User talk:Vininn126

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Vininn126 User:PUC

Message from PUC I want to separate from the welcome message

Hello. Just coming by to say thanks for the Polish translations! PUC – 13:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Wtf

Excuse me, what's that supposed to mean? I don't have to explain anything to you because I don't consider your opinion important. I create entries the way I'm used to and that I find aesthetically pleasing, and if you don't like it, all you can do about it is cry. Alternatively, you can go and report me to some overzealous admin, complaining that I was so mean to you. How sad :((((((( Care to at least leave your name at the end of your comment or is it beneath you? Shumkichi (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, isn't it obvious? The English way is sloppy and unaesthetic, that's it. Oh, and I'm the rude one here? Look at the tone of your comment, you treat me like some bitch who can only complain and doesn't have anything substantive to add as if my contribution to the Polish lemmas didn't matter. Yes, my comments on your sloppy edits were supposed to sound mean to teach you something, not my fault that you took it personally instead of paying attention to the way you edit entries. All you had to do was to ask me your question without that assumption at the end, that's what pissed me off the most. Shumkichi (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Do you hate me so much because I'm a black gay woman? Shumkichi (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    • You homophobe, all you have to do is to look at the way I, BigDom, Hergilei, or KamiruPL (or any other user who is active) edit our entries (we all have different styles but they are all aesthetic in my opinion, and the other guys do their job really well, so kudos to them). Is it srsly so hard to click on the "EDIT" in a random recent entry and copy-paste it? Why are people so dependent on other people and not on their own intelligence these days? Shumkichi (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

This is gonna be cringey, but here we go

Hi. I just wanted to say sorry for how I treated you. I'm not an easygoing person and I can get really pissed off sometimes. Apparently, I got upset about something I shouldn't have. But the thing is that I misinterpreted your original message. Nevertheless, I shouldn't have been such a hothead. I feel really bad about the words I have written and I'm really sorry for them. Don't get me wrong, I still get annoyed when I see you make a very obvious mistake (like "=== Part of speech ===" or a wrong gender) xd But I can also see that you have learnt something and that you learn quickly, which is good. I appreciate your contribution to the Polish entries and I can see that you know your Polish, which surprises me. The only problem is that you still struggle with some technical aspects of adding entries but the more you create, the better and more professional your entries will be, or at least I hope so. I should have taken into account that you're new to Wiktionary and obviously less experienced. I'm going to take a break from creating entries anyway, so I'm glad that there is a person who's equally passionate about languages in general and willing to contribute (the Polish language has already surpassed Russian in being the most and best covered version here). So keep up the good work. Btw. the entries you've created made me realise how many BASIC words are still missing, and it's tragic. Just try to double check every entry you create, check on the Polish Wiktionary if a particular entry has an audio file there and copy-paste it, be careful about genders because they can be tricky, and I'd suggest that you copy-paste an actual entry, not a bare template, and with respect to the grammatical category of the word in question. Cheers, I guess. Shumkichi (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• On what counts as a transitive verb, I think we agree; it's just the verb phrases like "zrobić (kogoś) w balona" that I find difficult to categorise (is this "kogoś" a direct object? Technically speaking, yes, but it refers to "zrobić" itself in terms of morphology, but in terms of the whole phrase as a single entity with individual meaning, it does seem to refer to the whole thing semantically; so you see my problem: Polish doesn't have phrasal verbs like English but I guess you could treat such phrases as transitive verbs, albeit very awkward ones). As for any database, I don't really know, but pl.wiktionary is generally very messy, with multiple users adding different audio files in a random way, and each file also has different filename extention (sometimes it's .ogg, sometimes .wav or .mp3, it's really annoying, because you have to change it manually here). Shumkichi (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

labels and categories

Hi, just a heads-up that if you add a label using the lb template, you don't need to add the category at the bottom too (e.g. this edit). Like Shumkichi above, I also wanted to say thanks for your efforts but please do take a little more care sometimes. It's not a race and there's been a few occasions we've had to tidy up after you which, for me at least, is slowing down the rate of adding new entries myself. Cheers, BigDom 08:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• :@BigDom Okay. Yeah, I'm sorry. And good to know about not having to add it at the bottom. I saw it a few times and wasn't sure. I probably saw some older posts.

• No need to apologise. I really appreciate having another Polish editor around and I know you're still learning the ropes like we all had to once upon a time. There's nothing wrong with taking it a bit slower. Cheers, BigDom 08:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @BigDom the template worked like a charm! I used it on spowolnić‎ and it saved me a ton of time. Thanks a bunch, you're the best! Vininn126 (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

sestyna

I added a link to sestyna, Polish for sestina. --Apisite (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Apisite I will get to that soon, thanks. Vininn126 (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

gemininated???

Hi. In a recent edit you used the term "gemininated". Was this a spelling mistake? Indian subcontinent (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Indian subcontinent yes, my mistake. I updated it with the correct spelling. Vininn126 (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, geminate, of course. I guess it's like Anna - I knew an Italian with that name who was always frustrated with people saying her name like in English, and not spending an extra half second on the /n/ sound. Indian subcontinent (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

-yzna

Hi. I suggest that you read this discussion: [1], before anyone will niggle about it. Shumkichi (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hyphenation

I can see you've started adding hyphenation to Polish terms, I guess inspired by German or Hungarian lemmas. While it's good to do so, someone needs to create separate categories for terms with 1 syllable, 2 syllables, 3 syllables, etc., because as for now, even if you add hyphenation to an entry, it won't get categorised as N-syllable word because nobody has created the category for any hyphenation. Now, I'm not good at these technical categories, related to the language as a whole instead of individual words. Would you be able to do so? Also, we would have to add hyphenation to more than 50000 entries that lack it, lol. Shumkichi (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Shumkichi You guessed it, Hungarian, been trying to learn. I can look into creating categories, and talking to people about that. And yeah, considering the fact that most haven't been added, it's something I have to chip away at. It's something that I'd like to do at least for now when I turn my attention to that later. At the moment I'm focusing on this rhyming thing (and we are trying to think of a way automatically add rhymes to the proper page, to make that process easier). Once that's done I'm probably going to look at hyphenation. Vininn126 (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Shumkichi Actually so turns out it was an easy fix. Erutuon went ahead and did some tinkering in some code. The syllabification is done automatically with the IPA template, and WingerBot will create categories based on that. However for combinations like auto, au is treated as a diphthong, so for words like nauka, we have to respell them in the template, which we already have to do. As to filling the categories with words, it might take months because the system basically has a line, but it's automatically done. Alternatively, I think we can make the categories, as Erutuon did https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Polish_3-syllable_words here (linking doesn't work). Vininn126 (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Vininn126 I forgot that there are still some very old entries missing IPA templates, not to even mention that there are many more that lack Audio templates. I guess there's no other way but just go through all the entries and manually add both templates where missing. Shumkichi (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

dokopać (class IX) conjugation

Hi, just saw your message in the edit summary at dokopać. I don't know if the -ić template is the right place for these verbs but I don't mind having a go at creating a class IX template like I've done for the other classes. Cheers, BigDom 13:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• @BigDom Okeedokee. I might be wrong but I think the forms are the same, save the infinitive. If they are, it might be worth considering. Thanks Vininn126 (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I think they're different enough to put separately. For example, the 3.s.fut is different (ends -ie/-je/-e rather than -i), also the past tense is -ał, -ała, instead of -ił, iła. The passive participle is also -any rather than -iony. Class IX also includes verbs like stawać/dawać which have the extra -wa- in the infintive but otherwise have the -ję -> -je -> -ją endings from this class. Shouldn't take me too long to knock something together. BigDom 13:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Argh, you're right. Ah well. Vininn126 (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Think that was simple enough - would you mind having a look at the examples here and see if it all looks right? @Shumkichi too if you're interested. BigDom 17:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
        • That is a thing of beauty, thank you much! Vininn126 (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
          • Nie ma problemu. They're ready to go now. BigDom 13:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
            • @BigDom I'll update some pages when I wrap up these rhymes. Vininn126 (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
              • Yeah, no worries I'm just going through some now and adding (reasonably common) missing ones where I find them. Good work on the rhymes, BTW. BigDom 13:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

pl-IPA

Just noticed the voicing is wrong on zewnętrzny and wewnętrzny - is this something that can be fixed in the module or will we need to just do it manually? Cheers, BigDom 15:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@BigDom It should be something we can fix in the module. I'll ask my friend again. Vininn126 (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

-licy

I was considering analysing it as "lico" + "-y" but a lot of adjectives in Polish poetry are based on this formula ("lico" is an archaic word that is known only from literature and proverbs, at least afaik) so I'm wondering if it can be considered an independent suffix. But maybe it's a little far-fetched. Shumkichi (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I experience the same problemy with a lot of other suffixes that are less morphological in nature, e.g. -nośny. I'm not sure there's really a consensus on these in the literature, and I tend to lean towards having them be built from pieces, rather than giving a whole new suffix, but I could honestly see it that way too. This is like the discussion with -letni, and there are a few others. Vininn126 (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

/v/ in multiword terms

Hi.

I'm not sure why but whenever I add a multiword entry that involves a word in a noninitial position that starts with /v/, it automatically changes to /f/; but when it is the first word in an entry that starts with /v/, the pronunciation is correct. I tried to add the pronunciation for this term - [CLICK] - manually but /v/ still changes to /f/ no matter what I do. One of your friends knows how code works here if I remember correctly, right? Maybe they could help? Shumkichi (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that too. We added backwards voicing, and rz and w were causing problems since they don't determine the voicing of the cluster, so there were a few kinks. I already sent the problem over to him. Vininn126 (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

A paper on the phonemicity of /ŋ/ in Polish

Hey, I just wanted to share an interesting article (in English) by a Polish phonologist who claims that /ŋ/ is a separate (but highly restricted) phoneme in Polish in certain environments: https://journals.pan.pl/Content/118300?format_id%3D1&usg=AOvVaw3C_cE_tVBtWmhxl9ab3D37 Most other phonologists seem to agree that the so-called nasal vowels have evolved to biphonemic clusters in every position (except for "ę" at the end of words which is completely denasalised): so Ṽ -> ṼN (or Ṽw̃ and Ṽj̃), and either /ŋ/ is a separate phoneme or there are two additional phonemes instead: /w̃/ and /j̃/, but they are never phonetically independent and always appear as the nasal part of biphonemic diphthongs.

I'm not sharing it with you just because I find it interesting. My point is that, perhaps, we should update the IPA template to better reflect the allophones of the underlying /ŋ/ (which is mostly correct now for the words spelt with "ę" and "ą"), but there are also problems with some allophones of /n/ (in other words, I'm saying that there's a phonotactical difference between the independent PHONEME /ŋ/, which appears in words that contain "ę" and "ą" as the second part of biphonemic oralo-nasal diphthongs, and the ALLOPHONE [ŋ], which is a positional allophone of /n/ before /k/ and /g/ in medial positions, and before /k/ in coda positions). Unfortunately, if you take a look at words like "bank", "marketing" etc., which all have a simple underlying /n/ and because of that are not spelt with "ą" or "ę", the IPA template realises them as /bank/ and /marketink/ even though they are phonetically [baŋk] and [marketiŋk]. It's annoying when I have to copy-paste the "ŋ" sign from Wikipedia or from English transcriptions to make the rhymes correct. Compare them with "pęk" or "sąd", which are correctly transcribed as /peŋk/ and /sont/, respectively. So you did a very good job with the instances of "ę" and "ą", but I think we should work on allophonic [ŋ] too to make our lives easier. Shumkichi (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey! This looks super interesting and it's something I've been pondering for a while. I was also just reading some Polish language papers on the retroflex series, so I'm in the phonetic mood. I'll have to read it a bit later as I've taken a trip to Wrocław for the week. Perhaps I'll be able to upload them to my tablet and read them on the way back. Vininn126 (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I'm jealous, Wrocław is definitely one of the prettiest Polish cities. Have a good time there. There's a reason why people call it WrocLOVE. Shumkichi (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Shumkichi Okay. I'm convinced. Considering that we already mark nasal vowels as assimilating with velar plosives, and upon hearing that people do in fact assimilate it in fast speech, I will update the module. I'll need some time to figure it out and there's probably gonna be bugs. Vininn126 (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

brakować

Is there a reason why you're using "raw table code" I guess you could call it, for conjugation tables in verb entries you made? There already are templates existing which seem to give much more comprehensive conjugation information for verbs. You can see skończyć for an example. I don't know any Polish so I have no clue about what various different conjugations exist, but I'm sure with your level of fluency you'll know all about them and you should be able to find the various templates if you look in the right category. 37.110.218.43 10:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Because those verbs don't use those forms and only use the third person. The form "mdlę" doesn't exist. Check their entries in WSJP for more. Vininn126 (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I see, fair enough...though honestly if there are no 3rd person only templates then someone should create them. Using a template instead of the raw code is probably better since it'd probably reduce the chance of errors. 37.110.218.43 10:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I've been discussing it with one editor, and started a discussion now with the others. I just didn't want those forms there. Vininn126 (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's cool. I noticed your comment. Hopefully someone can make a suitable template. :) 37.110.218.43 11:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

ahistoryczność

You listed historyczność as a synonym, but surely you meant antonym right? 37.110.218.43 11:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Dang you're fast. Yep. Vininn126 (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The module

I think it doesn't work for "szankier" because of the presence of /ŋ/. It works just fine for e.g. "lakier". Shumkichi (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi there. You've been contributing prolifically and regularly and have a really good number of edits. You're experienced enough and I think would be a good candidate for adminship. What do you think? —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 15:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds great! I'm in Vininn126 (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

And now you're an admin. Congratulations! Chuck Entz (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Thanks! Glad to be here Vininn126 (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Rzeczpospolita

Hey, just wanted to let you know I removed your colloquial qualifier on Rzeczpospolita Polska (I also added the rzeczpospolita pronunciation to rzeczpospolita and Rzeczpospolita) as WSJP lists both pronunciations as correct. I also found a dictionary from 1937 (Słownik ortoepiczny. Jak mówić i pisać po polsku by Stanisław Szober) that claims the pronunciation with stress falling on the second last syllable is more common (it also says that for words like prezydent, p. 364), so perhaps we should put the following pronunciation first? Mazab IZW (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mazab IZW Sounds good. I'm okay with that if you want. We may want to add a qualifier to the audio recording saying it's the one pronunciation over the other. Vininn126 (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Vininn126 Alright, referring to your edit summary - WSJP listing only Rzeczpospolita pronunciation seems to be an oversight. According to Słownik ortograficzny z wymową by PWN (Wydanie II, 2017), both pronunciations are considered correct (for Rzeczpospolita, Rzeczpospolita Polska and rzeczpospolita) (though it lists the -pospolita pronunciation first). If you don't mind, I will keep both the pronunciations, but list the -pospolita one first. Mazab IZW (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Solar System table

Thank you for all your help.

"can you also please stop using the swp template" I will stop using it - although visually it is more pleasant, without littering link to the main page on Wikipedia. Is swp outdated? Or should I stop also using the wp template? I saw also something like: "Further reading:" Vininn126 on the Polish Wikipedia.Wikipedia ^pl. I don't care where the link to Wikipedia is. So choose.

"can you please add the further reading and put all the categories into one argument? you don't need to use the topics template" What do you want as "Further reading"? Wikipedia? WSJP? PWN? OK. I will put all catrgoties into one.

The reason why I'm writing goes like that... Do you know what I need to do to change {{{Orcus}}} in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Template:table:Solar_System/pl into proper link for Orkus? Looking at all these defective tables is annoying, so it should be changed. But I don't know why page for Ceres works and for Orcus doesn't. Thanks for your patience.

@‎Caslonc Hi! So for wikipedia, it's just we use wp instead. it would make the pages more homogenous. And what i mean by the categories versus topics - you can merge the topics into the c template :) You don't need to use two separate templates. so instead of c|pl|Celestial bodies, topics|pl|Planets of the Solar System|Roman deities, you can just do c|pl|Celestial bodies|Planets of the Solar System|Roman deities as one thing :) (surrounded by brackets ofc). And then, for further reading, we just link WSJP and PWN most of the time at the bottom.

As for the table - I've asked about it on the discord. I agree with you, it's not pleasant to look at those broken links. Thanks for being willing to learn :) Vininn126 (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

taca --> collection plate

Thank you for your help :) I've heard that it's called "offering plate". I've never heard of collection place so thank you for your correction. Though, it seems like there's such thing as offering plate :) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/offering%20plate Tashi (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Congrats

Hey, just wanted to quickly congratulate you for becoming an admin! You're doing an amazing job with moderating and editing Polish entries! Also thank you for all the tips you gave me :) Keep up the good work! Mazab IZW (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mazab IZW Thanks! It's my pleasure Vininn126 (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Administrators/List of administrators

Congrats from my end as well! :) Could you please enter yourself into this list? Fytcha (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha Congrats all around! bam! [[2]] Vininn126 (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Created terms

Hi. First of all, I'd like to thank you for your constant contribution and corrections that you make in my contributions. I really appreciate that! I'd like you ask you, do you know a tool or a special page where I could see all the terms that I've submitted so far onto the Wiktionary? I know there's such a tool on Wikipedia but I'm not sure about here. Tashi (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tashi Hey! It's my pleasure. Learning how to edit Wiktionary is a difficult task, it took me a while and I'm still learning new stuff. I see you're improving, which is good. You should check out the "contributions" button in the top right and you should be able to click "show only new pages" in the "search for contributions" box. Vininn126 (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Cheers! I clicked the "Contribution" tab and it turned out that there's "Entries Created" at the bottom of it which has all pages I've submitted so far :) Thanks again! Tashi (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Requests for Polish pronunciation

Thanks for letting me know about this category. I have my own bot, which produces a lot of lists based on occurrences of a word in all wiktionaries, not just the English, or the frequency in Polish language, still I can record something from this category. However, I would like to notice that about 3000 words from this category have been already recorded: User:Olaf/requests for Polish audio Olaf (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Olaf I figured many of them already were - we've been working on a way to automatically add them to the pronunciation template that we have (as of right now the bot that does that is incompatible with it). And thanks for your lists, this seems very useful! Vininn126 (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Lingua Libre has its own bot, which can do the job: [3]. It uploads the audio files on four other wiki projects. Olaf (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Olaf The problem is it adds the audio in its separate template. On en.wikt we use an all-in-one pronunciation tempalte {{pl-p}}, which includes an audio slot. When the audio is added seperately, it breaks the standard layout of pronunciation. So the bought has to be taught to add it to the template, or add the audio seperately if the new template hasn't been implented on a page yet (I'd like send a bot to replace all {{pl-IPA}} with the new template but that's a different story...) Vininn126 (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I recorded some words and updated the list. Now it's over 4500 words recorded from the category. The rest of the category seems to be either archaic or dialectal (which I'm not sure how to pronounce) or inflected forms (which I'm not really interested in) or containing /r/ consonant which I'm not able to pronounce. So I believe I will finish here.

BTW, there are 6535 Polish lemmas (excluding surnames), that have no pronunciation recorded but are not listed in the category. Perhaps this should be done automatically in a template if a Polish word has no Polish audio? Or I may produce a list here and refresh it every day, just like my bot produces tens of lists on Polish Wiktionary and Lingua Libre? It looks very inefficient to maintain this category by marking the pages one by one manually.

Regarding the Lingua Libre bot, it has also a different problem - it's based on Lingua Libre only, so audio files from c:Category:Polish pronunciation are not uploaded by this bot. But it's by design, and still better than nothing. Olaf (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@OlafThanks for recording the rest! Yeah, I don't think anyone is really that interested in getting inflected forms recorded.

The category is now automated. I was originally marking it manually, but someone recently updated the {{pl-p}} template to automatically categorize any word without audio. And yes, it would seem that at least one regular audio recorder does not use LL. So that's something we'd still have to check for. Also, @Tashi has started recording audio on LL, you might be interested in having your bot check for their recordings for pl.wikt. Vininn126 (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

My bot is adding all the new pronunciation in all languages from Commons to pl.wikt every night, so Tashi's recordings are already added wherever the corresponding page existed, or will be added automatically once the corresponding page is created.

Well, the automated category which lacks 6500 entries sounds a little bit broken...

Perhaps you would be interested in recording something in English? I maintain a list on Lingua Libre of English words like cholesterol or neighbor that have no pronunciation on Commons. The list is sorted by the number of Wiktionaries having a particular word and refreshed every three hours. Olaf (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Olaf Well the list you generated on your wanted page is a dream. Using it now to update the pages that should have audio. As to recording English - I've considered it! I spend most of my time writing entries for Polish here, but I would like to sit down sometime and record a bunch of audio for English pages without audio. I'll probably use this list of yours sometime and do so, not sure exactly when. Vininn126 (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, thank you for your work on the Polish language! If you need the list to be refreshed, please let me know. Olaf (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

English recordings

Wow, thank you! All lists are automatically refreshed every three hours by my bot. The only reason for limiting them to 380 entries is the limit of 380 uploads per hour (?) for most users in Commons. So the new batch is already in place. During the night your recordings were also automatically added to the corresponding entries in pl.wikt. Olaf (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Olaf Good to know it's automatic! I'll add them everyone once in a while and let the bot do it's trick, it's like a well-oiled machine Vininn126 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

relational adjectives

Hi. I decided to spend a few hours cleaning up Polish relational adjectives. After pushing the changes, I realize I may have undone some of your work. In particular, I removed the text "of or related to X" in many places, to harmonize the use of the relational tag with the way it works in other languages (particularly Slavic and Romance languages). Basically, in my view something like this:

#: {{lb|pl|relational}} [[antifilm]], of or related to [[antifilm]]

doesn't really say anything more than this:

#: {{lb|pl|relational}} [[antifilm]]

The "relational" tag already links to a glossary entry explaining what "relational" adjectives are, and the translation in English will not normally have the text "of or related to ..." in it. My approach to this in Russian was to add a short usex when it seemed it might not be clear what's going on, e.g. if you have a relational adjective antymonowy (“antimony”), I might add a usex with the collocation proszek antymonowy (“antimony powder”), rather than trying to convey the sense using a dictionaryese definition like "of or related to antimony" or an uncommon English term like "antimonic". (For toponyms, similarly I often replaced uncommon terms like "Michiganian" with "of Michigan".)

After pushing these changes I noticed you added the "of or related to" text recently in the past few months, and I seem to have partly undone this in cases like abonamentowy and other words beginning with a. If you disagree strongly with these changes, I can see about how to undo them. (The author says User:WingerBot but the changes were all made manually, by loading all the Polish adjectives into a file and editing the file with a text editor.) Benwing2 (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Alright, that's something I wasn't too sure if I should be adding or not. I'm not really too torn up about it, as it was something I was able to "automatically" add, but I can easily get rid of that bit. Vininn126 (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Converting to Template:pl-decl-adj-auto

I was thinking of doing a bot run to convert all uses of {{pl-decl-adj-y}}, {{pl-decl-adj-ki}}, {{pl-decl-adj-owy}} and {{pl-decl-adj-i}} to use {{pl-decl-adj-auto}}. Do you know whether this will always work? I notice I need to be careful with {{pl-decl-adj-ki}} because if the second param is specified, it is passed as |olddat= to {{pl-decl-adj-auto}}. (However, I suspect the majority of these calls are broken. For example, burundyjski has ki as the |olddat= param and bydgoski has bydgoscy as the |olddat= param when in all cases it should actually be a boolean. I don't know enough about Polish grammar to know under what circumstances there's an "old dative" with adjectives in -ki. Can you help?) Benwing2 (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2 That was actually the next thing on my list. The old dative is only used in certain prepositional constructions (po polsku, po aptekarsku, and does only apply to -ki adjectives. That should be the only snag with replacing them. Vininn126 (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2 At that that's the sort of thing that isn't with every adjective, and most major dictionaries don't even list it. Vininn126 (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

splitting multipart Polish links

I am doing a bot run to fix these now. My code issued 48 warnings (out of 1,158 pages needing fixing). You might want to take a look: User:Benwing2/split-pl-links-warnings. Benwing2 (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2 What's the next step? Vininn126 (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I already ran the bot to fix the multipart links; you just need to look over the warnings, which represent cases that the bot couldn't do automatically, and fix up manually the ones needing fixing up. Benwing2 (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Okay, I think I got them all. Thanks for all your help. Vininn126 (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Unglossing derived terms and images

What’s the point of these kinds of edits? It’s very standard and helpful to have derived terms glossed, since aeons may pass before they are created, and people only need to look at the simples if we have lists of glossed derived terms, so actually we have completion just by listing derived terms, it’s the main dictionary content, thus seen—similar to the way printed dictionaries are consulted. جَوْز (jawz) contains every you need to about phytonyms constructed from it, and so the lists of nightshade and vervain are satiating for most people.

And the image part is very wrong: if a species is shown for a genus the immediate question arises is which species is depicted, if you read entries in a certain way. @DCDuring uses to add the taxonomical name if he sees such a thing. A name may also apply to very more distinct plants, as on قَيْقَب (qayqab), and كَحْلَاء (kaḥlāʔ), I find room for an example image for all. I can also kind of sneak in some derived terms into images of course as a starter, if there is a long list of derived terms not yet represented into Wiktionary. All messages you thwart. Fay Freak (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fay Freak As to the glosses - 90% of pages don't have that kind of information. Maybe we should be putting it, but I was trying to create a certain consistency. That particular one was related to some bad syntax that was on some pages (namely we were briefly putting {{l|pl|word, word}}. The other parts were more collateral, as I thought they might not have been good. (I've been working on the clean-up section). If you think those should be there, go ahead and put it back, I'm not too attached to it, aside from some of the bad syntax was there. If the image should be done a certain way, or if you think those glosses should be there, go ahead. Vininn126 (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean by "All messages you thwart"? Vininn126 (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I mean the messages that readers do not get if you remove information. Fay Freak (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

That’s what I thought. You went through a lot entries, great work, and then derived the conclusion that all pages should and could look the same, and our providing information is the toll: words aren’t the same, they have different requirements, and people don’t look at the dictionary from this bird's-eye view, with so great an expectation of consistency, and put different requirements to various kinds of entries. And in that particular case I don’t even see bad syntax: as I have brushed above, that on marek was planful usage. Fay Freak (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fay Freak thanks for the input - I've always been wary to edit pages related to specific species and such, there seems to be an exact way we do it that I haven't learned yet. Vininn126 (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd be happy to explain what I try to do in taxonomic name entries and vernacular name entries for taxa. I have somewhat different standards for more linked-to entries than for orphans.

One way we could achieve perfect consistency is by removing ALL content. But WT:ELE itemizes much permitted content that most entries don't have. As it is, the consistency argument is usually invoked to remove content that the remover doesn't like, for whatever reason, eg, esthetics, taxonomy aversion. If someone doesn't want glosses in images in "their" language, I have no problem with that, especially if there is evidence of a consensus among contributors in the language. I will eventually review the images of organisms and remove them if they do not fit the content. For example, if the definition is for a genus and we don't have a ready-made gallery of species, an image of the type species for the genus, or other appropriate image for the genus, I will add a link to the Commons category (if any) for the genus, if there isn't one already, and remove the misleading image. Removing {{taxlink|EXAMPLE|taxon}} just moves EXAMPLE back in the queue of taxonomic entries to be added. If enough of them are removed, I can start working on the taxa of organisms in my body, house, garden, park, county, state, region, country, continent and hemisphere. I would hope I could finish those on or in my body, house, and garden by the end of the year. DCDuring (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Polish lemma cleanups

Also @Hergilei I'm thinking of doing some cleanups on Polish lemmas similarly to what I've done on Russian, Italian, etc. Possibly some of them may be controversial so I'd like to run them by you first:

1. Convert English-linked definitions to raw links, e.g. {{l|en|[[interval]], [[gap]], [[distance]]}} becomes [[interval]], [[gap]], [[distance]]. Most foreign-language entries use raw English links in definitions and there's an informal consensus to do this going forward. In case the English-linked word is the same as the Polish lemma, it converts slightly differently, e.g. {{l|en|abdomen}} becomes [[#English|abdomen]] on the page abdomen. I have a script to do this.

2. Templatize categories, e.g.

[[Category:Polish words suffixed with -izm]]
[[Category:pl:Abrahamism]]

becomes

{{cln|pl|words suffixed with -izm}}
{{C|pl|Abrahamism}}

while

[[Category:pl:Biblical characters]]
[[Category:pl:Individuals]]

becomes

{{C|pl|Biblical characters|Individuals}}

The advantage of this, besides it being fewer characters, is that the terms sort correctly in their categories.

I have a script to do this, and currently it will automatically convert {{topics}}, {{c}}, etc. into {{C}}, although it could be made to prefer {{c}} or something else instead.

3. Use {{inh+}} and {{bor+}}. Essentially, From {{inh| becomes {{inh+| and From {{bor| becomes {{bor+|.

The advantage of this is, besides it being fewer characters, is it explicitly displays "Inherited from" or "Borrowed from" instead of just "From", which harmonizes the text with the categories (which also indicate whether the term is inherited or borrowed) and makes the derivational relationships clearer esp. to users who aren't intimately familiar with which languages can be parents of which others.

This can be done semi-automatically using find/replace in a text editor.

4. Use {{female equivalent of}} for female-equivalent nouns. Hence instead of (for entry abnegatka)

===Noun===
{{pl-noun|f|m=abnegat}}

# {{l|en|female [[sloven]]}}
#: {{syn|pl|niechlujka}}

the definition would look like this (assuming raw English links):

===Noun===
{{pl-noun|f|m=abnegat}}

# {{female equivalent of|pl|abnegat}}: female [[sloven]]
#: {{syn|pl|niechlujka}}

This will automatically categorize into Category:Polish female equivalent nouns.

This can be done semi-automatically with a script.

5. Convert raw quotes to use {{quote}}, e.g.

# {{lb|pl|intransitive}} to [[shout]] “[[Allah]]!”, especially as a [[battle cry]]
#* '''1901''', Henryk Sienkiewicz, ''Ogniem i mieczem'' (''With Fire and Sword'', trans. Jeremiah Curtin), vol. 1, chapter 10:
#*: Tatarzy, '''ałłachując''' coraz przeraźliwiej, zachęcali się wzajemnie; odpowiadały im krzyki kozaków: „koli! koli!“ i spokojny głos pana Skrzetuskiego, powtarzający coraz częściej komendę:<br /> — Ognia!
#*:: The Tartars, '''shouting "Allah!"''' with increased shrillness, urged one another on. The Cossack cries: "Cut! cut!" answered them; and the calm voice of Skshetuski, repeating faster and faster the command, "Fire!"
#: {{syn|pl|ałłakować|hałłachować|hałłakować}}

becomes

# {{lb|pl|intransitive}} to [[shout]] “[[Allah]]!”, especially as a [[battle cry]]
#* '''1901''', Henryk Sienkiewicz, ''Ogniem i mieczem'' (''With Fire and Sword'', trans. Jeremiah Curtin), vol. 1, chapter 10:
#*: {{quote|pl|Tatarzy, '''ałłachując''' coraz przeraźliwiej, zachęcali się wzajemnie; odpowiadały im krzyki kozaków: „koli! koli!“ i spokojny głos pana Skrzetuskiego, powtarzający coraz częściej komendę:<br /> — Ognia!|The Tartars, '''shouting "Allah!"''' with increased shrillness, urged one another on. The Cossack cries: "Cut! cut!" answered them; and the calm voice of Skshetuski, repeating faster and faster the command, "Fire!"}}
#: {{syn|pl|ałłakować|hałłachować|hałłakować}}

This provides more standard formatting and adds the page to Category:Polish terms with quotations.

This can be done semi-automatically using find/replace in a text editor.

6. In the longer term I'd like to redo the Polish noun and verb modules to make them more consistent, more thorough and easier to use, similarly to the current Ukrainian and Belarusian noun/verb/adjective modules (which were fairly recently written). But that will take longer than the above changes.

Thoughts? Benwing2 (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

(Notifying BigDom, Hythonia, KamiruPL, Tashi, Luxtaythe2nd, Max19582): as the other resident Polish editors. This would be a very big change. I'm personally okay with change one, but is there a reason to use [[#English|WORD]] over {{l|en|WORD}}?. </nowiki> I'm more than okay with change 2 (the categories). Change 3 - this one I have mixed feelings on in general. For the etymologies, I could go either way, and I know there was a whole big debate about using + or not, and I don't feel too strongly, I'm not sure if the other editors do. Change 4, I'm not the biggest fan of personally. If that were the case we should also use "perfective equivalent of" which we shouldn't always do, as sometimes the female/perfective forms have slightly different meanings. Change I'm a huge fan of. Change 6 is something I've been thinking about, too. As for nouns, I'm not sure how the process would look. Some nouns have a fleeting e that we need to show the module, at least for masculine nouns. Feminine nouns and neuter nouns _should_ be more automatic but I'm not sure, we might need to run the bot to find errors. As for verbs, we one way to simplify it would be removing the parameter after the verb class, so {{pl-conj-ai-am,asz|naciąga|pp}} becomes {{pl-conj-ai-am,asz|pp}}, as most should be able to look at the pagename. Some exceptions might be Class XI verbs. Unrelated, it'd be nice to update the Class V template to include an alt past form -nął vs -ł (like ucichnąć). Also, I have a potentially controversial change - updating derived and related terms to use {{col3}}? I'm not the biggest fan of this template or how it looks, but I know that a large part of the community prefers it. It would be a drastic change to the look of Polish entries, too. I at least want to mention it here to let other editors give their input on that. Vininn126 (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Just FYI, you can specify the past= parameter for verbs like ucichnąć. I added the functionality last year, although to be honest I'd forgotten about it too until reading this comment! I've updated the conjugation on that entry as an example. Cheers, BigDom 18:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@BigDom Well I'll be damned, good to know. Vininn126 (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I think changes 2, 3, 5 and 6 would be pretty nice to have. As for change 1, I pretty much agree with Vininn, but if that's what most foreign-language entries use then I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same. I don't really like change 4, and it also doesn't seem too necessary as we already list the masculine counterpart under the "Noun" header. Max19582 (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

2 and 5 feel like no-brainers. Agreed with Vininn about 1, is there some reason we shouldn't use {{l|en}}? I'm a fan of 3. 4 and 6 I'll have to think about once I've had some coffee. Hythonia (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

(Notifying Hergilei, Tweenk, Shumkichi, Wrzodek, Asank neo, KamiruPL): I guess for (1) I found it annoying dealing with all the wrapping of English terms when working with them, and the English term is always at the top anyway, so the only effect of the wrapping is to skip past the table of contents. But I will gladly defer to the community. As for [[#English|WORD]], that one doesn't need to be done. For (6), the fleeting e that appears or disappears in some nouns is handled in Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian by adding a * code in the declension param. In these languages, all of masculine/feminine/neuter can have this; for masculine and some feminine nouns it appears in the nom sg and not elsewhere, whereas for most feminine/neuter nouns it appears in the gen pl and not elsewhere. In general, the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian noun, verb and adjective inflection templates have only one template per part of speech, e.g. {{ru-conj}} and {{uk-ndecl}}. For example, for the Ukrainian noun бана́н (banán, “banana”), the template looks like {{uk-ndecl|бана́н<>}}; this specifies explicitly the position of the stress, while everything else is defaulted (by default it is masculine, inanimate, stress pattern a). For брат (brat, “brother”), it looks like {{uk-ndecl|брат<b.pr>}}; here, b means stress pattern b and pr means "personal". For мужчи́на (mužčýna, “man”), the invocation is {{uk-ndecl|мужчи́на<M.pr>}} which specifies the gender M explicitly since otherwise the noun would be predicted as feminine, and again pr for "personal". A slightly more complex example is за́єць (zájecʹ, “hare”), which uses {{uk-ndecl|за́єць<c*.anml>}}: stress pattern c, * for fleeting e (the nominative plural is зайці́ (zajcí), where the e has disappeared and the stress moved onto the ending), anml for "animal" animacy. The documentation on {{uk-ndecl}} gives lots of examples. For Polish, the issues of accent position and stress pattern go away, so it wouldn't be necessary to repeat the noun itself with an accent, you'd just put the stuff inside <...> unless you need to decline a multiword expression (which is also possible), so for mężczyzna you might just specify {{pl-ndecl|M.pr}}. For Ukrainian verbs such as чита́ти (čytáty), {{uk-conj}} looks like this: {{uk-conj|чита́ти<1a.impf.tr.ppp>}}. This means "class 1a" (where class 1 is verbs in -ати with first singular in -аю, and a is the stress pattern), imperfective, transitive, with a past passive participle. For Polish czytać, the equivalent might be {{pl-conj|1.impf.tr.ppp}} or whatever. I don't know if Polish has numbered verb classes like Ukrainian/Belarusian/Russian, if not they can be named, and it might not be necessary to specify explicitly whether the verb is transitive or not. Benwing2 (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Personally if you wanna remove it from the pages where it's not the same as the English page, I'm okay with that. If it's for pages that's the same as English, let's just leave it. For point 6, zbytek is a good example of how we deal with fleeting e now in masculine words, and feminine and neuter seems to handle it automatically. The noun declension template is mostly the same, you just replace the gender. Vininn126 (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It is true that the fleeting e can be handled automatically a lot of the time in feminine and neuter words, but at least for Russian there are various cases where it can't, as well as feminine/neuter words that can have two genitive plurals, one with and one without the fleeting e. Don't know if this happens in Polish. Actually, do you have a good reference on Polish conjugation and/or declension? Benwing2 (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2 I recommend this. Honestly, I think declensions are about as automatic as they can be given the state of Polish nouns. The main task will be replacing the old templates with {{pl-decl-noun-m-pr}}, {{pl-decl-noun-m-an}}, {{pl-decl-noun-m-in}}, {{pl-decl-noun-f}}, {{pl-decl-noun-n}}, with the appropariate tantum=s. As for verbs - they're all covered by templates, it's just we have a lot of them. Vininn126 (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Vininn126 OK. Thanks for the ref, I don't read Polish but I'm sure I can figure it out by analogy with Russian and with some help from Google Translate :) ... that's how I dealt with Zaliznyak's Russian grammar. BTW Zaliznyak's grammar not only describes how to inflect Russian words but lists every noun, verb and adjective in the language and exactly what its inflection is; is there an equivalent for Polish, or even better, an online dictionary that actually inflects words for you? Cf. this awesome resource for Ukrainian: [4] [5]. Benwing2 (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

PWN has an orthographical dictionary, WSJP, but also SGJP might the best for what you're looking for. Vininn126 (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Great refs, thank you!! Benwing2 (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

BTW, above I see you mentioned class XI and class V verbs, are these standard and do you have a reference on them? I looked on Wikipedia but there isn't so much info there. I am curious how they map onto the 16 classes of Russian verbs in Zaliznyak's analysis. (Russian class 1 would be Polish verbs in -ać with -aj- infix; class 2 would be Polish verbs in -ować I think; class 3 would be Polish verbs in -nąć maybe; class 4 would be Polish verbs in -ić or -yć; etc.) I see in the grammar book you linked some discussion on three classes of verbs starting around page 326 but that seems a different classification. Benwing2 (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2 He lists those but there are more "sub" classes that are more their own. In the print copy of WSJP you get FULL declension tables (I might email that to you later, if you want). Vininn126 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

That would be great, thank you. Benwing2 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, just chipping in as Vininn asked for my thoughts.

• Change (1) I'm all in favour of. I'm sure the other Polish editors would tell you I've never really got behind the use of {{l|en|...}} in regular entries myself. As mentioned above the English word is nearly always at the top of the page anyway, unless there's a Translingual entry. As for entries where the English and Polish words are spelled the same, the [[#English|]] syntax is fine by me, I'm used to links like that from when I first started here 10+ years ago, but lately we have been using {{l|en|}} and I am very happy continue with that.
• Change (2) is a no-brainer, although slight personal preference would be lower-case {{c}}.
• Change (3) I personally like and fits in with our use of templates such as {{deverbal}} which includes the text. If other editors aren't keen though, no big deal.
• Change (4) I'm leaning towards no, for the same reason I never got behind using a template for regular links like in part (1). Why use a template when simple [[]] links do the trick? However, the categorisation would be a bonus IMO, so I'm not completely against it.
• Change (5) is definitely an improvement but still only looks half-finished; wouldn't one of the more specific templates like {{quote-book}} help to tidy up the auxiliary information too? Not sure how you would choose the right template automatically though.
• Finally, change (6) I'm not in favour of at the moment. Given the examples from Ukrainian, the unified template looks horrendously complex to use. Not opposed to something in the future but it would have to be a lot more user-friendly to get me on board I think.

Hope this helps, BigDom 07:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

(Notifying Benwing2, Hythonia, KamiruPL, Tashi, Max19582‎, Hergilei): so they can be aware that further debate is taking place.

Change 1) I am in agreeance with BigDom. I think removing them from non-shared pages is fine, and it seems more people prefer the syntax {{l|en|...}} on shared pages.

Change 2) Already done, uppercase C was chosen. I'm sure we could switch it easily back to lower-case c no problem, but I don't think anyone here really cares too much.

Change 3) Okay, so I personally don't see the point of switching to the plus templates, but if y'all prefer it, that's fine by me. Hopefully we don't rekindle the war.

Change 4) Keeping as is, no change.

Change 5) In progress.

Change 6) Benwing is already looking at potential templates, I think we will have to see how they will operate. If they're more unified and easier to handle, great.

Change 7) I figure I should mention this: How does everyone feel about switching to {{col3}} and the like for derived and related terms? Personally I'm not the biggest fan of how these templates look, but they might be easier to handle than our current setup. Vininn126 (talk) 08:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Vininn126 I have no particular opinion of {{col3}} etc.; but it seems if they don't look so good we should try to fix that (unfortunately I am not a CSS expert). Benwing2 (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chomczurek065 Forgot to ping you, too. Vininn126 (talk) 08:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Alternative forms

Hey, are alternative forms supposed to be on the top of the page, even when the forms don't apply to some of the definitions? Because for szogun, I'm 99% sure one can't say siogun or szogun for its colloquial sense, and it seems kind of confusing to have those forms at the top. Max19582 (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Max19582 I get confused by entry layout, too. [6]] Hopefully this holy scripture will answer our questions. Vininn126 (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Vininn126 I think putting those below the etymology would make sense, as in this case they're meaning-dependent. Max19582 (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Max19582 Okay, it seems this problem is pretty specific and is going to need more attention. Vininn126 (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

paręset

Hey, paręset, parędziesiąt and paręnaście are pronounced with the <e> sound. WSJP says the pronunciation is <paręset>, but I'm guessing the ę thing is just an oversight. Check out [7], [8] and [9]. Max19582 (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Max19582 I've heard both, but the person I asked to pronounce it was doing "careful speech". We might want to list both. Vininn126 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Vininn126 I'm not really sure if that's a good idea, because a lot of people confuse careful and hypercorrect speech. Since pronouncing word-final ę is usually considered hypercorrect, I think it'd be the same case with parę- words. Max19582 (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Max19582 Fair enough. Go ahead and revert. Vininn126 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

wtf indeed

rei morto, rei posto (diff ~66004665) I just started reading Template:link to see if this is a bug or if I needed to set some parameter. The template documentation says "The template will automatically remove diacritics and punctuation from the page title" but offers no actual solution. I was about to change it to a flat link when I got an edit conflict because you already had. GMTA I suppose. Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz Makes sense. Honestly, bare links should be used more on non-English pages, anyway. Cheers! Vininn126 (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Translation Tables at L3

Per WT:TRANS, please nest Translation tables inside the POS section. See here and here (and probably many of the entries here) I have a bot that can clean these up so don't worry about undoing them yourself. Happy editing! JeffDoozan (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@JeffDoozan Will do, cheers! Vininn126 (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to tag you in this clarifying edit. If the part of speech header is surrounded by 3 "=" symbols (L3), like ===Noun===, then the Translation section should have 1 more (L4): ====Translations====. If there are multiple Etymology sections, then the part of speech header may by L4 so the Translations would need to be L5. Thank you for all of your work adding so many translations! JeffDoozan (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@JeffDoozan Iiiii see. It needs to be nested. I thought you meant the position. Vininn126 (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Archiving

Hey! You can archive multiple sections at the same time by pressing "archive" on all of them without clicking on proceed in between. It's more pleasant for those of us who have the page on our Watchlist ;) — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 21:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep! I was going through them individually at first cause I was trying to read em. Just archived a whole bunch ;) Vininn126 (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Colloquialisms categories

Per the vote Svartava mentioned in the Beer Parlor these categories are unmerged now, are they not? 37.110.218.43 12:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It is a red link again. Vininn126 (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand, what is "it"? 37.110.218.43 12:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The Polish colloquialisms - it was deleted in preparation for changes as far as I understand. I'm not sure why are you are asking me about this on my talk page otherwise. Vininn126 (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

(if you wanna go ahead and recreate the categories, be my guest). Vininn126 (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Ты чё переводы удаляешь?

А? — This unsigned comment was added by 178.121.43.158 (talk).

I just told you in the revert. Translations only go on English pages. It's in our guidelines, which I'm assuming you didn't read. Vininn126 (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Не читал, братан, не читал. Ну мог бы перенести в английское соответствующее высказывание, зачем удалять — This unsigned comment was added by 178.121.43.158 (talk).

You should probably read them before editing, instead of making incorrect edits. If you wanna add those translations to the English pages, be my guest, but do not add them to other pages again. Vininn126 (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

А где их читать — This unsigned comment was added by 178.121.43.158 (talk).

Check out the welcome message I left on your talk page. there are more but that's a start. Vininn126 (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Послушай, а для "(как) бабка надвое сказала" - нужно две отдельные страницы заводить для двух форм или как-то на одной оформить? TupaUchetka (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, you shouldn't use parentheses in translations, but you can probably just list the more popular form (you can see I didn't list all the alternative forms in the Polish translation) Vininn126 (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Чтоб я еще знал какая из этих форм в большем ходу. Но в целом я понял, спс TupaUchetka (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Category templates for Polish

Since I am not familiar with these templates, may you tell me the reason why polish pages should using {{C}} instead of {{topics}}? --TongcyDai (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@TongcyDai One reason is consistency - we use that on all Polish pages. Another reason is it's a smaller, shorter template, fewer characters. Vininn126 (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for you reply! Just wondering, if consistency and template length are important, why should we not replace all pages using {{topics}} with {{C}}, and tell editors not to use the former anymore? Also, why is this convention only restricted in Polish, not all the languages? --TongcyDai (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@TongcyDai That's a great question. In short - each language has its own community, and those guidelines are what we do in the Polish community. There has not been a website wide consensus for all languages as to this particular thing. Vininn126 (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I got it. Thank you for telling me this! --TongcyDai (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@TongcyDai No problem. Glad to have a new editor so open to corrections. Keep up the good work, and happy editing! Vininn126 (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Passive participle of dotyczyć

After searching Google Books, I found some, but not much, use of a passive participle dotyczony:

• "z załączonymi 1[second digit obscured by Snippet View] dotyczonymi dokumentami", from a book from 1957, "Czyn zbrojny wychodztwa polskiego w Ameryce"
• "wpisywano do drugiej kategoryi ksiąg wszystkie rodzaje spraw sądowych, ... prócz ... spraw dotyczonych długów i pożyczek, jak to już wyżej zaznaczono." from the preface to a history book from 1903
• "Wraz z głównym raportem podano królowi spisany na gruzach zdobytych murów dokument, świadczący nader pochlebnie tak o sporządzających go jak i dotyczonym przezeń [i.e. przez niego]," from an essay on Stefan Batory's war with Russia published in 1862
• "żądam złożenia kopii depeszy dotyczonych sprawy Polskiéj", from a translation of British parliamentary debates from 1861
• "Dotyczone w niem [probably a typo for nim] mocarstwa przystały chętnie", from an essay in a magazine "Kółko Rodzinne" from 1860
• "w dotyczonych 10 latach", from a law book from 1858
• "prawidła i przepiſy, ... które Rządom kraiowym dotyczonym du [probably a typo for do] nayſciśleyſzego i naydokładnieyſzego zachowania podano." from a list of edicts of the w:Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria from 1805

(There were also some later examples that Google Books listed but its Snippet View wouldn't show.) This seems to satisfy the requirement of "use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year" in WT:ATTEST, but I'm not sure if that applies to specific uses of included words. - LaetusStudiis (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@LaetusStudiis Nice find. This seems attestable. If you want to change the template to have pp in it, and add this (possible as "rare"), that would be fine by me. We might want to add something like "usually intransitive". Vininn126 (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

RE: Archaic words

From Słownik staropolski by A. Krasnowolski and S. Niedzielski. Michalite (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Michalite Also @KamiruPL I think we might need to do some clean up. Okay, you should stop. Old Polish is not the same as archaic Polish. Have all of your entries been this? Vininn126 (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Define "Old Polish". The scientific description dates its end at the end of 15th/beginning of 16th century. The Słownik staropolski by Krasnowolski and Niedzielski does not deal with the oldest works in Polish, in contrast to the Słownik staropolski by K. Nitsch, which only deals with that period, and only that one specifically. Michalite (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@MichaliteSo what date are they dealing with? Vininn126 (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Michalite Also what's the isbn, Google pulls up no results, I'd like to check it out for myself, we might want to make a reference template for it. Oh, Niedźwiedzki, not Niedzielski. Vininn126 (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It generally runs undated, though the Introduction mentions "common parlance of the past centuries" as well as "written sources". I hence opted for archaic labelling when I'm unable to cross-check with Nitsch. The dictionary is available on the Polish Wikisource if you are having a hard time finding a more readable copy. Michalite (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

So the undated aspect really throws a wrench into the work. Turns out I have a copy on Google play, it was just the name that gave me bad results. I also have no idea how they made this dictionary. What are their sources, etc? It's hard to use it because we have no dates or sources, other than them. Vininn126 (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Michalite Also look at other Old Polish dictionaries - they all cite this dictionary, suggesting it's seen as Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Another anon to block

Please delete the λέλεγμαι entry and ban the anon...this trash obviously does not belong on Wiktionary. I'm guessing my attempt to ping you failed because I misspelled your name the first time. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Acolyte of Ice Done. Vininn126 (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Edition in "Portuguese - poeta"

"poeta" is widely used as a two-genderd word in portuguese. 186.232.57.155 10:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

-liście and pl-p

Hi there. I was just creating strzeliście this morning when I noticed something odd with the pronunciation template. Looking at the code now I can see it's designed to give alternate pronunciations when the word ends in -liśmy, -liście, etc. However, there are plenty of words ending in -liście that shouldn't show this alternative, whether lemmas like strzeliście and szkliście or non-lemma forms such as liście and soliście. Is there a way to make this functionality optional? Cheers, BigDom 06:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point. @Max19582 added the code, but perhaps there'd be an easy way to turn this off. @Surjection, could you help? We need to be able to turn of [10] the "local past tense suffixes" found at the beginning. Vininn126 (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems pretty easy to add. What should be the parameter name? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe "lpt" for "local past tense"? Vininn126 (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

JFKGI

Any idea what JFKGI stands for? Zero Google hits.

Unironically, "just fucking google it". it's on urban dictionary. You're either trolling or didn't actually just fucking google it. Vininn126 (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Please don't be a smartass. "just fucking google it" is JFGI, for which there is an entry, and of which I am clearly aware. What we are discussing is JFKGI, with a K in the middle. 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:F04E:5F9B:5D4:BCB8 22:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I misread, and thought JFGI was removed, all apologies. Not sure what it could be, in which case you are probably right to remove it. Vininn126 (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

QED. 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:F04E:5F9B:5D4:BCB8 22:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Re: Welcome

Thank you! MichaelTheSlav (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Re: Dialects

Thanks for advice, I’ll make sure to read the linked page. When it comes to my last edit – this word is also used in Częstochowa and surroundings, and this is why I wanted to add it in the first place since I’m from there. I compared the entry with the one on Polish Wiktionary and hastly just copied the label, forgetting that Silesian is classified as a distinct language here. My bad! I added it back, just for Częstochowa. If something’s still wrong you can revert it, I’m still getting used to editing Wiktionary having previously only edited Wikipedia.

BTW, I remembered I have a book which is a study of colloquial speech of Częstochowa residents with transcriptions of speech, and I’m pretty sure I can find a few examples for dialectalisms from there, would that be an OK source to cite examples from? MichaelTheSlav (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@MichaelTheSlav Okay, that's fine. I'm not taking your edits in bad faith, obviously if you're from a region and they talk a certain way, it's harder to doubt. The quotes are best if they are used not in a sort of linguistic context, but if it's like a study or something and they are quotes of real people, I'm pretty sure that's fine. Vininn126 (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! The methodology of the study is described at the beginning of the book. According to it the people were asked questions about a variety of topics and their responses were recorded. They were not informed about the purpose of the study and care was taken to make the tone of the study informal, so that they speak their vernacular. The transcribed texts are mostly monologues of people describing various things and stories from their life. I think this would be good then? It’s not very easy to find examples of dialectalisms in other contexts, and this is probably better than a book f.e. where the author could imitate a dialect incorrectly based on stereotypes or cliches. MichaelTheSlav (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@MichaelTheSlav Yeah! That's real, actual use. You'll want to get acquainted with {{quote-book}}. 3 quotes is ideal, but this should cover at least 1 for a lot of them. And yeah, dialectal stuff is usually a lot harder to document, it's sad. Vininn126 (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought I posted a reply to you here in the morning, but it seems I accidentally closed the tab before saving oops. So as to your question: in the book the texts are given in a phonetic transcription, so no punctuation or capitalization of any kind, just pauses in speech marked. But whenever lexical or grammatical forms are discussed in other sections they are written in the standard orthography for convenience (if pronunciation is discussed the transcription is kept obviously). AFAI can see this is the way dialects are usually transcribed. So in the examples I give I adapt the spelling to the literary standard, because I am giving an example of a lexical item, so pronunciation is not a concern here.

Also, I tried looking up the words in Słownik gwar polskich but I have to rely on online scans since it costs a fortune and I am a poor student, and it’s more difficult than I thought, and as I wrote in edit desc. the two terms I just edited seem to have a very widespread dialectal discribution (TBH, I had no idea „tera” is dialectal, I thought it was just a general colloquial variant). So wdo you think it’d be OK to just leave (dialectal) there, instead of listing everything? MichaelTheSlav (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@MichaelTheSlav I believe I have the same dictionary. And I see, I was asking just for formatting. Vininn126 (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Greek IP at Grease Pit

I noticed your reversion of an IP at the Grease Pit yesterday (this morning my time). Some background: this is someone in Greece who is so convinced they know more than everyone else that they've been trying since at least 2015 to completely rewrite Wiktionary's coverage of English philosophy and physics terminology. The fact that it isn't their native language means nothing to them: as far as they're concerned, actual usage is all based on ignorance and should be replaced with stuff they made up. Their trademark is verbose definitions that don't make sense because they use their own meanings instead of what anyone else would understand. Just recently I ran across a revert by someone from Greek Wiktionary, with an edit summary making it clear that they're as fed up with this idiot as we are.

It got to the point that I finally wrote Abuse Filter 128 to lock them out of languages other than their own. That's why they post to the Grease Pit: the default abuse-filter message links there. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It seems some people just can't let certain things go. Vininn126 (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

rozmyślać template typo

Hi, could you check out what seems to be one of your edits in rozmyślać? I can't make heads or tails out of the typoes (or some kind of mistaken paste error?) in {{preo|pl|nad|instrumental|means=on something}}. Kristian-Clausal (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

It was just missing a closing bracket, but you've never heard the syntax to ponder on something? Vininn126 (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kristian-Clausal Fixed. Vininn126 (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not know Polish and I had never come across "+" in templates before. After trying to google for "preo" or "prep" or "preposition" templates I gave up. I will not bother you in the future. Kristian-Clausal (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kristian-Clausal Here's a secret: in Wiktionary's search bar and type Template:+preo. You can do this with any template to learn more how to use it. Vininn126 (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

próć

Ad [11] Have you visited those sites? WSJP just reads "Number of entries: 0. Not found." PWN reads: "Not found". PWN has a corpus, but the corpus doesn't contain this word. "WSJP is constantly updating" - ok, so we can add this link when (if ever) it is updated with this word. But at the moment there is nothing a reader can learn after following those links. Olaf (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Olaf Yeah, I know. It's a bit of a weird thing we do. I've discussed this with some of the other editors. It's a bit easier to have them now for when they eventually get to it. But the counter argument also makes sense. If you wanna raise this with some of the other Polish editors, sure. Vininn126 (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Is this policy described anywhere? Where was this discussed? (I don’t see anything in WT:About Polish) This seems really backwards to me. It’s IMO dishonest and misleading to list sources that do not contain any information about a given entry. I know it’s not the References section, but still I take dictionaries listed in Further reading of an entry as a statement that those dictionaries back this entry and information therein (and I think I’m not alone? as in, that’s the default for most Wiktionary readers?), while in fact they don’t. // Silmeth ^@talk 18:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Silmethule It hasn't been much, it's a defacto rule that's been aruond as long I have been editing. I am not married to the practice. There has been a certain amount of pushback and it's probably worth it to bring it up somewhere. While I don't particularly love the practice, it has paid off on numerous occasion, as they are frequently adding words. Might be worth it to somehow scrape their recently added word list (which only lists a few each day) and somehow automate it. Vininn126 (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

A Priceless Bot Fail

I found this in the abuse filter logs and just had to share it with someone. First a little background: there's a spambot run by some idiot in Indonesia that tries to increase search-engine rankings for various sites by creating fake user pages that link to them all over the internet. Aside from the fact that we don't allow the type of user pages that the bot is trying to imitate, the whole idea of generating user pages by randomly combining names, places, personal details, etc. and trying to pass them off as something an actual human being would post is doomed by the programmer's ignorance and incompetence.

See Special:AbuseLog/1301108 for probably the goofiest example I've seen since the one about living in "a seaside town in northern Switzerland"... Chuck Entz (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It's the madlibs of spammers. People will try to use Wikis for anything, but I can this is something else... What the hell does it mean if your hobby is knapping? They just took a list of random-ass gerunds! Vininn126 (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

There actually are people who make stone tools as a hobby (see Knapping#Uses. The parts are pretty much all plausible- it's just the combination that's bad (along with some rather poor English). Chuck Entz (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks for sharing. Vininn126 (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Translations in global maximum, global minimum

Hey! It seems like you've added translations that mean "extremum of the function" or "global extremum" to both of these. If that is the case, then it is wrong because extremum is a hypernym of minimum/maximum. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

You are right. I have corrected the translations. Vininn126 (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Parentheses and gloss template

Hi there. Just wondering about this edit as it seems quite odd to me. Why would there be a comma before a gloss, and is the binomial name really a gloss at all? My understanding is that the gloss template is meant to be used when there is a clarifying definition after the translation if needed as per WT:ELE. Other things in brackets which aren't glosses (e.g. binomial names, brief usage notes) just go in regular brackets/parentheses, or at least that's how I've always done it. Anyway, like I said, just wondering. Cheers, BigDom 11:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The comma is erroneous for sure. Good catch. As to the gloss, that's a fair question. Perhaps you are right, and I might not touch other translingual names. Vininn126 (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Yeah it's not too clear in the ELE when to use the template and when not to, just the way I've always done it. Consistency is good though, so I'll try and remember to use it for short glosses too such as {{gl|fish}}. I think leaving binomial names in normal brackets is probably a safe bet though. BigDom 11:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Alternate forms of Polish imperatives

According to WSJP orać (though not the derived words zaorać or zorać) has two imperative forms orz or órz (in addition to the colloquial oraj). Is there a way to include these different forms (orz, orzmy, orzcie and órz, órzmy, órzcie) in the first conjugation template on that page now, or do you need to add a separate conjugation template for each form of the imperative? - LaetusStudiis (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@User:Vininn126 the change you made to orać doesn't seem to do this correctly, since the template applies the suffixes only to the second form and thus lists the 1st person plural imperative as "orz/órzmy". - LaetusStudiis (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

You are right. I'm not sure the template has an altimp parameter (yet). For now we'll have to use two. Vininn126 (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

„maciora”

Hi! In your edit yesterday you added that maciora comes from mać + -ora (is this even a suffix in Polish?), but as I myself added this form doesn’t come from any suffixation but from grammatical leveling. Maybe I could illustrate this. You can see the PS inflection here, and from that the Old Polish inflection looked something like this (modern orthography, omitting the dual and the vocative):

	Sing	Plur
Nom	mać	macierzy
Gen	macierze	macior
Dat	macierzy	macierzem (???)
Acc	macierz	macierzy
Instr	maciorą	macierzmi
Loc	macierzy	macierzech

Dat. plur. by regular sound laws should be as above, although I don’t know whether this is even attested, because later it was leveled to -am and yet later to -om. But as you can see this declension has three stems, the nominative mać, and two oblique: macierz- and macior-. Because this inflection is not only horrendous, but also this is one of only two r-stems I think, this was simplified, but to all three stems at once, so the word was split up and the meaning too. So I don’t think there is any case to be made for a suffix †-ora. The -or was part of the old oblique stem, whence it was extended to the nominative stem, and -a was added because feminines in Polish can’t end in a hard consonant.

Cheers! MichaelTheSlav (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@MichaelTheSlav We have one other word suffixed with -ora at the moment, which is kasiora [12]. This kind of grammatic leveling isn't something that Polish id often, but you should mention that in the etymology line. Vininn126 (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Translation requests

Hey Vininn. Don't hesitate to let me know if you don't like my translation request spam. It's not that I need these translations into Polish, I just have the Finnish and Polish requests as part of my copy-paste template for when I want to add a German translation. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha Nah, I was mostly just goofing around. It's some sort of inside joke between various editors to ask for only Polish and Finnish, seeing as Surjection and I deal with it. I complain, but it's not meant to be taken seriously. Cheers! Vininn126 (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I remember seeing some comments of exasperation some time back when I added a couple of dozen requests to some very technical vocabulary :') so I just wanted to make sure! Cheers — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Spacerować

Hi. Are you sure that "pospacerować" is the perfective pair of "spacerować"? For me it's the same like "pośpiewać", "pograć" - to do some activity for some time (BTW. This is also the PWN definition). When we look at the page of Russian гулять (imp.) we have погулять (perf.) - and their translations are: 'to walk' and 'to take a walk'. And "przespacerować się" means 'to take a walk' (PWN: 'odbyć spacer') in Polish. If you go to the page 'to take a walk', it will send you to 'stroll'. That's why I think that pair should be: "spacerować" (imp.) and "przespacerować się (pf.).

I have an additional question, can I show verbs with the reflexive pronoun, like "naspacerować się" (of course the page link is to "naspacerować") or "przespacerować się"? Are only the "spacerować" and "naspacerować" versions acceptable on Wiktionary? Caslonc (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Caslonc I also am unsure that pospacerować is the pair. It might be a verb without a perfecitve pair - przespacerować się would be a very odd pair. As to reflexive verbs - we tend to not show the reflexive particle on pages, and only in the definition line with the {{label}} reflexive. Vininn126 (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't insist on "przespacerować się". But "pospacerować" just doesn't work for me.

BTW. From when we have a rule that pairs of aspects have to be predictable? Pairs can be non-reflexive and reflexive, e.g. Russian стать (perf.) and становиться (imp.) 'to become'. Caslonc (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Caslonc I've removed any perfective pair for now. And I'm not saying it can't happen, it happens quite a bit, but to me it's more an indicator that something else might be happening. Vininn126 (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Now that I think about it (I really forgot that there is "przespacerować" ;) ), it's better without any perfective: "Spaceruję. - Przespacerowałam się." but "Spaceruję 5 km dziennie. - Przespacerowałem 5 km." They can't be pairs - because one sentence need the reflexive pronoun and other not. I consider the topic closed. Thanks for your hard work and editing the page. Caslonc (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

stękać

If this is wrongly formated, please amend, but do not leave something wrong. Diligent (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Diligent It'd be worth it to check other sources and to see how we format Proto-Slavic entries to be sure which form to link to. I am unconvinced we use the forms always presented in that dictionary. Vininn126 (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Please delete my mistakes

Hey, I just made a little mess with topic categories that needs to be cleaned up...I added a category to an Abkhaz entry, which is represented by langcode ab but somebody had used the code abq, which is for Abaza, in the {{syn}} template. As a result I wrongly created a "chain" of topical categories with the lang prefix abq, and as the lowest level one, Category:abq:Shrikes, is empty of course the whole lot of abq topical categories up as far as and including Category:abq:Animals should be nuked. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Acolyte of Ice Should be taken care of. Vininn126 (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Nice, thanks. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Polish Translation of the Term circumambulation

The Polish edition of Wiktionary translates the term "circumambulation" as okrążanie. What do you think? Apisite (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Apisite That's also fine - literally "encirclement, lap (e.g. around a race track)". There's no specific term for the ritualist connotation AFAIK so I went with a general "walking around" gerund. We could probably list both. Vininn126 (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Collocations

Hi there. I like the addition of collocations such as this, but I was just wondering whether there might be any copyright issues with borrowing WSJP's lists wholesale like that? Obviously they are common collocations but I would think that the specific choice and ordering would definitely be within the realms of intellectual property. I had a quick look around but couldn't see what license (if any) they were using, just a generic copyright notice (also don't know what copyright laws are like in Poland). Just a thought anyway. Cheers, BigDom 09:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@BigDom You raise a legitimate concern, I believe. I wonder what a solution could be? There is also concern for things like using synonym lists, IIRC. I have been trying to avoid this by changing it around some by adding a Doroszewski word and such when appropriate. Vininn126 (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@BigDom Following this further - I do frequently change them a little - remove some, add some, or get my own from NKJP, like on boazeryjny, but you are probably right I shouldn't really ever do each and every one, just to be safe. Vininn126 (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, been out for the day and just got back. Yeah it's a tricky one, I don't think there's anything wrong with using a few, especially if they're very commonly used because this kind of information is really useful for readers/learners, but we should probably avoid overdoing it. Cheers, BigDom 18:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

As to overdoing it - I have been wondering about the format. On some pages it's rather cluttery. It might be best to have them collapse like some nyms, or to have them collapse after a certain amount. Vininn126 (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, collapsing would be great if possible. How many were you thinking, 5, 10? BigDom 05:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking 3 :P I've been trying to bug one of the programmers to implement that, but it's slow goings. Vininn126 (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@BigDom Just to inform you, I've taken to scraping collocations from NKJP. They aren't as complete but we can work on it with time, and with large ones I add them in a box. See afirmacja. I was wondering, though, thing I should add the {{R:pl:NKJP}} template to references when I do this? (I made it for some etydating, and I tried getting the template to allow for a link, but the links they produce are weird). Vininn126 (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me, much tidier in the box (although on the flip side, obviously less visible). I guess a reference would be preferable but if it's too difficult to link to an individual word then it's no big deal. BigDom 14:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that the reference is just a link to the corpus in general. I've had to do that with dating before, too. I guess I'll start leaving it under references. 14:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC) Vininn126 (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Cognates

It's standard practice to remove cognates once the proto page is set up. All the cognates can now easily be found, so there's no point in highlighting just one cognate (or alternatively, listing them all on multiple pages). Hergilei (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Has it been? Talking with other editors I haven't heard that. If it is, could you link me to the discussion showing that? Again, I'm not against removing them, I've never found them the most useful, but I've heard different things from different editors. (This might be worth a BP discussion). Vininn126 (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hergilei I have started a Beer Parlor discussion. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Vininn126 (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

bepis

i can't be angry at you (but only you!!!) so i'll drop it this time and stop arguing UωU Shumkichi (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

<3 Good boy. Vininn126 (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

grasz w huia4????????

;___________________________________________; btw. I recommend this channel, it's full of awesome nationalist songs :pleading_face: :thonk: :winin126: Shumkichi (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

🤔 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBi-LmIsTKc&ab_channel=FaryaFaraji Vininn126 (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

That’s grand. I am finally in the mood to sleep now, towards a productive day tomorrow. ヽ༼｡> ل͜ <｡༽ﾉ Fay Freak (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

collocation template

t:coi, which you changed my use of t:uxi to, doesn't have any documentation now; do its parameters work the same way as with t:uxi, or are there significant differences in their use that I should be aware of? - LaetusStudiis (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It's more or less the same. One thing that's different is that if there are many, they are put into a box, e.g. błysk (if you see a page with a ton of them don't be afraid to convert it into a box). Vininn126 (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please ban this idiot who won't quit vandalising the alop entry, as per my post at WT:VIP Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

👍 Vininn126 (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

For IPv6 addresses (the long ones), you need to append /64 at the end of the IP before blocking. Otherwise, it doesn't really do anything, see mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Vininn126 (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, it's really that simple? I had always wondered about range blocks but never got around to asking for an explanation. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Now they are either engaging in block evasion or another person is doing the same thing...please block this IP and protect the alop entry. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Specific blocks

In case you were unaware, you can block an account from specific namespaces or pages without blocking them from everything. For someone who is causing problems on RFV, RFD, BP, etc., simply blocking them from the Wiktionary namespace would suffice. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I am, please see my response on his talk page as to why it was a global block. Vininn126 (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Old Polish IPA

I understand that pronunciations of extinct languages might not be exactly accurate, but also at the same time many extinct languages have reconstructed pronunciations here, so I thought adding Old Polish one could be interesting too. Kapki555 (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kapki555 This is a wider issue that involves more than just the Polish community. While I think Old Polish pronunciation is mostly reconstructible (however there are also issues with Middle Polish), there's also the issue of providing IPA for extinct languages in general. There have been Beer Parlour discussions about this, and frankly, the issue deserves more attention than what my talk page can deliver. Vininn126 (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I haven't looked into any discussions about it, but alright, I understand that it might not be as simple as I thought. Kapki555 (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kapki555 I'll try to find the conversation for you. If you are interested, please participate! Vininn126 (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, thanks! Kapki555 (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kapki555 here you go! Vininn126 (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

mieć zielone pojęcie

(also pinging @Shumkichi for info) Didn't mean to start WW3 with this entry, apologies! I'm pretty neutral as to whether the lemma is at the positive or negative form (I went for the former on the model of English have a clue and have the foggiest), but if it is to stay positive then probably best to move it back to mieć zielone pojęcie (currently a redirect) and delete mieć zielonego pojęcia as ungrammatical. I would do it but not keen to get involved in the edit war. Cheers, BigDom 16:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I think being used in the positive makes it worth including as such, consdiering it pops up on NKJP and similar. It's odd, we could maybe do something like "almost exclusively in the negative". Vininn126 (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, @BigDom, I wasn't arguing with you and it's not your fault :3 we're cool bro Shumkichi (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

PWN link for wydylować

What is the point of including the PWN link when PWN doesn't list anything for this word? - LaetusStudiis (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@LaetusStudiis They usually have a corpus and irregularly update. There's a whole issue of deciding whether to include both WSJP and PWN on everything since they update. If we could figure out a system to add links when a word is added I'd be for not including them. Vininn126 (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed links that showed nothing and you reverted. Links should not say "Term in Source" when the source shows nothing for the term, not even quotations of use. That's positively misleading. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky The issue is these resources frequently add these terms - time and time again for example WSJP has added terms that were missing before but are now there, and at an alarming rate. I'm not happy with dead links but I don't want to have to check each day whether terms without them were added. I'm not very happy with either solution, and I would like a bot that could check their recently added words and automatically link them here. Vininn126 (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I see what you are trying to achieve but the method chosen seems questionable. There could be a way to instruct the template to show uncertainty about the term being there, like not "X in Y" but "X (maybe) in Y" or the like. That's a complication, of course, and I don't recall us ever doing that before, but meets the requirement not to misrepresent. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Re: Formatting

Thank you for tips, i must admit that in polish Wiktionary is easier because template the whole article is always visible and here isn't so obvious. I will try to come up with my own examples next time. Best regards Twomithe (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Polish word salad

Just now I reverted this oddity. It certainly seems like nonsense, but it's Polish nonsense, so I thought I'd run it by you. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Thanks for the heads up. I can't make heads or tails of what the hell they're talking about, and it looks like some weird Polish + Slavic pidgin. Vininn126 (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Erroneous rollback.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/baklava#English

This rollback is unjustified. 85.106.105.237 13:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

hack work

Please delete this, seems someone has been messing around putting {{rfv}} and {{rfd}} on it but honestly I feel it should just be speedied per my use of {{d}} there. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Done! Vininn126 (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Pings

Don't worry about the pings. I appreciate when someone draws attention to how my edits can be improved. For example; I just learned about {{etydate}} and how {{lbor}} is used 😄 --Christoffre (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Christoffre Glad I could help! I have a ton of templates on my userpage here. You can check out their documentation by typing T:TEMPLATENAME into the search bar. Vininn126 (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Rollback on edits for Rhymes:English and ergo

I believe that my edits on ergo and particularly on Rhymes:English were not in error and should not have been reverted.

For the latter page, none of the links for the vowels /ɛ/, /ɪ/, /aɪ/, or /ʊ/ that lack the ə symbol actually contain the rhymes that end with /ɹ/ in GA. For example, look at Rhymes:English/aɪ, which is after your reversion linked to by the link /aɪ(ə)ɹ/. It does not contain the rhyme /aɪ(ə)ɹ/ which the listed example word mire falls under. It does contain /aɪɹ/... which only lists rhymes followed by a vowel, which are distinguished in some dialects. Instead, the correct rhyme is found on the page that I had changed the link to, that the RP rhymes section already links to under the example word mire, Rhymes:English/aɪə-, about half-way down the page as /aɪə(ɹ)/. if you go to the page Rhymes:English/aɪə(ɹ), you will see that mire is indeed listed there. The situation is the same for the other three vowels.

As for ergo, the pronunciation /ˈɛɚɡoʊ/, though it is occasionally considered an error, is well attested in American English and should be listed in any dictionary of American English. Merriam Webster's online dictionary even cites this pronunciation first, spelled in their respelling system as ˈer-(ˌ)gō before listing the older pronunciation with /ɝ/ as ˈər. I don't care so much whether it is listed first or second, but that's the explanation I included in my edit description, to which you replied "What." I hope it makes sense now.

Dijekjapen (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dijekjapen I have NEVER seen this notation for rhotics and it's also not something that has been discussed in our fora recently in conversations often led by @-sche. You need concensus before unilaterally changing the notation to something unused. Vininn126 (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, which notation do you mean, like the /ɛɚ/ I used at ergo? That does seem to be used for GA or US English all over wiktionary, for example at air, err, bear, or tear. other places seem to use /ɛɹ/, /ɛ(ə)ɹ/, or /ɛəɹ/. Would that be preferable?

Or did you mean like /aɪə/ for the Rhymes page? I did not invent this, I just wanted the rhymes links for the r-colored vowels to lead to the correct rhymes, because currently, they don't.

It was not my intention to change any notation, I just copied what I saw on other pages. I apologize if I made a mistake.Dijekjapen (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dijekjapen I see this is being used there - very odd. Feel free to undo me, I was just taken aback. Vininn126 (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I undid the reversion on ergo. As for Rhymes:English, do you think that edit was ok, or should I maybe discuss it on one of the forums first? Maybe on Information Desk? Dijekjapen (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dijekjapen I suppose, sure. Vininn126 (talk) 08:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, r-coloured sounds and especially the air sound get transcribed many inconsistent-but-synonymous ways (as well as non-synonymous Mary-marry-merry ways); probably we should try to be more consistent, perhaps once we have an English pronunciation module. Regarding the rhymes page, I think this edit was actually right(?), or at least, Rhymes:English/aɪə- is were the rhymes of mire are linked to from as there is Rhymes:English/aɪə(ɹ) and not Rhymes:English/aɪɹ. Perhaps some of the issue is that Rhymes pages only use RP? (Unless GenAm actually uses a different phoneme than the normal reflex of the RP in GenAm.) - -sche (discuss) 23:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@-sche I reverted the page to that edit. I do think the problem is that the rhymes are structured for non-rhotic RP, and it would make more sense for my particular dialect (some kind of Western American) if they were sorted differently (Maya, Gaia, etc. are not in the same category as mire for me). But it sort of makes sense because I have words ending in /aɪɹ/ consistently with two syllables, the same as Rhymes:English/aɪ.ə(ɹ). It is worse for /ɛɹ/, /ɪɹ/ and /ʊɹ/, which are all consistently one syllable for me, and very obviously do not contain schwa. Sorry, maybe I should have written this somewhere besides Vininn126's talk page. Dijekjapen (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Land of milk and honey

Most modern and older Bible translations appear to use only "flowing with", though.

DayronPL (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@DayronPL Sure, but that's not what's been lemmatized in the language itself. It seems most speakers say it without. Just because that's what's in the Bible doesn't mean we should be linking to that Vininn126 (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

We could leave the literal translation in parentheses.

DayronPL (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@DayronPL I think this is close enough and gets the point across. I think a better place to do that would be to add {{lit}} to the etymology section of kraina mlekiem i miodem płynąca and link to that on the page. Vininn126 (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

zza vs spoza

these are mostly not synonymous. i've never seen "spoza" used in the sense "from behind", to me it sounds erroneous, but PWN dictionary says it's legit. but that's the only sense where these 2 words can be considered synonyms Norill (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Norill Yes, it's definitely not super common. If you doubt a word's existence it's better to RFV it, instead of just deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Fool's mate

Mat kooperacyjny (or mat pomocniczy) means helpmate; mat żakowski is archaic/obsolete (no longer used); mat głupi (= foolish/stupid/silly mate) is a rough (inaccurate) calque and can only be found in machine translations (as well as random juxtapositions of words); mat głupca (= fool's mate) is also a (literal) calque, but it is in real use. So, please restore my edition. Kamdenek (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kamdenek The problem is many of those translations are still correct, even if not used, but you removed them anyway. Remove the the bad ones, but keep the archaic ones. Vininn126 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

e problem is you removed many translations that ARE correct. h Vininn126 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I made further research in the book and found the position on page 176 from which one can see that the fourth move is what we call today the second move. In light of this, the archaic term "mat żakowski" indeed refers to the fool's mate and can stay. Kamdenek (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kamdenek Alright, seems good to me. I made a change on the English page with the formatting. Vininn126 (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Literal etymology

Should the etymology section on Polish multiword terms still use the "literal" template when word order differs from English? This being the English Wiktionary after all, I'm concerned that readers who don't know which-word-means-what will conclude, from the literal template, that for example in lis rudy lis means red, and rudy means fox. Shouldn't there be a word-by-word etymology instead? – Vuccala ✿  12:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Vuccala I don't believe there are strict rules for the {{lit}} template, I prefer it on entries. Some people probably don't like it, but we've been adding it on Polish entries. Vininn126 (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Vuccala BTW as to the order, yeah, it's fine to change the order of the translation. Also, the template has a second parameter for looser translations. Vininn126 (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Affirmative, and thank you! – Vuccala ✿  18:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

df

"clutter up categories" - mhm, sure, and you came up with this excuse yourself or was it someone from Discord? That's not a logical reason at all, how can you clutter up categories if the specific entries say explicitly that they are alternative forms? wow, so much work clicking on the basic form instead. but whatever, i can see that you're too afraid of the clique here to decide for yourself and you have to "discuss" everything with them. and stop threatening me, lol, i'm not a child. Shumkichi (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Shumkichi It's generally preferred by the vast majority of editors that those forms aren't there. Imagine you're browsing the category and you see that? What purpose does it serve to see three alt forms of the same thing in a row? And I do plenty of things that don't agree with the others; you just feel the need to start drama and yes, discussion is the entire process of Wikis, so is reading the CFI, which I know you haven't done yet. Vininn126 (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

they are all full-fledged words with their own declension or conjugation, pronunciation and all that stuff, all of that is intact, the only difference lies in the frequency of use, so they need to be given categories and etymologies at the very least, it doesn't matter that they are alternative forms that are rarer than the basic ones. Shumkichi (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Things that are different seem fine to include, i.e. pronunciation. But that does not actually respond to my point. Vininn126 (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Shumkichi "and you came up with this excuse yourself or was it someone from Discord?" Guilty. :) I, Twilit puppet mistress Discordia, directed Vin to you because straight-up femdom would be much too straight for thee and me. /s ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo Then you're all wrong, as always. I always have to do everything myself ehhh you should start paying me for adding these entries and preventing you from destroying everything for real dude Shumkichi (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Topic "Participles" on Beer Parlour

Why have you deleted some of my comments? They constituted an update to a report on what was currently being done and a statement of what I was proposing to do and why. --RichardW57m (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@RichardW57m If that happened, it was likely due to a Thread tools error; the updated discussion tools are prone to that. Feel free to copy and paste them. But if you check the history, you'll see that my edit did no such thing, so I don't see why you're accusing me instead of checking the history. Vininn126 (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@RichardW57m If you're referring to the rollback, it was a misclick, and if you again look at the history, you'll see I immediately undid that. Please check more thoroughly instead of accusing. Vininn126 (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

chronologiczny

Shouldn't the definition here be "chronological", the adjective not the adverb? Acolyte of Ice (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Acolyte of Ice Thanks! Vininn126 (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

północ

I am so sorry. Originally I wanted to change it to południe, but I was too tired, so I made a mistake and wrote it as an adjective. Solvyn (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Solvyn Shit happens, no worries, I was just confused. Vininn126 (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

No one is perfect, if you look at the conversation just above this one, you'll see I made a silly mistake, too. Vininn126 (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for talking to me about this! Solvyn (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Scotobiology

Couldn't "scotobiology" also be called "skotobiologia" in Polish? -- Apisite (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Apisite Having searched through polona, google books, {{R:pl:NKJP}}, and declined forms on google-groups and scholars, I am unable to come up with 3 quotations. If it's on Wikipedia, it's likely a protologism in this case. Vininn126 (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

godwit

Probably should have asked you first...but I just deleted an occurrence of a template, Template:onam, that you added to the etymology of this entry. It looks like something that would be quite useful if it worked. The problem is that not only was the template nonfunctional, but the vital word "imitative" didn't show up in text for readers, and I'm not wikisavvy enough to know of a more elegant workaround. If you can define the template or otherwise fix the issue less heavy-handedly than I did, please undo my change...HelpMyUnbelief (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@HelpMyUnbelief The template is indeed "onom", as it is now. Vininn126 (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Chuck_Entz fixed the entry. "Imitative" should have clued me in that onomatopoeia was intended. As I mentioned on his talk page, I must be a halfwit to have missed something so obvious about the entry for the godwit. – HelpMyUnbelief (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@HelpMyUnbelief No worries, you had good intentions and templates can be rather cryptic. Vininn126 (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Planet/DP template

Stop edit-warring. You do not have consensus to change the (dwarf) planets of the SS. They are what they are, not what you think to be important. kwami (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Did you READ the discussion or my reply? Vininn126 (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. One person made a request. You made an incompetent implementation to that request. Two people, no further discussion. The least you could do would be to remove false claims from the template -- you're not a vandal. As you have protected it, it's a table of IAU planets and their notable moons, plus Pluto and all its moons, not of planets and most likely dwarf planets and their notable moons. Also, for a responsible edit, you should review the links and remove the template from any articles it no longer supports. kwami (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

And the thread was closed by an outside third person, many such discussions are closed that way. Vininn126 (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

You should still attempt to make a competent job of it. kwami (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure, the links did slip my mind! Vininn126 (talk) 09:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami You know, you don't have to come at the issue so aggressively; if you had decided to follow the steps I provided above, this whole thing could have been resolved in a much less aggressive manner. Please take that into consideration next time. Vininn126 (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I removed several of the links.

Sorry, I do get irritated when people edit-war to enforce obvious errors. Could you at least correct the wording "Planets and most likely dwarf planets"? Eris is universally acknowledged as a DP, so that doesn't work. Or perhaps restore the Eris column instead -- that's the DP most likely to have a non-IAU form in European languages like Russian (since we don't care about non-European languages). kwami (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami I don't know if you intended it this way, but this still reads with quite a bit of snark. Also, that all seems to fall under scientific classification, which, while is one accepted way to classify things, is not the only, and in terms of lexicography, we do allow colloquial classification, even if it disagrees with scientific ones. This is all something you should bring up in the NEW discussion. Vininn126 (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

So, colloquially, if something is universally accepted to be something, it is not among the "most likely" to be that thing?

"Dwarf planet" is a scientific category, so the only factor in inclusion is the scientific one. There is no separate colloquial use of the term. "Most likely dwarf planets" means just that. I mean, if you can demonstrate that "dwarf planet" means something differently colloquially than scientifically, it would probably be a good idea to add that definition to dwarf planet. (I just checked. We have no such definition.) kwami (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami I'd like to reiterate this would all be better for a new discussion about the template. Vininn126 (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Then answer there. kwami (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

So you require a what, week-long? month-long? 'discussion' before you will correct an obvious error that you made, even after it was pointed out to you and you could simply fix it in good faith. Butter to obstruct with bureaucracy, I guess. kwami (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami Can you seriously calm down? I've been trying to be nice to you as much as I can, but you're not helping. And yes, the correct answer is to go through a discussion. First time here? Vininn126 (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I expect competent people to correct errors when they come across them. How you fix them is your call, but it's ridiculous to require everything to go through a bureaucracy. If I come across a typo, do I really need to start a discussion on whether we should fix it? kwami (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami If you continue this behavior I will take action. This is also a false comparison - the two are not even remotely similar. All I asked was you start a proper discussion instead of commenting on a closed on and undoing everything, which is not how these things are handled. Get used to it or leave the project. Vininn126 (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

"This behaviour"? You will "take action" because I complain when you refuse to correct an error you created, and block others from correcting it. Okay, you're not serious about creating a reliable dictionary, that's on you, but making threats over it is ridiculous. kwami (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami I didn't refuse, I went around removing some links, you just beat me to the others, thanks for the help by the way. I also suggested you start another thread. I have no idea what other "errors" I could be "refusing to correct". That is an accusation simply not based in reality. And this is incredibly intimidating behavior. Vininn126 (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Wait, your threatening to "take action" against me is intimidating behaviour toward you? I complained, and was snarky, but I don't see how anything I said could be intimidating.

The error, as I pointed out, is that the template says it's the "planets and the most likely dwarfs", but it's not. Not any more. When the content was changed, the description of the content should have also been changed to match. We could re-add the most likely dwarfs, even if only the one column for Eris, or we could change the wording to reflect the new contents. You might be able to think of other ways to correct it. kwami (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami Where's the thread I suggested you start? Vininn126 (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

As for you finding my words intimidating, I apologize. I really don't see them that way, and didn't intend them that way. kwami (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I asked you multiple times to stop being snarky - we both ultimately want to improve the project and I suggested ways of doing that and you resorted to snark and insults instead of changing your tactic when you barely even know me. And yes, this is something people take action over. You know better than that. Vininn126 (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Flood flag

I wished I'd thought of it sooner. A flood flag would have been a way of being nice to all those who watch RfV. DCDuring (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@DCDuring yeah,sorry, should have. Vininn126 (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the best way to do it would be to make a general heading for what you are going to do, eg, Old Polish terms with errors, then set the flag, do the individual RfVNs, move them around any intervening RFVNs from others, then unset the flag and say what you've done. That way it doesn't look like you are hiding anything and you get the links between the entry and WT:RFVN, and you would be less likely to forget to remove the flood flag. I'm sorry if I'm telling grandma how to suck eggs, but I never really thought about flood flag. DCDuring (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Vikash342

This idiot spammed the same shit on their talk page, please ban them from editing that too...Acolyte of Ice (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Benwing

Could you run your cleanup script on Silesian? I've been working on adding sources, and I did some manually. I know there is some controversy regarding Silesian but for the time being we are treating it as a language it seems, it would be nice to have the propery headword templates, + templates, etc. I appreciate all the changes we've made to West Slavic lately. Vininn126 (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Dictionary links

"We should stop adding dead links and remove the other ones. We too hastily added WSJP because it did belong on a lot of entries, but not all)"

I agree if it's clear that a particular dictionary is no longer being updated and won't be expanded in the future. But for those dictionaries that are growing I think it saves us time and hassle to include the link even if there's currently no entry. There's no guarantee that someone will take the time to spot new entries to a dictionary and add the links to Wiktionary when they become available. Hergilei (talk) 21

25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hergilei (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This is still somewhat controversial, and I get the impression from other editors this might still be frowned upon. I have mixed feelings. Like, we shouldn't link Middle Polish or obsolete terms to WSJP. Vininn126 (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

"we shouldn't link Middle Polish or obsolete terms to WSJP."

I agree on this point. Hergilei (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Vininn126, is there a bot that can detect new additions to WSJP and other dictionaries, and then add the dictionary links on Wiktionary? Otherwise, I just don't see the sense in removing links to a growing dictionary. All it does it create a lot of extra work for us in the future, just to avoid a minor inconvenience of someone clicking on a link and finding that it's not yet included in that dictionary. A word like koprzywowy is almost certain to be included in WSJP at some point, but who will go to the time and effort of re-adding the links on Wiktionary when that happens? And that's only if someone takes the time to find new additions. Hergilei (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hergilei It could be written, for sure. If that word is never added, we'll still have to check, thus it's the same amount of work. Vininn126 (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

If such a bot is created, then I'm totally fine with your removal of these links. However, I'd prefer that we wait until we know for sure that this bot is possible before we proceed with removing links. I never got the impression that these links are controversial. Except for Dan Polansky, I haven't seen anyone get outraged about them. Hergilei (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

There is wide, wide, consensus in the community that we should not add dead links. Please do not add them further. I can call other admins if you like. Vininn126 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Proto-Slavic *pьzděti

Source for PIŹDZIĆ: https://wsjp.pl/haslo/podglad/81259/pizdzic. It's a doublet of BŹDZIĆ. I want a logical source for PIŹDZIĆ "From pizda +‎ -ić." Since when Polish language works like that? ;) Regards. Caslonc (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Caslonc I will look into my sources when I get home. And update the etymology, but the word isn't attested until the 1900's, if it were inherited it would be somewhat younger.18:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC) Vininn126 (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Caslonc I have added a source confirming the pizda derivation. Also, if WSJP does that, it doesn't always mean a doublet, rather, that it might be an alteration, cf. bida/bieda. Vininn126 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Equivalent to

I'd like to thank you for making me familiar with the {{surf}} template. I had been using "Equivalent to" because I had encountered it on English terms, but this looks much better. Why does English not use it instead of "Equivalent to".

But I don't understand your edit summary. I am not sure what you mean by "Proto Slavic", but the word uslyšěti is Old Czech. Zhnka (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Zhnka I believe that Proto Slavic had *uslyšati, I can look into it. If we make the reconstruction, we can update the Slavic entries. Good to know it was in Old Czech. Vininn126 (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Also in response to your other question, editors have different preferences, and also many entries were made before its existence. There was also once a thread to change the wording somewhat. Glad you like the template. Vininn126 (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

bavlna

Hi, I saw you reverted my edit to the Czech entry "bavlna".

From my understanding, you're not supposed to use "borrowed" like that, because now it implies that Czech bavlna was borrowed directly from Middle High German boumwolle, which is not true. Czech itself hasn't borrowed anything, they inherited the word from Old Czech.

Therefore the first word should be inherited, and all before that should be derived. Supevan (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Supevan Cheers. Vininn126 (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Old Polish ꟁ

Hi. Since Old Polish didn't distinguish ⟨ą⟩ from ⟨ę⟩, now that ꟁ has Unicode support, should the lemmas be moved to that spelling? kwami (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami The lemmas are normalized, because the orthography in Old Polish was extremely unpredictable and unreliable - I could see using this perhaps in the quotes and maybe even transliterations, but I think applying it to the head is a bad idea. Vininn126 (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

You mean they've been normalized according to what it turned into in Modern Polish?

I don't know what I'm talking about, just wanted to make sure people were aware that the option existed! kwami (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

More or less, however there are still some changes that account for some phonology (i.e. ą represents a short nasal vowel and ę represents a long nasal vowel, ł represents dark l, etc). Sadly the system for Old Polish is very simple, we confer with Słownik pojęciowy języka staropolskiego which has the largest corpus. Sometimes we deviate from their lemma but often it's the best to not. Some day I might have a bot go through and change the nasals to the new unicode one! Vininn126 (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I think it's a bit too bleeding edge to adopt just yet. I'm probably not unique in seeing that character as nothing but tofu. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Page "jagoda"

Hello, I want my edit on the page "jagoda" regarding the Slovene translation be reverted. It means "strawberry", and the source provided (fran.si) lists the word with the meaning "nizka rastlina s trojnatimi listi in belimi cveti ali njen rdeči sad" ("a low plant with trifoliate leaves and white flowers or its red fruit") [13]. This meaning clearly means "strawberry", however there's also a meaning "droben, okrogel plod" ("small, round fruit"). May the page at least be allowed to have the Slovene word have "strawberry" as sense 1, and "berry" as sense 2? Thanks!

--146.212.51.39 08:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

So the word can be both just "berry" but also "strawberry"? If that is the case then both should be listed! Vininn126 (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Not only monochromatic

"Apla" is not only monochromatic, but also fully covered. Halftone is monochromatic, but "apla" cannot be halftone. The definition "monochromatic background" is therefore not precise (full), so please correct it. May be you should mention continuous tone Kamdenek (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kamdenek Eh, sure. Vininn126 (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

aplą

It was a red link. The blue link now makes sense.:-) Kamdenek (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kamdenek This is something we do for most feminine nouns with the intention to eventually make them en mass. Vininn126 (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

That rollback was an error

As a native Turkish speaker I am safe to say that Allah is singular only in Turkish (and pretty much every single language I am aware of its existence) Non lex rex (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Non lex rex 1) the formatting is wrong, you removed the headword template. Please click this: {{tr-noun}} to learn how to make the change you want. 2) Often proper nouns do end up having plurals - it would be better to check a forum such as the WT:Tea room and start a discussion there asking if the plural really is attested or not. If there are no quotes in text of it, then we can very safely, and should remove the plural! Vininn126 (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Non lex rex While I hate to say it, the "native-speaker" argument does not sway me. It holds some weight, but native speakers are not always aware of every detail of their native language. Vininn126 (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Y'all won't give up implying there are more than one God, will ya.. Non lex rex (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Non lex rex This is actually unrelated to the issue! I would like to remind you of our WT:CFI, which states we include something that is attested 3 times in independent sources - this includes things like weird plurals! It would probably make sense to include a note like "Usually uncountable", however! Vininn126 (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Whatsoever. Non lex rex (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Non lex rex I encourage you to start a discussion in the Tea room. Vininn126 (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

How to edit

Hi. I am mostly skilled in Czech language. Can you direct me to a good place to continue editing? Maybe there are entries I could contribute to? Thyself be knowne (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Thyself be knowne Hi! There is much work to be done. See Category:Czech_entry_maintenance, Category:Requests concerning Czech, and WT:RE:cs to start. You should also take a look at WT:About Czech and the discussions we've been having on the discussion page. Happy editing! Vininn126 (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Vininn126 Thanks for the internal links. WT:RE:cs is a good start for me to cut my lexi-teeth Thyself be knowne (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Thyself be knowne It's good to have another Czech editor! Please do not hesitate if you have further questions.

Relatedly, there is a template used to ping a group of editors all at once, and there's one for the Czech editors, would you like me to add you? Vininn126 (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what that question means. You mean like a newsletter? Thyself be knowne (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Thyself be knowne Not quite. On Wiki projects we have many fora and discussion threads, and when a particular thread is of interest to a group of editors that regularly edit a language, they can all be notified at once, the same way how I ping you in these replies but en masse. Vininn126 (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Vininn126. I don't want to be notified now. I will first learn more about editing the website, it already appears very complicated. Thyself be knowne (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Hi! I was reading the literature you sent me on my Talk page, and found some useful projects to work on, which I hope will help this project Thyself be knowne (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Thyself be knowne That's great to hear! If you have any other questions, please just ask. Happy editing! Vininn126 (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

A word to the wise is sufficient...

bok

@Chuck Entz Fixed. Vininn126 (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

tablica Mendelejewa

Someone added the wrong audio file to this entry. Just said I'd alert you instead of removing myself, in case you know if an appropriate audio file actually exists. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Acolyte of Ice Thanks, checked the commons, nothing there; removed. Vininn126 (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Warning for vandalism of the "cisgender" page

{{subst:An3-notice}}

{{subst:uw-disruptive2}}

This user is vandalising the "cisgender" wiktionary page by making edits that push an anti-trans agenda, adding in the definition of the word that it's "sometimes offensive" and claims with weak evidence that people prefer words like "nontransgender".

This user is clearly pushing a political anti-trans agenda with these edits and is hiding it under the guise of accurate reporting. Wiktionary isn't a news website, and we shouldn't make those edits to the definition of a word just because Elon Musk tweeted.

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=cisgender&action=history

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=cisgender&diff=prev&oldid=73567303

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=cisgender&oldid=73566477 HastinessParrot (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The only people who find the term cisgender as offensive/ a slur do so because they see themselves as the normal and believe the label is useless (Which is undoutably a belief based in prejudice and normative society where being cis is default and trans is othered). There are cases where some people might find the term offensive because they genuinelly don't understand what the term implies however I don't believe thats a strong enough of a reason to add that.

I persoanlly think its counter productive to add language based in fear and ignorance and protray it as a valid reason of concern. This is coming from a cisgender person myself. Cisgender is a neutral term, the same way heterosexual. homosexual and transgender is. Don'taskwhyImadethis (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Vininn126, I know this is old news by now, but I wanted to say you did a good job handling this whole situation. I may not have liked the state of the page when you locked it, but I'm impressed that you were willing to talk it out for so long, and I think the end result strikes a better balance.

As for your comment about how a bunch of Wikipedia editors weighed in without realizing that Wiktionary works differently? Yeah, guilty as charged. I'll be sure to read up on wiki-specific policies next time. Player 03 (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Player 03 I appreciate that. Also, page-locking during edit wars is standard practice. Vininn126 (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Nope, you locked The Wrong Version, completely unforgivable. (Actually, I'm familiar with the practice since it's exactly the same on Wikipedia. I wasn't saying you should have done anything differently, I was just providing context.) Player 03 (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Player 03 Lol, that's funny, gonna have to refer to that one more. Vininn126 (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

mlekomat

Is the interfix -o- necessary for a derived word that contains a word ending with -o? Solvyn (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Solvyn Ah yes, the "invisible morpheme" as I call it. Basically we can posit that certain morphemes are present if if the way they attach is invisible. Another example would be -e, as in podzamcze. There are words ending with -e, but when prefixing a preposition, you always add -e. Polish grammars corroborate this, and even on occasion you'll see a change in the stem because of such a change. Vininn126 (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your helping! Solvyn (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Etymology of "Mlýn"

Either remove the sources in references on the page for the word mlýn, since they both contradict the stated etymology, or link it up to the Old High German word mulīn, which is the correct derivation. Ohh, and thanks. 178.255.168.177 16:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I updated it. Vininn126 (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

owijać w bawełnę

the entry should actually be "nie owijać w bawełnę", which is intransitive Chomczurek065 (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chomczurek065 We can move it, but it's at least ambitransitive. Vininn126 (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

surface etym cleanup

I did this for Polish; there were about 70 terms needing fixing. In the process I tried to split most cases where you had a masculine and a feminine surname under the same headword line (usually {{head|pl|proper noun|g=m-pr|g2=f}}), creating two headword lines {{pl-proper noun|m-pr}} and {{pl-proper noun|f}}, two definitions, and two declensions (where appropriate, i.e. when the feminine isn't indeclinable). This affected about 10,000 entries. There are still a smattering (maybe 100 or so) that need to be fixed manually one-by-one. Benwing2 (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Also I downloaded the whole list of {{pl-p}} usages. Quite a lot of them have a single quote in them marking the stress, and I'm not so sure how to handle this. Many of them will magically go away because they won't need any respelling, but for the remainder I'll need additional help. As I mentioned before, I really need you to think carefully about what sort of transformations need to be done, taking in as many edge cases as possible and giving examples of such transformations (ideally several dozen of different types, not just one or two). Benwing2 (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd also like to consider switching to {{pl-pr}} and using inline modifiers instead of separate parameters, similar to how {{es-pr}} and {{it-pr}} work. I think the inline modifier approach is generally more flexible and intuitive. Benwing2 (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Unfortunately you are right - I think this might be a process of replacement, because the previous code was so janky. As far as using modifiers, @Catonif had some similar ideas as well, and I am okay with it, and as far as using this abbreviation, I personally understand, I don't know how the other editors would feel. Vininn126 (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Finally, can I just quickly get people's opinion's on including the Northern borderlands dialect? @Tashi @Shumkichi @Hythonia I propose we just do a simple consonant substitution of all the consonants listed at the Wikipedia article and put the transcription in []. Any objections? Vininn126 (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

k, no objections Shumkichi (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Is the list somewhere? Vininn126 (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

See User:Benwing2/pl-p-manual. There are 10,302 entries. Benwing2 (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Thanks. It seems like most of these should stay or use "." Vininn126 (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Vininn126 Take a look towards the end. Also can you give me specific examples of what needs to be changed and how, if it's not simply to be deleted? Benwing2 (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Like I mentioned before, if we can remove the respelling and the IPA is the same with the new code, it should be removed. This should get rid of a TON of respellings, including ones with affixes, -ti-/-di- -> -tj-/-dj- respellings, respellings with nasal vowels, etc.

Words starting with o-, na-, po- will have a ' or . immediately after them followed by any number of .'s and potentially ' if they were followed by .. In these such cases, we should remove all syllable breakers after the prefix and replace what's after the prefix with just ., such as oznaka, postali, następstwo.

Liquids now attach to their previous syllable, like r, so take that into consideration when removing respellings.

Multiword terms with prepositions will now automatically cliticize them, so na-zdrowie can now have the respelling removed (this should still be related to the first change).

If there's a ' in a non-penult syllable in a respelling, the word should be left alone. Vininn126 (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Polish RQ templates

You made a ridiculous number of Polish RQ templates. Are they ever gonna be used? GPWERGLWE (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@GPWERGLWE they are slowly being used! They are serving a very specific purpose, and I used one recently on miotelny or raz. They help sometimes chronologize a term or even help proof its existence. Most haven't been used yet but not much time has passed since I made them, but they are slowly, one by one, being used. Vininn126 (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Polish collective numerals

Why did you remove the usage note for Polish collective numerals? Was it wrong or something? Esszet (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)