User talk:Renard Migrant/archives/2

New messages at the bottom. Please always write in English, unless you think you are unable to

/archives

Category:French terms needing attention

Hi there. Anything you can do to reduce the size of this cat? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, though about 50 of those were probably my requests in the first place. Do we have any active native French speakers? Lmaltier is mostly active on the French Wiktionary and not here. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It can be next on the list after User:Renard Migrant/things I may have broken by accident. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Done, sort of. The ones left I either can't fix or need 'additional definitions' and I just can't be bothered. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

19th century socialism

i hope this can grow into a general discussion forum for 19th century socialism, as per renard's wishes

bot: rfe under etymology header

I just noticed that your bot made a bunch of mistakes like this one. Could you possibly try to find and fix these? --WikiTiki89 23:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is what to look for. I might just have to make a list of all of the edits and check them all. But the answer is yes. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Renard Migrant/things I may have broken by accident. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

indébordable

Hi there. How would you translate the word indébordable in the sentence "Sa couverture de terrain fait de lui le meilleur joueur au monde sur terre battue où il est pratiquement indébordable." (from Rafael Nadal)? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure, it seems to be unbeatable but what's the link between that and déborder? fr:Spécial:Pages_liées/indébordable gets two other tennis related hits for indébordable in newspapers. They have neither indébordable nor débordable as entries. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it seems to me - maybe you can't get the ball past him, or can't get him to put the ball out. I was wondering if déborder meant to put the ball out, but I can't find such a meaning. I'll see if I can find a French glossary of tennis somewhere. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/d%C3%A9border doesn't seem to help. It just means to overflow either literally of figuratively (as in overflowing with generosity). Renard Migrant (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Lexique du tennis might be of use if my French was better - if you find "bord" within the text you will get a few hints. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

From [[1]] it seems that coup de débordement is a passing shot. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

So I've gone for unpassable. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. By the way the tennis sense is also 'not able to be passed' just a specific sense of pass that you need to know. Format as subsense (##)? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

moulinier

Hi there. The French Wiktionary defines this as "Ouvrier employé au moulinage de la soie". I don't understand "the milling of silk". Any ideas? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

fr:mouliner has "Faire fonctionner rapidement un appareil qui possède une manivelle" (To operate rapidly an apparatus that has a crank). The thing is, I don't know how you make silk. Do you sort of flatten it into a single material? Renard Migrant (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I think I have seen this. With the cocoon in hot water, you fix one end of a silk fibre to a sort of frame and turn a handle, drawing the thread from the cocoon onto a sort of spindle. I'll have a look at -pedia and see what they say. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

morphozoaire

Hi there. Can you think of an English word/term for this? (It's on fr.wiktionary). SemperBlotto (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No but google books:morphozoaire suggests it's dictionary-only anyway. I can see an Old Dictionnaire de l'Académie Française definition but it's since been removed. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Even just Google turns up dictionaries. It's in French-Spanish, French-Portuguese and even a French-Armenian dictiionary, but so far always verbatim the same text "Se dit d'un animal qui a une forme bien déterminée." I've added it to Appendix:French dictionary-only terms. Didn't we have enough one on RFD that we could only find in phrasebooks? Meaning sports shop or something? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I can't remember the sports shop (there again, I can't remember what I had for breakfast). SemperBlotto (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

polyamatype, polyamatyper, polyamatypie

Hi again. Do you think that these are also dictionary-only words? There's no obvious translation, and nothing similar in the OED. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll give it a try, morphozoaire actually I just looked up to find some examples of use to see it used in context, but couldn't find any. Someone found one for morphozoaires on the French Wiktionary. Anyway I'll give them a try. What dictionary are these from? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

French Wiktionary - normally fairly reliable. (I'm just trolling through their poly- words, seeing which ones we haven't got) SemperBlotto (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

They've imported the entire Littré dictionary on there as well as a whole 19th century Dictionary de l'Academie. The dodgy ones are probably from those two. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll ignore them. I'm checking non-obvious ones against the OED (online). SemperBlotto (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Well we've only found one unattested one so far. Polyamatype and polyamatypie look fine. Polyamatyper on the other hand I can't find anything for. Gallica might get 6 pages of results but they're all either dictionaries or for polyamatype(s) which could be a verb form, but actually isn't in any of the citations. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It's some sort of printing system, the old-fashioned sense of a printing press that prints several letters at once. That's all I can work out. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I've just checked on the French Wiktionary and they're stuck on zero citations for polyamatyper as well. Lmaltier suggested it might be 'always oral'. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks + an additional question

SemperBlotto also commented on my question regarding the formatting of the page for "vniust" / whether the page should be there or not etcetera and he raised the point that it may need to be put as Old English or Middle English and suggested I didn't need to repeat the definition.

Since you gave a helpful answer and seem to know what you're doing around here I though I'd also shoot my follow up question to him / my explanation your way to get your thoughts since I figured you guys probably wouldn't notice it as a response in the original question. So excuse the giant block quote:

"I put this as a reply in the new users question area then I realized you probably wouldn't see that so I decided to post here instead. (That is what Talk Pages are for, right?)

The reason I included a definition for "vniust" is because it is really more applicable specifically to the one definition of unjust (3 iirc) than a pure carbon copy of the modern usage of the word, hence why I included a tweaked version of that definition under vniust.

It's not Old English -- it starts popping up in Middle English as "vniuste" circa 1384 but Spenser and the KJV (so ~1580-1596 and then 1611) are considered the start of Modern English just using anachronistic spellings (Spenser and the writers of KJV were purposefully writing words to LOOK like Middle English while intending them to be pronounced like the spellings of their day because it was "more formal") -- so as far as I can tell the word really occurs mostly at a liminal point between Middle and Modern English; at least it's used in both forms of the language and it seems to show up the most in Spenser, the Geneva Bible, and the KJV Bible, all of which would be modern English with goofy spellings (but the Wycliffe Bible is certainly Middle English).

Is there a way to classify it as both a Middle English word and just normal English to illustrate the nuance?"

Also, forgot to add this part to my question to Semper but the English Dictionary defines vniust like so:

"adj (a) Of a person, God: wicked, unrighteous, sinful; also as noun: the wicked; (b) of a person: doing wrong (to himself), harmful; (c) of a judge, God, etc: perpetrating injustice, unfair, inequitable; of an official: corrupt."

So that's some additional distinction between it and the modern unjust.

ThanksBradapalooza (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Well both is acceptable. Semper's right that there's no need to copy and paste the definition. Our cut off date is 1470 and for dead languages, which Middle English is, you only need one citation to support existence. So it's both. WT:About Middle English might mention this but if not {{alternative form of|unjuste|lang=enm}} or whatever page name you want it to be might be a good choice. Or just define as the English word 'unjust'. {{alternative form of}} is to avoid duplication, especially since people tend to update one page and then not all the others with the same meaning, {{alternative form of}} gets round this by such pages not needing to be updated. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

bleu

Can this French adjective also mean green - referring to a novice? (I've just added bleusaille) SemperBlotto (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• p.s. Could you also look at "bleuter" on the French Wiktionary - what is the sense of "bleu" in the second definition? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Mostly now you're asking me about terms I don't know about. Looking up bleuter got me to fr:faire l’école buissonnière. The why seems to be that it's an East of France borrowing from German. http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/bleusaille suggests it's from the noun bleu « Soldat récemment appelé sous les drapeaux; jeune soldat » (that definition comes from conscrit). Renard Migrant (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

plongeurs‎

Kennybot had a tendency to insert links to CNRTL in a huge portion of French entries here. This wasn’t an awful idea per se, but it also inserted links into places where it was inappropriate, such as obscure spellings, where a corresponding entry was totally nonexistent. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 17:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking about that going to the Grease Pit with that because some of them link to 404 pages (w:HTTP 404). KennyBot linked to pages in Category:French lemmas so I assume at one point plongeurs was inaccurately categorized as a noun. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

s:fr:Wikisource:À la découverte de la Littérature Française/Parcours Littérature médiévale/Les premiers textes en français

Renard Migrant (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

article

Do you want to add the Old French section to this? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 02:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

q̃

You may have missed my ping at Talk:q̃. I would like your input. --WikiTiki89 19:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes I don't know how to 'get' pings. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

verax

Have you ever encountered the word verax in anything French?

There’s an old game that features words from Middle French, and sometimes the Frankish units will respond to you by saying ‘verax’ when you tell them to do something. (I can mail you the sounds, if you are curious.) Do you recall anything like this? Given that the Franks respected Latin, it seems plausible, but I’m having a difficult time retrieving evidence. Now, it’s possible that its use was hypothetical, but I haven’t seen any sources claim that. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 19:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

In a word, no, try http://www.atilf.fr/dmf/ it's ridiculously useful. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Aw hell, it was probably merely a Latin word than a loan word. That would explain why I can’t find it in the middle of French texts. Thanks for helping, though! --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 20:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The direct descendant is verais (verai is from the accusative). Renard Migrant (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe that almost every single adjective and noun in Romance are based on the accusative case. Deus, emporium, nova and stimulus are some notable exceptions, which all come from the nominative case. Omnibus is a very notable exception because it’s from the dative case. But all of these words were learnt relatively recently. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 20:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

There are some inherited nouns from the nominative case: fils. And many given names are derived from the nominative: French Charles, Jules, Georges, Spanish Carlos, Andrés, Marcos, etc. --WikiTiki89 20:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Bloody hell, now I have the urge to create another appendix. Maybe even a category. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 20:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention Spanish Dios (and Portuguese Deus). --WikiTiki89 20:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Quite a lot of the forms ending in -us or -um are borrowed rather than inherited. In fact I'd imagine 100% of them. Other than fils I'm struggling to think of another one where the form inherited from the nominative is the surviving one. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Dieu might be from the nominative case, and I think that it was inherited. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 20:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I would probably say that Dieu is not, since s-less spellings are attested in Old French, when the s was still pronounced. I vaguely remember there being some word that has an œ in it that is derived from the nominative, but I can't remember what it is and I might just be entirely mistaken. --WikiTiki89 20:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Another interesting thing is that while Spanish has Dios with an s, Ladino has דיו (dyo) with no s. --WikiTiki89 21:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89: I remember reading on Wikipedia that the ‐s was not pronounced, although that may have been a feature from the late period, or maybe a dialectism. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 21:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you just misremembered the line "In particular, all written consonants (including final ones) were pronounced, except for s preceding non-stop consonants and t in et, and final e was pronounced [ə]." --WikiTiki89 21:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

traître. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89: Maybe this could clear your thoughts.

Latin: tempus /ˈtɛm.pʊs/ "TEM-poos"

Vulgar Latin: /tɛmps/ "temps"

Proto-French: /tɛns/ "tens", /tans/ "tahns"

Old French: temps /tɛns/ "tens", tens /tɛns/ "tens", tans /tans/ "tans"

Middle French: /tãs/ "tahs"

Modern French: /tɑ̃/ "taw"

--kc_kennylau (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Renard Migrant, Wikitiki89: you lot may find this helpful. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 14:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

hom and its variant spellings could do with a review. I wonder if you looked up a load of citations whether they supposed case distinction between hom and home would actually stand up to scrutiny. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven’t looked deeply into the citations, but I’ve wondered if any spelling can be used for both the pronominal and substantive senses. Given that on is not supposed to be used obliquely and that Old French still had a nominative case, it is quite probable that the pronoun derives directly from homo, whereas the noun is from hominem. I had originally suspected that the pronoun was simply from the accusative case, but now that I think about it, a nominative derivation sounds more logical. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 02:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

oïlitan

Hi there. This French word has French, rather then English "translations". I can't figure out how to fix it. (Similarly, the Italian oitano). SemperBlotto (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

See w:Langues d'oïl. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

langue d'oïl is indeed an English word, I think oïl language is also attested, right? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

OK - I've added an English section. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Declension of Old French avogle

Is it confirmed? --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It follows the regular pattern and I haven't seen it on any list of irregular adjectives. Anglo-Norman On-Line Hub has a concordance feature for checking individual forms if that helps. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

But it never changes in [2]. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

If you type in avogles, you get 9 hits (12 for avogle). The first one for avogle is 'Li avogle i alument' which is clearly plural because of the article li and the verb form alument (not alume). Renard Migrant (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Avogles masculine nominative singular: "Ja trois anz avogles ere" https://archive.org/stream/livesedwardconf00luargoog/livesedwardconf00luargoog_djvu.txt. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright. It makes my Vulgar Latin reconstruction extremely difficult. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Could you provide an evidence for the feminine singular nominative form of the Pages that link to "Template:fro-decl-adj-mf"? --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by evidence, but yes it shouldn't be that hard. There's a good discussion of aveugle here which as well as being in French it's stuffed full of technical jargon so it's hard to read. Basically it says the etymology is unknown and while the most common theory is ab oculis it doesn't work very well morphologically for ab oculis to become a noun and then an adjective (yes it's actually in that order by attestation anyway). Renard Migrant (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I could also say what other possibility is there? voiable doesn't take an -s in the feminine singular because feminine singulars, nominative or oblique, don't take an -s (Faral page 15), and it can't take an -e because of the mute final e (no different to French visible which does not have a for visiblee). I'm pretty sure the no second -e after a mute final -e is mentioned in {{R:fro:Einhorn}} but I borrowed that from the library and I don't have it in front of me now. Finding individual attestations shouldn't be hard either except telling the nominative and the oblique apart can be difficult especially as they are identical in form (it's all about position, not structure). Renard Migrant (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

What I mean by evidence is attestation. The nom_m_sg of chier has an "-s" because the corresponding Latin form cārus has a final "-s". The corresponding feminine form is "chiere", where the final "-e" comes from the corresponding Latin form "-a", which became a schwa. The feminine plural forms "-es" comes from the corresponding Latin "-ās", where the "a" became a schwa again. From Latin to French, only "a" becomes schwa. The other vowels in word-final position are simply deleted. That is what I mean by "[i]t makes my Vulgar Latin reconstruction extremely difficult". Because "-es" simply cannot appear in the nom_m_sg form. The "g" also posits much problem for the reconstruction. Latin "auricula" simply becomes "orécla" and then "oreile" and then "oreille". --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

If the question is about aveugle I can't help much; {{R:FEW}}. If you're asking for a source I have one, it's {{R:fro:Einhorn}} page 26. If you're asking for citations of all Old French adjectives the end in a weak -e the no it would just take too long. Sometimes I think nouns get assimilated into regular class I declensions even if that's not what the Latin etymon would logically lead to. Finally, ignoring the g because I can't help with that, a form like *aboclus [3] can't give *avogl because of the final -g would be a bit like stabulum giving an Old French *establ. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm asking for a citation of the feminine singular nominative form of any adjective that ends with "-able", to be specific (because the "corresponding" Latin form would be "abilis"). For the stabulum, it never went to French. The French word "étable" comes from stabula. Do you have any more example of Laitn -ulum developing into anything? That would be interesting. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That's sufficiently clear that I can do it. That had never occurred to me, that particular case. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

All the Gallo-Romance languages insert a prop vowel word-finally after combinations of consonant + sonorant. This is why they appear to preserve the -e of the -ere infinitive ending in verbs ending in -re, this -e is a prop vowel rather than a direct continuation of the original vowel. The vowel is the same regardless of what the Latin original vowel was. So for the combination -clis, after deleting final -is, a prop vowel would be inserted at the end of the word, giving the attested -e of French. —CodeCat 17:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

There this one: "ceste terre est arable et semable et aprés la vesture emporté chescun an nos purroms nos avers ilokes pester" (Anglo-Norman On-Line Hub under semable) but it's tricky for a couple of reasons. 1) Godefroy gives shorter citations and like I said, nominative and oblique comes from the context not the inflectional endings are they identical, so if the citation is too short you don't have enough context. In later Old French (and earlier in Anglo-Norman) the case system breaks down anyway so you need a long enough citation before say, 1300 in mainland Europe not in the British isles. I also don't want to spend a whole weekend on this. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Having said that Godefroy esperitable seems to have a couple that fit the bill, the last one on [4] "haute dame esperitable" seems to be vocative hence takes the nominative case (like "biax sire!" instead of biau seignor). Renard Migrant (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Anything beyond this I think you're going to need to ask someone with more knowledge than me. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

continuation

Hey Gloves. How's my Old French at continuation#Old French? bonne continuation --AK and PK (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Fine, I've pretty much started running everything through http://atilf.atilf.fr/scripts/dmfX.exe?LIEN_DMF;LEMME=continuation (or whatever the word is) which links to 3 or 4 other dictionaries. This one links to http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/complement-godefroy/continuation which confirms it. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It's also what I'm using for Old Provençal because it links directly to the right page of the FEW. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

And I find it incredibly odd that none of us have ever added a French entry to that page. --AK and PK (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes and I suppose the Old French needs disambiguation too. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it applies to the all the meanings (especially the basketball one). --AK and PK (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

We should really have lists of the most common missing French terms. Most of them are I suppose blue links which is why they've not been spotted yet. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Italian pronunciation

Hi Renard Migrant, you might be interested in this discussion because of what you wrote here. — This unsigned comment was added by ‎ 185.114.22.229 (talk • contribs) at 09:29, 8 April 2016.

Etymology 'ONE'

@Renard Migrant Thank you for your reversion, because that is what I for a long time thought. However, am a little confused as I revised my own edit to avoid any contradiction with Chuck Entz's, which I now believe to be accurate! Andrew H. Gray 11:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Andrew]]

Oh really? I'm sorry the user name and the signed name are so different I never thought they could be the same. Go right ahead in that case. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

fil, fils

What is the (lemmatic) translation for son in Old Provençal? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 17:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

https://apps.atilf.fr/lecteurFEW/lire/30/521 lists filh and fiel, which I assume are inherited from fīlium. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

CFI and idiomaticity clarification

Current:

An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components.

Proposed replacement:

Each single word is considered to be idiomatic. A multi-word term is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components.

What do you think? This is a follow-up on something that seemed to bother you for years.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me quote you: "There's actually no protection for single words in WT:CFI anyway, we just never delete them if they exist." So what do you think of the above? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I think pragmatically, while counter-intuitive, this is the simplest way to do it because it means not changing the first paragraph at the top. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

(outdent) I see. What about this?

Current:

This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and idiomatic.

Proposed replacement:

This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and, when that is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

This is better and I can't see anyone really objecting to it (though some people see no reason to codify anything that's this blatant). Probably best to leave the rest of that sentence alone, even if 'more formal' is basically just wrong. The more changes you make the harder to get it through a vote. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

All right. I'll create a vote when there are not so many of them. Or you can do it yourself. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I created Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-10/CFI and idiomaticity clarification. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

That ought to do it. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The Fifty States is ‎in the same style as the Thirteen Colonies

The Fifty States is ‎in the same style as the Thirteen Colonies, so will that be marked for imminent deletion Mr Taz (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, so now it's not in the same style. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

now you have reverted the edit that made the Thirteen Colonies the same as on the fifty-first state Mr Taz (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

fifty-first state is in the right order; your edit simply moved the header and category ===Proper noun=== away from the definition. Thirteen Colonies does have a definition as well as listing the territories that make up the 13 Colonies, Fifty States does not. I don't think it has a definition, or if it does, I don't know it. Sure, the United States is made up of 50 States but that's not a definition of 50 States any more than flour, eggs, and sugar needs a definition because of Victoria sponge. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Your definition about the 50 States can also be use against the 13 Colonies Mr Taz (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Your bot MglovesfunBot breaks articles

I reverted several edits, for example resplendant, rampaunt, recreant. Yurivict (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't the bot, it was me. There's an extra bracket that shouldn't be there. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

bor wit nocap

The category was discussed User talk:Daniel Carrero#bor with nocap, between me and CodeCat. It's a possible proposal that I believe would need to be discussed in the BP and have a vote created, eventually. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Aquitanien

Salut, j'ai vu que tu avais aussi comme langue maternelle le français (pour ma part, je suis billingue). Ca te dirais de m'aider sur la reconstruction du language Proto-Basque l'Aquitanien? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Aquitanian_lemmas UtherPendrogn (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Non je n'ai pas le français comme langue maternelle, de plus, il faut peut-être réduire à fr-3 parce que je ne vis plus dans un pays francophone. Pour la langue aquitanienne désolé mais ça ne m'intéresse pas, en plus, j'en sais très peu. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

PS apologies for not writing this reply in English, as stated in my own rule right on the top of the page. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

MglovesfunBot converting n-g into non-gloss definition

MglovesfunBot is converting some uses of {{n-g}} into {{non-gloss definition}}, with the edit summary "bot: bypass redirect to {{also|}} which has been causing confusion". Example: diff. Is something going wrong with the bot? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It's one of the minor edits the bot does when it finds other things on the page to correct; that one however was because I forgot to check 'skip if only minor edit' so that one should have been skipped and wasn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Minor bot task

Hello! {{kl-noun form}} was recently deleted, but has between 100 and 150 transclusions. Would you please replace with {{head|kl|noun form}}?__Gamren (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a bad deletion, by the way. You're not supposed to delete a template when it's used in the main namespace. Yes, I will get on it. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I probably have a share of the blame, there; I speedy'd it, expecting the deleter to orphan first. But thank you.__Gamren (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:q

I think you ought to tell your bot that {{q}} is there to be used, is legit, and shouldn't be altered to {{qualifier}}, It's rather senseless. DonnanZ (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

In the absence of an answer I have decided to continue using {{q}}. It is a very convenient editing tool, too convenient to ignore, and shows no ill effects. DonnanZ (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying not to use it. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Then why on earth does your bot change them all? I had countless bot edits pop up on my watchlist. DonnanZ (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Readability basically, saves trying to remember what {{q}} stands for. I had it look up what it directs to. See below. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

And who decided that? You alone, without any blessing? DonnanZ (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Correct. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

For the record, in User talk:Daniel Carrero#propose a vote to rename (1) i -> q; (2) italbrac -> qualifier q; (3) qualifier -> q?, I was asked in February 2016 to create a vote to basically propose using {{q}} in all entries. I did not create that vote yet. I'm not saying we should use {{q}} over {{qualifier}}, it depends on what people decide, and it can be discussed. I, personally, prefer {{q}}. Relatedly, I dislike {{i}}. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Daniel Carrero: That's interesting. I didn't know {{i}} existed, but having seen it, I'm not tempted to use it instead of {{q}}. If and when the vote comes up I will vote for {{q}} of course. DonnanZ (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually {{i}} is much older than {{q}} (2007 vs the end of January). I didn't and still don't like the "introduction" of {{q}} when we already have {{Q}}. That seems like begging to confuse people. —Enosh (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

{{i}} used to redirect to {{italbrac}} which itself got directed to {{qualifier}} and {{i-c}} and {{italbrac-colon}} got redirected to sense. Basically it's a lot of work to try and remember what redirects to what so if you have a bot go through and unify them it saves a lot of effort on the part of editors trying to read the wiki code who can nevertheless use whichever damn template they like. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe we should create that vote later, with 2 options to choose: either using {{q}} or {{qualifier}} in all entries. If anyone can run template-replacement bots without prior agreement, basically someone else could run another bot and replace them all by whatever they want, even {{i}}. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

In any case, I think running of the bot for this purpose should be discontinued, pending the outcome of any vote. DonnanZ (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I believe running the bot for this purpose is a violation of WT:BOT. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I've already had the punishment spelled out in WT:BOT. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think any punishment is needed even if I disagree with you, because you are not breaking anything; namely, you are doing questionable automated edits in many entries, without seeking consensus. The bot policy mentions this punishment: "I will un-do [...] any edits which consensus decides were unwanted.", but just discussing and voting about what exactly is the name we want seems better to me, so I don't think you need to undo your edits. But I'd prefer if you stopped doing these edits until further discussion.

MglovesfunBot stopped converting {{q}} to {{qualifer}} in October 31, which was 5 days ago. The bot was also converting {{n-g}} into {{non-gloss definition}} without discussion and consensus. If the bot starts again doing these template replacements without discussion, I will leave it alone without blocking it, but if anyone else wants to block the bot, I won't stop them. My reason is: you are basically a trusted admin even though the user name "Renard Migrant" does not have admin rights, I don't think you are doing anything in bad faith, and you are not breaking anything, as I said. Instead, I'll start a BP discussion asking whether the bot should be blocked. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the MglovesfunBot has been doing this sort of "bypassing template redirect" thing for years and years and years. No one complained about it before. So you can't just show up one day and claim there is no consensus. --WikiTiki89 11:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

It has been complained about before in Wiktionary:Grease pit/2016/February. I suspect the majority of users haven't realised what has been happening, unless they monitor bot edits, or their own watchlists in the case of pages they have created. DonnanZ (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikitiki89, are you saying that we can do whatever we want without showing consensus if we do it long enough? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that Template:q, the subject of this discussion, wasn't created until 28 January this year, so any bot edits of it could only have occurred afterwards, not before. DonnanZ (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that if you do something publicly for a long time and no one complains, that counts as consensus. And also that when MglovesfunBot first started doing these things, there was probably a discussion that explicitly established consensus, in accordance with our botting policy. It's a reasonable assumption that if MglovesfunBot was breaking the botting policy, it would have been blocked from the very beginning. --WikiTiki89 13:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's more like it was so minor nobody discussed it. It seems to have become controversial in the last year whereas 5 years ago no-one cared, and 10 years ago it was being done by a different bot (Mzajacbot, although I can't spell it, if anyone knows how to spell it please say so). Renard Migrant (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Renard, if you don't mind, I fixed the name of the bot in your message above and linked it to the bot user page. Let me know if I shouldn't have done it.

In defense of Renard Migrant, Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2010-04/User:MglovesfunBot for bot status did mention "General cleanup of [...] bad redirects" as part of its job description; what constitutes a bad redirect apparently was not discussed, but it appears to be correct that 5 years ago no one cared. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

If the bot edits are uncontroversial, such as changing Wikipedia to wikipedia, no one will complain. But if they are controversial as in this case, the complaints will start rolling in. DonnanZ (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I will refrain from creating a BP discussion immediately about q vs. qualifier, but maybe in a few days I should create it, if no one beats me to it. The things is, I already created a discussion yesterday suggesting new ways to handle taxonomic names, and I prefer to handle controversial issues one at a time when possible. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

This is possibly the stupidest conversation I've ever had on this wiki. I think we should all just pause and consider how ridiculous this conversation is. Mostly I'm surprised that no-one thinks that converting {{Wikipedia}} to {{wikipedia}} is controversial, as it's the exact same process. I'll probably get a 45 year block the next time I put a space between two words. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

That's another topic, putting a space between two words. I have just been looking at streetcleaner. DonnanZ (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

LOL. You shouldn't waste spaces, I hear they are an exhaustible resource. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I just added a blank line to my talk page and nobody complained about. Hypocritical much? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't even know what this is about, I'm still figuring out a lot of notations and coding. But I can say this is one of the dumbest "debates" I've seen on the site. Renard Migrant is right, at this point might as well block minor errors. There's a lot of hypocrisy on this site, the main type being "If I do something without approval it's fine, if someone else does it they should be punished and it's wrong and undemocratic." I can't remember who said it, but an applicable quote is People don't want a fair system, they want a dictator who agrees with them. UtherPendrogn (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Controversy of short vs. long template names

Admittedly, it does make sense that doing template replacements may sound like a uncontroversial, minor thing, and I don't know other wikis handle it. (I kind of remember there was a rule in Wikipedia forbidding edit wars merely to change the color of a TOC template, which sounds minor enough to me.) I also believe you when you say that nobody cared about it before. But in Wiktionary:Grease pit/2016/February#Mglovesfunbot and renaming i/q/qual -> qualifier, you mentioned a personal attack against you, and I don't think this is the case; I was one of the people who participated in the discussion started by @Donnanz and I don't wish to attack you.

Rather, even if you think that complaining about bot replacements is moronic (which is a word you used), I'd like to you to (please) acknowledge that there were a number of discussions and votes about template replacements and people gave arguments in different sides: I don't think I can summarize the opinions of everyone here in a single sentence, but basically some people prefer longer, explanatory names because they consider that they make the purpose of each template easier to learn without following each redirect, and other people prefer shorter, abbreviated names because they consider that the function of many templates can be deduced from the context, and that the template names distract from what is most important: the template contents and parameters. I support the latter view.

See Wiktionary:Votes/2015-11/term → m; context → label; usex → ux for a noticeably larger vote in which people gave different reasons to support, oppose and even abstain multiple bot replacements. You supported 2 of them. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll be having your bot blocked the next time it does anything whatsoever as well. Fair's fair, let's see how you like it. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

User:MglovesfunBot is not blocked. I don't have a bot. I'm just trying to talk to you normally. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Macrons

Is this still an issue? (diff | hist) . . m Grēcland‎; 12:10 . . (-90)‎ . . ‎Renard Migrant (talk | contribs)‎ (Reverted edits by Renard Migrant. If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page.) UtherPendrogn (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

No it's not an issue; they're not allowed and haven't been for about 10 years. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

So... Should I fix it? UtherPendrogn (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I've listed it on WT:RFM as I can't move Grēcland‎ over Grecland because Grecland needs to be deleted to make way for it. Only an admin can do that. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)