User talk:Daniel Carrero/2010

Deletion debate (in French)
Here. Portuguese speaker needed. Thanks. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't speak French, so I won't participate directly in that discussion. Nevertheless, música para acompanhar is indeed a Portuguese term; a very common phrase. See entry . --Daniel. 11:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:English terms spelled with 0 and similar
Why does this link to "*" (at the top) instead of to "0"? SemperBlotto 18:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to this error. It probably ocurred when I was programming the support for, which unlike most similar categories, doesn't have upper case and lower case variations, therefore it needed a slightly different description. The links are working properly now. --Daniel. 18:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Appendix:Hebrew parts of speech
Hi. You moved Appendix:Hebrew declension to Appendix:Hebrew parts of speech a while back, and I was wondering if it's really necessary. The appendix really does deal specifically with declension, but only with some parts of speech (not verbs; this is why I just put a note atop it directing the reader to another appendix for verbs). Is there something wrong, or wronger than "Hebrew parts of speech", with "Hebrew declension"? &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 17:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, msh210. Based on the current contents of the appendix, I can safely say the title Appendix:Hebrew declension would also be correct. Although, I'm inclined to choose the current title Appendix:Hebrew parts of speech. One reason for my choice is simply coherence with other similarly-named appendices, for instance, Appendix:English parts of speech. If all these related appendices share the same naming scheme, they are easier to find. Another reason is the fact that the Hebrew appendix is not absolutely informative either way: it could be improved with more details about declensions or about parts of speech in general; or both. --Daniel. 17:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I was thinking each Hebrew appendix (main ones, not subpages) should include a boxed link to the others à la w:template:content policy list (see it in use at w:WP:NPOV) or w:template:style (in use at w:WP:MOS). What do you think? &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 18:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A box containing links to related Hebrew appendices is indeed a good idea. I may express more accurate opinions and contributions after I see it. --Daniel. 18:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Template:he-appendices? &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 19:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The appendix Hebrew patterns and its subpages are unclear to me. They seem to explain how particular groups of letters are found in words, so their contents may be moved to Appendix:Hebrew spellings. --Daniel. 19:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You may find Wiktionary_talk:About_Hebrew interesting and informative. I don't think it should move to Appendix:Hebrew spellings. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 19:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary_talk:About_Hebrew was interesting and informative indeed. Although, while the existence of patterns became clearer to me, I still think that Appendix:Hebrew spellings would be a good new name for Appendix:Hebrew patterns, while Patterns may be a L2 section inside it; this proposal would also be consistent with similar appendices such as Old French spellings and Portuguese spellings. In addition, would you consider adding Appendix:Hebrew given names to Template:he-appendices? --Daniel. 15:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Old French and Portuguese appendices are really abou thow to spell words; the Hebrew one is a list of patterns used to form words (irrespective of their spelling, though of course each pattern is spelled a certain way), or perhaps can be a discussion of such patterns. it's really not about spelling at all. By all means bring this to Wiktionary talk:About Hebrew for more input if you disagree. I'll add given names. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 22:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright. Aside from the current naming scheme that includes patterns, I have no more objections. The looks useful and suitable. Nice work. --Daniel. 22:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey again. What do you think of adding support for alternative forms to this? In case you don't know, from what I gather, the difference between alt sp.'s and alt forms is that alt forms is generally used for alt forms of words that have a different pronunciation and of course it'd surely be appropriate for stuff like o.O. :) So: Is plausible? What do you think of it? 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I know; in Wiktionary,  is basically synonym of  . Although, some cleaning up could be done, as various members of English alternative forms might belong to English alternative spellings instead. The English spellings, its subcategories and similar categories for other languages were designed to contain words differentiated by groups of characters, such as English color/colour and perhaps Japanese コンピュータ/コンピューター. So, in my opinion, alternative forms should be avoided in it. For the sake of organization and coherence with the current categories, the name spellings simply doesn't fit variations of words, for example and reality TV and reality television; or head south and go south. --Daniel. 21:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then, is there any catboiler template which you think would suit these forms? (sorry for late reply but I've been busy on Wiktionary and IRL:.) 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer to create and maintain catboiler templates for more well-defined categories. I've started a discussion at WT:BP on this issue. --Daniel. 20:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Na'vi
Na'vi does not pass our CFI. Would you like to make an Appendix instead? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 15:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Appendix:Na'vi already exists. Conrad.Irwin 15:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Yes, I just saw that. I'm more concerned about his recent conlang additions that aren't appendices:, Category:Na'vi language, , Category:Quenya language, and Category:Sindarin language. The constructed languages are restricted to Appendices, so these should be deleted, especially the language-code templates since we don't want people using them for entries and translations. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 15:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How the fact that fictional constructed languages does not meet our criteria for inclusion influences the existence of templates and categories for these languages? I did not found anything at WT:CFI (or at WT:LANGCODE, by the way) that supports your view on this issue, Bequw. --Daniel. 15:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (another edit conflict) See the recent BP discussions of constructed languages in 2008 and 2007 where "restrict to Appendix" was used synonymously with "disallowed from the main namespace". The issue of categories has not been explicitly brought up, but I don't think they're desirable. Why have a category that by policy will be basically empty? If it's just to get better visibility of the Na'vi appendix a better bet would be to add it to List of languages (where Sindarin and Quenya already are). Who would even be looking in the category space for them?
 * Normal language code templates for these conlangs should not be allowed because we want to have only normal language code templates for possible entry L2's. This is why Template:tlh was deleted. This is why we partition off etymology-only codes to the etyl:*. (Find these discussions by searching for, the old dot-style etymology templates, fr-ca/CA, etc.) --Bequw → ¢ • τ 16:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, I, as a Wiktionary editor who is interested in organization, appearance, consistency and user-friendliness of category trees, would certainly look for languages by searching in related categories. There is a Category:All languages and there is another called Category:Constructed languages, and, as you pointed out, there are even other lists of languages in the Wiktionary: namespace, so Quenya, Klingon, Na'vi and other fictional languages must be findable in all these options, as long as they are up-to-date and accurate. Certainly, I'm not the only person who has been using, editing and improving the current system. If you don't feel comfortable by using language categories, constructive ideas are welcome, including the idea of deleting categories of fictional languages. However, this specific proposal breaks the scheme. If I have the knowledge and want to edit Quenya in Wiktionary, I would respect the place to do it. Not in entries, but in appendices - it seems very reasonable. But I would want to find the place easily.
 * That said, the etyl: system seems very good. Perhaps, similarly, ("fictional language: Sindarin") could be the code for Sindarin, specifically programmed to not work in entries. --Daniel. 01:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good idea about a new language code prefix. Maybe we can make the prefix conl: so that it can handle other reasons that a language is not allowed by the CFI (constructed languages independent of fictional worlds & reconstructed languages). That is assuming we'll use codes for these languages. Currently they are only used in, right? Not sure. Maybe it's good to have codes for them anyways.
 * I would say that including a link to Category:Fictional languages appendices in the header of Category:All languages and Category:Constructed languages would be much better than having actual categories for nonCFI languages. As for breaking the structure of [template cat inside language cat], the consistency is nice when it makes sense, but here I don't think so.
 * How do these changes sound? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 23:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, conl: is a good idea for the new language code prefix.
 * Currently, the discussed language codes are used in and  (to create the automatic text at ). Possibly, the existing Na'vi templates could be renamed to reflect the current scheme. That is, if pt-verb, en-verb and many more similar templates exist, I'd expect sjn-verb and art-nav-verb as well.
 * The idea of categorizing together do makes sense, as much as categorizing  together. A link at  specifically for constructed languages, as I imagine, would draw too much unnecessary attention for them. --Daniel. 14:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I'll let you move the language codes to the new prefix as you'll have to retool. I link in the category header probably is too much. I think we could have a category for languages not allowed by the CFI Fictional languages wasn't general enough so I moved the appendices to Constructed languages appendices. But now that seems overly broad as a similarly named category Constructed languages includes both allowed and disallowed languages. What if instead we had a category such as Disallowed languages, Non-CFI languages, or Appendix-only languages? Do any of those work? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 14:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see you posted a similar idea in the BP. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 19:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * is now ready for the prefix conl:. From these three naming possibilites, I prefer Appendix-only languages, because, even if Wiktionary editors are used to say Disallowed languages or Non-CFI languages to point to the languages which should appear only in appendices, this meaning is not ineherently obvious. That said, as reconstructed languages are also appendix-only (or "disallowed", or "non-CFI"), I've created a more detailed category: Appendix-only constructed languages. I've also updated WT:LANGCODE. --Daniel. 08:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I reverted that change. I'll leave Category:Fictional languages appendices, but delete it if you think it's now redundant to the categories you just made. Thanks. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 15:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

More accurately, "to pass CFI" is a subjective expression. Na'vi definitely passes CFI, as meriting definitions in the appendix namespace. Surely, templates and categories would be welcome for them if presumably they help to improve Wiktionary. There is a small quantity of Na'vi templates, which naturally are categorized together, in a subcategory of Na'vi language. --Daniel. 16:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure everyone who says "passes CFI" means for the normal namespace. I did not argue with Category:Na'vi templates only with the language category. A better parent cat would be at Category:Fictional language templates to match Category:Fictional languages appendices. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 16:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't argue with Category:Na'vi templates, I did. As you can see at my message above, I wouldn't want to break the current system, in which a Category:(language) templates is expected to be one subcategory of Category:(language) language. --Daniel. 01:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ajuda
Olá Daniel! Que bom achar um administrador lusófono aqui. Você sabe o que faz funcionar o  em Index:Portuguese/w? É que lá no Wikcionário, eu botei a mesma função na página Vocabulário:Português/w e não funcionou? Cumprs. Luan (discussão) 05:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Olá. Nas páginas Special:Version e pt:Especial:Versão, você pode ver as extensões que estão instaladas no Wikcionário em inglês e português, respectivamente. Para ativar o comando, primeiro a extensão Extension:Labeled Section Transclusion deve ser instalada no Wikcionário em português. --Daniel. 06:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

õ
My bad! Foi um lapso de memória, tinha me esquecido dessas palavras. Obrigado por me corrigir. Jesielt (user talk) 15:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

acronyms in Template:poscatboiler
Hello Daniel.. I have tried using Template:poscatboiler in Category:German acronyms, but it seems not to function properly. What am I doing wrong? --Volants 13:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, in Category:Polish imperfective verbs and Category:Polish perfective verbs. Maybe more. --Volants 13:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Not all parts of speech are supported by yet, specially in-depth ones such as imperfective verbs, which require distinct descriptions. At the template's talk page, there's a list of supported commands; please see it. I've now programmed the two options and, so you may use them. Although, perhaps isn't suitable as a subcategory of, so I left it alone until further discussion. --Daniel. 14:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

langcatboiler
Hi Daniel, would you add the citations category to this template? For example, as a result, the Category:Hungarian citations will be listed in Category:Hungarian language page, and the same for other languages. Thank you. --Panda10 00:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. --Daniel. 22:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You deleted this but it is still used on 2 pages. Is there something to replace it with? Nadando 19:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Carolina wren deleted before I deleted . As I remember, I was simply following her lead on considering Shanghainese to be a dialect, not a language. To substitute that template and still treat Shanghainese as a dialect, I've now created  --Daniel. 14:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

some more considerations
Looking at Wanted Categories, I think you may or may not want to consider adding support to this for ambitransitive: and ditransitive: verbs. 50 Xylophone Players talk 14:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Two current Icelandic categories. I see. Support added. --Daniel. 15:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:alternative spelling of‎
What's this "Dass" stuck on the end? Did you test your changes? SemperBlotto 15:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The "}Dass" was one effect of a single bracket out of place. It's fixed now, as expected of whatever error that could happen by editing a relatively messy code for the sole purpose of making it cleanier. Yes, I did technically test my changes, by having a few entries ready to be checked promptly. --Daniel. 16:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, these wiki templates are a dreadful mass of brackets. I always generate a temporary template and test it privately, then implement it after testing. Cheers. SemperBlotto 16:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Creating a separate temporary template is a nice idea, which I may use for my next complex template edits (as I've already done, several times). This was just one time I didn't think a error would happen, especially after reading the code in a long and careful way, but unfortunately not error-proof. Cheers. --Daniel. 16:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Appendix templates
Regarding, prefixing appendix templates with "app" is problematic because "app" is the ISO code of the Apma language, which is why I prefixed the appendix templates that I made with "apdx". Also, wouldn't it make sense to have it based on the same kind of patterns as the regular templates (- for uncountable/uncomparable, verb forms set like, forms set by X=, etc.)? And one more thing: what are the advantages of using over  title ? --Yair rand 19:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, templates for individual languages are named as language code followed by hyphen, so I don't consider the name "Template:apphead" particularly problematic as having potential to be confused with something directly related to the Apma language. Similarly, begins with "tr" and "tra" (codes for Turkish and Tirahi),  begins with "te" and "tem" (codes for Telugu and Timne) and  begins with "als" (code for Tosk Albanian). Even apdx begins with apd. Furthermore, head was chosen on purpose, as an uncommon ending which is not used by other templates (there is no "Template:pt-head" or "Template:pthead") and very understandable as dealing with headwords.


 * Yes, new ideas for are welcome. Though, proposing "the same kind of patterns as the regular templates" is subjective and prone to various interpretations.. Here are some schemes that would fit this description, regardless of which template name ("apphead" or "apdx") is used, to define the hypothetical fictional term incredibabble, an uncomparable adjective:
 * The following version is simpler as having to type less characters and remember less concepts.
 * If there is no predictable need to label one term simultaneously as both comparable and countable, I don't see how logically parameters like comp= and count= would be useful. You might want to explain this point with more examples.
 * The value es serves different functions in and, therefore some distinction has to be made in appendice headword coding, instead of merely copying these two possible parameters.
 * The main advantage of using over  title  is: don't worry, both work fine so they are interchangeable. The other advantages are cohesion and conveniency, because if all headwords tend to use the same template, the overall result is cleanier and more understandable; and, at least for me, it became easy to copy or automatically type templates where needed. By the way, there is potential to use styles on appendice headwords, so not all users might want to see exactly a main bold text. --Daniel. 04:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The following version is simpler as having to type less characters and remember less concepts.
 * If there is no predictable need to label one term simultaneously as both comparable and countable, I don't see how logically parameters like comp= and count= would be useful. You might want to explain this point with more examples.
 * The value <tt>es</tt> serves different functions in and, therefore some distinction has to be made in appendice headword coding, instead of merely copying these two possible parameters.
 * The main advantage of using over <tt> title </tt> is: don't worry, both work fine so they are interchangeable. The other advantages are cohesion and conveniency, because if all headwords tend to use the same template, the overall result is cleanier and more understandable; and, at least for me, it became easy to copy or automatically type templates where needed. By the way, there is potential to use styles on appendice headwords, so not all users might want to see exactly a main bold text. --Daniel. 04:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is no predictable need to label one term simultaneously as both comparable and countable, I don't see how logically parameters like <tt>comp=</tt> and <tt>count=</tt> would be useful. You might want to explain this point with more examples.
 * The value <tt>es</tt> serves different functions in and, therefore some distinction has to be made in appendice headword coding, instead of merely copying these two possible parameters.
 * The main advantage of using over <tt> title </tt> is: don't worry, both work fine so they are interchangeable. The other advantages are cohesion and conveniency, because if all headwords tend to use the same template, the overall result is cleanier and more understandable; and, at least for me, it became easy to copy or automatically type templates where needed. By the way, there is potential to use styles on appendice headwords, so not all users might want to see exactly a main bold text. --Daniel. 04:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Old French past participle forms
Should this be supported by ? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't Old French masculine singular past participles, Old French masculine plural past participles, Old French feminine singular past participles and Old French feminine plural past participles be better than Old French past participle forms? --Daniel. 10:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language
Do you intend to duplicate HTML element in the Appendix space? --Bequw → τ 14:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder if describing usage details of various deprecated tags at HTML element violates the rule Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Anyway, I would expect Wikipedia to explain notable and in-depth information about HTML tags, such as comparison of web browsers by tag behavior, hystory of Web 1.0 and how character coding may be harmed by sites that use <tt> <font face= </tt> instead of <tt> <style="font-family: </tt>. In Wikibooks and Wikiversity, people may learn HTML through different didactical approaches. In Wiktionary, we deal with words. Probably, Wiktionary is the best Wikimedia project to explain, for instance, that "title" and "type" have more than one individual definition. Well, HTML is a constructed (and well-known) language, therefore it merits being defined in the Appendix namespace. If, by chance, Wikipedia has a list of HTML terms purely containing lexical information, it should probably be transwikified. --Daniel. 15:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

vc
Hi, can you give an example sentence for vc? --Rising Sun talk? contributions 21:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, done. --Daniel. 05:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

List and categories
Do you think it would make more sense for to interface with a category (Category:Blues) and take the list of blues from there, rather than creating a completely new list for something that already exists (but in category form)? Nadando 22:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think that taking the terms out of a category to the list template would make more sense than the opposite. Compare these two alternatives:

===See also=== ===See also===


 * In short, if the took terms from the category, we would have to put terms in the category first. However, the opposite is currently done: When you add  to an entry, that entry becomes a member of . --Daniel. 22:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

list/doc
Isn't the point of categories that we don't `need` to list everything on the same page? :p (Also, what's the benefit of splitting the documentation to a different page, it just means i have to watchlits more). Conrad.Irwin 22:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (20 is on the big side of ok) one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten
 * (30 is a good limit to me) one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten
 * (40 is a few too many) one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten
 * (60 is little excessive) one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten
 * How would you organize the various tones of blue on the basis that lists shouldn't reach sixty items? --Daniel. 23:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would only include the common/useful ones (as defined by editorial discretion). I've never heard of eggshell blue or genitian blue, blue green is arguably not a blue, it doesn't need both cornflower and cornflower blue. My gut feeling would probably be to exclude most of the ones that are "X blue" just on principal, which leaves a meagre 13. That said, the current list isn't too bad either. Afterall, a huge list of items is likely to deter people, which is presumably why the category pages and index pages are not formatted as large in-line lists. Conrad.Irwin 23:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I think, if any user see a list of English blues without cerulean (or any other blue tone, regardless of rarity, that he or she happen to know), the most likely conclusion would be that Wiktionary does not have this entry yet. This reasoning is also true for anagrams, verb conjugations, alternative spellings, etc. If a set is recognized as incomplete, the most likely constructive action would be to fulfill it. You might want to try something similar to or  (from my reasoning, these would be clearly sets of colors chosen by editors) but I would be against a deliberately incomplete  because the deliberate incompleteness would be unclear then liable to misunderstanding. --Daniel. 00:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Urm... That is totally untenable :p. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shades_of_blue also lists 53 blues, not all of which we have categorised... The problem will be much worse for things like "breeds of dog". I don't think providing incomplete lists is a problem, particularly given that we also link to the category on the same line. It would even be possible to change it so that the category could be included as a more... link at the end of the list. Conrad.Irwin 00:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are lists whose items decidedly share the same level of importance, commonness and usefulness, such as (twenty-six terms if we ignore alternative spellings such as zee and zed, possible ligature names and names of letters with diacritics) and  (at least thirty or fourty different names, if I remember correctly and ignore hiragana and romanizations). The set of dogs is not the case: instead of, we may use  and so on.
 * If we use the (more...) system, perhaps category names could fit into it, like (more blues and colors). However, I still think that incomplete lists at entries are not the better course of action.
 * Complete lists are more informative, as I'd like to list the proprioception along with sight, smell, etc. through a . I can roughly predict that this list would totalize approximately ten items, along with sense of pain and sense of temperature.
 * If possible, please provide more details on how (approximately) 10 shades of blue would improve Wiktionary entries more than (approximately) 50 shades of blue would improve them. You said that the more extense version would deter people, but I don't think so: According to my idea of including all blues, if a user is interested on searching through them (say, if the user is looking for a particular shade), they are easily readable at each blue shade. They are even conveniently navigable because each link is at each related page. If more complex organization schemes are desirable (for instance, to list whether some words are more well-known), they may be listed at Appendix:Blues or Appendix:Colors if my previous proposal similar to is not utilized.
 * I'm sorry for the long message; in short, I'd like complete lists at entries and any more complex organizations at appendices. Additionally, if you'd like, could be reformatted completely to generate collapsible boxes rather than horizontal lines of text. --Daniel. 04:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, what's with the mass lists of entries? There's already a category link at the bottom of the page for this.

There is no lexicographical basis for linking to the term shocking pink in the entry for the term Indian red, along with a couple dozen other unrelated terms. This represents a thematic relationship between things, which Wikipedia covers. This stuff doesn't belong in the dictionary, which only deals with terms and their relationships, as in synonyms, derived terms, hyponyms, etc. —Michael Z. 2010-03-10 14:56 z 


 * Hi, Michael. I've noticed some logical fallacies in your complaint, such as claiming that the relationship between shocking pink and Indian red doesn't belong to Wiktionary while still suggesting that they should be together in categories. Nonetheless, I think I can properly answer your question: Linked terms at <tt>See also</tt> sections have commonly existed at Wiktionary for years; my project is merely to standardize these links. (Few) entries of shades of red were already linking to other entries of shades of red before I've added that extense list, supposed to be complete. Therefore, three or thirty reds share a common set of definitions which makes them suitable to link to each other. If you don't like links based solely on definitions, I strongly suggest you to discuss your opinions at WT:BP. If you don't like the way I am standardizing them, you may also propose different approaches, such as lists with less items, for instance "(Pinks) hot pink, shocking pink" or lists with only "common", "useful" terms as defined by Conrad who probably would agree with you. Until the community reaches a consensus to modify or delete these lists, note that they are presumably easy to remove all together due to my efforts on organizing them; then, please don't revert anymore my contributions related to lists on the basis that they are contributions related to lists. --Daniel. 15:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't say there should be encyclopedic category listings, just that there already are. I'll discuss this further at the BP. —Michael Z. 2010-03-10 17:47 z 

Category:Greek adjectives
seems to provide a link to Appendix:Greek adjectives - is this insertion under user control - and how? — Saltmarsh απάντηση 06:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A link to Appendix:Greek adjectives is provided to Category:Greek adjectives and its subcategories (for instance, possibly Category:Greek adjectives, Category:Greek uncomparable adjectives, Category:Greek adjective superlative forms, Category:Greek adjective feminine forms, etc. if they exist). If the appendix exist, it is linked. It is not possible to choose to hide that link, but you might propose this function. --Daniel. 06:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK - thanks — Saltmarsh απάντηση 07:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. --Daniel. 07:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Votes/2010-03/Requests_for_attestation
Is there any reason for creating this vote? You archived the related discussion (which implies you thought it is over). Please note the top of WT:VOTE "Votes should not be called for on this page." - if you thought the issue needed voting on, it is more correct procedure to first ensure that people agree that a vote is needed, (and secondly, in this case, that there is more than one person who might support it). Conrad.Irwin 14:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If there isn't anyone that will openly support this, just delete it. I won't support it. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Conrad: Some people were already accepting that change; I accept too. Although it is so big that I don't see how it wouldn't need a vote. Then I created that vote to gather people's opinions. As said by the yellow box: "It has been created to solicit advice on wording and fitness to purpose."
 * Most BP discussions I archived were technically over, but the RFD vs RFV was not one of them. One of my next steps planned for this voting procedure is starting a new BP discussion related to the previous discussion and the vote, rather than making people re-read arguments. Mglovesfun, I didn't see a reason to delete the vote; if people somehow dislike the very existence of this vote rather than its purpose or context, I could simply move it to my userspace and continue my work. --Daniel. 14:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:namecatboiler
Shouldn't this be adding top name categories (like Category:English names) to Category:Names by language? --Yair rand 00:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it seems like none of the categories done by this template are being added to the "by language" categories. Is it supposed to be working like this? --Yair rand 00:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer to populate and related categories through  as you suggested. I've introduced this function now. --Daniel. 02:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Etymologies
When using something like, there's no need to link the individual words in the etymology as well. This is why template have <tt>sg</tt> and <tt>head</tt> parameters. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I prefer to not follow this advice. A reason is the fact that I roughly remember one or two BP discussions about duplication of individual words between etymology and inflection line: their result (as I remember) was to not avoid such duplication, due to lack of consensus of where to place these links and how useful they theoretically would be. Personally, I would choose to remove links from all inflection lines, not etymologies, if duplication is not desirable but consistency is. Etymology sections with links to individual words are decidedly desirable for various entries, including foreign language ones such as the current toda brincadeira tem um fundo de verdade. --Daniel. 17:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Old Swedish
Unless I am wrong, you have added gmq-osw as the code for Old Swedish. I have a question; view Category talk: Old Swedish language, please. Smiddle 08:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Dawnraybot in Portuguese
Hello Daniel.. I've retrained User:Dawnraybot to add Portuguese verb forms. Please can you check his recent entries, because I've been working from templates, and from an alpha version of a bot I sent to User:Volants, who doesn't want to continue his bot. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 04:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I did spot few issues on the current verb forms of agasalhar: the past participles have repeated definitions, agasalhara and other forms were not created yet and the contributions are all labelled as "French". The rest looks fine. --Daniel. 04:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * please can you tell me which particular past participles have repeated definitions. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 05:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done another trial with abandonar. There's improvements --Rising Sun talk? contributions 12:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently, you've fixed the past participles of agasalhar manually. I didn't see many improvements in abandonar. There are some entries with double definitions, such as abandonando, abandonámos and abandonaríeis. --Daniel. 06:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:topic cat description/Printing
Hey could you please try to fix this so that when invoked in the English category there is no "en" prefix in the link to Category:Typography? 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. --Daniel. 06:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

List templates in template category
Hi, I created the template and I was wondering if these type of templates should be listed in the Template category for the appropriate language. It would be easier to find. Your thoughts, please? --Panda10 10:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, this is a very good idea. Done. --Daniel. 10:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:pt-adj
I hope you're ready to fix all these now. — <font face="Lucida console">[&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 13:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course I am. --Daniel. 13:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

grosso
? I would have thought it better to open with a simple single-word translation, which is then clarified with a fuller explanation, rather than the other way round. --EncycloPetey 22:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, any of these two arrangements would be fine, but I see no particular improvement on this proposed emphatization of "thick" as the definition of "grosso". Both the English word and the Portuguese word have too many meanings. Anyway, I usually create definitions comprised of two to four different simple wordings such as the more recent "Offensive to morality; obscene; distasteful; vulgar." so the roles of the "single-word translation" and the "fuller explanation" are, as I see, quite interchangeable. --Daniel. 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

tc to type
Hi, please can you provide more information. Why does tc mean type? Maybe another example sentence? --Rising Sun talk? contributions 18:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can. Done. --Daniel. 04:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a move to support cap= and dot= instead of nocap= and nodot=, they are more pleasant for editors, you can see arrangments and rottweillers for how they were (ab)used. Conrad.Irwin 10:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hrm, dot= is tricky, there are several hundred pages using |dot=}}, but of course that's hard to pass through meta-templates. Not sure the best thing to do, perhaps pass a sentinal value of NONE through from the templates when it is not set on the page? The cap= is also tricky to do in a meta-template, but I'll fix the few pages in which it has been used to include the article, or a bracket as well as the initial letter. Conrad.Irwin 11:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. The seems to be fully functional now, including its parameters <tt>cap=</tt> and <tt>dot=</tt>. Thank you for fixing those pages and for your suggestions. --Daniel. 11:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for fixing "everything"! Conrad.Irwin 13:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

alternative spelling template
You broke it...Please fix it. 50 Xylophone Players talk 11:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've broken the template indeed. I'm sorry for that. However, that situation was temporary. I've fixed the template before I received your message. It should be working properly now. --Daniel. 11:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's okay now. 50 Xylophone Players talk 13:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

translation please
Hi Daniel.. I've added 2 new rules to the competition - the first allows me to create new rules ;p and the second demands a translation of the quote into English. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 19:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)--Rising Sun talk? contributions 19:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood. In that case, I'll translate the translations myself. :) As opposed to "stealing" the English words directly from J. K. Rowling; I have the official Harry Potter books in Portuguese but can't reach the English versions so soon to aim for fan-friendly perfection. --Daniel. 19:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

scriptcatboiler
This needs a sortkey, but I'm not quite sure how to do it. See Category:Languages by script. --EncycloPetey 21:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. --Daniel. 22:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Gracias. --EncycloPetey 22:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * De nada. --Daniel. 22:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Related question: Why does Category:Greek script languages contain Category:Ancient Greek language, but not Category:Greek language? --EncycloPetey 22:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Because the information  was not present at  when you asked this question. Prince Kassad added it seconds ago. --Daniel. 22:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

en-suffix
This generates the wrong category name. I suspect en-prefix will as well. --EncycloPetey 06:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Daniel. 06:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. These are templates we should have had a long time ago. --EncycloPetey 06:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed; we should. Eventually, similar templates may be easily created by adapting their codes, like I done with and . Enjoy. --Daniel. 08:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, although Latin doesn't have very many true prefixes. Does the general template permit the specification of gender?  Some suffixes in Romance languages have a particular gender, like Spanish -ción: or -idad:.


 * Trying to expand that template to cover Latin suffixes might be too much, though. Latin suffixes sometimes inflect (with a specific declension pattern), sometimes have macrons, and sometimes have gender, which has led to the several templates I've created for them that mimic the noun, adjective, and adverb templates.  I spent a lot of time thinking about the problem before starting to work on Latin suffixes and creating the templates.  The huge differences in number and kind of parameters needed, and keeping it all straight for editors, suggested that having several templates for Latin suffixes was preferable to an attempt to do it in one. --EncycloPetey 14:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All right. Since the Latin suffixes are apparently well covered, I think we don't need to use for them. --Daniel. 01:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do let me know when you're happy with. I've modeled on it, but don't want to start implementing it until all major changes are finished. --EncycloPetey 21:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am happy with . All Portuguese suffixes that I could quickly find are templatized; so I believe you may implement too. --Daniel. 01:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

HDMI
Noun instead of initialism? Why? Equinox ◑ 11:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Initialism isn't really a part of speech like noun is. Consider DVD, DVDs. Ideally wherever possible they should be in both categories (IMO) with noun as a header in this case. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! --Daniel. 17:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

the book is on the table
Hi Daniel.,

Just so you know, Rising Sun has requested verification of your entry [[the book is on the table]]. If you could add durably archived quotations demonstrating its use in Portuguese, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks in advance! —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 15:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, Ruakh. Yes, I noticed two interesting Portuguese entries which came from English and are currently undergoing RFV: I love you and the other you mentioned. I plan to attest both soon. --Daniel. 03:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

get ready & ill-doing
Please do not create hard redirects. Wiktionary aims to define every term, including variants. If you think these are SoP, then simply don't add entries for them. ---&gt; Tooironic 05:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't find a consensus written anywhere, including Redirections, to endorse your statement; so I suppose we are merely talking about your judgement against mine. In this case, I'm planning to continue doing what I've always done: creating hard redirects when I want and think they could be useful, a decision which results in approximately 1.4 new entry redirects per year as I remember. --Daniel. 10:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW, to my knowledge, Tooironic is right on this point. Our conventions frequently go uncodified in policy, so it's no surprise that you don't find his statement backed-up. IIRC, one of the few cases where hard redirects are permitted are for conjugated and declined forms of multi-word idioms, but some even object to their use in that case.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:English words spelled with diacritics
Let's see if we can empty this, and Category:English words spelled with nonstandard characters. I'll need yours (or someone else's) help, as there are some characters I don't recognize. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. A fairly considerable quantity of my help was already provided, since many members of Category:English spellings by character were moved by me. Thanks for working on this project too; you can count on me to help to empty that category from now. --Daniel. 21:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I need help with the ones with very rare characters, especially since all of them have to be in uppercase, which prevents copy-and-paste. I can do almost all of them by bot. I've done 300 already, but it's not all that quick. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(Pardon me for butting in.)

Can we give some thought to tweaking the terminology and categorization in the long run? The naming of, e.g., Category:English spellings by character and Category:English terms spelled with É is not technically correct. In the computer-encoding sense, É, é, E, and e are all different characters. But in terms of language and writing, which are the direct concern of the dictionary, they are all the same letter e (from both letter cases, with or without diacritic). This kind of lax naming leads to people saying that expose and exposé are “spelled differently”, that é is a “foreign letter,” and attributing lexical significance to every Unicode code point (e.g., creating dictionary entries referring to оу and ѹ, different encodings of the exact same letter, as “alternate spellings”). —Michael Z. 2010-04-16 16:06 z 


 * Would Category:English spellings by glyph improve things?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really, I think. In computer terms, glyph is still further removed from the concept, referring to the “artwork” displayed (e.g. Times Roman has a different glyph for é than Times Italic, or Helvetica Semibold). In writing/language terms, I think e is a drawn or printed glyph, and the accent is a separate mark placed over it. I believe we need to give some thought to rearranging the categories, not just picking a better name. —Michael Z. 2010-04-16 16:25 z 


 * Maybe glyph isn't incorrect, but in non-computer contexts it doesn't usually mean an English/Latin letter. —Michael Z. 2010-04-16 16:54 z 


 * In my opinion, the current categorization scheme is more useful than other approaches that I could think, like possibly a category with English terms spelled with "É", exactly as upper case letter with acute accent. Or, perhaps, a category of English terms with acute accent. --Daniel. 16:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it be worth it, but I kind of want to see parallel “by character” and “by diacritic” categories at the same level, since diacritics get applied to characters. There may be other considerations for other languages (I think in some European languages, e.g., å is considered a single digraph letter, not a letter a with diacritic). I'm not asking anyone to do a bunch of work rearranging everything right now, but let's think about this. I'd be glad to help out. —Michael Z. 2010-04-16 16:54 z 


 * So, Michael, please inform your opinion (or clarify it) on this possible categorization scheme: The current categories English terms spelled with Á, English terms spelled with É and English terms spelled with Ó all together in a supercategory of the acute accent. --Daniel. 17:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's a proposal. Going down this road would have various repercussions on the way we handle other languages, but it would make our categories more in touch with the dictionary's content.


 * Category:English spellings
 * Category:English spellings by character
 * Category:English terms spelled with 0 ... 9
 * Category:English terms spelled with !, &, ', *, etc. (including @ and $)
 * Category:English terms spelled with æ, þ, ð, œ ... (dated or foreign-derived English)
 * Category:English terms spelled with α, β, γ, δ ... (Greeks)
 * Category:English terms with diacritics
 * Category:English terms with acute accent
 * Category:English terms with á
 * Category:English terms with é
 * Category:English terms with ó
 * Category:English terms with cedilla
 * Category:English terms with ç
 * Category:English terms with circumflex
 * as above
 * Category:English terms with diaeresis
 * Category:English terms with grave accent
 * Category:English terms with háček
 * Category:English terms with macron
 * etc.

For each language, we'd have to determine which are considered letters (e.g., Swedish å, maybe Dutch w: ij) and which are considered letters with diacritics. This would be a bit of work, but then the results would better reflect the real meaning of the written symbols we are presenting.

(By the way, I don't think we should have Category:English terms spelled with ſ at all: the long s is a typographical stylistic form, used in every word containing a non-terminal S. There is no difference in the spelling of perſons and persons.) —Michael Z. 2010-04-16 19:07 z 


 * In re undefined:, see Beer parlour archive/2010/January &c.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * From scanning over that talk, sounds like we might include it for German, but omit it for English. This would support a language-specific categorization of letters, digraphs, diacritics, etc. Does it get complicated where German ö = oe, etc? —Michael Z. 2010-04-16 19:21 z 


 * IIRC, the conclusion was to autoredirect all occurrences of undefined: to undefined:, but to have that redirection bring up a noticeable banner explaining the redirection and with a link to a page that would explain the history of use of the long ess, with special import given to such rarities as the German undefined:.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So its repercussion on this topic is that there is no need for Category:English terms spelled with ſ, because its contents would consist only of autoredirect addresses, right? All I see in the category's entries are a couple of citations that should be moved to the respective modern-spelling entries. —Michael Z. 2010-04-16 21:13 z 


 * In theory, yes. Once the banner and link to an explanatory appendix is sorted, that category should be regarded as a clean-up category.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 03:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Looking at my proposal above, I see categories named “English terms spelled” and “English spellings.” But this branch is different than the majority in Category:English spellings, because it doesn't group alternate, archaic, etc, spellings of terms. It's really “English terms by character” and “diacritic.” —Michael Z. 2010-04-16 21:51 z 


 * “English terms by character” does indeed seem a much better name. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: Kırklareli, when you capitalize the dotless I, it just turns into a Latin capital I, so that can't appear in any categories. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, you mean it can't appear in category names? Do both Turkish i's become the same letter in caps? Could name the category Category:English terms spelled with ı or Category:English terms with dotless I. Do we need a Turkish-language category for it? I thought we were only doing this for unusual characters, not for every letter A–Z. —Michael Z. 2010-04-17 00:29 z 


 * The Turkish lower-case ı: becomes the upper-case I:, whereas the Turkish lower-case i: becomes the upper-case İ:. Consistency would require us to categorise every Turkish derivation containing undefined: or undefined: into their respective special-character categories because of their complimentary forms in the other case.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 03:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So imam bayildi belongs in both Category:English terms spelled with I and Category:English terms spelled with İ? I guess we could try to put a prominent warning on the former category that only Turkish derivations belong in it, but I could see a thousand other words creeping into it. It could be named Category:Turkish derivations spelled with I. —Michael Z. 2010-04-17 14:37 z 


 * Well, no, that page doesn't belong in the categories (except maybe Category:English terms spelled with İ, though it looks to me as if that spelling has just been "normalised" with ordinary Latin 'i's, although there isn't really any way of knowing). If it's also spelt undefined: in English (with or without a space as undefined:), then that page would belong in both those categories. As you've already noted, the fact that the nomenclature uses upper-case letters as standard may be problematic; we may simply need to make an exception for ı–İ. Alternatively, the substitute category name you propose would be, IMO, the way to go.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Would Category:English terms with é include the term Étaín? --Daniel. 05:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. (I tried out lower-case letters in the category names above, because I think they are often easier to read on screen.) —Michael Z. 2010-04-18 21:51 z 


 * In my opinion, upper case letters would be easier to read on screen as some groups of lower case letters are too similar: i/j/l, c/o/q and probably others. In addition, I think that upper case is the more common version used in dictionaries, keyboards, etc. to refer to each letter. I'd also like to make another suggestion: The wording Category:English terms spelled with É is better than Category:English terms with É as consistent with other current naming system: Category:English words suffixed with -ness. --Daniel. 14:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I find that diacritics on capitals can be harder to distinguish at normal screen resolutions, especially É, È, Ë, Ě, Ĕ, Ẽ, Ē, vs é, è, ë, ě, ĕ, ẽ, ē (and by some French conventions for example, diacritics are omitted from caps, even in print). Several Greeks are identical to Latin capitals, and no text resizing will change this (Α, Β, Ε, Γ, Ζ, Η, Ι, Κ, Μ, Ν, Ρ, Τ, Υ, Χ, vs. α, β, ε, γ, ζ, η, ι, κ, μ, ν, ρ, τ, υ, χ).


 * Did you even notice that your argument for consistency uses an example of a category name containing English words and another with English terms? Consistency is good, but these minor inconsistencies are not a hindrance to the reader, if they're even noticeable at all. in contrast, an index intended to sort out letters and diacritics is quite broken if those letters and diacritics aren't distinguishable.


 * (If you have difficulty with i j l and c o q then you might have more fundamental readability problems. Maybe you should increase your browser's font size or change the font in your user style sheet.) —Michael Z. 2010-04-22 16:05 z 


 * I personally am currently stuck with a hateful 13  screen with slightly poor focus that is probably blinding me as I write. :| Anyway, I agree with your arguments: lowercase is better than uppercase if we choose only one case to represent each "character". Although I still want the wording "spelled with" rather than simply "with" since I intuitively think that Category:Portuguese terms with à'' would contain "ir à Roma e não ver o papa" but wouldn't contain "àquele". --Daniel. 16:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I admire your dedication to this project. —Michael Z. 2010-04-22 17:36 z 


 * Well, thanks. --Daniel. 19:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the use of lower-case characters as standard* (with redirects from the upper-case forms, if possible) and with the wording "spelled with" per Daniel.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC) * Except that the Turkish ı–İ problem still exists with that nomenclature…


 * I don't object strongly to “spelled with.” We could use uppercase plain letters (A B C D E F) and lowercase to emphasize the contrast with diacritics and Greeks (á β ç δ ē γ, not Á Β Ç Δ Ē Γ). This has a consistent visual logic for English, and another language may call for a different variation. —Michael Z. 2010-04-22 17:36 z 


 * Aah, that could work! So, do you mean something like Category:English terms spelled with Æ, æ, Category:English terms spelled with I, ı, and Category:English terms spelled with İ, i?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's another option, but, since we don't have plain-letter categories like Category:English terms spelled with A, I was still thinking of converting all the names in Category:English spellings by character to lowercase. Advantages: resolves the problems of Greek α, β, resolves the Turkish un-dotted ı, slightly improves the readability of ē, &c. Consequence: sort headings either remain in a contrasting case, or get changed to to match those common in category listings for terms. There's no reason for the Greek sort heading to be a question mark, when α clearly stands for the Greek alphabet. —Michael Z. 2010-04-22 19:07 z 


 * Converting to lower case may resolve the problem of the Turkish undefined:, but it creates the problem of the Turkish undefined: (as in İzmir:). Other than a gloss (like "dotted i" or "undotted i"), giving both cases of the characters is the only way I can see to resolve the problems of both those Turkish letters whilst maintaining consistency.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a problem no matter what. Because the upper and lowercase forms correspond to different English letters, we either have to make an exception in case or include a gloss.  Neither Turkish letter really corresponds to a single English one, so I would use two categories with “Turkish i” and “Turkish ı” (or Turkish İ and Turkish I). Or will these be coming from other languages too?


 * Or can we consider Turkish i to be the same letter as English/Latin i, with an alternate uppercase form? —Michael Z. 2010-04-22 21:17 z 


 * This affects Afyonkarahisar:, bektashi:, beylic:, binbashi:, comitadji:, dervish:, Dervish:, devshirme:, divan:, haremlik:, ibrik:, ichoglan:, imam bayildi:, imbat:, irade:, İzmir:, janissary:, kilim:, leblebi:, mahaila: (?), millet:, minaret:, muezzin:, narghile:, pilaf:, rakija: (?), shish:, shish kebab:, shisha:, shishkabob:, spahi:, vilayet:, vizier:, ziamet:, and zill:. In theory, anyway; that list is all our Turkish derivations in English for which it isn't absolutely impossible for the Turkish undefined: to have been preserved in English. For the vast majority of them, I am of the opinion that they are just written with normal letters undefined:.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nota bene Dotted and dotless I.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Are the above languages' alphabets derived from the Turkish? Could we still call it a Turkish(-alphabet) i/ı if it's in a word from one of those languages? It appears that the Gaelic dotless I is a stylistic variation, and not a different letter, so it should be handled by specifying an appropriate font rather than by entering a different code point (anyone know?). —Michael Z. 2010-04-22 23:55 z 


 * I would be inclined to say not, but I just wanted to make the list as comprehensive as possible. IMO, we can omit from those categories any word which does not preserve the other spelling features of its Turkish etymon (which should remove the vast majority of them). Moreover, restricting membership in the categories to direct derivations from Turkish may be a sensible regulation. Regaring the Gaelic undefined:, in technical terms, the tittle is not graphemic; see also the last two paragraphs of Irish orthography.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As an active Portuguese language contributor, I strongly support the addition of categories for the following plain-letter characters of that language: K, W, Y and their lowercase counterparts (that is, possibly Category:Portuguese terms spelled with K and so on). They are incredibly rare; to the point of being usually substituted by other letters when a word comes from other language. For instance, caratê means karate, quilo means kilo and Válter means Walter. --Daniel. 19:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Doremítzwr and Michael, would you object if I remove the pieces of text "a rare character in this language" or "a obsolete character in this language", which are currently present at the discussed categories? I'm not a big fan of this type of statement at that place; one reason is: Perhaps it could serve as criteria for inclusion (since A is not rare, we don't want a English terms spelled with A, but Ü is rare, so we have English terms spelled with Ü) But this criteria doesn't reflect flawlessly the current categories, because ' and * are not rare characters. --Daniel. 22:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Far from it; I'd consider the removal of those pieces of text an improvement. I've objected to "a rare character in this language" in the past. Also, when it's done with undefined:, IIRC it yields "a archaic [sic] character in this language".  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The erroneous wording "a archaic" is not a serious problem; because, if we actually wanted to inform such contexts at the category descriptions, it could be easily and automatically changed to "an archaic". But, since we don't want the contexts, I removed them all. --Daniel. 19:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Wanted entries
Hi Daniel. Please ensure that when you create entries requested in that list that they satisfy the criteria for inclusion. Many of your recently-created entries are now at RFV or RFD. You're only wasting your own time and creating unnecessary work for others by making entries that are either RFD fodder or which would fail to pass a request for verification. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course I will aim to satisfy CFI when contributing to Wiktionary. Although I don't consider my edits particularly unsatisfying, be them from that list or not, because the entries created by me are usually kept, even after a healthy RFV or RFD discussion when necessary. --Daniel. 23:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That doesn't seem to be the case with, for example, kawaiify:, so do I:, and neither do I:. I thought it best I'd mention it, since I've noticed a pattern with the requests from Wanted entries and, well, prevention is better than cure, and all that…  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The three entries you mentioned seem to be the most recent ones that were created by me and are discussed at RFV or RFD, so a consensus was not reached for them yet. When I create an entry, I suppose it will be kept, as opposed to deliberately waste time of any editors. I also check for their related discussions regularly; so, for instance, I recently formally discovered that the entry Tetris-like should not exist due to consensus, then I'll refrain from defining more English nouns ending in "-like" like that one. On the other hand, kawaiily, unownable, who are you and what have you done with someone, absent-minded professor, response time and many other entries that were created by me seem acceptable. For these reasons, I think I don't need to change my pattern of contributions based on your comments. Nonetheless, feel free to comment on my contributions anytime. --Daniel. 02:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong — I'm not saying that all your contributions are bad or that you're deliberately wasting anyone's time; most of your contributions are good. I ask, however, that you do two things: 1) Use and/or  (&c.) to ensure that the terms you're adding occur with sufficient frequency in durably archived media to satisfy one or more of the CFI's attestation criteria. & 2) Think carefully as to whether your multi-word contributions are idiomatic (i.e., not SOP); for example, undefined: would not be includible if it just meant "a professor who is absent-minded", but since it is a term that can be applied more broadly to any oblivious academic (or, broader still, to any person oblivious of reality), it is therefore idiomatic. Is it reasonable that I request that you take those small steps?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 02:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, frequency checking and SOP avoidance are reasonable steps to be taken by me. Although, as you certainly know, both attestability and idiomacity are not absolute references: Some terms may be considerably confusing like security through obscurity, that as Conrad pointed out at RFD, is rather considered lack of security than a SOP of "security + through + obscurity". Others are rare enough to be controversial, like kawaiiness whose meaning is supposedly not known by people without interest in Japanese culture; presumably all others at RFV and RFD are initially controversial too, so kudos to people who are creating and solving such discussions, including you. In an effort to improve my entries, I could also attest more of them by adding quotations, since I don't do this very much. --Daniel. 05:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be great; thanks for your coöperation. I agree that idiomaticity is a difficult one to judge sometimes, though attestability is pretty easy, thanks to our more-or-less objective criteria for it (well, that much applies to the fourth criterion at least, and that is the most commonly invoked one). The meanings of all the terms derived from kawaii: (undefined:, undefined:, and undefined:) are obvious as long as one is aware what undefined: means; however, that isn't the salient point. undefined: was only attestable via Google Groups; although yields only two hits, there are 640 Google Groups Search hits to choose from; conversely,  yields nothing, whereas none of the nine Google Groups hits are valid (you must ensure that "Google Groups" is selected, not "all groups"). I hope that makes sense. Thanks again.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

agir
We seem to lack an entry for the Portuguese verb! I'm going to do what I can, but please clean up after me, if you would. --EncycloPetey 21:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You did a good job when contributing to the entry agir. After a quick research I unsurprisingly couldn't find more than one or two definitions per dictionary (including the Portuguese Wiktionary) and you covered them all. I then splitted that definition into two, added the language-specific templates and links to other Portuguese words. So, done. --Daniel. 05:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Interlingua plurals
Come how doesn't allow it? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Interlingua plurals differs from the naming system present in all categories. Specifically, I think a category Interlingua plural forms would be more acceptable, since the word "forms" appears in all POS categories that should inherently contain non-lemma terms. Additionally, each language has plurals for different parts of speech, so the main purposes of poscatboiler would be defeated by a standardized text and place in a category tree. In my opinion, Category:Interlingua noun plural forms and Category:Interlingua adjective plural forms would be examples of categories flawlessly supported by that template. --Daniel. 14:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So why does it accept Category:English plurals? BTW I do agree. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The category "English plurals" is not supported by poscatboiler. --Daniel. 14:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:list:Cyrillic script letter names/ru
Hi,

I followed your example and created Template:list:Cyrillic script letter names/ru. Other Cyrillic based languages can be added. --Anatoli 05:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Very good. Feel free to contribute on my Wiktionary projects anytime. --Daniel. 05:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey do you think you could support for duals to this? Thanks. Breton, for one, is a language that needs such a category.
 * Yes, I can add support for dual forms. Firstly, please inform which dualized parts of speech do you need. For instance, do you expect to create categories for dual nouns, dual adjectives, dual verbs? --Daniel. 13:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, dual nouns at least. That's what Breton has (though it may have dual adjectives too, idk:). I asked because I saw the Category "Breton duals" on WantedCategories. 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I see, the category name Breton duals, like English plurals, is not likely to enlighten a reader nor provide a suitable workspace for editors; in addition, it is named differently from other categories and is probably not standardizable due to the various possible descriptions and category trees of duals of each language. You may want to see the related and recent discussion Interlingua plurals at my talk page. If you want to create and/or edit the category Breton duals, please don't use poscatboiler for it. On the other hand, it is advisable to create the newly-supported categories Breton noun dual forms and Breton adjective dual forms. --Daniel. 15:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Gothic verbs conjugate to dual forms. So we definitely need support for dual verb forms. -- Prince Kassad 09:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. You may use in Category:Gothic verb dual forms now if you want. --Daniel. 19:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:list helper format
The heading for the list has been formatted to look like a restricted-usage label (a context label). But the heading is not a context label, so this will cause confusion. (And why put the whole list into a one-item unordered list? Why does this list include “week,” which is not a day of the week?)

Instead of this:


 * (days of the week) week; Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday

Why not format it more simply, like this?

Days of the week: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday

Or with the structure of a definition list?


 * Days of the week
 * Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday

(You could even add semantic structure by making the whole list a DL definition list, with the heading in a DT and each item in a DD.) —Michael Z. 2010-04-24 20:27 z 


 * I know what DL, DT and DD are, but I have not fully understood what you mean by "semantic structure"; so please explain further, if you would.
 * The list includes the term "week" because it explains well how the items are connected. If a person does not know what is a week, he or she might learn by clicking on the link. Similarly, and more likely to be unclear, if a person sees a list of types of random access memory "(random access memory) random access memory; single data rate, double data rate, static random access memory, dynamic random access memory", he or she might learn about that hypernym easily that way.
 * In my opinion, the current italicized explanatory text between parentheses is not particularly confusing, neither it lacks simplicity. Specifically, I like how that text is clearly separated from the items. Let me quote your first suggestion:

Days of the week: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday
 * I think its overall effect is undesirable because I have to search for where the title ends and the list starts. The blue links may help, but please note that an appendix can be linked to the explanatory text (as an option of ), so another possible effect is:

Days of the week: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday
 * Mentally separating the text from the items is not a difficult task, but it might be avoided by some basic formatting. For that reason, I like your second suggestion:


 * Days of the week
 * Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday

--Daniel. 03:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:gl-letter
This template, and all others like it, will need to be revised to correctly make use of the /doc subpages. --EncycloPetey 21:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. The letter templates were revised as you asked. --Daniel. 03:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

/doc subpages are buggy
Don't know which ones, or what the cause is, but and  were the ones I noticed. Conrad.Irwin 01:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In case you are talking about the template loops, and are interested in the cause, it is: There were little pieces of code whose purpose was automatically getting each template name to create examples of usage of such templates. These "pieces of code" were not programmed for a sudden move from talk pages to /doc pages, so documentations were naturally doomed to be adapted sooner or later. I believe they are fixed now. --Daniel. 03:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Language names
Can you think of a good way to display the list of duplicate language names on both WT:LANGNAME and on the documentation of the language templates (eg )? It would be nice if the information could be shown in both places and even at the entries (eg Farsi, Persian) without too much manual updating to keep them synced. Would we want something like Template:fa/names for language templates? --Bequw → τ 01:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think I could do the "think of a good way to display the list of duplicate language names on both WT:LANGNAME and on the documentation of the language templates" since I received your message. Then I created a new set of parameters from scratch. See Template:si. --Daniel. 10:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I like it. Thanks. Maybe pass it by the GP before using widely? --Bequw → τ 21:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, a GP discussion would be good. Then I've started one. --Daniel. 21:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I suggest you don't try to spend any more time on {langtempboiler}, as I've tried to explain, it is not possible to add another layer and expansion to these templates without blowing out the page expand limit in the parser. Whatever it is you are trying to do can not be done in the templates.

I moved "testingtest" to a user subpage, it was breaking tools. Should not be in cat. Robert Ullmann 17:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I forgot the tools; sorry for placing "Template:testingtest" in that dangerous category and thanks for removing it from there. Thanks for your suggestions too; although I'm still planning to spend some more time on langtempboiler, at least for self-instructive reasons. I'm generally curious about the limits and possibilities of MediaWiki templates; such knowledge would help me to find and solve technical problems better, even if, as you imply, the current language templates don't have problems to be solved. --Daniel. 07:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Walloon cardinal numbers
How did I fuck up Category:Walloon cardinal numbers? You make templates too complicated for ordinary users like me --Soleil levant 08:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, you may adapt the code of Category:Portuguese cardinal numerals into a Category:Walloon cardinal numerals if you want to use . A convenient reason is: poscatboiler relies on consistency between many languages. Currently, due to the lack of consensus, the members of a category called "[...] numbers" could possibly be either numerical symbols or words of that language. That template can't know that you want to keep words in Category:Walloon cardinal numbers, so I mercifully removed poscatboiler from that category. --Daniel. 08:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You know damn well that if it goes to a vote that "cardinal numbers" would win out, because we speak English here. It's bad faith to continue with a policy that's against the consensus and can't possibly win out. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You've got to get it out of your head that you own these templates. If you want to use them as "toys" use user subpages, or create your own wiki for fun and games. If your aim is to improve the Wiktionary, and I sincerely believe it is, you'll have to listen to other editors. I think you have a conflict at this level, the need to improve the Wiktionary and the need to play. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recollect saying that I own any Wiktionary template, neither playing games that involve deliberately ignoring people here. In fact, my behaviour seems quite contrary to those concepts, since I'm inclined to help people and discuss with them. Rising Sun did not ask for Walloon cardinal numbers to be supported by, he just informed about "fucking up" that category, so I didn't ignore him (her?) by fixing the category without that template. I see you removed "numerals" from poscatboiler and added "numbers" to it, hence effectively removing the distinction between a symbol and a word; this fact would probably be brought up in the vote whose result you foresaw, and was pointed out by me in this very conversation. --Daniel. 11:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact is there already is a consensus, negating the need for a vote. You didn't answer my question, do you feel a need to create templates to "play" and use them as "toys"? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Come on Gloves, lay off him. He's a great help when it comes to templates. The best templatist known to the world of Wiktionary, in fact. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 16:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * MG, we had a vote on this, and the result was no consensus. Please do not push one view over the other with a claim that there is consensus, beacuse there isn't.  Your accusations and insults do not reflect well on you; it may be time to take a wiki-break, as you do seem to be leading the entire community in number of Talk page edits. --EncycloPetey 16:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian future and adverbial participles
Hi Daniel. I wanted to use the postcatboiler template in Category:Hungarian future participles and Category:Hungarian adverbial participles, but it does not recognize them. Can you please add them? Thanks. --Panda10 17:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. --Daniel. 06:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Panda10 21:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Enjoy. --Daniel. 17:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

do you want a prize?
Hi Daniel.. For getting the highest score with a single entry in my Easter Competition, you're entitled to a prize. What would you like? It can be anything you want that'll take less than two hours of my time --Rising Sun talk? contributions 07:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the offer; then yes, I agree to command such a generous Wiktionary editor. Before choosing how I'll take (less than) two hours from your time, please say if you're good at IPA. :) --Daniel. 12:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My IPA knowledge for French and British English is perfect. Anything else could be a bit more complicated. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 11:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, can it be adding pronunciation to the entries in Category:Vulgarities? Or something that involves dirty words? --Rising Sun talk? contributions 11:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * According to a new rule I'm about to add, the deadline for claiming your prize is tonight --Rising Sun talk? contributions 10:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, then. Your idea of editing vulgarities is a good one for my purposes, which include improving my own IPA knowledge. You shall make sure that the following terms have proper IPA pronunciations, in this order, if you have time:
 * The terms fuck, fucked, fucking, fucks, fuck up, fucked up, fucking up, fucks up, fuck ups, shit, shitted, shitting, shits, worry, worried, worrying, worries, speak, spoke, speaking, speaks, dirty word, dirty words, magic word and magic words.
 * And, I don't speak English, do you speak English, I don't speak Portuguese, how old are you, I am twenty years old, I am hungry, I am thirsty, I am tired, leave me alone, what's your name and where can I pee.
 * The "synonyms" listed at WS:promiscuous woman.
 * The "derivations" of the noun, adjective and verb shit.
 * The "members" of the category English swear words.
 * --Daniel. 22:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Super. I'll work on it --Rising Sun talk? contributions 06:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

langcatboiler
has started listing the scripts of languages as if there were four of them in every case ("Latin,, and scripts"). Could you take a look at it? --Yair rand 04:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed. --Daniel. 05:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

symbcatboiler
For, the template should really read the script used from the template. That's what it's there for, after all. -- Prince Kassad 11:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Granted. --Daniel. 11:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:la-prefix/doc
Please don't create these. They can't be edited or tailored for individual entries, and contain no useful information about the specific templates on which they appear. Boilerplate documentation doesn't work because the templates are all different. --EncycloPetey 17:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What he said. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose you are talking about the generic examples like "word1 word2" and examples with erroneous scripts, as you pointed out at RFC. Then, perhaps these documentations should be subst:'ed with headtempdocboiler and further edited, rather than not created at all. --Daniel. 18:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm talking about the whole thing. Latin prefixes need additional explanation about usage that I can't add to the boilerplate.  Most people mistakenly create prefix entries for prepended prepositions, and a cautionary note needs to be added.  There are similar issues on most other templates.  And I disagree about creating them with "subst:"  All that does is fool people into thinking the template has real documentation, when all it has is mindless substed boilerplate that may not apply to the template at all.  They have the same problem on the Russian Wiktionary, but there they have boilerplated whole entries for many languages and so they have lots of pages with no content whatsoever except for the empty boilerplate. --EncycloPetey 18:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

List question
Could the hypernym parameter be modified so that items can be partially unlinked? For example, in I would want to show pieza de ajedrez but not pieza de ajedrez. Nadando 02:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * looks like it would do what I am suggesting. Nadando 02:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, this differs considerably from the original plan, but I like your suggestion, then implemented it. --Daniel. 02:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

lang2sc
Hi. It's not clear to me what does that  isn't meant to. (Of course, langscript has many more languages in it than lang2sc.) Can you clarify, please? &#x200b;—msh210℠ 19:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, the main difference between these two templates is that lang2sc is currently a mess while langscript isn't. Also, I'm not inclined to type some possible values for lang2sc like <tt> </tt> to get a simple "Jpan"; it would be impractical. --Daniel. 19:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that those were meant as comments. The #switch will ignore them if it doesn't encounter them, so no harm done. Anyway, can lang2sc simply be converted to a hard-redirect to langscript, then? &#x200b;—msh210℠ 20:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The hard-redirect seems a good idea. Although, apparently, the only page that uses lang2sc is User:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js/!sc, so I asked Conrad about this subject. --Daniel. 20:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two differences - lang2sc is subst'able, and it defaults to Latn, langscript isn't and defaults to Xyzy. The purpose of !sc is to include the script template wherever it is not Latn - so I'm not sure that langscript can do that (though if I'm wrong, that's fine too) [also, if you can work out why (I can't) and find a better way to do it, that's groovy too]. If you want to move lang2sc into my userspace to stop other people using it that's great too. (In short, I don't care as long as nothing breaks :p). Conrad.Irwin 21:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So what do you think about changing !sc from  to  ? (Both of those are simplified here for legibility. Of course I'm not suggesting getting rid of the  s.) That would add (if I understand it correctly) an explicit call to Xyzy that currently is lacking — but only in the highly unusual case that a language has no script listed in langscript — and would default languages to their primary script (e.g. sh to Cyrl) where lang2sc defaults them to Latn. AFAICT there would be no other change (besides better coverage of languages natch). &#x200b;—msh210℠ 21:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds alright - making langscript subst'able isn't hard now either. I imagine that Hebrew is one of the languages that is using this, so you'll be in a good position to test how it works :p. Conrad.Irwin 22:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Solar System
Having this template list just planets and not the myriad other objects in the solar system is ridiculous. Thanks for that. — <font face="Lucida console">[&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 12:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a problem I have with some of the list templates that have been created. I feel like the template should only be used when there is a definite bounded set of objects in the list. For instance, I'm sure that I could find more terms fitting in, and there are thousands of objects in the solar system- what criteria are we using to include only some of them? Compare that to the list of planets, which can be said to be complete. Nadando 12:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of the objects in the Solar System are either large and identifiable, like the Planets and Pluto and Eris, or they're part of large sub-systems, like the asteroid belt, Oort cloud and Kuiper belt.
 * On the sexual orientations lists, the main ones are homo-, hetero-, and bi-. pan-/omni- are the same thing, a- is sorta marginal. I'm not going to include paraphilias, just the basic terms. Like the "basic colors" lists. — <font face="Lucida console">[&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 12:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I used the "Criteria for inclusion" from Template:list/doc, that I wrote myself and of course may be discussed and changed if necessary; I think is good enough, as long as I think of it as somewhat separate from a possible.
 * I consider the deletion of the former Template:solar system an improvement; to begin with, its title was apparently so inclusive that the template would never be fulfilled. Specifically, it contained only "Moon" but not other satellites, neither did it contain all dwarf planets and asteroids. And, it didn't contain me; I'm an inhabitant of the solar system and my full name would probably be shown in a or.
 * In addition, the myriad of celestial bodies may all be included, but please keep them subdivided into smaller lists, like, , , etc. Note that all these subdivided lists would appear together in the entry solar system, so incompleteness isn't an issue. --Daniel. 15:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Appendix:I am fix requested
Hi,

Could you help me fix this appendix, please? I tried to use the same structure as in Appendix:I don't speak but failed miserably :). --Anatoli 00:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As you can see, I have fixed it now using your new tags, thanks!, please have a look, you can add more languages, if you wish. If someone doesn't do it - next thing I need an interpreter in many languages. --Anatoli 01:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Good; I'm glad you could use the new tags after I made them a little easier and more intuitive. In addition, I placed some suggestions for improvement of Appendix:I am at its talk page. --Daniel. 05:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I replied there. It may work for "I am" + nationality/ethnicity but will not work for other suggestions you made. The idea is good, though. I'd like to have I need an interpreter to be easily converted into I need a doctor by replacing the key word interpreter -> doctor. So far, all the translations would need a simple replacement of FL words for interpreter to doctor, except for English, article "an" needs to be changed for "a". --Anatoli 05:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:North Germanic derivations
Hey, if you're able can you please make appropriate topic cat subtemplates for this? It's just that I'm not sure really what to say for the topic cat description (since North Germanic seems to be a group of languages not one language). 50 Xylophone Players talk 00:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, could you make please? :) For the English category I'd like it to say that like, it contains categories for the derivations (as obviously we do not say that English word X is "from English Y") and just have the normal derivations description for other languages. 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, *facepalm*...I had made a typo while making a category...Perhaps though you should still consider adding that functionality to the category. 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything done, or so I think. Since the standard description for Category:X derivations is the so generic "This category comprises words whose etymologies involve X roots.", I believe it can be used language families as well. The "English derivations" switch and the "North Germanic derivations" templates are done; and, I didn't find any category with typos to fix. --Daniel. 08:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Lists with one item
Surely you don't advocate using for lists with one item? All it will do is link an entry to itself. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose you are talking about the list of "moons" of Earth, because this is currently the only list with only one item. I wouldn't advocate any list merely because it contains one item, but I support the existence of <tt> </tt>. That template links to seven entries, including few synonyms of "satellite" and the name of our planet. Furthermore, please see the "See also" section of satellite. It would be seriously deficient if lacking Luna and Dysnomia. --Daniel. 22:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and of course there is also the current list of moons of Eris. I support its existence too. --Daniel. 23:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I made a mess of the unblock the second time. Conrad.Irwin 23:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. --Daniel. 23:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh. It seems MG has finally snapped, and feels he owns my talk page too.  What should the community do? --EncycloPetey 23:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WT:BP
Whatever you did, it broke the section editing in the BP. --EncycloPetey 23:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the server is still catching up with the edit. Should be resolved shortly.  I almost wonder if he did it on purpose, as I think the project benefited from having that page disabled for a few minutes.  If so, very shrewdly done sir. :-)  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Petey, you probably tried to click in a section link soon after I've archived the BP. When I removed some sections to place in the archive, naturally all section links have changed. Specifically, there are now thirty sections in the BP. To edit them normally, try reloading the page first: simply click here. --Daniel. 23:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've tried that several times. The month of April still shows up, even though it's now archived.  Guess whatever connection I've got isn't as up-to-date as everyone else's. --EncycloPetey 23:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It takes a little while. I tried refreshing, and cache emptying and refreshing, and it still took a few minutes for the new version to get loaded.  But, if it's still not loading properly for you, you can always press the edit section link, then manually change the section number in url bar (subtract about 55 or so) and it'll work.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Europe
Kazakhstan is in central Asia. --EncycloPetey 05:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Correct. And also in Europe. --Daniel. 05:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh... Wonder why I never knew that before. --EncycloPetey 05:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Effectively because Wiktionary had not taught this to you yet. (: Well, I also never knew the exact relation between Kazakhstan, Asia and Europe before doing some quick research for the lists. --Daniel. 06:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Armenia is not in Europe. Some say it's culturally part of Europe, but I'm not sure what that means. Nor are Georgia and Azeristan in Europe. PS Add Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to the list of countries or I'll kick your ass :D --Vahagn Petrosyan 14:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The maps say that both Armenia and Georgia are located physically in both Europa and Asia. I don't know what Azeristan means. I'm not quite sure about the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic; to quote Wikipedia again, "The country remains unrecognized by any international organization or country, including Armenia."; I added it to the list of countries of Europe anyway. --Daniel. 20:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a moment to clean this up from the following pages. Thanks. Conrad.Irwin 17:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * fishes out of water 29832430: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * hunter greens 29832467: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * midnight blues 29832484: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * butterscotches 29832564: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * dilacerates 29832667: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * dilacerating 29832686: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * dilacerated 29832705: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * dilacerations 29832744: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * dikinases 29832773: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * mannitols 29832792: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * ebonites 29833013: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * buttfaces 29833317: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * topdresses 29833768: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * topdressing 29833797: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * topdressed 29833816: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * topees 29833835: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * Andeans 29834232: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * Oceanians 29834555: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * metasubstitutions 29834617: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * comfreys 29834750: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * metarules 29834966: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * merogonies 29835213: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * fire bricks 29835805: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * deionising 29835901: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * deionisations 29835975: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * deionizations 29835994: == {{langtempboiler|code ==
 * Yair already did it. --Daniel. 07:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Votes/2010-04/Voting policy
I urge you to vote. (I don't know which way you'll vote, but I want more voices, especially English Wiktionarians' voices, heard in this vote.) If you've voted already, or stated that you won't, and I missed it, I apologize. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 17:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I need a dictionary, et al
Hi. Could you please put Chinese or Mandarin translation requests under "Chinese:" or "Chinese: ... Mandarin:" in the future? It makes it a little easier. Thanks. ---&gt; Tooironic 13:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not noticed those little formatting issues of "Chinese:" translations when I made requests for entries of that language. Yes, I'll remember to put new requests under the proper headers in the future. --Daniel. 14:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Notification
FYI, I've posted a response here: Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities. --Dan Polansky 09:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My Beer Parlour comments
OK you deserve a shot to reply. I've accused you of acting almost entirely in your own interests rather than in the interests of Wiktionary. I'm not saying everything you do is bad - far from it, and  are genius, on the other hand you edit without any discussion  of  and  and break literally tens of thousands of entries. My point is this: if your main aim is to test your own abilities at making templates, why Wiktionary? Couldn't you do that on Wikia or something? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I was going to send you a message now asking whether there was a reason for you to revert my edits in these three templates minutes ago. Thanks for the overall praise, but for your information I have not created or actively participated in the existence of the . I do apologize for forgetting about a little piece of code which recognizes English as a language that does not need to be specified with a parameter like <tt>|lang=en</tt>; I think this is the reason for you to edit those templates, although this issue was already fixed when you did that. Aside from my mistake, which was indeed not planned in discussions, the edits done by me on these three templates were already discussed beforehand. I am certainly inclined to continuously improve my own abilities as a programmer, but I don't see how my personal behavior overlaps with your accusation and suggestions. --Daniel. 10:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny as that was the bit I wanted a reply to. Why Wiktionary? Why not any othe wiki? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have responded that I don't see how my behavior has something to do with your suggestions to date; that is, you haven't gave me reasons to change my patterns of edits. In fact, the "Why Wiktionary?" is probably the least important sentence in your text, since it apparently relies on the unproven assumption that I do something here that belongs somewhere else. In short, I edit Wiktionary because when I feel like contributing to a dictionary, I choose this one. --Daniel. 11:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Broken en-noun template
Did you break en-noun? See cryptex. Equinox ◑ 23:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * en-noun is fine. I've edited a subtemplate to fix cryptex as well. --Daniel. 23:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

phrasebook entries
Hi,

Please add at least one translation along with your translation requests. into your phrasebook entries, e.g. Portuguese. They would qualify as real phrasebook entries then. --Anatoli 02:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello. I disagree with this particular criterion of qualification of "real phrasebook entries". Nonetheless, I'll certainly add Portuguese translations to them eventually. --Daniel. 02:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a criterion as CFI (not at the moment), don't get me wrong, just a courtesy - a phrasebook is supposed to be multilingual or at least bilingual. We can end up having too many phrases without translations, if they grow too fast. The value of a phrase increases straight away with a translation. Besides, it must be easy for you, if you're fluent in Portuguese. Thanks for understanding. --Anatoli 03:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Phrasebook
I think you really should stop adding uncommon phrasebook entries. has mere 137,000 hits, while has mere 48 hits. Phrasebook entries should be not only attestable but also common. The only requirement they are exempt from is the one of idiomacity AKA non-sum-of-partness. --Dan Polansky 10:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest that both entries I need petrol and I need gasoline be either kept or deleted; since the latter existed and is restricted by regional labels, it seemed to me only natural that the other existed too, then I created it.
 * On the subject of commonness, the unfortunate lack of fuel for one's vehicle occurs very often. If Google hits are indeed a reliable criterion for which 48 or 137.000 results are not sufficient for a phrasebook entry to merit inclusion, perhaps different wordings but similar in effect would fill that gap: some possibilites would be "I need gas" (375.000 raw hits), "where is the gas station" (503.000) and "I ran out of gas" (516.000). --Daniel. 10:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I indeed do not deny the use case of needing petrol but rather the particular phrases. I think that both "I need petrol" and "I need gasoline" should be deleted. shows 640 hits, so this would pass the tentative criterion that I have been proposing.  with its 510,000 hits also seems to perform acceptably well, although  with its 30 hits is rather unconvincing. Checking against real phrasebooks would be better in the early phase of building the phrasebook, in the phase in which the criteria of inclusion are unclear and in the making.  gives four hits, already a first indicator that the phrase is not an utter tosh as a phrasebook one.
 * Google hits are a mere proxy criterion, yet a better one than no criterion of commonness at all. --Dan Polansky 11:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In BrE I'd expect "I'm out of petrol" or "I've run out of petrol". Equinox ◑ 11:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps usefulness would be other possible criterion; I, personally, and hopefully other English-speaking people would help someone whose only intelligible words are "I need gasoline" in that language, so it's useful. The alternative "where is the gas station?" seems equally useful, except that I remember something about places where gas is sold at markets in gallons.
 * Notably, Wikitravel (for example, its Japanese phrasebook ) has I need a toothbrush and I need a Japanese-English dictionary among other "I need X" variations.
 * Equinox, similarly to our current both I need gasoline and I need petrol, both I've run out of gasoline and I've run out of petrol would naturally be kept or deleted together. --Daniel. 11:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Usefulness alone is a poor filtering criterion. Usefulness should be a condition necessary, not sufficient, for inclusion of a phrasebook entry. It is rather subjective, and prone to lead to disputes. It fails to capture the fact that some phrases, although useful in principle, are not the primary way of how an idea is expressed in English.
 * Wikitravel is a project I know almost nothing about, but, from its being a wiki, it is hard to tell how well it is executed.
 * By sheer numbers of hits, "I'm out of petrol" performs poorly, while gives decent 418 hits, and performs really well in  with 54 hits. These 54 hits may be misleading, though, in that many of the various hits are from the same publisher, Lonely Planet, who probably uses the same underlying database of phrases as a basis for phrasebooks in various languages. --Dan Polansky 12:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Usefulness is completely subjective. Some of us would use I have a big penis 17,809 times and use I need a diaper...never.
 * Wikitravel kinda sucks. They're kinda like a "real phrasebook"'s retarded cousin who wears a football helmet everywhere. — <font face="Lucida console">[&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 12:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Elder people and parents of babies (and actors who play babies, and sellers of diapers, etc.) need diapers; so, like I said above about petrol, I think we should have either I need a diaper or something similar with different words.
 * Both that wiki and Lonely Planet apparently fall under the staple rule of "if lemmings have that particular phrase, we may consider having it too" merely because they are phrasebooks, so they'll probably appear in further discussions.
 * Wikitravel does seem to have some basic thus useful terms like "hello" and "excuse me", but I have to agree with Opiaterein on its apparent retardness after reading that from the Portuguese phrasebook : "I swear I didn't do it, Mr. Officer.", which sound funnily weird even when translated. --Daniel. 14:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

WT:BP
I had this idea to templatize organization of phrasebook stuff. I figured since you've worked so much on the list stuff and the category boilers that it'd be right up your alley. — <font face="Lucida console">[&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 16:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking, for the phrasebook entries in the main namespace a template format like... would work, with the usage on the page itself like the list templates. — <font face="Lucida console">[&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 16:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User name
Have you ever considered changing your username to one without a period at the end? When I write your user name in the middle of a sentence in full, the period appears to end the sentence. I can simply write "Daniel" instead of "Daniel.", admittedly, but that does not match the user name perfectly. --Dan Polansky 09:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, apparently I'm the only "Daniel" here as long as the other Daniel keeps unproductive and linking to me. I think you may simply type Daniel, without the period, if you prefer. --Daniel. 10:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * He could also say Daniel Dot, that should make sense. — <font face="Lucida console">[&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 13:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikisaurus - instances
Please do not turn instances to hyponyms in Wikisaurus. These are different things. --Dan Polansky 12:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please explain how you differentiate "Instances" from "Hyponyms" and "Meronyms". If possible, provide examples and mention specific mistakes that I have done, since I prefer not to simply follow an instruction to blindly "never rename from that title to that other title."
 * I noticed that you tend to occasionally "fix" my Wikisaurus edits, then leave a note mentioning how you're returning the page to the "correct" state. Apparently, your comments are the first signal that I've done something wrong, since consensus is unspoken or nonexistent; and rules are unwritten.
 * I've not found the word "Instances" either in Wikisaurus or in Wikisaurus/Format; I've only found it naming sets of hyponyms and meronyms, so it's only natural that I fix them, unless I'm ignoring a distinction. --Daniel. 14:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

On a broader note, can you please leave things that I have done in Wikisaurus alone unless you are very sure you know what you are doing? I do not get why you have removed meronyms from "Wikisaurus:computer", to take another instance. There is a lot of things you can do in Wikisaurus without turning things upside down. --Dan Polansky 12:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed that you said that "software' is not a meronym of "computer"; I believe your statement is incorrect. Without software, there is no instruction on how to compute effectively (at least in modern computers which don't require to be rewired). I can fathom that there is a lot of things to be done in Wikisaurus, but most of them are not listed in the 8,788 bytes of Wikisaurus/Requested entries, which leaves me with either (1) adding new pages or (2) improving old pages as I see fit. I've been doing both.
 * Since a computer has large sets of hardware and software as meronyms, I've added them to both respective lists: WS:hardware and WS:software. They help to understand the distinction and may have additional hypernyms, hyponyms and meronyms. --Daniel. 14:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems you should first get a clear idea of hyponymy and meronymy. You have entered "chess" as hypernym of "chess piece" into Wikisaurus, an obviously wrong thing to do. A computer is equiped with software, right, but it does not consist of software. An apartment does not consist of furniture either, although it is of not much use without it. A taxi does not consist of a taxi driver, although without a taxi driver no taxi can go anywhere. And a car does not consist of gasoline.


 * By example, "Mars" is an instance of "planet", while "planet" is a hyponym of "celestial body"; each planet is a celestial body, while "each Mars" is meaningless unless you read Mars as a common noun. "Each chess" is meaningless, while "chess is a game" is meaningful. If you want to see a set-theoretic characterization of the distinction, see User:Dan Polansky/Wikisaurus.


 * Before you start renaming the heading "Instances", intentionally entered by the only long-term contributor to Wikisaurus, I would think it proper to first ask the contributor what the intention was. Anyway. --Dan Polansky 15:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

pbappboiler
Would it be possible to have it so we don't have to make an addition to list every time we add a new topic? Check out Appendix:English phrasebook/Love — <font face="Lucida console">[&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 12:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added love to the list. Your request of not having to make additions to it can be easily fulfilled, but why? Apparently, the PB will not have more than ten sections. When these sections are created, either (1) we are happy with them and definitely would not want additions such as Appendix:English phrasebook/How to ask for woman-on-top sexual positions; or (2) we do want such new sections, but they would be subsections, which would require specific and reasonably complex codes in the list. --Daniel. 14:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure 10 would be quite enough... but since I'm having trouble thinking of more... heh. — <font face="Lucida console">[&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 14:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

template:en-noun
Was it one of your recent edits that caused [[Reader's Digest version]] to have its plural not a link? If so, can you fix it? Thanks. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 17:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. When I reverted my edits, the link was restored, thus I discovered that the lack of it was my fault. Thanks for pointing me to that bug. I'll have to analyze the template later to restore the other functions that I have added to it while keeping "Reader's Digest version" intact. --Daniel. 17:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

For when you get back...
Hi, what do you think about the possibility of adding an [edit description] button (or similar) to topic cat, and maybe also to poscatboiler when/if you get around to converting poscatboiler/theList like you mentioned in the GP a while ago? --Yair rand (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think a button like you described is a good idea, which I'll remember to make appear in categories handled by poscatboiler and topic cat.
 * As an initial plan, perhaps simply [edit] (one word, in superscript text) fits poscatboiler better, because I intend to make one template per POS. For instance, one template for nouns that handles <tt>Category:English nouns</tt>, <tt>Category:Portuguese nouns</tt>, <tt>Category:Japanese nouns</tt>, etc.
 * On the other hand, the right buttons for topic cat would be [edit description][edit parents], because there are two templates per subject. In my opinion, both links are necessary, but the final text is too undesirably long, so it may require further pondering. --Daniel. 07:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

New idea/s
The description for Category:Cities says "At this time the category includes cities, towns and villages of all sizes. It is anticipated that it will be divided at some later time". So I figure maybe it's time. I think you could probably make a boiler template that would be used in categories like Category:Cities in Brazil, Category:Cities in Sudan and stuff like that. Come back soon, man. Sometimes I want to punch you, but I know you do a lot :D — <font face="Lucida console">[&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 20:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed; that category is indeed asking for some clean up.
 * Do you have any ideas for the standardized definition line? Perhaps, for instance, the entry Osasco would contain the following, at least:
 * A city in Brazil.
 * Or, more detailedly:
 * A city in Greater São Paulo, Brazil and whose boundaries are Barueri, Carapicuíba, Cotia, Santana de Parnaíba and São Paulo city.
 * --Daniel. 08:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I usually just say "A (large/small city/town/whatever) in the X region of the Y country". In Bengali cities, I've also been including categories of the specific areas. — <font face="Lucida console">[&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 23:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, my second definition line fits your description by providing the "(large/small city/town/whatever)" part and listing some regions. I've created Osasco as a testcase. It notably displays overcategorization, which may or may not be a good thing, given that some standardized categories should exist and I ignored wider distinctions such as "Greater São Paulo, São Paulo, Southeastern Brazil, Brazil, South America, Earth[...]"
 * And I don't know if approximately one month is "soon" enough, but I'm happy to come back here. Thanks for the praise and go punch something else when you need to. --Daniel. 06:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually had templates for categories like and  in mind, but actually  is really excellent, too :D I would take out the Category:Greater São Paulo, Category:São Paulo, and Category:Brazil, but the Cities in and Municipalities in parts are good. How would we do something like Chalan Beel? It'd be slightly odd at first thought to have a template that categorizes "Marshlands in Rajshahi District". It might be easier to have one template for cities and towns, and another for geographic features or something? But I can also see how one might be curious to find mountains or rivers in specific areas... I dunno, I'm rambling at this point :D  — <font face="Lucida console">[&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 13:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If can create refined and standardardized definition lines and category links, the work of the future catboiler will likely be much easier.
 * Chalan Beel is a little tricky. I had to make a new parameter for it.
 * As for the categories Marshlands in Pakistan, Mountains in Russia, Rivers in Egypt, etc., I think they should exist. Leaving city names categorized but hundreds of river names uncategorized seems a bad idea. (Alternatively, rivers, mountains, marshlands could be categorized by country but not by smaller regions.)
 * My answer to your "one template for cities and towns, and another for geographic features or something?" would be no, because these two hypothetical templates have very similar functions, therefore they would probably resemble each other and be a little easier for users to remember if such functions existed in only one template. (And, technically, it is not difficult to alter details, such as categorization, for individual types of places: already knows that the plural of town is towns and the plural of city is cities.)
 * I've removed from the categories whose name don't contain "in" as you asked. --Daniel. 17:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

phrase I'll call the police
Hi,

Please add a Portuguese translation to your entry. --Anatoli 04:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. --Daniel. 08:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back!
--Yair rand (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Daniel. 08:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

makelink points to the wrong language
In the entry linierna, I use and the result is a link to linjerna instead of the expected linjerna. I guess this is related to how the lang parameter is passed from to. Should makelink use parameter 1 rather than lang, or should deftempboiler pass the language value as lang= in addition to parameter 1? --LA2 14:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your code <tt> </tt> indeed was pointing to the English section of linjerna; it is pointing to the intuitively correct Swedish section now.
 * Specifically, I have fixed the link, not by editing the entry, but by making the correct value be passed from one template to another: Template:makelink is now using the parameter <tt>1</tt> to recognize the parameter <tt>lang</tt> from Template:obsolete spelling of. --Daniel. 23:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

doesn't work on discussion pages
Hi Daniel,

On discussion pages, something like this:



now generates this:


 * Abbreviation of (example).

. This is because you changed to use, and changed  to use , and designed  not to work on discussion pages.

Needless to say, it is not the only template affected.

Please fix it.

Thanks,

—Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 20:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, in future, could you please start discussions before changing very widely used templates in very drastic ways? For example, the stuff broke various templates' support for things like <tt>lang=French</tt>. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 22:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ruakh. I've changed to display the results without the automatic "(example)" in discussion pages as you asked. The "lang" parameter whose value is any language name like <tt>lang=French</tt> is also functional now; specifically, I had to edit Template:wlink2 to accomplish this. The community seems to feel it is increasingly necessary to have the chance to discuss my major edits — especially since I engaged in handling template functions which are complex, thus prone to errors. This phenomenon is in conflict with my previous reasoning related to : that this template would not change anything per se, because it is only supposed to standardize various similar templates, namely by them having the same code and the same functions (e.g., if I remember correctly,  hadn't any <tt>sc</tt> parameter until recently, which is a shame). With that in mind, I've already decided to become more inclined to directly report my actions. As a result, I have been directing my attention to GP, documentation and other pages more often, as you certainly saw and occasionally replied. --Daniel. 02:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, on all counts! —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 02:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

en-noun
This template doesn't work properly anymore. See, as an example, nuclear reaction. The two words of the headword are no longer wikified. SemperBlotto 08:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See also reproductivity for strange apostrophes. SemperBlotto 08:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How interesting. Thank you for pointing me to nuclear reaction and reproductivity. The template seems to be working properly now. --Daniel. 08:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:catlangname
This needs to be able to accept language names instead of language codes. This has lead to thousands of entries being uncategorized. NB I'm not saying it's your fault, just that you are best placed to fix it. I haven't even looked at its history. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this preference for language codes over names is a result of this recent GP discussion. Apparently other users would prefer to fix (by bot) these thousands of uncategorized entries instead of changing back the related templates. --Daniel. 16:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2010-09/User:Daniel. for desysopping
With regret. You have to be a bit more responsible and take on board others' comments. If you're not interest in improving Wiktionary, please do not edit it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Template errors
The template + lang=ru is supposed to drop the pagename into Category:Russian words needing attention, but now it is not happening. You have changed something in some template that should not have been changed. —Stephen (Talk) 01:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That was Bequw moving the category . --Yair rand (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Changing "words" to "terms" in broke ? I can’t comprehend the logic behind it. Be that as it may, can we change it back so that  works again? —Stephen (Talk) 03:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you were assuming that it wasn't working because the words weren't showing up in Category:Russian words needing attention. As far as I can see, the template is correctly categorizing the entries into Category:Russian terms needing attention. Can you point out an entry in which it isn't working? --Yair rand (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I’ve never seen Category:Russian terms needing attention before. I’ve been checking Category:Russian words needing attention all day and could not understand why it was suddenly empty. —Stephen (Talk) 03:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All the attention categories now use "terms" instead of "words". Sorry that caught you off-guard. Let me know if there any problems with the new categories. --Bequw → τ 04:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Etyl templates
Your broke all the links. You have to check them before you shorten them. For example, Ruakh's example edit worked because North Germanic redirects to North Germanic languages. This was not the case at Provencal as the shortened version is a disambiguation page. Spot checking your other edits shows similar problems. Can you check and fix your previous edits?

More generally, I must ask you check your edits. While I don't believe this reoccurring issue is worthy of de-sysopping, it is harmful both in terms of wiktionary as a website and in terms of other editors time. --Bequw → τ 02:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the trouble. I've re-checked the templates and edited them where necessary, by using the older system with <tt>#switch</tt>. --Daniel. 03:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good use of the wiki redirects! --Bequw → τ 18:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/gesticulatar
These look like Dawnraybot errors, before it got a lifetime block. Care to delete them (if that is the case, of course). Mglovesfun (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Special:WhatLinksHere/gesticulatar is empty. Anyway, there is no Portuguese verb "gesticulatar"; that would probably be "gesticular". --Daniel. 16:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This template takes a pos= parameter- could you edit it so that other POS categories also show up if they exist? For example, Category:English words derived from: load (noun) would also show Category:English words derived from: load (verb) (similar to how works). Nadando 19:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure. Done, for adverbs, nouns and verbs. --Daniel. 03:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Appendixes for markup keywords
One appendix per one markup keyword that you are creating seems a really poor idea. More in my answer in Beer parlour, "colspan, etc.". --Dan Polansky 14:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

beam up
This can probably be cited outside Star Trek. Shouldn't this go through RFV before being moved to the appendix namespace? --Yair rand (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If it can be cited without context of Star Trek, then it can indeed be defined at beam up. In this case, the additional page Appendix:Star Trek/beam up probably should still exist, because (1) the term was firstly used in this context and (2) perhaps there are additional information unique to the series, such as possibly "To teleport by using a transporter." --Daniel. 04:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

klingono
Klingon is from a fictional universe, but since it has an ISO 639-3 code, I'd suggest that this is in wide enough use to be considered cited outside of the fictional universe. Therefore I'll move it back, but the appendix entry would also be valid, just not really necessary. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that there are ISO 639-3 codes for fictional races... I was genuinely believing it was only for languages. --Daniel. 11:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, klingono is also the language right? Double hmm. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * klingono, or Appendix:Star Trek/klingono, is defined as a race. (and the language would be klingona lingvo; Klingona lingvo). --Daniel. 11:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * klingono might be attestable for the language as well, see anglo for example. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then see how Klingon and Appendix:Star Trek/Klingon are neatly organized. I don't think that attesting one word is enough to bring all the fictional homonymous words together in the entry namespace, namely the language and the race. --Daniel. 12:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to revert your reversion, effectively transforming klingono into an appendix-only entry again. If you want to create an attestable definition of klingono as a language, in the main namespace, go ahead. If you want to define klingono, in the main namespace, but describing it as a race only existing in context of Star Trek, please don't. Thank you. (: --Daniel. 16:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Simpsons derivations
I think this should be renamed Category:The Simpsons derivations. --Felonia 12:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And I agree. --Daniel. 12:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And I think you should do (and probably want to do) all the work necessary to have this renamed. --Felonia 12:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure. I hereby accept this duty. --Daniel. 12:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Azorean
Another thing, can you give me a translation of Azorean, please? --Felonia 08:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can. Done. (from English to Portuguese) --Daniel. 09:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Appendices for terms from fictional universes
I request that you stop creating one-page-per-term appendices for terms from fictional universes until you demonstrate that this is widely supported by Wiktionary editors. --Dan Polansky 08:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't intend to cease this particular work. These are some relevant pages:
 * Votes/pl-2008-01/Appendices for fictional terms for the vote that specifically allows fictional terms.
 * Entry layout explained for the policy on how to format entries. --Daniel. 12:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You ought to stop. The vote does not explicitly enable that there should be one-term-per-page appendices. ELE does not regulate appendixes but main namespace, as you have guessed. You know that what you are doing has raised disagreement, and that other people interpret the vote quite differently. So there is no consensus for this one-term-per-page practice. Either demonstrate consensus (neither ELE nor the vote demonstrate the consensus), or stop.--Dan Polansky 13:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already participated in discussions, most notably WT:BP where my reasons have been stated. What other format do you suggest for appendix-only entries? Or don't you support their existence at all, preferring that, for example, "image inducer" be never defined on Wiktionary? --Daniel. 13:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not matter that you have stated reasons that you have find convincing. What does matter is that people disagree with what you are doing. Understood? Your reasons matter when you are deciding alone, but this is a wiki, a colloborative project in which you are not acting and deciding alone. If your reasons do not convince other people, then they do not matter. The page Appendix:Glossary of Farscape terms is an example how an appendix of terms from fictional universe should look like. --Dan Polansky 13:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see a place for etymologies, pronunciations and translations at Appendix:Glossary of Farscape terms. Should them be shoehorned into the list? --Daniel. 13:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (unindent) There should be no etymologies, pronunciations and translations of terms originating in fictional universes. Or else those terms might equally well be placed in the main namespace. --Dan Polansky 14:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should we neglect the connection between アーボック and Arbok? --Daniel. 14:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (<-) Because we do not want to document Pokémon in the first place. If we wanted to, we would have included Pokémon in the main namespace. After you convince other editors that Pokémon should be documented in as much detail as mainspace entries, with pronunciations, translations, etymologies, whatnot, then you can start creating such appendixes. --Dan Polansky 14:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you should gather consensus yourself on how to limit the coverage of fictional words. --Daniel. 14:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (<-) I see. You, one who has introduced in stealth mode a new practice, do not feel obliged to do the political work for what you propose, even after your proposal has raised fierce opposition in Beer parlour. You seem to think that clear opposition in Beer parlour is not enough. I do not share this view of wiki collaboration. At some point, I will possibly need to start a vote on forbidding what you are doing. The vote may end up in no consensus, say 60% against your proposal. Then you will continue with 40% support. Well I think that what you are doing is wrong, and that it is you who should start a vote and lose the vote unless you garner consensus, if you plan to continue your practice. --Dan Polansky 14:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have created and participated in relevant discussions, including this one. Except for you and other editor, there's virtually no "clear opposition in Beer parlour" regarding the concept of formatting fictional words as other entries. You apparently are trying to push your opinion on how to format them, while sliding the burden of proof onto my shoulders. It's not really difficult to create a new BP discussion if you think there's something wrong and unspoken, or participate in the current discussions, like you are doing now. So, be my guest and share your disagreements, if you would, and feel free to participate in discussions and votes as you see fit, which I think is the better way to garner and acknowledge consensus. --Daniel. 14:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you know if it is possible to make the category link appear on its own line? For example:

Category:xxx column 1 column 2 column 3

as opposed to

Category:xxx column 2 column 3 column 1

Thanks. Nadando 01:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure. I have developed a simple CSS class to do that. You may need to clear your cache to see the derived terms work as you described. --Daniel. 11:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Citations:be
What is the point of adding the deprecated quotations header? And of duplicating the cites in citation namespace?

I have moved the Ogden cite to the two places where its uses of "be" are in the entry and intend to do so for all of the citations not now in the entry. As we have no good way of maintaining coordination across namespaces and do have the ability to optionally conceal or display inline citations, there is little value that I can see in having citations duplicated. If there is no value, then why should the citation space material not be deleted once it is moved inline? DCDuring TALK 10:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you please point me to the decision of deprecating the "Quotations" header? I believe I missed it.
 * I have been duplicating citations between two namespaces, mainly for two reasons: I saw this practice ongoing in many pages and WT:Citations says If the citations page exists, it should hold all quotations and references for the term, including any inflected forms. Any quotations used within the entries would be a duplication of these. --Daniel. 10:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, that is not policy. Furthermore, that text predates User:Atelaes' creation of the default javascript that allows quotations to appear inline, in principal namespace, displayed or hidden at the user's option. One major motivation for the creation of citation space was to allow as many definitions as possible to appear simultaneously on users' screens. One of the cleanup tasks at Todo is the removal of quotations headers, where possible. (See Todo/superfluous quotation headers.)
 * If we are to mass-populate citation space that would probably best be done by bot with a vote. Don't hesitate to bring the matter up at BP if my interpretation seems in any way suspect or unsatisfying to you.
 * As you must see by now, as great many matters are not very explicitly or definitively resolved. No one likes to do the work to make a proposal, pre-sell it before a vote, and engage in the sometimes angry-sounding discussions that follow. And then, even if the vote passes, the decisions are often not really implemented. Making our entries more consistent (often through templatization) and improving the quality of English definitions are each in themselves a life's work for a few full-time-equivalent contributors. DCDuring TALK 12:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Quotations header is deprecated in the main namespace only. Also, entries like be are pretty massive, offloading some kilobytes to the citation pages does it some good. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the only namespace I was talking about. The primary purpose of quotations is to illustrate senses. Once in citations space the quotations lose connection with the senses they supposedly illustrate. DanielDot is mostly duplicating the quotations so entry size is not being (and should not be) reduced. DCDuring TALK 12:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me quote the introduction of Todo/superfluous quotation headers, for our conveniency:
 * "From the 2010-06-29 dump. It's a list Quotation headers directly under a single definition. The quotes should be able to be put under the definition (prepending a '#' before each line) and the header removed. If there's a lot, some should be put in the Citation page (and put a at the bottom of the PoS section, before subsections)."
 * I believe the task required at that page would be, for example, removing the "Quotations" header from the current version of the entry videographer, where the quote would look better if closer to the definition.
 * Apparently, DCDuring wants shorter citation pages (or, maybe, the complete removal of the "Citations:" namespace?), by moving the citations to entries. On the other hand, that specific TODO page, Martin, and I recommend the existence of citation pages for entries that would otherwise contain too many citations.
 * Anyway, removing citations from the "citations" namespace seems to me an obscure idea that probably concerns everyone; so I followed DCDuring's suggestion of creating a BP discussion on that matter. --Daniel. 13:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

fains
I think you've broken something … —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 20:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh. This particular error was very avoidable, despite it stemming from an attempt to circumvent an incredibly obscure and error-prone aspect of MediaWiki; I should have known better. Once more, I see that I've broken an entry; as a result, it has been fixed immediately. Thank you for pointing me to fains and sorry for the trouble of making you see temporary bugs regularly. I'll use this memory as one reason to keep improving my abilities and how to use them. --Daniel. 00:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

WTF
Why can't you test your stuff off-line like a professional? DCDuring TALK 22:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you like... made of irony? — <font face="Lucida console">[&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 23:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hah. Thanks, Opiaterein. I appreciate when you bite people who have bitten me. For what is worth, there has been a recent error where "I probably could not have predicted that <tt> </tt> returns TRUE but <tt>  </tt> returns FALSE at smoker's cough, because these results apparently make no sense.", as quoted from me at GP. I do test my new templates and functions, but it is very unlikely that I would fathom the need to test that. It is related to the fains above; both entries are properly functioning now. --Daniel. 00:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I got so crabby. If there is a problem, I suppose it is that is complex and widely transcluded. At its level of complexity and utilization, we should probably just be happy that it works. Trying to squeeze more functionality into it - or indeed make any change whatsoever - may not be worth it. DCDuring TALK  03:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Votes/pl-2010-10/Disallowing certain appendices
Just letting you know of this. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Daniel. 18:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Quotations
See WT:ELE. This is a L4 header after Inflection and before Synonyms or Translations. --EncycloPetey 02:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. --Daniel. 03:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use citation glosses on the Citations pages. It breaks section editing. We've long agreed as a community never to put section headers into templates like the French Wiktionary does. --EncycloPetey 01:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I am aware of the problem of breaking section editing, and personally consider it as a good reason to not place into Citations pages anymore. However, this particular community agreement is in conflict with the template, which does place section headers, break section editing and apparently everyone uses it. I would like to figure out a way to use  without breaking that function. --Daniel. 01:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Old Portuguese
I'm inclined to read the "adjective" citation as attributive use of the noun, rather than as a true adjective. --EncycloPetey 22:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to read that citation as an adjective: "the Old Portuguese period" does not seem grammatically different from "the Galician sound" (from Citations:Galician). --Daniel. 11:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In structure, no, but constructions dealing with time are, in my experience, inherently ambiguous. Add on that every language name in English has an adjectival ending, and you have a mess in trying to sort out the part of speech.  I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here, but stating my personal inclination in how I see that quote.  --EncycloPetey 14:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have then expanded Citations:Old Portuguese with additional quotes that I believe to be unambiguous adjectives, for better coverage. Perhaps it would be good to add a note at Appendix:English nouns explaining the confusion of parts of speech that possibly arises from names of languages. This hypothetical note could also exist at the "Usage notes" of every English entry of a language; however, it is effectively a regular grammatical rule, so that note would be repetitive like "this noun, when pluralized, stands for a quantity of more than one", and redundant to an appendix that treats English nouns as a whole. Maybe that appendix should be [improved and] linked from every English noun, for better findability of that valuable resource. --Daniel. 00:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:en-pnoun
You should not have created, or at least you should not have used it directly in the main namespace. There is the long used template, which is not only commonly used by current practice but also well named. --Dan Polansky 13:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In my experience, every sentence said by you and starting with "you should" is not a worthy advice, unless out of bad faith I forgot some good influence from your apparently absolute truths; sorry if I did. The template that you dislike is simply a harmless redirect. Please learn to ignore it, while you type your additional "commonly used" six characters. --Daniel. 13:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:ws header
Please stop messing with. I disagree with the parameter "link". I am a major Wikisaurus contributor; you are a Wikisaurus non-contributor. Find another playground where you can mess with templates without doing any real work. --Dan Polansky 07:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Among all your arguments against my actions and thoughts, "I am a major Wikisaurus contributor; you are a Wikisaurus non-contributor." is perhaps the most ironic: you are asking me to stop contributing to Wikisaurus by calling me a "non-contributor". I have counterargued all your previous reasons for deleting the parameter "link=". I am going to readd it and protect the template from this edit war. For what is worth, note that I didn't remove your suggestion "hyperlink=", but I also kept the shorter, unambiguous and user-friendly version of it. --Daniel. 09:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not asking you to avoid contributing; I am asking you to stop messing with templates. You have plenty of opportunity to contribute to Wikisaurus without messing with templates.
 * Now that you have protected the template, I cannot edit the template. By protecting the template, you are abusing your administrator power, in gaining an upper hand in a conflict. I ask you to unprotect the template and revert your last changes. --Dan Polansky 09:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Refining functions of templates is one of my multiple ways to contribute to Wikisaurus, especially after this discussion. Since you are unsatisfied with "link=", I suggest to continue discussing, or even creating a vote, rather than forcing your individual decision simply by deleting the alternative. --Daniel. 09:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I ask you again to unprotect . You should not use your admin power to gain an upper hand over a long-term Wikisaurus contributor. --Dan Polansky 08:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I decline. I have created WT:BP for further discussion. --Daniel. 09:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not my superior, so it is not your business to protect a template on which you and I are having a conflict. It is not your business to use your admin power even if you are right and I am wrong. The community has given you admin tools only for some purposes. These purposes do not include gaining an upper hand over a long-term Wikisarus contributor. I ask you third time to unprotect the template. --Dan Polansky 09:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed the protection level to semi-protection, as I'm pretty sure full protection was not an appropriate use of the tool. DP, please don't remove the parameter until it has been discussed by the community. --Yair rand (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Appendices for terms from fictional universes 2
You certainly know of the vote Votes/pl-2010-10/Disallowing certain appendices. You also know how the results of the vote are going: if the vote ended now, what you have been doing in appendices would have been voted down.

I ask you to stop moving things to appendices of fictional universes right now, until the vote shows community support for your activity.

Today, you have moved Trekkie to Appendix:Star Trek/Trekkie. --Dan Polansky 08:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The vote that you have linked is supposed to decide the layout of certain pages, not their inclusion into the appendix namespace. That is, either "Trekkie" is defined in its own page, or it becomes part of a list of multiple terms (presumably all the terms from Star Trek). --Daniel. 08:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * More lawyering from you. The option in the vote that is currently winning says there should be no Appendix:Star Trek/Trekkie. But you have created Appendix:Star Trek/Trekkie. Just stop creating subpages. --Dan Polansky 08:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So, do you expect that I suddenly develop a layout to place all the information from Appendix:Star Trek/Trekkie into a list, before the vote is finished? In this case, I'm not interested. The current format of subpages is consistent and relatively easy to convert into a list if necessary. --Daniel. 09:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The other thing is, the entry Trekkie has not failed RFV, so it was not your business to move it anywhere. Given that "Trekkie" means "A fan of the TV science fiction series Star Trek", it probably belongs to the namespace. Trekkie is an entity of this world, not of a fictional universe. Kindly move the entry back to the main namespace. --Dan Polansky 08:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've moved it myself. --Dan Polansky 08:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * An "entity of this world"... What an interesting concept. I've started a discussion on this subject: WT:BP. --Daniel. 09:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see I will need to explain things that seem quite straightforward to me, so I can only wonder whether I can succeed. A Trekkie is a human person, with flesh and bones, living in some place on the planet Earth, having real spacial coordinates, one whom I could possibly meet. He has an official name and possibly pays taxes. In a word, a Trekkie is a real person, not a fictional person. By contrast, an orc is a fictional being that does not live in the real world. And Aragorn is a fictional person, one who has never really lived, unlike a Trekkie. --Dan Polansky 09:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I appreciate to know what are your thoughts on this matter, especially when they differ from mine, so we may possibly attain a consensus. I have a question that is very relevant to this issue: Do you prefer "orc" to be defined in appendices or in the main namespace? --Daniel. 09:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * orc: should be in the main namespace - it is used in books by several different authors, not just Tolkein. I have never heard of slide delay:. SemperBlotto 09:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume that "orc" meets CFI for entities of fictional universes, so it belongs to main namespace. I was merely trying to point out that "Trekkie" is a real person, while "orc" is a fictional entity. "Trekkie" is not regulated by CFI for entities of fictional universes, because "Trekkie" is not such an entity. Your question about orc and you last remarks show that you do not know what you are doing. You should better stay away from fictional universes, or ask your professors at the university that you are studying to explain these things to you. --Dan Polansky 10:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume my professors would not have anything to do with your opinion, unless you were one of them. Your sudden conclusion that I don't know what I'm doing is false. --Daniel. 10:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My explanation about "Trekkie" is not an opinion; it is a true explanation. I have seen before that you are overconfident about what you are doing, so I will repeat, without any hope that you will take this to heart, that you do not know what you are doing. I do not expect myself to have to explain to people that a Trekkie is a real person rather than a fictional entity. Please, consider checking what you are doing and saying with at least one person that is not yourself, such as your profs or your schoolmates. --Dan Polansky 10:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your "consider checking what you are doing and saying with at least one person that is not yourself" is another ironic statement: I am already dealing with a person who opposes me, and that's you. Now, my question about orc started with "do you prefer...", so I was clearly asking for your opinion. I know that "Trekkie" is a nonfictional concept, but its existence as a word strictly related to fiction is very relevant to the treatment of fictional words here. For example, I am able to fill Wiktionary with more than three hundred English nonfictional terms related to Pokémon; many of them would be very obscure to people who are not fans of that franchise. However, after tracing opinions from multiple editors, I feel that these words would not be readily accepted by everyone. For example, one word whose "fictionalness" is ambiguous is Appendix:Pokémon/MissingNo. (either it is a nonfictional "glitch" or a fictional "Pokémon species"). So I'm creating discussions regularly and shaping practices slowly. --Daniel. 10:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I will put it differently: consider checking with someone whom you deem wiser than yourself. I am not such a person, so I don't count. Maybe you can find such a person at the university that you are studying. --Dan Polansky 11:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure. Most of my friends already know that I edit Wiktionary, so it is simple to comment about particular situations from here. Basically, I was advised to bee more patient and take more care for the opinions of other people. Although, I'm not sure if I could convey the facts impartially; it's always possible that while I describe my actions, I punctuate them by their purposes in comparison with the dictionary as a whole. --Daniel. 08:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion you have started is not about "Trekkie", so I do not get what you have intended with that discussion. The discussion does not seem to be a continuation of this discussion we are having right now. --Dan Polansky 09:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is about "Nonfictional words for specific works" as a whole. In my mind, "Trekkie" and "slide delay" would deserve the same treatment for the purposes of inclusion and layout. If you think the BP discussion is too far from this discussion, you may ignore the BP one. --Daniel. 09:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop creating pages like Appendix:Pokémon/Invisible Shiny Bulbasaur. --Dan Polansky 11:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I decided to create "Invisible Shiny Bulbasaur" as an example of nonfictional term to be moved to the main namespace. It is relevant for one or more discussions about the supposed distinction between fiction and nonfiction. --Daniel. 20:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to discuss "Invisible Shiny Bulbasaur", all you had to do is to state the term "Invisible Shiny Bulbasaur" and its definition in a BP discussion. There was no need to create an entry. I ask you again to stop. --Dan Polansky 08:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. In my experience, there were various instances where people have had to implement a new practice in a small place to gather feedback and a possible consensus. Another safe alternative would be defining the discussed term at User:Daniel./Invisible Shiny Bulbasaur, but placing it on a dedicated appendix seems equally harmless. --Daniel. 08:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I will rephrase. The need to discuss the term is not a justification sufficient for creating an entry as a subpage at the time at which a running vote makes it plentifully clear such subpages are unwanted. Okay? The community says the subpages are unwanted, so stop seeking excuses for creating such subpages. The need to discuss a term in Beer parlour is a poor excuse, as I have explained: you could have plainly stated the term and its definition in the discussion. --Dan Polansky 09:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have said, Invisible Shiny Bulbasaur is to be kept at the main namespace, per our discussion about the difference between fiction and nonfiction. --Daniel. 10:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

hmm
So now since you can't create individual Appendix pages, you resort to the main namespace? Please stop doing this, it just disrupts everything. A block might be in order if you continue. -- Prince Kassad 00:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How my contributions disrupt anything? A moment before you sent this message, I've linked some entries to BP to be discussed by other editors. --Daniel. 00:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On English Wikipedia, we have the policy w:WP:POINT, which says: "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, enforcing it consistently. This may even entail an attempt to turn consensus against a policy by satirically applying it on various pages to show that it is ridiculous. Such tactics are highly disruptive and can lead to a block (possibly indefinite) or ban." Now I know that Wikipedia policies do not apply to Wiktionary, but I still think it was wrong to create these entries just to demonstrate something in a BP discussion. -- Prince Kassad 00:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Relevant to a current discussion" which you started. Not much of an argument for keeping the blatantly unattestable. Equinox ◑ 00:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm Daniel.'s biggest ever fan, but 'a trading card' would exist outside the fictional universe. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How so? If kids play the game on the streets, it's still a fictional universe. -- Prince Kassad 00:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Got me there. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose "create five or so relevant entries as examples to be discussed" is far from "enforce [a policy] consistently to show that it is ridiculous".
 * As for Equinox' comment, the terms that I added recently are attestable and I'm ready to prove it by citations. Also, technical words related to Pokémon TCG (a real game) does not seem much different from chess moves, or even Tetris, for the purpose of inclusion. --Daniel. 00:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish you'd added the citations at the time when you created the entries, since you evidently know they are controversial. Equinox ◑ 01:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that adding the citations when I created the entries would be good. However, attestation is not the only controversy of these entries and not my only concern; by creating them early, we had the chance to discuss them early. As I said, there are only approximately five new entries; in addition, I have chosen to create new entries rather than edit existing entries (for example, I have not defined "evolution" in context of Pokémon), to make any cleanup easier. Also, I can blame my slow internet for not having the chance to scrutinize multiple resources on sight. I took the whole night to cite some of the discussed entries. In the meantime (while pages were loading), I was engaged in other tasks, such as multiple new functions for templates (most asked by other editors) and various things not related to Wiktionary. I maintain that all the entries that I created are not "blatantly unattestable", and they valuable to the implementation, improvement and discussion of our policies related to our distinction between fiction and nonfiction. --Daniel. 19:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikisaurus - def pages
You have deleted Wikisaurus:ephemeral/def and Wikisaurus:enrage/def. Have you made any proposal to do that anywhere? Have you got agreement from other people? In fact, I would like to get the /def subpages deleted, but only after I get some support from other people. --Dan Polansky 08:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't discussed their deletion before your message. They were simply orphaned and apparently redundant pages. I may restore them immediately if you want. --Daniel. 08:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please restore them until there is a support for their deletion. Then, the whole batch of /def subpages may get deleted. --Dan Polansky 08:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Done. --Daniel. 08:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

template:alternative spelling of
I'm posting this here because I suspect that the problem may be traceable to you. If I'm mistaken, I apologize, and please let me know.

Currently, the documentation at template:alternative spelling of, both as displayed on that page and as displayed on the /doc page, reads:
 * gives
 * This templates generates definitions for alternative spellings.
 * This templates generates definitions for alternative spellings.

...which is a mistake (to the extent it means to give the display in the mainspace). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. Then, I edited to let examples be added into documentations normally.
 * Despite your tone implying that I have broken something, I simply consider this edit as introducing a new, helpful, and natural, function. --Daniel. 05:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Mysterious sorting
In Category:Galician language, why does "Galician names" sort under "R"? --EncycloPetey 20:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Well, the basic technical explanation is that when you type, you are implying "ROOT" as the second unnamed parameter, which would result in and sort under "R". I have changed other pieces of code to make Category:Galician language sort under "N", as it should. --Daniel. 05:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Homer Simpsonian
Hi Daniel. I believe this requires a figurative definition. Of or Pertaining to the cartoon character does not explain its meaning in the citations you provided (as people like me don't watch the Simpsons and are thus unfamiliar with the character's nature.). Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I have clarified the definition, by extending it. --Daniel. 13:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Worthiness of newly constructed languages
I didn't a chance to speak at WT:Beer parlour archive/2010/October so I thought I'd share my views on the matter here. Lexicography, while properly an independent discipline, has long been regarded as a sub-discipline of linguistics. Many people see a dictionary not just as a tool to help people understand words they want to use, but also as a base of knowledge to be used in linguistics research. For this latter reason, facts about natural languages, however rare or extinct, are much more useful than facts about newly constructed languages. While Lingua Franca Nova might be an interesting experiment in displaying the commonality of Romance languages, most academics would not be considered it "useful research". It's not going to give us any insights into the spread of people or ideas through history (the real research in that area is in understanding historical forms such as Vulgar Latin). This is why I believe all natural languages are default allowed. Constructed languages, then have to pass the test of "helping people understand words they want to use". While a bit arbitrary it appears we set this bar based on popularity (of speakers and media), but with an aversion to fiction-derived ones. This is probably because most non-fiction-originating languages were meant as auxiliary languages, and the hope of a world language seemed like something good to promote. I see no future in aux langs so I wouldn't differentiate the fiction-originating ones from the others (if Esperanto's in, then Klingon should be to). But many people would be happy to ditch all the con langs as there is no apparent linguistic use to them (and other sources probably treat them better than we do). --Bequw → τ 03:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your views. I see your discernment between linguistics and lexicography as a compelling reason to drive the opinions of all or many Wiktionary editors. However, this is not necessarily the only goal of our project. Wiktionary has characteristics of medical dictionaries, technical dictionaries, bilingual dictionaries of many languages, dictionaries of slang, etc., in addition to having rare or unprecedented services such as descriptions for each inflected word and complete tables of inflection for each inflectable lemma. Past decisions proved that common characteristics of other dictionaries do not necessarily need to be imitated here. In particular, the development of a dictionary for a constructed language would not be a novel concept. There are other dictionaries for them.
 * I, personally, see merit in honoring the "linguistic value" when developing and enforcing criteria for inclusion, and I am sure that others would share this basic opinion. However, I don't think that removing all the constructed languages or moving them to appendices is the best long-term approach. Conversely, it is worth mentioning that I also don't prefer adding every word of any language that someone invented.
 * One particular suggestion that I like would be deprecating entirely the discrimination of groups of constructed languages. That is, both Esperanto and Klingon might be in the main namespace. They often clearly meet other criteria for inclusion, such as the existence of books (Shakespeare, for example) in Klingon and Esperanto that may serve for citations and the simple existence of words that convey meaning (and their characters and set phrases).
 * After all, the English word Qapla' is described as derived from a Klingon word, which is itself a little proof of linguistic value for English that would be better described if Appendix:Klingon/Qapla' and Qapla' were merged into one individual page. On the other hand, Eloi is a very obscure artistic language, so it is possible that Appendix:Eloi (and its redlinks that are currently expected to grow into subpages) get deleted because of lack of citations. --Daniel. 06:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Citations of terms from fictional universes
Without trying to cast any blame, I would like your input at WT:BP and your forgiveness for not asking you more discretely that question directly. Although I feel very strongly about this, I think it's more important that we agree on a solution. DAVilla 00:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure; no problem. Thank you for creating that relevant discussion. --Daniel. 00:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

banhar
Hello, could you add a Portuguese section to banhar, please? --Mat200 11:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Done. --Daniel. 17:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In Portugal, do you have anything like pan bagnat? Or any other wet breads in general? --Mat200 20:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never been in Portugal; I'm Brazilian. I believe pan bagnat in Portuguese is pão molhado. --Daniel. 22:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:English sums of parts
I'd urge you to wait a bit before pressing on with this. We currently have Category:English non-idiomatic translation targets which passed an RFD. This would largely duplicate that, and 'sum of parts' is very Wiktionary jargon rather than 'general' use. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What the fuck is a "non-idiomatic translation target"? — <font face="Lucida console">[&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 20:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Opio, I guess it contains English terms that totally ignore CFI in exchange for providing an entry to hold translation tables that may be useful in other languages, where "useful" means "not obvious". I don't know why "target" is in the title. And I don't know why Category:English phrasebook is a member of the category.
 * Yeah, "English non-idiomatic translation targets" is much more "Wiktionary jargon" than English sums of parts. --Daniel. 11:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Deftempboiler
See WT:GP. Something's wrong with deftempboiler, it's not linking to the page given in the first parameter. --Yair rand (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)