User talk:LlywelynII/1

Pharamp 14:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

cortes and Cortes
Hi! Please take a look at my edits on cortes. The definitions of the proper noun Cortes should be put exactly in the Cortes page, and the plural forms of nouns should be formatted using the correct templates. We don't translate the verb form or the plural, a link like the template gives is enough :) If you know a bit or well Spanish language, try to look at WT:About Spanish and Category:Spanish templates before. Here you will find useful tutorials and tips for going on with your Spanish contributions. Cheers! Pharamp 14:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

lanterna
Hi there. I can't find any such reference to this as a galley in any of my dictionaries, or in Italian wikipedia. Could you point me at a source? SemperBlotto 07:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Way ahead of you. -LlywelynII 04:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirections
See WT:REDIR, 'laziness' is not a valid reason to create redirects. If you type in etre it guesses at être anyway. Let the search engin do its job instead of guessing at what people might be looking for. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina
I don't see your rationale for moving the Alternative forms section down to the bottom. The practice for organizing headings is stated here WT:ELE. I have moved the section back. Also why did you make See also a level 2 heading? Doesn't make sense whatsoever.. again check WT:ELE. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 08:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. It's the current layout with alternate forms preceding useful information that doesn't make sense whatsoever, but since it's obviously the convention, I'll stick by that. LlywelynII 08:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

衡州
Hi,

Please note the changes, your entry was incorrectly formatted. --Anatoli 01:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It was correct, just not thorough. Just putting it in quickly, since I accidentally created a redirect page here instead of on Wikipedia (Of course, sb deleted it before I even fixed the content once I'd realized my mistake). Regardless, thanks for adding templates. LlywelynII 03:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Interwikis
Interwikis must not be translations but rather identical to the page name. For example set has 46 meanings, can you imagine adding 46 interwikis for every language?! Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean. I only do interwiki the namespace. If you're talking about the wikipedia template creating needless interwikis, that's a problem with the template: one word - Song for example - might very helpfully include links to a number of different Wikipedia articles for information beyond the scope of a dictionary entry. If you're talking about the t template creating needless interwikis, again, that's a problem with the template. One word often is translated by a number of different terms, and translation guides are essential to avoid ambiguity. LlywelynII (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Help:Interwiki, also please don't remove from English proper nouns, and the template  is standard for synonyms, antonyms, derived terms and related terms. Using a hash (#) in these sections is very bad as the server interprets them as definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, I didn't. I simply forgot to include it on one of the pages due to copying from another poorly constructed page. If I pasted over one somewhere, yeah, my bad. =) In any case, I will use the template here on out. LlywelynII (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For lots of Wikipedia links, consider, under the external links header. Otherwise, go ahead and add more senses, where they exist, of course. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

deletion review
If you'd like to request a deletion review or request that an entry be undeleted, WT:RFD is the place to go. (You've inspired me to update that page's blurb to note that we use it for Requests for Undeletion, too.) Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 19:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

US-
It may be prepended to other terms but it is not, grammatically, a prefix, any more than "lawn" is a prefix just because "lawn-mower" exists. That's different from things like Anglo- and Hispano-, which don't stand alone as words. Equinox ◑ 14:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, our entry for Usonia gives an ety of Usona +‎ -ia, no mention of a US- prefix. If it is the prefix, then what is it prefixed to? -onia isn't a word. And why did it lose the capitalisation? Equinox ◑ 20:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Inuit
Thanks for adding the Inuktitut [[ᐃᓄᐃᑦ]]! :) I don't think I agree with your recent edits to the English entry on the [[Inuit]], though. Did you possibly misunderstand definition 1? "Any of several Aboriginal peoples of coastal Arctic Canada, Alaska, and Greenland" means "Any one [group of people] of the several groups of people living in coastal arctic North America", not "Any one individual person from the several groups of people". "Inuk" is currently defined as referring to "A member...", so I think the sense which is the plural of Inuk is, in fact, the second sense, "the collective members of one of these peoples" (which is thus not improper at all). - -sche (discuss) 05:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what your point is (it seems mistaken, but maybe i misunderstand you), but I'll move your comment to that article's talk page. LlywelynII (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Grœnland
I've removed the other languages because it's not spelled that way in those languages, it's spelled with oe. 00:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Except it is. It's simply an alternate version. LlywelynII (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly not in Dutch though. I'm not sure about the others. 01:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Mgloves
A few things:

Please do not create Chinese entries as Translingual, but as Mandarin for Mandarin Chinese, or Cantonese, Wu (etc.). Single characters are considered to be Translingual, just like a or β, but not whole words, like house (no such entry). Thank you, Mglovesfun (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A few things:


 * That was one thing.
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. It's helpful to provide links to actual entries rather than examples, especially such arbitrary and unhelpful ones.
 * As far as I am aware, I created no articles with only translingual sections. It seems to be the default here to put the meanings of characters under translingual and the pronunciations under the various languages. It's pretty unhelpful and produces ugly clutter, but I don't feel like belaboring the point as long as the information is all there somewhere.
 * It's theoretically possible that my buggy mousepad or Chinese internet may have glitched and vaporized a section I was editing. If so, it was essentially a typo and (again) a direct link would have been far more helpful. Also, it would be an irregular malfunction and you wasted more time coming here to complain than just plugging the characters into pin1yin1.com or some other site to get the needful material.
 * It's also theoretically possible that somehow that was a complaint about a few Chinese entries I made where I included the meaning and pinyin without including metatext and your normal templates. Yeah, sorry, I know it's more helpful if I'd done that, but I put the information there – which is better than nothing – and, if it's really a big deal, it's possible for you or a friend to code a script that would wrap my entries appropriately.
 * I'm getting long in the tooth but – all the same – don't bite the newbies unless they're actually somehow damaging the project. Again (and especially without a link) I'm pretty sure nothing I've done qualifies.
 * Cheers. LlywelynII (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%E5%90%B3%E5%9C%8B&oldid=18656807. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not an example of what you're talking about. Note the "Mandarin" section. Want to try again? LlywelynII (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If that was a complaint that currently it doesn't include Japanese and Cantonese pronunciations... well, I'm not going to include them and I just formatted it correctly to allow them to be added later. If you really want a separate format prior to their being added... well, you do it. I'll stick with the standard format and you can follow behind doing whatever makes you happy. LlywelynII (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Re-read what I've written "Single characters are considered to be Translingual, but not whole words". You've added a Translingual section. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an entirely arbitrary distinction. This's not a singularly Chinese word. Cantonese and Japanese would use precisely the same characters and therefore the definition is translingual. I could see what you're saying if it were simply a Chinese expression, but that's nothing like the case. Your examples with beta remain ungermane and you've created more work for someone else later if the Japanese or Shanghainese pronunciations are added. For no good reason. :shrug: LlywelynII (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, just no. The word vandalismo has the same meaning in five languages, but we don't call it Translingual. If a word means the same thing in Mandarin, Cantonese and Japanese, add a Mandarin, Cantonese and Japanese section. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. So how long until we can nix the translingual sections for the single characters? =P LlywelynII (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the point is (which I neither oppose nor support FWIW) is that all single characters exist independent of language. The Latin letter A is always the Latin letter A, just some languages don't use it. What irks me (and this should be at the Beer Parlour) is that Han characters are treated differently because they have Translingual definitions. The Translingual definitions should be limited to 'a Han character' with the lexical definitions like water, fire, sand (etc.) should appear in the languages themselves. Note that these are almost all bot imports from 2003, hence the undesirable format. I will post this myself on the Beer Parlour tomorrow, but I have to leave the house in 20 minutes and I'm still in my pyjamas. Mglovesfun (talk)
 * Still making lots of errors. Not serious errors, but ones that mean in essence someone has to follow you round and correct your entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't put as this adds the page to Category:Latin twice-borrowed terms, that is, Latin terms which have gone into another language, then borrowed back into Latin. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Welsh nouns have gender. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Where I know it or it's specified in the source, I'll continue to add it.LlywelynII (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you add that adds it to Category:Welsh nouns lacking gender. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Blotto
Hi there. Please take time to read the welcome links - they show you how to format entries. As an example of badly formatted entries see 鼛鼓: - the part of speech is not capitalised - there is no headword (though there is some free-form text above the part of speech) - the definition, which is not wikified, starts with an * instead of a #. Cheers SemperBlotto (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. Usually do. Just getting that in there for some links from Wikisource, since is better than nothing.


 * Speaking of formatting, remember not to italicize 汉字 since it produces illegible gibberish. (I understand it's a problem with your  template, but it's a good example of how 麻烦 it can be to do this when you just need to get something up.) LlywelynII (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hm. Wiktionary really needs a ((tl)) template. Too bad you're wasting that on tagalog atm. LlywelynII (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are still creating badly formatted entries. Look at 紙紮: as an example. No headword. No categories. Definition starts with a * instead of a #. Please try harder. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are still italicizing Chinese characters and don't know how to hyphenate compound modifiers. I am adding terms: 紙紮 is an excellent example of something that wasn't here before I added it. You're welcome to improve them or run bots to clean them up if this is really an issue. I previously included pinyin, – taking my own time to run them over to pin1yin1.com and then paste them back – but James below took exception to my formatting of them, so he will be adding them from now on. You really shouldn't be this obnoxious (especially collectively so) to people improving the project (especially when your existing format is so contradictory and user-unfriendly). LlywelynII (talk) 08:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * (I should make a note at this point that Mglove above was a little unclear at first about his meaning but was perfectly civil and appreciative of the fact that I was spending my time adding free work to the project. You and James could use some training in that regard, lest you cause people to drop out altogether or – like me – leave it to you to fix the raw information into your pet formats which, I think, is the opposite of what you were trying to accomplish.) LlywelynII (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

James
Please have a read on User:Jamesjiao/How_to_Create_a_Chinese_entry. Your formatting at the moment is less than ideal. Besides why are all of your L2 and L3 headings in lower case (such as 'etymology')? That's neither a Wikipedia standard nor a Wiktionary standard. All headings should have its first letter capitalized. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 04:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the last few, I actually included the formatting despite the best efforts of the current default to be as opaque as possible (multiple templates depending on whether trad/simp are identical or not; "cmn-xyz" as the default Chinese template name; single characters are translingual, but multiple characters are sectioned; etc). I went to the trouble of giving you tonal pinyin; if you want to complain, I can easily not bother. I gave freakin' cites in format. If I didn't capitalize something, BEBOLD. LlywelynII (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at the link, you created the defaults? Thanks! but do simplify and rename them, esp. if you expect other users to include them. Mglove's sensible proposal to nix translingual entries is a lovely start. Help him with it. LlywelynII (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Latin macrons
You are still making a lot of formatting errors. First of all, see Aristotlean for how to create an alt-form page. Alt-forms don't have etymology sections or categories (these go on the main page) and they use. Secondly, stop making redirects. Per policy at WT:REDIR, we don't use redirects like that. Also, do not put any Latin material at a page name with macra. Per WT:ALA and community consensus, no macra should be found in Latin pagenames. Thanks —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If the macra aren't included in the pagenames, there should be redirects pointing from the macron-employing form to the "community consensus" non-macron form. LlywelynII (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there shouldn't, because of community consensus. Please read WT:REDIR. See also WT:RFV. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there should. LlywelynII (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't just change community practice because you don't like it. If you disagree, then raise the topic in this forum and see what people think. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What a strange person. I'm not changing the policy. (You don't see me reintroducing the needful -ānus redirect now that we're talking here, e.g.) However, I am pointing out that this "community practice" is nonsensical and creates (a) needless makework duplicates every single time Latin appears on a page and (b) forces Latin to either fail or violate pro-macron policy in order to use many current templates.


 * There should be redirects. LlywelynII (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * But not according to community consensus. Like Metaknowledge said, if you want to change that consensus, feel free to discuss it. Latin entries with macrons will only be allowed if consensus is explicitly changed from the currently documented standard practice. 22:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am. That is what this is. LlywelynII (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * @Llywelynll: My, you need a rhetoric class :) I have no idea what you're talking about when you speak of Latin failing and violating. Curiously enough, it does neither. I suspect that you merely do not know how to use our local templates. Can you show where the redirects are actually "needful"? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that sentence is perfectly straightforward, although you may benefit from ESL or consulting Help:Interacting_with_humans. Stop editing MY talk page's formatting NOW.


 * I already linked to the Latin page example, but you could have followed "what links here" from the page you deleted to see just such a macron-redirect-needing example. The combination of the three current practices of (1) always (in principle) employing macrons in running text, (2) never employing macrons in titles, and (3) never (apparently) redirecting from the macron titles to the macronless ones results in requiring multiple piped forms for every single link of every single use of Latin in the running text and breaks many of the templates (which usually and by default link immediately from the displayed form of the term). LlywelynII (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, fwiw, apparently you need to bone up on REDIR. As stated, it does not ban redirects from the accented forms to the non-accented ones but the reverse. Further, the rationale for that ban does not apply to the topic under discussion. LlywelynII (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WT:REDIR assumes that the accented forms are the primary accepted and orthographically standardised forms. Writing czesc instead of cześć in Polish would clearly be an error, but writing canto instead of cantō is not, it's actually far more common. But anyway, you are wasting your time here as a discussion on your talk page is not going to change consensus no matter how hard you try. I suggest WT:BP. 22:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * With regards to 'improper non-macron forms' in Latin, Latin does not use macrons. Textbooks use macrons to show hypothetical vowel length in Latin. It would be like creating pār in English because I textbook represents the long vowel this way. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but while Classical Latin may not have employed macrons, Modern Latin certainly does. Else, why have the macrons in the running text at all instead of under "pronunciation" subsections at their entries? LlywelynII (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Because people look for them, and that's standard. By the way, examples of Modern Latin seem to rarely use macra, because we (mostly) know where to put them. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Welsh etymology
Hi there. If you use the entry gets added to "Category: English words from Welsh". This is not what you want. See my update to bonedd‎:. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah. LlywelynII (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that all you needed to do was use (or show me to use) . Anyway, now I know. LlywelynII (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

peto
Hi there. Does the ecclesiastical sense derive from St Peter? SemperBlotto (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No doubt it derives from def. 3, but is different enough to list it separately. I don't know who first employed it that way (Peter's "gospel" was in Greek, no?) but it was certainly used in the Middle Ages that way. If you think some Medieval Latin tag is more appropriate, that's fine; just so long as there's something pointing to this being Xian Latin and not a classical use. LlywelynII (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

anachorita
Isn't this just a misspelling of anachoreta:? (Only that spelling is in Lewis & Short) SemperBlotto (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You say mispelling, I say variant.


 * I didn't even know anachoreta existed (As you're well aware, the editors here don't take kindly to redirects), but clicking past the first few pages of SEO garbage on google I'm seeing enough texts – Elyot's Dictionary, op. cit. Memory's Library; the 2 Lives of St. Cuthbert (sounds like a miniseries pitch); A Late Eighth-Century Latin-Anglo-Saxon Glossary (which amusingly defines anachoreta as "see anachorita") ... – that the entry shouldn't be blanked, regardless of whether Cicero would've approved. LlywelynII (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Related terms at horse
Hi. Policy is that Related Terms is used for ety related, e.g. way and via, not totally unrelated words. It's not for related themes. Equinox ◑ 22:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Stallion isn't a theme of horse, nor is it a synonym per its previous placement. It's a related word concerning a subset of the concept "horse". That said, if there are house def.s of "related terms", I've aimed at finding a way around them without lumping in stallion with 'horsey' or 'knight'.LlywelynII (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, I suppose what I was looking for was hyponym.LlywelynII (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

cwmwd
Is in English e.g.. Please check before removing stuff, or use WT:RFV. Equinox ◑ 19:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Commote is the English form. Cwmwd is simply the Welsh term being used by some sumpsimus authors.LlywelynII (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not italicised and occurs in running text so per Wiktionary policies it's English. Equinox ◑ 20:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Babel
Hi there, would you consider adding a Babel box to your User page...it's helpful for other editors to know what languages you're comfortable in. Ƿidsiþ 12:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure why it would matter. The more obscure entries I'm adding, I'm being careful to supply examples or sources so cursory googling doesn't miss them. If you just need to know what language to speak here, you can use English like everyone else.LlywelynII (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it's up to you of course, but admins use that kind of information frequently when checking dubious entries, to get a feel for how well the editor in question knows the language in question. Also it allows users looking for advice on a particular language to quickly find someone who knows about it. Ƿidsiþ 13:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that was my point. If you see any 'dubious' entries, let me know or check the sources provided. Deleting good entries because I don't feel like being immodest about my polyglottism doesn't serve anyone well. Right now I'm going transcribing a book on medieval Welsh law for Wikisource and creating entries to serve as glossary links from the text: some of the words are quite arcane or archaic, but that's why I'm sourcing them.


 * The text needs a second set of eyes to go through and sign off on the proof-reading, though, if you have time to click through the stuff I've already finished.LlywelynII (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Norwegian
Hi there. Have you seen Wiktionary:About Norwegian? We decided that Norwegian terms should be split between Bokmål and Nynorsk, rather than having a single entry. I've no idea if that was the correct decision. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see many entries broken up like that (although there are others that don't, especially the English translation boxes). I assumed it was only to be used where the forms differed; if that understand was wrong, I can add my entries as Bokmål and just let other users fix the ones that are/are also Nynorsk.LlywelynII (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Your link doesn't seem to work, but I can just take your word on the policy and will start following it. Add my name to those who think it should just be 'Norwegian' and treat Nynorsk as a variant or dialectical spelling, though, wherever that list is: besides that being the standard way of approaching 'Norwegian', it would mean the no language codes would work.LlywelynII (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

throwboard
Thanks for the interesting contributions. Note the formatting changes I have made. For more (probably too much more), see WT:ELE. DCDuring TALK 10:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will do. —  LlywelynII  10:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)