User talk:Jberkel/2015

This page shows conversations on my talkpage from late 2014-2015.

Portuguese conjugation module
Hi Jberkel. If you plan on creating the module, feel free to use the data from previous attempt. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's in progress: User:Jberkel/pt-conj-test. I'm getting confused with these talk pages. Where are you supposed to reply ? Jberkel (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait! The first-person plural imperative exists! — Ungoliant (falai) 14:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * oops. i'll add it back Jberkel (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Conjugation Table for Volapük Verbs
Hi, I wonder if you're able to import this conjugation table for Volapük verbs and even modify it, at least on a visual scale. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be too difficult, would need to write a regular expression to handle it, if i understand it correctly it's in the form, so you would need to extract pi+(stem?)+ob+vo (suffix?) Jberkel (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that "link preto" is a Portuguese template. Besides, the possible template could be written in Lua through a module. I also think  should be converted to Lua. Don't worry, don't hurry, perhaps? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the Volapük edition of Wiktionary be the best source for grammar templates / modules ? Jberkel (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The conjugation table for Volapük verbs at the Volapük edition only shows eleven verb forms. You can have a look at binön there for a comparison between that and its counterpart entry at the Portuguese edition. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I ♥ Wiktionary Jberkel (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Module:ScribuntoUnit
There is already Module:UnitTests. Please do not copy modules from Wikipedia as they go. — Keφr 14:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I started off with Module:UnitTests but found it quite limiting and it looks like it's been cobbled together in 5 minutes. Module:ScribuntoUnit is better written and documented. And If we want to get more people to write unit tests we need better tools. The XUnit approach and assert method naming in ScribuntoUnit is pretty much standard ( vs.  ). And there isn't even the most basic   in  Module:UnitTests, or at least I couldn't find it.  – Jberkel (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * lua — though personally, I think if you need to test boolean conditions, your test is badly designed in the first place. I understand and care nothing about the XUnit talk. For all I can see, Module:ScribuntoUnit is the same thing as Module:UnitTests but with differently named methods. — Keφr 15:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that's certainly not the most readable assertion.  just happens to be the most basic building block to create tests (e.g.  ), so I don't agree with your point about bad design. Module:UnitTests is messy and has badly named methods. And method names do matter, they increase the readability and help to express the intent of the test.   just doesn't mean anything and is bad API design. I also like that Module:ScribuntoUnit already has some useful built-in assertions so they don't have to  be reimplemented in every test. I don't see the problem of using different test frameworks, having tests should be the first priority, not which lib they use.  – Jberkel (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * When you have a failing test case, you probably want to know how it fails: how the output differs from what was expected. If all you pass to the testing framework is a single boolean value, you cannot get that. Discouraging that is a feature.
 * As I see, nobody is using  (or   for that matter) anyway, it can be just removed. — Keφr 18:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's good to know why tests fail, and that's why the whole group of  methods are so useful. To follow the example, you could have a lua which would automatically fail with "expected X to be greater than 10". Alternatively you can pass a message to lua which will get printed when the test fails: lua. Or another option, use one assertion per test and name the test so that it is immediately clear what failed:  lua – Jberkel (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Consolidation of alternative forms
The polite thing to do is to leave the original entry as the lemma and the later entries as alternative forms. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was wondering about this when I did the edit, thanks for letting me know, guess I should have asked first. But now I understand why there are so many entries with mixed spellings cross-referencing each other. Jberkel (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

bem-disposto
Where did you find the alternative form ? I’m not sure it exists. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't remember, it's probably non-existent, can't find anything. I probably assumed a wrong analogy from . Removed. – Jberkel (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

WT:ATTEST
You have recently tagged a few Spanish words, such as velociraptores, and said they do not exist. This is patently untrue; you can look at and see that such words do exist. The policy I've linked to above explains how we determine what content is appropriate for Wiktionary. Please do not tag any more such entries unless they actually are in contravention of what we allow. Thank you —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I tagged them because the plural form linked to a entry which did not exist, so it looked like a bot created these without verification. I see that the singular form now got created. So if not RFV, what's the right tag for these kind of cases? Cleanup? Jberkel (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no tag; if the singular form doesn't exist, you should create it. (Also, even if a bot creates something, you shouldn't assume it is in error, and you can easily see that it wasn't a bot, but a person, that made these entries.) —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How can you easily see it was a person, and not a script? Maybe not a bot, but it could have been semi-automated. The user who created these entries is currently blocked (because of disruptive edits). Just speculating here, but a script would create the plural form and then fail (or just skip) the creation of the main entry since it already exists (for another language). A "human" would very likely create the main form first, and then the plurals. Anyway that's all speculation, but maybe it will help you understand why I was suspicious in the first place. – Jberkel (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, it makes sense that you wouldn't know Wonderfool or how he made the entry. But the point was that no matter who makes an entry, we judge it by the CFI, as linked to above, and not by whether anyone thinks it's real or how it was made. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail
You've got mail. Cheers! --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

DON'T REVERT MY EDITIONS IF THEY'RE NOT WRONG!
"You smell" is too short. I wanted to show longer example.

Tbeyor (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Tbeyor
 * First of all, examples should be short. Your contribution is ungrammatical and inappropriate. The sense your are describing is negative ("to stink"), so "like" does not fit well in the same sentence. Jberkel (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That example sentence is not appropriate in the least. Secondly, don't yell at other contributors. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, man
I make gramatical errors because English is not my native language. I don't want the examples to be too short but I won't be arguing with you anymore.

Tbeyor (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Tbeyor