User talk:0DF

--Apisite (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello
Just curious who you are? Your history starts Jul 15 but you don't appear to be a new user. Benwing2 (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * No, indeed. Until recently, I edited here as Fruitless Forest. Unfortunately, my old laptop went kaputt in June; because I used browser-generated and -saved passwords for that Wiktionary account and its associated e-mail address, I concomitantly lost access to them both. Slightly annoying, but not a big deal (I'd made fewer than 500 contributions with that account. I actually wanted the username User:0DF, but the system wouldn't allow me it because of the prior existence of User:O.d.f., User:ODF, and User:Odf. Do you know whether it's possible for my account to be manually renamed, by any chance? 0D foam (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Mostly likely yes. User:Chuck Entz or User:Surjection can you comment? I tried Special:RenameUser but it says my admin account doesn't have permissions to do this. Benwing2 (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * : Back when the Unified Login system came into effect, there was apparently some connection between bureaucrats and renaming rights. Not any more: see Global renamers and Steward requests/Username changes. I should also mention that one can even have one's user name changed to that of an existing account such as your old one (something called "usurping"), but I'm sure the requirements to be allowed to do that are pretty strict. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmm, OK, thanks, looks like this user will have to file a rename request. Benwing2 (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. I'll look into that. 0D foam (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * FYI, I've just made the request via M:Special:GlobalRenameRequest. It was very straightforward. (And regarding usurpation, it seems that is only possible in cases where the account name to be usurped has made no edits whatsoever, so that wouldn't've been possible in my case.) 0D foam (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Et voilà le travail ! 0DF (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Awesome! Benwing2 (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

plūrennis
You are of course right in that English plurennial is closely related to Latin plūrennis, however it is not a direct descendant. A direct borrowing would be *plurenn (compare solemn). Instead, the form plurennial was formed in English analogously to other adjectives in -ennial, which form however is not simply achieved by applying -al to a Latin adjective ending in -ennis, but via a substantive -ennium, as in mīllennium->mīlleniālis->millennial. You can leave it in there, but you should add a comment that takes into account that plūrennis and plurennial are not the same word, unlike in e.g. formōsus and hermoso. Imbricitor (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * How do you feel about this solution? 0DF (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * thats good :) Imbricitor (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Cool.  0DF (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

German surnames and toponyms
Hi, de-ndecl has been cleverly designed to take the exact same parameters as de-noun and de-proper noun, so you can use toponym and surname just like toponym and surname. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I did know that they have a lot of shared functionality, which I used on Treptow an der Rega and its abbreviations. I know most German surnames are and most German toponyms are neuter, but I've been worried that I'd stumble upon exceptions to those rules (like ). Can I be confident that, wherever I see toponym or surname used, adding toponym or surname (as applicable) will yield a correct declension table? 0DF (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Probably, yes. In cases where you know a toponym is nonneuter, just follow the examples at or  or  or . —Mahāgaja · talk 18:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Unfortunately, that's a big "if". Are there classes of nonneuter toponyms? For example,, a river, is feminine and , a mountain, is masculine (and presumably takes its gender from ). Cities and countries are usually neuter, but are rivers and mountains usually not? 0DF (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Rivers in Europe tend to be feminine, with some notable exceptions like ; outside of Europe they tend to be masculine to match . Mountains tend to be masculine, to match, unless they're obvious compounds of feminine words, like . If in doubt, you can double-check on German Wiktionary (or another German dictionary, though many dictionaries eschew place names) or German Wikipedia. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice; I'll keep all that in mind. And failing all that, there's always article-plus-noun phrasal searching on Google Books. 0DF (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Polish toponyms and entries
If you can't get things like gender right or follow standard formatting for other Polish toponyms, you might not want to make them. It's better to not leave a mess that other people have to clean up, even if you have good intentions. Vininn126 (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Which part of what I wrote was a mess? Granted, you fixed my silly mistake, but so did I yours. 0DF (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Lack of gender in the translation and headword.
 * Not using, and the use of was wrong, no asterisk.
 * Lack of declension
 * Using "Poland" in the t-box
 * I recommend looking at some other Polish toponyms. I'm not trying to come across as aggressive or scolding, but that is a significant number of mistakes and I'm trying to inform you. Vininn126 (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I am more than happy to receive recommendations to improve my editing; I thank you for your corrections. However, what you wrote initially came across as “You’re doing it wrong. Stay in your own lane.”, though I believe you that that was not your intent. Yes, writing “Poland” instead of “Polish” in the t-box was a stupid brain fart on my part that I’m grateful to you for catching; that was wrong, no asterisk. (I’m sure you’d concede that your deleting those two braces was likewise an unintentional lapse.) Regarding the omission of gender, declension, and, I would contest your assertion that doing so was wrong. Certainly, it was suboptimal, but I did not thereby introduce any potentially erroneous assertions; I merely left the entry less complete than it could have been and now, thanks to you, is. What’s better, that I omit gender and declension, such that the entry simply lacks that information, or that I guess the gender and declension but get them wrong, such that the entry contains incorrect information that misleads readers? I believe it is the responsible choice not to include information of which I am not confident. As for the use of instead of , again,  didn’t introduce any erroneous assertions, so I would not call that wrong, and certainly not wrong without qualification. Of course, the entry is more complete thanks to the specification of ’s rhyme fragment, syllabification, and homophone by , which you added. If it is always appropriate to do so, I shall try to remember to use  instead of  in future. (But if it is always appropriate to use  rather than , why does the latter template exist, may I ask? That seems to be a recipe for the kind of suboptimal editing I contributed.) Three related questions: 1) Is  a use as a proper noun of the common noun , and, if so, what’s the derivational logic there? 2) Shouldn’t ’s  specify s? 3) Re one of your changes to , should I always use  instead of  and  in Polish entries and for Polish terms? Thanks. 0DF (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Generally there is consensus in the community that if you cannot answer basic questions of gender and such then you shouldn't. Leaving it empty is indeed theoretically better, but it's indicative that you aren't sure what is right or wrong in general. Yes indeed it should have . It's hard to remember everything when it's all left out, which is part of my original point. Yes, we do not use f-p and the like. Vininn126 (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I just wanna say that I appreciate that it seems you've taken the effort to learn about things like gender and what-not. If you are interested in more toponyms and etymologies, the sadly incomplete is a good source, and don't forget to leave links to other dicts when appropriate.  might be best. I'd comment, however, that alt spellings like on machowski probably shouldn't count as homophones, unless there's a secondary meaning or etymology. It's the same word, after all. Vininn126 (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I appreciate your noting that. And thank you for directing me to those sources. I’ll use them in my future Polish contributions. 0DF (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Пенчев
Hi! If you ever need a Bulgarian entry - be it for a proper noun or another word - feel free to drop a request on Requested entries (Bulgarian). We monitor that page for changes, so someone should be able to pick it up in not too long.

Alternatively, if you'd like to create Bulgarian entries yourself, our minimum current expectations can be found at About Bulgarian. Notably, you need to be able to provide correct lexical stress - both to the IPA template and to the headword template - and you need to have some sort of dictionary reference (unless the word is rare/neologism/etc). I've updated the entry I refer to in the subject to have both of those. If you are unable to provide that information, I'd appreciate it if you use the "Requested entries" page instead.

Thanks,

Chernorizets (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sprucing up . I was pretty sure the stress is on the first syllable (hence my writing ), but I wasn't absolutely certain. I also correctly inferred the derivation from, but didn't know about , unfortunately. I was also unaware of ; I'm sure that will be a handy resource in the future. If ever I am uncertain, however, I shall indeed make use of Requested entries (Bulgarian), now that you have invited me to do so. On the topic of , I notice plenty of uses of a plural form, , which has carried over into English as , which is actually a lot more common even in English than the Anglicised plural, (which only occurs in the August 1960 source I cited s.v. , AFAICT from Google Books).  appears not to inflect for case (from what little reading I've done on the matter, I get the impression that case inflection in proper names is restricted to the vocative case for given names, with mores restricting that further to male given names), but the feminine  and plural  are alive and well. I infer from the fact that you didn't add  (the seventh conditio sine qua non of the simplest Bulgarian entry) to  that the surname does not decline for case and from the fact that you didn't remove Пенчева from its transclusion of  that it is desirable to list the surname's feminine form in the entry's headword line. Wouldn't it also be desirable to list the surname's plural form in the entry's headword line? If so, shall I add a p parameter to  to enable surnames' plurals to be listed? Before creating , I looked at several members of Category:Bulgarian surnames to work out what form my prospective entry should take. Unbeknownst to me at the time, it appears that most of them fail to reach the standard required of them by About Bulgarian. For example,  needs a citation, as do  and , which also need lexical stress and hyphenation, as do the following, which also need IPA: , , , , , , and . I hope I can therefore be forgiven for not achieving the prescribed standard on my first attempt. By the way, I have not forgotten about your response to me in Votes/2023-11/Ordering of etymologies within an entry and I do intend to respond to it. 0DF (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @0DF As you've probably guessed, is the Bulgarian way of referring to a family whose members share the last name  (or its feminine counterpart) - so "the Penchevs" per English tradition. It's also used e.g. when talking about 2+ related people with the same last name, so Ivan and Martin Penchev becomes Иван и Мартин Пенчеви.
 * I admit I'm not sure how we ought to represent that in entries, since it's not an individual's surname, but rather a family's name. That's why there is no declension table as for regular nouns. It does give me something to discuss with the other Bulgarian editors, though. As for case, it's virtually non-existent in Bulgarian - given names have vocative forms (usually older, more traditional names, and nowadays it's less common for female names), as well as certain masculine and feminine nouns denoting people. I also want to think harder about how much information should be in the headword vs. the definition - for example, while we do list the feminine equivalent in the headword, the template also has the option for specifying that.
 * There are, unfortunately, a number of proper name Bulgarian entries that aren't well-crafted. The minimum standard on WT:ABG was recently updated by me; before that it looked like this, so our older entries comply (to an extent) with the lower previous bar. We have a project to improve existing entries, but it will take some time.
 * For now, hold off on making changes to the template/module - let me think of how we'd like to represent these 'plurals" more generally and discuss with others, and we'll figure out a path forward.
 * Thanks,
 * Chernorizets (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

binduga‎
I am aware of the historic label and I am more than relatively certain those particular senses are not in use, unless they are dialectally in some dialect I do not have access to. Vininn126 (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks for the confirmation. I just thought I'd check, since it's fairly common to confuse the two labels, and is a rather rarer practice than it used to be. 0DF (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Gomphocarpus filiformis
Note that the way you entered this has put it in Translingual maintenance categories. I would have entered it the same way, so there is a problem in the legitimacy of the maintenance categories IMHO. This is not a one-off and occurs in several of the maintenance categories. What should be done about it, apart from some rectal tonsillectomy-type solutions, link reconstructing deleted taxlinks (an effort now in process)? DCDuring (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to. The synonyms, maybe? Or something else? BTW, re Special:Diff/78188140/78281078, I left some of those unitalicised on purpose, since the pages to which they link don't italicise the term; I don't mind if you italicise them, but I thought you should know that I didn't for the sake of being faithful to the sources. 0DF (talk) 18:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Before my changes of today, the entry appeared in Category:Translingual links with redundant wikilinks and Category:Translingual links with redundant target parameters. It still appears in those categories, apparently because there are piped items in . DCDuring (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Is the only solution the creation of entries for those taxa and the subsequent removal of the transclusions, or would inclusions like   continue to cause   to be added to those maintenance categories? 0DF (talk) 20:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Or would  work like it does in ? 0DF (talk) 20:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't really know. It is not satisfactory to not use taxlink. If anything, there will be more use of taxlink or of a similar template. I think the logic of more templates has to treat "  ' '  " as meaningful whenever it would be meaningful in wikitext or we need to have a formatting-only version of taxlink. Such may be forthcoming soon. I hope it will solve the problem. I really don't know what to do if it doesn't. DCDuring (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, in good news it appears that does indeed work like  in the relevant way, and that that edit of mine took   out of those two maintenance categories. 0DF (talk) 22:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * That probably means we could cause those that handle these things to modify those templates that don't work that way. DCDuring (talk) 23:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree. From my position of admittedly almost complete ignorance, it doesn't seem like it would be a particularly onerous change to make. I'd gladly do it myself if someone in the know were to point me to an example of the change(s) that must be made. 0DF (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * There may be a workaround as a byproduct of the effort to restore taxlink for all taxonomic names, whether the name has been added or not. But its formatting may be overridden by the templates in which it would be embedded. We should know by the end of next week. DCDuring (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Why, what's happening by the end of next week? 0DF (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * We should have a template that formats all instances of taxonomic names, mostly automagically. If that template can function inside other templates, then we don't need to ask for anything other than forbearance: no regression in that capability. Not that I really expect forbearance. DCDuring (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Great stuff. Whom do I thank for that? 0DF (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * has taken an interest in the matter. See Template talk:taxlink. DCDuring (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I have thanked accordingly. 0DF (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm sure he appreciates any recognition for working in this corner of Wiktionary. It's a way to get some insight into the techno-infrastructure revolution taking place here after a long period of relative stability/stagnation. DCDuring (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * All I see happening is conversion from wikicode to Lua. Am I missing something? 0DF (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Also mentioned is the substitution of taxonomic name for bare-linked taxonomic names. DCDuring (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * And won't need the taxon type in 2? I still think  or a more cleverly-coded  would've been a better solution for that, but never mind. 0DF (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The taxonomic rank enables automatic formatting for most cases, the exceptions being suprageneric ranks in Archaea, Bacteria, and Virus, wich are all italicized by "i=1". DCDuring (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but I'm not entirely convinced that it wouldn't be easier to use, 1, and pairs of double typewriter-apostrophes to achieve the italicising results sought, but if JeffDoozan and you are willing to put in the work, then that is admirable. 0DF (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The problem is mostly with subgeneric names that have elements that are supposed to not be italicized: subgenus/subg., section/sect,, subsection/subsect., subspecies/subsp., variety/var., serovar, etc. It also helps me find entries for which I am likely to find improvement possibilities, especially in languages other than English or "Translingual". DCDuring (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Actually, having given it more thought, I think the dedicated is the better way to go. Am I right to understand that  is for links to taxa without entries, and that once a taxon's entry is created, any -enclosed links to it should be changed to use, but that there is otherwise no difference between the two templates? 0DF (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * That's the idea. I don't know whether the Tranlingual-L2-existence checking is completely disabled, but it should be and categorization should be differentiated or, preferrably, disabled. DCDuring (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * That seems nice and easy. Might it not be useful for still to check for Translingual-L2 existence and to add an error category in cases where the check returns a negative? That would catch misuses of  by editors unfamiliar with the – distinction. 0DF (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Probably so. Lots of errors in this stuff. DCDuring (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Gorni-Studen
Germans tend to suppress the pronunciation of word-initial st- in unadapted borrowings. I doubt Gorni-Studen was ever well enough known among German speakers to get a Germanized pronunciation. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Mahāgaja: Indeed, I'm sure you're right. It just shows why it's worth my adding when I'm not completely sure. Similarly with my inclusion of  at the creation of, which I had suspected had some specialised numerological sense until you informed me otherwise. 0DF (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Module:Quotations/la/data
What purpose does adding abbreviations serve? There are real improvements to be made—from my time editing Latin I remember a few Cicero works in need of relatively complex implementations, many Pliny the Elder books which do not conform to the format of the module, as well as authors such as Martial or Suetonius which were almost impossible to implement as things stand—but otiose abbreviation lists do not help anybody. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit: My impression that the bulk of those additions were performed by you was somewhat mistaken. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I assume you're referring to Special:Diff/80529447. I added those abbreviation-extensions so that the citations I copied from L&S and Gaffiot to would be less baffling to the average reader. I still need to sort out adding their works etc. Module:Quotations/grc/data is much more complete than Module:Quotations/la/data. 0DF (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)