Wiktionary:Simple talk/Archive 4

Wiktionary Logo

needs revamp. times new roman font and white block are not acceptable. LIAM \ LIAM \ LIAM 00:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, Liam!--Brett 22:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I made a new one with transparency around the text, and a hoefler font like wikipedia's. What do you think?--Werdan7 21:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks great to me. I'll put it in unless somebody complains.--Brett 14:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I've uploaded this new file. Thanks again!--Brett 15:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Filipino

I would like to ask what is pangunahing pandiwa? Because in my assgnment we will talk about that.In your opinion what is that. —This unsigned comment was added by 210.213.143.42 (talk • contribs) .

According to http://www.bansa.org/, it means "first verb". — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that even though Wenli was kind enough to answer your question, helping students with their homework is not the point of this project. Also, since this project is in simple English, this means that we only worry about English words and their definitions. English Wiktionary is a better place to ask about things like that, since it is for English definitions of all words in all languages. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 01:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

CSS

How do I use Cascading Style Sheets on my user page? Ionas Dalton Rand^(T) 05:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Plural pages?

Maybe this has been discussed before, I apologize if it has, but I am wondering if there's a policy/guideline regarding plural pages; for example, dogs, basketballs, trees, etc. Should they be created? I know that they're a lower priority than dog, basketball, and tree, but it would be a simple way to add some bulk to the number of pages we have if we created them. We could maybe even do it running a bot or using AWB. Thoughts? Tygartl1 20:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose that plural pages not be created, because they only take up more time and space. Redirects are pointless, and also take up time and space. So, what does the community think?

I know you hate me (at least it seems like it) and just because it's me responding shouldn't create a fight, I hope. So, I am proposing this to the community. Just don't fight about it because it is that horrible brat talking, 'kay? If that's not what you think about me, I just misinterpreted. Tell me if it's wrong! Ionas Dalton Rand^(T) 02:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Try to assume good faith. Why would I fight with you? You have been very disruptive on Simple English Wikipedia but that has nothing to do with my question. I'd prefer to not talk here about what has happened on another wiki. Let it be enough that I am not going to automatically dismiss your opinion because of what happened there.

Now, back to the question. All of the noun pages have links to the plural version of the words. They will remain redlinks unless we do something with them. Are you proposing we just let them remain redlinks? Again, I understand that these plural pages should not be the priority. But it bothers me to just leave them red. Tygartl1 18:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

So does anyone else have an opinion on this besides myself and Ionas? If not, I'll just be bold and go ahead and do it. Do we have any bot users here who could help facilitate this process since it'll be mostly repetitive? Tygartl1 17:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see much point, but I think you should feel free to fill them in if you're keen on it. Perhaps you could leave them with a stub template.--Brett 21:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that plural words are valid entries. Perhaps adding stub template would be valuable, since they are bound to be short entries which in some cases could be added to later. We talked a bit about "one-liners" earlier (a short description of, for example, a 3rd singular of a verb, rather than just a bald link or a redirect). The reason entries for plurals and similar forms is valuable IMO is because our users may not know the root of the word (and it gets even harder on words like geese where the root can be hard to guess) and may easily look it up under an inflected or conjugated form. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 01:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I share a slight obsession with Tygartl1 about red links as well as the very low priority for doing anything about regular plurals and other regular conjugations. I share strongly with Cromwellt the need to create entries for irregular plurals and verb forms to help users to find the root word for irregulars. I have set as one priority to work on main entries for irregular verbs and backlinks from the irregular conjugated forms. I hadn't thought about iregular plurals. But that is my hang-up. There is more than enough to work on for every taste.Grapeguy 05:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Who uses simple.wiktionary, how do they access it, to what extent?

I got curious about how to get definitions from outside of the simple.wiktionary domain. I tried to

• Google words that I knew were in the dictionary
• used "define:word from Google.

Simple never showed up.

• Searched for the domain in Google.
• Tried backlinks to the domain from Google.

No luck. Almost all results were from within the domain or occasionally redirects from other Wikimedia domains (like en.wp).

• I couldn't find a way to get a definition from any other Wikimedia domain without prefixing 'simple:' in the search box.

Similar, but more promising results for simple.wp

So how do new English speakers or any others who could use simple. get to know about it besides word of mouth? Are there portals or other web sites for new speakers which link to it? I realize that it might not be quite ready for prime time, but is there a plan for getting it out there? Should other Wikimedia domains have links from articles in simple.wp and simple.wt? Should simple.wp and simple.wt have HTML KEYWORD codes like define or definition or simple english? Grapeguy 03:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish I knew what our user stats are like. I really have no idea, but there must be some way to get them. As far as Google is concerned, it knows about SWikt. Search, for example for [site:simple.wiktionary.org area] and you'll get lots of hits. When you use the define function, even en.wiktionary doesn't show up, so I wouldn't be too worried. I do my best to let people in ESL to know about us. But really, we're not that useful yet. We need a lot more content. It will grow.--Brett 16:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll go along with "But really...It will grow." It may be well that SWikt is invisible lest it get a bad rep while it's still in the terrible 2s. When it starts to reach late adolescence in x years, it would be nice to have a plan for getting a job. I don't see expecting people to use site: on Google. It would be interesting to see the growth of hit rates for the domain and better if one could break out hits from contributors vs visitors. Thanks again for your attention.Grapeguy 21:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

simplify Simple talk archives 1-3

I have read this simple talk and all 3 archives. Archive #3 doesn't seem to have anything that is not in archive #2. It took a lot of reading both to realize that #3 contributed nothing new. Archive #1 is extremely short. Things could be made easier for others who want the history of all these discussions. It seems that #3 could be removed and #1 could be combined with #2. That would leave just the Simple talk and 1 archive to read through. There is already a lot of overlap between archive #2 and the current, which merely has entries after 12/2006 for the topics brought up before then.Grapeguy 05:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to take this on if you feel it a priority.--Brett 21:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about priorities. I'd be happy to take it on. I just wasn't sure about protocol for things like archiving, or even whether it was a special procedure.Grapeguy 02:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I needed to compare archives to recheck my claim that archive 3 does not add anything that is not in archive 2. I concluded the same thing. All of the sections from first entry to last response that are in archive 3 are the same as those entries and responses found in archive 2. All of archive #1 is original and interesting historically. Grapeguy 03:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have copied the archives 1 and 2 into user:grapeguy/simple talk archives. Entries 1-3 are from archive 1 dating back to 2004 to 2005. Entries 4 onward are all archives from January 2006 thru mid January 2007. I still don't know what protocol is for changing/adding/removing archives. Grapeguy 04:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know either, to be honest. When I did it, I archived anything that hadn't changed since the last archive and left any topics that had new posts. Now that I think about it, this would explain why there's so much overlap between 1 & 2.--Brett 12:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the overlap is between 2 & 3. #1 is has no overlap with anything. And it is almost as if #3 came before #2, since #2 is the archive with all of the added entries. I tried to copy the archive in my space to Simple talk, but screwed it up with no capitalization to "simple talk". Guess that should be deleted. I'll try again later.Grapeguy 17:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. I created Archive Jan 2004 thru Jan 2007. I'm not sure if the edit to the top of the Simple Talk page is according to Hoyle, but I hope you can make it good and keep the link to the intended combined archive.Grapeguy 23:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to create category

I would like to propose the creation of the category Category:Context labels, much like en.wiktionary has done. Templates such as {{countable}} will go into the new category. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That strikes me as a reasonable thing to do.--Brett 21:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created the category. You can easily change the format of all the context labels by modifying Template:context. Any templates using that template will be placed in Category:Context labels. I've modified most of the context templates already. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 05:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!--Brett 12:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how this is going to work, but it sounds good! Not everything en.wikt does should be applied here, but this seems like a valid thing to copy.  :) --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 01:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you PRINT a WIKTIONARY page showing valid links and dead links?!

Every time that I print pages from Wiktionary (using an HP color inkjet with IE version 7) it does not show the links, either valid or dead. (I'm used to seeing HTML links on the web bolded when I print them.) All of the WIKI text is in unbolded black, except where the text has been bolded. Can someone tell me what I need to do to print showing links in blue and red? I have been trying to list BNC1000 to see what needs to be done. I can see the red links on my screen, but I would really like to have the list on paper. Thanks, anyone!Grapeguy 02:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I found a workaround by copying the list to Word - which prints fine and keeps the links as hypertext to Wiktionary which is handy. So, I'm OK for now, but I'd still like to be able to print in color from this site.Grapeguy 03:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are using the monobook skin (the default), open this file, which is probably empty. Add the following code there to format the printed pages with red and bold links:

@media print{
 :link.new {font-weight: bold !important; 
            color: red !important}
}

This might not work in Internet Explorer, but in works in Firefox and Opera. --rimshot^talk 16:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I'm using monobook. The code is definitely a major step forward. The dead links now show in red, which got me what I want on the lists. But with the definitions, the good links still show as black like the rest of the black text. Even underlining doesn't show. Any other suggestions? (Your signature, however, does show up in color, but not underlined as on the screen.)Grapeguy 15:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Does :link {color: blue !important} work? --rimshot^talk 14:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That did it. I'm new to this CSS code. I appreciate the help.Grapeguy 17:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Antonyms in dictionary entries: Methodological aspects

   * Carita Paradis11School of Humanities Växjö University SE- 351 95 Växjö SWEDEN
     carita.paradis@vxu.se &
   * Caroline Willners22Centre for Languages and Literature Lund University Box 201 SE-221 00 Lund SWEDEN
     caroline.willners@ling.lu.se

   * School of Humanities Växjö University SE- 351 95 Växjö SWEDEN
     carita.paradis@vxu.se
     2Centre for Languages and Literature Lund University Box 201 SE-221 00 Lund SWEDEN
     caroline.willners@ling.lu.se

Abstract. This paper takes the treatment of antonymy in Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner’s English Dictionary (2003) as the point of departure for a discussion about the principles of antonym inclusion in dictionaries and corpus methodologies in lexicology. Ccaled includes canonical antonyms such as good/bad and dead/alive, as well as more contextually restricted pairings such as hot/mild and flat/fizzy. The vast majority of the antonymic pairings in the dictionary are adjectives. Most of the antonyms are morphologically different from the headwords they define and typically do not involve antonymic affixes such as non–, un– or –less. Only just over one-third of the total number of pairs is given in both directions. The principles for when antonyms are included in ccaled are not transparent. We propose an initial top-down corpus-driven method to support decisions about antonym selection and inclusion. http://www.doi.org10.1111/j.1467-9582.2007.00136.x

Carita Paradis, Caroline Willners (2007) Antonyms in dictionary entries: Methodological aspects* Studia Linguistica 61 (3), 261–277. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9582.2007.00136.x --Brett 13:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocking 65.25.105.176

I got temporary sysop permission on this wiki, to block 65.25.105.176 and revert its vandalism. It was a known vandal which got Blocked in Simple Wikipedia, then shifted to Simple Wiktionary creating same nonsense articles. I set the block length to one week, which is more than what we typically use in such cases. Please feel free to shorten this time as soon as you review the case.

BTW, as I'm regularly patrolling the recentchanges in Simple wikis (including Wiktionary) it is possible that I may need sysop permission again. So I'd like to know if it is okay for me to run for adminship in this wiki as well (I'm a sysop in Simple Wikipedia at the moment.) Please advise, taking my very limited level of contribution in Simple Wiktionary into account.

With special regards, Huji 21:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No replies? Huji 18:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Huji. Sorry for not replying, and thank you for your attention here. By all means, you're welcome to try, but as your message indicates, it would probably be better to be a little more active here first.--Brett 20:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Patrolled newpages

For those of you who don't know what the patrol function is, it's a way for administrators to flag pages as "patrolled" so that other administrators will know that the page already has been looked at. To flag pages, administrators visit Special:Newpages. All pages that are unpatrolled will be colored in yellow. To flag it, click on the page, then click on the "Mark this page as patrolled" link at the bottom of the page (this is how it works on the English Wikipedia; I'm not an admin here so I wouldn't know).

The patrol function was enabled on this wiki in February of 2006, according to Wiktionary:Administrators/Admin_attention_archive#Patrolled_edits.3F.

I've noticed that the newpage patrol log is currently empty (except for automatic patrols). Taking a look at Special:Newpages, I have also noticed that none of the newpages in that list have been patrolled (again, with the exception of pages created by administrators). Please look at the English Wikipedia patrol log for an example of how this patrol function should work.

So, how is the patrol function working out? It seems that nobody is using it! — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere to click to flag a page as patrolled. Personally, with the small number of changes, I look at all new edits, so you can assume I've see almost everything.--Brett 15:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You have to click on the page title (go to the page), then click a link that looks like this [Mark this page as patrolled] located at the bottom of the page. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done that, but there is no such link.--Brett 12:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Noticing the vandalism that we've here yesterday and today, I decided to create some additional vandal templates. Hopefully, they will help us deal with any future vandalism. This is a listing of all the vandalism templates we currently have. To use them on a user's talk page, type {{subst:test#}}, replacing "#" with the number of the template you would like to use.

Template	Displays as
{{test}}	Welcome to Wiktionary, and thanks for experimenting with the pages. Your test worked, and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since tests in articles are normally removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you want to learn more about how to help here. Thanks.
{{test2}}	Please, do not add nonsense to Simple English Wiktionary. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
{{test3}}	Please, stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Simple English Wiktionary.
{{test4}}	This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Simple English Wiktionary.
{{test5|time}}	You have been temporarily blocked from editing for a period of time as a result of vandalism of the Simple English Wiktionary. Blanking pages, adding nonsense or spam, adding false information, violating privacy, and repeatedly violating the NPOV policy are considered vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful edits.

They are plenty of other options for templates, so if anyone has any ideas for others that should be created, please share your thoughts here. - Tygartl1 ^-talk- 18:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

These are fine templates (I hope you've added them to Wiktionary:Template messages), but they should not reference en.wikt. If there is no Wiktionary:Vandalism page, for example, let's make one. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 20:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree! I think we should make it a priority to create the missing pages. As far as adding the templates to Wiktionary:Template messages, no, I have not. But I will do so now. - Tygartl1 ^-talk- 00:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The dermatology vandal(s) appear to be accessing from Kent State University. I've contacted IT personnel there to ask how we can work together to address the situation.--Brett 00:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

OKBot

Hello, I hope start a new adding Arabic words bot. List will created by me. Is this ok?--OsamaK 12:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain more about what your bot would do? Is it making interwiki links to Arabic words or is it actually making an Arabic word list here? Once we understand the purpose of the bot, I'll contact our bureaucrat, User_talk:h2g2bob, and ask him to flag it as a bot.--Brett 15:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll create a new Arabic words. using my vocabulary..--OsamaK 16:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't understand. Do you mean you will add Arabic words to this wiktionary? If so, you should know that this wictionary has only English words. It is a monolingual wiktionary. It is not like the other multilingual wiktionaries. If that doesn't make sense, please feel free to explain in Arabic. I have some students here who can translate for me.--Brett 18:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If this bot is identical to the OKBot on enwiki, this bot will add interwiki links to other Wiktionaries. If that's the case, it's fine by me. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 23:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

mmm, Strange Simple English Wikipedia, Strange simple English Wiktionary :). I'll cancel my request for now. and I don't run an interwiki bot at Wiktionary at the moment, maybe later!--OsamaK 13:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

w/index.php?

Does anyone know what this page is? It's empty and protected. Does it serve a purpose or can it be deleted? - Tygartl1 ^-talk- 20:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Pages like this, that have index.php or slashes, are usually created by a program designed to spam websites. It should stay protected.--Werdan7 20:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. - Tygartl1 ^-talk- 20:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

An even better idea is to delete it and add it to Protected Titles and cascade protect it to prevent it from recreation and better safeguard it rather than having rather useless blank articles...--Cometstyles 20:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Like this?--Brett 21:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup..now non-admins will not be able to create those articles and yeah, you could move it to Wiktionary:Protected Titles for a general protection...--Cometstyles 21:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, and thanks!--Brett 21:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest moving the protected titles page to Wiktionary:Protected titles to follow the lowercase naming scheme. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, why is job on the list? It already exists and is an acceptable article. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So it stays that way. It got hit a number of times. If someone wants to edit it, let me know and I'll unblock it. This whole thing's becoming a big pain in the ass.--Brett 01:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But protected titles isn't meant to be a way to protect existing pages; it's meant as a way to prevent deleted pages from being re-created. Existing pages should still be protected using the ordinary "protect" function. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:WenliBot

I would like to run an interwiki bot, WenliBot. It will run on the same code as RobotGMwikt (interwiki.py -wiktionary). VolkovBot, Tangobot, and RobotGMwikt don't seem to be very active at this time and I think that another bot would be helpful. I will attempt to run the bot whenever possible. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. Please get if flagged before running it.--Brett 10:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I will ask User:h2g2bob to flag it. I'll ask for +sysop too, since there are no objections. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Aesthetics: 2nd level vs. 3rd level

I know this is probably a small thing, and if no one has a strong opinion, I'll do what I prefer. I have recently created a number of audio templates to be used for "Pronunciation" sections, and while I am adding them I have noticed that sometimes a 2nd level heading is used for "Other spellings" (e.g. ==) and sometimes a 3rd level heading is used (e.g. ===). An example of the difference in appearance can be seen here:

• 2nd level
• 3rd level

I prefer how the 3rd level looks and will make them all this way when adding "Pronunciation" sections to pages unless there are objections. - Tygartl1 ^-talk- 19:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm easy.--Brett 19:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the third level heading as well. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:1movedto2 and MediaWiki:1movedto2_redir

I think that MediaWiki:1movedto2 should be "moved [[$1]] to [[$2]]" and MediaWiki:1movedto2_redir should be "moved [[$1]] to [[$2]] over redirect", since MediaWiki:deletedarticle and all the other log entries read that way. It has been done on the English Wikipedia. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

MonoBot

Hi, I'm requesting a bot flag for MonoBot, which will be an interwiki bot. It currently runs on da, de, el, es, en, fi, fr, ga, gd, hu, io, it, ku, la, pl, pt, ru, sv, te, tr, vi, & zh wiktionaries. Thanks, Mønobi 17:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)