User talk:Psiĥedelisto

Module:Hatnote
I've deleted this, because we don't need (nor want) Wikipedia's modules here. If you want to link a term, you should use the infrastructure that exists here. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Umm...as I made very clear on the /doc subpage, which although you deleted, is still a bit visible...
 * {{maintenance box|yellow|text=Note: Here on Wiktionary, the hatnote functions should not be used. This module was copied here just for {{tl|format link}}.|image=⚠️50px |title=Copied from the English Wikipedia's Module:Hatnote revision [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...'
 * {{re|Metaknowledge}} Please restore the page, I need w:Template:Format linkr, which I was about to copy to {{tl|format link}}. :-( If I'm going to contribute here a lot, it's one of the convenience templates I rely on a lot, so you're kind of driving me away... Psiĥedelisto (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what that template is for. Could you explain? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * {{re|Metaknowledge}} Sure. I mostly use it on talk pages to refer to sections by copying them from my URL bar. E.g., before you deleted it, I was about to go write on another editor's talk page, . So that {{tl|format link}} would've appeared as Wiktionary:Grease pit/2020/July &sect; Requested edit to Template:cite-meta. I have diagnosed OCD, among other issues, not that this is an excuse, but it bothers me a lot not to have correctly formatted (in my eyes) pages, and seeing underscores / #'s is definitely not right. So, please restore the page, so I don't need to do it by hand. Thanks, Psiĥedelisto (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. The problem for us is that a module (which includes a bunch of irrelevant stuff) and template then need to be upkept solely for the purpose of making your links look nicer. Anyway, {{ping|Erutuon}}, since he may have a thought on this, and it saves you the trouble of contacting him separately. —Μετάknowledge {{sup|discuss/deeds}} 03:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * {{re|Metaknowledge}} Well, uh, no, it's not just to make my links look nicer. Perhaps, at first, I'll be the main user, but {{tl|:w:Template:format linkr}}, which I created (it adds several improvements to {{tl|:w:Template:format link}} but is incompatible, but that doesn't matter here since we're starting fresh), already has several fans other than me, one of them left me a message today unprompted. People see me use it in discussions, then they start using it, I add some magic to w:WP:3O, etc. The same could happen here, just slower due to less editors. Tell you what though, I can strip out the hatnote stuff and just add formatLink function. I know Lua and contribute to modules on enwiki so it's not so hard. Then we can call it Module:FormatLink and not Module:Hatnote. OK? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your w:Template:format linkr looks similar to our {{temp|section link}} (implemented using  in Module:links). Any missing features that you'd be likely to use? It doesn't have a title italicization parameter for instance, but so far I haven't needed it. — Eru·tuon 06:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

{{outdent|::::::}} {{re|Erutuon}} Ah, thank you, good deal! I looked through my search history, and I did try that one, but as {{tl|Section link}}. Still too used to Wikipedia, where if {{tl|Section link}} doesn't exist, {{tl|section link}} can't either. My bad. I don't think we need the italic feature here, as there's really no articles that call for it? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

instant case
Instant case also? It's a common legal term, and the quotation I provided, even a lawyer didn't know what it meant. Hardly sum of parts. Instant is not used that way in law to my knowledge with any other word, so probably wrong to add a "law" definition to instant. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see WT:SOP. As for, it appears your knowledge is incomplete; please see the entry. I fixed the header of this section to link to the deleted entry. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * . I see. Can you WP:REFUND the quotation I had on instant case so I can add it back there under § English § Etymology 2 § Adjective № 4? You can put it here or in my userspace, as was done for me recently at User talk:SemperBlotto. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That kind of quotation isn't actually useful for attesting the existence of a lexical item at Wiktionary. For one thing, it's a mention, rather than a use (cf. ). Also, I'm not sure it's from a durably archived source (e.g. a physical magazine), rather than just an online source. See WT:ATTEST for more on this. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome message
I just realised that nobody left you the welcome message. You may find it useful.

—Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Taiwanese kana in Unicode
Good luck!

But FYI, perhaps "Hokkien" is too specific. I've noticed instances of "Taiwanese kana" being used for other Min languages: 日華対訳福州語 (Fuzhou), 海南語初歩 (Hainan), 実用日汕語捷径 (Chaozhou). (The Fuzhou one has tone six!)

(I also vaguely remember seeing one instance of kana with tones for "広東語"&mdash;Hakka? on Twitter, but I didn't bookmark it. orz)

(Is there research on this? I don't know.I haven't checked.) —Suzukaze-c (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! This is very helpful! I have work to do to integrate this information. 👀 Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * （・ω・）ｂ
 * (The pages on tones from the Fuzhounese book: page 1, page 3&mdash; nasal tone 6 is like 2, but with a solid circle) —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Reviewing these pages, I'm not sure if the nasal tone 6 is actually different. The symbols for 2 and 6 are labeled identically as 上声 for non-nasal and nasal sets. Page 2 (a description of pitch contour for each tone) says that 下上声は上上声と同様である, and there isn't any special note for nasal tone 6. Fuzhou dialect makes the same assertion. Meanwhile, the tone sandhi chart on page 1 separates 上上 and 下上 (2&rarr;3; 6&rarr;7). Hm.
 * (Pinging : are you interested in giving insight?) —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm having trouble differentiating 2 and 6 in those images at all I'm afraid, certainly they don't look like Taigikho's rendition of 6. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Maybe I'm mislead by a scanning artifact. And since it's also different from Taigikho's form, leaving it out is probably still best. (Or maybe there really are multiple designs due to its fringe status?)
 * And FWIW, oddly, the Shantou book also does not distinguish 6 and 2, despite Teochew lacking the merger that Hokkien does. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * AFAIK there's no difference in 上上 and 下上 in Fuzhou anymore (sandhi or otherwise). I don't know if it's the case in the past when this was recorded. The tone symbols should be the same, though. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 17:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

romance de cavalaria
Hi Psiĥedelisto. I’m writing to explain a number of changes I made to.

Simplified the etymology quite a bit: there is no need to go deep into the origin of the components since it is a straightforward compound. Most importantly, and equivalent should not be used for terms formed from Portuguese morphemes. Rather, it is used for twice-borrowed terms (i.e. those that are loaned by another language and then back to Portuguese, such as ).

Removed the literal translation of “Roman of chivalry” from the inflection line: the etymology now displays the literal meaning, and to the best of my knowledge no sense of the Portuguese word romance corresponds to any sense of Roman.

Changed the definition label from chiefly medieval to literature: romance de cavalaria is a modern term used by literature scholars to describe a medieval concept. If it is indeed attested in medieval Portuguese, it should be added separately as Old Portuguese, but I haven’t been able to find any evidence in my sources.

Moved the citation to Citations:romance, added a few bits of missing text and changed some of the translation so it better matches the original wording. The reason I did this is because it did not include romance of cavalaria, but one of the missing passages that I later added does include it, so if you want to move it back I’ll leave it up to you.

Cheers, — Ungoliant (falai) 11:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)