User talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV/Archive5

pioneering

Moving the citation from the adjective to the noun doesn't make any sense to me. You mention feedback - from whom? Donnanz (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

[1]. He is right: the cite (if it is one) seems to be using the verbal noun of pioneer (“to go before and prepare or open a way for; to act as pioneer”) and not the adjective pioneering (“involving new ideas or methods”). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree, but anyway I will "solve" the problem by removing the quote. Donnanz (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  pioneering seems to be a full adjective now. The cite is not an unambiguous example, but it seems OK to me as of adjective use. We could use better examples, but I'm out of time at the moment. DCDuring TALK 15:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  But why is it an example of that sense? Fridtjof Nansen and Roald Amundsen are famous for record-breaking polar explorations, not for creating new methods and ideas. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  I fear that the definition of the adjective may be all too brief, and doesn't take certain meanings into account. Donnanz (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Norway quote lacks context at the moment. It needs an additional sentence, or at least an additional prepositional phrase. Purplebackpack89 21:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Beyblade

Why do I feel so good for adding this with citations? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Finding citations, typing them up and formatting them properly is irritating, but not as much as seeing an inclusion-worthy term being removed because of their lack. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Does this pass WT:BRAND? --WikiTiki89 13:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It’s in the grey area. I lean towards yes. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any gray area. Is it because they are manufactured by different companies? --WikiTiki89 15:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

All the citations (and yes, there are more that I could add) have quotations from sources having nothing to do with the Beyblade toyline or franchise, yet mention the Beyblade toy. Because of this, I think this is an entry that should stay. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 15:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh and by the way Ungoliant, would it interest you to add the Portuguese entry for the Beyblade toy? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 15:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The Beyblade toy is part of the Beyblade toy line. I may be wrong, but I always understood WT:BRAND to mean that the word must refer generically to any similar product. --WikiTiki89 15:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that BRAND isn’t even relevant to generalised trademarks. If a trademark has been generalised so it refers to a type of product, regardless of the actual brand, it has become a typical noun like any other. But this is not the case of Beyblade.

In any case, BRAND does apply to things like Mazda (ety 2), Ferrari and iPod, that are not generalised trademarks (at least that’s not what their definitions say). As for being in the grey area, none of the cites RSY added to Beyblade violate the five no-nos listed at WT:BRAND, which leaves us with the highly subjective goal of determining whether it has entered the lexicon. There is no rule that you can use to determine that for sure, only things that make one lean towards one opinion or another. For me, one of these things is the fact that the plural is commonly used, another is using the term without directly indicating what it is (thus taking it for granted that it is part of the reader’s lexicon), which occurs in the first and third of RSY’s cites.

Still, I wouldn’t say Beyblade is definitely in the English lexicon. Certainly not to the extent that Ferrari is. I hope I made sense, I suck at writing what’s in my mind. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. --WikiTiki89 16:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Look at my accomplishment!!!!

I successfully added something very useful to Wiktionary. All the templates. See spille#Danish, kolonisere#Danish, and spamme#Danish for examples. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 07:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Good job. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your efforts to clear out the WT:RFV page! - -sche (discuss) 02:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I’m surprised no one complained about anything from the latest batch of closings. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I get tired that from liar (88.XXX.XXX.XXX). Thank you for buzulkuşu. --123snake45 (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Missing translations

Hi,

Are you able to refresh User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV/missing translations/ru, please, after the next DB dump? I have a request about the format, though. Like before, pls only include terms where there is no Russian translation at all. Could you use "#" instead of "*" to make it a numbered list? Also, are you able to exclude capitalised words (proper nouns) and words with spaces (solids only)? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Atitarev  Done. I had the program exclude proper nouns. Do you want me to exclude every word that begins with a capital letter, even adjectives like Germanic? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! It's OK. The list doesn't have that many demonyms but I would rather exclude words like Marathi, since it has at least one Russian translation. It must be hard to that, though. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I updated the list. Now it excludes entries even if their only Russian translations are of proper nouns. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again! --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you're rollback was in error, but it was unhelpful

[2]
Please enlighten me.199.7.156.136 02:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Might as well on this page, too.:-)199.7.156.136 02:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I moved your comment to WT:Tea Room#I saw something on Youtube. Where do I discuss it?. How did you end up editing that page anyway? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

My ig'nance. I'm not used to this site. Thanks for the move. I tried the Information Desk. I had to do a CAPTCHA 3 times. and I saw it on the template. My computer might be at fault. Leh. Thanks for the quick response. :-)

So the Tea Room is for this sort of thing. If so, great, as I have a few other extra definitions for words.

199.7.156.136 02:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

There’s also WT:Requested entries (English), if you just want to request a word. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

and it seems that I can edit it, unlike the Tea Room—where I can't give a defense. I'm not looking to to introduce a new term (I note the red lines), but add a definition to an existing one.199.7.156.136 03:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually you can edit the Tea Room. The page WT:Tea Room itself is just a hub transcluding monthly subpages (i.e. Wiktionary:Tea room/2014/July), which are unprotected. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. :-) 199.7.156.136 03:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Oso

Instead of removing the definition, why didn't you just fix it? I have readded the definition, but replaced the noun template and removed the etymology. Please do not remove the definition again. Purplebackpack89 23:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I was going to, but when the editing window opened I was taken aback by the amount of mistakes. People with autopatroller rights are expected to know how to format things correctly.

There is still a mistake, by the way: it is defined as a common noun but you are calling it a proper noun. Can you fix that? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

And you placed the entry below the IW. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it's using a proper noun template. Neither the header nor the template use common noun. Purplebackpack89 01:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Are you going to fix that? The definition you added is that of a common noun, not a proper noun. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not. In the time you have spent whining about me fixing it, you could've easily fixed it yourself. Seems to me you care more about proving a point to me than actually fixing articles. Purplebackpack89 05:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I could, but I wanted to give you the opportunity to improve your reputation as an editor. Bad idea. Next time I will do that then, since you are not interested in fixing you own mistakes. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, it's capitalized. Nouns that are capitalized are proper nouns. "Oso" is a proper noun for the same reasons "Democrat" is a proper noun. Purplebackpack89 05:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89 I'm thinking that we might need to remove your autopatroller flag if you both refuse to stop making edits that need fixing, and refuse to fix edits you've made. --WikiTiki89 15:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89, There was a vote on that, and there was a consensus for me to keep it. There's been one controversial edit since. And I was not in error labeling it as a proper noun; it is a proper noun for the same reasons that Democrat is a proper noun. This is another baiting attempt by Ungoliant, who frankly needs to be banned from interacting with me because his interactions are clearly unproductive. There is nothing in my edits that warrants the entry being removed, or my autopatrol flag being removed. Purplebackpack89 16:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Democrat is not a proper noun. Also, you put the quotations in the wrong order, among other things. --WikiTiki89 17:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Now your are just POV pushing, dude. You claim there's some discussion backing you up. I want links to this discussion. I have started a BP discussion of my own. BTW, you and CodeCat and Ungoliant keep clamoring that those things aren't proper nouns, but you need to be better at why. I can point to a lot of things that are proper nouns that can exist in both the singular and the plural. Purplebackpack89 17:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89 Stop spreading this discussion around! You have already brought it to the BP, so let's discuss it there. --WikiTiki89 17:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

"Democrat" is a common noun, not a proper noun. Ditto for "Oso" (A supporter of the Bear Flag revolt in California). --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

After this archiving the markup size of RFV dropped below 250K, and I think the credit goes mostly to you for closing all those nominations. We badly need someone besides DP to run the bureaucracy once in a while. Much appreciated.

Now, if there were a way to effortlessly put a picture of a kitten with a half-hearted congratulatory label on your talk page, you would probably feel much more satisfied, would you not? :P — Keφr 22:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as bureaucracy goes, you also deserve praise for the amazing awa. I’ve done en-masse archiving of RFVs (or was it RFDs?) before and it wasn’t fun at all. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Excessive blocks

Why did you block 202.78.173.18 for three years? In my impression, spammers usually post only once and never come back. Blocking for this long does not accomplish anything, and may even stop useful contributors if the IP is reassigned. At least you should have left account creation enabled. — Keφr 19:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

My impression is quite the opposite of yours. I used to block them for the same amount of time as typical vandals, but they often came back and started advertising again. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe three years is excessive. Do you know how often IPs get reassigned in average? (Actually 3 years was my guess). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Depending on ISP, it may even be a day. GeoIP says the IP is Indian… Indic… umm, from India. Tracerouting and reverse-DNS fails. I guess the original user is already gone. — Keφr 20:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This IP has been active on WP as apparently the same person since November of last year. The 2007 edit here matches the interests of the WP contributor in a very general way, but I'm not sure it's the same person. My take on this is we have an ordinary WP user who contributes actual content to WP, but is unscrupulous about promotion of his/herself and his/her school- not exactly hard-core (judging by their edit at {{infobox}}, pretty clueless, too). Just blocking them once might be enough. At any rate, I tend to treat a year as forever when it comes to IPs. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

käpälälauta (fi)

Now added. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

auftrennen

Thanks! --91.61.107.180 21:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it. Please separate the contexts using | instead of , otherwise the entry doesn’t get added to the categories. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Done! I created both categories as well since they hadn't been created yet. Thanks for your advice!--91.61.107.180 22:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Feel free to send me a message if you need help with anything. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Munjanes

This user has been causing trouble on Wikipedia, using lots of sockpuppets to POV push on Serbo-Croatian related articles. All of their accounts have been blocked on Wikipedia. It's probably a good idea to be cautious. —CodeCat 16:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I realize that in linguistics start and end-regions are considered in one's language name. As you can see there is no Bosnian at all there. Could we change language name to Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian because it's more used today instead of Serbo-Croatian. --Munjanes (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Bug in Module:pt-verb-form-of

See anseia. --WikiTiki89 15:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I’ve told SB a dozen times... automatic inflection detection doesn’t work for some irregular forms. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there any way of finding all of these errors? It may be worthwhile to detect this in the module and add a category. --WikiTiki89 15:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:pt-verb-form-of#Automatic has a list of the suffixes for which automatic detection works. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is, how do we find the improper uses of the template? --WikiTiki89 15:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There’s Category:Pages with module errors. I’ve fixed all of them. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

a luta continua

Not sure what to do with this; clearly it's inclusible as a Portuguese phrase, but unlike workers of the world, unite or the like, it isn't translated to the local language, but instead is used around the world in Portuguese. Our policies on what counts as Translingual don't make enough sense to me, but I gather that this is not appropriate. What do you think? (If you think it should only have a Portuguese L2, could you please create it?) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but I’m still against its inclusion (see the talk page). The thing is, in Portuguese this phrase is used for any sort of struggle, and it isn’t particularly associated with the anti-Apartheid movement for Portuguese speakers. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

For example, here are the contexts of the first 10 hits at google books:"a luta continua" "não"

1. the struggle for better road maintenance by the government;
2. the struggle for remembering the deeds of Brazilians who fought in WW2;
3. some sort of Buddhist spiritual struggle;
4. the struggle against the Capitalist cabal controlling literature;
5. the struggle between husband and wife;
6. the struggle for chastity in marriage (lol!);
7. some sort of feminist struggle;
8. President Lula’s struggle to maintain his composure;
9. the struggle not to give up believing in spirituality;
10. (no preview)
11. some sort of psychological struggle.

I suppose we could use a {{no entry}} linking to the WP article. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

But in English, it does have an association with pan-Africanism and anti-apartheid movements. Nigeria and Uganda are using it as a Portuguese phrase, but the extent to which they are mangling it and the political purposes to which they are using it seem to have given it currency outside of the Lusophone world. Could it be inclusible as English? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it could. Now that you mention it, the entry originally labelled it as Afrikaans. Maybe I shouldn’t have “fixed” it. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 05:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It's possible we should have a specific policy regarding slogans that are used untranslated in many languages. Another example could be veni, vidi, vici, which is just as SOP in Latin as a luta continua is in Portuguese. --WikiTiki89 14:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I certainly support a policy on this matter (although I'm not clear which L2 you propose on using), but I don't feel quite ready to post about it myself (rather, I'd prefer to avoid the BP). I wonder if we could go straight to a vote to streamline it, and just advertise in the BP. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the L2 either. --WikiTiki89 17:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I’d prefer if these sorts of slogan were moved to a sort of appendix, or added as loanwords in the languages where they are relevant (veni, vidi, vici is attestable in English as a comment on any success). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well the problem is that veni, vidi, vici is probably attestable in almost any European language. --WikiTiki89 17:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

inspecção

as much as possible

A tradução é perfeita? --Æ&Œ (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Sim. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

a rota é idiomático? --Æ&Œ (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Acho que não. Aonde você viu isso? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

É analógico a en ruta, uma locução castelhana. --Æ&Œ (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

(análogo). Seria em rota. Acho que é idiomático. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

É um sinónimo perfeito de a caminho? --Æ&Œ (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Em rota implica que há uma rota definida. Mas no geral são equivalentes o suficiente para que sejam considerados sinônimos. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

deplete#Translations --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Vide exhaust. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

feitiço é galaicoportugués? --Æ&Œ (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Não está presente nos documentos a que tenho acesso. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Como diz‐se refill? --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Vide. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Pode dizer‐se reenchimento? --Romanophile (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Reenchimento refere-se ao ato, não à coisa. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 04:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Parece‐me que a tradução seria simplesmente «outro copo» ou «outra bebida». --Romanophile (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Pode ser, mas refill é bastante usado. Anglicismos são bastante comuns no português moderno. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 05:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Você quer inspeccionar isto? --Romanophile (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Tua conta de Facebook tem novas mensagens. --Romanophile (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Pode dizer‐se « Eu reclamo esta terra em nome do Portugal! »? --Romanophile (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Portugal não leva artigo, então deve ser […] em nome de Portugal! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

De acordo. E o resto do exemplo é correto? --Romanophile (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

O exemplo sim, mas é “pode-se dizer” e não “pode dizer-se”. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Como diz‐se cheerleader? --Romanophile (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

cheerleader, mas sei que você prefere líder de torcida ;-) — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Bridegroom

You're correct, of course. Even though the section said "descendents", I was thinking "cognates".

Mes

In Latvian isn't such name as mes (even archaic sense). We have only pronoun mēs. User:Pereru add it in 2012. He speaks Portuguese not Latvian (see his/her user page). --Čumbavamba (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, but you have to nominate it at WT:RFV, to give other people a chance to prove it exists. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, now I understand, how it works. But my English isn't very good to be able to start discuss. --Čumbavamba (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I started the discussion. If it is not cited in a month, it can be deleted. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Se deve passar a nominação (só com "archaic/dialectal"), já que já se vê na etimologia de mēs como uma forma arcaica/dialetal. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Čumbavamba viņš, ja kas, labi prot latviski (nu, vismaz tekstuāli katrā ziņā), nedaudz off-topic, es redzēju, ka tika radīts lietuviešu šķirklis sù (ar intonācijas zīmi), bet intonācija tiek rādīta tikai headword līnijā (jo intonācijas uzrādīšana nav daļa no lietuviešu ortogrāfijas), bet varbūt, ka es maldos. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Cepuri nost! Es papētīju viņa devumu, un visu cieņu! Tomēr latviešu valodā nav tāds vārds "mes".

(English) Take off one's hat to! I explored his contributions, and respect! Anyway in Latvian isn't such word like "mes". --Čumbavamba (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Man droši vien nevajadzēja rakstīt šīs diskusiju lapas īpašniekam portugāliski, heh, bet tas, ko es viņam/-ai teicu bija, ka mēs šķirkļa etimoloģijā (no Karuļa) ir pieminēts tāds mes kā arhaisks/dialektāls variants un, ka mūsdienu vārda garais ⟨ē⟩, iespējams, radies kontaminējoties ar jūs, tādējādi viņš apmierina iekļaušanas kritērijus (kaut arī es arī nekad nebiju dzirdējis tādu vārdu). Viņam tikai vajag, lai ir pieminēts, ka viņš ir "archaic, dialectal". Neitrāls vārds (talk) 09:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Neitrāls vārds pode encontrar três livros usando essa palavra? Se não, poderá ser deletada. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Neitrāls vārds, Čumbavamba, tomēr jā, vārds "mes" eksistē latviešu valodas apvidūs. Es citēju no Latviešu Etimoloģijas Vārdnīcas: "mēs: Pārveidojus no *mes (sal. latviešu apv. mes) vārda jūs ietekmē." @Čumbavamba, es labi saprotu, ka tāds apvidus vārdu nelieto "oficialajā" latviešu valodā... bet tas nenozīmē, ka viņš "neeksistē", pat ja jūs viņu nekad nav dzirdējuši.

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV A forma "mes" é dialetal. Encontra-se citada em dicionários, como o LEV e o Dicionário do Letão Dialetal, mas não creio que se possa encontrá-la em nenhum texto publicado. (Talvez a variante ortográfica "mes", da época em que ainda não se usava o mácron para marcar vogais longas, possa ser encontrada em algum texto do século dezoito, mas esta não seria a mesma palavra, já que o mes dialetal tem vogal curta.) Será que isso significa que ela não deve estar aqui no Wiktionary? Não há critérios para termos dialetais evitados em textos escritos na língua padrão? (Se esse for o caso, uma boa parte das variantes dialetais que introduzi aqui no Wiktionary -- veja-se Category:Latvian dialectal terms -- deverá ser eliminada...) --Pereru (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No caso do letão, são necessários usos em textos publicados, porque é uma well documented language. Pode ser movido ao apêndice se não encontrar nada, mas mesmo assim, vale a pena procurar alguma coisa no Google Books. O que não podemos fazer é ignorar o comentário de um falante nativo que diz que a palavra não existe!

Uma dica: procure por "mes" junto com alguma palavra comum que contenha mácron (p.e. google books:"mes" "pēc"), assim você evita textos de quando não se usava o mácron. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Então não há critérios especiais para palavras dialetais? Afinal, estas são as que não serão usadas em textos normais (geralmente só em descrições de dialetos, e como citações, não como usos...). O exemplo do dicionário etimológico (LEV) conta como um uso? Outros exemplos de dicionários também contariam?

Eu acho que a questão aqui não é "ignorar o comentário de um falante nativo que diz que a palavra não existe", mas "ignorar a afirmação de um autor de dicionário (também falante nativo) de que a palavra existe". Há, obviamente, razões para um falante nativo não conhecer a palavra, assim como um falante de português poderia não conhecer termos como 'égua! (interjeição: puxa vida!), ou usos como brincadeira no sentido de "festa indígena (e.g., de iniciação)", que só encontrei no Pará (para brincadeira, só entre os índios Tembé que falam português, na A.I. Alto Rio Guamá). Responder à duvida de Čumbavamba com a citação do LEV me parece reação apropriada. --Pereru (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Como exemplo da dificuldade de achar mes em textos em Letão padrão, note que a busca no Google Books que você sugeriu revelou apenas casos de erros de ortografia -- o mes nos exemplos encontrados não tinha sido escrito de propósito pelo autor. Vou dar uma olhada, mas já de saída acho difícil encontrar resultados que não provenham de um dicionário. Não será o caso de se utilizar critérios diferentes para palavras e usos dialetais, mesmo em well documented languages? --Pereru (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

É um problema que também encontro (veja a lista de sulismos na minha userpage), mas não há critérios especiais. Você pode iniciar uma discussão para criar esse critério, se quiser. Não sei dizer se os exemplos de uso contam como uso.

Não se preocupe em perder seu trabalho. Mesmo se nenhum dos regionalismos letões tiverem citações suficientes, pode movê-los ao apêndice, porque os critérios de inclusão só se aplicam ao main namespace.

De qualquer modo, a melhor opção ainda é encontrar as citações. Com elas, a entrada se torna praticamente intocável para sempre, enquanto um critério especial pode ser abolido no futuro. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

doer

Is the third person plural really defective? You use it in an example sentence... Ultimateria (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Spanish dump

Hey UM. Remember back in the good old days when you made Wonderfool a beautiful dump for Asturian translations, enabling him to semi-automatically add lots of really useful content to Wiktionary? They really were good days, back then. Among the happiest in both of our histories, perhaps. Anyway, if it isn't too much of a problem, please would you be able to make me a similar one for Spanish? Even just a little one. I couldn't think of anything more useful to me in my life. It would be sooo awesome. --Type56op9 (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It’s been a few months since your last vandalism spree, so I guess you deserve something for the sake of positive reinforcement :-P

Anyway, I’ll have to write the functions for Spanish HWLs and inflection tables, which I’ll do later today. Add some translations in the meanwhile. Cheers! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Great! I'll work through your missing translation list again. Not so sure where to start, as others have been using it. --Type56op9 (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I’ll update it. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey again. Almost done with the first load, which got up to antecedentes penales. It would be great to get the next instalment! Perhaps the capital-letter ones, as they are usually pretty easy. --Type56op9 (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for double-checking my entries too. I'm trying to keep the error count to a minimal. --Type56op9 (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I’m not sending you the capital-letter ones. There are too many uncitable words and you won’t check if they are. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

fim de semana

Well, right, wrong are difficult concepts to establish, especially in Portuguese. "Final de semana" may not be wrong, but is surely "not preferential" (I don't really know the correct way to put it). Fim = end; Final = final. Dantadd (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Final is very commonly used as a noun as well. We use the label proscribed for words that are not exactly “wrong” but are considered wrong or improper usage, but I’ve never seen nominal use of final considered wrong. All my dictionaries include a noun section for final as a synonym of fim, in addition to the adjective section. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I can provide a handful of sources that state that "final de semana" should be avoided. How can we put these issues in an dictionary entry around here? Dantadd (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably with a usage notes and a references section. If you prefer, you can place the information in the talk page (Talk:final de semana) and I’ll add it for you. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

etymtree

When creating subtemplates for etymology trees, could you please include the whole tree and not just a sub-branch? So for Template:etymtree/la/tu you should really use the PIE term instead. —CodeCat 23:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in creating Template:etymtree/ine-pro/túh₂, they can move the contents of Template:etymtree/la/tu there. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that they'll notice that another one already exists? Why not create the correct one right from the start? —CodeCat 23:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

!

Tu és um falante nativo de Português? Fixe! Alguns dos meus antepassados ​​eram Português. Tharthan (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

That’s interesting. I ran across a book about Portuguese spoken in the United States a few weeks ago; adding some regionalisms listed there is on my to-do list. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 04:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting! Were there a lot of regionalisms or other differences? Tharthan (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Mostly it’s things that were unavailable in Madeira and the Azores (whence came most immigrants): açucrinho (ice cream), frisa (freezer), etc., and placenames: Isto (East Coast), Ilhas Canecas (Hawaiian Islands). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Interesting. I was wondering if maybe they coined some compounds or the like to describe things that ended up being different than the compounds that ended up being used in mainland Portugal. Sort of like how Texas German coined "Stinkkatze" ("stink cat") for skunk, whilst on the other hand Standard German uses "Stinkier" or "Skunk" for that purpose. Tharthan (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

protege minha página usuária

Por favor, protegê‐la. Permitir qualquer a modificar é inútil. Saúdes, --Romanophile (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Está feito. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Stalking

Stop stalking me through my edits you little fucking prick! WritersCramp (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for one month for this message, which is completely unacceptable. —CodeCat 22:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Frankly, this guy doesn’t have the attitude needed for a collaborative project such as Wiktionary. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Forgive my intrusion, but as I was passing by I noticed this ruffian's unforstandy comment. If you don't mind me asking:

How often do you fellows (as in administrators/moderators or otherwise highly-tasked [as in "having much to do on Wiktionary in a given day"] users) run into this hogwash(specifically, this MAJOR talk page hostility)? Tharthan (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Not very often really, at least in my experience. The majority of the hostility here consists of passive-aggressive or indirect statements in the central discussion pages. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

contact WMF

Hello Ungoliant, We reached out to you via email but have not yet received a reply. Kindly check your inbox (or spam, in case our email was re-directed there) and reply to our inquiry. If our email did not reach you, please let us know at grantsadminwikimedia.org. Thank you and looking forward to hearing from you. -- Cheers, Jtud (WMF) (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

greetings

ey Alter, was geht.

Wer bist du? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Dezemebro

Hey. How do you feel about the entry Dezembro? Archaic? Regional? --Type56op9 (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Superseded spelling. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with my entry of seismic fitness?

If it really is a sort of some "dirty terms" for you, would you mind my using its synonym seismic sustainability instead?ShustovVal (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It failed a request for deletion; see Talk:seismic fitness. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Why deletion? What are the reasons for that request?ShustovVal (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The argument was that seismic fitness is a non-idiomatic sum of parts, that is, you can know what it means by knowing what seismic and fitness mean. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others#Template:pt-adj-infl

I've said I really think this is one for Portuguese editors to settle. Other than you... who is there? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There’s LiusComaes but he isn’t terribly active. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

New pt-conj modules

I went for the naive approach and just converted the old data to lua Module:User:Jberkel/pt-verb-table, this way we should not need to change anything. I only converted the data, the code is all new. A first version is sort of working, see User:Jberkel/pt-conj-test. Not sure about the stray "tbody" though, I don't see them locally, will have a look tomorrow. Let me know what you think. Jberkel (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks promising. I don’t think a single module with all the data is a good idea, because then every entry will have to import all the paradigms. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, it should be no problem to split the data it into several modules, maybe grouped by suffix. And are there really 115 types of Portuguese verb forms ? Jberkel (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone of them are only used for a couple of verbs. If the module is unable to deal with metaphony and defectiveness even more data modules will be required lol! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I prefer the approach you've taken which actually encodes language rules instead of just doing table lookups. I think the best approach is to keep the tables for now, move everything from templates into modules (mostly done), make sure everything works and then do another refactoring to reduce the size of the tables. Jberkel (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I split it into 3 data modules. Could split it into more if needed, but i think this should do for now. Performance-wise I don't think it makes a huge difference. Jberkel (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Special:Diff/31255834

It was caused by m:User:Ricordisamoa/SectionTools.js. I disabled it, thank you. --Ricordisamoa 07:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Don’t worry about it. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting English words

Thanks for that list. I've done a few, and deleted a very few (e.g. grassbread only occurs in the fictional Wombles universe), and will gradually continue with it. You found some fun words :) Equinox ◑ 06:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

That one I added after seeing this video (I don’t remember if it actually used the term, but once I found out people make bread out of grass, I thought it worth investigating whether the name existed). There are probably many that are uncitable, especially those in the gibberish categories.

It’s interesting to see how you are wording the definitions. The new list already has 45 entries, so let me know when you’re done with the current one. BTW, if you could keep a list of those you don’t add, that would be great. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

figura#Descendants

Algumas línguas (ast, nap, sc) têm mais do que um descendente. Todos são variantes alternativas? Saudações, --Romanophile (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Precisamente. Note que eu distingo entre grafias alternativas e variantes. São todas, exceto os descendentes serbo-croatas, variantes e não grafias alternativas. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Mittelkonsole

I saw a redlink for Category:German words prefixed with mittel-‏‎ in Special:WantedCategories and changed this to a compound before looking at the history and noticing that you had just made the change in the opposite direction. I don't want to make a big issue of it, but I think you need to be careful about declaring elements of German words to be affixes. This is, after all, a language that's notorious for throwing adjectives, nouns, verbs, adverbs, prepositions, and the occasional low-flying aircraft together into long, single-word compounds. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasn’t declaring it a prefix, the original entry already listed the component as mittel-, I merely used the correct template. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

ἐΰς

This adjective only has a couple attested forms... what else do you propose we do? ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα)

That was an accident, sorry. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

memrise

What exactly made you perform this edit (moving memrise to memrize)? You wrote in the edit summary "only attested with -ize", but this certainly isn't the case. A quick Google search shows a website and a song titled "Memrise", and Google actually autocorrects it to memrise. One could certainly argue the -ize form is also used but to actually rename the article after it and say the -ise form does not exist doesn't really make sense to me. Bruto (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Web hits aren’t valid for attestation. Please read WT:ATTEST for more details.

If, after reading that, you are still sure that it’s attested I will recreate the entry, but I will make a request for attestation. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Etymology

Perdoe minha falta de atenção, não cometerei mais este erro. Agradeço pelo aviso. - Alumnum (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

BP collapse

I think your collapse of the discussion was in error. User:Dan Polansky re-opened it earlier today because he believes, like I, that refactoring signatures is inappropriate. In addition to the belief that the discussion should keep going, I believe the collapse summary "drama-mongering" to be POINT-y, I believe it inappropriate for Kephir to collapse or close a discussion about his own action, and I believe your use of rollback to be inappropriate. Purplebackpack89 23:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Whew! You’ve finally taken the hint! If the problem was the summary, you should have changed the summary. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not the only problem I have with it. I don't think that the discussion should've been collapsed because Dan was still talking. I am as displeased with you for collapsing it as I am with Kephir. Purplebackpack89 23:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Why don’t you start a page with all my nefarious deeds to get me desysoped as well? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately for you, the page is shorter. You at least have enough sense not to press the "block" button solely because you disagree with another editor. Purplebackpack89 00:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That’s a pity. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It makes no sense at all why you're rooting for me to start a discussion about taking away you're mop. If you're thinking that it would be an excuse to block me, sorry, but starting a discussion on a topic is never a blockable offense. If you're thinking I would do it in order to stop you from collapsing discussions, sorry, but you'd still be collapsing discussions without a mop. I'm still waiting for an explanation of why it was a good idea for you or Kephir to recollapse the discussion after Dan uncollapsed it, BTW. Purplebackpack89 05:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

So close! Actually it’s because every minute you spend going through my or Kephir’s contributions is a minute you won’t spend wasting other people’s time with your childish drama-mongering. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Portuguese adjectives

It looks like a lot of PT adjectives are not displaying properly; bilabial is simply the one I found. e.g. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acidental#Portuguese shows the term as "acidenta". I think this would lead to misunderstandings for people who dont know the language well enough to know the headword is actually acidental. Im just letting you know whats going on as I was trying to fix bilabial but could only come up with a manual soluation that would be tedious to display on all of them. CodeCat seems to be editing the templates, that could be the source of the messup. Soap (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I was working kind of feverishly to make sure the incorrect forms didn't display for long. It should be all fixed now. —CodeCat 14:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I should have known something was going on. But even so, acidental still doesnt have the -l, and I presume that other -al adjectives also don't. Soap (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok I fixed that too. —CodeCat 15:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Module:pt-adjectives

I converted {{pt-adj}} and {{pt-adj-infl}} to use this instead of Daniel's cumbersome templated system. But I don't know any Portuguese so there may be some mistakes in the inflection types. Could you check them all to make sure? —CodeCat 14:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The only issue I found is that words with the same form for the masculine and feminine don’t work the same way when they’re outside the same pagename: . But I guess this only affects the documentation page. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you check the superlatives, augmentatives and diminutives specifically? I noticed that in the original templates, there were some where c doesn't become qu before a front vowel, and other irregularities. I also had to guess some of them, so you should make sure I guessed right. —CodeCat 16:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I’m going through them. So far there is nothing wrong, but it need a parameter for extra lines. For example, cheio has diminutives with the stems chei-, cheii- and cheioz-, and superlatives with chei- and cheii-. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

For multiple alternatives, you can just call make_diminutive multiple times with different stems. Each time it adds the new forms onto the existing ones. —CodeCat 17:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@CodeCat the masculine of the diminutive of adjectives ending in -a also ends in -a (fodinha). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... the module doesn't currently allow for that. I created make_diminutive_a for this purpose. It's not the nicest solution but it works. —CodeCat 17:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Fazer bem

Obrigado pelo aviso. Estou ciente desta política agora. - Alumnum (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

manchu

Could you take a look at this entry? Apparently the new module goes on strike if the data isn't exactly the way it wants it ... Chuck Entz (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 04:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

pneumoultra...

Alguma razão específica por ter apagado duas vezes o verbete pneumoultramicroscopicossilicovulcanoconiose? Sabemos que é uma palavra fictícia e que não tem uso real em nenhuma língua, mas uma entrada com tal informação seria válida caso uma pessoa sem o conhecimento disso recorra ao dicionário para confirmar se a essa palavra tão assustadora existe e se é usada. Talvez a falta de fontes? O Wikicionário em português possui uma página para este verbetes, mas também está sem referências. Creio que tenha sido porque não passou no processo de aprovação. Mas por que então a palavra pode ter uma entrada em inglês, mas não pode ter de uma de suas traduções? - Alumnum (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Nós não incluímos palavras que não são usadas; como esta falhou um request for verification, só pode ser readicionada se três citações válidas forem adicionadas. Para serem consideradas válidas, devem ser independentes (usadas por autores diferentes), devem abranger pelo menos um ano de uso, devem estar em meios duráveis de armazenamento (livros, jornais e artigos publicados, postagens na Usenet, CDs e DVDs lançados são considerados duráveis, enquanto blogs, sites, inclusive outros Wikcionários, não são), e o mais importante nesse caso: devem estar sendo usadas, e não mencionadas. Uma palavra listada num dicionário ou lista, ou presente em frases do tipo “pneumo... é a palavra mais comprida”, “não consigo pronunciar pneumo...” está sendo mencionada. Estaria sendo usada em frases do tipo “João sofre de pneumo...” ou “pneumo... causa mortes”.

A palavra tem uma entrada em inglês porque em inglês ela está em conformidade com estes critérios (vide Citations:pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis), admitidamente por pouco. Talvez tenhamos mais sorte agora, mas até que as citações válidas sejam encontradas, a entrada deve permanecer excluída. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 04:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Entendido. Talvez eu adicione a entrada de novo, futuramente, com referências de acordo com todos os requisitos. - Alumnum (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

gare

Ao que indicam as fontes, o gênero é realmente feminino. Perdoe, novamente, minha falta de atenção. Já corrigi o erro. - Alumnum (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sugestão para palavras de antes da reforma de 1990

Nosso glossário lista três categorias para palavras do passado: dated, archaic e obsolete. A primeira abrangeria palavras "antes em uso frequente, porém agora fora de moda ou em uso ocasional"; a segunda palavras "não mais em uso geral, mas por vezes compreendidas por pessoas com maior conhecimento" e a terceira palavras "não mais em uso e provavelmente incompreensíveis".

A categoria que usamos em português para as palavras anteriores à reforma de 1990 é obsolete, o que me parece um pouco exagerado, pois são palavras amplamente compreensíveis e o que fez seu uso quase cessar não foi a moda linguística, mas um ato legal. Hoje a categoria de termos obsoletos em português (Category:Portuguese obsolete forms) conta com quase 1000 palavras, mas minha sugestão é que revisemos esta classificação, pois para mim ela soa equivocada. - Alumnum (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Eu havia criado uns templates especiais para cada mudança da ortografia (como {{pt-obsolete-ü}} para palavras que perderam o trema; vide Category:Portuguese form-of templates para os outros), assim qualquer mudança na classificação pode ser realizada com poucas edições. Na prática nem todas palavras com grafias alteradas os usam.

Quanto à melhor classificação, creio que seja a de {{superseded spelling of}}, que é a que venho usando. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

{{superseded spelling of}} não é uma categoria separada, ela continua redirecionando para {{obsolete}}, que, pelos motivo que expliquei, não é muito apropriada. - Alumnum (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Isso pode ser mudado. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Pronto. Resta uma questão: as grafias que são superseded e obsoletas (as que foram mudadas por acordos mais antigos) dever ser marcadas como obsolete ou superseded? Eu prefiro obsolete, o que você acha? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Por mim isso depende do quanto a palavra é reconhecida por falantes modernos. O problema de obsolete é que o termo mais forte que nós temos, usado para palavras que não são inteligíveis nos dias de hoje; isso fica ainda mais confuso quando crás está em archaic, por exemplo, que ainda não é tão forte como obsolete. Acredito que o que vale é seguirmos o que está no glossário (as definições de dated, obsolete, archaic e superseded) o mais fielmente possível e que, se necessário, devemos modificar as classificações atuais. - Alumnum (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Mudei a identificação de crás. Realmente obsolete é melhor. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Então mudemos as entradas que precisam de mudanças. Para palavras de antes de 1945, obsolete é preferível, mas em alguns casos usamos archaic. - Alumnum (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I weigh in on this, especially since I don't know Portuguese well enough to write it: The problem here is that our labels are designed with English in mind, but English has no official body in charge of it, and thus nothing like a spelling reform- we simply have nothing that matches. As Alumnum noted, "obsolete" in our usage refers to being gone and forgotten, but I doubt anyone a year after a reform would have any trouble reading a book from before the reform. In that respect, "dated" would be more accurate. As far as speaking and writing, though, using the old style doesn't just mark one as out of date, it's officially incorrect. In that sense, "proscribed" or "nonstandard" might be better. I guess "superseded" is about as close as we can get to showing both the change with time and the current proscription. I wonder how well it fits into our current label/categorization scheme, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The English way of doing things doesn’t hold well for Portuguese. Our language regulating bodies are taken super seriously. Here’s why the labels other than superseded aren’t as good:

• obsolete: the latest reform was applied a mere 5 years ago, which makes it a bit strange to call them obsolete. Also, a few people still use the pre-reform spellings, usually as an act of rebellion (I know this sounds dramatic, but, as I said, the regulating bodies are taken very seriously, with governments, publishers and educational institutions enforcing the official orthography). OTOH, spellings made obsolete by older reforms aren’t used at all, which is why I support marking those as obsolete;
• archaic: pre-reform spellings aren’t used to make the text old-styled;
• dated: this is used for words in the natural process of becoming obsolete or archaic, with old people still using it and young people considering it nonstandard. This is not the case of pre-reform spellings, as age doesn’t directly indicate who uses it;
• nonstandard or proscribed: by itself, it is inaccurate because at one point they were standard. This leaves now nonstandard or now proscribed, which are OK, but I think “(now nonstandard/proscribed) alternative spelling of ...” is unnecessarily verbose, and “superseded spelling of ...” is at least as clear;

This is why the special templates (e.g. in acção, aqüífero) are so important. They give a more detailed explanation of the situation, and whenever we decide to change how we describe these forms, we only to need to update a few templates instead of going through thousands of entries by hand or bot. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

depois

O que significava depois na língua galaico‐portuguesa? O mesmo que o do português moderno? Saudações. --Romanophile (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Acho que o mesmo. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

semi-automatic

I had already checked the Norwegian entries, in fact I only entered them a couple of days ago. Would you like to restore them to where they were? Donnanz (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not? Donnanz (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Examine the revisions more closely and you will see why some translations still need to be checked. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Everything was OK before your modifications. I can't see anything wrong with the Norwegian entries which I made, I don't know about the others. Donnanz (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Every translation table must correspond to a definition. Since the table didn’t have a gloss, it was impossible to know which sense the translations referred to. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you added another section for translations. Why didn't you say so in the first place? The Norwegian entries go under "partially automatic". Donnanz (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Next time pay more attention instead of wasting my time. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, you wasted my time. Thanks for being so unhelpful. Donnanz (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It is unbelievable that you’ve been here for so long and still hadn’t noticed the problem of translations to be checked. Read and understand Help:How to check translations and the next time you see translations that need to be placed in the correct table, do what it says instead of bitching to me. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

When I made the entry it was fine. It was you who moved the goalposts. Don't preach to me. End of story. Donnanz (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you realise it’s the translations and not the Norwegian entries I’m talking about? I didn’t even edit them. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Module:pt-verb-form-of

There are a bunch of module errors in entries for forms of negociar, pospor, putrefazer and reluzir. They may have been triggered by edits by CodeCat to one or more of the following: Module:headword,Module:headword/templates, and Module:links (of the templates and modules listed at the bottom of the entries, these are the only ones that have been edited since the last time I remember checking for module errors), or they may just be errors by SemperBlottoBot, which seems to have created all of the entries in question just recently. Without knowing anything about the modules in question or Portuguese verb forms, I have no clue.

Do you think you could check into this? There are few entries with unrelated problems in Hungarian- and Arabic-specific modules, but there have to be at least 70 with this problem. I'd be happy to help clean things up, but I have no idea what needs to be done. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It’s the bot. I’ll go through them. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 04:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh god, I just ran across a load of entries with wrong conjugation. It’s going to be a long night. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 04:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Media for learning languages

I recommend you to use Duolingo for learning German and Italian. It's free, without ads and a useful way to get into languages. I learnt Italian there and being on an abroad trip, I realized I could have a simple conservation with Italians after having learned for 9 months on Duolingo. Each day, it took me about 15 minutes. I also tried occasionally Portuguese. In addition, there are Spanish, French, German, Dutch and many more - unfortunately not Latin yet. But likely to be in the future!

Check it out and tell me how you find it! --Pt.GM (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually I found out about Duolingo last week, and it’s amazing. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Equinox

Hello,

I apologize for the edit to equinox, but I do not recall making that edit, nor do I believe I ever would. It looks foolish. AmericanLeMans (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Module:pt-conj / Template:pt-verb-form-of

I made some further progress with replacements for {{pt-conj}} and {{pt-verb}}, test pages are available here: {{User:Jberkel/pt-conj-test}} and {{User:Jberkel/pt-verb-test}}. I'm reasonably happy with it, the last remaining templates to be converted are {{pt-verb_form_of}} and friends. I noticed that you already did some work there ({{pt-verb-form-of}}), so just wanted to quickly check what the current state is, in order to avoid doing unnecessary work. And looks like {{pt-verb_form_of}} doesn't make use of the inflection tables so they don't have to be converted right now.

Jberkel (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

pt-verb-form-of is working fine but there are a few things that need to be said about it:

• it hasn’t replaced {{pt-verb form of}} yet. That will need a bot;
• I’m not sure the automatic usexes were a very good idea. I’m thinking of removing this feature;
• for obvious reasons, automatic suffix detection doesn’t work well with every irregular verb. I need to rework the code so it adds a simple text and a maintenance category when this fails.

Concerning the conjugation:

• the first-person singular imperatives need to be removed, as was discussed in WT:T:APT. This is because they don’t exist: they were invented by the guy who created the templates;
• conjugation of verb phrases (i.e. beijar de língua) is no longer used by the Portuguese editing community. We might as well remove that feature.

Cheers! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, in this case I'll leave {{pt-verb_form_of}} untouched for now. I'll remove the first person imperative (was wondering about that as well) from the data modules and conjugation tables. I'd like to leave the compound / verb phrase logic in for now, it's not much code with the refactored modules and can be changed easily afterwards. Another thing I want to do is to move some logic from Module:pt-conj to the new Module:pt-headword which only got recently created by CodeCat (talk • contribs). Module:pt-conj will serve as pure inflection module which can be called from other places, like Module:pt-headword.

Jberkel (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I added some testcases for pt-conj, and there are some failures, could you check ? looks like some data is missing for -aver (Module:pt-conj/testcases) – Jberkel (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

-aver is defective. How do I declare that a form doesn’t exist? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

ah, ok, this shouldn't be a problem in the table itself, but the tests failed because some expected keys were missing, just fixed it. – Jberkel (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

anno e canna

Após o Acordo Ortográfico de 1943, Ms e Ns duplos foram removidos da língua. Como ambos os termos podem ser amplamente compreendidos por falantes modernos do português, removi sua classificação de obsolete. - Alumnum (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ninguém usa essas grafias. Elas são completamente obsoletas. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Colocar essas grafias no mesmo patamar que acto, idéia ou aqüífero, que são ocasionalmente usadas, é um grande desserviço aos leitores. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Insisto que há um problema em usarmos as predefinições obsolete, archaic e dated para termos substituídos, pois elas se referem à palavras que caíram em desuso (e logo podem não mais ser compreensíveis) e não à grafias de uma só palavra que mudaram com o tempo. Por exemplo, "pharmácia", "commando" e "ennegrecer" não devem se misturar como "boticário", "esgrouviado" e "crás". Os três primeiros são apenas variações da grafia podem ser facilmente compreendidos hoje em dia, enquanto que os três últimos são palavras completamente diferentes, e estes sim merecem a classificação de obsolete ou archaic. Apliquei o termo dated às palavras d'um, d'uma, d'uns e d'umas também, para enfatizar que esses últimos ainda podem ser compreendidos, mas agora estão "fora de moda", conforme a definição do glossário.

Essas duas palavras que modifiquei (assim como algumas outras) tinham essa única grafia em Portugal antes de 1945, e algumas palavras, vide "connosco" e "comummente", permanecem até hoje. Talvez para quem é do Brasil realmente possa parecer obsoleto, mas para pessoas velhas em Portugal não; e como este projeto é de amplitude global, creio que devemos evitar esta parcialidade.

Volto a dizer também que superseded aplicaria-se a qualquer grafia que tenha mudado por um ato legal (e não por queda natural em desuso, como seria o caso de obsolete).

O que eu estou querendo dizer, é que com a nossa classificação atual (que marca obsolete como "palavra não mais passível de compreensão"), um estudante estrangeiro de português que utilize o Wikicionário pode pensar estes termos já não são mais compreensíveis hoje dia e decaíram naturalmente por falta de uso (em vez de um ato legal), ou seja, essa classificação lhe implicaria duas afirmações falsas.

Minha sugestão, que pelo que você tem dito creio que possa concordar, é que separemos a categoria "superseded" entre respectivas subcategorias para os acordos de 1990 e de 1945 (e possivelmente de acordos anteriores), e façamos o mesmo com as predefinições, indicando até quando e onde cada grafia foi usada nas páginas, para que o leitor possa distinguir com clareza esses detalhes importantes. Creio que tudo seja apenas um problema de definição - Alumnum (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

O que?! Foi a reforma de 1911 que aboliu as consoantes duplas, não a de 1945. Mesmo assim, essas grafias já estavam caindo em desuso muito antes de se começar a pensar em reforma ortográfica, e depois da década de 1920 é quase impossível encontrá-las exceto em livros antigos republicados. O fato é que virtualmente nenhuma pessoa hoje usa essas grafias, seja no Brasil, seja em Portugal, seja na África, seja na Cochinchina, portanto devem ser marcadas como obsoletas.

Aliás, ser compreensível não impede uma palavra de ser marcada como obsoleta. Veja Category:English obsolete forms; quantas dessas não têm o significado bastante óbvio? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Realmente. Mesmo assim ainda há uma diferença entre "palavra obsoleta" e "grafia obsoleta" e ainda acho que criar essas subcategorias que mencionei seria útil ao projeto. - Alumnum (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)