Pill
Hi, and welcome! —Myces Tiberinus 18:15 sep 18, 2005 (UTC)
Grammar
+/-Just wanted to mention that on your front page, the correct grammar is "I have been a Wictionaryan ..." --Freiberg 01:37, 13 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
why did you remove fuenf and fuͤnf from the alternative spellings section of fünf? It might have been better to describe when they are and are not used. (e.g. that fuͤnf is an old-fashioned representation of the umlaut, cf. Fuͤnfffingerkraut at [1]). —Myces Tiberinus 15:36, 27 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
- Because they're definitely no alternative spellings. OK, fuenf is often used (e.g. in the internet) beacause lot's of people don't have the umlauts on their keyboard - but orthographic it isn't correct. But maybe I misunderstood the sence of "alternative spelling" - I thought you'd mean orthographic variants. Greetings --Pill 20:28, 27 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I think the idea is that we show more than just the "standard" or "best" spellings (though of course we should have those too), but also things like transliterations and historical spellings, and even things that are commonly thought of as mistakes, if they appear often enough. Basically, we would have the "best" spelling in the page title and as the headword, but we would put in "alternative forms" any spelling that a person who doesn't know the language might run across in anything published and want to look up, with notes saying: This spelling is no longer current, or this spelling is a standard transliteration, or this spelling is informal, or this spelling is common but usually considered an error in standard language. That is, at least, what I think the best practice should be, and is the best way I have so far to describe these things while still supporting NPOV. If you think this is unreasonable or that it could be improved I would like to hear suggestions and we can find a way to make it better... A lot of the time I feel I am working alone here :p —Myces Tiberinus 22:07, 27 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
- That's ok so. I think, the best solution is to add the comment that the speeling is no more longer correct. BTW: I've never seen the spelling “fu?nf”. Greetings --Pill 23:04, 27 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I think the idea is that we show more than just the "standard" or "best" spellings (though of course we should have those too), but also things like transliterations and historical spellings, and even things that are commonly thought of as mistakes, if they appear often enough. Basically, we would have the "best" spelling in the page title and as the headword, but we would put in "alternative forms" any spelling that a person who doesn't know the language might run across in anything published and want to look up, with notes saying: This spelling is no longer current, or this spelling is a standard transliteration, or this spelling is informal, or this spelling is common but usually considered an error in standard language. That is, at least, what I think the best practice should be, and is the best way I have so far to describe these things while still supporting NPOV. If you think this is unreasonable or that it could be improved I would like to hear suggestions and we can find a way to make it better... A lot of the time I feel I am working alone here :p —Myces Tiberinus 22:07, 27 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
German adjective template
+/-Hi,
I created Template:de-declinatio-adj. There is an example of it in action at Victionarium:Harenarium. Please let me know about any mistakes you might find, or if it is too difficult to understand. (The link at the top of the table will ideally link to a page describing German adjective declension in detail.) The "comp" (comparative stem) and "sup" (superlative stem) parameters of this template are optional, so if they are not given those parts of the table will not appear. —Myces Tiberinus 03:36, 29 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
- Everything's perfect. The table is absolute good. Greetings --Pill 09:33, 29 Decembris 2005 (UTC)