User talk:SUM1

Welcome Message
--Apisite (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Formatting
Hi. Armenian is transliterated automatically. The manual transliteration is overridden. Please do not add transliteration to Armenian usage examples. Also, please do not add wikilinks in usage examples. Per WT:ELE, Example sentences should "not contain wikilinks (the words should be easy enough to understand without additional lookup)". --Vahag (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm following the example of entries in other languages (such as один or музей), where often every word is linked, and I understand that rule to apply to English example sentences, because it's obvious no English speaker will understand most words in foreign languages. Secondly, I don't know what you mean by the manual transliteration is overridden. The manual transliteration overrides. That parameter is there to override the automatic transliteration when it is inaccurate, just as there are parameters to override the automatic IPA transcriptions when they are inaccurate. They're supposed to be overridden when inadequate. I'll try to make more use of the subst parameter that I've just learnt about. · • SUM1 • ·    (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The Russian practice that you discovered is not universal. It may be that the Russian editors have decided to ignore WT:ELE (some unofficial practices are tolerated here as long as the active editors of that language agree). If you want to introduce that unofficial practice for Armenian, you have to convince the only active Armenian editor on this website—me. I do not like wikilinks and bolding because then the entry looks like a colorful Armenian marshrutka. If a user is interested in learning the meaning of each word, he can copy-paste it into the search bar. The inflected forms too will be found at the lemma page.
 * 2) The official transliteration practice is codified at Armenian transliteration. All letters are transliterated the same way in all positions. It is a scholarly transliteration system and not a phonetic transcription system found in some learning dictionaries. I have disabled the possibility to override the automatic transliteration because it is not needed. DO NOT use hacks like 'subst='. If you want to change the transliteration system, convince me first.
 * 3) Please do not translate entries from the Armenian Wiktionary. The entries there are mindlessly copied from . That dictionary is full of ghost words and meanings which do not pass WT:CFI. Each word and meaning must be checked against corpora of actual texts (e.g. Google Books, eanc.net) or the knowledge of a native speaker.
 * 4) Please slow down and listen to my advice. I have been thinking for more than a decade about how best to handle Armenian on Wiktionary. I am willing to listen to new proposals but you do not get to unilaterally change practices just having come out of the egg. Vahag (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The aim is to make the dictionary helpful to non-speakers of the language, and wikilinks vastly help that, which is why they have been added in some other languages. Copying and pasting is a much slower and more tedious process. You could make your same argument back and say that without them, they just look like meaningless mashed m's, n's and h's on the keyboard to the non-native speaker. You are slowing down the user's learning process by reverting them. That rule on WT:ELE is for where the word will be easily understood by the reader, and these will not. Secondly, bolding is actually explicitly part of WT:ELE, so you are going against it, which apparently is okay for you in that instance. Also, like Wikipedia, Wiktionary is not owned, so it's not only you who needs convincing.
 * 2) Which is a page you created. This is the equivalent of me sending you Russian transliteration. The templates had manual-substitution parameters, and with a lack of an advisory against using them, I made use of them. Now, as it turns out, in response, you've removed them. As the existence of such parameters and that Russian transliteration page show, there's no reason a transliteration of one script must use the same letters in another script even when they are wrong, i.e. the letter is pronounced more than one way in one script but not in the other script. What is the transliteration's purpose? To represent the text to non-readers of the script. It is confusing and misleading to non-native speakers. They will say the sentence out loud with missing "y"s and "v"s and learn an incorrect version. You've now risked that. If you want to make it harder for others to learn your language, that's your decision.
 * 3) To clarify what you said, this is not a request against translating entries from the Armenian Wiktionary. This is a request against creating articles that do not meet criteria for inclusion. Just because such an article happens to exist on the Armenian Wiktionary and I happen to create the English version based on that, and indicate so in my edit summary, does not mean I am breaking any rule. As a matter of fact, I encountered one of the words I created the article for when an Armenian used it to me, and that's why I created it.
 * 4) Again, Wiktionary is not owned, and you could equally apply that term "unilateral" to your decisions here. I have over 29,000 edits on Wikipedia and have been on Wiktionary likewise for many years, so I have seen how things are done, even things you haven't (the links in example sentences). Having "just come out of the egg", as you put it, I came in here with some enthusiasm to add entries and develop existing ones of this relatively sparsely covered language on Wiktionary and aid learners, but you've heavily diminished it. I'll stick to Russian and other languages. · • SUM1 • ·    (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't own Wiktionary, but when a much more experienced user asks you to do things a certain way you at least owe him a discussion before plowing through. Vahag (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And you got your discussion. I did nothing that wasn't advised (or accepted at least somewhere) until it was advised against. · • SUM1 • ·    (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason why usage examples aren’t linked is perhaps that examples in the real world aren’t linked either. On the other hand many links may be noisy (like those journalistic titles where you click anything and get promoted to a different page) and they also increase page-loading times slightly as the software has to check whether a link is red or blue.
 * But now somebody wants interlinear glosses for grammatical analysis that would mitigate the issue.
 * But it is of course peak that you follow practice in one language and then it is wrong in the other; it is pressing to reply something to do that, in order to clarify that naturally you weren’t wrong but the chaotic system is,, I agree with you and you and Vahagn aren’t disagreeing either. Hey, when you create things used to you that’s great. It’s all logical (many fail with that, you appear not to). Fay Freak (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason why usage examples aren’t linked is perhaps that examples in the real world aren’t linked either. On the other hand many links may be noisy (like those journalistic titles where you click anything and get promoted to a different page) and they also increase page-loading times slightly as the software has to check whether a link is red or blue.
 * But now somebody wants interlinear glosses for grammatical analysis that would mitigate the issue.
 * But it is of course peak that you follow practice in one language and then it is wrong in the other; it is pressing to reply something to do that, in order to clarify that naturally you weren’t wrong but the chaotic system is,, I agree with you and you and Vahagn aren’t disagreeing either. Hey, when you create things used to you that’s great. It’s all logical (many fail with that, you appear not to). Fay Freak (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

We usually don't list the cognates on each individual descendant's page when they are already listed at the proto-page just one click away, in this case, and. Repeating the same information everywhere leads to asynchronization. --Vahag (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. I merely added the etymology from the Russian wiki, which was better than a lack of one entirely. · • SUM1 • ·    (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

к примеру
Hello! What is the difference between "introductory term" and "used parenthetically"? I read both phrases as synonyms for "вводное слово". Gradilion (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Introductory – at the start, parenthetical – in the middle or at the end. · • SUM1 • ·    (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't heard such a meaning of "parenthetical". I guess this needs to be elaborated, which I tried to do based on what you said. Gradilion (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * https://prnt.sc/-K0BWYS58h0-. · • SUM1 • ·    (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, right, that matches the meaning of "parentheses" as brackets. Makes sense. Thanks. Gradilion (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

маркетинг - stress patterns in Russian
Hi,

I don't agree with your assessment of the stress usage by age or "марке́тинг" being sometimes proscribed although there could be some individual perceptions. As far as the official usage, both stresses are equal. "ма́ркетинг" may be harder to pronounce in inflected forms or derivatives, such as "ма́ркетинговый". I would remove the labels or usage notes. As you yourself noted, sources differ on the correct stress. Some claim only "марке́тинг" is right.

I tried to search for any confirmation but couldn't find any. You can find these useful:

Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=маркетинг&all=x
 * 2) https://vk.com/@ledyzaytsk-marketing-ili-marketing-udivitelnaya-osobennost-russkogo-uda


 * Sorry, not trying to pick on you but this is incorrect.  means "a special room where cars, mechanisms, and other products are painted" (1) or "painting work" (2), not a female painter, the feminine counterpart of . Both senses are colloquial.
 * For some professions, the feminatives don't exist or are too colloquial or they can mean something completely different (or they can be used in a dual way). Oh, that differs from Ukrainian or Belarusian, other Slavic languages where there is no problem creating feminitives.
 * may also mean a female painter but it may be low colloquial or regional. It's a tricky one :) Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've no idea how малярка ended up there. I must've not been thinking. As for маркетинг, you (or I) can remove "sometimes proscribed" and "more often used by younger people and those less familiar with the field" if that suits you. · • SUM1 • ·    (talk) 06:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Join us
Join the |Discord server, easier to communicate there. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit summaries for new pages
Hi. When creating a new page, you can leave the edit summary blank. Then the page content will be used as the summary instead, which is actually more useful and helps in patrolling. Thanks. Equinox ◑ 17:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay · • SUM1 • ·    (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

жиза
Is that not just a contraction of some form of жизненный? The current ety doesn't make sense to me. Nicodene (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Check the Russian wiki · • SUM1 • ·    (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I read it before coming to your talk page, and it was useless. It doesn't explain in what way жиза came from жизнь, only states that it did, somehow.
 * Regarding, none of the versions we describe here fits. The first states it requires a preceding hard consonant: жизнь ends in a soft one (and also isn't a personal name). The second and third attach to 'prefixed stems' - there is no prefix in жизнь. Nicodene (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To be fair you do have a point if you look at it from a meaning point of view. I don't have objections to you changing it to something derived from жизненный. · • SUM1 • ·    (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I have updated the entry to mention the adjective, though I think deriving from that would be too adventurous without a parallel example or an intermediate form like *жиззна. Nicodene (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed the очень part because that is very rare, and verbatim searching it reveals a similar number of results to большая жиза, so it can't really be used as part of the argument. · • SUM1 • ·    (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

some formatting issues
Hi. I am going through some of your contributions and notice a few issues: Benwing2 (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) When adding links to entries like  and to quotations, the link should be to the lemma. Hence instead of  it should be.
 * 2) You don't need to add raw links or glossary links inside of lb. So instead of  you should write . If you add links like this, the page doesn't get correctly categorized.
 * 3) I have corrected some parts of speech in certain entries. For example, for, you labeled it as a noun where all forms but the nom and acc sg are theoretical; but usages like мне каю́к show that it's clearly a predicative, so I changed it as such.
 * Hello. Can you please link me to a guideline or policy where it says that links should be to the lemma (even if a direct-link article exists)? I've tried looking for one but haven't found one. I've only ever added direct links by default, and this was based on having already seen such links on many articles for Russian. I therefore assumed that links to lemmas when a direct article existed were only there because they were made before the declined forms had articles (usually created by bots in the mid-to-late 2010s). I believe that direct links when a direct article exists (as is typical on Wikipedia) are more useful, because the article directly tells you what form was used and links you directly to the lemma. Without that, a person would have to open and search through a declension table to find the exact form that was used.
 * I don't add piped links to labels where a link would be autogenerated, and any such links that do exist were created before such an autogeneration existed or before I noticed it (the main example I can recall is ).
 * That was taken straight from the Russian wiki. In fairness, it does seem that definition is only a predicative, but nouns can often be used as predicatives (like the similar-meaning крышка). · • SUM1 • ·    (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is general practice to link to the lemma; this applies to several languages, e.g. German, Spanish, Russian, etc. You can find examples of this everywhere. I'm not sure if there is an explicit written guideline for this but it is definitely the general practice. It helps because most of the time people are interested in the definition of the lemma and can work out what case it is (and in many situations, the inflected form is ambiguous between different lemmas, meaning that a language learner would have difficulty determining which lemma to follow). Also pinging @Atitarev who is another main editor of Russian. One of the problems with making up your own rules (e.g. linking to inflected forms), even if you think they're better, is it leads to inconsistency in the dictionary, which reduces the overall quality.
 * As for adding piped links in lb, it's best not to do that even if no link is autogenerated. Instead, if necessary the label data module should be changed to recognize the label. Benwing2 (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, what @Benwing2 said regarding the linking. We link to lemmas, not inflected forms. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Once again, I did not "make up my own rule" when linking to inflected forms; I had seen it done numerous times and copied that practice. · • SUM1 • ·    (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies, my mistake, I missed that part of your comment. Benwing2 (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)