User talk:PUC/2022

Adminship

Hi, PUC. You've been here for quite a long time with good experience and a lot of edits. From that point of view, it's actually a bit strange that you aren't an admin yet. Are you interested in adminship? If so, I'd be happy to nominate you. Cheers! —Svārtava ^[t•u•r] 10:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Svartava: I'm not sure that would be such a good idea. I've been nominated twice before (1, 2), and I don't know if I want to go through that a third time. What does @Qehath think? PUC – 12:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I know that you have been nominated before, but I think that the incidents and the reasons for opposing are too old now. Besides, the nomination was more than a year ago. But feel free to take your time to consider, let me know when you're ready. —Svārtava ^[t•u•r] 12:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Svartava2: All right, I think I'm gonna accept. PUC – 23:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The vote's waiting for your acceptance to start. —Svārtava (t/u) • 13:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• I’d support PUC this time, because they’ve heeded my advice. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 19:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh hell how did I miss this, PUC 2022! — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 23:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Haven't you nominated yourself, Baritonensis, once from a sock? ApisAzuli (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

When PUC stood for Per Utre Cavernam (or something like that, Péer?). ApisAzuli (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

WOTD comment

I tend to agree with you, what place does such a thing have on Wiktionary? Seems moreso encyclopedic IMO TBH. 37.110.218.43 12:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Word of the day

I was wondering how long the comment would last. I guess 12 hours isn't bad. Actually I thought it wasn't very controversial. The information is entirely factual (the wording is taken from the English Wikipedia article), and it's quite hard to argue that in this day and age a military invasion into a sovereign country based on lies, which is in breach of international law, isn't something to be condemned. Anyway, no worries. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Don't mistake me, I don't approve of what Putin and his clique are doing. But I tend to think Wiktionary should refrain from making statements on political and societal issues in general. PUC – 10:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

dosyćci ma dzień na swojem utrapieniu

Hey, where did you get that? I wasn't able to find much on it. Vininn126 (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, should have put the translation next to it. See the translation table at sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof PUC – 14:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see. This seems to be accurate, but I'm not sure about it's idiomacity in Polish... I'll ponder on it. Vininn126 (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, this seems to be the more standard version. Vininn126 (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Navel of the world

A quick search on google and Quiet Quinton pulls up quite a few results, and I do feel like I've heard the expression before. I'm not sure my English editing skills are quite up to snuff, however. Vininn126 (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to note: although I have heard this expression with "navel," in my skewed experience, "armpit" and "asshole" are more common. I'd guess they say "navel" in nice places like Minnesota and Wisconsin. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 19:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively, the form with navel might actually be a separate saying and the coincidental similarity might mean nothing. Now that I think of it, there's subtle differences between the form with armpit and asshole. The armpit of the world is a sucky, dirty place that might be hard to get to. The asshole of the world might be easy to get to, but nobody actually wants to go there because it's so thoroughly awful. In that context, I might interpret the navel of the world as a place that is easy to get to but there's not any reason to go there. It's a town full of car dealerships and furniture stores. Probably doesn't even have a good tittybar. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 20:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

On a further note, one of the indigenous names for Easter Island can be translated as "Navel of the World", and I've seen references to Easter Island by that name. That's the only sense I was familiar with up until I saw this discussion. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

brucellose

Is that a good audio file there? To me it sounds like the speaker has a rather strong lisp. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 14:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha: It's not good, no. Unfortunately there are hundreds of audiofiles by that contributor (Jjackoti), and since /s/ is a frequent phoneme in French that's a recurrent problem. Honestly, I think we should blacklist him. @Derbeth? PUC – 14:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This file is even in category 'Speech impediments'. Oh dear. At least this way I can easily add a rule to avoid similar files. Thanks for letting me know. --Derbeth ^talk 19:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

dépendre

I hope you wouldn't mind taking a quick peak at this. I tried to keep the examples pretty basic, comparing to phrases in books and online. (I might add some more complex to my צרפתית list. Time will tell) — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 15:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Dzienny

It's not trisyllabic. Polish doesn't have gemination like Hungarian, and instead words with two of the same consonants in a row get a full release, meaning there might be a pause or something, but it's not like a hidden schwa or anything. Check any word with two of the same consonant in it besides miękki. Vininn126 (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Vininn126: Ah, I see, thanks for the explanation. I've just listened to bezstronny - same thing indeed. PUC – 21:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Unrelated - I'm preparing pages for a conversion to col3 on der/rel terms, so if you add one, please add a qualifier specifying the part of speech, so the bot will be able to add it to the title, like I did on strona. Thanks Vininn126 (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Skrzynka

The english pages ultimately both lead to skrzynka, which honestly should be both. However, those tall pillars are not popular, so the term isn't widely used, and so skrzynka would be used more often. Skrzynka na listy or pocztowa. Vininn126 (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

And tbh I probably shouldn't have made skrzynka pocztowa a red link. They are listed as collocations. Vininn126 (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Vininn126: Feel free to delete the entry, though I personally think it's on the right side of the SOP line. PUC – 18:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Debesėlis

[1] looks different from what I remember, but it's been a long time. I haven't been able to find the good LT-EN dictionary I remember, but hopefully I'll find it at some point. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 17:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

diff

I don't know how I failed to come across make a virtue of necessity in the considerable time I spent gathering all those other links, but I'm really glad you were able to. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 17:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Qehath: Не за что, братан! PUC – 18:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

get in on the act

The attestable existence of want in on the act, be in on the act, horn in on the act (and possibly others) makes me wonder whether the/an entry should be at in on the act (the existence of horn in notwithstanding). Also get in on makes me think get in on the act might be SoP. If we were to deem it SoP, it would be essential to have get in on the act in a usage example and/or as a redirect to get in on and/or in on the act. DCDuring (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Ouais yé

Bravo mon bro — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 22:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Qehath: Ačiū mon doux! PUC – 21:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Curses

Hell's wrong with you? I accidentally a word and that impedes your understanding to the point that you have to insult me and feign ignorance? Your Block message is an inconsiderate insult and not much more than that. You don't call my writing gibberish. ApisAzuli (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I have no control over the wording; the software provides us with a list of reasons to block someone, and "adding nonsense/gibberish" was the most fitting. That or "disruptive edits". PUC – 19:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, the computer made me do it, Software-Problem, kann man nichts machen. If you didn't consider it appropriate, you wouldn't choose it. You had one chance, proved to be cunt. It's simply impossible to talk to you, and you (you all) got the guts to blame me for being incomprehensible, lying piece of 🤫 ApisAzuli (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Add to that, if you consider Huh? or the like a "complaint" or if you complain behind my back, you have already given up any hope of me understanding the complication. Show me what complaints have been directed at me, I don't see any. Please give notice if it's taking so long because there are many, that I have somehow missed. In any other event, consider that the insult is taking time away from doing my research because your bitching is infuriating as fuck, alte Petze. I am not saying that I don't make mistakes, and that's unlikely to change, but I'm not taking shit from nobody who hasn't even tried. ApisAzuli (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Lol, okay. diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. PUC – 20:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Last time I checked I didn't phrase that as a request and I'm confused why you react. The first two, like your block message, are unacceptable. The third eventually admits that maybe they could have been clearer to avoid confusion; in contrast to your interpretation, they are usually not a confrontational in character. Fourth one has no standing as an aggrassive alcoholic who repeatedly insults me; after the thread was moved to TR I have recently added two points to counter the charges. Nobody cares. Five posits I was refering to words that "look similar". In which world do "campanology" and "tune" ("an unexplained variant of tone") look even remotely similar? How is that helpful? Dismissed. The sixth is a problem that I keep in mind but find difficult to deal with; waiting for EWA to complete. I don't disagree that I am making numerous mistakes of any kind, as said. I can play tu quoque too. ApisAzuli (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@ApisAzuli One of the other items on the menu of block reasons is "Intimidating behavior/harassment". Chuck Entz (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry. Should we go on with the complaints? diff - For până resp. pãnã "till, untill", "From Latin paene ad (“almost to”)", I suggested Pl. ponad, Persian افدم‎‎ (afdom) for comparison. "till, untill" and "last" are easily derived from `at the latest´, like Ger. "spätestens", something like that. How is that so hard to understand? Does it help with the (West) Romance question? Could be, I would also refer to Trümmersprachen in the Italic and Roman sphere of influence if they weren't, you know, Trümmer.

The overarching WTF is simple. Sure, recognition; I'm trying not to be disruptive. That's emotive conjugation: If I do it, it's disruptive, if you do it, it's necessary, if somebody else does it, it is inevitable? ApisAzuli (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Next, maybe I should say something to the first, chronollogically last one from before the block. The past tense endings were from "do, put, place", Fulk's grammar concures, indirectly, and the reduplication was later simplified. If you don't know what that could possibly mean so that you cannot repair a sentence when a missing verb has you dumbfound, that's not my fault. Eventually if you fail to explain your complaint in any way (you being tired of it might as well mean that you should go out more). Especially if Wakuran manages to pick up the notion, it seems rather that User:Lambiam was only disconcerted with the disagreement that was already voiced before me. Because, if you wanted to simply name a binding morpheme, which appears arbitrarily, you might as well not do it. Obviously, it has nothing to do with dealt either, much less delt`s, because English has lost or replace participles. Not to mention, the spontaniously calqued "sight division ring" makes no sense at all.

On the other hand, while I'm sitting over the Schabefleisch fred right now, I don't feel either like reading my rant. But its not like I shouldn't continue with the inquiry. ApisAzuli (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

finir dans le décor

Should this be moved as a ux to dans le décor? Off the top of my head, I can also think of "envoyer dans le décor" and "aller dans le décor." I also see entrer dans le décor. Languageseeker (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

gratiné

Salut. Je peaufine mon français à travers des romans policiers. Tu peux m'expliquer le sens du mot "gratiné" dans cette phrase ?: Il paraît qu’elle est célèbre dans certains milieux gratinés…. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Здравствуй! I'm not a 100% certain, but probably refined / upper-class; compare gratin. PUC – 19:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Where that refers to crust, I'd rather believe it's an opposite case to crétin, from christian, though, I don't really believe the latter was an isolated case. ApisAzuli (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:bor+

I've been doing a lot of cleanup of French lemmas and I'm thinking of using {{bor+}} in place of "Borrowed from {{bor}}" and such. Since some people don't seem to like this I'm checking with you as the main French editor that you are OK with it. Benwing2 (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2: I don't really like it either, but I no longer care too much; you can go ahead. PUC – 11:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Category:Verlan / Category:French back slang

Is there a reason for these to be separate? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Then how?

Then what's the appropriate way to write it according to you? (talking about the term dirty old man) 151.34.37.214 19:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

N...rrR

lol, i didn't excpect anyone to notice it this quickly. thank u for giving me my daily dose of attention, now i can go to sleep :3 Shumkichi (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Btw., I like you, so don't take anything I write to you too srsly. You're French after all, c'mon, I have to like you.

Allons enfants de la Patrie,

Le jour de gloire est arrivé !

Contre nous de la tyrannie

L'étendard sanglant est levé, (bis)

Entendez-vous dans les campagnes

Mugir ces féroces soldats ?

Ils viennent jusque dans vos bras

Égorger vos fils, vos compagnes !

Refrain :

Aux armes, citoyens,

Formez vos bataillons,

Marchons, marchons !

Qu'un sang impur

Abreuve nos sillons !

Que veut cette horde d'esclaves,

De traîtres, de rois conjurés ?

Pour qui ces ignobles entraves,

Ces fers dès longtemps préparés ? (bis)

Français, pour nous, ah ! quel outrage

Quels transports il doit exciter !

C'est nous qu'on ose méditer

De rendre à l'antique esclavage !

Refrain

Quoi ! des cohortes étrangères

Feraient la loi dans nos foyers !

Quoi ! Ces phalanges mercenaires

Terrasseraient nos fiers guerriers ! (bis)

Grand Dieu ! Par des mains enchaînées

Nos fronts sous le joug se ploieraient

De vils despotes deviendraient

Les maîtres de nos destinées !

Refrain

Tremblez, tyrans et vous perfides

L'opprobre de tous les partis,

Tremblez ! vos projets parricides

Vont enfin recevoir leurs prix ! (bis)

Tout est soldat pour vous combattre,

S'ils tombent, nos jeunes héros,

La terre en produit de nouveaux,

Contre vous tout prêts à se battre !

Refrain

Français, en guerriers magnanimes,

Portez ou retenez vos coups !

Épargnez ces tristes victimes,

À regret s'armant contre nous. (bis)

Mais ces despotes sanguinaires,

Mais ces complices de Bouillé,

Tous ces tigres qui, sans pitié,

Déchirent le sein de leur mère !

Refrain

Amour sacré de la Patrie,

Conduis, soutiens nos bras vengeurs

Liberté, Liberté chérie,

Combats avec tes défenseurs ! (bis)

Sous nos drapeaux que la victoire

Accoure à tes mâles accents,

Que tes ennemis expirants

Voient ton triomphe et notre gloire !

Refrain

Couplet des enfants:

Nous entrerons dans la carrière

Quand nos aînés n'y seront plus,

Nous y trouverons leur poussière

Et la trace de leurs vertus (bis)

Bien moins jaloux de leur survivre

Que de partager leur cercueil,

Nous aurons le sublime orgueil

De les venger ou de les suivre.

Refrain Shumkichi (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Two French questions

Salut,

I’ve got more questions, please. Do you know additional senses of « chansonnette » in the police/crime world? In a way how interrogations by multiple cops are conducted? (Until they break and confess). In the Russian translation they used « карусель ».

Also, when you hear « un couteau suédois », do you think of a specific knife in mind, not necessarily made in Sweden?--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Bump, LOL. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Atitarev: Salut ! Sorry, I'm not super reactive but I wasn't forgetting you. Regarding your second question, no, couteau suédois doesn't feel lexicalised / elicit anything specific in my mind, unlike couteau suisse.

As for your first question, I'm not really familiar with such a meaning either, but it does ring a bell. faire chanter, literally "to make someone sing" (compare sing, sense 6), originally meant "to make someone confess" (cf. TLFi, « (d'un criminel mis à la question) obtenir des aveux »), even though the meaning has shifted to "to blackmail". And I see that the French wiktionary has an entry for fr:pousser la chansonnette, meaning "to start talking, to spit it out, to spill the beans". PUC – 20:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Merci ! In case you're curious:

1. The first mention of couteau suédois in "Maigret et le tueur" was as follows — J’y venais… La lame n’est pas large, mais longue et pointue… À mon avis, il s’agit d’un de ces couteaux suédois dont la lame jaillit dès qu’on presse un bouton…. They translated into Russian as складно́й нож (skladnój nož) (jackknife). They always refer to the knife (the murder weapon) so. I am not sure if it is a "jackknife". It seems more like фи́нский нож (fínskij nož, “puukko”). (literally "Finnish knife"). It does seem like it's kind of a specific knife, especially in this sentence: Chez mon oncle, un dimanche, j’ai aperçu ce couteau suédois et je l’ai pris…
2. Re "chansonnette, 1st mention — Qu’est-ce que vous allez me faire ? La chansonnette ? Autant vous dire tout de suite que je suis coriace et que je ne m’y laisserai pas prendre…
3. Then: Cela pouvait durer des heures. Un interrogatoire à la chansonnette avait duré trente-deux heures avant que l’intéressé, entré comme témoin, n’avoue son crime. Or, trois ou quatre fois pendant l’interrogatoire, les policiers avaient été sur le point de le relâcher, tant il jouait bien l’innocence..
4. And again: … D’un autre côté, on parlait de vos interrogatoires à la chansonnette… On traite le prévenu avec douceur et bonhomie pour le mettre en confiance et il ne se rend pas compte qu’on lui tire peu à peu les vers du nez… --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

French numbers

Hi. I am cleaning up French numbers. A few questions:

1. Am I right in assuming that the traditional spelling is dix-neuf, vingt et un, vingt-deux, ..., soixante, soixante et un, soixante-deux, ..., soixante-dix, soixante et onze, soixante-douze, ..., quatre-vingts, quatre-vingt-un, quatre-vingt-deux, ..., quatre-vingt-dix, quatre-vingt-onze, quatre-vingt-dix-neuf, cent, cent un, cent deux, ... deux cents, ..., mille, mille un, mille deux, ... deux mille, ...? I.e. hyphens separate numbers below 100 that don't use et, and spaces are used in all other cases?
2. What about deux centième vs. deux-centième, and vingt et unième vs. vingt-et-unième? Is the former traditional, and the latter post-1990, or are they just two alternative spellings?
3. Since we seem to put the lemmas at the traditional spellings elsewhere, should we do that here too? This does not seem to be the current practice, where e.g. (a) vingt et un points to vingt-et-un, which contains the primary entry; (b) we have both deux cents and deux-cents as primary entries, with the number box on the latter; (c) soixante et onze doesn't exist at all, only soixante-et-onze.
4. Do numbers ending in un inflect for gender? I.e. soixante et une fois (not #soixante et un fois)?
5. Can forms like soixante et uns and soixante et unes ever exist, and if so in what context?
6. Finally, I know that numbers like million, milliard, billion, etc. behave like masculine nouns: un million, deux millions, etc. Is it reasonable to say that cent is similarly masculine? It definitely pluralizes as deux cents, trois cents, etc. but I'm wondering if there's any evidence of it being specifically masculine other than etymologically.

Thanks for your help. Benwing2 (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Sorry to barge on someone else's talk page. Not a native speaker of French but I'll do my best. (1) Yes, the hyphen was (pre-1990) used between any two numbers below 100 in case there wasn't an et in the middle. (2) Yes, they're respectively pre- and post-1990 spellings, ordinals follow the same rule. (3) IMO yes, but it's not my opinion you asked, so... (4) Yes, compare "Les Mille et Une Nuits". (5) No, uns and unes only occur as pronouns in reciprocal senses with autres (eg. les uns avec les autres, les uns contre les autres, les uns des autres) or in other archaic-ish contexts. Not here. (6) No, there's no etymological nor usage-related reason to define cent's gender, just like trois or vingt. Catonif (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Catonif Thanks for your responses! PUC, can you comment? Benwing2 (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

rename Template:R:TLFi -> Template:R:fr:TLFi, etc.

Some of the templates in Category:French reference templates currently have fr: in their name, some don't. General preference is to include the language code where possible, so I am going to rename the templates accordingly. Benwing2 (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Fine by me, but get ready for some pushback from Dan Polansky... P.S.: sorry for not responding to your query above, I'm not ignoring you, I'm just lazy. I'll try to get to it eventually. PUC – 07:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this one might not really be necessary, since TLFi is focused on one language, though I'm not sure we have any norms about that sort of thing.... And I can see the logic supporting either approach.

A rename might help me, though; I've been trying to think of ways to improve that template, but the current system's code is incompatible with mine so it all gets fucked up into the air (hoho, ce tour). We could put the simplified replacement code at R:fr:TLFi and have the old ones updated by bot — assuming no one objects to a new template being able to link to pages other than définition and étymologie. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 16:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

In Wiktionary:Votes/2019-06/Language code into reference template names, more people opposed the renaming than supported. I think plain majority should be enough for what is a matter of preference. It seems that the supporters of the renaming are pushing this further, disregarding the best evidence of consensus that we have. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky Quite rich coming from someone who disregards all consensus regarding RFD's and continues to tilt at windmills. Benwing2 (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

What consensus regarding RFDs? I don't know of any. Surely those who claim to know the consensus can have something passed in a vote, like "RFDs should be closed based on the strength of the arguments made" or "RFDs should be closed based on the combination of the strength of arguments made and tallying". Or something, anything. Ironically, since my arguments against both proposals are very strong, I should be able to close such votes as "Failed by consensus: the arguments of the opposition were stronger. Oh the irony. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky I have no idea what this paragraph you just wrote means. But in any case it makes no sense to try to read the tea leaves of a three-year old inconclusive vote to get an idea of whether to rename a given template. It always comes down to what the community of editors for a particular language prefers. That is why I asked PUC to begin with. Zack above has also made significant contributions to French; you have not so I don't think you have a say in this particular matter (but surely would in the case of Czech). Benwing2 (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you don't understand. You speak of me disregarding consensus, and I say I don't know of it; what's not to understand?

I don't see why the template naming should be inconsistent between languages, as you suggest. Some people just love to introduce more chaos. Surely it is preferable for this project to have a unified practice, and unified practice it had: no prefixes. Who wants to remember which practice each language has chosen? In any case, template renames are handled in RFM and if you get a supermajority there, you'll have your way; the use of the talk page to avoid RFM seems out of process anyway. But maybe there is no longer a consensus that RFM is for template renames, and more chaos is ensuing. I am sure you are all having great fun sowing more discord and chaos where before there was simplicity and order. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Like the golden past that never was, there was never the unified practice you claim. But I'm getting tired of this discussion and will say no more. If it makes you feel better to have the last word, go ahead. Benwing2 (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It surely was much more unified. I remember when some stubborn editors started to rename templates to prefixes without RFM, violating the process; this has then led to the vote. And I guess the same stubborn editors continue. It is like with curlies: the vote on curlies turned out even but the curly-lovers outstubborned the curly-opposers and curlies are now in many more places than they used to be and I have no wish to fight the stubborn people on this subject. The Martian observer will have noticed what has happened and what kind of colors various people have shown; the evidence is in the wiki record. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

небо

Your rollback is an error. How come only нёбо descends from OESlavonic, but not небо?

call the fire department

While yes, "call the fire department" is SOP, it was part of the phrasebook/Emergency category, which details certain SOP phrases that help in certain situations. You most likely agree with me that calling the fire department is important. Therefore, your deletion seems to be unnecessary. Could you please explain why you deleted the page? VGPaleontologist (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I have given you ample time to respond, yet you have not. As such, if you have a valid reason for the deletion of this page, please air it now, as I will reinstate it by the end of this week if you have not. Please read my previous notes for my reason as to it meeting the criteria. VGPaleontologist (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

kiezen is verliezen

Would damned if one does and damned if one doesn't be a good translation for this? GreyishWorm (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@GreyishWorm: I don't think so, but you can ask a native speaker (@Thadh, Lingo Bingo Dingo) for confirmation. PUC – 17:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thadh (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

What does “SOP” mean?

I have noticed that a number of the entries that I have created in Wiktionary have “Requests for Deletion” attached to them. I have taken a look at those requests and many of them just say “French SOP.” I would be delighted if you could explain what “SOP” means in this context. Usually, when I hear or see “SOP,” I think of “Standard Operating Procedure,” but I am not sure that it makes sense here. Wise Bridges Fool Walls (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Sum of parts, i.e. non-idiomatic expression (like "red door"; which is just a door that's red). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, is that what that means? Now it makes much more sense! Thank you very much for your explanation! Wise Bridges Fool Walls (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)