User talk:Kc kennylau/2017-2021

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

on words that do not drop the ô. Just like Module:ne-translit, but instead of using it to drop words, it should be used to keep them. — AWESOME meeos ！ *  ([nʲɪ‿bʲɪ.spɐˈko.ɪtʲ]) 21:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That wasn't really a cleanup, more of a return to status quo. A couple of Indic language editors merged the Indic transliteration modules a while back into MOD:inc-translit but it became too clunky as each language used slightly different schwa dropping rules. Finally, the Hindi is completely wrong. is pronounced . —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 01:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * : Then why is it that the transliteration is hard-coded as "janma-din"? --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there still anything I need to do? I'm relatively free these days. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Awesomemeeos been blocked for abusing another account. I fixed the hardcoded transliteration. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 13:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Greek entries
Hello. Do you think your bot could add the reference template to all Modern Greek entries, under the header ===Further reading=== ? It'd have to check if there's an entry on the website first, though. Let me know! --Barytonesis (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * : Sorry, I don't know how to do it. --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * : Ok, thanks anyway. --Barytonesis (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

de-conj-weak
Hi Kenny. The documentation for this template says that the second and third parameters are optional. But some verbs (e.g. pulen:) omit them and reasonable defaults are used. My bot assumes the documentation is good and refuses to play. Should the documentation be amended, or should I modify the bot to cope? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * : I think you mean "the second and third parameters are not optional"? --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In any case, I've updated the documentation. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Bot code modified and tested (doesn't actually use p3). Thanks. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

gabeler
Hi Kenny. The auto-generated verb forms are wrong for this French verb - see fr.wiktionary for forms taking double "l"s. Is there anything we can do? SemperBlotto (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's fixed. French Wiktionary says it could also be -èle under the 1990 reform. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 02:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

schürfen
Hi Kenny. Why does the German verb schürfen: not show up in Category:German verbs with red links in their conjugation tables? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * : Because the code for checking red links is located at Template:de-conj-weak/core and Template:de-conj-strong but not Module:de-conj. --kc_kennylau (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

la-IPA
Hi Kenny! Based on my recent experience with some reconstructed Latin words looked up, I had a few more suggestions about the Latin pronunciation template Template:la-IPA. a) Would it be possible to make it automatically not display a "Classical" reconstructed pronunciation for reconstructed words that are only in the category "Vulgar Latin"? The example I ran into was Reconstruction:Latin/metipsimus, which currently says "(Classical) IPA(key): /meˈti.psi.mus/, [mɛˈtɪ.psɪ.mʊs]". This seems a bit problematic to me, since my understanding is that it did not exist as a word in Classical Latin. b) While looking at the pronunciations given for some of the other reconstructed words, I noticed that the Vulgar Latin transcriptions look very odd to me. For example, "blancus" is given the Vulgar Latin pronunciation /ˈβlan.kus/, [ˈβlan.kos]. My understanding is that Vulgar Latin is not generally reconstructed as having [β] from /b/ word-initially, only between vowels. And I can't understand why the phonemic transcription has /u/ rather than /o/. I also looked at Reconstruction:Latin/leviarius and was equally confused; the Vulgar Latin pronunciation there is given as "/le.βiˈaː.ri.us/, [leˈbʲa.re.os]". Is this word really supposed to have been pronounced with a plosive [bʲ] in Vulgar Latin? I know it develops a palatal affricate in many descendant languages, but I thought that occured due to strengthening of [j] after weakening of [wi] > [βj] > [j], not fortition of [wi] > [βj] to [bʲ]. Also, my impression is that /ĭ/ before another vowel didn't necessarily participate in the general sound change to /e/. What I would expect for these is something like /ˈblanko(s)/ [ˈblanko(s)] and /leˈβjarjo(s)/ [leˈβjarjo(s)] (although I haven't done the research to verify that these exact forms are entirely correct). I couldn't find the documentation for Vulgar Latin pronunciations; is it around somewhere? What sources is it based on? Thanks.

Urszag (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * : Sorry for the late reply. All fixed. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:French adjectives with missing forms
Hi Kenny. Do you think you could create this category, along the lines of Category:French nouns with missing forms? SemperBlotto (talk) 04:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * : Done. --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:French nouns with missing forms
Hi Kenny. All the entries in this category seem to have no missing forms. However yodleur:, which does, is not in the category. Any ideas? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC) p.s. "Category:French adjectives with missing forms" and "Category:French nouns with missing plurals" seem to be suffering from the same problem.
 * : Done. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:German verbs with red links in their conjugation tables
Hi Kenny. Is it possible to exclude the template from appearing in this category? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * : Done. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

dépuceler
Hi Kenny. According to the French Wiktionary, the conjugation table is wrong for this verb. Certain forms should take a double "l" - e.g. dépucelle rather than dépucèle. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * this is the same case as gabeler above. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 12:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

ꜣꜣꜥ
Hello. Do you by any chance remember where you found this Egyptian word? Lesko calls, which is listed here as a variant of , a variant of instead, and I can’t find any references to or attestations of  at all. The closest I’ve been able to find is a variant of in the temple of Ramesses III at Karnak, where it has the damaged form   — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 22:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * : Sorry, I don't recall. --kc_kennylau (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you create it entirely in error without a reliable source? That's a bad habit, but if it's the case, we can delete it out of process. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * : I created it a long time ago and I do not recall what sources (if any) I used. I apologize for the inconvenience caused. --kc_kennylau (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway. I’ll investigate around a bit more and send it to RFV if I don’t manage to dig up anything. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 23:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:French adjectives with missing forms
Hi Kenny. Why is (and also ) included in this category? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because of . --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Kennybot—Dead links to TLFi
Hi, I bumped into tabaculteur, where the TLFi link leads nowhere (link addition). Would you please have a look at it? — Automatik (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just remove any such links. Kenny added them to all French lemmas without checking whether they were actually in the TLFi. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Automatik (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the inconvenience. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:la-IPA Ecclesiastical pronunciations -- wrong stress for words with inherently geminate consonants (-sc- and -gn-)
Hi Kenny! I noticed that Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciations are being displayed with the wrong stress when the penult syllable ends in the first half of an inherently geminate consonant (such as /ʃ/ or /ɲ/). The current implementation of Template:la-IPA seems to treat these as singleton consonants at the phonemic level, so a word like "benignus" for example is transcribed as /ˈbe.ni.ɲus/, [ˈbeː.niɲ.ɲus]. I think it would be better to treat them as phonemic geminates, since I believe the preceding syllable behaves phonologically as a closed syllable (so /be.niɲ.ɲus/). But however they are analyzed phonemically, the stress should fall on the penult in words like this.

Examples:

should be [proˈmiʃ.ʃe]

should be [beˈniɲ.ɲus]

Urszag (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Fixed. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Urszag (talk) 09:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

How to use templates to show declension of Latin adjectives that are irregular or defective in the neuter nominative plural
Hi again Kenny! I hope that you can help me again with editing Latin entries.

I have recently been studying the topic of Latin adjectives that decline as consonant stems. I have made a couple of posts with more detailed information about my findings on the Latin Stack Exchange site: https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/6657/9, https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/6652/9 To summarize, it seems that a substantial amount of third-declension adjectives of one ending have no attested neuter plural nominative/accusative forms. However, the Wiktionary templates for these kinds of adjectives currently provide neuter plural nominative/accusative forms in either -ia or -a. I would like to edit some of these entries to remove the forms that my research indicates are dubious: specifically, pūberia, ūberia, dīvita seem to be wrong, and memora, paupera seem to be doubtful. Could you tell me the correct way to show a defective paradigm like that using the templates that we currently have for Latin adjective declension? Thank you for your work on this site. --Urszag (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Might one consider discussing about this in WT:BP first? --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * : Thanks for the advice! I will do that. --Urszag (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Kenny's testing category
Hi Kenny. I'm not sure if you're still checking your talk page, but I wanted to ask about this category and the others linked from it. Is there any reason we should keep these around? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No. --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Category 2 is useful - I think it's Chinese words with Mandarin readings but without Cantonese readings. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 06:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * : But do we want that sort of thing as a category in the first place? I think User:Wyang/cmn-no-yue could be updated if anyone wanted, but a category seems inefficient at best. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Wyang/ja-no-zh/filtered is the cleaner one. User:Wyang/cmn-no-yue shouldn't be used. User:Wyang/desired generates a short list of Chinese terms with a higher usage across topolects. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It looks like Category 2 is just tracking absence of Cantonese, though maybe that is nearly the same thing. I can generate a Mandarin-but-not-Cantonese list from at each dump pretty easily. — Eru·tuon 07:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * If you could maintain something like that, I guess category 2 could go as well.
 * ja-no-zh is something different - it's Japanese entries without Chinese. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 08:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I forgot (it's "ja"), thanks.. Haven't used it in a while. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See User:Erutuon/cmn no yue. It's a pretty long list! Post on its talk page if you want me to filter it in any way. — Eru·tuon 20:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Origin of four-corner codes?
Could I enquire about the origin of the four-corner codes that you have added to Wiktionary via kennybot? Do they come from an online source or did you make them yourself, or use a paper dictionary? Papanewbag (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's a long time ago and I have no idea.
 * OK, thanks for replying. If you do recollect at all, please let me know. Papanewbag (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's probably from the Unihan database. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 08:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * kennybot added about seventy values which are not in the Unihan database or any other online database I'm aware of, for example https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%E3%90%82&type=revision&diff=26961459&oldid=25199434. It's not in Unihan: http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUnihanData.pl?codepoint=3402 Papanewbag (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, if I used AWB then it is quite probable that I entered the four-corner code myself. I do apologize if I have made any mistakes. --kc_kennylau (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying. I don't claim any of the entries are mistaken. I am currently trying to complete the four-corner codes to cover all of Unicode plane 0, and I was surprised to find that some of the ones I could not find elsewhere were in Wiktionary. I found that you had entered most of them, so I wondered if you had an online source where you got them from. Thanks again. Papanewbag (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)