text:
User talk:DCDuring/2010 QI

re paremiology et al
FYI, you might wanna refrain from trans requesting obscure words like paremiology for languages which have very few active contributors - Vietnamese for example. Its requests keep piling up but no one seems to be answering them... Tooironic 02:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC

 * Any others? DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 02:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

put our heads together
Do you know what entry title should we use for this idiom? Normally for reflexive-like possessives I use one's, but put one's heads together has serious issues. :-P

Thanks in advance!

—Ruakh TALK 22:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

 * How about put heads together? That seems to work for AHD/Dictionary.com as the run-in entry for this at "head". They also use it as a redirect-equivalent to "put their heads together" and "put our heads together" (from Cambridge idioms dictionaries). They use different forms for Intl and Amer idiom books. Usage examples or redirects for all three plural possessive pronouns should handle it. DCDuring TALK 22:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Done, thanks! —Ruakh TALK 23:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Adverbs and automation
Possible risks involved in your idea of automating adverbs' definitions using adjective-level synonyms: (i) adjectives have subtly (or less subtly) differing shades of meaning that might become more stark in the adverbial forms (largely means hugely far less commonly than large means huge; freshly means newly far more commonly than fresh means new); (ii) sometimes there are totally different senses of one adjective that might be the dominant sense in its derived adverb (note how smashingly does not mention destruction at all); (iii) we could get mired in circularity, defining two synonymous adverbs in terms of each other. Equinox ◑ 17:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I absolutely do not think this can be truly automated for reasons such as those you point out. I am interested solely in using automation to make entries more ready to support more abundant and rapid good-quality (sadly not perfect, but better than nothing and improvable) manual definition work. If we rely on counsels of perfection we won't make much progress.
 * I have been wondering why I find actual defining work so hard and instead lapse into the more superficially stimulating checklist work. Checklist work provides almost video-game-like stimulation vs. the frustrating aspects of much definition work. That is why I have been wondering how to harness this preference for quick-hit work to make the final task of generating improved and new definitions easier. If the world's militaries are making war more video-game-like, perhaps we can do the same for lexicography! DCDuring TALK 18:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Wiktionary the video game, where you fight vandals, create entries, add pronunciations and etymologies, cite RFV's, and improve definitions to increase your score... Ha ha. What fun.  :)  L☺g☺maniac ☃ 18:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I thought you'd left! P.S. A few years ago I submitted a snarky LiveJournal: The Game to a silly game contest. Your final score was determined by how many "friends" you had gained by staying on the right side of drama, etc. Equinox ◑ 18:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to be able to rely on Intrinsic motivation ! DCDuring TALK 18:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * What do you propose doing, then? Creating an imperfect entry from synonyms with a cleanup tag on it? Equinox ◑ 18:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The last step after the cleanup-list operations (manual, assisted, and bot?) would be to list entries that were maximally "ready" for manual definition/redefinition/improvement. Such entries would be good training exercises for more complex entries, among other things. The -ly adverbs seem like a place to start because they are relatively homogeneous. The baseline "in an X manner definitions" are sometimes not to be surpassed, usually, sometimes improvable, and sometimes supplementable.
 * I don't really know what to do about -ly adverbs derived from highly polysemous adjectives. It seems of questionable value to add "in an X manner" for most of these by individual synonym for the each adjective sense. OTOH, COCA and BNC make it easy to look at a lot of usage examples to help winnow the possibilities. DCDuring TALK 18:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

in the face of
Hi DCDuring,

I was looking through Category:English prepositional phrases to try to determine if EP was right that most prepositional phrases are specifically adjectival or specifically adverbial (my provisional conclusion being that most prepositional phrases are listed by us as only one or the other, but that it's almost always easy to find citations for both), when I came across this one, which you added to the category back in June.

The thing is, it doesn't really seem to be a prepositional phrase; rather, it seems like the first part of a prepositional phrase, “in the face of ____”. That makes it a compound preposition rather than a prepositional phrase. (By some analyses, it's not a constituent at all, but rather, just the preposition in plus the first part of its object; but I think we can safely discard those analyses as inimical to lexicography. :-P )

Normally I would have just removed it from the category, but I saw that you were the one who added it, so I wanted to ask you about it first to be on the safe side.

Thanks, —Ruakh TALK 15:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure who hijacked my identity to make that change. Perhaps the hijacker had been thinking about the idea of "phrasal prepositions". Perhaps he had the fleeting thought that it would be easier to find them if they were both in Category:English prepositions and Category:English prepositional phrases. Perhaps the hijacker was just trying to discredit me.

 * In any event, perhaps the hijacker will reverse the change, knowing that we are on to him/her. DCDuring TALK 17:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In re this: I understand your point, but as I explained when I did so, I changed the highlighting method from a pale-gold background to a goldenrod one because the former is too pale for some screens; [I’d hoped it had been] a good compromise between utility and æsthetics — clearly it wasn’t. The present colour is too pale for my laptop computer, but is presumably fine for my desktop one; the goldenrod was perfect for my laptop, albeit garish on my desktop. Emboldenment won’t do; its inadequacy is what spurred the creation of /. Do you know of any suitable “compromise between utility and æsthetics”? †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Customization. The imposition of color on the population at large seems wrong: against the style of WMF enterprises and a throwback to on-line hucksterism. You, the master of typographical variation, are best suited to address a problem that you seem to perceive and feel most strongly. DCDuring TALK 11:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

 * But what do we have for the default? I’m sceptical of customisation, since WT:PREFS is virtually the only means of achieving that. Originally, the background was plain yellow, per Google Book Search highlighting, but that was objected to for being in bad taste. I don’t think my “master[y] of typographical variation” really helps at all in this situation. How about getting some user feedback on different highlighting schemes viâ the main page? I know how you like focusing delivering what users expressedly prefer. ;-Þ †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Sure. Basic web-design guidelines tend to favor less color rather than more for "serious" sites and the use of color only for items meriting it. It would be interesting to see how our contributors come out on this. One of the ways in which Google won is by having a radically clean landing screen and fairly clean search-results pages (in contrast with, say, Yahoo). But "that was then and this is now." DCDuring TALK 23:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

 * No, I agree, a low-colour scheme is what we should strive for. What we need is highlighting that is obvious enough to draw attention to the cited term when a user scans a quotation, but subtle enough not to distract a user when he’s reading some other part of the entry. Do you think we can figure out what the highlighting ought to be by an internal straw poll, or should we seek the feedback of our users? †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't think we have ever gotten systematic information from our users. We would need someone technical and someone market-research-oriented to get together to do it. I could mostly provide always-welcome "management services". I doubt that this is worth it.
 * A straw-poll not conducted in secrecy (as votes effectively are) would be good enough, especially as changes would be reversible anyway, except for the use of technical resources/time. It would be fine to just direct users to the entries that already have the templates or to hard-code each possible color into one headword page (one page per color). DCDuring TALK 00:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

 * It needn’t even be on different pages; we could just use the permanent links to previous revisions, each hard-coded with a different colour of background-highlighting. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that our entire discussion has become obsolete, now that Conrad.Irwin has fixed the display of the far-preferable, thin, black outline which we can use instead. BTW, please comment on this at WT:RFDO, given that you were the nominator. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

what the – ?!
Do you have any thoughts on the historical grammar of "the" in expressions like "why the dickens"? The parallel use of prepositional phrases like "in Hell" and "on earth" made me wonder whether "the" was some kind of relic of an oblique case of Old English ancestral "the" that might be interpreted as a preposition or something. Alternatively, are these expressions elliptical forms of some oaths? DCDuring TALK 00:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a really good question. The earliest type of phrase like this seems to be used with devil: (for which dickens: is a euphemism). And in the earliest examples there is sometimes no article (eg Chaucer: ‘What devel have I with the knyfe to doo?’). But it appears equally often with an article, and what's more the whole construction seems to be taken from French, where ‘comment diables!’ was a common Old French expression. On balance I think the: is behaving normally here – we usually talk about "the Devil" rather than just "devil" – and possibly the definite article got transplanted to phrases like "what the dickens" in imitation. But more digging around in early quotations would be needed to really clear it up. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 10:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your thoughts. It struck me that grammar peculiar to cussing may not have been quite as thoroughly studied as some other realms and may have old or, at least, distinct influences. DCDuring TALK 11:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

imperatives
Maybe I'm dense, but would you mind explaining the difference between the categories English imperatives and English imperative sentences? — msh210 ℠ 21:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, if I'm not dense, I'm at least forgetful. I think it must have been command nouns (eg, attention) that put me off using Category:English imperative sentences, which I had created first. I'd be inclined to fold the sentence one into the other. I think it was one side that triggered it.
 * What do you think? One category for all imperatives with the imperative (non-gloss ?) definition appearing under whatever PoS header seems natural? OR make imperative sentences a subcategory under imperatives? The first option seems better. Are there other ways of doing this ? DCDuring TALK 22:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment (re what to do, not re density and forgetfulness ). — msh210 ℠ 22:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, all of the relatively unpopulated grammatical subcategories are suspect, especially if I created them. They will need some consolidation or reform.
 * Also, I'm sure you have noted Category:English phrasal prepositions which effectively reverses some edits you had done. I think it makes sense as it is. There seems to be controversy between the Quirk team and the H&P team about the right grammatical analysis of (some of ?) them and consequently about the utility of the category. Whether we call them Phrases that are semantically (and often grammatically) like prepositions or Prepositions that sometimes behave grammatically like layered PPs doesn't seem terribly important. The first is a closer fit with users, I think, and is the way we do it. Perhaps we can use Category talk:English phrasal prepositions to develop some way to appropriately qualify the Prepositionhood of these. DCDuring TALK 23:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (I'm trying to bear your cats in mind for categorization purposes; to that end, I have, as you may have noticed, a hierarchical list of them on my userpage.) Thanks for heads-up about the suspect ones. Re phrasal prepositions: You'll have, I'm afraid, to remind me what it reverses, if that's important. It looks good. — msh210 ℠ 23:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the "phrasal prepositions" had been in that category. At some point it seemed that you had considered that a mispelling-type blunder and reversed it. I had been doing something similar more recently and the matter is somewhat controversial, so, one way of the other it is not that big a deal.
 * The categories that have some population should be appraisable based on the membership in terms of their coherence and consistency for our purposes, but that is only part of the overall question of their utility. I am always happy to discuss questions about such matters and accept any reasoned views or even mere skepticism about them. DCDuring TALK 01:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Elvisrules
Not obvious why you blocked him/her. Didn't seem like an (overt) vandal. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Simply an error. I was trying to find reincarnations of evil. DCDuring TALK 20:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

hell
You can find all our terms starting with hell here. As I said, any reason for nominating one of the SoP ones, but not the others? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Feel free to add more. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

comments re: interjections
Thanks very much for your comments. I agree with keeping as few single word, non-idiomatic interjections as possible. Otherwise there could be tens of thousands ("Green!", "Mom!", "swim!"). But I did want put in "well" as an interjection - (idiomatic) Used to acknowledge a statement or situation (short form for "that is well"). It was already an "adverb" in well for "used to introduce a statement that may be contrary to expectations" so I generalized it and put it in as an interjection instead. Facts707 22:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was mostly trying to bring you more or less up to date on the issues as I see them. If you look at Category:English interjections you will see quite a menagerie - and that is after some effort to clean out some of the worst. My own views prove changeable on these things, but clearly there are many items in that category that don't fit the narrow definitions of interjection.
 * I would prefer the exclude meaningful words sometimes used as interjections out of the Interjection PoS if there were a related sense corresponding to the sense(s) taken in exclamations. I fear that it will not be possible to keep contributors from adding a redundant Interjection section anyway. I wonder, for example, how long it would take before someone would decide that attention needs an interjection section, not matter what the noun section contained. I believe that a wiki cannot sustain exclusionary principles, not matter how inherently desirable they may be, without a substantial amount of conflict. DCDuring TALK 23:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

cyen
What the hell was this about? †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

 * It was the hell about the square brackets, which, in context, was a good edit. (I've been removing such redundant edit-count brackets myself sometimes.) I didn't see the quotation added, as I couldn't in my remotest imaginings contemplate that one would be added. Sorry. I've been noticing some plurals classified as nouns as I've been scanning English nouns, which is how I came to the entry in question.
 * BTW, why do you bother to:

 * 1) insert the quotations header for such entries?
 * 2) let alone cite them to begin with? and
 * 3) remove alt spelling of the plural, when that would save the user (most likely a contributor like me) a click in grokking the entry? Some users don't have ultra-high-speed connections and our servers aren't that fast anyway. DCDuring TALK 11:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Yeah, no problem. Sorry to you, too; my question had an overly-aggressive tone. I added those plurals as obsolete spellings of the singular because that’s how the OED seemed to list them in its entry for ; it usually lists alternative spellings of inflected forms by explicitly marking them as such, though, obviously, they did not in this case. The spellings listed at scion will need independent verification by us at some point. Your questions:
 * I believe it looks neater; having them separated like that makes the definition easier to spot quickly. In such short entries, there is plenty of space that’s wasted when they’re made too compact, so I add some spacing to make them more pleasing to the eye.
 * It’s A Good Thing™ for our content to have a solid basis in attestation. (This is, unfortunately, a low priority for most of our contributors, as you know.) I really admire the OED for its plethora of citations. I try to encourage the same thing here. Whilst certain entries definitely benefit from attestation more than others (morphemic monosemic lemmata probably top that list, whereas present participles are the kind of entry near the bottom), attestation is always an improvement; I wouldn’t go to the effort of tri-citing every one of these obsolete spellings, regular plurals, and so on, but adding an independently-verified citation which is given by the OED seems like a reasonable amount of effort to invest.
 * It isn’t appropriate, IMO, in those cases. undefined: is the plural form of undefined:, which is an obsolete spelling of undefined:, but undefined: isn’t an obsolete spelling of undefined:. This may look like a distinction without a difference, but I don’t believe it is. The same applies to undefined:, undefined:, undefined:, and undefined:, which are all alternative spellings of one another (though the relation is a little less clear-cut), whereas undefined:, undefined:, undefined:, undefined:, and undefined: are their plurals, but aren’t themselves alternative forms of one another. In any case, including does not make finding useful information any quicker for the user — the routes are undefined: → undefined: → undefined: or undefined: → undefined: → undefined: — both of which necessitate two clicks.
 * I hope that serves to explain my actions adequately. :-)</tt> <font style="color:darkred">†  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I differ with you in that I believe that any form of an obsolete, archaic, or rare term ought to have a link to a word that might be recognizable to someone who knows contemporary English in addition to the link to the obsolete or archaic lemma. To omit or remove them is to waste users' time. I think that users' brains do the meaning construction work. If they are stuck on something like "cyens" and look it up their brain will get the job done more quickly with a current-word reference.
 * Our desire for consistent presentation based on some esthetic/logical ideal does them a disservice. Saving users from an unnecessary extra click should be one of our highest, most ennobling aspirations. DCDuring TALK 11:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

 * How’s this for a solution? I have found it best always to look for a way of accommodating disparate ideals where possible, rather than insisting that one value be given primacy in all cases. Now, all I want to know is, will my title be hereditary, or will I merely be created a life peer for this? <tt>;-)</tt> BTW, could you leave a space between your comments and others’ in future (except where doing so would break bulleting, numbering, or whatever), so as to improve readability, please? Thanks. <font style="color:darkred">†  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

pool
rfe-nl removed. Entry is now complete. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 09:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks, it looks good.
 * There is no need to ever let me know about any changes to an entry, unless it is of very special interest. I have a big (overlong) watchlist and I insert many rfps/rfes and other requests in the course of entry cleanup. I try to police the rfc-structure list, which usually surfaces various problems and needs for updates. I find etymologies helpful in ensuring that an entry has had some level of thought and in making the entry more intelligible, especially for a language I don't know (but can at least read the script of !). DCDuring TALK 16:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Again...
...what's with all the trans reqs? Vietnamese already has 400 piled up, Arabic 314, Japanese 381, Korean 309, etc, etc. Methinks no one is going to get to them any time soon, so why bother adding them for (I assume) every entry you come across? Tooironic 05:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I have added them for a relatively few of the entries I have come across. In any event, of what concern is it to you? When someone finally gets around to it, they can do it. In the meantime they can sit there. If you don't like the requests, you can always simply remove them.
 * Why don't you use the normal request process for your requests for entries? DCDuring TALK 10:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Snowclone
Re: Information desk -- Thanks, done it's the economy, stupid and it's the something, stupid. Cheers. 62.147.62.24 18:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure we should have them, but it's worth a shot. I think they make for ugly-looking entries in some ways. But, thanks for the entries.
 * BTW, why not register? It offers some customization advantages and it's easier for folks to trust registered users. DCDuring TALK 20:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

re: Clarifying our meaning of idiomaticity
Thanks much for your comments. After looking at the "English rhetorical questions" category I agree that they should all be idiomatic (I did remove two entries from that category because they were not defined as questions). I don't mind have the "English rhetorical questions" (sub)category in with the English idioms category, it should be useful.

Lately I've been to trying to trim down the "English idioms" category to remove unnecessary duplicates such as all 26 of the appendices of the editors' picks (which are included in a separate box, now just one line, at the top).

I don't know if there is a way for anything included in "English rhetorical questions" to be automatically included in "English idioms". There doesn't seem to be a template for "English rhetorical question" as there is with "idiom". Also, one "rhetorical question", who's 'she', the cat's mother? is listed with a question mark at the end, while all the others are not. I think it should probably be one way or the other - I kind of like the question mark at the end personally.

Finally, I agree, the idiomatic inclusion/defn. criteria could be better defined.

thanks again, Facts707 20:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I have created several grammatical-type categories that, in effect, serve as subcategories for Category:English phrases and Category:English adverbs. They are quite imperfect and could benefit from someone else's perspective besides mine. I am no professional linguist, nor do I have any formal linguistic training, so there is not much more to these categories than is written in the category text and talk. I have been consulting CGEL and have been reading up on modern lexicography and semantics. I'm just not sure how to integrate that kind of thing with a wiki. To some extent we need to be more inclusive than the most inclusive commercial dictionary to take advantage of the energies of contributors. But we also need to improve quality. DCDuring TALK 22:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

speaking of
Hi DCDuring,

Could you help me categorize this? I've put it in the vague Category:English discourse markers, but I suspect it belongs somewhere in Category:English sentence adverbs. I just can't figure out where.

Thanks in advance! —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 01:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I need to think on this. I'm not 100% happy with the adverb categories. This might be a "conjunctive" or a "speech-act" adverb. But "speech act" opens up the question of narrowness or breadth in defining what a "speech act" is. The definition implicit in the adverb category is broad indeed. DCDuring TALK 01:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A dictionary for non-native speakers
Hi. Judging from recent posts, you seem to have moved further into my wicket (or perhaps you were always there?), looking at Wikt with the eye of a TEFL. I certainly try to defend this particular wicket, as I feel our users are far more international, with English as L2 or L3, than just about any other dictionary, and hence have difficulty in decoding such items as slipt that you correctly commented on. A dictionary for non-native speakers is an area I would really like to explore more deeply, but as you say, it seems that the discussion is always just out of reach. From an EFL point of view, I believe that the appendices should be more visible, for instance, perhaps with an Appendices header level 4 stating "this word can be found in the following appendices". Usage notes should be ample rather than skimpy, correct use of tags, etc. The EFL point of view is what has guided my thinking in the debates about chemist's and capitals for animals, birds, etc. I think your -'s appendix is good, but still believe there should be an entry at chemist's all the same. I believe that it would be clearer to EnL2 users if animals, birds etc followed the general Wikt policy of "lower case unless capital really is the standard format". (Isn't that why the proverbs start with lower case except for Rome wasn't built in a day and similar?). How to open this debate? How to spur some interest? Where to locate it? Any thoughts? -- <i>A LGRIF </i ><font color="#FFD700"> talk 17:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Actually, I think Wiktionary may fail because the English-language side will not be providing good translation targets. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make the best of it. I'm still learning English myself and find the common patterns interesting. I firmly believe in the overwhelming importance of English-language definition quality (completeness, writing quality, up-to-date-ness) with usage examples a close second. I know that Appendices are not really accessible unless they are fed by and other links or a change in how search works. I agree that the lower case is more common in general use, but our pretensions to being the all-senses/all-words/all-languages dictionary continues to include all dates and all contexts. The dog-breeding industry has non-coercively standardized on capitals. Animal and plant vernacular names may also be or have been (in UK in 19th century) at that point. DCDuring TALK 21:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I raise points like this in specific instances. If someone else takes the subject further, then I take that to mean that there might be enough interest to make a difference. I have taken DanPolanksy's interest in provoking interest phrasebook as a chance to see if we can make it into a useful tool for learners. The progress of that discussion should provide some indication of directions of promise and of some possible consensus of some kind among contributors. DCDuring TALK 21:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 * This is a good issue to clarify in our basic documentation. Our stance affects things like the inclusion of labels like, which are important guides for English learners, but omitted by native-speaker dictionaries because such rules are routinely and intuitively broken in good English.

 * Recognizing such elements could also let us let dictionary readers to customize their view for their needs. —Michael Z. 2010-03-04 23:21 z

Should alt forms/spellings have idiom tag?
(from Facts707 user talk): This would be a worthwhile principle to establish, one way or the other. I think I agree with your approach. But rather than implement it wholesale or in edit wars, it might be better to bring the matter up at WT:BP with a rationale. It could then become a matter of cleanup and be implemented universally (one way or the other). DCDuring TALK 18:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Sorry, didn't mean to start an edit war. I don't think the others actually had a problem with removing "idiom" from, say, bassackwards when bass-ackwards has "idiom" and is the main entry. I think the problem was when I went a step further and removed the "en-adj" etc. subheadings for bassackwards, etc.  My thinking was that since it is only a minor alternative spelling (with a hyphen), the definition including "en-adj", etc. was redundant since the user would just to go the main entry.  This would eliminate having to maintain two entries and would avoid inconsistencies, such as the currently existing one where bassackwards is defined only as an adjective, while bass-ackwards is defined as both an adjective and an adverb. I'd be happy to post this subject at WT:BP or where otherwise appropriate as well. Facts707 18:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 * The difference is that the main form doesn't show the inflected forms of the alternative forms. We don't usually have other content, except tags for register, rarity, obsolescence, etc. at alt forms. DCDuring TALK 19:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

CSS saves the day again!
Grease_pit. :p Circeus 04:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

fish
Would you say these senses coincide?

3. (intransitive, followed by "about," "around," "through," etc.) To attempt to find or get hold of an object by searching among other objects.
 * Why are you fishing through in my things? [sic in the entry]

6. (transitive, followed by "for") To attempt to get hold of (an object) that is among other objects.
 * He was fishing for the keys in his pocket.

— msh210 ℠ 18:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. It looks like a case of someone trying to overextend the concept of transitivity. There is something reminiscent of ergativity going on there. I don't think that "fish for" looks like a phrasal verb either, but I don't know of any rigorous test for something being a phrasal verb. Both the "for" PP and the "through/in" PP seem optional with no change in the sense of the verb that I can discern. The adverbs don't seem to make any real difference either. Someone with more discernment-by-training-and-experience or a non-native speaker might detect something that a native cannot though. DCDuring TALK 19:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But for your last sentence I would have simply merged the sense lines: since you express doubt, I'll RFD it. Thanks for your input. — msh210 ℠ 16:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

WT:RFV
Hi DCDuring,

Are you satisfied with the result of this? Or were you still planning to try to cite it? Or should I delete it?

Thanks in advance, —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 20:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I have just added a def that makes sense to me, based on a quick reading of the introductory part of online lecture notes. I can't really make sense of the definition that was RfVed. The citation is not particularly helpful either. Thanks for reminding me about this. DCDuring TALK 21:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

tag questions cat
What do you think of creating category:English tag questions for things like eh, what, yes, no, and innit?< class="Unicode">—</>msh210< class="Unicode">℠</> 16:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not the only one you're asking about this, am I? You won't open that can of worms too wide, will you ? Tag questions don't at first blush constitute an inherently idiomatic grouping, all of which should be included, do they ? It would be better to not introduce the category rashly if it triggers entry of more unjustified terms, n'est-ce pas? The most common tag questions (and related parentheticals) include many phrases that at first blush don't seem to warrant entry, dontcha know.
 * It might be better to first prepare an Appendix with a list of the most common tags, including those SoP ones that would probably not meet CFI and include the non-CFI candidates systematically in the form of pseudo-entries, don't you think ? DCDuring TALK 19:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't concerned that people would add SoP ones, though perhaps I should be. I meant for the category to hold the idiomatic ones, such as the ones I listed, right, and perhaps a few more. (Is n'est ce pas attestable as English?) But never mind, I guess. As for an appendix, maybe it's worth creating, but I have no interest personally. — msh210 ℠ 19:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In affected English speech, among people trying to impress others with their savoir faire, and among bilingual speakers, "n'est-ce pas" is used and seems to be attestable.
 * I am not opposed to creating the category, nor did I think you were suggesting that the possibly SoP ones be added. I was just projecting a possibly not-so-good consequence that is likely to happen IMO once the category is introduced.
 * Tag questions take up a 4-5 pages of CGEL. They are not beneath treatment in a brief appendix, which could cover formation and generic differences in prosody. Once we have even a bare-bones appendix, we should hazard introducing the category, IMO. DCDuring TALK 19:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Appendix:English tag questions already exists, as I should have checked. Accordingly, I have no grounds for caution, and may start adding some only-in pseudo-entries. DCDuring TALK 19:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

BP
Depressingly, not even one comment. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Requests for deletion
I've commented further and would love to hear your further thoughts. Or read. Thanks. —msh210℠ 18:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Tea room, too. —msh210℠ 19:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, twice. —msh210℠ 16:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Restricted-use labels and semantic markers
Hey, I'm just going through RFDO, and I notice that you're in favour of semantic markers. I left a suggestion in a comment there, which may interest you. See Requests_for_deletion/Others. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2010-03-23 23:51 z

 * Oops; I see this is discussed in more detail two sections down the page. Ta. —Michael Z. 2010-03-23 23:54 z

knighthood etc
This kind of thing isn't very helpful. OK, so "knighthod" is an older spelling – call it a different language if you must – but that obscures the fact that it's formed from "knight" and "-hood". In exactly the same way as other words which were formed after the 1st of January 1470, or whenever you think modern English began. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ</> 21:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 * It has to do with the productivity of the suffixes at present. Many of the most common words ending in -hood were not formed in Modern English, just as many of the words ending in -ity were not formed in English. In some cases the derivation goes back farther to Old English. Though -hood remains somewhat productive, though often only in jest, poetry, or philosophy, many other suffixes can be shown to be unproductive in current English and often in any vintage of Modern English. DCDuring TALK 21:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. What you are talking about has nothing to do with the productivity of suffixes. It was productive when the word in question was formed – that's the point as far as the etymology section is concerned. It is still a word suffixed with "-hood". < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ</> 06:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm interested in whether it is productive now. The way to tell is by subtracting from all those words ending in -hood first those which were formed long ago (OE and ME), then those that were formed in EME days, then those that were formed through Victorian times. It is also of interest to subtract those formed by other processes, such as prefixation (ie, possibly grand- + parenthood). The mass of words that remain enable one to assess something about even a productive suffix. DCDuring TALK 09:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd favour putting Category:English words suffixed with -hood at the bottom. I remember EncycloPetey saying on someone's talk page about another words "it didn't magically appear in English".

 * OK, how about this as a compromise solution: "From Middle English foebarre, corresponding to ". This still autocategorises in the proper way, but also makes it clear that the word was formed in Middle English. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ</> 11:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I've never been a fan of compromise vs. creative solutions or correction. I like to think I am flexible enough to accept correction when I err, which is often enough to keep me in practice.
 * I don't think that such autocategorization is correct. Something ending in -hood is not necessarily suffixed in hood. As I see it, at [[-hood]] English words suffixed with -hood belong in derived terms, other words ending in -hood belong in related terms. WT:ELE prescribes the order. DCDuring TALK 11:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would rather have -bare appear as a Middle English suffix, with an English descendant -bar and the various ME "derived terms" appear there. We would insert the various ME spellings as required. It would certainly be useful to provide some links among the categories to provide reminders about the existence of ME and OE vintages of suffixation by -bar and its ancestors.
 * I came across a quote attributed to D'Arcy Thompson (On Growth and Form) that seems to bear on morphology/etymology "Everything is what it is because it got that way". The how and when of the getting are of interest to me. For many English word endings there seems to be a mix of derivation from ME (and earlier OE) forms and formation in Modern English. Some, like -hood and its ancestors, have apparently been productive to some degree for more than a thousand years. DCDuring TALK 11:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, which I why I find it very deceptive to categorise them differently. This is substantively the same suffix. Knighthood is suffixed with "-hood". That is beyond question. The fact that it first happened in Old English is neither here nor there. Or do you also think unkind: is not prefixed with un-:? < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ</> 14:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I think it's obvious — not that I have evidence for this — that a big part of why we have knighthood is that we have knight and -hood. If the word knight no longer existed, or weren't spelled with a <k>, then the same would likely be true of knighthood. And it's hardly a coincidence that the many ModE reflexes of ME words in -hod (and variants thereof) all use -hood. So while I don't object to listing the/a ME antecedent, I certainly don't think it's a substitute for indicating the current word-parts. (And if we do list the/a ME antecedent, then we should also give its etymology! Otherwise we may as well give the etymology of 21st-century "person" as “From 20th-century "person"”.) —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 16:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Of course I believe that etymologies should be complete. But I also know that I am not always the one to complete them. I had shown a derivation of some entry ending in "hood" as, but that was "corrected". I do not believe that it is accurate to say that words that existed in ME or OE are recoined. Obviously all the words now ending in "hood" provide mutual support for each other's "correctness". Of course, that force did not achieve complete homogenization inasmuch as words like "godhead" and "maidenhead" continue with different endings though believed derived from ME terms ending in "hed", deemed equivalently meaning "-hood". It is the divergence of -head (unproductive in this sense) from -hood (still somewhat productive) that first got me into this.
 * If we would like to trivialize the etymology of derived terms, as most dictionaries understandably do (treating them as run-in entries with no distinct etymology, we can make it a policy to do so or achieve a consensus of similar force. Instead, we have made it a policy to have separate entries for each derived term (and alternative spelling) and to have all languages with ISO 639 codes (unless explicitly decided otherwise [by an unspecified grouping of voters]). DCDuring TALK 18:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Er...what?? "Godhead" and "maidenhead" have nothing to do, etymologically speaking, with the "-hood" suffix. The two suffixes were mixed up a little in Middle English, but they have different origins. ("-hood" is originally masculine; "-head", although not actually recorded in Old English, was probably originally a feminine version of the same base.) Anyway, even if "-hood" had changed form (which is probably has in some words), it doesn't change the fact that it's there. That's really the whole point of an etymology section: it tells you that you're looking at a "-hood" suffix even when you can't tell. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ</> 22:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Context labels
Per WT:RFDO, the context labels that you want to keep, you only want to keep them to help cleanup, right? So if the entries can be cleaned up you're happy for these to be deleted. Michael and I are having trouble understanding what your position is on this. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Medieval Latin derivations
Erm, I know you may not be the sole person to blame but I thought I'd let you know that since we already have Mediaeval Latin derivations, creating this has created a somewhat terrible amount of cleanup work to be done. I think this new categories contents should be moved to the old category. What do you think? 50 Xylophone Players talk 10:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Damn and blast. Erm, yes are these using two separate templates or what? We should unify them under the most common English spelling . Mglovesfun (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No it's ok I can use AWB to delete the redundant ones. If Palkia you want to create the 20 or so requested categories, I can do the rest. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Blame should flow to the person or persons unknown (to me, anyway) that chose the category name. I undertook to make the changes before realizing the full extent of what is required. It is not satisfactory (to me, anyway) that the relatively unused spelling (based on BNC and COCA. I think I put the numbers in my edit summary at Template:etyl:ML. ) should be used in anything that is part of Wiktionary's vocabulary, the one place that benefits from prescription in the interest of communication. The "ae" spelling conveys a kind of pedantry and obscurantism that will suck the life out of any en.wikt I would care to participate in. I will put the numbers in some appropriate Talk pages and BP. Can category redirects solve the problem without too much work? DCDuring TALK 11:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (RE:Mg) No, the templates shouldn't pose a problem as I think only the old category has subtemplates. 50 Xylophone Players talk 12:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:DCDuring/2010 QI


text:
lobo de Tasmania

Noun

 * 1) thylacine

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: lobo de Tasmania


text: lobos de Tasmania

title: lobos de Tasmania


text: Category:ast:Mythology

title: Category:ast:Mythology


text: Category:ast:History

title: Category:ast:History


text:
User talk:DCDuring/2010 QII

cooking with gas
You've added cooking with gas to category:English non-constituents. Is that right? It's a verb phrase, like have a ball, but in the present progressive. Or am I missing something? —msh210℠ 15:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

 * I think it is never a constituent: it always needs a form of be and only exists in progressive forms (not just present, BTW, eg, at least past and future: "was", "will be", however rarely). Unlike most -ing forms this does not retain its idiomatic sense when used as a noun. That explains why this merits a qualification not applicable in the same way to other -ing forms, though it would be applicable to all progressive forms of all English verbs.

I was just about ready to concede the point and had to reconstruct, not remember my reasoning. Perhaps this should be on its talk page, however the conversation is resolved. I don't know that the "non-constituent" category has ever gotten any discussion. Perhaps this is worth WT:TR. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see; thanks. Yeah, sure, moving it to the talkpage sounds good. I don't see why to TR it. —msh210℠ 16:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

no nevermind
Could you weigh in please at WT:RFD? Thanks. —msh210℠ 17:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I am a little overweight. DCDuring TALK 17:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —msh210℠ 19:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

rm redundant ety
The landing page etymology is not redundant. It carries essential etymological information.

 * 1) That 1996 is the earliest known attestation. Do you think that a reader of the an older version should have inferred that we consider this term new in 2007?
 * 2) That this term is formed by compounding English landing + page, rather than, e.g., calqued from another language, abbreviated from landing web page, etc. Do you think that a reader looking at an older version of silver wedding should have assumed that the term was an English compound rather than a calque?

There are ten thousand entries where inferring that our earliest given citation is the earliest known is wrong, and ten thousand where inferring that the headword links are etymological is wrong. Neither of these things positively states nor even vaguely implies these etymological facts. Pretending that they do will reinforce these assumptions by editors and lead to misleading more readers. —Michael Z. 2010-04-27 16:48 z

 * You can waste as much time, space, and goodwill as you would like on these things, but the meaning of redundant: and the fact of redundancy in this case remains. DCDuring TALK 16:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't want your ill will, so I'll indulge in less discussion. But I don't believe that an entry gives the reader an earliest attested date when it doesn't, nor that headword links show that compounds are compounds and simultaneously that calques, borrowings, or elliptical abbreviations are not. The reader is not served when implicit information is identical to its opposite or to nothing at all, so this could come up again in editing. Regards. —Michael Z. 2010-04-27 23:32 z
 * You might be right on the substance, but I have an intense dislike of using space on landing pages. I think that monolingual dictionary users are often looking for a quick answer (usually a definition. We often fail to make them believe that they will get their answer quickly. Actually, I haven't looked at our success relative to other dictionary sites. Maybe we are doing better than we were against MWOnline.
 * I was beginning to feel quite cranky. Thanks for heeding my warning about my mood. Sorry to have gotten cranky. DCDuring TALK 23:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Cheers. Maybe it's a problem of presentation rather than substance. —Michael Z. 2010-04-28 04:16 z

 * I'm here to comment on something else (see next section), but saw this and couldn't resist butting in to agree with Michael. Of course, some of our etymologies allegedly of compounds/prefixeds/suffixeds are wrong (they're actually calqued/derived). —msh210℠ 17:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

 * I too, feel compelled to chime in here. To begin with, many of our multiple word entries have etymologies which are simply sum of parts.  However, as Mzajac and msh210 rightly note, there are other complications, such as calques and the like.  I think that, in most cases, people are simply guessing (accurately guessing, most of the time, I suspect) that a word's etymology is simply the sum of its parts.  In these cases, I think it is somewhat redundant, and just a little dangerous, to put  as an etymology.  However, in cases where we have any other relevant information, such as the year of coinage or anything else, like we do in this case, then a separate etymology section is certainly warranted.  DCDuring, as you know, I share your concern with wasted above the fold space.  Whatever Mzajac might say about how most internet users are accustomed to scrolling (information which I believe, by the way), I think that we nonetheless should strive to give our users the most relevant information at a glance.  Even if they'll get to it anyway, it's a poorly designed site where a viewer has to go looking for the information they want; it should simply be there, in plain sight.  However, we don't want to sacrifice information content for usability.  We want both.  Instead of slashing worthwhile content, we should be focusing on how we can organize all that info in an intuitive and manageable way.  As it turns out, I'm working on something along these lines that I'm pretty excited about (it's not about etymologies, actually but example quotations).  Ultimately, I think that the whole Mediawiki engine, while nice for an ecyclopedia, is horrid for a dictionary, and will have to be rebuilt in time.  In any case, for the time-being, we have to work with what we've got.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Sounds intriguing – have anything to show?

 * I'm not concerned about the fold per se, but I wouldn't doubt that the definition is what most visitors are interested in. I'd have no problem with moving the etymology section down or making it collapsed by default.

 * I've thought for a long time that Wiktionary should have modes that allow a reader to customize the display for their needs, or persistent collapsing for all the sections. We are a synchronic dictionary, a historical dictionary, an etymological dictionary, a hundred translation dictionaries, etc, etc. But it's not ideal that we're all of these things at once and all the time. —Michael Z. 2010-04-28 04:16 z

 * Ok, try adding 'importScript('User:Atelaes/InlineBox.js');' to your monobook.js, then take a look at User:Atelaes/Sandbox. I am the furthest thing from an expert programmer, and so it might simply cause your computer to insult your mother......but it worked for me, finally.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 14:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Will try it. This kind of thing would, in principle, accommodate registered users. Thus our default layout could be more finely tuned to unregistered users, who may find lengthy material appearing before the inflection line, definitions, and translations distracting or discouraging. Having some actual facts about the behavior of unregistered users would be quite helpful in reducing controversy about presentation to them. DCDuring TALK 15:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mayhaps you should re-write some of the feedback questions to get information that you want to appear at . Conrad.Irwin 15:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Requests for deletion
Your particular expertise is needed further.... —msh210℠ 17:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —msh210℠ 17:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonstandard
How would one show that a definition is nonstandard? --NE2 13:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Authorities, perhaps. Like Garner's Modern American Usage (2009). But they devote themselves to grammar errors, neologisms, changes in parts of speech. Garner grades usage in terms of where is stands in terms of adoption into standard written English, not whether it is legitimate among some users. Language authorities do not talk much about extensions of meaning or metaphorical use of a word, such as this case. Clearly, the fans of highways have glorified their interest by appropriating an official-sounding word to makes what many consider a mundane matter into something more. It reminds me of the orders and titles in fraternal orders, such as the Elks and Masons. The navy fans might see this as the trivialization of the term to the detriment of the glorification of their hobby and of the military and of military service. But they are unlikely to succeed in preventing use by others. I don't think there is any way to prevent someone else from using a word they way they want, short of force of law. The French pass laws preventing loanwords (at least those of recent vintage) from being used in governmental and legal documents. And still French speakers use the words in speech and in less regulated writing. DCDuring TALK 15:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that really answers the question (which is admittedly semi-rhetorical, as one can't always prove a negative). The issue here is not simply the application of an existing term, but the confusion caused by misapplication. If the term were applied directly, it would mean that the road is closed to traffic and given "back to nature". In fact, I can give several citations of highway agencies using this meaning. But this is a different meaning, one that has limited usage, and has come into the "real world" (newspaper articles and the like) mainly through postmortem study of Route 66. Note the confusion in some of the uses on Citations:decommission, particularly Bryson 2006, where it's assumed that the federal government controls U.S. Highway designations and that they are tied to maintenance. In reality, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials coordinates the numbers, and the only change in many places was the replacement of a US 99 shield with a state highway shield, with no difference in maintenance responsibility. --NE2 04:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't deal exclusively in official definitions. If there is attestable usage that is not in actual accord with an attestable official definition, in principle both should be recorded without a value judgment as to correctness. An official definition merits a context tag. We have some exemplars of regulatory definitions, eg ground beef.
 * As to possible importance of designation: Difference in funding for maintenance and improvements, even if not in who performs the work in the field. Difference in who gets political credit for the funding. DCDuring TALK 18:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually there was no difference in funding. The U.S. Highway network is orthogonal to the federal aid network; changing the type of route had no effect on funding. --NE2 03:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

entry structure
Before I fix the entries you asked me to fix, I must ask: are we using ===Number=== or ===Cardinal number=== or ===Cardinal numeral=== for entries like disèt? --Rising Sun talk? contributions 16:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I would model my entry of the corresponding English, French, German, Spanish, or Italian entries because they have had the most attention. DCDuring TALK 18:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. These have adjective, number, numeral, cardinal number, cardinal numeral as headings. I'll put the cleanup job on hold --Soleil levant 18:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There was been much virtual ink spilled on this. I have barely read the discussions. I would rely on WT:ELE which encourages some headers and allows/tolerates some or all of the others.
 * I think we have more consistency in the conventional parts of speech, at least in English. Those parts of speech may not conform to the latest in grammatical thinking, but they seem adequate for our users, especially as supplemented by additional grammatical categories. DCDuring TALK 18:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as there is consistency within each given language, then we at least make some kind of progress. (English, by contrast, is a total mess using at least five different headers for the cardinals alone).  My preference is for Numeral, of course, but my least favorite option is to include "Cardinal" as part of the POS header. I don't like the idea of "Cardinal number" or "Cardinal numeral" as a POS header, and prefer that the "cardinal" aspect be covered by a definition line use of, the same way we now are marking different groups of adverbs. --EncycloPetey 20:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

lemming logic
When you say it is not uncountable, do you mean you would expect "That was a lemming logic" rather than "That was lemming logic"? Equinox ◑ 17:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I see. I guess I was wrong. Please allow me the honor of reverting myself. I wonder if I've made such errors before. DCDuring TALK 17:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

True adjectives and the "comma test"
It struck me just now that a "comma test" could be a good rule of thumb for these: compare "a free BASIC compiler" and "a free, basic compiler". Equinox ◑ 11:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think it is a fairly general PoS test. The use (not mention) of a word in a serious of other words of known PoS appears in many modern (post-transformational grammar) grammar books. The generic test is apparently called the "coordination test". It is a sufficient condition. But less common words, especially, may not appear at all in our corpora in such constructions. Worse, punctuation is not searchable at Google, though it is at COCA and the other BYU corpora. I sometimes do Google searches for "and ADJ" and "or ADJ", which only works if the word is the last in the series. DCDuring TALK 12:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Audio pronunciation layout
Is there a reason why you're putting audio pronunciations on the same line as transcriptions ? Nothing I've seen has noted this as acceptable/advised/recommented/or even mentioned it.

Standard form has always been for them to be on a separate line (although indentation or lack of is far from consistent). I really don't think it's a good idea to put them on one line either as the pronunciation transcription lines vary immensly in length and so there is no standard place they will appear on the page (bad imho). Also as they are very different content from the transcriptions, it's more likely people will miss them.

For all these reasons I've reverted your edit, but do feel free to discuss if you disagree with me. Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I do disagree, as I find it extravagantly wasteful. But I don't want to flap gums on the subject more than I already have. There are so many such extravagances. DCDuring TALK 18:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're going to get any noticeable reduction in screenspace from pronunciation sections until they become collapsable (I know this was discussed a couple of years ago, I think to vague disagreement, but I don't fully remember). Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I await acceptance or rejection or Atelaes's innovation, now limited to quotes. Perhaps it will be extended to other L3 headings. Even hidden the layout seems wasteful. DCDuring TALK 18:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Actually, I've got something for pronunciation in the works as well. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks good, but it AFAICT it addresses horizontal clutter, not vertical space extravagance. We could probably stand some economy in terms of which regional pronunciations were displayed. (Eg, I recently saw a page with 3 Irish English pronunciations.) Default hiding of all phonetic-alphabet pronunciations with customizable display for all registered users or all JS-enabled users who opt in (by machine) would be swell. IMO the sole pronunciation features that ought to be visible by default at audio and homophones (which provides a way for users to resolve confusions they may have in find the right entry). DCDuring TALK 23:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, it does only address horizontal clutter, but doing so is an enabling step to reducing vertical clutter. Another important step would be deciding on a more concise format.  If you were to create a mockup, with some examples from pages with lots of pronunciation info, what they look like now, and what you think they should look like at first glance, that would help speed the process up.  You could just include dummy show hide buttons, if you were thinking about hideable content.  It doesn't have to actually work, just give something folks can discuss.  Ultimately, I would like to get us to the point where the user only sees the definitions, and subsequently has the option to drill for more information, should they desire it.  Conrad actually has a thing which does so, but such a change is, I think, a bit too radical for the community to accept all at once.  Henceforth, I have decided to approach that ultimate goal with baby steps.  It is a slow and tedious process, but I think it is the only feasible one, and the goal is worth the work involved.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If either of you use Chrome, it's worth installing or just looking at the screenshot for how someone with a good eye for design lays out our entries. It may be worth writing some javascript to hack away at the appearance of that play button so that we can fit it on one line comfortably (maybe even copy him and have no ugly indication that it is playing, it just "plays" when you click the button). Conrad.Irwin 01:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

 * An excellent idea (reformatting the button). That is a very clean and intelligible layout.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost all on-line dictionaries have more focus on definitions than we do; have more consistency of appearance across entries; and have more consistently good definitions. There task is easier than ours because of their monolingual focus. We have our strengths but need to narrow the gap in each of these areas, without losing the advantage of our multilingual capabilities and openness to users. The work that you guys are doing is outstanding. An incremental approach is almost certainly the only way to proceed that is consistent with the community. Your example is enough to make me want to revisit the idea of systematic incremental definition-quality improvement. DCDuring TALK 02:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

 * FYI, two good candidates for experimenting on Pronunciation section format are corps: and hello:. Both are English words with lots of information there, and both have various problems that rarely show up (in English), but which appear in spades on those two pages.  The entry for bread: is more typical, and another good candidtae. --EncycloPetey 03:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have created a heading with the number using acceleration, do you have any ideas how that might have happened? Conrad.Irwin 00:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

 * No idea, but I had noticed and corrected it once before in the last 2 days. I haven't been using it much for the last month or more. Possibly just these two instances. There may be a technical glitch. I use windows XP, FF 3.6.3 with Java SE 6 U7. DCDuring TALK 00:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Hrm, ok... I just don't even know how it can get the number - it doesn't look at the table of contents at all. I'll keep an eye out for it again. Conrad.Irwin 00:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. You have "auto number headings" turned on in Special:Preferences. I'll fix WT:EDIT, sorry for the noise. Conrad.Irwin 00:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem here. I'm still trying to get my two machines to behave. I've been tweaking this machine's preferences and sometimes revisiting my user preferences. DCDuring TALK 00:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Factory Mutual Research, FM Approvals, FM
Are these really dictionary material? Ironically you don't include FM Global, the name used on Wikipedia. ---> Tooironic 08:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know. DCDuring TALK 15:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Voting policy
Allowing Eclecticology to cast a late vote would be contrary to our conventions in every other vote. Moreover, since the voting page is protected, only admins are allowed to vote, which I presume you would consider to be an undemocratic restriction. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I didn't include him in any vote totals and I don't expect him to be. The fact that he was late is clearly indicated by the header I added. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 * In fairness, Conrad.Irwin (rightly) reverted me when I modified the vote after it had finished. Therefore, I'm on the side of Ivan here. If it was wrong for me, it's wrong for everyone else. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't know about the case you mention. DCDuring TALK 15:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Martin refers to this reversion.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I think what DCD was fair enough. If the point of a vote is to canvass opinion, then allowing latecomers to voice their own seems fair, without obviously letting it affect the count. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 15:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO put it on the talk page, not the main vote page. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree with DCD and Widsith: no harm letting the late-coming vote in the vote page itself, provided it is clearly marked as coming late. --Dan Polansky 16:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So other editors should be allowed to do the same thing? We'll have to unprotect the vote page. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The vote is over... if they want to express opinions there's the vote talk page, BP... there's no reason to allow late votes when the vote is over. The talk page does exist for a reason. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 16:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as an observation: we do allow late votes when it comes to user rights stuff. For the longest time we couldn't get 25 votes cast in time for CU and 'crat votes no matter how hard we tried.  Also late supports are pretty common when someone would have supported a sysop vote but did not see it in time.  Not saying this is a good or bad thing, but it is a common thing on en.wikt. -  16:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it? If you'd have it 'it was' I'd have agreed, I've noticed some admins voting late, realizing it and reverting themselves. Conrad's edit summary whilst reverting me was 'undo edits after the decision was made - let's be honest about the state the vote was in at the time...'. 'Nuff said. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested entries
I believe you misunderstand the purpose of these pages. They are not catalogs of missing entries; there are many such lists already in existence. They are pages intended to request entries that one personally needs. You also have neglected to notice the first sentence: "Think twice before adding long lists of words as they may be ignored." --EncycloPetey 23:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I find there are actually no entries here that I personally need in any language as there are many dictionaries that provide me with credible modern definitions. I am interested in filling in various gaps, but I am at a loss for how to fill in the gaps myself in this particular area in light of the insuperable difficulties that you have warned about. Others who were seeking to help seem to be in the same position. I was hoping at least to get some models, references, etc. Perhaps someone else less familiar with the Pengo lists will take an interest in these things. DCDuring TALK 01:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tended to overlook the Pengo lists for the time being. There are just so many basic words in Classical Latin that have inadequate entries, and even more that still lack entries.  Granted, there are some mainstream Classical words that turn up in species epithets as well, but most epithets are vanishingly rare in their use and/or transparent in their meaning if one knows the suffix that was added (e.g. yokohamensis).  So, I've tended to drop in on Pengo's lists only occasionally, and then to tackle only the most common epithets on the list. --EncycloPetey 03:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The ones I pulled are all the redlinks from the first page of Pengo. From looking at them, they seem to fall into a small number of basic types from my PoV: classical (palustris), geographic (celebensis), personal (walkeri), New Latin compounds (sacchiflorus ?), New Latin derivations from Greek (erithacus), mysteries to me (nanmu). Almost all are inflected forms.
 * If this somewhat Borgesian classification is not wholly unsatisfactory, I would like models of ideal entries for each. I could think of no one better than you to point me to such. If you cannot, can someone else? If neither, I can perhaps bootstrap the process by finding the best exemplars of each of these that I can or blunder through making one myself. The advantage from your PoV to having these entries is that there will be fewer redlinks that tempt users to create Translingual entries, which seem to excite needless controversy. DCDuring TALK 11:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, a classification such as yours does not consider part of speech or inflection pattern. Some epithets are adjectives, some are nouns, some are proper nouns, and some are participles.  Nor does it consider the complexities of the etymology section (which is going to be a key section for any words that don't exist in Classical Latin).  I generally have to research each one of these epithets individually, using several major dictionaries, published Renaissance maps in Latin (for the geography), and several other resources as well.  In some cases, a participle is attestable, but the root verb is not, or the particular participle may be post-Classical.  In some situations, a "noun" is actually a substantive use of an adjective.  In some cases, the epithet is constructed incorrectly according to the rules of Latin; with botanical names this necessitates a "correction" under the ICBN, and that information ought to be noted.  So, I can't offer a general solution or set of solutions, much as I'd like to. --EncycloPetey 05:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Could you direct me to any satisfactory entries of any of these types or, indeed, of any New Latin species epithets? DCDuring TALK 10:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:reference-journal
Any particular reason for this? I do seem to have been mistaken about WT:QUOTE -- I can't find it the relevant instructions in any revision of the page -- but putting the two parts of the date at opposite ends of the citation line seems odd. IMO the effect is not so good, see e.g. frankenword. -- Visviva 22:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All I recollect is that the change messed up something that I was looking at shortly after the change, but that you weren't around. Ah yes, the problem was with the issue= parameter not working as I thought it had. It seems to work only with the vol= parameter. The "maximum rock and roll" cite at transgender doesn't have a volume. DCDuring TALK 03:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

wt:RFD
Your weighing in on this would be much appreciated. —msh210℠ 16:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of redundancy. Matters of degree are not usually inherent in different senses of verbs or nouns. They are conveyed by stress, typography, and adjuncts.
 * There are also missing senses. I am not well-rested enough to face this now. Perhaps tomorrow. DCDuring TALK 18:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

kl verb forms
Hi there, thank you for cleaning up some of my Greenlandic contributions. I wasn't sure exactly how to categorise them as they weren't verbs exactly. So should I categorise everything as "Greenlandic verb forms" in the future? Apart from the infinitives/third person singular indicative. It's such a hard language to include in wiktionary because most of it is made up of affixes so often you'll have one or two word sentences. Should I make an affix category? But then how do you list them? For example the affix -aluar- (meaning 'though'), would I list it as aluar or -aluar- seeing as it doesn't stand as a word in its own right... I'm just generally confused. I don't want to make a mess of it! Thanks for your help. Jakeybean 11:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Sadly, I know nothing of Native American languages. Your terms appeared on a list of uncategorized terms. My changes put the entries into the appropriate language category. It is more likely to get attention from someone knowledgeable there. I am not at all certain about the right "part of speech", but it is adequate for initial placement in the absence of some other categories which Greenlandic contributors have agreed upon. Is there a form of the verb that is usually considered the "lemma" (dictionary form) in reference works for Greenlandic? That form should have in the inflection line. ("kl" is OK for "kal", I think)
 * From what you say it seems as if Greenlandic is an "Agglutinative language. So is Hungarian. Those interested in Hungarian have addressed the issue of affixes vs prepositions, I think. See WT:AHU and Category:User hu. You might also hunt down users who are knowledgeable about languages related to Greenlandic. DCDuring TALK 12:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Yeah the "lemma" is the third person singular indicative form. It gets more complex when you come to adjectives though, as adjectives don't exist as a separate concept. Adjectives are verbs also, if that makes sense. They're written in dictionaries as, for example, "is good" or "is hungry". So for the meantime I'm reluctant to include adjectives in wiktionary. I could either include the stem of the word and define it as an adjective, but include usage notes as to the nature of how they're used in context, or include the infinitive still categorising them as adjectives but providing example sentences for clarification. Though it's still not really a sufficient solution, but it will suffice until a decision can be made. And you're correct in saying it's agglutinative; it makes my brain explode a little bit. Jakeybean 12:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

junk drawer
Please consider the additional piece of evidence which I've added to the RfD discussion. bd2412 T 19:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you find the citations I have added for trash drawer to be sufficient. There are, of course, a trivial number of references to a trash drawer having the same meaning as a junk drawer. We could include this as an alternate sense (rare, possibly archaic). There also appears to be a sense specific to jewelers for a sort of drawer with a net or cloth in it, into which small pieces can be swept without getting lost. bd2412 T 19:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1866, The Popular Science Monthly, Vol. 188, p. 160:
 * The jeweler's apron slides out below the trash drawer. This is a shallow drawer with a canvas bottom. You pull it out when working with small parts...
 * Here is an example of a citation for this use. bd2412 T 19:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

WT:NOT
Thanks, I knew what I meant but I made a hash of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I didn't miss your point. There are some things that I don't try to do when I am tired. Also, it's a wiki, automatically getting other eyes involved on matters of interest. It's supposed to attract revision. DCDuring TALK 12:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

pleasey please
I would love your input at "Proposal for (toned) pinyin words" at BP. So far I've gotten very little response. Thanks. ---> Tooironic 08:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I know absolutely nothing about the subject. DCDuring 09:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All I require is someone to write a policy for it so that we can vote on it. All the relevant details are there. ---> Tooironic 13:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But I don't understand the first thing about it. You are asking for me to either learn a subject or risk embarrassing myself. If you want, I can review a draft you prepare. DCDuring 13:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

meant to
You wrote: "The British idiomatic usage be meant to (“to be obliged to”) does not belong at this entry." I'd say it's more lke "to be supposed to" ("you're cheating — you're only meant to move three squares on each turn!"; "he was meant to be here half an hour ago, but he's always late"). I suppose our sense at mean: ("to intend; to plan on doing") covers this, but I wonder whether we should have more. To me it's such an "atom" as to be almost like used to:, and we do in fact have an entry for supposed to:. Equinox ◑ 21:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 * +1 —Ruakh TALK 21:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Though IMHO our current [[mean]] doesn't adequately cover uses like “I meant it as a complement” or “I meant for it to be a surprise”, where the sense is “to intend”, but not “to plan on doing”. (I'm not sure if this means we need a new definition, or just improve the existing one.) —Ruakh TALK 21:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Depends on whether you take the ";" between sub-senses to mean "or" or "and", really. Equinox ◑ 22:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I take it to mean "or", but when the first part is as vague/ambiguous/polysemous/something as "to intend" is, I also take the second part as tending to clarify what we mean by the first. —Ruakh TALK 02:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 * You (Equinox) would know the actual definition-in-use better than me. Longmans DCE 1987 had it as a BritE run-in entry at "mean" using almost exactly your words. It is certainly not used in that sense in the US, which gives us sufficient reason to include it, IMO. The very least we could do as a good monolingual dictionary is keep track of regional differences in usage, which this looks to be. OTOH, I never had much trouble decoding it when I heard it, but I would probably have to be in ex-Commonwealth countries for at least a month before I would use it and maybe longer before I stopped using it in (subtly ?) wrong ways. It clearly comes from the "intend" sense of "mean" but seems to have picked up the sense of politely expressed (ie, not obligatory sounding) obligation, just like "supposed to".
 * Lately I have become less militant on SoP because there is almost always some halfway valid rationale for inclusion (usually sense or usage restriction).
 * I find improving definitions (especially for highly polysemic basic words) to be quite exhausting. I was wondering whether we should have a procedure for bringing such entries up to a high standard and then inviting a mass effort to translate the approved (and probably reworded and redivided) senses. I fear that some goodly amount of translation effort is being squandered on low-quality and even erroneous English definitions. I suppose that it would be necessary to pick some not-so-good, but not obviously bad entry and see whether such special efforts were warranted. I am loath to experiment with live entries because of the whining that can ensue if definitions are repartitioned. Only by doing a few of these would I feel capable of tackling some kind of definition style manual page. DCDuring TALK 22:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I reviewed Talk:supposed to. I can see that there was an overwhelming 2 (RS, EP) to 1 (DCD) keep for it, Ruakh seemingly not voting. DCDuring TALK 22:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Take the fall
Thanks for the note. I had seen that taking the fall was a redlink, so I didn't think to check for take the fall. I'm much more familiar with Wikipedia than here, so I didn't know how phrases were normally worded; I expected that the phrase would be found in the "taking" form. Curious, would it be appropriate to create "taking the fall" as a redirect for "take the fall"? I see at Redirections that redirects aren't typically created except for capitalisation; however, "taking the fall" is neither an error nor a likely term in some language other than English. Nyttend 05:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For one-word entries we try to use templates such as (en is ISO-639 code for English) to facilitate the creation of and linking to inflected forms. Some of us don't like to use such a template for longer idiomatic expressions like take the fall. See rain cats and dogs for the long resulting inflection lines. We rely on the ability of users to find the "lemma" forms in which the main entry information is kept. Your expectation that the "-ing form" would be an entry or at least a redirect shows the weakness of my preferred approach. What do you think? DCDuring TALK  11:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

left as an exercise for the reader
Not sure if you saw my response. (Please continue discussion there if anywhere. Thanks.) —msh210℠ (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Belove
Hello. I saw the edit to Etymology_2. I could only find one citation for belufian (Emerson) and one for bilufian (Peabody) for Old English, both of which look dubious. All of the sources I use do not have it. The form you have listed: bilufien is actually a Middle English form Leasnam 20:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I defer to you (and Widsith) in this arena. Probably either my sources were wrong or I misread them. DCDuring TALK 21:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

References headers misplaced
''Please take a close look at WT:ELE. Reference headers belong at the end of the language section, before the categories and interwiki links. DCDuring TALK 19:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)''
 * Thanks for the heads-up, DCDuring. I'll try to be more careful in future. But I'm a little confused. WT:ELE gives contradictory advice for the References heading. First (A very simple example), as a third-level heading at the very end. Then (Additional headings), as a fourth-level heading after translations and before external links (i.e. separate references for each part of speech). Eroica 16:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The logic (such as it is) is that the references section should appear at near the bottom of the highest level for which it has scope. That would be either an entire language section, an etymology, or a part of speech. When the scope is not apparent (It rarely is.), I put the reference at the bottom of the language section.
 * Almost everything at Wiktionary has evolved rather than been designed so the logic often has to be inferred. DCDuring TALK 16:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Citations:yahen
I didn't knew it is possible to creat a citations-page without a main-entry. Can you please check my edit at Citations:yahen? Is the conception of my edit basically correct? regards --WissensDürster 09:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note the minor changes. They still need an English translation and should be in date order. It is useful to know whether the word is still used today. Are there recent uses? DCDuring TALK 09:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It says to be an archaic word. But how to note this fact? The "quote-book"-template provides no space for a translation ... --WissensDürster 11:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. I will make the "archaic" change (which you can inspect) rather than explain it. There are two approaches I can think of for achieving the formatting of the translation of a citation. The easier is to simply insert the translation after (or its sister templates) with some wiki numbering/indentation.formatting markers, probably "#*:: ". The other would involve using  , which would require some experimentation to achieve the right result. HTH. DCDuring TALK  14:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. The entry isn't there yet. You should use to show archaic after the "#" on each definition line. DCDuring TALK  14:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I took a run at the easier of the two translations. I experimented and can't make the more experimental approach work. (Note in the translation: great hall.) DCDuring TALK 14:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: place
I did two things: 1) Added the Portuguese translations for each meaning 2) Deleted translations that refer to non-existant meanings, because people delete superfluous meanings but forget to eliminate their translations. I don't see how that's a controversial edit at all.... Missionary 09:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I think the main issue is the removal of so many translations. If the definition has been removed, I wonder if it might be more prudent to put the translations in a ttbc (translations to be checked) section, instead of removing them entirely.  It's entirely possible that the definition has been altered, and the translations are still valid, or something else entirely.  In any case, it's a lot of potentially good content to just remove in one go.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Okay. I will try to do that. Thank you. Missionary 09:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Atelaes. HTH, Missionary. Go, be careful, and correctify. DCDuring TALK 11:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Predeterminer
Some time ago you wrote, "Though we do have determiners, we don't have predeterminers as a PoS category." Some grammars to take predeterminers to be a distinct category, but I think it's better to analyze predeterminer modifier as a function. There are no words that are exclusively predeterminers, and adverbs and determiners seem to make up the bulk of them. There should, however, be entries for the relevant words showing their predeterminer use.--Brett 10:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have created numerous grammatical categories to supplement our basic PoSs. They are usually categories within PoS categories. See Category:English adverbs, for which I relied on CGEL. Do Quirk, Biber, or many textbook authors use "predeterminer" in their works? I am not happy with presenting something solely based on CGEL's treatment without reliable indication that such treatment has swept the field. DCDuring TALK 11:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Quirk et al 1985 and Sinclair 1990 (Collins Cobuild Eng Gr), both have a predeterminer category. Those are the only two I know of. Traditionally, of course, there is no predeterminer POS.--Brett 12:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It just occurred to me that you might think CGEL takes predeterminer to be a category. It doesn't. It's short for predeterminer modifier, a function.--Brett 12:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How would you suggest we show predeterminer use in an entry? I think we would benefit from the category. DCDuring TALK 14:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd just exemplify it, since the meaning is typically already covered. For example with rather, it would fall under sense 5. We could then add an example like That's rather more than last time. Here's what the Cambridge dict thinks are predeterminers (it's messy, but...). And here's LDOCE's list (again, needs parsing).--Brett 14:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:DCDuring/2010 QII


text: Category:ast:Spain

title: Category:ast:Spain