Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2024/October

discussion rooms: Tea room • Etym. scr. • Info desk • Beer parlour • Grease pit ← September 2024 · October 2024 · November 2024 → · (current)

---

The root boxes were a bad idea?

Is it only me who finds it hard to orient amoung the etymologies for the root languages? I mean, Hebrew and Arabic, not the bock saga. I understand that it is a linguistical tradition to use root system for Semitic etymologies, because of the nature of semitic languages themself, when they are root languages.

But all these root-boxes are placed in a weird corner, and many of them do not even created, while many of the words have both etymology AND the root (see for example all the mess at אדום entry). In the same time, many of these root entries have no etymology either (see ث ق ل having no etymology, while its derived word ثقل has both root-box AND etymology).

If everybody think we should only use the root boxes insted of normal etymology system, than am gladly will help to sort out the Hebrew words at least into a root-box etymology system or whatever. But in this case, what we should do with the "Related terms" sections? They are completely useless if we use these root boxes (and we are using them already anyway, so this paradox bothers me even more). Tollef Salemann (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The related terms sections are useless, given that they clutter the page, though the benefit outweigh the burden in other languages, and the root system is a better system that centralizes Semitic related terms. The rootboxes are also necessary because otherwise the etymologies are trivial non-etymologies just having the purpose of stating a root. I do not share your impression of weird corners; אדום is a good example: the etymology sections contains actual words, the boxes the superficial structure by which we make relations and new words could be created. Fay Freak (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Should the letters of phonetic alphabets be 'letters' rather than 'symbols'?

I've noticed this discrepancy for a while. I assume it's because phonetic alphabets are usually unicameral, and perhaps it's a pain to have two 'letter' entries under Translingual, one with case and one without. I bring this up because of Latin chi, ꭓ, which has a capital form in Unicode not because of any national orthography, but because it has a distinct capital in Lepsius's phonetic alphabet. We therefore need to link to the capital from the lower case and vice versa, which means that we now have symbols with orthographic casing.

If we have 'symbols' that are cased letters, and used to write languages, what's the difference between a 'symbol' and a 'letter'? Should IPA, NAPA, Lepsius and Teuthonista letters all be moved to under a 'letter' heading? And if so, should we have two separate 'letter' headings for casing and non-casing uses, or can that be handled with a usage note? Actually, IPA and NAPA are occasionally used with casing too, though that's uncommon where they haven't been adopted as the basis of a national orthography. For example, there's an IPA version of Alice in Wonderland that's printed with capitals, and because of it those were added to Unicode when they didn't already exist. But sometimes texts of otherwise unwritten languages are spelled out in a phonetic alphabet with casing.

Might it be possible to add a note of 'rare' after a capital variant we list in the heading for a phonetic alphabet? Something like this:

Letter

ꭓ (upper case (rare) Ꭓ)

kwami (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

IMO no. Logically, IPA symbols are symbols not letters. Some of them look like letters but not all. Some IPA symbols like ɔ are also letters in certain languages and then have cased forms, but IMO they should be treated separately. Benwing2 (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

But what's the difference? Shouldn't the difference be one of function? Are casing Lepsius letters also 'symbols', or are they an exception because of casing? If it's casing, what about Georgian? And if it's appearance, what about the Hawaiian okina and the nasalization mark of Pe̍h-ōe-jī? Those cover the full range of IPA letters.

I know dictionary definitions don't always make a good argument, but MW defines a 'letter' as a symbol usually written or printed representing a speech sound and constituting a unit of an alphabet. That would seem to include the IPA. kwami (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

BTW, when IPA letters are used in national alphabets, they don't always have cased forms. Some of the orthographies are unicameral. kwami (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree: a letter is a written character that represents a speech sound for spoken languages. While the "IPA" is not a language, the written characters do represent speech sounds, just like any letter in the Cyrillic or Greek or Latin alphabets do. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Do not automatically expand all sections on mobile

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T376446

In phab:T63447 ten years ago, Wikimedia sysadmins made the decision to enable a feature on the mobile version of the English Wiktionary that automatically expands all sections when a page is opened. The stated reason for this was that it "is pretty rough" when a page only has a single section (like English) and it is collapsed, forcing users to open it manually. However, this feature does not only act when the page only has a single section, but always. This

1. makes pages with multiple language editions annoying to read
2. makes long pages very slow

With pages that only contain a single section, we can easily implement a JavaScript feature ourselves that expands the section if there is only one. This cannot be done the other way around (collapse all sections), because it interferes with other logic (e.g. #English expands English automatically) and does nothing to address the slowdown caused by the browser having to render everything.

Therefore, I propose we seek community consensus to overturn this decision, which by itself seems to have been taken based on a small group of editors (most of whom were never particularly active on Wiktionary), and without discussion, let alone consensus, here on Wiktionary. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Earlier discussions: Wiktionary:Information desk/2021/March#Always minimize all sections (mobile version), Wiktionary:Grease pit/2021/March#Wiktionary:Information desk/2021/March#Always minimize all sections (mobile version), Wiktionary:Grease pit/2021/June#Experience on mobile. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think people use their mobile phones much these daysDenazz (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Where are people not using mobile phones now? 77.18.59.30 20:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Denazz was being /s. I must admit I LOLd (non-/s​ly) when I read Denazz's comment. BTW, I support this proposal (non-/s​ly). Quercus solaris (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Strong support. Of course having everything collapsed isn't great either, so I propose to have entries only expand the first section, whatever it may be (or it could be a more sophisticated thing that accounts for the height of each section — point being that it should be in our control). Ioaxxere (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. I could imagine for example a gadget that allows the user to customize which section(s) to open (e.g. open a specific language's section), but I agree this should be under our control. Benwing2 (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Support It is a PITA to use Wiktionary on mobile. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 01:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Support This has always annoyed me. Stujul (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak support Has rarely annoyed me, but the rationale for the present setting only applies to Wikipedia and some other wikis but not the dictionaries. Fay Freak (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Strong support. This has annoyed me for a while. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. per Ioaxxare, always expanding the first section until another more sophisticated tool is created. Juwan (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. Theknightwho (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Support —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 07:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Strong support — सौम्य (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. IMO it should not always be the first section that is expanded, but the English section if available, and the first section if not (i.e. English should have precedence over Translingual). This is how Tabbed Languages currently works. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 23:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Binarystep (talk) 05:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Show portlet links to logged-out users

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T377648

On the mobile site, portlet links ("Discussion", "Citations") are not shown at all to logged-out users. This seems unfair. I think this is something that can be changed on the WMF's side, so I'm aiming to get consensus here and create a Phabricator task. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Support, seems a no-brainer. Benwing2 (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. Also find a way to display Citations when it exists, without the need for a gadget. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 01:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Support, I've wanted this for some time (and it's been a discussed problem for some time: I recall it coming up in some long-prior discussions about the utility of ====Quotations==== headers, and I brought it up in the recent vote about them). Weirdly, it seems to be device dependent (?), because if I view the mobile version of a page from a computer, I do see a "Citations:" link at the top, but I don't see it if I view the page from an actual mobile device. (I did just find that if I click the "last edited..." link at the bottom of the page, and go to the page history, I do see a link to the Citations page at the top of that page, but having to click through to an intermediary page is a faff.) - -sche (discuss) 05:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Fay Freak (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Support —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 07:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Binarystep (talk) 05:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Support This would clearly be helpful. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 04:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Juwan (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Opposite synonyms

The adj utter means extreme and used with words with negative connotation; the adj. sublime also means extreme/complete, but used for positive connotations.

Is there a label for this type of relationship? Should they be added under the section "synonyms? JMGN (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Although utter is not used exclusively with negative connotation (e.g., utter joy, utter bliss), no doubt there are some adjectives that are exclusively positive or negative in this way. I can't think of any metalanguage for this particular phenomenon, but I wouldn't be surprised if linguists have a name for it, because it reminds me of things such as some#Determiner versus any#Determiner, either versus neither (which some call an "assertive determiner" versus a "negative determiner"), and positive anymore, all of which linguists have metalanguage for, albeit not carved in stone. I would say yes, they should be added under synonyms, because a short label can be appended to them such as "exclusively negative" or "exclusively positive", or "chiefly negative" or "chiefly positive", or "negative counterpart" versus "positive counterpart", which would be both clear enough and succinct enough. Quercus solaris (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

ârbros

Please take a minute to look at the Pronunciation section at ârbros. I am not sure if it is the greatest piece of amateur lexicography since Thesaurus:penis/translations, or a massive stinking piece of misleading shit. Thoughts? Denazz (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is garbage. This is @Nicodene's work in conjunction with @Kc kennylau, based on various dialect dictionaries. Benwing2 (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I should be flattered. Nicodene (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I wish that there was less pronunciation immediately shown, but damn. Should be FWotD based on that section alone. CitationsFreak (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Wow! That's exactly what we need to get for Norwegian! Currently, we've only got only some few examples like Norwegian Nynorsk furu, and they are very far from being fullfilled, especially compared to this example. Tollef Salemann (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Can someone explain what is going on here? I was under the impression that within a certain language community at a certain place and time the pronunciation of words was more or less fixed. Is my understanding wrong or is Franco-Provencal different? Say I want to know how to say the word for "trees" in the dialect of Valais, am I to conclude that I can pronounce it however I damn well please? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The areas in question are highly mountainous, meaning essentially each village had its own pronunciation. Valais is not a village but a canton containing lots of villages, so you can't logically talk about a single "Valais" pronunciation. Franco-Provençal seems somewhat extreme in the variation you see, but a similar situation pertains to Rhaeto-Romance, where again each village tends to have its own pronunciation. I think that even within the 7 or so identified "dialects" of Swiss Rhaeto-Romance (which generally go per valley), there are further subvariations in different villages in the same valley. Benwing2 (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. Do you agree though that the way the section is organised makes it appear like those pronunciations belong to a single dialect? Maybe it's a work in progress and I imagine it's a tricky thing to sort out, but a long list of pronunciations that aren't tied to a specific time and place isn't very useful. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 09:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

They are tied to specific places, which can be displayed by clicking “more”. Nicodene (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I see. Well, I'm impressed! —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Providing a wrapper for the whole content of the section, to allow show/hide (collapse/expand) with collapsed being the default state, would be reasonable. Another layer of "show/hide" toggle, at a higher level than the existing "more/less" toggle (which would be nested beneath it). I am not one to whine that such collapsibility is desperately needed or sorely missed, but some humans are sticklers about it. Quercus solaris (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• So these linguists went round the Swiss villages with pictures of trees and stuff and asked the locals "what are these?". Not a bad job, really! Phacromallus (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Revising the accent's behaviour in WT:AVEC

@IvanScrooge98, Sartma While editing I gradually came to the realisation that the compromise we reached appears a bit inconsistent. Since we removed the accents from mid vowels on piane, I was thinking we could remove it everywhere, because it stands as a weird situation, in my opinion, now that è ò and é ó are distinguished in sdrucciole but not in piane. So I propose amending the guidelines and removing the written accent from sdrucciole and also from the puina~bevuo kind of words, keeping it only on tronche and monosyllables. (Secondarily, this change would also get rid of the issue of whether words like cauxa should be considered piane or not, and headwords would look slightly less clunky.) Of course, IPA will get even more necessary, which is perhaps in a sense also a positive consequence. What do you think? Catonif (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure removing accent marks altogether is a good option. Regarding the distinction of é/ó and vs è/ò only in proparoxytones, somethimg similar happens in Catalan and Portuguese, which have very well established conventions for accents. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] _{(parla con me)} 10:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

True, though from my Italian viewpoint saying liéoro with an accent and lievro without it looks a bit weird. Also pinging @GianWiki, Nicodene, Imetsia for further input. Catonif (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally I would favour an all-or-nothing approach. That is, either marking all stressed mid-vowels as low-mid (◌̀) or high-mid (◌́), or marking no vowel at all that way. The Standard Italian practice of using these diacritics in oxytones and proparoxytones, but not in paroxytones, has never made sense to me. Nicodene (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that we're essentially making up spelling rules. How are such words normally written "in the wild"? We should try to follow whatever is done there. Benwing2 (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Your concern is very legitimate, the thing is, as Sartma said in the previous discussion, Native speakers of Venetan dialects use any sort of spelling. [...] I have no issues tanking a bold approach here and go with what we prefer, given that the standardisation attempts are also multiple and often disagreeable in some regards. Note I am very careful to describe every spelling I encounter "into the wild" and place it under alternative forms as an alternative spelling, so in the end no information is lost, but lemmatising at those spellings would be a mess in the long run. Catonif (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

unhiding the hidden

I vaguely remember someone saying they'd got a list of all the hidden comments in WT. Does this exist? I'm intrigued how much nonsense users have inserted over the years. Denazz (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It is WT:BJ. Svartava (talk) 10:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Denazz: check out https://paste.ee/p/pew4Z Ioaxxere (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks. It is, understandably, mostly very boring. P. Sovjunk (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions for labels

I have made many proposals for labels at Module talk:labels/data/topical and would like others to check them and suggest improvements and implements, as I don't have the appropriate user permissions to do so. Juwan (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: make all maintenance categories hidden

Specifically, every category under Category:Wiktionary maintenance. Hidden categories are opt-in, rather than being shown to every logged-out user who visits the page. Our long pages have a massive amount of categories, and I feel that categories like Category:English terms with quotations or Category:English terms with homophones drown out the ones that a casual user might actually be interested in. To be clear, the only change I'm advocating for is to make these categories hidden by default on the entry — the pages will still be in them. What do you think? Ioaxxere (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere: no objection if there is an option for logged-in users to change the default and make these categories permanently visible. As someone who regularly tidies up entries, it is useful to see the categories. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: You can check the box at Special:Preferences → Appearance → Show hidden categories. Ioaxxere (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere: cool, thanks. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Eminently reasonable idea. Casual readers don't care or need to see these. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Binarystep (talk) 05:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Not Category:Entry maintenance by language though. It contains all the requests for translations, pronunciations etc., and I have inferred that we gain new editors, sought for foreign languages, by this. The others seem technical.

Category:English terms with homophones is not even under Category:Entry maintenance by language (but Category:Terms by lexical property by language and then already Category:Fundamental) and hence not Category:Wiktionary maintenance, while Category:English terms with quotations is only there via Category:Entry maintenance by language. You are confused, @Ioaxxere.

Don’t decide this without typically foreign-language editors, anyhow. For now I oppose for inconsiderate reasoning. Fay Freak (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: My mistake, you're right about the homophone categories — in that case nothing would happen to it, but I still think it should be hidden. But I think you've gotten confused as well, since requests for translations and pronunciations are already hidden, so there would be no change. Ioaxxere (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking through Category:Spanish entry maintenance, these are the categories that I would find useful as a casual reader: terms with audio pronunciation, terms with IPA pronunciation, terms with quotations. These have strong applications for language learning, especially for smaller languages; all the other categories are more geared toward editing. I almost included Terms with collocations/usage examples, but those are more "nice to see on pages" than "worth clicking through a category", especially compared to quotations. Ultimateria (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere Most of these maintenance categories are already hidden, and in general the category system hides or shows categories on a per-category (technically, per-category-prototype, or whatever) basis rather than through blanket rules like "anything under Category:Wiktionary maintenance should be hidden". I think it's important to enumerate all the specific categories you think should be hidden which aren't currently hidden, and we can decide which ones should be hidden. Benwing2 (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, I think that some of the categories under e.g. Category:Spanish entry maintenance should be grouped into subcategories to reduce the number of categories directly visible. In particular, some of the categories are purely for cleanup purposes (e.g. Category:Spanish terms with redundant script codes), but some aren't (e.g. Category:Spanish terms with quotations). Benwing2 (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Benwing2: That's a fair point. Here are a couple of specific examples: X terms with quotations, X terms with usage examples, X terms with collocations, X terms with IPA pronunciation, X terms with audio pronunciation, X terms with homophones (that last one isn't a maintenance category). But I think my proposal was motivated on the more philosophical point that it doesn't make sense to show anons categories that *we* describe as being for "maintenance". Ioaxxere (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Right, and I agree with that in general; in fact, as I mentioned, most of these are already hidden. Just keep in mind that sometimes whether a category is considered "maintenance" isn't always clear-cut and whether it's under a maintenance umbrella category or umbrella metacategory may be a historical accident as opposed to something well thought-out. Benwing2 (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Automated addition of 1953–1993 Romanian forms

Forms belonging to the previous Romanian orthographic standard should be added to Wiktionary. This unchallenging operation involves creating an alternative spelling entry containing the letter î corresponding to every present entry that contains the letter â.

To this end I propose creating the template {{ro-î-form of}}, displaying 1953–1993 spelling of [term]. The alternative forms would correspondingly be linked from the main entry with {{alt|ro|term||î-form}}.

Romanian-speaking admin Robbie SWE has also been consulted. According to User:Kc kennylau, this measure would affect almost 5000 entries. Potential anachronistic alternate forms for terms which did not yet exist when the former standard was in effect are, I can assure, very unlikely.

A number of such forms as I am talking about have already been created and are found in Category:Romanian superseded forms. The greater part of them claim to have been introduced in the 1904 standard; this is false, as said standard is (in regard to î and â) largely identical to the present one.

To expand on the previous: a small subset of the superseded î spellings had already been in use since 1904. They are inflections (participles, gerunds and first person plural present forms) of fourth conjugation verbs ending in -î.

Special treatment is also required for derived terms of român, which under a 1964 provision were reverted to the spelling with â, identical to the present standard.

The previous two exceptions should be accommodated via a parameter; I propose a |var=, which would either take the value ro (for derived terms of român, displaying 1953–1964 spelling) or 4 (for fourth conjugation forms, displaying 1904–1993 spelling). These adjustments will have to be made manually. ―⁠K_ətom (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Support This appears to be a sensible proposal. Einstein2 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this is fine if forms are attested somewhat, I try to stick to old spellings for Polish mostly if they exist. They usually do, but I'm the type of person to check everything. Vininn126 (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The Communist period saw scholarly editions of old texts, obviously edited in the then-current orthography, in large numbers. Anachronism in the opposite direction—old words given in this newer orthography they were never printed in—is, while never completely unavoidable, almost as unlikely as the other sort of anachronism I mentioned in my first post. Let’s also not forget that the most comprehensive dictionary of Romanian was, for the most part, also compiled in this period, with the headwords using î. ―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have actual proof of that for Polish? Just restating the claim that they did and then being unable to produce many texts for them is kinda the exact thing we're trying to avoid on this website. Vininn126 (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t really understand your comment, but, either way, I have my corpora. And we aren’t doing the three attestations thing for alternative spellings, right? ―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I confused my threads. Please disregard that, haha! Otherwise this looks very sensible. I don't always do exactly 3 attestations for certain spellings, but I do check if it's there. Since some words came after certain spelling reforms and as such never had that old spelling, if that makes sense. Vininn126 (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ktom It looks like you're requesting two things, a template {{ro-î-form of}} (which seems completely unobjectionable) and a bot job to create î-spellings of word spelled with â. I'm not convinced, however, despite your claim, that there really are no words in â created in Romanian since 1993. I'm sure there have been tons of words that have entered the Romanian language since then, many referring to new technologies, social movements and such that didn't exist in 1993. Logically, many of these words will be formed from existing Romanian words, and many of those words have â in them, so it seems hard to believe that there are no terms in â created since 1993. This means you might need to manually go through the list of the 5,000 or so existing words in â, and pick out the ones created after 1993, so that the variant in î doesn't get bot-created. Benwing2 (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Î/â is a letter exclusive to native Romanian vocabulary, and Romanian is not big on coining words based on native roots and stuff like that.

Additionally, mass Romanian addition to Wiktionary was an operation dependent on dictionary entry lists, and that any word not found as a headword in a dictionary was unlikely to be added; and given that Romanian dictionaries are laggards when it comes to adding new words, especially non-technical ones, the likelihood that we have a word found in a major dictionary that contains â and did not exist before 1993 is too low for me to consider.

Additionally, the letter â does not even appear in any inflectionary suffixes.

However, as a potential safeguard against adding an anachronistic î-form to some novel slang expression we may happen to have—and also for general cleanliness and anti-pedancy purposes—I do think there should be no alternative spelling entries made for multi-word terms. That may already be the policy, I don’t know about that. ―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bogdan: What is your opinion in regard to this concern? ―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk) 10:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

alternative form of/synonym of

What is the difference between {{alternative form of}} and {{synonym of}}, and when should each be used? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Entry_layout#Alternative_forms. This should help a guess. Tollef Salemann (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The verb stay mum is defined as an “alternative form of” keep mum, but I think this is wrong. I’d only use it if the terms, read aloud by the same speaker, are pronounced the same or almost the same.  --Lambiam 20:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Right, I wouldn't say the pronunciation needs to be exactly the same, but an "alternative form" should have the same or a similar pronunciation and an identical or nearly identical etymology. Synonyms are commonly etymologically unrelated, but an alternative form never should be. For example, I think fo'castle is appropriately marked as an alternative form of forecastle. I'm not sure what the precise line should be between "alternative form of" and "alternative spelling of" (as used at foc's'le). In the context of languages with more inflections such as Latin, I've used "alternative form" for words where the root is shared and the definition is identical but the endings (and thus, pronunciation) differ, e.g. cornupeta and cornupetus.--Urszag (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, am agree with it in a way, but sometimes I find or create entries with similar construction: to do X or N with Y, where N is alternative to X. In this case it is indeed an alternative form of the phrase, but not word-for-word. We have a lot of such examples in Swedish and Nynorsk, but i can now only remember my own which i recently created: заправлять арапа (literally, to fill a black noble servant). You see, in theory you can put almost any verb in it, even a verb which doesnt exist, and the meaning is gonna be the same. So the difference in verb is not important, and therefore it’s not just synonymous, but rather alternative form.

If not, I will gladly go thru all this kinda phrases in Russian, Swedish and Nynorsk and put alternative forms into synonyms. But in this case we should disvuss it in a more wider discussion with all the editors. Tollef Salemann (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding lines between "alternative form of" and "alternative spelling of", it is true that the latter is logically hyponymous to the former, but one facet of the whole relationship that to my mind is clear is that an alternative spelling is solely another orthographic method of writing the selfsame set of sounds, whereas an alternative form that is not an alternative spelling involves a morphologic difference. Thus, neurologic and neurological should be marked with "alternative form of" (not "alternative spelling of"), whereas homolog and homologue, or sulfur and sulphur, should best be marked with "alternative spelling of" (not "alternative form of"). As for what to call idioms that are clearly the same thing conceptually but with a mere substitution of vocabulary (such as "don't give up your day job" versus "don't quit your day job"), this is where people quibble between "alternative form of" and "synonym of", and neither one is wrong (from one viewpoint or another), but I would support Wiktionary standardizing on "synonym of" as a consistent convention even though the alternative option is not wrong either; this would probably accord with what Lambiam and Urszag said. Idioms of that class can take only certain vocabulary item substitutions, not a limitless range of them, so I guess they are probably a different class from the class that Tollef mentioned. Quercus solaris (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm in agreement with everyone above when I say something is an "alternative (form|spelling) of..." when it's merely another spelling/form of what is basically ~the same word, with (roughly) the same etymology (and same meaning).
When only the spelling differs, but the pronunciation is the same, it's an "alternative spelling of..." like kinikinic vs kinnikinnick, whereas when the form is different enough that the pronunciation also differs, like killikinick vs kinnikinnick, it's an "alternative form of...". There's been a proposal to make the templates spell this out, and an alternative proposal to give up on making the "form"-vs-"spelling" distinction at all.
When you've got different words for the same thing, like living rock vs living stone, that's when one is a "synonym of..."... but sometimes, people forgo using that template and just define stone as "Rock." (Your question makes me realize how non-obvious and potentially arbitrary our distinction can be to anyone unfamiliar with it.)
There is a smallish grey area when it comes to closely related words: e.g. suppose hofoobar is the Belarusian-derived English word for apple-flavoured vodka, and gofoobar is the Russian-derived word for it: are these alternative forms because they're closely related words for the same thing, or synonyms because they have different etymologies, one coming from one language and the other from a different language? But in such cases, there's often also some semantic difference, i.e. in such a scenario, gofoobar would typically mean "Russian apple-flavoured vodka" or "apple-flavoured vodka, especially from Russia" and hofoobar would typically mean "Belarusian apple-flavoured vodka", so you might just make each of those its own entry with its own separate definition, and link them as related terms...
(BTW, @ Quercus, for my part I'd probably just define "neurologic" as "Neurological.", rather than listing it as either an "alt form" or a synonym"; I suppose it's a similar grey area, as I'd be tempted to say the extra suffix -al makes it not an alternative form but a separate, synonymous word... but I can also see the argument for it being a mere alt form...) - -sche (discuss) 01:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Preliminary results of the 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections

Hello all,

Thank you to everyone who participated in the 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election. Close to 6000 community members from more than 180 wiki projects have voted.

The following four candidates were the most voted:

1. Christel Steigenberger
2. Maciej Artur Nadzikiewicz
3. Victoria Doronina
4. Lorenzo Losa

While these candidates have been ranked through the vote, they still need to be appointed to the Board of Trustees. They need to pass a successful background check and meet the qualifications outlined in the Bylaws. New trustees will be appointed at the next Board meeting in December 2024.

Learn more about the results on Meta-Wiki.

Best regards,

The Elections Committee and Board Selection Working Group

MPossoupe_(WMF) 08:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami making a mess again

@Kwamikagami has been using {{mul-letter}} for non-translingual entries and has refused to learn and apply proper formatting or case. The history on the page ə is an absolute mess and trying to figure out a solution for the letter entries which are nigh unusable from ones on the edge of usability feels like a futile task. This is not to mention the fact the user has added tons of ill-researched letters without regard for whether they were actually widely used or not, instead focusing on an obsession for Unicode. I'm not even sure how to begin approaching trying to fix this page. We need input from other mods, @Benwing2, @Chuck Entz, @Surjection as bureucrats and @Thadh as an admin who has dealt with the user in question. Vininn126 (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

My initial suggestion on Discord was to just revert all pages to the last known good version before Kwami's edits (bot edits can be redone) but would like to hear from others. Benwing2 (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I also don’t know what to do about changes that he’s made towards even just Nigerian languages. And as I’ve said before, we need more enforcement. If we had indefinitely blocked Kwami as people have requested in the past, the damage would not be as bad as it is right now. We need to stop being lenient with repetitive problematic users that have shown that they’re refusing to learn. Kwami is not the first one, but hopefully he’ll be the last. AG202 (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Please provide one example of a problem I caused since my May block, apart from the Efik letter 'ñ' where sources are contradictory. kwami (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

He definitely listens to advice from time to time, and seems to show good faith, but there's an element of randomness in his decision-making that combines with the sheer volume of his edits and with the periods when he doesn't listen to produce lots of sheer nonsense. There are parts of Category:Entries with incorrect language header by language, WT:Todo/Lists/Template language code does not match header, and WT:Todo/Lists/Entries with no headword line that I steer clear of because they're such a morass- he's used just about every combination of L2 header and language code in his single-character entries. Sometimes he does things right, sometimes wrong, but he seems to be compelled to keep going at high volume no matter what. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I see I did use 'mul-letter' for the Osage entry of schwa back in January. I'd be curious if I've made that error more recently. I do know to use the ISO code for the language, but evidently I sometimes overlook it when I copy-paste from another entry or article. I copy-paste because I've found that I may omit critical things if I create an entry from scratch, or not use the proper formatting. It's best for me to copy an established framework.

If you just drop a note on my talk page that I made a mess of schwa or whatever, I'm happy to correct myself. Or that an a number of errors in some tracking cat are from me, I'll go through them. kwami (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

BTW, I'm currently blocked from correcting the schwa article.

I guess what I'm confused by, if I've made a 'shitty edit', or especially a number of them, why not just tell me so that I know to fix them? Certainly if you avoid a whole tracking category because of me, I should take care of it. Vin keeps saying I 'refuse to learn', but there's no refusal -- I need feedback. When I do things that inconvenience other editors, sure, you shouldn't have to clean up after me. Just tell me so I can clean up after myself. It's not intentional. Also, I'd be curious if I've made any errors of fact, or if it's all template and formatting errors. (P.S. In case you think I forgot, an editor did complain not long ago that I made an error of fact with the Efik alphabet and should have know better, but AFAICT the difference is a matter of user or publisher preference -- I followed curriculum materials and monolingual print publication.) kwami (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

AG202 specifically referred to problems with your edits of Nigerian languages, which (as can be seen from this thread on your talkpage) is a linguistic issue, not a formatting one. Vininn126 also said the user has added tons of ill-researched letters without regard for whether they were actually widely used or not, which is not about formatting either. Whatever the merits of those complaints, people clearly have more issues with your edits than merely formatting, so please take the time to read the threads you are replying to properly in future. Theknightwho (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's the Efik alphabet issue that I mentioned above. I did of course take the time to read it, and AFAICT my use of the letter n-macron was correct, though I did change it as requested. (AG, if you could respond to that thread, I'd appreciate it.) As for Vin saying saying I've added 'tons' of ill-researched letters, he hasn't provided any examples that I recall of anything I've done since my block. All specific complaints have been about cleaning up tracking categories. Someone once objected that it was inappropriate to create individual entries for Yoruba letters with diacritics, as I had done, but that was years ago and I don't know of any other mess I've made with Nigerian languages since.

Is it inappropriate to create Wiktionary entries for Unicode characters? I often come to Wikt to discover the usage of some obscure Unicode character that I happen across, and it can be frustrating when we have no information here, or when we only repeat the Unicode name. So yes, I have been fleshing out our coverage. If that's not acceptable, please let me know. kwami (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

"Officer, why didn't you warn me about the kid on the skateboard? I didn't see him until it was too late. And I'm truly sorry about the medians over that 5-mile stretch." As a responsible wiki editor, you shouldn't require constant supervision to keep you from veering off in the wrong direction, and you shouldn't be going so fast that mistakes turn into huge cleanup projects before anyone spots them. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

So, basically, the problem seems to be that I add too many quick entries, that I should slow down with my contributions. Well, a block will certainly accomplish that.

There are two kinds of complaint against me. One, that I make factual errors. Vin keeps saying that, but hasn't provided any examples of something I've done recently [e.g. since my block]. So I don't know if this is actually a problem, or if Vin is not letting go of past history [like the Yoruba letters with diacritics]. Two, that I make sloppy edits that cause problems with tracking categories. I've certainly done that. I copy-paste from existing articles to get the formatting and templating correct, but sometimes overlook adjustments -- such as missing a template when I change the ISO codes, or not re-indenting the subheadings. Or perhaps there are other adjustments I don't know to make. That's a problem. I thought it was something that I could fix by reviewing the tracking category when my errors crop up there, but I guess that's not going to work. kwami (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You've been warned of making a mess before, and while you say you've done that, the fact you've been warned and still need to ask in this thread what you've done shows either you are playing dumb or can't learn from your mistakes while still leaving a massive mess. Vininn126 (talk) 08:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This edit is from January, 4 months before my block! This isn't evidence I'm not being more careful since. kwami (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

For reference, this PetScan should have all the entries in question. It's most Osage letters and quite a bit more, not just the schwa. -saph668 (user—talk—contribs) 10:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that. If someone had notified me before my block, I would have cleaned them all up. kwami (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I've gone through them, and where the error is mine, they're all old, from before my block. I don't see anything I've done since then. kwami (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Us Wiktionarians are renowned for making a mess. I make plenty, mostly accidentally. There's a fine line to tread between high-speed edits and high-quality edits. If one user, for example, churns out 98 decent audios in an hour, 2 unclear audios and 1 fart sound that they stick on the Pronunciation section of penguin, we have a net gain - the fart sound will get quickly reverted, while the unclears should get noticed eventually. Yes, it can be annoying to correct, but part of wikiculture is to clean up others' (and our own) shit. We all need supervision - even our bureaucrats! BenWing's bot has brought up plenty of errors (soon corrected) and Chuck Entz....well, he...that joker....err...well....actually that guy is an exception, having a basically untarnished record. By the way, I've not looked into kwami's case, this is just a general observation. P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, we all make mistakes. I frequently make typos or other things, but the ratio of mess-productivity is what's important, and also I'm open to people asking me to clean it up, you can see my talkpage where Chuck frequently asks me to clean up my mess. Vininn126 (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Then why not have the same courtesy toward me, and notify me on my talk page when I make a mess, so that I have the same opportunity to clean it up? kwami (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  I literally just explained that you've been warned multiple times. That's the courteousy. Vininn126 (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Since my May block, there have been 4 threads on my talk page.

  • One about fixing an error in arrow emojis.
  • One where I followed Chuck Entz's lead in moving Tahitian entries from an ASCII apostrophe to a proper okina, and he reverted me. He later said he didn't remember his earlier page moves.
  • One where someone informed me it wasn't appropriate to do the same for Old Tupi, and I corrected myself.
  • One for the Efik alphabet, mentioned above. Again, I corrected myself, though I doubt it was a correction.

  So, again, if I make an error, why don't you have the same courtesy Chuck has for you, and notify me that I made an error? I am also willing to correct myself. kwami (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

As I said before, I think it's time to re-do the the famous vote on this issue and if it passes we'll be done with the whole problem all together. As for specifically this incident, I do think Kwami has a long history of messing up, being told not to do it, and then continuing to do the exact same thing. Thadh (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I will strongly oppose this once again. I would hate for people's legitimate work to go down the drain because of a user who was allowed a free rein of terror because you all refused to take appropriate action. It's disappointing. AG202 (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Whose work has gone down the drain? Your only objection on my talk page is that I followed Efik print sources for the Efik alphabet, rather than online English-language sources. I changed the letters to match the English sources, though you have yet to answer my question as to why we shouldn't prefer professional Efik-language sources. Regardless, that's hardly a case of people's legitimate work going down the drain, since there was no Efik-alphabet template before I created it. kwami (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

And the constant denial begins again. It never changes. Vininn126 (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you've misread AG202's comment: "I would hate for people's legitimate work to go down the drain" isn't about anything you did. It refers to the loss of useful information that would occur if Thadh's proposal to remove all letter entries not under Translingual passed (it failed, but Thadh is now suggesting trying it again as a way to avoid arguing about the entries you were working on).--Urszag (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Yes, I thought it was about me. kwami (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

That seems a strange solution. saph668 just provided a useful Petscan link above, and all my errors are old, predating my May block. I don't see any evidence this is an ongoing problem, and if I'd seen the Petscan results earlier [I had no idea such a thing existed], I could've cleaned them up myself. kwami (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Victar and false citations

I have come across two instances of Victar citing sources in support for specific claims, in which if you actually checked the source he cited, the scholar actually said something else.

The instances are:

• On Latin rutilus, he cited this month two scholars who actually made the exact opposite claim to what Victar wrote: he wrote that original second vowel was *-e-, when the two sources cited actually said *-i-, and Victar wrote that this word was a diminutive when the two sources actually say that the -lus in this word was of non-diminutive origin.
• On what is now Proto-Brythonic *giow, Victar in 2019 cited two sources (EDPC and McCone) for a claim that this word came from a Proto-Celtic athematic root noun, when they actually both reconstruct thematic Proto-Celtic *gyos.

I have reminded Victar on his talk page to stop doing this, but he responded that he saw such a reminder as a "waste of time" and told me to "take it to the entries". Surely, false use of citations should not be condoned nor should it rest on the shoulders of other editors to correct after the fact? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

So the whole etymology I cite that line is correct to the source, but because I used an *-elos in the Proto-Italic suffix instead of an *-ilos, the etymology is the "exact opposite"? The suffix *-elos is the correct Proto-Italic reconstruction of the suffix both according to {{R:ine:de Goede:2014|15}} and {{R:itc:EDL}}. We're not beholden to follow sources to the exact letter when they're outdated or wrong, otherwise our PIE reconstructions would look like *ərāu-.

@Benwing2, how about we make exaggerated and false accusations a "blockable offense", per your discord comment. --{{victar|talk}} 05:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I don't appreciate the snark. Secondly while I do understand the principle of correcting notation to the latest scholarly consensus (although if you think *-ilos is outdated, it is strange that the citation is from 2019), you didn't respond to any of the other points made by User:Mellohi!. Third, why don't you respond on Discord directly if you're lurking in the background? Benwing2 (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Victar, how about we not make exaggerated and false accusations about someone else's accusations? Regardless of who's right here, throwing around accusations of bad faith and requesting someone be blocked because they questioned your actions isn't helping you at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It's bad faith for @Benwing2 to threaten a block without even looking at the edit. --{{victar|talk}} 05:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Benwing2 specifically said IMO falsely citing sources is a blockable offense. If this happens again, let me know. It is a blockable offence in my view as well, as it shows academic dishonesty, which is something we cannot tolerate on Wiktionary. This is not bad faith to point out. Theknightwho (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

There is an important difference between normalizing the spelling of a reconstruction to a different standard (the case of *ərāu-) vs. claiming that an author used one derivational pathway when they actually used a different one (as with rutilus).

• Prosper says that the adjectival suffix for rutilus is essentially lambdacized -idus - absolutely no diminutive *-elos involved.
• Schaffner specified *-i-los and not *-elos because he is not deriving with diminutive *-elos either; the word does not end in -ulus as one would expect from *-elos (only *-ilos can become -ilus in Schaffner's understanding), and the -los suffix (with no *-e-!) Schaffner derives rutilus with has possessive function (not diminutive function); the -i- is derived by Schaffner from base *rutis.

In neither case should these sources be cited for a claim that rutilus was derived with the diminutive suffix *-elos. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Proto-Italic *-elos isn't just a diminutive suffix, see {{R:ine:de Goede:2014|15}}, where it lists its function as forming "desubstantival and deadjectival diminutive nouns", "verbal adjectives", and "desubstantival adjectives". Bare Proto-Italic *-los, as far as I know, was only ever appended to the root -- I don't know of any cases of *ROOT-i-los, or instances of an *-ilos suffix in Proto-Italic.

Additionally, rutilus is also attested as rutulus (Verg. A. 8.430), and Latin is no stranger to -ulus ~ -ilus ~ -illus variants, compare caupulus ~ caupilus ~ caupillus. According to Sen (2015) p22, the -i- in rutilus can be explained as a "dissimilation of lip-rounding from immediately preceding /kʷ/, or /u/ in the preceding syllable".

Again, this could have been discussed on the entry page. --{{victar|talk}} 07:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The point is that you should not be attributing your own (or De Goede's, or Sen's, etc.) thoughts on a matter to another scholar who does not share the same thought process (Schaffner in this case).

• Why did you specify "diminutive suffix" in your edit citing Schaffner when Schaffner specifically invokes a non-diminutive function of Proto-Indo-European *-lós?
• Again, why did you cite Schaffner, who evidently does not share your line of thought that "Bare Proto-Italic *-los, as far as I know, was only ever appended to the root...", given he derives rutilus from stacking -los on top of a base *rutis in the first place?
• And why did you cite Schaffner for *rutelos > rutilus when he draws a phonological distinction between *rutelos > rutulus and *rutilos > rutilus?

You have also not explained your citation of Prosper to support a -los derivation when she outright dismisses such a notion in her paper that was cited. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 12:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mellohi!: All you've managed to reply is "Schaffner reconstructs an *-i-", without addressing any of my argumenets or giving any counterexamples. Again, "we're not beholden to follow sources to the exact letter when they're outdated or wrong", and the sources I've given say Schaffner is wrong in reconstructing *-ilos, including Prosper. --{{victar|talk}} 20:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of whether "we're not beholden to follow sources to the exact letter when they're outdated or wrong", citations must not be formatted in a way that suggests that the sources say something that they didn't, because this is false representation of the sources.--Urszag (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter whether you or me, other scholars, or anyone else think Schaffner or Prosper are right or wrong; the point is that you cannot cite them to support a derivation from *rutelos > rutilus when these two do not posit such an etymology in the first place. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

And the references are there from Schaffner and Prosper to support the derivation from Proto-Indo-European *h₂rew-, which they do. If we had the ability to reference only certain sections of a sentence and not others, then there might be a point to be made about the source being in the wrong place, but we do not. --{{victar|talk}} 21:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Nothing in this version of the page makes it clear that the citations only refer to the derivation from PIE, and not the derivation from Proto-Italic or the affixation, which (together) are the primary statement of the sentence those citations purport to cite. You could easily have provided a reference partway through the sentence, or clarified that the references only support the PIE derivation, but you did not. Theknightwho (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Victar seems to still be failing to understand that the issue is not the accuracy or credibility of the sources themselves, but the fact that it is dishonest to misrepresent what they say. Frankly, the seriousness of the issue, the repeat offences, the failure to properly address the accusation and the baseless accusations of bad faith in return incline me towards a block. Falsifying sources simply cannot be tolerated on Wiktionary if we're going to have any credibility as a resource. Theknightwho (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I am also reminded of Victar once altering the vowel of a reconstruction given by two sources to a phonemically different vowel. Victar still retained the two citations to support his altered form *fellō even though the two sources explicitly said *fillō. Discussion of this incident did not find Victar's alteration of the reconstruction to be warranted. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I also think Victar/Sokkjo should be more careful with references. Examples where I recently noticed that he used references to support reconstructions that are very far removed from what is actually in those references are *gʰrem- (which has been thoroughly cleaned up) and *ǵéwseti (which still has many problems). —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I should add that I generally think he does great work, but there are too many cases where he slips up and then refuses to admit a mistake. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If a statement is followed by an inline citation, then that statement should be accurate to what the cited work says. It’s fine if an editor wishes to contradict some (or even all) the cited sources, but they should make it clear that they are doing so and, ideally, explain their reasoning. Nicodene (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Seeking volunteers to join several of the movement’s committees

Each year, typically from October through December, several of the movement’s committees seek new volunteers.

Read more about the committees on their Meta-wiki pages:

• Affiliations Committee (AffCom)
• Ombuds commission (OC)
• Case Review Committee (CRC)

Applications for the committees open on 16 October 2024. Applications for the Affiliations Committee close on 18 November 2024, and applications for the Ombuds commission and the Case Review Committee close on 2 December 2024. Learn how to apply by visiting the appointment page on Meta-wiki. Post to the talk page or email cst@wikimedia.org with any questions you may have.

For the Committee Support team,

-- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'll do it! Erp1039 (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup of interwiki links

I wish to request some cleanup for the appendices and Wiktionary namespaces relating to how interwiki links are handled. many of these pages have interwiki links still present at the bottom of the page. these should be moved to Wikidata, and I am dumbfounded how they managed to remain here in 2024.

if any experienced scripters know how to find all the pages that have these interwiki, please feel free to help! Juwan (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, how interwiki links are created and stored at Wikidata is different from how it is at other sister projects. See d:Wikidata:Wiktionary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho I want to know what was the reasoning for this diff. the page remained fine because it was linked on Wikidata, showing other wikis either way. Juwan (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@JnpoJuwan Alright, fair enough. My bad. Theknightwho (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Changing the default skin to Vector 2022

I've been personally using Vector 2022 for a little while and enjoying it a lot. I'm curious whether we can reach consensus to enable it as the default skin across the site, and reap a number of UX benefits — namely:

• The Vector 2022 TOC is objectively better than Vector's since it doesn't push the content down.
• Customizable text size and width.
• Dark mode is supported out of the box, and with MediaWiki:Gadget-Palette.css and MediaWiki:Gadget-AutoContrastFixer.js, it works pretty well with our templates.

That's a purely objective comparison, since I think both skins are very attractive in terms of appearance. What do you think? Ioaxxere (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

We had this discussion before and a bunch of people objected to Vector 2022. IMO the biggest problem is the waste of horizontal space taken up by the two sidebars. In comparison, Vector 2010 has only one sidebar of smaller width than either of the two Vector 2022 sidebars. You can hide the Tools sidebar on the right, but then, it seems, you don't have easy access to things like User contributions. And if you "hide" the table of contents on the left, the width doesn't get reclaimed; instead you just get a big blank space on the left. Benwing2 (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Actually, if you clear the sidebars, set the text size to "small", and set the width to "wide", you can get more horizontal space than you can in Vector. You're right that this comes at the cost of additional clicks for some things, but I personally haven't found that to be an issue. Ioaxxere (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Punjabi Infinitives

Pinging Punjabi group (Notifying AryamanA, Kutchkutch, Svartava, AryamanA, Kutchkutch, Notevenkidding): and @RonnieSingh, عُثمان, OblivionKhorasan, ChromeBones (and others are welcome to comment on this).

Hi everyone, I wanted to have this discussion on Punjabi infinitives, and just understand everyone's thoughts.

Currently there is a difference between Punjabi infinitives with verbs which end in -ā in Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi. From my view, in Pakistani Punjabi (based on Lahori Punjabi), such verbs have the infinitive -āṇā آݨا (āṇā) / ਆਣਾ (āṇā), whereas Indian Punjabi tends to employ the infinitive –āuṇā آؤݨا (ā'oṇā) / ਆਉਣਾ (āuṇā). There is also another infinitive stem which ends in -āvaṇā آوَݨا (āvaṇā) / ਆਵਣਾ (āvaṇā) which is quite common in Pakistani Punjabi. How should this be dealt with?

It's also important to mention that the because of this, Shahmukhi and Gurmukhi conjugation templates currently have differences. نعم البدل (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Category: adjectives with the same spelling as their corresponding adverbs (homographs)

I am referring to forms such as cowardly, but I am not knowledgable enough to do it myself. JMGN (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)