text:
User talk:DCDuring/2017

=2017=

Creation of a new template
Hi DCDuring, I have a question. I created this new template along with a documentation page used for a conjugation table of the German verb "senden" by copying this template of the German verb "wenden" that shows the same irregular conjugation pattern. This newly created template works fine as you can see here: zusenden. I wonder, however, whether something is missing that might cause some kind of difficulty. So my question now is: Did I do anything wrong or is this sufficient?--91.61.124.170 13:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * All I can do is take a superficial look, not being at all conversant with inflection templates. It looks OK. Try a couple of the DE-N, DE-5, or DE-4 Users for a more cogent review. DCDuring TALK 13:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot.--91.61.124.170 13:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Fox entries
I created entries for Dutch names of fox species in Category:nl:Foxes, also some in Category:nl:Canids (for those that are not true foxes). I noticed many of the English words are redlinks, so if you want to make entries for them...? —CodeCat 14:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Translations in Translingual taxonomic entries
Is adding Translations to Translingual taxonomic entries an accepted practice? —suzukaze (t・c) 04:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. WT:EL contains the rule "Translations should be given in English entries, and also in Translingual entries for taxonomic names.", which was voted and approved in Votes/pl-2016-01/Translations of taxonomic names. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —suzukaze (t・c) 04:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What about |en\|%2F&title=Special:Search "translations into English"? —suzukaze (t・c) 05:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think translations into English are fine. I don't remember any explicit consensus/proposal/vote/discussion to allow them, but they seem a natural thing to have in Translingual sections, if the translation table exists in the first place. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Keeping an eye on votes
Greetings. As for "I wonder why no one brought this vote to my attention or noticed the widespread use", I think watching WT:VOTES is a must. The required minimum practice is to check WT:VOTES and its proposals at least once a month.

By the way, thank you for your late oppose in Votes/2017-03/"External sources", "External links", "Further information" or "Further reading". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * More to the substance: I think editors might accept a proposal to use "Further information" heading for taxonomic entries. I for one think that External links was the best heading overall, but editors at large disagreed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * One might argue that if the source contains words, then the user has to read the words. That is to say, even perusing a bullet list of items would be reading. One kind of source that would not be read in any way would be image-only database. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course it's on my watchlist. But votes often make my eyes glaze over. Of course, too, there is a definition of read that suits the desired meaning, but it is not the most common one and indeed is not normally applied to dictionaries or databases. It's a choice of words that indicates that native speakers are not much at work in enwikt. DCDuring (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In Votes/2017-03/"External sources", "External links", "Further information" or "Further reading", I count 7 native speakers in the support rubric for Further reading; I count 3 non-native speakers. --Dan Polansky (:::talk) 20:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could use "Taxonomic databases" as a new heading. Even though I prefer "Further reading", which is a great heading name for links to databases. But I see DCDuring thinks differently. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * When I look at Google Books "read|reads|reading a database" only about 10 of the approximately 50 hits that had a preview were from books that were not books in areas of computing. Sadly, it was not possible to see specifically how the expression was being used in any of those works. When the word read is used I guess most folks here have adopted the stance of a computer program with respect to its meaning. That is, they are adopting a word usage differing from that of "normal" users, this time because they have some intimate familiarity with computer programming (not computer use, which is much more widespread, of course). DCDuring (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

 * I suppose that the best header for the items included formerly under External links is "References", not "Further reading." The important content for Wiktionary is the correspondence or lack thereof to the semantic relations and definitions included in the entry. The "reading" content is mostly incidental. Even if it were not, I can't see any good from having both "References" and "Further reading" in our already heading-heavy entries. I wish that footnoted references did not appear in a way so distinct from other references. I am sure that our technical mavens will resolve this sometime in this millennium, possibly even this decade. DCDuring (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Why "References"? I'm not saying it's a good or bad idea. I'm just asking why. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I gave my reason above. The taxonomic references (See Category:Translingual reference templates, which contains mostly items from the category fka Taxonomic reference templates (another infuriating bit of harassment from CodeCat).) support semantic relations in or to be included in the entry or show alternative, mostly obsolete, semantic relations and definitions of the taxa. DCDuring (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that already fit the use of "References" as described in WT:EL anyway? That would mean you can use "References" according to the voted policy. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone has thoughtfully inserted 6,222 "Additional readings" headings where there were 6,222 "See also" and "External links" headers in Translingual entries. I think there are probably many more such poorly selected headings added in English entries. DCDuring (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Rollback of just like
The rollback was inappropriate, because you deleted the RFD tag when the RFD discussion had just started. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about removing the RfD. I wss in a snit about the other changes you had made and didn't take appropriate care. BTE, see Talk:like for MWOnline's definitions of like Preposition. They have seven to our one. DCDuring (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Sarcasm
I for one would appreciate if you could reduce the use of sarcasm. In me, it creates unpleasant emotions; I often feel a strong urge to write something angry in response, but luckily, I usually resist the temptation. I believe an excessive use of sarcasm is basically incivil insofar as it contributes to inflamming the conversation while contributing no substance to it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose passive-aggressive is the preferred means of (non)communication. DCDuring (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any specific instances in mind? DCDuring (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A recent item is this: 'Someone has thoughtfully inserted 6,222 "Additional readings" headings'; obviously, you do not think it was thoughtful yet you say "thoughtfully". (In fact, those were "Further reading" headings.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't that if I said "thoughtlessly" that it would have been an improvement. DCDuring (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be an improvement. The pragmatic meaning of the "thoughtfully" sarcasm is "thoughlessly" anyway, so it would at least be plain and honest. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Personally, I'd prefer a little more sarcasm. But make sure to put the text in green when doing so. --WF back from hols (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Annelida Hypernyms
You subst'ed this template at Myzostomida and Template:Myzostomida Hypernyms but it does not exist. —suzukaze (t・c) 22:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I had misspelled the name ( "ll" for "l") and didn't check what I'd done. Thanks. DCDuring (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

rhombus
Conus is not a fish. It's a snail, some species of which eat fish by firing venomous darts at them. Is Rhombus, the flatfish, an invalid homonym of the subgenus of Conus? PierreAbbat (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me check etc. DCDuring (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The flatfish is now . The remaining question is how is rhombus actually used to refer to the snail, the flatfish, neither, or both.
 * Thanks for asking. DCDuring (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See [[Rhombus]]. DCDuring (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

山芋
Could you fix the formatting error in sense 6 when you get the time? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ DCDuring (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

germanicus
Dear DCDuring, regarding your comment "If you want to challenge it, this is how (hit the "+" and provide a rationale) if not please remove the RfD template".

Thank you, but I know how RFD and RFV work. I didn't intend to RFD this or a similar term (at least now because of a lack of time). My intention was to revert some removals of attestable terms (which were removed without using WT:RFV or WT:RFD). The meaning "German" of "germanicus" is attestable (e.g. in "lingua germanica" = "the German language"), and it's more general and hence more important than the biological usage of this sense "to indicate that a species was discovered or is common in Germany". BTW: English uses the word "German" similary in German Shepherd, German cockroach, German Rex, German chamomile, German measles, German Autumn but the entry German doesn't have senses like "(biology) used to indicate that a species was discovered or is common in Germany", "(medicine) used to indicate that disease was discovered or is common in Germany", "(politics) used to indicate that a political event happened in Germany". -84.161.15.91 02:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As you are not registered and your IP address has few edits, I wondered whether you were visiting from another project that didn't have the same procedures or at least the same templates. I don't mind your presentation, though the more common one has the non-gloss definition (templated to show italics and so that such definitions can readily be found) starting the definition and the meaning, eg, "German", thereafter. I have long campaigned against the waste of vertical screen space, so IMO the one-line format is to be preferred to your 2.x line format. DCDuring (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Message in Template:taxlink
I realize I did not explain things very well. The message you added to in  will display for all users. So I went and it, so that it will not display by default. This is what I meant by "placing the CSS in the HTML tag", which I realize I did not explain. I changed the class name used to identify the message. Now you will have to add the CSS code above to your common.css to get the message to display again.

You can revert me if that's not what you wanted. It may not be necessary to hide the message since now it gives instructions on what to do. — Eru·tuon 22:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My thought was that it wasn't so bad to display it for all. I could leave it until someone complains. It took a couple years before there were any complaints about "=>". DCDuring (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I undid it. If someone undoes my undo there can be a further discussion. DCDuring (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I could either:
 * replace the instructions with "=>" in the preview only text or
 * hide it from everyone who does not have the line above in their custom.css.
 * The second option is a bit too concealed. DCDuring (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In general, I prefer error messages that are easier to understand, so I think the longer message is an improvement over the arrow thingy. You're probably right that it doesn't need to be hidden. — Eru·tuon 02:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Again, thanks. Your are wise to check what I do as my understanding of CSS and JS, and even HTML and templates, is minimal. DCDuring (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Entries using missing taxonomic name (species)
Hi there. I couldn't help noticing that there are over 11,000 entries in this category. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I only add a name when there are multiple hits for it. Now the threshold for species is SEVEN hits. I have a higher priority (lower threshold) for the principal higher ranks, phyla, classes, orders, and families. See User:DCDuring/MissingTaxa. DCDuring (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

template:PL
Can't find any documentation - "i=1" ? Does it indicate image present? Perhaps not! — Salt  marsh. 10:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It selects display in italics. Not useful for much except generic and subgeneric taxonomic names.
 * Thanks for working on organism names. At User:DCDuring/MissingTaxa you may find some that are of interest to you and frequently linked to from entries. DCDuring (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers - I'm going through the Greek bird names I can find - but even English names for birds and fish are variable! —  Salt  marsh . 17:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can find any sources that give taxonomic names, that would be very helpful. Of course, some names will apply to more than one species, and taxonomic names tend to change over the years, but I would be happy to help sort that out. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Birdwatchers produce checklists galore, in addition to the more definitive sites.
 * You might find the following useful:
 * Avibase useful, though Greek is not among the 20 European languages that it supports.
 * Birds of Greece.
 * Multilingual European Bird Dictionary has 543 species with Greek equivalents (I think).
 * Birdwing has a list of heterogeneous links that may have something.
 * HTH. DCDuring (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks - although expect the interest may wane - I shall just have to remember to return occasionally!
 * and do I gather that species are italicised but not taxonomic terms? — Salt  marsh . 14:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Genera and all subgeneric names are italicized, but not "subg.", "subsp.", "var.", "sect.", "subsect.", etc. handles all that. It can be substed if it is redundant, but then a lot of spurious stuff has to be cleaned out in the edit window. DCDuring (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Really old swiftboat edit
Hey, this really old diff on swiftboat changed the etymology. As far as I can tell the old etymology applies to the political sense, perhaps not the scam sense. Does that sound right to you? I can split the entry into two sections if it does, but I wanted to make sure you didn't have other reasons for removing the old etymology. - TheDaveRoss  15:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. In retrospect, my mistake. Not too long after that time I came to think that we often don't give enough attention to "sense development" or to explaining no-longer-live metaphors, such as rural/agricultural ones, the sense of which often seems to elude urban speakers.
 * Also, I wonder whether the scam sense would be attestable. Since the political sense is actually something like "slander", given the specifics of the original case, the scam sense seems less than likely. DCDuring (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

nutela
Hey! nutela comes from Nutella. I think there was a category for these kind of genericised names here...--P5Nd2 (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

 * There's "Genericized trademarks". Not sure if that applies when the word has actually mutated from its original form. Probably. Equinox ◑ 19:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

at みょうが?
I finally noticed that you'd added an rft to the entry. Do you remember what you wanted to talk about? There's some additional detail in the senses at the lemma entry. Perhaps that addresses your question?

Curious, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. I forgot why I originally asked, but the combination of the plant and "dimwit" on the same definition line seem weird to me now, so that was probably my problem then. Why are different definitions combined like that? DCDuring (talk)

 * For non-lemma entries intended as soft redirects, disambigs even, it's a tricky question -- providing no gloss does users a disservice, as does providing only one gloss for multi-definition terms. So over the years, I took to providing simplified glosses as a list, separated by semicolons, as I had seen others do occasionally for links to entries in other languages.  Trying to find a balance between usability and elegance, basically.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that it was a non-lemma entry. But it is in the lemma category. DCDuring (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ya, all of the kana-only entries appear to be so categorized. I'm not sure how or why that's so.  Some kana-only entries are lemmata, but in most cases, the kana-only entries are soft redirects to spellings that include kanji.  C.f., , , etc.
 * Another good point that your experience brings up -- apparently doesn't give a clear enough indication that the user should refer to the linked lemma form.  I've wondered about that before, but I'm not sure how to improve things.  Any ideas?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm accustomed only to the approach taken for inflected forms and alternative forms in some Indo-European languages, which have no definition other than the specification of their inflected form and a link to the lemma. If the kana and kanji entries are fairly completely alternative systems with some users preferring on and some the other, maybe they should both be lemmas, with cross-references. Perhaps the definitions should be in separate pages for transclusion so the definitions remain complete for both, if that reflects reality. I notice that some Chinese pages are (in part?) transcluded into others. Perhaps that offers a model. I'll see if I can find an example on my watchlist or recent changes. DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 南沙參 is a page that is transcluded in other Chinese pages. See what links here. I don't have any knowledge that would tell me whether that is very relevant to the situation in Japanese. DCDuring (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

spark plug
good morning. i believe we're missing a figurative meaning, see merriam webster: "one that initiates or gives impetus to an undertaking". thank you. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:F031:62F8:23B7:FCB8 10:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * hello, i've taken a stab at spark plug but i don't speak english, can you review it.
 * im confused by the 9th definition of the conjunction as ("(now England, US, regional) Functioning as a relative conjunction; that."). the 2016 example is not good i think, its not a relative conjunction there. what do you think of "you can't kill a man for lying to protect them as was his brothers." --2A02:2788:A4:F44:318D:E7D1:3F58:A1F2 13:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seeing as (or as how) you don't speak English, I appreciate your effort at spark plug.
 * Note that prior sentence uses as in the same way as the citations for def. 9 do. A relative conjunction is defined to be one that introduces a relative clause. "(How) you don't speak English" is such a clause. Your example adds the grammatical mistake of using was instead of were, making the example extra hard to understand. In these uses as can be replaced by that. DCDuring (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you. i disagree that "(how) you don't speak English" is a relative clause: for me there is difference between "the thing that you want isn't the thing that i want" (relative "that") and "the fact that you don't speak english doesn't change anything: you will be treated as everyone else" (subordinating "that"). better examples for 9th def would be where "as" can be replaced by "who", because it's unambiguous. sorry i dont have capitals. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:7950:9F6C:B6D3:8FA4 18:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you. i disagree that "(how) you don't speak English" is a relative clause: for me there is difference between "the thing that you want isn't the thing that i want" (relative "that") and "the fact that you don't speak english doesn't change anything: you will be treated as everyone else" (subordinating "that"). better examples for 9th def would be where "as" can be replaced by "who", because it's unambiguous. sorry i dont have capitals. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:7950:9F6C:B6D3:8FA4 18:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

raise one's hand
This is an old (2008) entry of yours. Would you consider expanding it a bit to indicate whether these senses are figurative or literal? I can imagine a school class where one raises one's hand to indicate that one is volunteering but I'm not sure whether you meant something else. Equinox ◑ 18:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant some "figurative" or, better, communicative uses, but I don't know whether they would be attestable. The use of this in books is of two types: one about a motion for a non-communicative purpose (raised his hand to shield his eyes from the glare), the other for communicating some intention, the exact nature of the gesture and its meaning being determined by context (eg, "volunteer", "seek permission to do do something, eg, speak", "threaten"). "Literal" and "figurative" don't correspond to this distinction. I am not sure that any of these possible meanings of the gesture are meanings of the expression. I am not sure whether this case differs from give the finger/give someone the finger and still less how to characterize the difference. DCDuring (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

parse
Hello. Is this verb ambitransitive? I'm pretty sure it can be transitive ("How do you parse this sentence?"), but can it be intransitive (does the sentence "This sentence doesn't parse." parse?) as well? --Barytonesis (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * . [News Archive doesn't link properly anymore.] DCDuring (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of an old argument I had with Rua (née CodeCat) re: the label.  There is confusion in discussions about how this concept applies to English, in that the "transitive / intransitive" distinction in English grammars is primarily a syntactic one, while the "ergative" construction inherently involves the semantics of the verb.
 * in this sentence doesn't parse meets my understanding of an . This differs importantly from our definition at [[Appendix:Glossary]], which appears (to me) to get caught up in the syntax without considering the semantics.  To wit: an  in English is one where the underlying meaning of the verb requires an object, and that object is used syntactically as the subject, with the agent of the verb generally left unstated.  In this sentence doesn't parse, we understand that someone (i.e. a person) is doing the parsing, and that the sentence itself is the object of that parsing.  Likewise for this egg cooks up nicely, or this car handles poorly, and similar constructions.
 * FWIW, a syntactically intransitive and unergative use of would be something like the code interpreter parses. → the object is left unstated (presumably "source code"), and the syntactic subject is not the semantic object of the verb.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I believe that most (all?) semantically transitive English verbs can be used with ergative syntax. I.e., I don't see any utility in having any  label.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For the sentence above, 'sentence' is semantically the patient, whether it is the subject or the object grammatically. I think that makes for ergativity. In contrast a verb like 'hammer' does not allow a patient to be subject. That is, some verbs are ergative and some not — or so it seems to me 10 minutes before I fall asleep. DCDuring (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, thank you! That was the word I was missing -- is what I was calling the semantic object.
 * And re:, why not these nails don't hammer in straight? The "nails" here are both syntactic subject and semantic patient, which would seem to meet the criteria for an ergative use of the verb. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right about hammer. Hence, my dormitive sleepiness disclaimer. DCDuring (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder if statives are exceptions. I can't think of good examples though. The ergative *This idea doesn't understand easily doesn't work, but the transitive version ?I don't understand this idea easily (= I find it difficult to understand this) may not either. — Eru·tuon 22:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to characterize the distinction between verbs that do operate ergatively and those that don't. Consider:
 * He grasps the hammer clumsily
 * ? The hammer grasps clumsily.
 * He handles the hammer clumsily.
 * The hammer handles clumsily.
 * To me, the difference seems to lie in the difference in the range of other meanings of grasp and handle, which somehow lets handle but not grasp be ergative. DCDuring (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * wrote an article (in The Structure of Complex Words) (1951) on dictionaries. The article seemed to argue against isolated definitions, because the range of meanings can influence each individual use of a word, even across parts of speech for homonyms. (Also homophones?) DCDuring (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If I understood that well, there are three uses to consider:
 * transitive (syntactic subject = semantic agent, syntactic object = semantic patient)
 * intransitive 1 (syntactic subject = semantic agent, syntactic object/semantic patient implied or absent)
 * intransitive 2 (syntactic subject = semantic patient)
 * A standard ambitransitive verb has transitive and intransitive 1 uses: : transitive ("I heard a sound from outside the window.") and intransitive 1 ("I was deaf, and now I can hear.")
 * An ergative verb has (at least) transitive and intransitive 2 uses (are there even verbs which only have transitive and intransitive 2 uses to the exclusion of intransitive 1?).
 * would have all three uses: transitive ("Hans translated my novel into Welsh"), intransitive 1 ("Hans translated for us while we were in Marrakesh.") and intransitive 2 ("That idiom doesn't really translate.").
 * Would you agree? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a reasonable analysis. Thinking about your question, given the way English works (where objects can be omitted from a sentence), I can't think of any examples of verbs that have intransitive 2 senses (ergative) but no intransitive 1 senses.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's a correct summary (ignoring any verb whose arguments don't fall into the categories of semantic agent and patient). I believe that intransitive 1 is sometimes called unergative and intransitive 2 unaccusative. This is odd terminology, but it means that the subject could theoretically, semantically speaking, be assigned ergative or accusative, respectively (if the syntax of the clause is ergative–absolutive or nominative–accusative) – under the assumption that the ergative is meant to mark the more agent-like argument and the accusative the more patient-like one – but is not. So, an ergative verb can be used transitively or unergatively, an accusative verb transitively or unaccusatively. I don't know if there's a term for a verb that can be used transitively, unergatively, or unaccusatively.
 * I think break can't be used unergatively: I break easily means it is easy for me to be broken, not that it is easy for me to break things. But I could be wrong. — Eru·tuon 20:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What about "he breaks well" in this Baltimore Sun article:

He chased last out but could have the upper-hand if he breaks well.
 * From the context about horse racing, I assume the breaks here is in reference to -- but I'm not that up on horse racing.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems to be an inherently intransitive meaning of break. I don't know if it's unergative or unaccusative, or whether it counts as a counterexample, because its meaning is so different. — Eru·tuon 00:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

199.212.251.18
Hello, could you look at 'reverse rape' please. Thank you. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In the absence of reliable authority, ie, another dictionary that has it, there is no substitute for citations. Urban dictionary has a variety of definitions, many broadly similar to ours. There manrape is advanced as a synonym. DCDuring (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * . (News portion doesn't work.) Although there are many usages that don't quite fit our definition, it fits most usage. BTW, manrape doesn't seem to have nearly as much use and may not be attestable from Google Books. DCDuring (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

 * I have added some book cites, some from academia. Equinox ◑ 09:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Science hot words
I think you might have proposed something like this, hence bringing it to your talk page. We now have a "hot word" system that works well overall, but is lacking when it comes to some scientific words. A new element, for example, is so notable that it will work its way into durable media quickly and the hot word status will tide it over until then. But what about something obscure: a new species of beetle, or a new mineral? I am currently bothered by the case of davidsmithite, a mineral that was just named but is so rare and obscure that it is not likely to meet CFI for many years hence despite being, well, the only name for it and the only name that people will use in the future for it. I think this could be an important inclusionist push, but I'm not even sure it is necessarily a wise one. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 08:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that not all new scientific words are important additions to Wiktionary, even after they meet our attestation standards. Species names of macrofauna and pathogens are an important set of words we should cover, probably as soon as they appear in newspapers, if not sooner. I have subscribed to several science news aggregators to see what might be trending, but I haven't followed through, even to test whether my sources would produce many entries.
 * I remain focused on the backlog of missing taxonomic names, especially those which already appear in non-Translingual definitions(!) or in etymologies and image captions (including in Translingual entries). Equinox is working on the backlog of mineral names. Other underrepresented items are geological strata and time periods.
 * It would probably be best if someone else took charge of scientific hotwords. At present I am the only one who cares enough about taxa to have systematized them. That effort consumes most of the time I can devote to Wiktionary. The approach I've taken gives me relatively little to contribute to scientific hotwords in general, though I'd be happy to support the effort, especially with respect to taxonomic names. DCDuring (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

bonytongue and arowana
I just created these fish entries based on Wikipedia, but they seem sort of inconsistent re hyponyms and which family is which. Are you able to fix? Thanks. Equinox ◑ 09:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Inconsistency is unavoidable if you are accurate about usage. Usage is the problem.
 * So far, I have created [[Osteoglossidae]] and expanded [[arowana]]. There is a fair amount still to do. In general, the mapping between vernacular names and taxonomic names is many-to-many. The referent of a vernacular name is often very unclear, though it can be assumed that it is almost always an organism found where the language is spoken. For English, it helps to know whether the vernacular name is used in UK, Canada, US, Australia, NZ, India, or elsewhere, so that a local species can be associated with it. DCDuring (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Archiving
Hello DCDuring. Do you approve of my archiving endeavour? --2A02:2788:A4:F44:11FD:8514:F4C1:3A2 16:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If what you are doing is getting discussions from RfV, RfD, TR, etc onto entry talk pages, you are doing God's work. Keep it up. DCDuring (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:DCDuring/2017


text:
User:DCDuring/2017

Creation of a new template
Hi DCDuring, I have a question. I created this new template along with a documentation page used for a conjugation table of the German verb "senden" by copying this template of the German verb "wenden" that shows the same irregular conjugation pattern. This newly created template works fine as you can see here: zusenden. I wonder, however, whether something is missing that might cause some kind of difficulty. So my question now is: Did I do anything wrong or is this sufficient?--91.61.124.170 13:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * All I can do is take a superficial look, not being at all conversant with inflection templates. It looks OK. Try a couple of the DE-N, DE-5, or DE-4 Users for a more cogent review. DCDuring TALK 13:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot.--91.61.124.170 13:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Fox entries
I created entries for Dutch names of fox species in Category:nl:Foxes, also some in Category:nl:Canids (for those that are not true foxes). I noticed many of the English words are redlinks, so if you want to make entries for them...? —CodeCat 14:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Translations in Translingual taxonomic entries
Is adding Translations to Translingual taxonomic entries an accepted practice? —suzukaze (t・c) 04:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. WT:EL contains the rule "Translations should be given in English entries, and also in Translingual entries for taxonomic names.", which was voted and approved in Votes/pl-2016-01/Translations of taxonomic names. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —suzukaze (t・c) 04:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What about |en\|%2F&title=Special:Search "translations into English"? —suzukaze (t・c) 05:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think translations into English are fine. I don't remember any explicit consensus/proposal/vote/discussion to allow them, but they seem a natural thing to have in Translingual sections, if the translation table exists in the first place. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Keeping an eye on votes
Greetings. As for "I wonder why no one brought this vote to my attention or noticed the widespread use", I think watching WT:VOTES is a must. The required minimum practice is to check WT:VOTES and its proposals at least once a month.

By the way, thank you for your late oppose in Votes/2017-03/"External sources", "External links", "Further information" or "Further reading". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * More to the substance: I think editors might accept a proposal to use "Further information" heading for taxonomic entries. I for one think that External links was the best heading overall, but editors at large disagreed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * One might argue that if the source contains words, then the user has to read the words. That is to say, even perusing a bullet list of items would be reading. One kind of source that would not be read in any way would be image-only database. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course it's on my watchlist. But votes often make my eyes glaze over. Of course, too, there is a definition of read that suits the desired meaning, but it is not the most common one and indeed is not normally applied to dictionaries or databases. It's a choice of words that indicates that native speakers are not much at work in enwikt. DCDuring (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In Votes/2017-03/"External sources", "External links", "Further information" or "Further reading", I count 7 native speakers in the support rubric for Further reading; I count 3 non-native speakers. --Dan Polansky (:::talk) 20:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could use "Taxonomic databases" as a new heading. Even though I prefer "Further reading", which is a great heading name for links to databases. But I see DCDuring thinks differently. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * When I look at Google Books "read|reads|reading a database" only about 10 of the approximately 50 hits that had a preview were from books that were not books in areas of computing. Sadly, it was not possible to see specifically how the expression was being used in any of those works. When the word read is used I guess most folks here have adopted the stance of a computer program with respect to its meaning. That is, they are adopting a word usage differing from that of "normal" users, this time because they have some intimate familiarity with computer programming (not computer use, which is much more widespread, of course). DCDuring (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

 * I suppose that the best header for the items included formerly under External links is "References", not "Further reading." The important content for Wiktionary is the correspondence or lack thereof to the semantic relations and definitions included in the entry. The "reading" content is mostly incidental. Even if it were not, I can't see any good from having both "References" and "Further reading" in our already heading-heavy entries. I wish that footnoted references did not appear in a way so distinct from other references. I am sure that our technical mavens will resolve this sometime in this millennium, possibly even this decade. DCDuring (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Why "References"? I'm not saying it's a good or bad idea. I'm just asking why. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I gave my reason above. The taxonomic references (See Category:Translingual reference templates, which contains mostly items from the category fka Taxonomic reference templates (another infuriating bit of harassment from CodeCat).) support semantic relations in or to be included in the entry or show alternative, mostly obsolete, semantic relations and definitions of the taxa. DCDuring (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that already fit the use of "References" as described in WT:EL anyway? That would mean you can use "References" according to the voted policy. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone has thoughtfully inserted 6,222 "Additional readings" headings where there were 6,222 "See also" and "External links" headers in Translingual entries. I think there are probably many more such poorly selected headings added in English entries. DCDuring (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Rollback of just like
The rollback was inappropriate, because you deleted the RFD tag when the RFD discussion had just started. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about removing the RfD. I wss in a snit about the other changes you had made and didn't take appropriate care. BTE, see Talk:like for MWOnline's definitions of like Preposition. They have seven to our one. DCDuring (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Sarcasm
I for one would appreciate if you could reduce the use of sarcasm. In me, it creates unpleasant emotions; I often feel a strong urge to write something angry in response, but luckily, I usually resist the temptation. I believe an excessive use of sarcasm is basically incivil insofar as it contributes to inflamming the conversation while contributing no substance to it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose passive-aggressive is the preferred means of (non)communication. DCDuring (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any specific instances in mind? DCDuring (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A recent item is this: 'Someone has thoughtfully inserted 6,222 "Additional readings" headings'; obviously, you do not think it was thoughtful yet you say "thoughtfully". (In fact, those were "Further reading" headings.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't that if I said "thoughtlessly" that it would have been an improvement. DCDuring (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be an improvement. The pragmatic meaning of the "thoughtfully" sarcasm is "thoughlessly" anyway, so it would at least be plain and honest. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Personally, I'd prefer a little more sarcasm. But make sure to put the text in green when doing so. --WF back from hols (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Annelida Hypernyms
You subst'ed this template at Myzostomida and Template:Myzostomida Hypernyms but it does not exist. —suzukaze (t・c) 22:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I had misspelled the name ( "ll" for "l") and didn't check what I'd done. Thanks. DCDuring (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

rhombus
Conus is not a fish. It's a snail, some species of which eat fish by firing venomous darts at them. Is Rhombus, the flatfish, an invalid homonym of the subgenus of Conus? PierreAbbat (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me check etc. DCDuring (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The flatfish is now . The remaining question is how is rhombus actually used to refer to the snail, the flatfish, neither, or both.
 * Thanks for asking. DCDuring (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See [[Rhombus]]. DCDuring (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

山芋
Could you fix the formatting error in sense 6 when you get the time? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ DCDuring (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

germanicus
Dear DCDuring, regarding your comment "If you want to challenge it, this is how (hit the "+" and provide a rationale) if not please remove the RfD template".

Thank you, but I know how RFD and RFV work. I didn't intend to RFD this or a similar term (at least now because of a lack of time). My intention was to revert some removals of attestable terms (which were removed without using WT:RFV or WT:RFD). The meaning "German" of "germanicus" is attestable (e.g. in "lingua germanica" = "the German language"), and it's more general and hence more important than the biological usage of this sense "to indicate that a species was discovered or is common in Germany". BTW: English uses the word "German" similary in German Shepherd, German cockroach, German Rex, German chamomile, German measles, German Autumn but the entry German doesn't have senses like "(biology) used to indicate that a species was discovered or is common in Germany", "(medicine) used to indicate that disease was discovered or is common in Germany", "(politics) used to indicate that a political event happened in Germany". -84.161.15.91 02:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As you are not registered and your IP address has few edits, I wondered whether you were visiting from another project that didn't have the same procedures or at least the same templates. I don't mind your presentation, though the more common one has the non-gloss definition (templated to show italics and so that such definitions can readily be found) starting the definition and the meaning, eg, "German", thereafter. I have long campaigned against the waste of vertical screen space, so IMO the one-line format is to be preferred to your 2.x line format. DCDuring (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Message in Template:taxlink
I realize I did not explain things very well. The message you added to in  will display for all users. So I went and it, so that it will not display by default. This is what I meant by "placing the CSS in the HTML tag", which I realize I did not explain. I changed the class name used to identify the message. Now you will have to add the CSS code above to your common.css to get the message to display again.

You can revert me if that's not what you wanted. It may not be necessary to hide the message since now it gives instructions on what to do. — Eru·tuon 22:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My thought was that it wasn't so bad to display it for all. I could leave it until someone complains. It took a couple years before there were any complaints about "=>". DCDuring (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I undid it. If someone undoes my undo there can be a further discussion. DCDuring (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I could either:
 * replace the instructions with "=>" in the preview only text or
 * hide it from everyone who does not have the line above in their custom.css.
 * The second option is a bit too concealed. DCDuring (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In general, I prefer error messages that are easier to understand, so I think the longer message is an improvement over the arrow thingy. You're probably right that it doesn't need to be hidden. — Eru·tuon 02:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Again, thanks. Your are wise to check what I do as my understanding of CSS and JS, and even HTML and templates, is minimal. DCDuring (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Entries using missing taxonomic name (species)
Hi there. I couldn't help noticing that there are over 11,000 entries in this category. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I only add a name when there are multiple hits for it. Now the threshold for species is SEVEN hits. I have a higher priority (lower threshold) for the principal higher ranks, phyla, classes, orders, and families. See User:DCDuring/MissingTaxa. DCDuring (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

template:PL
Can't find any documentation - "i=1" ? Does it indicate image present? Perhaps not! — Salt  marsh. 10:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It selects display in italics. Not useful for much except generic and subgeneric taxonomic names.
 * Thanks for working on organism names. At User:DCDuring/MissingTaxa you may find some that are of interest to you and frequently linked to from entries. DCDuring (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers - I'm going through the Greek bird names I can find - but even English names for birds and fish are variable! —  Salt  marsh . 17:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can find any sources that give taxonomic names, that would be very helpful. Of course, some names will apply to more than one species, and taxonomic names tend to change over the years, but I would be happy to help sort that out. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Birdwatchers produce checklists galore, in addition to the more definitive sites.
 * You might find the following useful:
 * Avibase useful, though Greek is not among the 20 European languages that it supports.
 * Birds of Greece.
 * Multilingual European Bird Dictionary has 543 species with Greek equivalents (I think).
 * Birdwing has a list of heterogeneous links that may have something.
 * HTH. DCDuring (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks - although expect the interest may wane - I shall just have to remember to return occasionally!
 * and do I gather that species are italicised but not taxonomic terms? — Salt  marsh . 14:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Genera and all subgeneric names are italicized, but not "subg.", "subsp.", "var.", "sect.", "subsect.", etc. handles all that. It can be substed if it is redundant, but then a lot of spurious stuff has to be cleaned out in the edit window. DCDuring (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Really old swiftboat edit
Hey, this really old diff on swiftboat changed the etymology. As far as I can tell the old etymology applies to the political sense, perhaps not the scam sense. Does that sound right to you? I can split the entry into two sections if it does, but I wanted to make sure you didn't have other reasons for removing the old etymology. - TheDaveRoss  15:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. In retrospect, my mistake. Not too long after that time I came to think that we often don't give enough attention to "sense development" or to explaining no-longer-live metaphors, such as rural/agricultural ones, the sense of which often seems to elude urban speakers.
 * Also, I wonder whether the scam sense would be attestable. Since the political sense is actually something like "slander", given the specifics of the original case, the scam sense seems less than likely. DCDuring (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

nutela
Hey! nutela comes from Nutella. I think there was a category for these kind of genericised names here...--P5Nd2 (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

 * There's "Genericized trademarks". Not sure if that applies when the word has actually mutated from its original form. Probably. Equinox ◑ 19:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

at みょうが?
I finally noticed that you'd added an rft to the entry. Do you remember what you wanted to talk about? There's some additional detail in the senses at the lemma entry. Perhaps that addresses your question?

Curious, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. I forgot why I originally asked, but the combination of the plant and "dimwit" on the same definition line seem weird to me now, so that was probably my problem then. Why are different definitions combined like that? DCDuring (talk)

 * For non-lemma entries intended as soft redirects, disambigs even, it's a tricky question -- providing no gloss does users a disservice, as does providing only one gloss for multi-definition terms. So over the years, I took to providing simplified glosses as a list, separated by semicolons, as I had seen others do occasionally for links to entries in other languages.  Trying to find a balance between usability and elegance, basically.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that it was a non-lemma entry. But it is in the lemma category. DCDuring (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ya, all of the kana-only entries appear to be so categorized. I'm not sure how or why that's so.  Some kana-only entries are lemmata, but in most cases, the kana-only entries are soft redirects to spellings that include kanji.  C.f., , , etc.
 * Another good point that your experience brings up -- apparently doesn't give a clear enough indication that the user should refer to the linked lemma form.  I've wondered about that before, but I'm not sure how to improve things.  Any ideas?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm accustomed only to the approach taken for inflected forms and alternative forms in some Indo-European languages, which have no definition other than the specification of their inflected form and a link to the lemma. If the kana and kanji entries are fairly completely alternative systems with some users preferring on and some the other, maybe they should both be lemmas, with cross-references. Perhaps the definitions should be in separate pages for transclusion so the definitions remain complete for both, if that reflects reality. I notice that some Chinese pages are (in part?) transcluded into others. Perhaps that offers a model. I'll see if I can find an example on my watchlist or recent changes. DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 南沙參 is a page that is transcluded in other Chinese pages. See what links here. I don't have any knowledge that would tell me whether that is very relevant to the situation in Japanese. DCDuring (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

spark plug
good morning. i believe we're missing a figurative meaning, see merriam webster: "one that initiates or gives impetus to an undertaking". thank you. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:F031:62F8:23B7:FCB8 10:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * hello, i've taken a stab at spark plug but i don't speak english, can you review it.
 * im confused by the 9th definition of the conjunction as ("(now England, US, regional) Functioning as a relative conjunction; that."). the 2016 example is not good i think, its not a relative conjunction there. what do you think of "you can't kill a man for lying to protect them as was his brothers." --2A02:2788:A4:F44:318D:E7D1:3F58:A1F2 13:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seeing as (or as how) you don't speak English, I appreciate your effort at spark plug.
 * Note that prior sentence uses as in the same way as the citations for def. 9 do. A relative conjunction is defined to be one that introduces a relative clause. "(How) you don't speak English" is such a clause. Your example adds the grammatical mistake of using was instead of were, making the example extra hard to understand. In these uses as can be replaced by that. DCDuring (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you. i disagree that "(how) you don't speak English" is a relative clause: for me there is difference between "the thing that you want isn't the thing that i want" (relative "that") and "the fact that you don't speak english doesn't change anything: you will be treated as everyone else" (subordinating "that"). better examples for 9th def would be where "as" can be replaced by "who", because it's unambiguous. sorry i dont have capitals. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:7950:9F6C:B6D3:8FA4 18:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you. i disagree that "(how) you don't speak English" is a relative clause: for me there is difference between "the thing that you want isn't the thing that i want" (relative "that") and "the fact that you don't speak english doesn't change anything: you will be treated as everyone else" (subordinating "that"). better examples for 9th def would be where "as" can be replaced by "who", because it's unambiguous. sorry i dont have capitals. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:7950:9F6C:B6D3:8FA4 18:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

raise one's hand
This is an old (2008) entry of yours. Would you consider expanding it a bit to indicate whether these senses are figurative or literal? I can imagine a school class where one raises one's hand to indicate that one is volunteering but I'm not sure whether you meant something else. Equinox ◑ 18:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant some "figurative" or, better, communicative uses, but I don't know whether they would be attestable. The use of this in books is of two types: one about a motion for a non-communicative purpose (raised his hand to shield his eyes from the glare), the other for communicating some intention, the exact nature of the gesture and its meaning being determined by context (eg, "volunteer", "seek permission to do do something, eg, speak", "threaten"). "Literal" and "figurative" don't correspond to this distinction. I am not sure that any of these possible meanings of the gesture are meanings of the expression. I am not sure whether this case differs from give the finger/give someone the finger and still less how to characterize the difference. DCDuring (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

parse
Hello. Is this verb ambitransitive? I'm pretty sure it can be transitive ("How do you parse this sentence?"), but can it be intransitive (does the sentence "This sentence doesn't parse." parse?) as well? --Barytonesis (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * . [News Archive doesn't link properly anymore.] DCDuring (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of an old argument I had with Rua (née CodeCat) re: the label.  There is confusion in discussions about how this concept applies to English, in that the "transitive / intransitive" distinction in English grammars is primarily a syntactic one, while the "ergative" construction inherently involves the semantics of the verb.
 * in this sentence doesn't parse meets my understanding of an . This differs importantly from our definition at [[Appendix:Glossary]], which appears (to me) to get caught up in the syntax without considering the semantics.  To wit: an  in English is one where the underlying meaning of the verb requires an object, and that object is used syntactically as the subject, with the agent of the verb generally left unstated.  In this sentence doesn't parse, we understand that someone (i.e. a person) is doing the parsing, and that the sentence itself is the object of that parsing.  Likewise for this egg cooks up nicely, or this car handles poorly, and similar constructions.
 * FWIW, a syntactically intransitive and unergative use of would be something like the code interpreter parses. → the object is left unstated (presumably "source code"), and the syntactic subject is not the semantic object of the verb.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I believe that most (all?) semantically transitive English verbs can be used with ergative syntax. I.e., I don't see any utility in having any  label.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For the sentence above, 'sentence' is semantically the patient, whether it is the subject or the object grammatically. I think that makes for ergativity. In contrast a verb like 'hammer' does not allow a patient to be subject. That is, some verbs are ergative and some not — or so it seems to me 10 minutes before I fall asleep. DCDuring (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, thank you! That was the word I was missing -- is what I was calling the semantic object.
 * And re:, why not these nails don't hammer in straight? The "nails" here are both syntactic subject and semantic patient, which would seem to meet the criteria for an ergative use of the verb. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right about hammer. Hence, my dormitive sleepiness disclaimer. DCDuring (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder if statives are exceptions. I can't think of good examples though. The ergative *This idea doesn't understand easily doesn't work, but the transitive version ?I don't understand this idea easily (= I find it difficult to understand this) may not either. — Eru·tuon 22:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to characterize the distinction between verbs that do operate ergatively and those that don't. Consider:
 * He grasps the hammer clumsily
 * ? The hammer grasps clumsily.
 * He handles the hammer clumsily.
 * The hammer handles clumsily.
 * To me, the difference seems to lie in the difference in the range of other meanings of grasp and handle, which somehow lets handle but not grasp be ergative. DCDuring (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * wrote an article (in The Structure of Complex Words) (1951) on dictionaries. The article seemed to argue against isolated definitions, because the range of meanings can influence each individual use of a word, even across parts of speech for homonyms. (Also homophones?) DCDuring (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If I understood that well, there are three uses to consider:
 * transitive (syntactic subject = semantic agent, syntactic object = semantic patient)
 * intransitive 1 (syntactic subject = semantic agent, syntactic object/semantic patient implied or absent)
 * intransitive 2 (syntactic subject = semantic patient)
 * A standard ambitransitive verb has transitive and intransitive 1 uses: : transitive ("I heard a sound from outside the window.") and intransitive 1 ("I was deaf, and now I can hear.")
 * An ergative verb has (at least) transitive and intransitive 2 uses (are there even verbs which only have transitive and intransitive 2 uses to the exclusion of intransitive 1?).
 * would have all three uses: transitive ("Hans translated my novel into Welsh"), intransitive 1 ("Hans translated for us while we were in Marrakesh.") and intransitive 2 ("That idiom doesn't really translate.").
 * Would you agree? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a reasonable analysis. Thinking about your question, given the way English works (where objects can be omitted from a sentence), I can't think of any examples of verbs that have intransitive 2 senses (ergative) but no intransitive 1 senses.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's a correct summary (ignoring any verb whose arguments don't fall into the categories of semantic agent and patient). I believe that intransitive 1 is sometimes called unergative and intransitive 2 unaccusative. This is odd terminology, but it means that the subject could theoretically, semantically speaking, be assigned ergative or accusative, respectively (if the syntax of the clause is ergative–absolutive or nominative–accusative) – under the assumption that the ergative is meant to mark the more agent-like argument and the accusative the more patient-like one – but is not. So, an ergative verb can be used transitively or unergatively, an accusative verb transitively or unaccusatively. I don't know if there's a term for a verb that can be used transitively, unergatively, or unaccusatively.
 * I think break can't be used unergatively: I break easily means it is easy for me to be broken, not that it is easy for me to break things. But I could be wrong. — Eru·tuon 20:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What about "he breaks well" in this Baltimore Sun article:

He chased last out but could have the upper-hand if he breaks well.
 * From the context about horse racing, I assume the breaks here is in reference to -- but I'm not that up on horse racing.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems to be an inherently intransitive meaning of break. I don't know if it's unergative or unaccusative, or whether it counts as a counterexample, because its meaning is so different. — Eru·tuon 00:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

199.212.251.18
Hello, could you look at 'reverse rape' please. Thank you. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In the absence of reliable authority, ie, another dictionary that has it, there is no substitute for citations. Urban dictionary has a variety of definitions, many broadly similar to ours. There manrape is advanced as a synonym. DCDuring (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * . (News portion doesn't work.) Although there are many usages that don't quite fit our definition, it fits most usage. BTW, manrape doesn't seem to have nearly as much use and may not be attestable from Google Books. DCDuring (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

 * I have added some book cites, some from academia. Equinox ◑ 09:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Science hot words
I think you might have proposed something like this, hence bringing it to your talk page. We now have a "hot word" system that works well overall, but is lacking when it comes to some scientific words. A new element, for example, is so notable that it will work its way into durable media quickly and the hot word status will tide it over until then. But what about something obscure: a new species of beetle, or a new mineral? I am currently bothered by the case of davidsmithite, a mineral that was just named but is so rare and obscure that it is not likely to meet CFI for many years hence despite being, well, the only name for it and the only name that people will use in the future for it. I think this could be an important inclusionist push, but I'm not even sure it is necessarily a wise one. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 08:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that not all new scientific words are important additions to Wiktionary, even after they meet our attestation standards. Species names of macrofauna and pathogens are an important set of words we should cover, probably as soon as they appear in newspapers, if not sooner. I have subscribed to several science news aggregators to see what might be trending, but I haven't followed through, even to test whether my sources would produce many entries.
 * I remain focused on the backlog of missing taxonomic names, especially those which already appear in non-Translingual definitions(!) or in etymologies and image captions (including in Translingual entries). Equinox is working on the backlog of mineral names. Other underrepresented items are geological strata and time periods.
 * It would probably be best if someone else took charge of scientific hotwords. At present I am the only one who cares enough about taxa to have systematized them. That effort consumes most of the time I can devote to Wiktionary. The approach I've taken gives me relatively little to contribute to scientific hotwords in general, though I'd be happy to support the effort, especially with respect to taxonomic names. DCDuring (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

bonytongue and arowana
I just created these fish entries based on Wikipedia, but they seem sort of inconsistent re hyponyms and which family is which. Are you able to fix? Thanks. Equinox ◑ 09:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Inconsistency is unavoidable if you are accurate about usage. Usage is the problem.
 * So far, I have created [[Osteoglossidae]] and expanded [[arowana]]. There is a fair amount still to do. In general, the mapping between vernacular names and taxonomic names is many-to-many. The referent of a vernacular name is often very unclear, though it can be assumed that it is almost always an organism found where the language is spoken. For English, it helps to know whether the vernacular name is used in UK, Canada, US, Australia, NZ, India, or elsewhere, so that a local species can be associated with it. DCDuring (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Archiving
Hello DCDuring. Do you approve of my archiving endeavour? --2A02:2788:A4:F44:11FD:8514:F4C1:3A2 16:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If what you are doing is getting discussions from RfV, RfD, TR, etc onto entry talk pages, you are doing God's work. Keep it up. DCDuring (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

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

title: User:DCDuring/2017


text: latratibus

title: latratibus


text:
-isso

Etymology
, possibly via a variant -ίσσω that existed in the dialect of Tarentum in Southern Italy (as in σαλπίσσω, λακτίσσω).

Usage notes

 * This form of the suffix occurs mainly in the comedies of Plautus, written at a time before the use of the letter Z in Latin words loaned from Greek was firmly established. In later time periods, the usual spelling became (a variant  also developed).

title: -isso


text: latratuum

title: latratuum


text:
User talk:DCDuring/2018

lemming test
Hello. Maybe you'll be interested in this:. If you have any idea for improvement (more dictionaries?), I'm all ears. I don't guarantee I'll be able to carry them out, but I can try. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I grant you that it's much ado about nothing though: a simple Google search should be both faster and more efficient :p --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I have two recommendations:
 * OneLook.com, which is a gateway to some of the dictionaries you have and to others, mostly specialized, that you don't. (
 * Century 1911, which is an old encyclopedic-style dictionary that is great for older words and (older) specialties (maritime, animal husbandry, etc).
 * Convenience is a big deal. I include the two template I refer to on many pages that I create, have disputed senses, or need improvement. I could use yours as is for certain types of entries and would use it a lot with the two additions I mention. DCDuring (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All right, I've added these two references. is so good I've put it in first position.
 * Initially, I didn't intend to use it in the mainspace, but maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea after all. A complete list of references such as the one found in is visually aggressive and distracting, in my view; this new template is more discreet. What do you think?
 * P.S.: I've renamed it . --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Big lists of references with lots of repetitive content are a problem. I like the idea of a discreet template, though it may be a challenge to my fine motor skills to click on the abbreviations. But I doubt that it will prove to be a real barrier. Thanks for the initiative and for asking me about it. DCDuring (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Five lemmings is too challenging a standard for inclusion. The way the "lemming test" is used here is as a guide to the completeness of the definitions that we have. The existence of even one good dictionary or glossary (for specialty terms) that includes the term or, more commonly, definition is generally sufficient preliminary evidence for inclusion. Even when there is no coverage then one still has to expect a term to face RfV (any definition) and/or RfD (usually for SoP MWEs or in cases where one definition of a term is arguably included in or duplicative of another). I view dictionary references not as authoritative support, but rather as a help both to passive users in understanding the range of definitions and to contributors who are trying to improve an entry. DCDuring (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

tabbed browsing
Hey there, I read at Metaknowledge's talk that you avoid tabs. I can recommend the Tree-Style-Tabs [1] extension for firefox. The main feature of [1] is grouped listing, collapse/expand groups as needed, and bookmarking individual subgroups to folders. Alas, it flattens the tree structure to a single folder in bookmarks.

It's a bit sluggish at times, perhaps because it's written in javascript, and it crashed on me once or twice in a few years, but using chrome now I can see exactly what the problem with too many tabs can be. There are extensions in similar spirit for chrome of course, but I didn't install any and so cannot vouch for them.

On the other hand, avoiding too many open tabs, just using a history side bar and a keen memory to go back and forth will go a long way, too.

[1]: https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/

Rhyminreason (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I no longer have a keen memory, so that option is out. I probably should just try to be more systematic about my Wiktionary workflow. DCDuring (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You still seem to be having trouble. I'd really like to help you — it will make it easier for you to edit, improve your entries (which often include links that lead nowhere), and make it easier for other editors like me who want to add etymologies and the like. Do you want to walk through your process here on your talk page, privately by email, or by another means? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Tell me about links that lead nowhere. There are a couple of sites that have changed the most obvious way one can construct links to specific pages. I haven't been very diligent about updating the templates to follow. DCDuring (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I will admit that I don't know of that happening recently, although I've fixed older ones recently, like here where an unciteable name became a deadlink to WP. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * SB might have found it from someone who found it at WoRMS, where it was entered without a source, probably just as a calque of the taxonomic name. I can find mention of "wheel-bearer" in reference to the Cycliophora, but not likely to meet ATTEST. DCDuring (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is the pedia= parameter in which suppresses the attempted link to WP. I usually don't use it because often one can "search other entries" to find uses elsewhere in WP. DCDuring (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Here's an example of links that lead nowhere that you just added today. Two out of the three external links went to dead pages; the third (which I've retained) is a redirect, but better than nothing. How can I help you to learn how to use tabs? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with tabs?
 * As to the entry, I really can't stand largely uninformative entries such as this. I put in links, which I'd like you not to remove, that go a page from which one can usually find something on Wikispecies, using the options on their failed-search page. You were right about the Commons link. I have replaced it with a link to a Hypernym for the term in question. DCDuring (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

WT:SASE (short-attention-span encyclopedia)
Thanks for. Honestly, I think it concerns at least half of the entries submitted at RFD. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I do favor content beyond one-word synonym-style definitions. But the core of a dictionary are substitutable definitions. When a definition requires a full sentence, encyclopedophilia is at work. DCDuring (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 * Hahaha, encyclopedophilia! I wish more of our anon protologisms were as entertaining. Equinox ◑ 00:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

CFI
Hello. I'm facing a terrible inner conflict.

While I'd like my arguments for deletion or conservation to be rooted in CFI, as it would be more conducive to rational debate, I can't help but resonate with. I tend to rely a lot on intuition and speaker's feeling, as I think it has served me well in the past (in not filling this dictionary with too much crap).

Besides, I think CFI are skewed towards "conservationism". I also find that getting hung up on what's written there can lead to "" arguments. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Intuition can guide one's choice of side in the discussion, but we cannot have consensus-generating discussion without arguing from principles and criteria. We can only vote and make RfD a fact-free zone. DCDuring (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll try to bear that in mind, and to actually read the CFI at least once. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Taxonomy and typography
Hello Herr During --

I was curious about, removing italicization from a family name. It seems I was under the misapprehension that taxonomic names in general should be italicized -- is it instead only the two-part species names that are italicized, and nothing further up the tree?

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing and inquiring.
 * The cut-off for italicization is genus. All taxonomic names at genus level and below, down to variety and form (and possibly beyond?) are italicized, except for the words, abbreviations, and typography like subsp., var., form, and ×. All taxonomic names at higher "rank" are not italicized. In addition, italicization is mandatory under the main taxonomic codes when the surrounding text is upright, but, when it is not, the taxonomic names are supposed to be in a contrasting font, which usually means upright.
 * The exception to this is the realm of viruses. All virus taxonomic names, which currently extend to order, are italicized. I don't know whether the orthographic contrast applies in virus names.
 * I don't know the full rationale, but I can hypothesize, as can you. DCDuring (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Hey DCDuring, I just want to say thanks for fixing my misuse of italics. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's my pleasure, really. Taxonomic names follow rules that Wiktionary should follow. I've learned them over time. Others can too. I don't want to try to force compliance on individual contributors as that is an extra burden on those who contribute entries and definitions of organism names, whether vernacular or taxonomic. The best thing that contributors can do is use around taxonomic names, even without adding the "rank" parameter or having the correct typography (or even spelling). DCDuring (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

flying squid
Researching akkar in Norwegian led me to this. There's no Translingual entry for Todarodes which you may like to rectify. DonnanZ (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We are a few million short at the species level; tens of thousands or more at the genus level. At the rate we are going at Wiktionary and in the world We will not be keeping up with renamings, let alone discoveries and the backlog, even of those taxonomic names that are entered using . DCDuring (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I note that there are no entries currently linking to Todarodes and that the taxonomic name in flying squid is not enclosed in, therefore not getting onto any list that I would eventually attend to. There are three entries that contain Todarodes sagittatus, none of which use . Further I not that only one entry links to [[flying squid]] and none of the five other entries that contain flying squid link to the term or to a more specific name like Japanese flying squid (if that is a valid name). IOW: a little help. DCDuring (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We only have two of the 25 or so families in the squid family Teuthida. DCDuring (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As it happens squid are well covered in entries accessible through . DCDuring (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Atascosa
I have been naughty and created this, as I came across it when creating the English entry. Maybe I should leave well alone in future. DonnanZ (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It takes a bit of work to make a real entry. I don't mind doing the work if someone has some interest, for whatever reason. This one was a bit obscure, but it led me to a superspecialized database (on snout moths). DCDuring (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Think of the newbies
Food for thought: Considering the new users who are being bullied for not knowing or having studied a language, what do you think they benefit from, the vote running or the vote not running? (Votes/pl-2018-05/Proficiency as a prerequisite for contribution) You know, I am an old veteran who has been bullied again and again, and I know how to take care of myself. But who will take care of all those new users? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How does the vote help? DCDuring (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It helps to collect plentiful input on a subject in one place, including various reasoned comments. From what I have seen, nothing beats a vote/request for comment in this ability. Anyone who sees a newbie being treated less then nicely can then point to the vote, done. You can ponder why this vote has earned so much ire where some other votes don't. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it looks like a proposed barrier to participation. If it is a stalking horse for something else, you should disclose your underlying purpose and forswear using stalking horse proposals henceforth. It's hard enough to have discussions without adding hidden agendas to the mix. DCDuring (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't a stalking horse. My point is to obtain input for the proposal specified in the vote so that what happened to me recently won't happen again, to anyone. The proposal, in its formulation, closely matches words of multiple English Wiktionary admins. No hidden purpose there, really. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The vote is created in the tradition of Votes/2018-03/Showing romanizations in italics by default and multiple other votes. In that vote, the people opposing having the vote are mostly the people supporting the proposal of the vote. When certain people refuse to put their proposals to vote, I put them to vote instead. They want that their will prevails without consensus, and do not like having these votes, of course. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You see it that way, and I see it as a way to (sometimes) thwart proposals you don't like. In my view, once people have voted, they tend not to come back on their vote (they might not even revisit the vote page); but had all the evidence been brought forth from the start, they might have voted the other way. --Per utramque cavernam 13:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And by the way, I don't think votes are evil, I just think you're far too quick on the trigger. As long as it's not exactly clear what the disagreement is about, and all the facts haven't been checked, it's too soon to have a vote. A vote should only take place when a matter of opinion has been reached and there are irreconcilable viewpoints: "all right, I've seen all your points, I understand them, but I still think the points I've raised are more important", "no, that argument weighs more than this one", etc. As long as there's still a discussion about facts, we're not ready to have a vote. I'd say that's been an issue with some of your votes. --Per utramque cavernam 13:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

rimiculus
What do/should we normally do if a word is attested only as an epithet for one species? Soft-redirect the word to the full species name with something like ? Or just leave it as a redlink? (For example, I think that rimiculus is such a word, attested only in Catostomus rimiculus.) - -sche (discuss) 05:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't the form also attested (in Latin)? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There might be a barely attestable Fusarium rimiculum, a fungus. DCDuring (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But I'd go for use of in this case for now. If someone finds Latin or other use, all the better. DCDuring (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose that the "only ins" need to be reviewed once in a while. The language categorization should be sufficient to limit the tedium of the review, at least until CJKV characters us in Translingual sections. DCDuring (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

asterids
Shouldn't this be "Asterids"? SemperBlotto (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And, similarly "euasterids I" and "euasterids II".
 * There are perhaps 20 of these. They are more common in scholarly articles in lower case. They still seem to be treated as taxa, but seem to be much less influenced by the ICN. The use of the terms is driven by the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, which seems to dominate much of botanical taxonomy. I think of the uppercase forms as alternative forms, influenced by the older practice capitalizing taxa. DCDuring (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

animal
Hey. I saw an animal yesterday and it wasn't in Wiktionary. The moral of the story is, of course, that you have to work harder. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We only have several million species to go, not counting synonyms and names above and below the species level. The idea is mostly to have entries for "interesting" species, usually macrofauna and macroflora, disease-causing organisms, bizarre organisms, organisms that are typical of higher-level taxa, those with names of interesting etymology, photogenic species, etc.

Correctness of heading order.
Thank you; but there was no excuse for my carelessness: I have reverted my similar edit for kindle for the same reason. Andrew H. Gray 18:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)Andrew talk

superrosids
Hi there. I think "superrosids" is English, plural. The taxon must be "Superrosids", capitalised. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My policy has been to present all of the APG clade names as lowercase. That seems to be what they do in taxonomic literature. I treat the uppercase orthography as an alternative form. If it is to be changed, it is a global matter for all angiosperm entries and others that reference them. Virtually all of the entries involved would be taxonomic ones (Translingual). I really don't want to have to do frequency comparisons between each of the upper- and lower-case forms, presumably limited to the scholarly literature.
 * This and similar APG terms are used in taxonomic literature in the same way as ICN-approved names, so I am loath to characterize them as English, unless they have a meaning in English that is significantly different than the meaning in taxonomic literature. Though some databases use ICN-style names, increasingly the APG names are winning. For many of these APG names there is not a corresponding ICN-style name or the placement and/or circumscription differ. I have recently added a series of plant superorders (ending in anae) that follow the simplified taxonomy of Ruggiero et al. has the default taxonomy I follow for all hypernyms at the rank of order or higher, unless there is a more recent one that is clearly superior and has fairly broad coverage, ie, class level or higher. An example of such is at User:DCDuring/LPSNProkaryoteClassification, which covers the entire Prokaryota superkingdom.
 * If you think it's worth it, we could take the matter to BP, though it should really be a matter for something called WT:About taxonomic names. Chuck Entz and Metaknowledge are the principal contributors who have the best background for taxonomic matters and may have this page on their watchlists. DCDuring (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

rfdate
Hey. For these edits, you might want to use instead. --XY3999 (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, I just made, based on . It might make some things easier. --XY3999 (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I just used copy-and-paste. I didn't especially want to create another template. I also wanted to indicate that the citation needed more than just a date. Apparently some contributors thought that a request for date meant a request for the birth and death years of the author. Once you open the edit window what appears is: "rfdate|and other bibliographic particulars". That comment is too long for a normal user display of the entry. DCDuring (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe a longer comment would help: "rfdate|and other bibliographic particulars, eg, title of work, page, url, full name of author" DCDuring (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't have a good template for requesting cleanup of a grossly incomplete, misformatted citation such as:
 * C-3PO
 * "We seem to be made to suffer. It's our lot in life." in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope.
 * What's missing are the name of the writer, the date, a link to the script or some other way of confirming that these words were part of the movie and showing the context, etc. DCDuring (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW is only for cases where an author's name is present, but not the actual text of the supposed citation. DCDuring (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * See WT:BP. DCDuring (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Hey again. I reckon we could improve our cleanup process by getting a bot to make edits like this. My idea is that a category is generated for, e.g. all Wordsworth quotes missing "bibliographic particulars" - one book by him was quoted multiple times, you know. --XY3999 (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why eliminate the link to author last name at Wikipedia? If that link is unsatisfactory, then we need a link to the author name in an Appendix that says which work(s) is(are) involved. Also, it is highly desirable to have a pageurl link and a complete citation with page numbers etc. DCDuring (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Response to "what's the big idea?"
Your subsequent changes to the entry seem fine to me.

Wizymon (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Some old taxonomic junk
Haha, hello, do you want a list of old Chambers 1908 taxonomy that I couldn't find on Wikipedia? Well, I'M NOT LISTENING, you're just going to have to have it. If you don't want to deal with them, and if you think they have any value whatsoever, you may want to dump them somewhere else. I recommend leaving them on Chuck Entz's lawn in the middle of the night, and roaring away on your motorbike. BTW, there will be more to come, but I felt I had enough to drop them on you now.

 * Dioecia, a class of plants having the stamens on one plant and the pistils on another. [Gr. di-, twice, oikos, a house.] -- compare English adjective "dioecious"
 * Gnathopoda, the xiphosura: the arthropoda.
 * Lamellicornes, a very numerous family of beetles: the cockchafer, etc.
 * Natatores, the swimming-birds.
 * Ostracea, the oyster family. adjs. ostracean, ostraceous
 * Plumbagineae, a natural order of oxogenous [?] plants found on seashores and salt-marshes.
 * Prosobranchiata, an order or subclass of gastropods having the gills anterior to the heart. [Gr. proso, forward, branchia, gills.]
 * Raptatores -- alt form of Raptores ?
 * Retifera, the true limpet.
 * Rhabdamminina, a group of marine imperforate foraminiferous protozoans. [Gr. rhabdos, a rod, ammos, sand.]
 * Rhabdomesodon, a genus of polyzoans. [Gr. rhabdos, a rod, mesos, middle, odous, odontos, a tooth.]
 * Rhiptoglossa, a suborder of lizards. [Gr. rhiptein, to throw, glossa, the tongue.]
 * Rhizantheae, one of the five classes into which Lindley divides the vegetable kingdom. [= rhizanths?]
 * Rhizocarpeae, a group of cryptogams.
 * Rhizostomata, an order of discomedusans
 * Rhynchea, the painted snipe. [Gr. rhynchos, snout.]
 * Rostrifera, a suborder of gasteropods, with contractile rostrum or snout.
 * Saccobranchia, a division of tunicates with saccate gills. [Gr. sakkos, a sack, brangchia, gills.]
 * Sarcophyte, a monotypic genus of parasitic and apetalous plants native to South Africa. [Gr. sarx, sarkos, flesh, phyton, a plant.]
 * Scatophaga, the dung-flies.
 * Sciadiaceae, a family of freshwater algae, its typical genus Sciadium.
 * Scirtopoda, an order of saltatorial rotifers. [Gr. skirtan, leap, pous, foot.] [Wikipedia suggests it was also a former name for Perittia moths.]
 * Sclerobrachia, an order of brachiopods
 * Sclerodermata, the scaly reptiles; the madrepores
 * Sclerostoma, a genus of nematode worms
 * Scolecina, a group of annelids typified by the earthworm; also Scoleina
 * Scotophis, a genus of carinated serpents of North America
 * Scotornis, a genus of African birds with very long tails
 * Seleucides, a genus containing the twelve-wired bird of Paradise.
 * Semostomae, a suborder of Discomedusae, containing jellyfishes.
 * Spermophyta, one of the four divisions of the vegetable kingdom including flowering plants.
 * Steganopus = Wilson's phalarope, but may also be Phalaropus ? see WP
 * Subulicornia, a division of neuroptera, including dragonflies, May-flies, etc.

Equinox ◑ 00:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you ever so much. Do you mean that these do not appear anywhere in principal namespace at WP? I take it you haven't tried Wikispecies (which has a lot of old names as synonyms and in pages that memorialize old systems).
 * In many ways I hate these things, but they can differentiate us from other resources. DCDuring (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

 * I've put the list on User:DCDuring/ObsoleteTaxafromChambers. DCDuring (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:DCDuring/2018