I agree with you about the potential and I also agree about the frustrations.  I've seen Wiktionary blossom over the past three years, and I love it.  At the same time, I don't play much on WP anymore because of some of the annoying things that go on there, even though I started there.  Should you choose to walk away, I hope your absence will be considerably shorter this time.  --EncycloPetey 17:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

RFE
Thank you--again, confusing and hard-to-remember templates. Why not have the template have a single name, such as "needetymology," "needetym," "reqetym," or something like that--or, better yet, make redirects from all of these? 24.29.228.33 01:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll just try to remember the "rfe" and add it directly into the entries, as you suggest. 24.29.228.33 01:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I just tried it and it works. 24.29.228.33 01:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

dei ex machinis
So, what is the correct-in-Latin plural of ? undefined:? Or undefined:? <font style="color:darkred">†  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The former one(s). With more than one nominative plural of deus, there is more than one possible nominative plural for .  It's like English mother-in-law, whose plural is mothers-in-law, not mothers-in-laws.  Also, note that the template  doesn't work for Latin because "plural of X" is meningless when there is more than one plural inflected form for any word. --EncycloPetey 18:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, its seems that all six see usage in English. My thinking is that undefined: could be a valid form is you meant that these various gods descend from various machines, similarly to the way in which there could exist * if said women are mothers because of various (different) laws; then again, that’s a bit of a long shot…

 * I wouldn’t say either that “plural of X” is meaningless in Latin: if only a different number is specified, then surely the case and gender are assumed to be the same; e.g., if I say “ is the plural form of ” I mean that “undefined: is the feminine plural accusative form of undefined:”, but because the two forms only differentiate in number, it isn’t necessary to mention the forms’ femininity and accusativity, whereas if I were comparing undefined: with, I would surely have to say that “undefined: is the feminine plural accusative form of undefined:” because the two forms are different in number, gender, and case. <font style="color:darkred">†  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

 * But that would imply that saying "X is the plural of Y" in Latin normally carries that meaning. It doesn't.  People seldom use that sort of phrasing in discussion of inflected languages.  To say that a word "is the plural" is misleading, because there is more than one plural form.  The plural form depends on grammatical usage in the sentence. --EncycloPetey 18:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I understand what you’re saying; however, I maintain that for those with knowledge of Latin, that is probably what would be understood. (Think of it as a sort of verbal shorthand — it is rather unnecessarily time-consuming to always say [gender]-[number]-[case] for a noun if all you need to specify as different is one of those variable attributes.) I’m not saying that Wiktionary should adopt such a principle of brevity, only that the expression “plural of X” in a Latin context is not meaningless, but rather merely slightly ambiguous. <font style="color:darkred">†  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Aa
You beat me by a few minutes XD Circeus 00:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it protected to avoid edit conflicts? A few more translingual definitions for various places and river, the digraph aa and the alternative form of Å. Circeus 00:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not currently protected, but has been in the past because it's been a continual target of vandalism. It should only be protected from "new" editors. --EncycloPetey 00:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When I tried to edit it, it was linked from the master cascading protection page, so I couldn't do a thing. Circeus 06:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I fixed that. I don't know how long it took to permit editing, but I did adjust the protection.  The master cascading was in place because we formerly could not protect pages that did not yet exist.  We can now. --EncycloPetey 21:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: your message
I respectfully disagree. A high frequency is not "of a large quantity" of frequency. It has many increments, i.e. Hertz, making it high. I could perhaps word it better, as I tried to do the second time around, but there seems to be a slight, but important distinction there. Please reconsider and make your decision accordingly.

Thanks for notifying me before changing it, though either way. --71.128.152.66 02:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

--How about this: I add to the prior definition. "Of a quantity or value, great or large." I hereby make my case that a frequency is not a value, for it is defined discretely and it is not a true quantity either, as my first post suggests. Suppose a compromise addition of, or replacement of "quantity" with "increment".

 * Heh, I had the same problem searching for an alternative word to 'high'. I came up with "elevated", "raised", etc.  I'll try your suggestion.  Pleasure to discuss it with you.  --71.128.152.66 03:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

eschew
Hi EncycloPetey,

Thanks for the heads-up on eschew – my understanding was that it was considered unclear, and I’ve mostly heard it in the context “eschew obfuscation”; my impression was that most people thought about this:
 * eschew: No one actually says this word in real life. It appears almost exclusively in writing when the perp is stretching for a flashy synonym for avoid or reject or shun.
 * Seven Deadly Words of Book Reviewing, Bob Harris, deputy editor of the New York Times Book Review

Mark Twain also lists, in Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses (1895), as a rule of good writing:
 * 14. Eschew surplusage.

…where “eschew” may be meant humorously, or seriously (“surplusage” is presumably humorous); compare:
 * 18. Employ a simple and straightforward style.

However, from looking around I see that, as you say, style manuals and writing guides (at least those Google knows about) don’t mind it (apart from the equivocal example of Twain), and it is flagged as “formal”, so I agree with your changes/reversions, and that the entry’s fine as stands.

Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

white cell
It is. See. To search for this, I simply used the minus sign to eliminate the word "count" from the search. 24.29.228.33 01:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Whitelist
There is a candidate here whom I thought you might have a useful opinion on (didn't really know what that opinion was). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure which one you mean. I've given my approval for AZard, and although I have some reservervations about Caladon, he's been making good progress and shown a willingness to learn and ask for help. --EncycloPetey 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Latin decl. template proposal
I have written a proposal for improving the Latin decl. templates in detail here. Let me know what you think; I will get started on the basic stuff ASAP. --maikxlx (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of your proposal is lacking in explanation of what is intended. You propose deprecating the locative templates, but have not indicated what would replace them.  The proposed renaming of the 3rd declension templates is at odds with some of your proposal.  All of the other declension tables use -1st, -2nd, -4th, etc., but you are proposing that we change the names of the 3rd declension templates to use -3c / -3i instead of -3rd.  I don't follow this logic.  The current system is more consistent about the names.  And finally, as I said before, I disagree with the reordering of the 3rd declension parameters.  I disagree in part because the current system is consistent with the order used by other Latin templates; it would be a poor choice to have one group of templates using a different ordering from all the others.  There are ways to make the current order work within your new templates. --EncycloPetey 05:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

 * With your permission, EP, I'd like to move this comment to Category talk:Latin declension templates. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Copy, yes, but please don't move/remove it. --EncycloPetey 06:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry, I should have been clearer.  I've made the copy, and posted my own response under yours.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Please take another look at the discussion. I believe I've addressed your concerns.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Latin etyms
Well, I've added what I could find, and the rest I wouldn't touch without some fat recently-published Latin etymological dictionary serving as a reference (and which I don't have). --Ivan Štambuk 15:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are such publications that you know of, and could identify them for me, I might be able to track them down and thereby provide the information. --EncycloPetey 21:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Namely this one appears to be the the only etymological dictionary of Latin up-to-date with modern scholarship. It will probably get uploaded on the IEED project pages in the 2009 once they convert it to the special database format, but until it gets.. The problem is that lots of those Latin words of obscure etymologies are not of inherited PIE origin, but are substratum words or borrowings from other Italic (and non-Italic, like Etruscan, Phoenician..) languages, and the information on them is dispersed in numerous academic papers until someone embarks on a task of compiling a synthetic work that would made them available for mere mortals. Studying substratum words (i.e. pre-historical loanwords) in Greek, Vedic etc. is itself a completely different branch of historical IE linguistics..
 * Anyhow, I just downloaded the other day Sihler's "New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin" in PDF from some (illegal) Russian website, and hope to spend time reading it and put the acquired knowledge to practice in Wiktionary as soon as possible. --Ivan Štambuk 06:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your friendly words of welcome.

Kind regards,

Edddie 19:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Latin substantives
With the adjectives āleātōrius and mysticus, there is a substantive form but the lemma isn't the same (āleātōrium and mysticum). I added these to the adjective pages, but I don't really know what to put on the pages mysticum and āleātōrium to say that it is a substantive of the adjective. Is there a template or message you should include on those pages? Caladon 22:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I've tried a different approach; basically the approach I've been taking with Ancient Greek. Thoughts?  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Does it solve the issue of if someone looks up the substantive's headword that they will be redirected to the adjective's page? Caladon 18:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

What I've tended to do with substantives: If the gender of the substantive is variable, then I've listed it under the adjecitve with  to note that it is a substantive sense. When the substantive is a fixed gender, or is plural-only, then I add a separate page with a noun section and inflection table. The problem with doing this is that we have not had plural-only inflection tables, so I haven't often added these. There is a discussion underway that I expect will result in having plural-only declension tables sometime within the next month. --EncycloPetey 20:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Implications of new kludge
I'm not sure if you've seen Robert's new trick concerning categorization, but would you please read Grease pit. As the owner of a bot which creates many form-of entries, your views on new formatting for these entries would be appreciated. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

occidere
Surely this verb should be under occidō and using the new templates? Is the present participle meant to be occidens instead of occiderēns? Occidentalis is supposed to be related to the present participle and the verb. Caladon 18:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Displaying selected languages
Hi, thanks for your answer at the Information desk. Can you please tell me, were I can find this discussion about the topic? --Hi.ro 14:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

grammar/conjugation tags
In creating, did you have a particular reason for using a separate naming and category for the tags? I.e. rather than just creating more "Template:grammar tag xxx"? Both templates (inflection of and this) use switches to use tags they "know" and simply render anything else, so it wouldn't seem necessary to have two different sets? Robert Ullmann 11:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Conjugation applies only to verbs, while the template  is strictly for nouns, adjectives, and other declining words.  The two sets of tags should be kept as separate as possible to keep the functions and template identities as clearly separate as possible. --EncycloPetey 18:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

securis
I would like to ask you about this edit:, where you claim the accusative securem and ablative secure, when Dvoretsky explains in his dictionary (the most voluminous issued in the 20th century) that securim and securi are the standard forms and em, e are rare. If you do not object, would you settle for Template:la-decl-3rd-PAR-navis?(though I am not sure how one could designate the e-forms in a template as rare) Bogorm 20:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC) In turris the e, em are also designated as rare, but in febris and classis (currently missing im acc.) as æqually acceptable. In imber, ignis, amnis the e and i in ablative are also described as æqually acceptable. How can this be mentioned in the template? I am perplexed, since in some places you have a red footnote in the acc. pl., but it is obviously incorporated in the template. Bogorm 20:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The declension table templates are currently undergoing revision, especially the thrd-declension ones. The templates you mention are to be deprecated and replaced with more general ones. --EncycloPetey 18:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Flu.
I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you're feeling better now? —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 20:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Better? Yes.  As good as I felt before the flu?  No.  I'm still coughing ...and what's a good word for producing mucous...muciferous? mucigenous?  Odd that we don't have either word. --EncycloPetey 00:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Ew. Well, feel better soon. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 01:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Proper adjectives
I think that because the majority of modern text books, dictionaries and editions of Classical texts in English capitalize the adjectives then it should be a standard that we do so as well. However I have noticed, though I don't know if this is relevant, that with taxonomical classification, they do not capitalize proper adjectives, e.g. Pluvianus aegyptius and Caprimulgus aegyptius, in which they say only the first word should be capitalized or a species derived from a proper noun. Since modern Romance languages don't capitalize proper adjectives and we do, it seems that whether the proper adjectives are capitalized in Latin is based upon the orthographical rules of the language the books are published in. What do the other Wiktionaries agree on with this issue? Ultimately I think it should be based upon the more popular use (in dictionaries and texts) since there's so much uncertainty as to the best option, though I am inclined to think that the native use is more valuable than what people have interpreted or edited later on. Caladon 12:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Latin 'j'
major exists, and says it's an orthographic variant of maior. Is that standard enwikt practice, or deletable? Is it standard practice even where the page (here [[major]]) doesn't exist for other languages' sake?—msh210 ℠  22:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't have separate entries for I/J variation in Latin, just as we don't have separate articles for the two variant forms of lowercase "a" (a / ɑ) in English. See About Latin. --EncycloPetey 08:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Then perhaps you ought to remove/rfd major. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Accomplished. Bogorm 09:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Okay, thanks; that's what I thought. But that was merely a lead-up to the following followup question. Shouldn't major link somehow to  maior? I mean, people may look for the Latin word s.v. major, mightn't they? I propose it links to it using . And if the j entry doesn't exist (as  major does), then it should link to it using something like . What do you think? (Or has all this been discussed already?)—msh210  ℠  17:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Would you want such links for capitalized forms of words like some or each? Most people wouldn't, even though these words are capitalized in texts under certain conditions.  Would you want separate pages for the different possible forms of the lowercase "a"?   Most people wouldn't, even though there are two glyph variants of that letter in use.  This is an analogous situation, since there is no separate letter "J" in Latin.  These aren't separate spellings; they're the same spelling with one of the letters written in a slightly different way that developed in the Renaissance. --EncycloPetey 21:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We have "Did you mean infundibular?" appear on the page [ Infundibular], to answer your first question. To answer your second, I don't think any English speaker (this is English Wiktionary) is likely to mistakenly consider the as distinct. But English speakers are likely to consider i and j separate letters if they come across a Latin word that looks as though it's spelled, e.g., major. (Consider, too, Doremitzwr's adding of words spelled with long esses as alternate spellings of the ones with short esses. I wouldn't do that: I'd have them redirect. But I think the i/j distinction is similar to that one.)—msh210 ℠  20:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, but the "Did you mean?" only functions if there isn't an entry at the capitalized pagename (say, a German noun). In that case, we then rely on also: and the user's initiative to realize what is going on.  The fact that English speakers are likely to consider two Latin letters distinct when they are not is not something we should nbe accomodating.  There are plenty of Ancient Greek diacriticals that I can't visually distinguish, and a couple of Hebrew letters I can't always tell apart either.  Redirects aren't feasible in this situation, because a "j" version of many of these words exists in another language (major, Julius, junior, jus, etc.).  The use of the J (long-I) is an editorial convention like the macrons over Latin vowels.  Just as we don't create pages for the macron forms, we shouldn't have them for the long-I spellings of Latin words. --EncycloPetey 21:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, is what I want to rely on! Like for Set. As to accommodating stupid Anglophones (like me), I don't want to "create pages". Just use . (Well, when the j page doesn't exist, perhaps we should create it, but then only as a redirect or  page.) But I guess we simply disagree (more precisely: I guess I disagree with the accepted practice, so will in editing ignore my opinion). Happy new year, by the way!—msh210  ℠  21:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thans, and happy Gregorian calendar New Year to you as well! It will be happier for me when I stop coughing all night. --EncycloPetey 21:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Index:Galician
Has finally been re-generated. Let me know if you have any issues with it. Conrad.Irwin 02:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:EncycloPetey/Archive 7