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)