User talk:Imetsia/2021

This page shows conversations on my talk page from 2021.

RFVN
Hey Imetsia. Congrats on becoming an admin! I noticed that a substantial proportion of the pileup at RFVN is Italian terms, many of which were nominated by you. Now that you're able to delete pages, could you please go through Italian noms over a month old and close them as appropriate? Thanks! —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. I used to add rfv tags to definitions that I could not find in any Italian dictionary, but which I couldn't definitively say were wrong. In that way, I thought of them more as "user beware" labels that cautioned against relying on dubious definitions. I see that all the rfv terms that were nominated by me (and subsequently added to the page by J3133) have not had any further discussion. No one has found attestation, but it doesn't seem that anyone has necessarily found the definitions to be incorrect or unattested. In that case, do we just assume the relevant definitions are unattestable and delete them? Imetsia (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. Yeah, the tags actually trigger discussions that could lead to deletion. What you should do is try searching for these terms on Google Books to see if you can find enough quotes. If you don't find anything, you can say something to that effect and delete the page (and any inflected forms, of course); if you do find quotes, you should add them to page. And of course, if you need any help with Google Books or any other part of the process, feel free to ask me. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

forneria
You created with the neologism label. Is it really a neologism? The word was part of the name of the Italian progressive rock band 50 years ago, so it is not new. But it is not on Treccani. Perhaps it is from the Lombard dialect and newer to mainstream Italian? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I marked it as a neologism because the Zingarelli only added it as of 2020, and it was marked as a neologism by an Italian newspaper (see here). However, both the Zingarelli and the Devoto-Oli note that the word has been used since 1609! So maybe we should strip the entry of its neologism label. Imetsia (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The same newspaper article has "fumifero o †fummifero" in its neologism section, while noting it was used by Dante. I removed the label from forneria.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

spedo
was generated automatically based on a mention in the etymology of. Not in Treccani. Can you check the definition as a noun? Perhaps it is obsolete? Google books hits are all centuries old and some of them may be scan errors. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. It looks like an archaic alternative form of . Imetsia (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

elecnco
Ciao, è possibile creare un elenco di verbi senza participo presente al plurale in italiano?--Hdiddan (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sì. Basta creare la categoria "Category:Italian verbs without a plural present participle", il cui contenuto può essere semplicemente . Poi aggiungere in fondo a ogni tale pagina senza participo presente al plurale. Tenga presente che la "Category:Italian verbs..." dev'essere chiusa in parentesi quadra quando è aggiunta in fondo alle pagine. Non esitare a inviarmi un messaggio se ha ulteriori domande! Imetsia (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sì, ho capito, ma serve piuttosto a me per crearle, non mi serve aggiungere una categoria. Non è che si potrebbe fare tramite elenco generato offline?--Hdiddan (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Se ho capito bene, lei vuole una tabella, lista, ecc. che è già stata creata (magari in un libro di lingua italiana, altro sito web, ecc.) con questi verbi senza participo presente al plurale - per poi redigere un elenco su Wiktionary con ogni tale verbo (e forse pure creare pagine per ogn'uno di questi verbi). Purtroppo, io non sono a conoscenza di un elenco del genere. Imetsia (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * no, intendo i verbi al participo qui su wikitionary di cui manca qui su wikitionary la voce al plurale, così posso crearle facilmente. Spero di essermi spiegato meglio.--Hdiddan (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. Scusa per l'incomprensione. Non so se ci sia un modo semplice per creare questo elenco. Le raccomando di chiedere a, molto più abile di me a rispondere a queste richieste tecniche. Imetsia (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy
Now you're an admin, you might want to speedy delete a few of the SOP Italian entries. You've got good judgment with them, and it would speed up the process. Oxlade2000 (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup request
Hey there, you may have notice me moving "Diminutive of: X" from Italian headword lines into the etymology. I just have a few more that I wasn't sure how to handle -- mainly how to parse the base word from the suffix(es). The pages are piovigginare, lupacchiotto, festicciola, mostriciattolo, donnicciola, pesciolino, febbriciattola, soldarello, staterello, and forellino. If you could set these up with etymologies and remove the diminutive note from the headwords, I'd appreciate it. Ultimateria (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ for the most part, . I couldn't figure out the suffix in, however. Italian dictionaries seem to just mark it as a "diminutive" of without any more etymological guidance.
 * At the same time, though, I have been a supporter of the "Diminutive of: X" stuff in Italian headword lines. I would not have supported removing them, and perhaps there should have been some more discussion before doing so. Since it looks like many of these have already been removed, however, I won't make much of a fuss about it. Imetsia (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I didn't realize it would be controversial; besides tlb, I haven't seen editors adding info after the headword in the past few years. Many of these were made by SemperBlotto between 2010-2012, before we had robust and consistent formatting (as evidenced by the two-apostrophes-in-parentheses format). I tried to preserve the information by explicitly glossing the suffixes, but if your objection is the loss of lexical information, I think we can fix that by making more use of diminutive of. For example, basic diminutive definitions like at cupoletta could be replaced with . It also categorizes into Category:Italian diminutive nouns. What do you think of that approach? Ultimateria (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I love the approach of using the diminutive of template. I personally don't like glossing the affixes at all, but it's personal preference. When it comes to adding stuff after the headword, we should also take a look at the Italian pronominal forms (e.g., , etc.). What do you think is a solution there? Imetsia (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'll start changing some of those. I think that information definitely belongs in the etymology, and once it's there I'm not too picky about how it's presented. Some Spanish entries like this use a definition-line template (see jugársela) to at least give the parts of speech, but I'm not sure that's necessary. We could just make them af compounds. Ultimateria (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Does this edit look okay for cases of "diminutive of X but not just a small X"? Ultimateria (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edit seems fine to me. It might be somewhat in tension with how we format Italian reflexive verbs. For some reason, we typically include one definition as simply, but then restate the definition as a separate sense. I do, however, believe that the way you formatted it is the better way to do it. Imetsia (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think separating the specific meaning by semicolon works well for e.g. arruolarsi, but not for accingersi (the former being the reflexive extension of a transitive sense). Subsenses are another option, but I've seen a lot of complaints about that format. Ultimateria (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And this for more specific definitions? Asking to weigh in because he made the edit. I might have made 1.2 into a separate definition 2. Ultimateria (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. The second sense should be separated. I've edited the entry accordingly. — فين أخاي ( تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت ) 18:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

contratenore
Could you add ? It looks like quite a few languages may have borrowed their word for countertenor from Italian. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  20:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it not instead, an entry which we already have? Imetsia (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose you will know that better than I. :P But there seem to be quite a few search results for contratenore on my end. Is it a common misspelling or a historic form? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  20:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, ✅. I can't find it in Italian dictionaries, but this spelling does have a redirect page on Italian Wikipedia. So I suppose it's either dated or a common misspelling. Imetsia (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

throw a punch
I can't seem to reply to your Tea Room post (it says March but sends me to the April page, which is blank); but wanted to point out is used with other nouns, e.g. "a new boy jumped into the dirt ring they'd drawn and began throwing blows"; "he threw a one-two combination that sent the Texan to the canvas". Maybe you could add my comments there if it works for you. Equinox ◑ 10:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's helpful. I don't know why my Tea Room post is acting weird, but it doesn't seem to work for me either. Imetsia (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/195.195.244.141
Could you check the contributions by this IP at and ? There have been a few issues in other languages. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  13:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Reverted his edits at procace and gave a better ux at feticismo. Imetsia (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The other side of the story
Hi, I am the person who a certain user recently got blocked for attacking.

We can begin with my first encounter with that user on Wiktionary (at the time my username was Excelsius). As you can see, I politely raised a question about Latin /ll/ and respectfully disagreed with him on some points. Suddenly he accused me of "milking him for knowledge and conviction points", said that I was ignorant not only of Latin but also basic phonology in general, and said that talking to me was a waste of his time: https://i.imgur.com/KGUR3gv.png

I can’t say that things have improved much since then. The following is just a few examples, including one in which he compares me to a dog: https://imgur.com/a/j84xSNA

The user was blocked for continuing his insults and weaponized "diagnoses" of me, even after two admins called him out for that behaviour. In his ban appeal, he continues to do exactly that, accusing me of "volatility and hatred that bursts forth every other message that cannot be explained in any way other than by a personality disorder", etc.

I have been nothing but polite to him for a while now, even after the comments he has made. The latest discussion is a representative example of me doing all I can to stay civil while he continues his personal attacks (calling me "volatile", an "enraged narcissist", "that", etc.)

I am sorry to post this on your page and I understand if you wish to simply delete it. The Nicodene (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Opinion request
Hello, thank you for replying on my talkpage and sorry for writing. I don't want you to read through any of the verbal wars. I just want to receive an admin's opinion regarding what I write here and reiterate when replying to Erutuon from 08:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC). I'm dismayed that I can't seem to get any input from any administrator regarding this. It's nothing to do with any technical details or any bickering, I just want to understand the principles this website operates under and that I believe to have been grossly and repeatedly violated at the pronunciation module. I will be grateful if you reply. Brutal Russian (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I would agree in full with what PUC said here. Beyond that, I don't think I can really help you, because I have no knowledge of modules, am unwilling to read the entire discussion(s) on this controversy, don't contribute in Latin, etc. But do let me know if you have some more specific questions about this that I can help with. Imetsia (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Yǒng'ān
You deleted this and recreated it. Can you two please come to a consensus on if this INS and similar related entries should exist here so that there isn't back and forth on this entry existing? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Deleting the entry was just a mistake on my part (I failed to notice that it was an RFD-sense, rather than an RFD for the whole page). I agree that the page itself should stay. So I don't think I need to take part in any more consensus-building on "if this and similar related entries should exist." Imetsia (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice. Thanks. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

RFD for Chinese
Hi, thanks for dealing with the deletion requests. Just wanted to let you know that in the future, you can ping me to deal with any stranded transclusions, just so they don't get overlooked. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 22:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks! Imetsia (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Victar's block
Victar did not learn from the block. He is still removing. Benwing2 (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm aware. I made a comment about it here. I'm waiting for some other users to weigh in at the bottom of the vote page, and I don't want to risk being too heavy-handed with the blocks. But I'd be interested to know what you think - should he/she receive another, longer block? Imetsia (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As you know, I agree that there is no issue with or  and I personally find them very useful. I think a longer block is probably in order; they are clearly testing to see how much they can get away with, and in general don't seem very interested in cooperative editing, which is problematic in and of itself. Benwing2 (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Another, what is the policy on inh+?
 * Rishabhbhat (talk) 06:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response. Right now, per the decision to unblock Victar, both templates have de facto been invalidated. For the moment, we shouldn't use inh+. Imetsia (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

cinquantacinque
Hi. I notice you deleted cinquantacinque back in March. Was that intentional? Normally we keep numbers in the 0-100 range. Benwing2 (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * No, that was a total mistake. Thanks for bringing my attention to it; I've undeleted it now! While we're at it, could I ask you to take a look at this category talk page and this grease pit discussion? They both relate to some technical category/template stuff that I'm not so familiar with. I'd be grateful if you could help with that. Imetsia (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

bor+ and bor
Hello. Can I please ask you to clarify the situation with templates bor+ and ? What is their significant difference? I have always used the bor template. It seems to be also used in descendants as bor=1, and not bor+=1. However, this question is rather in defense of user:Victar. Because I just don't feel the difference yet. Gnosandes (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The only difference between the two templates is that bor+ includes the "Borrowed from" language in the template. With bor alone, a user would have to manually add the words "Borrowed from" before the template. Some have argued that the template is useless because its whole purpose "is simply to save keystrokes...." But so many of our templates do just that. Consider any number of the headword templates by which a user can type, e.g., en-noun instead of en. As Lambiam pointed out, "Many of the most-used templates are 'unnecessary'" if we just go by this criterion. I find bor+ very useful, and so do a number of other users. It incorporates the "Borrowed from" language in a way that is natural and helpful.
 * Let me also say that I've silently followed some of your edits and blocks for POV-pushing. I actually agree with you in large part on the merits of those discussions, although I wouldn't encourage you to edit in that fashion again. Imetsia (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well, I agree here, because it saves a little labor. So it is “better” to delete the template bor. However, I definitely remember that I used the word “perhaps”, “probably” and so on more than once before this template bor. But this will not work with the template bor+, for the word “borrowed” is written with a capital letter. Therefore, in my opinion, it is possible to save/keep two templates. Therefore, it is possible to reformulate: The template is useful because its whole purpose is simply to save labor if there is nothing in front of the template. Therefore, bor+ is useful. As well as modules, because it is very tedious, boringly to enter everything manually. Although I may be wrong. Thank you so much for the clarification! Gnosandes (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm glad we agree! But you can still use words like "perhaps" and "probably:" simply add "|nocap=1" at the end of the bor+ template to remove the capital letter. Imetsia (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably. Then what argument do the opponents of this templates give? Or is it just a matter of principle? I'm not sure that anyone likes to type “Borrowed from” more than just “+”. Although here we can assume that someone aesthetically does not like the setting of the word as “Borrowed from”. Gnosandes (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would encourage you to view the arguments opponents gave when they voted on the proposal. Just a smattering of the arguments: (1) Metaknowledge: "This seems like templatisation creep; we can and do write it in full when it might be ambiguous, and in the vast majority of cases it isn't;" (2) Thadh: "... the templates will... certainly (unnecessarily) affect editors...." and make etymology sections inconsistent; (3) Victar: "Inheritance is always assumed," so we shouldn't spell it out explicitly. Other opposers seem to agree with versions of these three arguments.
 * I sort of agree with excluding inh+ and think it was a strategic mistake to lump both templates into one vote. I do not like inh+. As I said in the vote, "I'm lukewarm on the inh+ template and would prefer it not included. However, I don't think it does much harm to have the extra template; and the addition of the bor+ template outweighs my slight dislike of inh+." Imetsia (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that I can't agree with you here. Because I think that both templates can save my labor and time if I type “+” instead of “Borrowed from” or “Inherited from”. However, for the inh+ template, the new word “inherited” is introduced, which I see for the first time in practice. Usually they write the word “from”. But for example, I noticed that with such templates as af, suf, the word “from” is not used at all. That is, in my concept, these templates inh+ and bor+ are essentially the same, but according to some tradition, the inh+ template simply falls out. Is that why you dislike this template?! If the problem with the capital letter is solved, then I am in favor of removing the template bor. Gnosandes (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason I dislike the template is because, as you state, current practice is to just say "From" rather than "Inherited from." The distinction between inherited and derived seems insignificant and may confuse more users than it helps. If a user really cares about such a distinction, they would probably already know that, e.g. Italian is a descendant of Latin; so the extra "Inherited from" would do little.
 * Well, however, I was not mistaken. Gnosandes (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , User:Imetsia was reverted for an improper block and the ruling to not use bor+ stands. -- 03:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, for the time being the idea of not using bor+ and inh+ stands. I strongly disagree with that, for the reasons established here. I intend to carry out the actions I outline in the "The steps ahead" section of that post. Imetsia (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is the revote with just the "last resort"? A lot of people were onboard with, so it'd be a gesture towards them, and a compromise. What you're planning is more inter-admin quibbling (appealing blocks), and "nullifying" votes, in order to push both templates through. Not very constructive. – Jberkel 14:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The revote is a "last resort" because, on principle, I don't think either template needs a vote to begin with. Let me reiterate that I do not like the inh+ template -- I even said so in the original vote. So, in the interests of fairness and principle, I believe the other two options are more desirable. Imetsia (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "What is their significant difference?" Confused editors like Gnosandes is exactly the reason why we shouldn't have these "same but different" templates. Soon, if someone doesn't agree with, we'll end up with and . – Jberkel 09:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's just a slippery slope argument. At some point, I think many users would vote (at RFDO) to delete the comically superfluous templates, so that's not much of an issue. Imetsia (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, this is some kind of stupidity. You need to rename to 2, and delete 1. And, for example, the “+” sign can be used to replace the spelling “|nocap=1”. I myself tried to create new pages with this new template, and as practice has shown, this template is very good. You just came up with some entities ( and ) for yourself and start fighting against them. It just doesn't make sense. If you are worried about new users, then please make an article for them, where everything will be described. Gnosandes (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should have voted at Wiktionary:Votes/2021-04/Creation of Template:inh+ and Template:bor+ then. As it stands, please respect the results of the vote. -- 21:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that more people supported these templates, fewer voted against them, so these templates can be used. What is the obstacle? Gnosandes (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

purè
Hello. I am curious to know, what are those asterisks in it-IPA templates? Do they denote something? ·~  dictátor · mundꟾ  17:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The asterisks denote, a type of consonant lengthening that affects the pronunciation of the initial consonant of a word linked to the previous one. That's my best attempt at a definition, though I realize it may be unclear(?) Imetsia (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of .fr
While looking at Template:ccTLD, I noticed that there was a redlink for .fr. This is the only redlink for country code TLD. Clicking on it, I saw that you deleted it as a result of an RFD. I can't seem to find this RFD. Is there a reason why that entry should be deleted but not other ccTLD entries? Thanks. Zombiewizard45 (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The RFD can be found here [permalink]. All the other ccTLD entries should also be deleted, as that RFD vote held. As I said at the time, all those entries should be "in the process of being deleted. Though some other admin might want to take up the gauntlet on that." Just as any other administrator here on the site, I have other things to do (both on and off Wiktionary) than delete all those entries one by one -- a process that can be time-consuming. No one's gotten around to doing it, but we do have the requisite ruling to do away with all the rest of the ccTLD entries. Imetsia (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

di sempre
It says it's a synonym of di tutti i giorni, which we currently define as "everyday". A sense like "of all time", "ever" (typically used with a superlative) is missing - e.g., le più belle canzoni di sempre. Also, I'm not sure più belle di tutti i giorni would even be idiomatic, so that sense may be unique to di sempre. 70.172.194.25 18:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed; I've added an to  for that sense. Maybe it should be spelled out as its own sense (i.e., without use of the  template), but it's a close call. Imetsia (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)