User talk:Vergencescattered

Please fix your template
Hi, You've been creating a lot of entries for Spanish verb forms, which is not particularly helpful for the project. If you have time and expertise to contribute it might be better spent elsewhere instead of manually doing something that would be automated if the community thought it was valuable. Furthermore, the pages you're creating all contain "====Verb====" instead of "===Verb===" and include "===Pronunciation===" even though we don't usually included that on the forms because isn't always perfect and the generated output should be manually verified. JeffDoozan (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Why is creating verb forms not helpful to the project? They're already redlinked, so clearly they are supposed to be created. Regardless, I apologize for adding in the extra equal signs, I'll go through them and fix that and remove the pronunciation templates. Vergencescattered (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

tungolæ
PLEASE do not add words without their declension and pronunciation, you are ruining the project Stríðsdrengur (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not "ruining" anything. Regardless, I'm happy to add the pronunciations, but I'm working off of a dictionary that does not list the declension of nouns. Vergencescattered (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Dude, it's not that difficult to learn how nouns decline, Wikipedia is open to teaching you Stríðsdrengur (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Vergencescattered is not in any way "ruining the project" by not including inflection or pronunciation information - doing so would of course have been nice, but is not some kind of prerequisite for entry creation. I had a look at a couple of their recent Old English entries and they honestly look fine for the most part, certainly considering they're a new contributor; slightly barebones, but with few real errors.
 * @Vergence - some things to note if you're working from a dictionary: 1) keep WT:COPY in mind and 2) keep WT:ATTEST in mind. Sometimes dictionaries contain ghost words and other words which would not meet Wiktionary's WT:Criteria for inclusion. Some further minor points of improvement: you included a ===Descendents=== header on some entries, but this should be ====Descendants==== (nested one level below the part of speech it belongs to): see diff. Also, for alternative forms we tend to use the template, for synonyms we use  (or a list of synonyms using ); "plain" links using just  are OK, but generally it is better to use specialized templates. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mnemosientje Thank you for those links, I've taken a look at them and they're very helpful. And thanks for letting me know about the proper formatting with,  , etc. I'll definitely make sure to do use them properly in the future.
 * @Stríðsdrengur I know the patterns of declension for Old English nouns. However, as I said my source does not state what declension nouns fall under, nor does it state if a noun has an irregular declension. I'd rather not add declined forms that I can't be sure existed. Vergencescattered (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Translation Tables
In case you haven't noticed, I've removed the translation tables from all of your non-English entries. These were wrong for two reasons:
 * 1) First of all, we don't allow translation tables anywhere except in English and some Translingual entries. This is mainly to avoid duplication and make it easier to find translations. Duplication on a wiki is always a bad idea, because changes to one instance of the material are usually not made in the other ones. You then end up with all of them missing things, and error corrections missing from one or the other. No one who improves one entry should be expected to hunt down all the other places that need the same thing. If a concept doesn't exist in English, consider creating a Translation hub, providing it will meet the requirements.
 * 2) Second, you obviously copied all the translations from  to the translation table at  without saying where you got them from. That's a violation of the Creative Commons license that's at the foundation of every Wikimedia wiki, including Wiktionary. Basically you stole the credit for everything that was contributed to the translations at Judas tree. If you ever have a legitimate need to copy something from one page to another, always say where you got it from in your edit summary. That way it's possible to find out who contributed it by looking at the revision history of the original page. It may seem minor, but without the Creative Commons licenses, Wiktionary wouldn't exist. If you do it again, it could get you blocked. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Got it Vergencescattered (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Ancient Greek vowel length
Hi, when using grc-IPA, please remember to mark α ι υ as long or short (unless they're part of a diphthong). Thanks! —Mahāgaja · talk 17:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Will do, sorry about that! I was under the impression that any time those letters are not marked as long they are short, is that not correct? Vergencescattered (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Old English IPA template
Hi, I just wanted to point out some things about Template:ang-IPA that may not be obvious at first glance. For compound words like hornfisc, hearpestreng you will generally want to use "-" to combine the two parts: this results in the second half of the compound being transcribed with secondary stress, which is usually correct. Using "+" makes the word be transcribed as if it is not a compound--there are only limited cases where you'll ever want to use "+". Prefixed words such as gedelf usually don't need any special formatting; the prefix is automatically marked as unstressed (correct since was always unstressed). Urszag (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I see, thank you! The pages I had looked at when figuring out how the use the template used the +, so I mistakenly assumed it was supposed to be used in all cases. I won't make that mistake in the future! Vergencescattered (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Plurals
Hi. Thanks for generating plurals. There's a list of some missing plurals at User:TheDaveRoss/en-noun, if you fancy helping out. Some need to be checked for countability. Denazz (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to help with that, thanks for giving me the list! Vergencescattered (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * You can make the process faster by checking the box "Add accelerated creation links for common inflections of some words." in your preferences Fond of sanddunes (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh that's awesome, thank you! Vergencescattered (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

forms of ἱππιατρός
Hello, Vengeance Scattered. Please take note of Category:Ancient Greek terms with incomplete pronunciation. The entry accelerator doesn't derive its value for the in non-lemmata from the value specified for the  in the lemma (here ἱ˘ππῑᾱτρός). 0DF (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I changed them, but I'm confused as to how it makes a difference. The IPA that is given by the template was the same before and after I made the change Vergencescattered (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I see what you did there. Unfortunately, the second iota in each of those values is still ambiguous. I defined it long for the lemma, but that was inferred from its etymon; I haven't yet worked it out directly from scansion or what-have-you. 0DF (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Yslende
Cheers, I am not out to nit-pick on trifleries, for there is much more important work to do in the encyclopedia, but your justification on why you reverted my edit inspite of recognition of its rectitude I find very wondersome to say it mildly. What does it even mean to say it is equivalent if the mechanism did not exist and even worse yet does still not exist. When we do "comparisons of equivalence" in etymology like retrograde analysis of what an inherited work might be deconstructed to by contemperary grammar etc. the assumption is that the mechanism is there. So even though for example "displease" was inherited from Norman French directly in whole, one could also equate it to a prepositional derivation of "dis + please" since English has both the seperate base word please and got the prefix dis productive in its own right. But here the mechanism of prefixation of the negative "dis" is a true mechanism! However in the case of yslende, neither did the mechanism exist at the time, nor is ysle in use, nor is ende the modern participle ende nor do we derive participles in English from nouns (although formally the distinction is not possible because of our form poverty). So what does your revert avail the reader? Really I cannot make any sense out of your statement and humbly ask you explain it, before I rerevert it. Best regards. Marcotulus ὁ Σεβαστός (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Marcotulus ὁ Σεβαστός It is equivalent because those are the two elements that make up the word. Just as saying "displease is equivalent to dis+please" technically is not the actual etymological history of the word, saying that yslende is equivalent to the two elements present within the word does not imply that the words was created that way. It's equivalent in the sense that those are the two elements of the word. If you have an actual etymology to replace it with, then feel free to do so, but otherwise I would ask you not to delete perfectly valid information. Vergencescattered (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, it appears that you chose to neglect the crucial point in my rebuttal that yes though dis + please is not the actual etymology it would have valid underlying derivational mechanism as opposed to your nonsense, its not a mere anachronism. Such non-etymologies are completely unscientific. Never in years of study have I come across the like. I did already indicate that a verbum supponendum in Proto-Germanic: *usilan > OE: *yslen and the participle *-andz > *-andī > *-ende are the components of yslende. I will give you a pass and not refer the matter to the higher administrators if you bring me a single academic work that presents etymologies such as yours. Do not mistake me, I am not out to wage war but very irritated nonetheless because these kinds of laxities have made Wiktionary a laughing stock among etimologists. My kindest regards. Marcotulus ὁ Σεβαστός (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Bro you're taking this far too seriously. If you want to talk to an administrator, that's fine. Again, the entire point of the world "equivalent" is that it is saying that it is not the actual etymology of the word. And as far as I know, that's how Wiktionary does things. If you can point me to a part of wiktionary's policies that say otherwise, please do so, but this isn't about what other sources do. Vergencescattered (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Ὦ Marcotule Σεβαστέ: Does this satisfy you? 0DF (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Old English
Hello Vergencescattered,

Just wanted to drop by and say that you're doing a great job with the Old English entries.

Keep it up. :) Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I appreciate it! Vergencescattered (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Inorganic compounds
Just a thought: it might be useful to include a few words on the use or purpose of these compounds, e.g. "used in food science as a thickener" or "used in inorganic synthesis". Up to you. Otherwise the entry doesn't really say much beyond systematics. Equinox ◑ 19:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, thank you Equinox! Vergencescattered (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)