User talk:Daniel Carrero/2009

Empty categories for language appendices
What exactly is the point in creating them, if they don't contain anything? --Ivan Štambuk 15:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because a category does not contain pages at the first few moments, is not a reason to not exist. There are too many appendices without proper categories up to this date (or without categories at all), so it's likely that I will continue to add and delete these categories where I find necessary. I am not intending to leave appendice categories empty, so please, look again. --Daniel. 16:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it's OK now, though the general idea is to put language families Swadesh lists into language families categories, and individual language Swadesh lists into individual language categories.. --Ivan Štambuk 16:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I could see (by analyzing various appendices, especially the better formatted ones, including but not limiting to Swadesh lists), there is some effort to keep each of them in two main category trees: subcategories of Category:Appendices, and anything else. By this reasoning, it's certainly correct to add appendices to language families, topics, parts of speech, etc. as helpful additional text, and to the corresponding appendice categories, for better organization. For example, in my opinion, it would be nice to have all numerical appendices at Category:Numerical appendices, and all Swahili appendices at Category:Swahili appendices. --Daniel. 16:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

pt-noun
I want to offer an idea, not one that needs to be acted on right away, but just an idea for now.

Spanish, Portuguese, and other Iberian languages have long had numerous separate templates for nouns (such as: pt-noun-m, pt-noun-f, pt-noun-m-unc, pt-noun-f-unc). I've just had a go the past few days at consolidating the noun templates for Occitan and for Catalan. Occitan now uses a single template for all its nouns. Catalan is down to just two: and  (for nouns with separate masculine and feminine forms). I've been thinking of implementing the idea in Portuguese and/or Spanish as well for some time. In the past, we haven't had seriously hard-working Portuguese contributors (like yourself), so I hadn't suggested the idea before.

I'd like to suggest you have a look at and  and see what you think about doing the same thing in Portuguese. Making any such change across all the Portuguese nouns would (of course) take a lot of work, but might be done with bot assistance. Do keep in mind that I took slightly different approaches in the two languages, so if you do like the idea, you'd also need to consider which approach appeals to you more. As I said earlier, Catalan still has a separate template for nouns with masc/fem forms, which simplifies the main noun template. Occitan uses a slightly more cumbersome template, but packs everything into just the one template. Each appraoch has advantages and disadvantages.

Please give it some thought. As I said, there is no rush. I'm still working to implement and deprecate all the old calls to , which unfortunately could not be done easily by bot because of the many variations in how the template was (or wasn't) included. Let me know what you think. --EncycloPetey 20:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, this is a good idea and should also be done for Portuguese. Here are some toughts:
 * Firstly, I don't really like to add links for compound words at the inflection line and the etymology section. But, as every other inflection template, there ought to be a parameter for this function, and I am still inclined to using it. is good.
 * The obligatory shift from unnamed parameter to named  (and  seems a bit confusing. The plurals are very important information and there are Portuguese nouns with up to three of them, so I think a better approach would be to make three unnamed parameters for plurals.
 * As far as I know, there are also nouns with up to three singular forms for each gender. Therefore, we should have named parameters for feminine singular, feminine plurals, masculine singular and masculine plurals.
 * — vilão m (plural vilãos, vilões, vilães feminine vilã, viloa feminine plural vilãs, viloas)
 * And there are nouns with identical masculine and feminine forms.
 * — estudante m and f (plural estudantes)
 * — avestruz m and f (plural avestruzes)
 * Uncountable nouns would have a dash as first plural parameter. However, even uncountable nouns can be counted.
 * — equipamento f (uncountable, plural equipamentos)
 * — aglomeração f (uncountable, plural aglomerações)
 * Finally, we could have two additional first parameters: and . Since we don't add links at inflection lines of alternative forms (like ), they would de solely used for pluralia tantum. Then, all other parameters (perhaps except ) should be omitted.
 * — núpcias f (plurale tantum)
 * — copas f (plurale tantum)
 * Here is the whole initial set of parameters that could be used for :
 * m, f, mf, mpl or fpl. Basic information of the entry.
 * ,, : Plural forms of the entry.
 * ,, : Masculine singular forms of the entry.
 * ,, : Feminine singular forms of the entry.
 * ,, : Masculine plural forms of the entry.
 * ,, : Feminine plural forms of the entry.
 * The optional headword.
 * --Daniel. 04:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some replies and clarification:
 * The use of "head=" is entirely up to the user, of course.
 * The is no obligatory shift from using . If there is a second plural, it can be added simply as .  The parameter  is never required, but is avaiable as an option.  I've used  rather than  because that is how other templates I've seen deal with a secondary plural, including .  I wanted to be consistent, to avoid the complications of having the same thing done differently on different templates.
 * The issue of multiple plural forms for both genders leads me to believe we should have a separate for nouns with more than one gender.  Putting all that into the main template would make it way too cumbersome for simple cases.
 * The template design already handles nouns that are both masculine and feminine, with the same spelling for both. Use a gender value of mf.
 * I do not understand what you are saying about uncountable nouns. If a noun in uncountable, then by definition it cannot be counted.  Do you mean that a noun can be both countable and uncountable in different senses?
 * The idea of simply using mpl and fpl for the plural tantum nouns isn't as practical. It's better to have the gender and plural checks independent of each other.  A plurale tantum noun could possibly be coded with pl as the second parameter, but that's not what that value means when it's used in other templates, and I would rather not use something that would be misinterpreted.
 * And there should never be a need to code the various "singular forms" of the entry. Those are always listed under an "Alternative forms" section, not on the inflection line. --EncycloPetey 04:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are my replies:
 * About the issue of multiple plurals, I still prefer the unnamed parameters., and  could be simply as you said an option to avoid complications of having the same thing done differently on different templates. By the way, even on other templates, there is a , which encourages me to keep as I suggested.
 * If a exists for multiple forms of both genders, probably it would contain only the functions of the detailed parameters (,, , , etc.) This could be less cumbersome by simplifying these names. Perhaps, , , , ,  and  for alternative genders. Please let me know if you have a better way to work out this using an alternative template.
 * The Portuguese language is very flexible about dealing with uncountable nouns. They can be easily fragmented into known contexts, turning into countable. For example, "I have bought some equipment for the soldiers." could be translated as "Eu comprei alguns equipamentos para os soldados." (Please note the plural of equipamento.) Other plural forms of Portuguese uncountable nouns include águas, alcatéias, comunidades, ramalhetes, sequências, etc. and even hardwares. Probably all should be labeled as countable and uncountable for easier understanding of English speakers, but most don't have different senses aside from the plural form itself.
 * I like the idea of having a pl as second parameter for pluralia tantum. But for consistency reasons, perhaps it's better to use onlyplural.
 * --Daniel. 06:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Greek adjective declension templates‎
I guess I can't see the merit to this change, and so have rolled it back. I'm open to discuss. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am curious why the adjectives would be separated from other categories. Shouldn't the Category:Ancient Greek declension templates‎ have all the Ancient Greek declension templates? --Daniel. 13:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest, Category:Ancient Greek declension templates consists almost entirely of noun declension templates. Quite frankly, there are so many of them that such a super category containing them all is not desired.  It's hard enough to find the one you want as it is.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This sounds like an additional problem, instead of a solution. A super category is not desired, but it still exists, incomplete. Would you object if I create Category:Ancient Greek noun declension templates‎? --Daniel. 16:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Language parts of speech
Your list seems to be missing "Articles" and "Participles", among others. What are you doing with "Phrases" and "Contractions"? --EncycloPetey 05:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Up to this date, there are fifteen parts of speech supported by, including articles. Your examples "phrases" and "contractions" seem to come from our accepted part of speech headers, while I created that template to handle parts of speech in the traditional sense. That is, suffixes, phrases, idioms, abbreviations, symbols, etc. would not appear in categories like Category:English parts of speech or Category:Latin parts of speech. Additionally, I haven't included subcategories, e.g."personal pronouns", "noun forms" or even "participles" yet. --Daniel. 06:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

preload templates
Please note that "noinclude" does NOT work in preload templates "new ..." Robert Ullmann 06:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently, the "noinclude" works very well in preload templates. See . --Daniel. 07:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Robert is quite right. Maybe you're misunderstanding the terminology? Preload templates are used like this:
 * http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/non-existent_page?action=edit&preload=Template:new_hy_upletter
 * Notice that the &lt;noinclude&gt; section is not removed.
 * (In particular, preload= is not the same as subst:.)
 * —Ruakh TALK 17:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Finnish nominals
Hi there -- I see you're not happy with a "Finnish nominals" category. Neither was I entirely. Do you have a better solution for what I'm trying to do?

My aim is to catalogue Finnish words by inflection type. For verbs, the conjugation table template now assigns the word page to "Category:Finnish XXXX-type verbs", a subcategory of Category:Finnish verbs with conjugation, a subcategory of Category:Finnish verbs. All straightforward.

But for the declension template, the equivalent is be to assign the word to "Category:Finnish XXXX-type nominals", a subcategory of Category:Finnish nominals with declension. An adjective/noun distinction isn't useful, and I'm not sure if there's a way to spot the distinction from within the declension template (unless it can detect what category has already been assigned by Template:infl?).

So that's why I created Category:Finnish nominals - just to have a supercategory to slot them into. I could just have Category:Finnish nominals with declension be a subcategory of Category:Finnish language.

Anyway, one purpose of the categorisation is so that Appendix:Finnish conjugation types and Appendix:Finnish declension types can have counts to indicate how common the various types are, providing an automatic hint for the reader as to their relative importance. --KJBracey 11:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, KJBracey. From the few Finnish resources I have, including the Wiktionary declension templates you have been editing, I will assume that the whole set of declensions is used by both nouns and adjectives. If I am correct, it is certainly a little easier for editors to save a few keystrokes by gathering everything at a generic "nominals" category.


 * However, I don't see why would the distinction between various types of declension be more useful than the distinction between nouns and adjectives. An additional parameter for part of speech would not only help as "automatic hint [at the appendices] for the reader as to their relative importance", it would also maintain the tradition that variants of nouns should be kept at subcategories of "language nouns" and so on. --Daniel. 13:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:pt-conj/air
Please, we need Template:pt-conj/air, can you help? I dont know to make this template. --Volants 10:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy of portuguese translations
Hi, if you have a minute could you check how many of Special:Contributions/189.81.242.61 are accurate? Conrad.Irwin 12:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. Most of those eigth contributions had correct translations, and most had incorrect details such as a "literally" context out of place and lacking of grammatical gender. They're now checked and fixed where necessary. --Daniel. 14:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. Conrad.Irwin 14:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. --Daniel. 14:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Norwegian --> Bokmål and Nynorsk
I'm not sure how familiar you are with Bokmål and Nynorsk, but I find it very obvious that Category:Requests (Norwegian Bokmål) and Category:Requests (Norwegian Nynorsk) should be in Category:Requests (Norwegian). That is at least the way we have done it at this Wiktionary so far. Any good reasons not to? Remember, "Norwegian" isn't really a language, even though we treat words similar in Bokmål and Nynorsk to be "Norwegian". --Eivind (t) 10:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I searched through About Norwegian, Wiktionary categories, old discussions and your message, and didn't find a good reason for Category:Requests (Norwegian Bokmål) and Category:Requests (Norwegian Nynorsk) to be at Category:Requests (Norwegian). As far as I know, Norwegian is a language with at least two written forms, so a good convention should decide if we'll treat Bokmål and Nynorsk here as two languages or two dialects. About Norwegian says we should use "Norwegian" only, yet we have language categories for all these variants. While a decision on this subject is not made, it would be troublesome to keep peacefully every category inside other similar categories.
 * If, as you say, "Norwegian" is not a language, then the Category:Norwegian language (and its related subcategories) should not exist, because we already have Category:North Germanic languages to keep Category:Norwegian Nynorsk language and Category:Norwegian Bokmål language together as similar languages. --Daniel. 05:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct, it doesn't exist a language called "Norwegian". However, regardsless of what we decide for Norwegian languages later on, I reckon we should concentrate on user-friendliness and actually making sure those who are looking for these categories find them. Any Norwegian visiting the category for Norwegian requests, may be able to help out at both Bokmål and Nynorsk requests as well (they are mutually intelligible, and since there are no language called "Norwegian", all requests in that category are either Bokmål, Nynorsk or both). --Eivind (t) 12:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to keep similar Norwegian categories together, the idea of grouping them in additional categories doesn't sound very user-friendly. You could edit their descriptions instead. --Daniel. 12:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor template issue
I just wanted to point out an error to avoid that I fixed in : and are very different tags. Something marked with does not appear on the template page, but this is the only effect, as this tag will not prevent unmarked content on the page from being included. If you want that only the content tagged be included, you must use. Just a heads up.


 * I see. When I created, there was a  preventing the addition of the Category:Linking templates to pages linking to this template through transclusion. Unfortunately this bit of code was removed in my last edit. Thank you for your correction. --Daniel. 03:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ammonite
Hi. - what exactly are you doing here? :) --Ivan Štambuk 11:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, nevermind. I wonder where did the aoq code came up on Wikipedia.. --Ivan Štambuk 11:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical sorting for Portuguese
When you have the time, could you add comments under the Portuguese portion of User_talk:Conrad.Irwin? I'm helping Conrad to use a bot to generate updated Index pages for severla major Romance languages. See Index:Galician or Index:Hungarian for an example of what the bot does. Key issues are (1) which letters / digraphs are indexed separately (e.g. lh, nh), and (2) what sequence is used for diacriticals. Your input would be appreciated. --EncycloPetey 17:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:pt-conj/uar
Hi. Please, can you check Template:pt-conj/uar. I think it is OK, however maybe I do a mistake with negative imperative (I haven't learned this negative imperative yet). Thanks --Volants 10:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now it's fine. But the verb menstruar uses, not . --Daniel. 16:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Greenlandic categories
OK, will do. Thanks for letting me know :) Jakeybean 00:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As an afterthought... where should I put drinks such as 'immiaq'? Should I put a drinks subcategory in Foods? Jakeybean 18:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Tu vs Você
Oi, Daniel.

Sim, é verdade que no Brasil se usa "Tu é" e similares. A minha dúvida reside em considerar que se trate de dialeto ou de um erro gramatical. "Tu é" me parece errado apesar de ser usado pelos gaúchos. Analogamente, em Portugal, há regiões onde se fala de forma incorreta mas tal não pode ser considerado standard mas sim uma "particularidade". Tu o que opina? :) Não insisto muito na minha alteração pelo que se tu preferir eu reverto. --Malafaya 19:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ou então vai em frente e reverte tu mesmo, na boa. ;) Malafaya 20:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, reparei agora que já estava revertido. Malafaya 20:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Appendix:Old Cyrillic alphabet
Why move this? It is an alphabet, and much more often referred to by that name. If you must generalize it, then perhaps the unambiguous Old Cyrillic writing system would be better. Script can be confused with manuscript in contrast to type, or script fonts instead of serif and sans-serif. —Michael Z. 2009-06-16 13:17 z 


 * Yes, I'm intending to generalize appendix and category names in an effort to organize them. In my opinion, the distinction between alphabets, syllabaries, etc. shouldn't be made at their titles. Your suggestion "writing system" seems to be good, but it's not very useful as a disambiguation tool: The Appendix:Old Cyrillic writing system should probably include an explanation about Old Cyrillic manuscript fonts or script fonts, if this title and this information are desirable. --Daniel. 03:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:poscatboiler/theList
Could you amend the list so that it accepts Suffix as a POS? Latin formative suffixes inflect, just as the nouns and adjectives they form. --EncycloPetey 20:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As the problem seems to be the suffix inflections rather than which list is ammended, I've created the option instead, so it won't break the distinction between Latin affixes and Latin parts of speech. --Daniel. 00:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Volantsbot
Hello Daniel. I would like to intriduce my bot User:Volantsbot. It will create conjugated verb forms for the Portuguese verbs. I have used the entries, which you have created, as guides - and copied the code from the conjugated forms from amassar. Please can you check that this is working, and see Special:Contributions/Volantsbot and User:Volantsbot/ar template (the template I use for the creation of the verb forms). I think, I can potentially create some thousands Portuguese words, as a result of this bot. --Volants 09:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, Volants. Yes, looks like your bot is working perfectly. However, before you create thousands of Portuguese words, an update of the templates  and  is necessary to reflect the recent ortographic reform. (That is, basically, the   parameter should be removed and the affected entries be marked as obsolete.) I'm planning to edit these templates today and notify you when I finish, so you may want to rewrite portions of your User:Volantsbot/ar template for more accurate and informative entries. --Daniel. 09:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. This is fine. I think, I'll have more free time to spend on the internet soon, so I'll be available to play with this bot. And I didn't know anything about any orthographic reform, so thanks for the information. It was a while since I studied Portuguese, I didn't think anything would have changed since that time. --Volants 10:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

wienerisch
As you deal with German can you perhaps check this? Proxima Centauri 08:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I advise you to not ask me about specific entries outside the list of languages I speak at my user page. I removed the Category:de:adjectives from wienerisch, because this does not conform to the pattern of lexical categories (this should be Category:German adjectives, which is automatically generated by ). I also removed a blank line and an empty "Pronunciation" section, but I cannot accurately tell you if this entry is correct. --Daniel. 09:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's OK - I think I fixed it - it is simple enough German for me to understand. --Jackofclubs 09:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Pronouns
Just a note: indefinite pronouns and demonstrative pronouns are generally also considered Determiners. --EncycloPetey 14:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Articles are also generally considered determiners, but I didn't include this automatic information in the category tree to avoid Category:Portuguese determiners, Category:Italian determiners, etc. in languages where the concept of determiner is not present. If these POS nuances are desirable (from the various manual links I have seen, they are desirable), perhaps I should as well consider personal pronouns as nouns and possessive pronouns as adjectives. -Daniel. 14:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In some languages the possessive pronouns are considered adjectives, such as Latin. Most textbooks and manuals consider them adjectives rather than pronouns.  The same is often true in Spanish.  I've delayed on revising Latin possessives for this reason.  I haven't decided how they would be best treated.  I wouldn't make a general statement about which items should be grouped as determiners, since the idea is still new enough to the field that it hasn't been thoroughly investigated in many languages to test the idea of the separate classification. --EncycloPetey 00:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The idea of a category for determiners looks simple enough to have exactly these subcategories if they exist: articles, numerals, interrogative pronous, interrogative adverbs, demonstrative pronouns, indefinite pronouns, possessive pronouns and possessive adjectives. For languages that don't have clear distinctions between possessive "pronouns" or "adjectives" (and even other distinctions or subclasses, including English determiner/numeral and Japanese noun/personal pronoun), I can think of repeating definitions at multiple POS headers or simply explaining them at the POS appendices. --Daniel. 02:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

costumar
The definition given is "to used to" - this doesn't make sense in English. Is it like [[used to]]? --Jackofclubs 06:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've fixed this definition now. --Daniel. 06:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

desfazer
Another one - there's a strange template loop here --Jackofclubs 06:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And manusear has the same problem. --Jackofclubs 06:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also reconhecer :) --Jackofclubs 06:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Dutch irregular strong verbs
I must have missed something here, but why was this deleted? The category is intended for strong verbs whose pattern of vowel alternations doesn't fit in with the established 7 classes of strong verb. These verbs are still strong, because they nonetheless show a vowel change to mark the past tense, and because they lack the characteristic -d- and -t- of the weak past tense. Now that the category is gone, I have no idea where to put verbs such as sterven, which is certainly not irregular, but doesn't belong to one of the regular 7 classes either! --CodeCat 19:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My resources in Dutch did not present the concept of non-regular strong verbs: On the contrary, I could study at least nine classes. Though, as a novice in this language, I'll simply trust you and restore the category, with a different name. Preferably, non-irregular verb descriptions and categories should not contain the deceiving word irregular. So, I created Category:Dutch non-standard strong verbs for its function. The template should update it soon. --Daniel. 23:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It depends on what resource you go with, which classes of strong verb there are. Most sources (such as Germanic strong verb) including myself go with 7 classes, since those are the classes that all Germanic languages share. It is from this point of view that verbs like sterven, helpen, werpen etc. are irregular or at least non-standard, because they do not belong to any of the 7 classes inherited from Germanic. Rather, they are mixtures of the features of classes 3 and 7 (at least in the case of the three I mentioned). There seems to have been (or perhaps still is) a tendency to move strong verbs to class 7 in Dutch, so this explains some irregularities. There are also some verbs which are mixed, and have both strong and weak forms (such as lachen and jagen). Hope that clears things up for you. :) --CodeCat 12:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

your post on my talk page
You posted on my talk page: "Category:English words affected by confusion I see you sugested a new category, created it yourself, then deleted the suggestion. Please do not delete discussions, because: [1] they are usually archived for historic purposes (in this case, they are moved to separate pages) and [2] someone may still want to respond, as fifty-eight minutes of existence is not sufficient to draw attention of other editors. --Daniel. 10:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)"


 * The reason I deleted my suggestion was that I subsequently found Categories and it seemed to me to make my suggestion irrelevant. People can still respond on the category's talk page. However, no-one had replied to my suggestion, so it didn't seem to qualify as a "discussion".--Tyranny Sue 11:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The link Categories directed me to Wikipedia, so I'll assume you meant this link: Categories. This seems a fine but rather incomplete list of hints. For example, one common practice is that almost every category must be included in another category. Other possible way of improving your recent Category:English words affected by confusion is linking it to Appendix:English malapropisms. You don't need to worry about making perfect edits because occasionally someone will adjust the details where necessary. That said, you just make it easier for everyone by allowing discussion or simply notifying editors at one of our discussion rooms, specially after a brand new idea such as yours. --Daniel. 13:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Spanish verb indicative forms
I've nominated this for deletion (and by implication similar categories). I don't believe they serve any useful purpose. --EncycloPetey 17:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Except there are already hundreds of similar categories such as Spanish indicative forms. My recent ones were planned to have useful purposes even if the Wiktionary community chooses to delete them: naming consistency and easier navigation. --Daniel. 18:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Galician participles
This category should not be deleted, just as Category:Galician nouns and Category:Galician verbs, etc. It is the primary category level for that part of speech. --EncycloPetey 00:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Then it would have to be changed anyway: The Category:Galician participles contained only past participles (the present participles are still in the separate Category:Galician gerunds). But I'd rather consider participles as verb forms. --Daniel. 00:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's possible for some languages, but not possible for others. In Latin, participles are generally considered a separate part of speech because they have grammatical features of both verbs and adjectives, being neither wholly one or the other, and all of them have their own inflections.  If they are a verb "form", then all 36 of the perfect participle inflected forms have to be crammed into a verb conjugation table, as do the present participle forms, future active participle forms, and future passive participle forms.  Latin has four major kinds of participles, and three of those have full inflections for three genders and six cases (singular and plural).


 * There are some languages on Wiktionary where participles are treated as a separate part of speech, because that is the grammatically sensible thing to do. Latin and Ancient Greek are among the languages that do this.  There are other languages where treating the participle as a separate part of speech does not make sense, such as English.  It simply isn't feasibel to expect all the languages to categorize the participles in exactly the same way. --EncycloPetey 03:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * PS - Be aware that Latin gerunds are not participles. The "gerundios" of Iberian languages come from a blending of the Latin future passive participle (gerundivus) and gerund (gerundium).  In Latin the gerundivus functioned as a passive adjective of any gender or number, but the gerundium functioned as an active neuter singular noun.  Hence, a gerund in Latin counts as both a verb form (sort of) and as a class of noun. --EncycloPetey 13:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not know yet a language with participles that can't be considered verb forms.
 * In the languages I've studied, the characteristics shared by other parts of speech come from the fact that participles are not fully inflected when compared to other verb forms (for example, the verb form "eats" indicates an event ocurring now; and the participle "eating" indicates an event ocurring at a moment specified by compound conjugations such as "was eating").
 * If a word is a participle but may work exactly the same way as another POS, it should have multiple POS headers, such as the participle "fallen", the adjective "fallen" and the noun "fallen".
 * However, the participle as a separate POS is fine [1] as a way to distribute the various forms and prevent issues such as the cramming of conjugation tables (similarly, proper noun is a subclass of noun but we use separate categories and separate POS headers for it) and [2] for all languages that I don't know properly to decide. Then I defined the option, and I see no reason to not include a category for "participles" to each language that has participles. --Daniel. 04:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Miscategorisation
Hi there. Please note this; any idea what’s going wrong? †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Titles of glossaries
I've brought the issue to Beer Parlour. --Dan Polansky 09:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey man
At least on ser, something's goin' wrong with Template:pt-conj/doWork. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Montenegrin extension code
Where did "zls" come from? It isn't an ISO code. "sla" (Slavic group) would seem to be a good code, so "sla-mon" ? Robert Ullmann 11:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "zls" is the ISO 693-5 code for South Slavic languages. See this link. --Daniel. 18:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, IC. We should update the text to note that we are using -5 codes for groups in some cases. Will do. Tx, Robert Ullmann 09:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * True. Sorry for the confusion. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 18:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:namecatboiler
The alphabet seems worse than useless here. Categories like "Xxxn given names" are not supposed to have any names, and even in "Xxxn male/female given names" you rarely find more than 400 names; after that I try to create subcategories. Imagine you are a newcomer here and you see the alphabet. "Fine. I'll look at names beginning with M." Click! Nothing happens."They don't seem to have any names yet."

Could you please remove the alphabet? (I don't know how to edit templates). If you want an alphabet, maybe you could create a separate template, only to be used for giant size categories. I think that having too many templates might scare away potential contributors. It makes editing look like an esoteric science.

What really should be fixed in given name categories is wrong alphabetic order in languages like French, Spanish or Hawaiian. But I don't know if this is your field? --Makaokalani 12:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. Perhaps the better solution would be to automatically not show a Table of Contents in categories with less than 201 pages, where they are unnecessary anyway. This would logically include "Xxxn given names".
 * And yes, I can likely help you with templates and alphabetic order if you provide more accurate information about these issues. --Daniel. 22:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you really fix it so that the alphabet is invisible if there are less than 201 pages? It would solve all. And it would help to find the correct alphabetical order. I meant that every language has an alphabet of its own - in Portuguese A and Á come together, but the Wiktionary order is ABCD... abcd... and then back to upper case:ÁÀ etc.


 * What about the uppel level of name categories? Please see the discussion in WT:BP.--Makaokalani 12:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:pt-conj
Hello Daniel, Portugese verb conjunction template pt-conj seems to be broken. See distrair, dizer. --Karelklic 19:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've edited so that the problem is no longer visible in the title, although the content is still messed up.  While my first inclination is to simply leave this for you to do, it appears you haven't been terribly active as of late, and this is a mess which needs to be cleaned up, so I'll try and sort this.  Of course, this is your project, and so feel quite free to undo whatever work of mine you see fit when you get to it.  However, I would make the small request that you let me know if/when you do so, as I would like to follow this, out of curiosity if nothing else.  Many thanks.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, upon a bit more investigating, I see that we're in the midst of a subtemplate formatting transition. Making the requisite changes requires a lot of tedious edits which I don't really feel up to making, so I'll leave it to you.  However, I would like to request that you make them in a timely fashion.  Making a change where all the templates break if they're on the old system kind of expects the user to ensure that the templates are broken for as little time as possible.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The template transition is done. is fully operational for the verbs that are  listed on its talk page. Some new functions are also working properly, such as the automatic conjugation notes for each verb. --Daniel. 18:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Thanks very much.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Thanks for the clarification on "te amo". Are you from Brazil? — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 00:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Yes, I am from Brazil. --Daniel. 00:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

ello
That term is complex. It also holds the meaning vow, bind... but I decided not to enter those as yet. Thank you very much for repairing my error of judgment. I appreciate exacting and decisive action. B9hummingbirdhoverin' æ•ω•ॐ 08:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Letter categories
I see you're busy changing categories for letter names. Two problems tho... The contents should remain part of separate categories, though I can see the reasoning behind switching to a name that would cause the category for the names of Latin characters in Catalan to not be a subcat of Category:Latin letters. — Carolina wren discussió 22:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Where did the change get discussed? (I may well have missed it since I don't always pay close attention to the discussion pages.)
 * 2) I don't think it is a good idea to have a category name scheme that would merge names for letters from different alphabets.  In addition to category Category:ca:Latin letters which you have replaced with Category:ca:Letter names, there are also Category:ca:Hebrew letters and Category:ca:Greek letters.


 * I think that merging names for letters from different alphabets through categorization is a good idea, but I'm not interested in defending this point of view. In my opinion, separate categories for separate alphabets is also a good idea. The task I'm trying to fulfill is, as you said, cleaning up the Category:Latin letters. Except for the merging of letter names, the changes were not considered significant by me, so I did not start a discussion about them (Though there are numerous generic discussions about how to deal with lexical categories such as "Romanian letters" and how to deal with topical categories such as "es:Letter names", and my conclusion from these discussions was simply that letter categories are undesirably messed up). Perhaps it's better to choose different names for the topical categories categories in question, while keeping alphabets apart from each other. My suggestion is ca:Names of Latin letters, and so on. --Daniel. 22:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Given Wiktionary's aversion to prepositions in category names, might not Category:ca:Latin letter names, etc. be a better option? We might want to take this discussion to the Beer Parlor for input on how to name the subcategories, but I can live with either name scheme so long as it's consistent. — Carolina wren discussió  23:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Initially, the scheme of Category:ca:Latin letter names looks deceiving: the English version (Category:Latin letter names) could evidently be a category for "letter names" in Latin. On the other hand, since "letter names" is a subject, not a lexical item, its purpose becomes clear. In addition, the usage can be further clarified in the description. I think this way is much better than the old way involving Category:Latin letters directly, and I accept it as a good system of categorization of letter names. I do not see a particular reason to bring this conversation into WT:BP now, so I'll leave this decision to you. If you go there to look for more opinions about the issues in question, please notify me so I can participate.--Daniel. 01:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Made a sample change to alef. If you find either the description or the parents of Hebrew letter names inadequate, please improve. I'll get to work on other affected Catalan entries later. — Carolina wren discussió  06:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's good, thanks. I made a small change in, it should link to a category Hebrew script (instead of Hebrew letters) now. This change was done to reflect the fact that other languages also use the Hebrew script. You may want to see also Category:Latin script, which I am populating to have all characters based on Latin script, including for example "ç" and "Ë", which are not used on Latin language. --Daniel. 15:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain we want categories for the letters used in individual languages. One problem is that for letters such as A, that could result in having hundred of categories.  Another is that technically speaking not every glyph is a letter. At least according to the IEC (the standards body for Catalan), the entry previously at Ç was wrong as Ç is the letter C with the diacritic ¸ attached.  In general, I think it would be better to handle such matters via appendices than entries. — Carolina wren discussió  19:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably all letters officially recognized by any language meet WT:CFI individually, so they merit entries and lexical categories. Furthermore, each may have its own pronunciation, alternative forms, alphabetical order, usage notes, possible diacritics and so on. The entry a currently has many categories; though if its letter categories were removed, this entry would still have many categories, so I think the overpopulation is expected. As for the accuracy issue of having "non-letters" such as Ç in a category for letters, I can live with additional categories like Category:Catalan letters with diacritics (and, by extension, Category:Catalan ligatures and Category:Catalan digraphs if there are any), but I don't consider the group of letters with diacritics as sufficiently important to merit distinction through categorization: the Category:Catalan letters could contain all Catalan symbols directly based on letters, their nuances being explained at their definitions. --Daniel. 21:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Letters certainly meet CFI as Translingual entries, but the information on which languages use them and how they are used strikes me as encyclopedic information that happens to be sufficiently pertinent to warrant inclusion in an appendix, not dictionary entries. — Carolina wren discussió 22:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Finished getting all the Catalan entries into the new categories, and any entries with the same spelling in a different language I tried to take care of as I went along. I'll worry about whether the letters and glyphs themselves need per language categories another day. I'm certain if others agree with me, it'll head to RFDO sooner or later and that point doesn't matter to me as much as other things I'd like to attend to. — Carolina wren discussió 00:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see, thanks. I've changed and related templates for more accuracy on letter names. Most items I have listed ("pronunciation, alternative forms,"[...]) at my previous message to you are common for other entries as well, not just letters. Being this one reason to have individual entries on letters, I'll continue to clean them up until further discussion. --Daniel. 16:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed a couple of copy and paste errors in Template:topic cat description/Hebrew letter names and Template:topic cat description/Latin letter names, since I doubted you wanted them to mention Category:Greek script. Speaking of which  Category:Greek script and Category:Hebrew script are both red links at the moment, but since I wasn't certain how you wanted them organized, I left them as red links for now. However, The parent category should probably be simply Category:Scripts  Category:Writing systems instead of Category:All scripts as Category:Latin script now has.— Carolina wren discussió  19:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As part of my project of cleaning up all categories for the symbols discussed, I'll certainly create and organize the script categories, but I consider Latin script as higher priority now. In my opinion, Category:All scripts is an elegant name for a top-level category that contains categories. For similar reasons, Category:All languages is also a good name for a category that contain language categories. Thank you for cleaning my typos. --Daniel. 02:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside the question of elegance, which is just a matter of taste, the inclusion of that word All in a category name is not standard practice for Wiktionary, Commons, or Wikipedia. Category:All languages and its subcat Category:All sign languages are an exception to the usual practice. Aside from w:Category:All Blacks, on Wikipedia the word All is used only with maintenance categories, while over on Commons besides the All Blacks, it shows up in two categories about proteins to indicate that their components are all of one type.
 * There is also the consideration that on Commons and Wikipedia, the relevant category is not named Category:Scripts but Category:Writing systems, likely to avoid ambiguity over which meaning of script: is meant. Granted, given Wiktionary's focus only one meaning is relevant, but over on Wikisource if they had such a category, it would be a totally different sense of the word script. (Wikisource uses s:Category:Plays.) — Carolina wren <small style="font-family:sans-serif">discussió 15:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A "matter of taste" is not unimportant when choosing category names, specially if we consider solely standard practice a good way to reach decisions. Personally, I consider mostly Wiktionary standard practices when making choices on Wiktionary categorization; other projects may be linked manually when necessary. Considering Wikipedia categories, the top-level script category could probably be named Category:Entries by script (or Category:Entries by writing system)  ; or perhaps Category:Script categories (Category:Writing system categories) . Wiktionary doesn't have a strong policy on category naming conventions such as w:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), but the word "all" at the start of category names is not undesirable at all, if it can be used exceptionally. Furthermore, the top-level categories I am working on involve even more exceptions, such as Category:All parts of speech, recently created for . Maybe their existence and usefulness are sufficient to evolve the word "all" (or a similar separatist naming scheme) into non-exceptional consensus. Until then, I'm using Category:Scripts.
 * From what I see, the category named Latin script is, even without a description at this moment, clear enough to not be confused with any other definition of script related to Latin. And it is consistent with the abbreviation, which is common in many technical aspects of Wiktionary. --Daniel. 18:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reason I have for preferring writing systems over scripts for the meta-category is commonality with other Wikimedia projects, which is a decidedly secondary factor for the reasons you gave. As for the use of all, unless someone wants to use a topical category for scripts, which in my opinion would be overly specific as Category:Orthography is nowhere near in need of further subcategorization at the moment, we won't need Category:All scripts.  At present, All is used only when needed to distinguish a topical category from a meta-category.  Perhaps a more generic discussion of how to name meta-categories over at the Beer Parlor would be profitable.  All is certainly better than the * used by Category:*Topics from the standpoint of elegance. — Carolina wren <small style="font-family:sans-serif">discussió  19:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the description of Category:*Topics, the asterisk is meant to make a category appear at the top of category lists. Without any automatic or manual adjustments, its effect would work only for the English version, because it doesn't start with a code. I've started a discussion here at Beer Parlour on this matter. --Daniel. 18:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I also don't like the "All ..." prefix especially in the L3 category names. Every category attempts to broad in its coverage, there is no reason to make that explicit in the titles. Was there a technical reason that Category:All parts of speech was superior to Category:Parts of speech. Everyone seemed to be fine with the latter since 2004. Same thing with Symbols, wants Category:All symbols instead of Category:Symbols. If there is no reason, I'd move to restructure according to how it was (and how Category:Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms still is). --Bequw → ¢ • τ 16:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Category:Parts of speech contains English words related to parts of speech (such as the entry noun), Category:All parts of speech contains part of speech categories (such as the category Nouns by language). I'd be against their merge. Category:Symbols for symbols is fine. --Daniel. 18:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Rug pulling
Was that move of the Dutch inflection page really so urgent? I lost a fair bit of typing that way... Jcwf 01:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I couldn't know that moving Appendix:Dutch parts of speech would make you lose imminent contributions. In fact, your contributions made easier for me to find that appendix with a title to be changed. As far as I know and as far as I experienced as a Wiktionary editor, there's no way to assure that nobody will edit a page you are editing, so you may expect conflicts like that occasionally from anyone. However, undesirable effects of such interruptions tend to be easily reversible; for example, many navigators such as Mozilla Firefox have a "Back" button, which in addition to going back to previous web pages, let you see everything you typed in their text boxes. --Daniel. 02:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Roman alphabet - letter names
Hi,

Do you think it's a good idea to create translations/pronunciations of Roman letters in different languages? Not sure if a translation should be on a letter page itself or separately. For example, English or Latin A would have different names in different languages, even if referring to the English letter name /ei/, /a/, эй (ej), إي, エイ, etc. It would be useful for transcribing English abbreviation in other languages. --Anatoli 01:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. Yes, I think it's a good idea to contribute with information about letters from various languages. Letter names are treated normally like other nouns: You may add translations to English letter names, such as bee: and double U:, which already have some; you may also create and/or edit entries for foreign letter names, such as and, linking them to the English versions. At this moment, entries on letters themselves (ex.: A, B, C...) are relatively messed up, so you are welcome to improve them if/when you want. Language-specific names and language-specific pronunciations may be added to each letter entry, as you can see at the various languages listed ç|here. In addition, appendices are a good way to list and comment about all letters of a language in one place, as you can see on Appendix:Spanish letters and Appendix:Polish letters. --Daniel. 03:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. A to a was OK but I don't quite understand why you moved from b to bee. It would be more consistent to leave where it was. You also removed gender and comments from the Russian translations. Why? Anatoli 04:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "bee" is the English name of the letter b. Similarly, "a" is the English name of the letter a. You were translating names, not letters themselves, so these new places are certainly more consistent than the previous ones. I removed the comment "name and pronunciation of the English and Latin letter in other languages" because I considered this information too obvious to stay at a translation table. I also removed a "Latin, etc." from a Russian translation because the relation between Latin "a" and Cyrillic "а" would be better explained in their entries than in translations (according to standard practices and WT:ELE, detailed information should not be at translation tables). I do not remember removing genders from letters lately. --Daniel. 06:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, agreed. Thanks. Anatoli 00:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Appendix:Ancient Greek nouns
Umm...could you please put these back the way they were. The inflection templates on thousands of entries point to them, and I think each really deserves its own appendix. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see, there are about fifty templates linking Ancient Greek entries to the three separate appendices for each declension. Rather than edit now all these templates to link them directly, I've redirected the appendices in question to Appendix:Ancient Greek nouns, which facilitates comparison between the declensions; on the other hand, when separated they were almost small enough to fit my monitor, which in my opinion, is a good arbitrary way to decide that any appendix deserves significant expansion and/or merge. Furthermore, the name "Ancient Greek nouns" is consistent with many other appendices ("English nouns", "Romanian nouns", etc.), and as a simple and generic name, it is easier to be remembered, and typed as web address. And, such naming system is programmed in, providing a very visible automatic link in Category:Ancient Greek nouns and in its supported subcategories. --Daniel. 17:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I must say I'm a little frustrated by this. Did it occur to you that the organization of Ancient Greek appendices had already passed through my mind before?  Yes, Appendix:Ancient Greek nouns does need to exist, but what you've put there is not what goes there.  Yes, the appendices for the first and second declensions are woefully inadequate, but they will, in time, be expanded, along the lines of that of the third declension, which still has a ways to go itself.  Your efforts at organization and standardization are appreciated, but you must defer to people who are knowledgeable/involved in the languages in question.  I'm reverting your stuff.  I'll thank you very much to leave them.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I could naturally think that you're not particularly involved with where should stay the information now contained within Appendix:Ancient Greek first declension, Appendix:Ancient Greek second declension and Appendix:Ancient Greek third declension, as you did not create these appendices. According to my investigations, the creation and expansion of appendices for declensions with the word "declension" (normally preceded by an ordinal number) in their titles was initially a project by User:Muke, from 2004. However, instead of ignoring you, I gave good reasons to merge them into Appendix:Ancient Greek nouns and you gave mainly prospects of improvement, and seemingly considered such prospects as reasons to revert my edits. From your tone, looks like you're assuming that I'm against improvement of the appendices in question, which would be an untrue assumption. We agreed that an Appendix:Ancient Greek nouns should exist; and I say that it would seem highly incomplete if it don't mention declensions, because declensions are important information for Ancient Greek nouns. By the way, I'm sorry for leaving you frustrated, but I expected you were interested in discussing this issue, rather than simply suggesting that I shouldn't participate in your project. --Daniel. 01:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, while I didn't create any of the appendices, I have greatly expanded Appendix:Ancient Greek third declension. In more general terms, I consider Ancient Greek on Wiktionary as a whole as "my project" (which does not exclude others from making it their project as well).  Thus, I am concerned about, and generally keep tabs on, everything which happens here related to Ancient Greek.  Yes, I did note prospects of improvement, specifically to counter your dissatisfaction with the length of one and two (a dissatisfaction I share, by the way).  However, aside from that, Appendix:Ancient Greek nouns is simply not the place for an extended discussion on morphology.  Yes, it should be mentioned, but that appendix is for a general discussion of nouns, including their grammar, classification, etc.  There was simply too much morphological info there as you had it.  Each declension is complex enough that it easily merits its own appendix.  The fact that we currently have no content at Appendix:Ancient Greek nouns is not sufficient justification for simply cramming whatever we happen to have on hand there.  As for suggesting you not participate.....I don't think you ever had any intention of participating.  You are not working on the Ancient Greek appendices, you are working on sorting the appendices in general, and happened to come across the Ancient Greek ones incidentally, as part of your project (which, by the way, is a worthy one, in my opinion).  If you have concerns for your project, by all means share them, and I'd be happy to discuss how my specific interests in the Ancient Greek appendices can be made to work with your general interests for the appendices.  However, as it stood, the way you had things set up was simply unacceptable.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I saw, you weren't directly involved with their titles previously chosen (because you didn't create the appendices, move them or discuss about their titles). Then, I made a wrong assumption, for which I apologize: that you wouldn't mind if I moved their information to another appendix, specially one that seemingly meets the criteria of consistency for my project of standardization of lexical appendices. Technically, any constructive edit would mean "participation", so I was evidently talking about that move, and, by extension, about similar generic deeds, such as the addition of  at Category:Ancient Greek language last year. Though, while I'll probably never contribute on Ancient Greek in particularly greater scale than on most other languages, my generic plans go farther than editing titles and merging contents. I've started a page called User:Daniel./Ancient Greek nouns, which doesn't have much information by now, but can be improved in time. I'd like to move it to Appendix:Ancient Greek nouns under your acceptance; so, when you have time, please see it. Then, if this proposal has any errors or other urgent issues, please improve it through edits or through notifying me. I still want to discuss about how to name and organize the three declension appendices in question, but I consider a good noun appendix as higher priority at this moment. --Daniel. 10:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Daniel./Ancient Greek nouns looks reasonable. I'll make a few changes and move it within a couple of days (the problems are minor enough that you could probably move it now, and I'll edit it later, if you're in a hurry).  I apologize for blowing up earlier.  I guess I misjudged your intentions and motivations.  However, I stand by my position that the three appendices are aptly named, and should each have their own separate existence.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 14:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good. Then I'll explain the next subject or our conversation. There are two main criteria from my standardization project, that unfortunately are not fulfilled by the titles of these three separate declension appendices at this moment. Of course, while my personal preference is to inflict these criteria over every lexical appendix, you are welcome to discuss about whether they are valuable to the Ancient Greek ones or not. They are: consistency with categories and POS introduction. As lexical appendices describe groups of related words (presumably groups important enough to merit appendices), ideally every such appendix would be directly related to a lexical category, for example Appendix:English nouns and Category:English nouns. Such relation streghtens both the purposes of appendices and categories, by approximating lists and explanations in an intuitive and elegant way. The second criterion is that the part of speech in question would be described at the title of each appendix. By choosing only one POS (for instance, Ancient Greek nouns, Ancient Greek proper nouns or Ancient Greek adjectives, rather than Ancient Greek irregular plurals or similar abrangent titles, the only foreseeable exceptions being the top-level appendices of each language, such as Appendix:Ancient Greek parts of speech and Appendix:Ancient Greek affixes), I hope that visualizations and contributions become facilitated by this system of clarification of purposes of each appendix. Furthermore, they become more convenient for me to organize; and, according to my plans, this organization will eventually lead to a full list of appendices, which when together would also be clarified by their similar titles. From these criteria, I propose the following appendix names: Appendix:Ancient Greek first declension nouns, Appendix:Ancient Greek second declension nouns and Appendix:Ancient Greek third declension nouns. Similarly, categories would also be renamed to match them. --Daniel. 20:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think matching appendices to POS categories is an excellent idea in principle, but I think some flexibility will be required. To begin with, I don't believe that an appendix will be appropriate in all cases. I don't think that Appendix:Ancient Greek noun forms would be useful, even though we have that (admittedly kind of useless, but nonetheless necessary) category. Also, I don't think we should limit our appendices to POS cats, as there will doubtless be other useful appendices (Appendix:Ancient Greek consonant contractions is one I can think of off the top of my head). That being said, I would have no problem moving the three appendices in question to Appendix:Ancient Greek first declension nouns, etc. While I don't think it would improve the appendix intrinsically, matching it up to a pre-existing cat would be nice. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, each lexical appendix would be related to a lexical category; not the contrary, as I didn't see a particular reason to keep one such appendix without a category. However, as you suggested, this system may not be perfect, so I'll clarify one specific and relatively flexible opinion of mine: I don't think it's necessary to have one category and one appendix for each lexical subject; but, when we want to keep lexical information, it should follow a consistent naming system. (For instance, this naming system says that Appendix:Hellenic languages and their inflections is not be acceptable either as category or appendix, therefore any worthy contents should be moved away from it; though, by the way, I share your opinion on the futility of Appendix:Ancient Greek noun forms.) As for your example Appendix:Ancient Greek consonant contractions, I have to say that contractions, abbreviations, initialisms, phrases, proverbs and other entries directly made from more than one word are still effectivelly untouched by me. But I think their treatment would be the same: we have categories for personal pronouns and interrogative pronouns so, by comparison, a category for consonantal contractions could be acceptable. Anyway, thank you for your time on discussing these issues. I'll move the Ancient Greek appendices and categories (such as Category:Ancient Greek nouns of the first declension to Category:Ancient Greek first declension nouns) according to our agreement and edit the related links. --Daniel. 04:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Letter D's
Hey, I saw that you added to Appendix:Unsupported titles the D's with commas below. Are they really unsupported? Can't we have the entries at d̦ D̦? Or is there a script issue I'm not aware of? Cheers. PS - I think you copied (w/o correction) the descriptions from Ḍḍ to Ḑḑ. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 13:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was having some problems with Unicode on my computer, but it looks fine now. As far as I see, all the issues you've pointed in your message are now fixed, including the definitions of Ḍḍ. Thank you very much. --Daniel. 14:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those combining characters can be a pain. Thanks. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 17:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you double check it please. It doesn't seem to be adding parent categories as it ought to. For example, Category:Catalan suffixes doesn't have Category:Catalan affixes as a parent, nor Category:Catalan suffix forms as a child. Also as long as you're mucking around with it, could you add support for prefix forms as there are some prefixes that alter form based on the root they attach to. — Carolina wren <small style="font-family:sans-serif">discussió 03:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't find any issue on suffix form categories (for example, Category:Catalan suffix forms was a child of Category:Catalan suffixes when I checked them, so I left them alone). The Category:Catalan suffixes didn't have Category:Catalan affixes as a parent indeed; this problem is now fixed. And, as you requested, the command is now supported. --Daniel. 04:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

placement
The alphabet display boxes should not be above the first L3 sections. The correct place to show related characters is either in the Related terms or See also (see BP discussion). This hasn't been followed well in the past, usually because originally editors just noted the next & previous characters and that was small enough to fit in a floating box, the inflection line, or the definition line without too much layout problems. But when showing a whole sequence, either alphabets or digit sequences, like the alphabet display templates you are inserting, this can get very space-heavy. On pages such as ⠛ and セ I can't even see the some of the definitions even when I move the TOC to the right. Please understand I greatly appreciate the cleanup you're doing to the basic characters (you've done a lot, and the entries need a lot of attention), but can you move the alphabet display templates you inserted to one of the proper headings below the definitions (similar to how is placed)? Thanks. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 17:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If such consensus is reached, I can certainly edit the current 784 entries that contain to change its placement. Though, when analyzing the BP discussion I did not found a consensus preventing exactly the addition of such templates under the L2 language header. In fact, four major templates (,,  and ) appear as seemingly acceptable examples in that discussion; three of them are explicitly documented as being always placed under the language header. Personally, I think the current placement is great, but you may want to share your opinion with other editors through the new BP discussion I started at this link. --Daniel. 03:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course those can be placed anywhere, they float on the right-hand side. The issue with the alphabet display boxes (and those like it in the future) is that they are in the main content area. That's is where we need to stick to the having links in their proper places. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 12:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for placing this in  on the new pages you are creating. Is it technically difficult to move the ones that were already inserted directly under the L2? I'd like to clean up some of the basic latin letters, but was going to wait until after you moved the existing  instances. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 15:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 17:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Armenian letters
I thought I'd drop you a line to say that I'm going to remove the Translingual section of the Armenian letters (for the reasons outlined at the BP). Do you think we should keep uniformity and use or keep the original ? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 01:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * When merging, I'd choose the contents from instead of, because the latter is too wide. In addition, I'm planning to edit it to include only individual romanizations, like the katakana entry カ. --Daniel. 01:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * When editing to include romanizations, please add also punctuation marks of Appendix:Unicode/Armenian somewhere, if possible. --Vahagn Petrosyan 07:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added the punctuation marks. I'm not sure about adding the romanizations. First off, (a possibly better named redirect for ) is really a navigation template and so is now listed in the See also section of the entries. Why would we add the romanizations to this navigation template? Would someone know the letter they want to look up by its romanization and not by its armenian script (and additionally not figure out to click on the Appendix link)? Secondly, as there are several Romanization systems, which would we show? Is ISO 9985 (which  shows) the only widely used romanization? If not, it would seem better to not make a huge navigation template and instead put the various systems in the Appendix and the per-letter transliterations on each letter entry.  --Bequw → ¢ • τ 13:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Because romanization is by definition a comparison between scripts. Most or all entry links at the  section from Translingual letter A could fit into a navigation box; such links at these sections are common in other entries as well, and need seriously to be cleaned up (or, at least, removed in favor of variation appendices such as Appendix:Variations of "a" and simpler navigation boxes). --Daniel. 14:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I misunderstood Vahagn Petrosyan. If we are talking about showing the script-to-script transliterations for a single letter on that letter's entry, I'm in agreement and using a template makes sense. But if we talking about showing the whole alphabet transliterated using the up-to six standardized schemes on every entry, I'm not in agreement. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 18:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I meant a transliteration like in カ, i.e. of a single letter. And the only two Romanization systems of Armenian that are relevant are the Hubschmann-Meillet (used for Old Armenian) and ISO 9985 (modern Armenian). By the way, thanks for adding punctuation to . Do you think we can squeeze it in one line together with "Letter Combinations" in a pretty way? --Vahagn Petrosyan 18:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merged onto one line. It'll be more work for the transliterations. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

WT:GP
I am a little confused as to what just happened. Is everything okay? :)--Thecurran 10:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, everything at WT:GP is okay. As you can see, nothing happened at all. --Daniel. 10:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:mul-braidef
Were these supposed to be temporary definitions until the images are included? If not, this would be like defining '!' as "a vertical line with a dot below" (how it looks like rather than what it means). --Bequw → ¢ • τ 05:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The definitions from are supposed to function like "The letter C with a cedilla." found at Ç. Though, perhaps these generic statements from all Translingual characters could be moved and reformatted into the   section. I'd be satisfied either way, as long as they're consistent. --Daniel. 06:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Braille dots were designed as a different character encoding scheme to represent existing characters, not as "new" letters (e.g. 'Ç'). Our definitions will therefore be about this encoding rather than be generic letter definitions (e.g. "C with cedilla"). This happens anytime an alternative character encoding scheme is allowed to be represented in our page titles. For instance, Wiktionary's signed transcription system allows rendering of the ASL manual alphabet letters, so the definitions on these entries will as be similar to what Braille definitions should be ("the letter X") and the physical production stuff goes somewhere else (WT:ASGN designates as  header). For Braille, we don't need an additional header. It can be consistently displayed via the pictures (which exist) and the Unicode names. It is clearly not etymological. Please fix these entries. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 13:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

langcatboiler
Is it possible to put languages which have no parameter for the country they're spoken in into a special maintenance category, like Category:Languages needing family? -- Prince Kassad 12:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is possible. Though not very useful, in my opinion. One family per language is enough in most cases, therefore an automatic list of languages without family presumably shows exactly which information needs to be fulfilled in the moment. This is not true for countries. --Daniel. 10:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:etyl:Brai
This template is incorrectly named. The etyl: namespace is for the subtemplates used by. (FYI the abbreviation "etyl" stands for "etymology language "). An easy mistake to make. Please move the template to a new name (maybe "ety-Brai") and update the references so editors aren't confused about the namespace. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 13:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved to . --Bequw → ¢ • τ 22:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. --Daniel. 10:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-translingual characters
Many of the Latin-letter variants, for which you created entries (both new pages and Translingual entries on pages that had only one other entry), are not Translingual. I can not find, for instance, [[ɇ]] (E with stroke) used for anything but "Southeastern Tepehuán language". Can you please hand-check your L2's before creating more entries and also fix up the ones that you created? Thanks. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 04:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

posboiler for ergatives
Hi Daniel, I saw that you added a short description for ergative verbs, which I applaud because I think for West-Germanic languages such as my mothertongue (Dutch) they are an important category. I think I understand your description as follows. A verb like to melt in English can be used either as:


 * 1) transitive I melt the ice
 * 2) ergative The ice melts

In Dutch it is the same:


 * 1) transitive Ik smelt het ijs
 * 2) ergative Het ijs smelt

However, I would not call the whole verb melt the ergative but only #2. Reason: in Dutch there are many verbs that only occur in the sense of #2 and that are a group apart in that they have the following characters in common:


 * 1) The perfect auxiliary is zijn (to be) not hebben (to have)
 * 2) There is no clear agent. (The verb describes an autonomous process, there is not 'culprit'. They can also be a movement.)
 * 3) There are no passive forms at all. (Truly intransitive)

Particularly the perfect is a dead give away in Dutch:


 * 1) transitive Ik heb het ijs gesmolten
 * 2) ergative Het ijs is gesmolten.

There are also intransitive verbs in Dutch that do take hebben in the perfect:


 * 1) De hond blaft - The dog barks
 * 2) De hond heeft geblaft. - The dog has barked.

These verbs do have a passive in Dutch albeit an impersonal one:


 * 1) Er wordt geblaft. - There is barking going on.

These verbs are either called unaccusative or -as we do at nl.wikt:- inergative. At nl we have dropped the epiteth intransitive entirely for Dutch and split them up in ergatives and inergatives, but I'm not sure if the same can be done for English.

In English the distinction ergative / inergative is much less distinct because all perfects take to have and this means ergatives only stand out if the verb is also used as transitive. In Dutch, German and probably also in some of the smaller West-Germanics like Frisian, Limburgish the different prefect aux makes them recognizable even as they stand alone.

E.g. Du stollen (to solidify) can only take 'to be'. It can not be used as a transitive. It is a process that has no agent and no passives: clearly ergative. (For us it is actually strange to say: it 'has' solidified. It feels weird.)

Sorry for the long rant but I would like to use the label ergative the way I do at nl.wikt and the way you have defined it now is rather restrictive and does not really cover the content of Category:Dutch ergative verbs

I'd appreciate your thoughts. Jcwf 03:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The current description of ergative verb categories is supposed to be generic and true for all languages where such verbs exist. As for "not call the whole verb melt the ergative but only #2", multiple definitions are common in Wiktionary entries. I'd not call the whole English word fish a verb. You could create new categories such as Category:Dutch intransitive ergative verbs if suitable, to express detailed distinctions. Additionally or alternatively, you could improve Appendix:Dutch ergative verbs with related information. --Daniel. 14:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

poder
Somethin's wrong with the pt-conj templates again... — <font face="Lucida console">[&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 17:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. The problem at poder is easily verifiable. 189.82.87.2 apparently assumed that both and  work in the same way, because this user copied the template calling from Catalan to Portuguese, down to the parameters but using Portuguese values, despite naturally not working. I've fixed it now, using the parameter scheme documented at . Thanks for pointing me to this entry. --Daniel. 03:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing :) I figured you would be the best person to go to, I have no idea how the new pt-conj templates work with all the sub-stuff. — <font face="Lucida console">[&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 13:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger
What's the difference in purpose between Appendix:Latin script & Appendix:Roman script? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 05:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no different purposes for them. And I support their merge, specifically being "Latin script" a better name than "Roman script" in my opinion. --Daniel. 09:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Per the header of Appendix:Roman script, they used Roman rather than Latin so as not to confuse people with Latin the language (which is probably a more common confusion than confusing Roman script with "Roman font"). I'll leave a redirect either way. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 17:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

pl-noun
Ruakh has implemented a workaround. See my talk page for more. --EncycloPetey 20:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, would there be any possibility of getting this to support idioms? 50 Xylophone Players talk 11:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not in . I'd like to make a separate template for idioms, phrases and other terms composed of groups of words. --Daniel. 18:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, looking forward to it. :) 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey there
Hey there Daniel. Just wanted to say great work so far :). Keep it up :)  If you ever need any help with Ido or Esperanto, let me know :).  Cheers, <b style="color:#000">Ra</b><b style="color:#696969">z</b><b style="color:#808080">or</b><b style="color:#696969">fl</b><b style="color:#808080">ame</b> 01:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess I can't accurately imagine how I caught the attention of someone specifically interested in Ido and Esperanto, but thank you. :) --Daniel. 01:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I'm also interested in Portuguese :) Cheers, <b style="color:#000">Ra</b><b style="color:#696969">z</b><b style="color:#808080">or</b><b style="color:#696969">fl</b><b style="color:#808080">ame</b> 01:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Galician spellings‎
Why create these categories? What else will they ever contain? --EncycloPetey 17:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Categories such as Galician spellings‎, Mandarin spellings‎ and Hebrew spellings‎ are supposed to contain spelling categories. (And possibly links to appendices, by the way, which could explain spelling reforms of languages when necessary.) --Daniel. 17:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But we have no such appendices for 99+% of languages, and no one is working on them. There is only one spelling category: Alternaitve spellings, so there is no reason to add another step in the category hierarchy.  It means an extra click for our users, which is going to be perceived as an inconvenience.  I am going to nominate these categories for deletion. --EncycloPetey 18:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are alternative spellings, obsolete spellings, archaic spellings and misspellings. And some more varieties in Hebrew and Armenian. --Daniel. 18:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We have no way of marking obsolete spellings or archaic spellings. We only have a way to mark obsolete senses and archaic senses.  You will need to propose and create a whole new system for marking obsolete and archaic spellings that distinguishes these from meanings that are archaic or obsolete. --EncycloPetey 18:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I see that we have such a system, but that it currently is used in only two languages (English and French), which is why I knew nothing of it. With only two such subcategories, creating a whoile new category structure across all alphabetic languages still seems more counterproductive than helpful. --EncycloPetey 19:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I could find sixteen categories for obsolete spellings up to date. For an accurate (yet incomplete, as I'm still organizing them) report of how many of each spelling category exists, I suggest checking Category:All spellings. --Daniel. 14:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Alos note: Mandarin, Korean, and Japanese do not have "spellings" since they are not alphabetic languages. Words categorized in CJKV "spelling" categories will need to be moved. --EncycloPetey 19:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't forget . Mglovesfun (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In that whole mess of spelling categories, I almost forgot this. is now officially included in my project. Thanks! --Daniel. 14:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Appendix:English spellings
I assume you only moved the page here to avoid red links in categories. Given the whole thing was irrelant and written in the first person, I moved it to the talk page. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Your assumption is technically incorrect, because related categories (such as English misspellings) were programmed to avoid red links: if the appendix does not exist, the link is not shown. Thank you for moving it to the talk page, I agree it's better now. --Daniel. 14:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

WT:LANGTREAT
Do you intend to expand, update, or otherwise maintain this list? There are three of four Euorpean langauges I know of with ISO subdivisions that I might add. Also, do you intend the right-hand column to eventually provide guidance as to how the language subdivisions are handled on Wiktionary. I think that could be very helpful. --EncycloPetey 21:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I do intend to mantain and update this list to reflect actions taken at other places such as discussions and votes, but I have no intentions of expanding it out of the blue again, right now. If you have more specific ideas on improving the right-hand column or other aspects of WT:LANGTREAT, feel free to notify me. --Daniel. 22:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As an example, we often have to deal with Chaozhou/Teochow entries, which we treat as a regional dialect of Min Nan. We treat Min Nan as a language in its own right, but treat all forms of Quechua as a single language.  Notes like that could make the page a very useful reference. --EncycloPetey 22:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see the codes he and sh in the list; the table was designed through templates to provide links to "related discussions" and "related votes" easily. Generic statements such as "Only the macrolanguage Quechua is treated as individual language." are also available. --Daniel. 22:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice star. Thank you. --Daniel. 15:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are interested...
Hey there. If you are interested, I just saw Tbot make matinê, which could use some clean up (most likely). Anyways, if you are into cleaning up after Tbot, then go for it. Anyways, see ya, <b style="color:#000">Ra</b><b style="color:#696969">z</b><b style="color:#808080">or</b><b style="color:#696969">fl</b><b style="color:#808080">ame</b> 04:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am aware that Tbot creates automatic definitions in various languages, including Portuguese, based on English translation tables. I agree, matinê is lacking features such as inflection templates and perhaps some synonyms. If you don't need that entry right now, I prefer to give higher priority for other words; Portuguese nouns need attention as a whole and will be cleaned up by me eventually. If you do need that entry, rest assured; matinê is correct and accurate. --Daniel. 05:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't need it made. Thanks for the information.  Cheers, <b style="color:#000">Ra</b><b style="color:#696969">z</b><b style="color:#808080">or</b><b style="color:#696969">fl</b><b style="color:#808080">ame</b> 05:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

à contre-coeur:
Huh? Is the "diacritics" category deprecated? o.O 50 Xylophone Players talk 14:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I consider the category "diacritics" deprecated. This deprecation is part of my project of cleaning up spelling categories, which is being discussed in some places, including my user talk page, the WT:RFDO, the WT:SPL and the WT:GP, though I think this specific category hasn't gone into discussion yet. If you have reasons to want it back (or to want another scheme), feel free to inform me. --Daniel. 14:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, if people want it "nuked" then I'll just stop adding it to entries. 50 Xylophone Players talk 14:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Category deleted. You may want to see Category:English rare spellings and its subcategories. --Daniel. 14:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

one hundred percent
Even though this has basically the same meaning as completely, I think it would probably make sense to keep the translations separate, because those are probably literal translations of "100%", not just words denoting completeness. --Yair rand 04:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Literal translations such as totalmente related to totally are etymological information. They may be found by searching through grammatical stems. --Daniel. 04:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The two words are not one hundred percent synonyms, so I have restored the Translations table. There are uses and shades of meaning for completely that one hundred percent does not have.  Also, note that completely has two definitions, but that one hundred percent has only one definition.  This is a problem when redirecting Translations sections, and when it does happen,  probably should not be used. --EncycloPetey 20:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, in cases where there are multiple translations sections, one could simply use, which would be clear enough, I think. --Yair rand 20:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because it would not match with any definition on the page. The  header should point to pages with fewer definitions (and ideally one only), not to pages with more. --EncycloPetey 20:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then, perhaps it's better to also clean up 100 percent. I'm not interested in doing this right now; perhaps later. --Daniel. 02:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

name appendices
Please stop. Consensus has not yet been achieved. --Yair rand 23:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied at BP. --Daniel. 04:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Diminutives
You are great at categorizing. Care to make a boiler for Category:Armenian diminutives and its ilk? --Vahagn Petrosyan 22:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. A similar category naming scheme was already available. If you don't mind a name different from Armenian diminutives, please use . --Daniel. 00:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, didn't know. Do you think we should have ? An error happens when I try to create . Also, could you expand the text "...inflected to display context of small size or small intensity" to include the terms of endearment. See, e.g. Diminutives. --Vahagn Petrosyan 00:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also this unrelated thing I can't fix. --Vahagn Petrosyan 00:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think is a good idea, since proper nouns here are often treated considerably separate from other nouns; it's supported by  now. Same for . --Daniel. 01:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Very good, thanks. For the future, these should be sorted. Also, the behavior of should be changed, otherwise categories of  format will be recreated all the time. --Vahagn Petrosyan 02:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please clarify how should be changed. Categories such as  may be considered nonstandard when compared to the clearer scheme of, but they're a natural alternative when a POS is not chosen. --Daniel. 02:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of automatically sending the words to some cleanup list when <tt>pos=</tt> is not specified. By the way, another broken category and I am scared of editing poscatboiler/theList. I saw you added nice categorization for augmentatives: would you perhaps consider doing the same for and ? I plan to use these for Armenian verbs abundantly. --Vahagn Petrosyan 03:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You may want to gather consensus through a discussion at WT:GP, before a transformation from the well known category naming scheme into a error such as possibly  occurs.
 * As you can see, the is now supported by  and may be populated by  with a   parameter.
 * Both and  are also supported by ; they may be populated by templates  and . Both these templates lack a   parameter and assume "verb", because I did find only causative verb forms and passive verb forms. --Daniel. 06:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving templates and other things
I've always wonder why you rename templates and suppress the redirect so often. I've seen you do that with one template about ten times. I've moved to a standard title. I do appreciate that waiting for consensus on Wiktionary is very slow while acting alone is very quick and efficient, but be careful about speedy deleting categories without consulting anyone (such as diacritial ones). Mglovesfun (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I see you moved to . Please revert. I can't guess accuratelly what you mean by "standard title", since there are different schemes for conjugation template titles at Wiktionary, and the current  simply doesn't work like any of them that I know; furthermore, it breaks the current system explained at  and . As far as I remember, all discussions about Portuguese verb conjugations have been settled without further objection; if you are unsure about consensus on these pt templates, you might start a new discussion at WT:BP about how they should be changed. --Daniel. 02:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've moved to  and suppressed the redirect. As you can see at my previous message, the redirect you created wouldn't even work on its own. That is, the system based on  and  would have to be more drastically changed; or, alternatively,  could exist as an additional template to redirect parameters to . Any of these changes is possible; and suggestions are welcome. Though "standard title" and even "why you rename templates and suppress the redirect" are, as I see, meaningless statements. If you object the current Portuguese verb conjugation templates or any other Wiktionary concepts that I work on, please be more specific on: where lies your disagreement (possibly a link to my contribution, or a name less generic than simply the namespace "templates"); what's wrong with them; and preferably, please suggest how they could be improved. --Daniel. 06:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)