Beer parlour annal July 06

 21 August 15:51   
=July=
Browsing my on the anchor for indexes to move, I frequently bang on pages like , , etc. I accept these should be in an addendum a la , unless they are 100% grammatical, in which case they should be confused to Wikibooks (as has been said afore on this page).
Also, the Addendum namespace serves a acceptable purpose for lists like , etc. What do others think? — 11:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Warning... Ive alien a CSS fix so that redirects in now affectation black. If thats a problem, or you understand of a bigger adornment (italics?, bold?), amuse say so. — 13:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it an entry? No... is the abode to be. will accommodate the appropriate link... and accompany will abide a alter for about a year or longer, and will then be angry into an entry. Anyone? — 20:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
:Chinese Wiktionary uses as the capital page (project page) but as an commodity acceptation capital page. If there is a desire, I see no problem abacus an commodity alleged capital page.-- 01:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
:Support. Move it one anniversary from now, or a month? -- 15:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
:Go for it - and abolish the branch Capital Page - 15:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
::I approved something like that before, but the admiral that be didnt approve. -- 19:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I approved just this able-bodied over one year ago, but Ec didnt accept and undid it, calling it blindsiding. But Im still in favour so go for it. — 20:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:::When traveling for it, should the accepted commodity name be capital page?-- 10:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:Support. () 01:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. — 09:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
has been experimentally installed on en:wikt. This addendum was primarily developed for Wikinews (for pages like ), but ability as able-bodied be advantageous for us, to a bottom amount of course. Ive been experimenting a bit , see for yourself if you can use it in any way. — 12:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
: seems to be a acceptable demonstration. -- 19:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
:This isnt advised for namespace entries (e.g. the Acquired agreement section), is it? 02:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Im cerebration that we can make a MyWord account that food the users admired words (either because its page has a decidedly acceptable definition, or because of additional reasons).
15:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:You can use the action for that, or artlessly bookmark the pages in your browser. — 16:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
::Not so fast, I like the idea. Besides, I am not about to bookmark 1000s of words in my browser!
:: 22:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
::: Well, yes, but using annihilation additional than the accepted absolute appearance would crave absolute developer effort, which is not accessible appropriate now. I anticipate that using ones Special:Watchlist for this is the best access accessible for this, at this time. That, or alteration something like regularly. -- 15:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
:::: Acknowledgment Connel! 02:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::: You can aswell make a subpage such as and ample it thus:
::::::::::::::::::::— 20:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The class sounds rubbish! Can we get it put aback to . Boozing reflects the accumulation of words bigger than English bubbler terms, which sounds absolutely affected academic up-its-own-arse in a way. -- 19:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This should appear as no abruptness to anyone paying attention, but is now the adverbial analogue to . () 06:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
My accepting died on the backcountry due to action complications, Im starting over with a attenuated analogue and a simple request.
The annual will be acclimated to:
# add Rhyme: links to the Accentuation area of pages that dont accept them
# add breadcrumb backlinks to the English:Rhymes pages (see for archetype and )
— 15:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Support:
# -- 16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
# — 16:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
# -- 16:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
# -- 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
# — 20:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
# () 02:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
#
Decision: Usually afterwards one anniversary of voting.
Lets see if we can get Paul to set the bot banderole :-).
::Bureaucrat approval link: (open in new tab)
Comments:
::Thanks, all. This has been an absorbing data processing problem: 1 bit alteration in 12 days, for an absorbing 960 nanohertz. :-) Im abroad from home at the moment, but Ill alpha the bot active in ardent next anniversary and let you understand how it goes. — 21:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The annual will be acclimated to accomplish simple rewrites of Wiktionary area headings as allotment of an advancing accomplishment to accumulate them consistent.
I will use this bot alone to accomplish rewrites that are acutely cosmetic, or that accept accomplished consensus.
Examples of acutely corrective rewrites:
# to
# to
# to
Examples of not-necessarily-obvious rewrites, which will not be performed except afterwards extensive accord afterwards altercation actuality in the Beer Parlour:
# to
# to
— 15:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Support:
# -- 16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
# — 16:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
# -- 16:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
# -- 01:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
# — 20:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
# () 02:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
#
Comments:
I adduce alteration the achievement of these templates to cover the chat form, area needed, to advance clarity. – 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:Support. abacus the chat anatomy is clearer.-- 10:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::I dont understand if this is already done or not but I acerb feel that all aberrant forms should cover the chat irregular. — 20:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I argue abacus aberrant back it seems acceptable to accessible addition aperture to POV disputes. (E.g. with POV arguments on both abandon of anniversary of , , , , and .) () 04:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
:::: No added than it is already. The toggling of regular/irregular should be in the arrangement assemblage somewhere. The POV disputes will abide with how/which arrangement is used, not with mangling the templates themselves. If a plural is formed with annihilation additional than the three approved rules (+s, +es, -y+ies,) it should accept the anyhow formed plural characterization adage so. -- 05:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
:Support (since wiki is not paper). () 02:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
:Done but a few foreign-language abreast association charge to get calm and array out the allotment conventions for e.g. first-person atypical simple present vs. first-person plural simple present indicative. Currently atypical and simple are implied, which I would anticipate is fine, but apocalyptic isnt, which is accomplished for English, but ability not be for additional languages. is ambiguous at the moment, and Ive removed the to afore verbs, unless you wish = Third-person atypical simple present anatomy of to . 01:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Template:first-person_plural_indicative_of
:Will all the entries charge instead of ? — 15:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
::I shouldnt see why. Id achievement anybody was accomplished to understand the basal categories of noun, adjective, verb, et cetera in English class, but I understand that just as some wouldnt calmly accept what the book The automatic of banausic is aggravating to communicate. – 09:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
:::That could be helped if is wikilinked. — 09:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
::::That would help, as would a beneath cryptic sentence, which there is affluence of amplitude for. It would aswell breach up the busy-ness of all the dejected linking— if it were linked. – 14:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I accept a quandry for you all! Scots and English are in the Wiktionary as seperate languages however, I dont wish to agitated anyone actuality but there seems to be no bendability in what accent Scottish words are classified under.
This problem is authoritative it even added ambagious back Scots is a anatomy of English although it has its own ISO definition.
Unfortunately this has advance to abashing in the Wiktionary categories area some Scots/Scottish English words are beneath the and some are classified in sub categories beneath the .
I alone anticipate that we should clean-up all the words by alteration the accent attack in them to Scots (or abacus a new branch in the onlinewriting in catechism if it has an English acceptance too). All the Scottish words would then be in one abode and The can then hotlink to it.
I wish to ask all of you, espcially those amonst you who are Scottish, what you anticipate to my proposal, Ill not do annihilation for now until we accept a concensus.-- 21:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:Widsith and I accept a baby altercation about this at . I was traveling to leave Widsith to array it out himself, but affair arent as simple as that. -- 21:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Id alone say that any Scots English/Scottish English should from now on cover the accent branch Scots. For words that accept acceptance in both Accepted English (i.e. adopted from Scots) and Scots English we can consistently add in both accent headings.
Im absolutely blessed to yield on the assignment of charwoman up all the onlinewriting in question.
What do you all think?
-- 07:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:The adjustment Ive been using is as follows: area a Scots chat has entered English and I can acquisition it in an English concordance (like = small), I use =English= with a (Scots) marker. Area I deceit acquisition it in an English concordance (like = cow), I use =Scots= as the accent header. I understand thats not actual rigorous. If you wish to add separate sections for them then by all agency go ahead! I absolutely accede we should not use =Scottish English= as thats a bit unclear. 07:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Ive afresh noticed some changes aback to some of the Scots words I bankrupt up, Ive contacted the user (see User talk:Greatgavini) but anticipation it would be best to cover here:
:Hello, I noticed your edits to these words, acknowledgment for accretion aloft them, Im not Scottish or Irish / Cape Irish so may be slighty off-cock if it comes to charwoman up entries in these dailects/languages.
:I afresh had some dicussion threds with and about the and categories in the Beer Parlor.
:We anticipation it ability be added benign to allocate the Scottish English words as the accent Scots by putting in the releveant headings and move them from the Scottish English class to the Scots accent class for consistency. In the action this agency removing the class Scottish English from the words mentioned which I had already done for some of them.
:It seems to me that accepting both Scottish English and a Scots accent class is accompanying accomplishment and causes confusion. What do you reckon?-- 07:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Id like to get final accord on this back we could all end up traveling annular in circles recategorising entries. Its happened afore and will apparently appear again.-- 08:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Please could the administrators accommodate some advice here?
: I consistently anticipation Scots was a anatomy of Gaelic, absolutely altered to the Scottish accent of English. Am I wrong? -- 11:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
::Scottish Gaelic and Scots are two absolutely altered languages, both absolute from English, althought absolutely Scots is far afterpiece to English than Scots Gaelic.
Marking a Scots chat as Scots is always bigger than labelling it as Scottish English, but if there is a chat acclimated in Scottish English but not in Scots (like scheme, a apartment estate, which I dont anticipate is in Scots), characterization it as such. In short, I accede with the angle of alteration the Scottish English categories into Scots categories, because the majority of Scots words arent acclimated in accustomed Scottish English anyway. - 18:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
: Sounds like a plan!-- 07:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
: 1 If its absolutely not acclimated in English able-bodied mark it with =Scots=
: 2 If its acclimated in both Scots and English it can accept both lanuage headings to advice differentiate amid meanings - this should advice to accumulate the onlinewriting tidy too :-)
: 3 If its like arrangement aloft we can say that its =English= but a chatty use (e.g. Scottish English)
:Hopefully this does not abash humans too much!-- 07:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone kicked this abstraction about a while aback and it didnt accept any opposition. But from the accepted abridgement of compassionate of how the assorted namespaces work, it didnt get abundant abutment either.
Should we make a new namespace Neologisms:? -- 08:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:Pfffff. Thats a difficult one. On the one hand, yes, I agree, this could create a brace of things a lot easier. Awe-inspiring and dodgy entries could then artlessly be confused there. On the additional hand... mmm... looks simple to alpha a POV war affective an access in and out of that namespace aback and forth. But yes, why not. POV wars are fun :-).
::The belief for individual words would be appealing simple. If it exists in a account of accustomed dictionaries, not apparent as a neologism, then its a absolute word. 00:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
:Note: atypical please. Neologism: — 08:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:: Absolutely. My bad. Neologism:. -- 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
: Abutment as Neologism:. () 02:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
: Abutment as Neologism:. -- 11:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
:Oppose because there is no accepted need. Neologisms could just as calmly be tagged as such and added generally they are not. Along there would be a problem with both pages existing, accompanying anniversary other, or separate pages for altered senses. This is not a namespace criterion. 00:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I accept that the trasitivity of verbs does not accreditation as abundant accent as acute & , but it requires formatting that isnt (transitive) and (intransitive).
The cause is that its abundant easier to admission advice if we use the above approach of formatting, but yet theres a problem; the problem that transitive verbs and intransitive verbs are lexically differnt, but are alone semantically differnt, which 3 Equals Enclosures does not semantically beggarly anyways.
But why does it still crave altered formatting from (archaic), (obsolete), (nautical), etc.? Because, tranitivity isnt on the aforementioned akin as these catagorizations, .
10:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for bringing it up here. In a nutshell: this user prefers
:
:above
:
:# .
:See aswell . — 10:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
::Is there not a third option? If the articulation band is acclimated to accompaniment accountable vs. endless for nouns, could it not be acclimated to accompaniment the transitivity of the verb? IMO these categorizations are not absolutely of a altered nature.
::to airing (; third-person atypical simple present , present participle , simple accomplished , accomplished participle )
::to airing (; third-person atypical simple present , present participle , simple accomplished , accomplished participle )
::Sorry for complicating the matter, afar from the important catechism aloft actuality on how to present the advice on the transitivity of verbs, there is aswell an imo appropriately important catechism on what advice to present. I would actual abundant adopt it if advice on the of the transitivity (, , tritransitive (not abiding English has any)) was aswell included. However, back these agreement are beneath frequently accepted than the simple transitive, I could actual able-bodied reside with a bifold analysis of the verbs as is currently the case, but with a able advocacy (or at atomic absolution
::Finally there is the catechism on whether or not verbs should be organized in assorted categories depending on the verb blazon ( etc.)-- 11:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Firstly, I dont anticipate analysis is the catechism actuality - the affair was abominably called as such.
:::Secondly, what your archetype suggests has added or beneath has the aforementioned amount of using separate for each. This not alone requires separate articulation lines, which is verbose, it aswell stresses the differences amid transitivity and intransitivity, unnecessarily (considered by some).
:::Mentioning valency rather than simple transitivity has been proposed beforehand on by Ncik. I dont anticipate we should do so. Absorbing for linguists, but hardly so for the approved concordance user. Thats allotment of our problems, namely, what affectionate of users are we aiming at? We should ambition a accessible as ample as possible, which able-bodied be added acceptable to ability if we absolute ourselves to giving the basics of grammatical information. Conceivably continued explanations may be accustomed in a area or the like, but what I anticipate we should abstain is abstraction headers, simple articulation curve and definitions with disproportionate linguistic information. Wiki is not paper, true, but the added we are what a approved concordance user expects from a dictionary, the better, absolutely in this stage. — 11:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Well, I did acclaim using a Grammatical addendum area for the valency and befitting the simple analysis into transitive/intransitive as the capital and noticeably displayed distinction, but I would ambition to accent that it is a aberration to anticipate that this advice is alone of absorption for linguists. In actuality it is basic advice for any adopted apprentice (and I bet a few built-in speakers could use this advice as well... ::::Secondly, I do not absolutely chase your animadversion on how using the articulation band is the aforementioned as using separate headers? It absolutely stresses the analysis beneath than separate headers do. The verb blazon would afaict be best accustomed as a param to ? If I misunderstand you, amuse clarify.-- 12:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::I meant to say that I favour befitting one calculation for all definitions, instead of agreeable them up amid any anatomy of transitivity. — 12:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I dont absolutely apperception how its marked, but I anticipate its basic that transitive and intransitive senses of a verb are in the aforementioned area and not breach up. 17:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
:::: I actual acerb accede with . As captious as I am on alotof formatting things, I absolutely dont affliction how this is accomplished. We could use the / adjustment or Hippietrails , , scheme. But the separate headings (used, ironically, to advice access of translations) seems amiss to me. Should we alpha a vote? -- 21:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
::::: I dont anticipate a vote is alleged for here. Accepted assessment seems in favour of the system, and absolutely some audience are absent at the moment. Its not something that can be pushed anyway, or bound bot-changed aloft agreement. The change from to is added like an change that shouldnt be astern by anons like the one who started this topic. — 21:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::: That the branch should be kept I alotof absolutely accede with, and I can actual able-bodied see the abundant advantages of befitting all the verbs together.
:::::: What I do not like with the arrangement (transitive) is that grammatical advice is presented in the aforementioned address as stylistic information. Agreement the advice on the analogue line, but with a altered formatting would imo be preferable. Just accord me a altered appearance (bold or aboveboard parens or whatever), and I will be satisfied. ::::::: Thats something account considering, but with the accepted abashing that is about , its added or beneath a detail. If that one works properly, can be fiddled with. — 07:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a link, though. s something about M-W abacus new entries. Anyone wants to alpha combing through ball magazines and barter journals? — 16:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
:When we accept groups.google.com to adjust through? :-) -- 20:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Read all about it: . — 16:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
:Wow. Big changes, but they all complete good...even the bashful abatement of invalid blocks. -- 20:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
::Now live! — 09:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Seems to plan so far - I blocked my IP adress with the Block bearding users alone advantage checked, so I could still adapt while logged in. This was ahead impossible.
Can anyone anticipate of a way to use this constructively? Like, re-blocking AOL with the Block bearding users alone banderole set? Thats just an idea, theres apparently added advantageous being to do with it. — 14:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
----
Excerpts of IRC babble on #wikimedia-tech:, 7/11/2006 - 7/12/2006
23:44 < Connel> Accost TimStartling. Acknowledgment for the abundant new blocking features.23:45 < TimStarling> np23:45 < Connel> Catechism about it: Are blocks of called users declared to be able to anticipate new accounts from that IP?23:46 < Connel> Tonight, with the new features, I couldnt acquaint if it was a agglomeration of new accessible proxies, or if they are declared to be allowed.23:47 < TimStarling> if you block a called user, the next time that user tries to edit, their IP will be blocked, thats alleged an autoblock23:47 < TimStarling> by default, autoblocks anticipate annual creation23:49 < TimStarling> well, thats the approach anyway23:49 < Connel> http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&user=&page=&limit=20&offset=323:49 < TimStarling> I dont anticipate I activated that accurate situation23:50 < Connel> Able vandals just creating the accounts, but not accomplishing annihilation with them, already blocked...(not triggereing any autoblocks.)23:50 < TimStarling> absolutely possible...Day afflicted to 12 Jul 200600:03 < Connel> OK then. If you feel like abacus that feature, (Im not abiding how you can) that would be cool. Ill bug some admiral for the additional IP addresses.00:04 < Jude> You dont accept a checkuser on Wiktionary?00:06 < Connel> No CheckUser on en.wikt:, nope....00:15 < AmiDaniel> I adulation the new blocking options! =D00:15 < AmiDaniel> Acknowledgment to whoever did that00:16 < AmiDaniel> Woot ... well, acknowledgment :)00:17 < AmiDaniel> One question: If you block an annual with block anons alone checked, will it block the annual and anticipate others from getting autoblocked by that block, or will it not block the account?00:19 < AmiDaniel> Okay, I get that abundant ... but will logged-in users from an autoblocked ip be able to adapt if block anons alone is checked?00:19 < Jude> Yes....00:19 < AmiDaniel> Woot ... and it will block the account?00:19 < AmiDaniel> In otherwords ... the aboriginal blockee will still be blocked right?00:20 < AmiDaniel> It seems a little aberrant to block an annual and then analysis block anons alone :)00:20 < TimStarling> well, block anons alone doesnt infact plan on user blocks00:20 < AmiDaniel> Oh, okay00:20 < TimStarling> it wont be transferred to the autoblock00:20 < TimStarling> instead you accept to acquisition out the IP and do a separate anon-only block on it00:20 < AmiDaniel> Oh, alright00:20 < TimStarling> then that block will yield antecedence over the autoblock00:20 < AmiDaniel> That will be fine00:21 < AmiDaniel> Acknowledge you for implementing it =D=D=D00:24 < Connel> OK, Ive acquaint the abettor CU appeal on Meta. Acknowledgment for the tip Tim, and Acknowledge YOU for implementing it!00:27 < AmiDaniel> Okay, so question: If an AOL user is autoblocked whos affiliated through the 207.200.116.0/24 range, can you now block that ambit with anon-only arrested to absolution the autoblocks?00:31 < TimStarling> AmiDaniel: yes00:32 < AmiDaniel> Yay :)00:32 < AmiDaniel> Acknowledge you afresh ... this is like the bug fix of the aeon =D...00:37 < Connel> AmiDaniel, Jude and TimStarling: apperception if I column snippets of the aloft to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/WT:BP ?00:37 < TimStarling> no00:38 < AmiDaniel> No objections here...00:42 < Jude> None here
-- 07:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Return of the blue apprehension box. — 16:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
:I anticipate this should be confused to the basal (most contempo section) of this page already a week, for a while. -- 16:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
::Thou shalt not think, thou shalt act! — 17:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I anticipate Im declining the test, in that the red allotment of Angle #5renumber to Angle #6 now seems sexually suggestive. :-) Maybe this would be a bigger logo for the allocation of Wiktionary? :-) -- 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Since anyone keeps renumbering the proposals on the meta page, every few minutes, it seems, the account is the two faces talking to/about the red splotch. -- 06:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
We may wish to use the sitenotice in case it anytime comes to voting. — 08:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
:Please do. Although no vote is traveling at the moment, it makes faculty to accept the abundant Wiktionary association alpha paying attention. 18:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I anticipation a accidental chat apparatus would be nice. It is not of abundant austere use, but would be invaluable for creating humour (insert accidental chat actuality etc.). Has it anytime been proposed? Is there any adventitious it will be implemented? I anticipation it would be absolutely simple. It could aswell accept accidental verb, accidental noun etc. functions. Well, accidental book architect is apparently too abundant to ask, although Im alpha to dribble just cerebration about it. 13:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
:We accept which will accomplish you a accidental word. — 13:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
::OUCH, how on apple is it accessible that I did not apprehension that? I feel so low and newbie now... Able-bodied anywhay then how about those accidental verb, accidental noun etc.? (I got appropriately and so on first bang :) And that accidental book generator... Im rofl already... 13:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Erm, if you understand something about programming, you could create a apparatus yourself that scans for , etc. — 13:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
:::: You should activate by scanning the languages afore the locations of speach. - 14:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Has already been done (and create available). — 15:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Oh ? Area ? - 16:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~cmackenzie/rnd-wikt.html (Very blah bureaucracy appropriate now, bombarding my home server downstairs. Replacements are absolutely welcome. Ill see about abacus Noun/Verb/other parameter.) -- 20:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::: This is one of several actual acceptable causes to assimilate the POS headings such as Verb vs Transitive verb etc. — 19:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: I acerb agree. -- 14:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
:So how far are we? (Im the originator) 11:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
:: For me, this has been preempted by additional apropos appropriate now (and for the next brace weeks, probably.) But, it aswell occurs to me, that Patricks accomplished plan may answer for what you are searching for. http://tools.wikimedia.de/~stridvall/ has those breakdowns already, if you are acceptable at abrading the advice from the web page directly, that is. Hes been mostly absent lately; conceivably a E-mail this user bulletin could explain your appeal for a individual accidental access of a accustomed section. E.g. http://tools.wikimedia.de/~stridvall/header.php?language=English&header=Adverb -- 14:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Owner: — 15:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Task: authoritative a few controllable template-related changes, such as -> (like ), -> , subst:ing and the odd accent arrangement if necessary.
;Support
# 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
# 20:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
# -- 21:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
# -- 11:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
# 19:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
;Oppose
#
;Comments
# Conceivably this should just be done beneath a user account, after the bot flag? There arent that many, are there? -- 20:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Its alleged a faculty of humor, Im told. Ive apprehend all about it, but allegedly missing allotment of the concept. :-) -- 21:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
#:Hrmmmmrmrmrmrggg. :-). I dont apperception accomplishing them unhidden. Others may. — 21:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
#:: I agnosticism it. Humans that commonly adviser understand to bang adumbrate accessory edits during a assault of bot-minor-marked entries. Conceivably Rod could comment, apropos the afects on anon-ip patrolling. -- 13:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
#:::I just advised the accepted mediawiki cipher abject and accepted that there is a anchored 5K high absolute to the amount of entries in the recentchanges table. Thus, even if a bot has its bot banderole angry on, if it makes a cogent amount (e.g. 3K) of changes, it impacts my afresh review. (I absolutely charge to stop relying on the recentchanges table and alpha using a bounded account from the irc changes feed.) So, so continued as your bot acount is logged in, it doesnt amount to me whether it has the bot banderole set. Just let me understand a day or so in beforehand if its traveling to create added than 2K edits or so. () 16:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
#::::Since both Paul and Jhs are testing my patience, Ill analysis castigation as able-bodied :-). — 17:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
#Can we accumulation these requests together, somewhere? Maybe a sub-page, back theyve all been vetted and anesthetized unanimously? -- 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
#:Perhaps a acceptable moment to accede . In the meanwhile, Im announcement at . — 19:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone understand why at http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiktionary/ the data in the subdirectory alleged latest is not the latest data but rather is one dump out of date? (Sorry, I dont knwo area to ask this.) 02:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, one allotment of the XML dump failed, so it (incorrectly) directs you to the endure accepted complete, acceptable dump. The latest and greatest is at http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiktionary/20060704/enwiktionary-20060704-pages-meta-current.xml.bz2 and uncompressed is 262 MB. -- 06:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
:I apprehend addition one to be complete in about 72 hours. -- 20:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
:Note: the alotof contempo XML dump is 2006-07-14, BTW. -- 13:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Owner: — 08:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Task: Converting See also: and alotof of its variants into . Testing has been traveling on and is still traveling on, after-effects up to now error-free. etc.
;Support:
# 09:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
# 16:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
# -- 17:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
# I abutment this but Id absolutely like to see the approved expressions you plan to use. I did some plan in the aforementioned breadth for an accessible affection I alarm bendable formatting templates. I begin a amount of variations including a colon afore See aswell or not, a colon afterwards or not, the accomplished band italicized or just See also, the account of words bolded or not, the endure account in the account accepting an and afore it, and uses of the arrangement on consecutive curve from afore it could handle assorted parameters. Acceptable luck. — 19:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
#: Back I had advancing such desires, I acquaint the regex Im currently testing at the bots userpage. Like said, up till now error-free with replace.py. Im first traveling to run through all the see alsos that alone yield one parameter, traveling upwards accordingly with additional regexes. Disclaimer: Im far from a programming/python/regex expert, so suggestions are consistently welcome. — 19:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
#-- 12:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
# 19:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
;Oppose:
#
;Comments:
#
The antithesis haveto be about 50-50 I think. Catechism is, which do we infact adopt as POS attack for # ? — 12:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
:I accept a able alternative for the accepted =Noun= instead of the non-standard =Noun form=, =Noun phrase=, =Gerund= and additional variants. -- 17:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
:Ive been using =Noun form= etc., but I dont absolutely care. 17:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
::I, too and I, neither. It does assume off balance, though, that lemmata appearance inflections anon beneath the POS attack while inflected forms just appearance the appellation in bold. Would it create faculty to accept anniversary inflected anatomy access appearance its agnate antecedent on the POS line? E.g.:
:::
:::
:::lemmata (base )
:::#
:: () 18:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
:::It would create alotof faculty if such cases didnt accept an articulation line... (duh!), but thats a bit counter-intuitive and not actual consistent. Your angle looks a bit duplicating. But the capital affair actuality is either to analyze Verb anatomy from Verb, or not. Archetype is . Will we acknowledgment that it is the accomplished close of ? If so, we ability wish to do so beneath a altered attack than the accepted POS one which discusses the meanings of the present tense. — 18:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
:::: In that specific case, I anticipate accepting the analogue curve getting in the aforementioned area is abundant added valuable, than accepting ...um, what was the account of agreeable them out? I see none. -- 19:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
::::: Its arguable whether to amusement accomplished close in the aforementioned way as present close . But I accede that its complicating things for complications sake, absolutely accustomed the actuality that additional issues now haveto yield precedence. — 19:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is one example: . The catechism actuality is whether the verb senses should be in two or in one section. Currently, theyre in two separate ones. If we accumulate them in two, we should accumulate Verb anatomy as the name for the accomplished close sense, but in that case we charge to transform all Verb headers to Verb anatomy headers area applicable. If we affiliate them in one section, able-bodied charge two articulation lines. — 10:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
:Dont you beggarly two analogue lines? Oh, wait, you beggarly two articulation curve to accord to the separate analogue lines? For nouns, we accept some entries that specify on the analogue band itself, (plural only) or such. My assessment is that amid =Verb= into assorted subsections is not accessible (still.) To allow/encourage any of =Verb form=, =Transitive verb=, =Verbal phrase= or any of the additional varieties, seems like a move backwards, to me. -- 13:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
::I dont know, theres a big aberration amid transitive or intransitive senses, and altered verbs forms. In some cases they will be breach up per altered etymology, but I dont understand whether thats the case with . Compare:
burst (third-person blablabla)
# To from centralized .
#
and
burst (third-person blablabla)
# To from centralized .
burst
#
and
burst (third-person blablabla)
# To from centralized .
burst
#
::All variants are currently present. — 17:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Same topic, how should we format-wise handle ? One articulation band for two defs, with explanations aural the template, or two articulation lines, agreeable out analogue numberings? — 09:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there any acceptable cause to aberrate from thumbnails, if including images on a page? The access for has a gigantic image, area the thumbnail seems added appropriate, to me. We accept abundant blueprint complications as it is - I anticipate we should recomment using |thumb| with no guesses create at the px pixel size. Images can be replaced on Aliment with a cogent adjournment afore the change is accustomed here. -- 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
:As you wish, but acquaint . He adds absolutely a lot of them I think. — 19:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I accept afflicted the admeasurement of the headers a bit, so that akin 6 headers no best affectation as tiny as they did. — 11:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikimania is advancing up anon and Im planning to attend, and even to allege there. Im apprehensive who abroad from Wiktionary I ability be acceptable to meet. If you plan on accessory this year, amuse so that we can connect. — 14:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
::From :
This arrangement afield states that a accustomed -ing anatomy is aswell the exact noun of the abject verb form. Ability be true, but this shouldnt be mentioned in this template. It appears beneath the header, and a exact noun, if mentioned, should arise beneath . — 12:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
:It originally said accomplished participle and gerund of, but thats beside the point. Why would participles (verbal adjectives) but not gerunds (verbal nouns) arise beneath Verb? If a gerund is a noun then a accomplished participle is an adjective, no? Agenda that we account participle forms (and the gerund form, admitting not alone labeled as such) beneath whenever we adjure . () 16:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
::Er, well, I anyhow got abashed at . Doesnt present participle and exact noun of aswell cover what is declared at the noun sense? If not, then what is a exact noun? — 17:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I anticipate they are identical, both semantically and a syntactically, and I anticipate that ascertainment extends to about all act of ... definitions here. A able linguist, about (as against to the array that am I) would be bigger able to acknowledge or abjure that equivalence. () 04:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Since we accept taken on the job to ascertain all semantically altered agreement (plurals, accomplished tenses, et al.), I anticipate the act of... senses absolutely accreditation separate mention. — 08:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:::: Gerund forms accord beneath a =Noun= heading, yes. -- 13:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I started a abstract of proposed guidelines for WOTD at . Already it is bigger to a satisfactory amount it could be added to . 16:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a way to get the chat of the day beatific to me by e-mail, in the aforementioned way as dictionary.com does? If this ability doesnt is at the moment, are there any affairs to add it? Or is it not a alive affection to have? Hedley
: I anticipate accepting a affection to forward out the WOTD would be great. To add assimilate the idea, though, if WOTD gets active regularly, should it be offered via email and /? 22:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC) (I forgot to assurance earlier)
The afterward was acquaint by Adam Kilgarriff on the Corpora commitment list
----
CALL FOR PARTICIPATION; Programme now available
Fourth All-embracing Branch on
DICTIONARY Autograph SYSTEMS
(DWS06)
Torino, Italy
Afternoon (13.30-17.30), Tuesday, 5 September 2006
(pre-EURALEX http://www.euralex2006.unito.it)
A concordance autograph arrangement (DWS) is a section of software for autograph and bearing a dictionary. It ability cover an editor, a database, a web interface and assorted administration accoutrement (for allocating plan etc.) It operates with a concordance grammar, which specifies the anatomy of the dictionary.
The branch is accordant for:
dictionary activity managers
lexical database users and developers
lexicographers
students of lexicography, lexicology, computational linguistics
The branch follows agnate acknowledged contest in Brighton, UK in 2002 and 2003, and Brno, the Czech Republic in 2004.
Website: http://nlp.fi.muni.cz/dws06
:Adam Kilgarriff http://kilgarriff.co.uk
:Lexicography MasterClass http://lexmasterclass.com
:Lexical Accretion Ltd http://sketchengine.co.uk
:University of Sussex +44 (0)12 73 705 773
:mailto:adam@lexmasterclass.com +44 (0)79 71 867 845
Brett -- 18:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
::Wow, admitting the absurd relevance, the diction of the aloft apprehension makes this complete about like spam. I anticipate it would be a abashment if Wiktionary fails to accept a adumbrative there. Has this been acquaint on WiktionaryZs All-embracing Beer Parlour? -- 13:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
now has the functionality to add new Expressions and DefinedMeanings. This completes the first important allotment of the software development. We can now add the amount data that we need. The next appearance will apply actual abundant on the versioning of the data; this will accompany us able contempo changes and story data. Afterwards that we will plan on things like acknowledgment of data.. 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
:Congratulations! Truly, a admirable milestone. -- 15:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
At the moment, the =Etymology= area in Arabic entries, if it says annihilation at all, usually credibility aback to a basal verb form. But this is a bit misleading; Arabic words infact go aback to (usually triliteral) basis consonants, which artlessly appear to accord appealing well, alotof of the time, to assertive verb forms. Accede the page for example. What is this page? Is the appellation declared to represent the basis here, or is it declared to be an absolute word? The page lists some words actuality which do not accord to the pagename, suggesting its advised as a basis page. But it doesnt absolutely say so.
Wouldnt it be bigger to Just accept the 3 or 4 words on that page which are infact spelt that way, and to cover an Ancestry area which links the user to a page (ie accounting with spaces)? This would accept a level-3 ‘Root’ branch which would account all acquired words, apparently by allotment of speech. The amount of it is that 1) its a acceptable abode to aggregate all the accompanying Arabic words, and 2) some roots are ‘weak’ and never arise calm as a word, eg is a basis acceptation ‘call’, but autograph it like that calm gives the mistaken consequence that its an absolute word. A basis page could aswell hotlink to affiliated roots in Hebrew etc.
Id acceptable any thoughts on this from Stephen, Dijan, Hippietrail and any additional absorbed contributors and accepted suspects. 16:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
:Yes Ive brought this up afore too. At that time I capital to go further. I capital every commodity on an Arabic chat to go aback to the Arabic root, every commodity on Hebrew to go aback to the Hebrew root, and every commodity on either to go aback to the Semitic root. I then wondered if there were some accepted way of autograph Semitic roots that formed for both Arabic and Hebrew. I aswell capital the aforementioned for words in European and additional langauges which accept adopted Arabic and Hebrew agreement and of advance I aswell capital it for the additional Semitic languages. Along I capital onlinewriting on the roots themselves that showed which words came from them in which languages. — 02:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
There was a accessory altercation about about abacus addition accurate heading. The =Descendants= third (or 4th) akin branch would be acclimated for anecdotic acquired agreement in addition language. This complete OK to everyone? -- 19:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
:I anticipate so far this attack has alone been acclimated for birth in a babe accent – i.e. for a Latin word, it would appearance the accordant forms which accept acquired in French, Spanish, Portuguese etc. – not words in English which accept adopted the Latin. I use this attack absolutely a lot in OE entries to appearance avant-garde English forms. It is best to accumulate this separate from borrowings and so on. 19:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
::Yes Ive consistently had problems with these kinds of headings, including Acquired terms, Accompanying agreement and See aswell because the titles of the headings abandoned do not assume acceptable to acquaint to humans what they are for and they are so calmly and generally abominably acclimated even admitting theyve been connected for years. This does not beggarly that I dont wish such fields because I do and more. In this case I anticipate we charge to accept a bit of a anticipate and altercation of what the clearest branch argument would be for these cases:
::::::::::::All in all Im actual abundant in favour but lets plan out the down-covered cases now. — 21:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
:::
I accept created a page . If there are words you acquisition that are frequently misspelled or accept sub-standard spellings, amuse adjoin them here, with the actual / accepted spelling alongside. 20:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
:Um, the WT: namespace is for shortcuts (only.) I anticipate this should be move to and afflicted to alter to . -- 20:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I could calmly adapt the page to get a added authentic calculation then 18000 for the page. By pasting the argument into chat then stricking control+f (it should accompany up a little window) then hitting the alter tab, you can blazon in
thankyou
:I anticipate that would be abundant added agitation than it is worth. If you were to adapt area by section, to do that, youd still accept to accept subtotals on all 26+ pages. And with every accession or deletion, youd then wish to recalculate those subtotals and totals. -- 22:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
:Acknknowledged. Now that you point that out i would accept to agree.
Thankyou. Aswell beforehand today, a bulletin popped up that you blocked me. Did you block me? If you did then could you acquaint me why? If not do you understand how that could occur.
Please do not yield breach from this message, just a catechism not an acusation.
Xavier 1234567
: I did block you, in error. The absurdity was anon acicular out to me on IRC, so I accessible you. I am not a bot; I do create errors on occasion. -- 06:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Alright, now actuality is an absorbing catechism for you, which I anticipation of while abacus German words to assorted wiktionaries :
In the English wiktionary, we do not admittance an access that is alone the sum of his parts. So, for example, an access for a law for acclimation the modernisation of ones active amplitude would not arete an enty, because one could amount it out from the sum of the entries for . However, in German, it could be accounting as one chat : . I am analytical : should words like that be acceptable in the wiktionary? It is one word, and it meets the three commendation requirment -- but so would, in English, about any additional generic, non-idiomatic phrase. What do we do? 02:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:Or, for added archetype : in English we should actually baulk at because law for the transference of the tasks of administration of the appearance of bovine animals and the administration of the labelling of the meat of bovine animals. On the additional hand, we accept an access for . And as the credibility out, if we acquiesce that access to exist, if do we stop? At ? At (bovine beastly beef labelling blank assignment transference law presentations altercation breach accouterment representative) ? 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
::When it comes to adopted words and phrases, I anticipate they should be included if they infact is so that somebody ability wish to understand about it. This is the English wiktionary, and back our users apprehend English, we don’t accept to cover things that are the sums of their locations ... but actual few built-in English speakers, even if they’ve had several years of German apprenticeship in college, would be able to create abundant faculty of a chat such as . It’s child’s play for a German, but a big abstruseness to an American. 04:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I charge to yield a wikibreak, at atomic from my dishwasing assignment of bearding adapt review. During that break, may advice alike the analysis of bearding edits. () 04:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The ceremoniousness the best autograph and media on the Wikimedia projects from the accomplished year. Amuse appoint abundant onlinewriting that accept been written, or about absolutely rewritten, back endure August. Amuse aswell let the authors understand their plan has been nominated... — 23:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
This abstraction was mentioned briefly aloft and I now accept a abiding action installed.
Comments and suggestions appreciated. — 01:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:While I like the tooltips, they dont angle out actual much, and you accept to move to the alone attack to get the feedback. It ability be nice if, in accession to the mouse-over apparatus tips, we could cover a agenda in the preview-render of the page advertence to the user that they accept called a non-standard. Something like
Your attack is not a accepted Wiktionary header. Did you beggarly to use it?
:Also, I acclaim abacus the Quotations attack (mentioned in ) 12:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I acquisition it odd that appropriate about the time Wonderfool said he was abrogation (January, 2006), Vildricianus appeared. It was appealing accessible Vildricianus wasnt new if he came here. He got appropriate on IRC and started messing with appearance sheets. Abundant of the ability he displayed was absolute to wikis. He aswell affable appropriate into action discussions. Of advance theres the animadversion he create on an of his allocution page in which he seems to accept theyre the aforementioned people. (He after mysteriously deleted that version.) Wonderfool was accepted to accept created some sockpuppet accounts. Wonderfool was aswell angry down for a face-lifting of his adminship, and if Vildricianus is Wonderfool, then conceivably he shouldnt be accustomed to be one, either.-- 03:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:Perhaps. The Agitation templates dont assume to match, though. And WF does still appearance up on IRC, now and then. -- 05:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
::Whether or not Theyrm is barking up the amiss timberline is irrelevant: If you go to , then beneath Wonderfools section, it is declared that These are users who accept been removed for austere breaches of conduct. They cannot be readmitted after acceptable at atomic 90% of the association including at atomic 9 associates that they accept been rehabilitated. If you clue down the altercation for Vildricianus choice , which was one the alotof succesful anytime with 14 for votes, and no argue votes; appealing acceptable it would seem. Also, it would be absolutely a beam if Vildricianus was Wonderfool and became bureaucrat, then on September 15th 2006, to bless a year afterwards the capital page was deleted by the latter, endless of vandals would be recruited and after answer to admins, in adjustment to backpack out abatement en-masse. There are some ifs though. Advancing to anticipate of it, Ive not apparent Vildricianus allege Dutch - if Vildric can, then it is absurd that we can be the aforementioned person. On the additional hand, it would be appealing absorbing to accept learnt a accent like Dutch for the sole cause of accepting assurance of a association in adjustment to abort it. All abroad I can see is, admiral be vigilant, and do you absolutely wish to advance Vild to crat with this accussation over his head? One of the causes I angry down his crat accommodation is cos I doubtable sockpuppetry.......Expect a vehemtel acknowledgment from Vildricianus (whose English is a bit too acceptable for a foreigner) absolutely soon. All the best, Wildrick. -- 07:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
No – Im Wonderfool! And so is my wife! 07:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:Shh, sockpuppet. Dont acquaint them! Alotof admins on actuality are Wonderfool actually. (p.s. Therym is not me - seriously, I was sleeping at 3 in the morning. )--Wildrick 08:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Had you all been a bit added attentive, you would accept noticed that the en:wikt association consists of three users: Connel MacKenzie and socks, and SemperBlotto and socks, who action their US vs. UK spelling POV-wars. As such, youre wrong, back Im one of Connels, and Wonderfool is SemperBlottos. In the average of that is Stephen G. Brown, which is an annual acclimated by a dozen humans (how abroad could he accept all these languages?). Connel I absent the countersign to the Eclecticology account, though. The catchy catechism actuality is then, whose was Primetime? — 08:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
On a added austere agenda though, I dont anticipate our accent abilities match. Its bright Im not a built-in apostle of English, nor that my French is any good, and that WF doesnt accept any ability of Dutch or Russian. It would be impressive, though, to accept addition 5000 edits added up to my count, which is added or beneath what Wonderfool/Newnoise accept been accidental during my presence. That would accompany me to 30,000 edits in 6 months time, which is a bit over the top I guess. But if needs be, a checkusing abettor can calmly prove that this is but a veryshitty accusation. I admiration whose beat User:Theyrm is. — 10:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:Indeed. No added of this nonsense. Aback to plan now guys. --Wildrick 10:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Words as Danish, English, French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish etc. can be noun (the accent or the person(s)) or adjective.
In some onlinewriting the adjective comes first, in others the noun precedes the adjective.
Wouldnt it be added constant if these words were dealt with in the aforementioned way?
Is there a action for such cases?
:No theres not but there apparently should be and Im appealing abiding additional dictionaries accept such a policy. My anticipation is that they are currently added mainly in the faculty humans anticipate of them. Besides that I will apprehend two camps to wish altered things: one will wish the alotof basal or aboriginal or accepted anatomy first; the additional will wish a assertive adjustment of POSs even if that agency putting a little-used noun anatomy afore a actual accepted verb form. Some altercation is absolutely needed. — 02:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally I put these in adjustment of development. If a noun developed from a verb, I put it afterwards the verb. This allows several locations of accent to go beneath anniversary Ancestry area and still ‘mean’ something, after the charge for too some allegorical comments (‘the verb acquired from the noun, which in about-face gave acceleration to the adjective...’). 06:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:Thats how I bethink it too. 10:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Do we accept any argument to the use of sockpuppets here? For instance, if a being alofasudden stops using one Username and creates addition - uses that for a while and then creates yet another. The onlinewriting added are (well, mostly) good. 19:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:Then it shouldnt amount who is the article-creator. -- 19:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:Certainly, sockpuppets are not tolerated, principally. If Wonderfool continues the way hes accomplishing appropriate now able-bodied accept to yield action. Jokes are ok, but accept their limits. Ive acclaimed dozens of accounts hes created, but accept consistently been tolerant. I may lose my patience, though, as others may. — 19:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
::And absolutely a fair few that havent been noticed... -- 19:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I dont see what the problem is. What deceit he accept as some accounts as he brand if hes not using them maliciously? 19:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:One editor, one account. Thats a abiding aphorism that has some acceptable causes and few arguments against. There accept been a brace accounts mistaken for getting Wonderfools, and the additional way round. Patrolling RC is already abundant of a application after his tricks. — 19:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
::Then abdicate your job! -- 20:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
::: WF, Im abiding you bethink how annoying being like this is. You dealt with some of it if you were a sysop. Appropriate now, I abide to block Primetime (and Primetime-like sockpuppets) primarily on the arete of them getting sockpuppets (of a mendacious, backbiting abounding absorb violator.) Acceptance you an absolution to this rule, alone because you say some funny things if youve had too abundant wine with dinner, infact exposes Wiktionary. I do anticipate your sockpuppet accounts should all be permablocked. I absolutely would acknowledge it if youd cut it out. -- 07:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Left or right? Back I blurred , has followed right. Re-format to left, or keep? 1,500 edits only. — 15:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:I adopt left, as I anticipate appropriate affects formatting (or did, the endure time I checked.) -- 15:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
::I begin out that if you adapt area 0, a bare band gets automatically added, so probably, the appropriate archetype is the actual architecture to accept as standard. — 16:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:If the aberration amid these two affects rendering, it should be advised to be a bug in the wiki s/w and reported. A bare band shouldnt change anything. You think? That said, I like the one on the appropriate ... Agenda that annihilation floated appropriate in that section, e.g. image, wikipedia hotlink if it is there, should be aloft the see aswell line. 12:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
::No, there is no aberration in rendering. — 12:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Concerning and its placement.
# no bare band amid arrangement and heading
# one bare band amid arrangement and heading
Seattle# Anchorage and better city-limits in the Accompaniment of Washington, USA.
Seattle# Anchorage and better city-limits in the Accompaniment of Washington, USA.
Seattle# Anchorage and better city-limits in the Accompaniment of Washington, USA.
Or about abroad abreast the basal of the page, constant with area Wikipedia places its Wiktionary links.
Seattle# Anchorage and better city-limits in the Accompaniment of Washington, USA.
Any additional ideas?
— 15:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:I adopt advantage 1 & 2. Chief which one of the two depends on how abundant agreeable there is on a page. If there is added than one band of argument in acceptation area, I usually abode it aloft the accent tag. -- 16:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
::Option 2 is the best. The problem with 1 is that it makes it attending like the Wikipedia hotlink applies to all languages on a page. 08:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
:: I accede with , advantage 2 is the alone one that makes structural sense. The hotlink to the English Wikipedia alone applies to the English accent section. See for an example. Also, it applies to all locations of speech. Wikipedia disambiguates to onlinewriting from POS. For a amazing example, see . We accept 31 definitions for the verb, 22 for the noun. Wikipedia has 17 articles; there is no 1-1 correspondence.
::: Indeed. And I anticipate its hardly abrupt to our readers if a Wikipedia has an commodity on hotlink credibility to a disambiguation page. For this case I created , which makes it say Wikipedia has onlinewriting on. Accompanying to that is , which lets you hotlink to two specific onlinewriting (see for an example). — 17:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:: And the hotlink doesnt administer to the Old English for . Aswell see which has a nice account and links to the English and Swedish Wikipedias. (Not that we should accept the closing in general.) (I was aswell traveling to use as an example, but Connel changed it!) 11:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Id like to create it a bit beneath wide. That would conceivably acquiesce it to affectation bigger if because advantage 3 above. — 16:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
----
::The abstraction of using this if there are n amount of headings and that if there are added isnt actual solid. The abstraction is to move forward, and not re-format things if anyone adds a synonym. If there is no TOC, there is almost a beheld aberration amid 1 and 3, the alone one getting that the accentuate of stops at the sisterproject box. — 17:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
::: Humans accept had agitation award the area link, in the past. -- 18:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:::: If there are alone two sections it doesnt absolutely pay off to use area editing, does it? — 18:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
::::: If that is area a newcomer has gottent acclimated to searching for the link, it absolutely makes sense. -- 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
::So what is the problem? In what way is it accepted not to work? 14:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Ive noticed that a amount of headers accept rollover airship argument that reads This is not a accepted Wiktionary heading. I can accept not absent to try to accredit airship argument to every attack that gets used, but some of them are absolutely common—for example, Usage—and one in particular, References, appears in at atomic one arrangement (). Others cover Announcement (used in several places to announce a allotment of speech) and additional locations of accent such as Verb byword and Adverbial phrase. How difficult would this array of affair be to address? -- 19:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:These adumbration texts were added endure week. Not all of the accepted headings accept been added yet. Ill add those ones now. The chat about it all is over in . Agenda that is incorrect, and is declared to be replaced by . References is altogether valid. But and are never advised to be accurate here. -- 19:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:Actually the abstruse angle was in the Grease pit, but the advertisement is . Discussing which headings are accepted belongs here. Discussing accomplishing data belongs on the Grease pit. — 08:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone has bitched about the way I do acceptance citations, ambitious I attach to . I assumption youll accept to block me in perpetuity as I accept no ambition whatsoever of afterward the guide, and will backslide anyone who tampers with the way Ive done it. The accent is on the cite, not the columnist or source, but this seems abhorrent to some who wish the quotes columnist as the alotof arresting item.-- 20:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
:Ill adduce SemperBlotto: What is the point of accepting standards if we advisedly avoid them? — 20:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
:Please dont abuse to backslide editors and suchlike. This is a common project, and entries you accept formed on are not ‘yours’. If you dont like the commendation architecture you should alpha a added admired chat about how it could be improved. For the record, I dont like it abundant either – admitting I adopt it to your system, which is too abundant on the italics. 08:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:I chase a analytic accepted bookish format, which agency I leave a abounding cite. Footnotes like abundance would be berserk inappropriate at the top. The italics are accepted bookish architecture too (and notice, I even do the bit with quotes vs italics on works cited, depending on the plan quoted). Putting author, work, and links at the basal with no highlighting at all, moves the eye to the cite, and not who is getting cited (bolding the illustrated chat adds to the emphasis). I aswell avert the bound indenting (which works affably for poetry) as attached the bulk of white amplitude (digression: The latest change in the noun and verb arrangement create it actual difficult to deeply affectation images as it is; insisting on added white amplitude alone added defaces the articles). As for my cites, well, Ive abstruse to disagree with the dictionaries I accept at hand; Im afterward Doctors Johnson and Murray in this. I affliction about the actualization of the page as abundant as I do the content. For the moment, the way I do it, while fussy, and alms absolute opportunities for confused or missing apostrophes, reads well. And what would you alter my italicized actual with? Bold? Citations accept to be acutely acclaimed from defs, and like the dictionaries tend to do, I do it with italics. Are we to use html actuality to dabble with chantry size? Apologetic for the ranting. -- 09:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
::You may or may not be right; the point is we accept to ability a accord here, which cannot be done if you debris to altercate it and abuse to backslide those who disagree with you. 09:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:::(in a Brooklyn accent): I already apologized already. So shut up already. (I awreddy poligized awready; so shuddup awready) (Reverting to my natural, accomplished Arctic Midlands US accent), so let us acquisition a consensus, with the already-agreed-upon accord that the accepted official anatomy is deprecated.-- 13:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:::: Accepting lived in Brookyln alone about 5 or six years, I haveto say: whaddahellayatawkinbout? A accomplished two non-conformists (Image:Smiley.gif]]) adjudge they dont like a format, and the two dozen humans who accomplished a accord endure year on the assorted formats are accordingly to be ignored? I dont anticipate so.
:::: If you ambition to adduce changes to the quotations format, youll accept to altercate over anniversary accessory change separately. I accede with Widsith, that citation marks are to be adopted over italics. Dictionaries anniversary use their own appearance for formatting entries; the formats run the gammut. There is no cause to absolute ourselves artificially to a term-paper references format, and there are lots of causes not to. For instance, can you agreement a assertive chantry is loaded on every applicant computer examination this page? Are italics rendered appropriately on all OSs, browsers emulators, cellphones and who knows what-all else?
:::: There are lots of causes to accent who said or wrote something, over what was said...particularly if USENET citations are advised valid. Back the point of including quotations in the first abode is not to prescribe, but rather to call how something is said, the ambience of who said it becomes abundant added important. (On a ancillary note, I still anticipate we should accept a vote to mass-delete all agreement actuality if they arise alone in UrbanDictionary, but no additional dictionary.)
:::: Your aboveboard adjournment of the format, which was fought over at length, is conceivably misplaced. -- 22:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:As for italics, its added complicated than that. If commendation extensively, giving abounding context, one aswell ends up including citation marks aural the cite, and one about feels accountable to alter with the centralized punctuation (which one has to, sometimes, if bifold apostrophes are acclimated aural the text). My capital objection, however, is putting the commendation accoutrement at the top, which ever calls absorption to it. I aswell acutely dislke the acute akin of indentation, which calls added absorption to the actuality there is a citation than to the acceptance commendation itself.
-- 19:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
So, you like it like this, for 9 defs. Just brainstorm a finished, complete commodity on , with full, dank quotes. This is based on ):
# A baby or , accurately the caster of a .
##::Put that cannon up once, and Ill acknowledgment for it that no Injin faces it. Bolt be as acceptable as a dozen sentinels, answered Joel. As for mountin, I anticipation of that afore I said a affricate about the crittur. Theres the new truck-wheels in the court, all accessible to authority it, and the carpenters can put the arrest allotment to the whull, in an hour or two
#The brawl on top of a .
The problem, from my point of view, is to create it pretty, while emphasizing the usage, while de-emphasizing the actuality its a antecedent but at the aforementioned time giving abounding attribution.
Actually, a full, mature, jucily cited article, on , with all-encompassing all-important acceptance notes, will breach the wiki software; and I anticipate anyone who looks the chat up will accede (such an commodity would accept to be advance over several). O, just the adjustment of with this software! O just OED axis up at their aggregate actual noses at such an arrangement!-- 05:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Ive been searching for about that states a policy, but havent begin it. Conceivably I am blind? Or clueless? What adjustment do we adopt POS to appear? I would assume to be Adj, Noun (or Able Noun), Verb. But I deceit acquisition this anywhere? (;-) 20:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:Currently beneath altercation . — 20:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:: The alphabetic adjustment of POS headings was one of the oldest conventions that infact acquired actuality on en.wikt:. The Websters 1913 acceptation accomplishment was accepting abundant added absorption then; but it absolutely is a beneath ambiguous assemblage than any another proposed so far. -- 22:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
This is referenced from a amount of accent name pages, is a amount of adaptation dictionaries. I acclaimed Hippietrail deleted one or two of these as Rosetta spam; approved to chase that advance and had my edits silently elided by Stephen G. Brown. It absolutely looks spammy. Note:
All in all, looks to me like authentic bartering spam. Even admitting conceivably useful. But Im not at all abiding he has any rights to what he is publishing! IMHO we dont wish to be associated with this?
This looks bad account to me. Can we bung these? If not, I would like to make a arrangement to alter them ASAP so that we can bare it if we adjudge to? 21:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
: In general, blankings are artlessly reverted, quickly. If you bare it and add /nominate it on RFD with an explanation, it is added acceptable to infact be bankrupt up. I accede that this smells like spam. -- 22:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:: Thats why Im cerebration of converting it to a template; if we adjudge to accumulate it, that is a acceptable abstraction anyhow (and we can do abroad with the spammy feel ...). If we adjudge to bung it, we can then change the arrangement to blank. Unless you anticipate we care to just adjudge whether to bung it now. The accepted RfD action is a little difficult, this is on a hundred+ pages. 22:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
::: Oh. Are you proposing complete blanking, or area removal? Also, could you amuse accommodate a brace examples? I understand Ive apparent these, but deceit acquisition any at the moment. -- 06:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:::: Sorry, I shouldnt accept acclimated the chat blank. (Scary ...) What I am proposing is to make a arrangement that generates the present text, and acting it. Then we can change it to be beneath spammy, or to accomplish annihilation if we adjudge to. It wont aftereffect in an abandoned alien links area because Ill add the ethnologue arrangement to the pages at the aforementioned time. Examples are (at random) , , and . 11:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
(Note that the amplitude in Beer parlour messes up the URL syntax, Ill accept to see what happens on accent names with two words, if any.) 11:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Made beneath spammy. Aswell agency I can acquisition un-templated pages by analytic on Rosetta. 20:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Ive acclaimed a amount of pages with Alien links to the Ethnologue. Aswell a amount of pages for new (to us) accent names in English. Acquainted that weve accustomed the accepted that accent headers are adapted if and alone if the accent has an IS 639/3 code, and that (IMHO) anniversary such accent name care to accept its own access ...
Ive created a new arrangement to accomplish a band in the Alien links section:
(lang defaults to PAGENAME)
That generates:
This has the advantage of documenting the 639 cipher for anniversary language. (Im using code= as the parameter, will create lang= acting a accent name for PAGENAME if I cruise over a page that needs it. Unless anyone abroad cares to.)
Im actual absorbed in the new accent names we accept added, see , etc. particularily from my allotment of the world. 21:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:I added a lang= parameter, defaults to PAGENAME. See . 14:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to appeal a bot banderole for Minnan-ascii-bot because Hippietrail has blocked the bot due to active a bot after a bot flag. 23:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:To get a bot banderole we accept to accept your bot. To accept your bot we charge to understand what you wish to accomplish with it. Amuse create a angle and it will be discussed and voted on. — 02:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Examples:
a1 = aa2 = aa3 = aa4 = aka5 = aa7 = aa8 = a?
Notes:
1. Amount 4 is acclimated alone if its endure belletrist are , , and .
2. There is no amount 6.
07:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
# Could the bot be broadcast to a added accepted appropriate characters to ascii converter? For example, I would like the aforementioned affair done for as well.
# I would rather see the letter ? (ex. chhi-khoa?-mai) adapted to N instead of nn (ex. chhi3khoaN3mai7). I just anticipate it looks better. This would aswell create it constant with additional on-line dictionaries such as and .
07:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:Good abstraction but this is aswell a battle in ASCII. A-cai, I anticipate there should be a altered bot for Pinyin. For example, an in Minnan ASCII is an3 while in Pinyin, it is an4. 07:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:: I anticipate a PinyinASCIIBot should be a separate bot, not accumulated with this one. -- 07:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:: We dont commonly wikify this blazon of entry, as there is no constant way of entering them, is there? Arent there several, adverse methods of anticipation these? -- 07:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
::Not abundant conflict. Maybe youre anecdotic N and nn. We can use N for ?. I agree. Any added comments? 07:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:: In the (now deleted) entries that I saw, there were some hyphens (-) in the access headwords. Were these correct, or should they accept been spaces ( ) instead? -- 07:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
::Here is how it is done at the Holo-Mandarin dictionary: If you blazon anniversary affricate after tones, and separate the syllables with a abutment (ex. sia-hoat), it will accord you all accessible combinations that bout that (in this case: sia-hoat ?? and sia-hoat ??). You can aswell attenuated your seek by abacus numbers for tones (ex. sia2-hoat4 gives you sia-hoat ??). As a accepted rule, we use hyphens for and . For , we charge the syllables calm to abut alone words (ex. in Mandarin ????, : gonggong changsuo, : kung1-kung4 chang3-so3, accessible place).
08:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:: Aswell in the now deleted entries, I saw being like afterwards the redirect. I anticipate abacus annihilation afterwards the alter syntax is problematic. Does that accept the adapted effect? -- 08:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
::You can add as some categories as you wish afterwards redirects after breaking the redirect. This is a actual advantageous feature. For example, I can make an access for an argot in and abode it in the category. If I so desire, I can make a analogous access that redirects to its simplified equivalent, but abode it in the category.
08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
::Connel Mackenzie, in my acquaintance in the Min Nan Wiktionary, there is problem. 08:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:::You meant to say there is no problem perhaps? -- 09:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
::: Yes. acknowledge you for the correction.
:Would a accent basis be a bigger way of recording these words? Entries could attending something like . .
bun5-gian5 - bun-gian -
but accurately formatted. Humans using the Seek button for bun5 would then acquisition the basis entry. It would be a big index, but could be subdivided like all the others. 08:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:No. It may be added complicated. 09:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:: Youve already articular acceptable conflicts with agnate Pinyin redirects. In all such cases, redirects are not the way to create un-ambiguous entries. That is why redirects are acerb beat on Wiktionaries. Also, we do not use the hyphens amid syllables here. If they absolutely are declared to be non-word components, then it belongs in the Appendix: namespace, not the Index: namespace. But the redirects would be wrong, in either case, I think. -- 09:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:: The behavior of added being afterwards a alter is undefined. The class ambush may plan in this abundance of software, but may breach in approaching versions. -- 09:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:: The accidental being afterwards the class (repeating the headword) is aswell incorrect, BTW. Or were they artlessly meant as a analysis to create abiding the bot was uploading them to the actual headword? -- 09:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
::I anticipate were accepting at the body of the problem with Wiktionary in its accepted state. For adopted