User talk:SemperBlottoBot

Could you please add "{{infl|it|verb form}}" instead of the word when batch loading articles from file as in f.e. accasciandovi, accasciandoti,accasciandomi, accasciandoci, abbuffandovi, etc. Otherwise the pages fill up Special:UncategorizedPages again while i am trying to get that endless list smaller. Thanks Mutante 22:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

• OK. SemperBlottoBot 11:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not every italian participle has a female or plural form. Participles of verbs which are to conjugate with "avere" altough they are intransitive, cannot exist. Exemples: abbaiati, pranzati.... Sorry, it's simply ridiculous --85.1.137.47 14:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Yes - we know - we are considering the best action to take. SemperBlottoBot 09:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Does the bot follow the recent changes, or just your most recent edits? I occasionally find Italian words that have red linked plural, I'm assuming these are older entries, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Words that the bot has not gotten around to are either very new, very old, or are words that have multiple language sections (that the bot doesn't always see). You can always add entries to User:SemperBlottoBot/feedme. SemperBlotto 14:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just a heads-up: we might change the appearance of non-gloss definitions (see here) and as your Italian adjective forms don't use a template, they would become inconsistent. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 01:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I can live with that. SemperBlotto 06:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Ideally (per the current Grease Pit discussion) the bot should use {{form of|...|lang=it}} (not lang=Italian, which might be phased out eventually). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Latin has no common gender; only masculine, feminine, and neuter. The "common gender" in linguistics is not the same as "common to all genders". --EncycloPetey 08:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Also, the inflection line was missing a standard macron in the ending. This may be a problem on previously generated pages. --EncycloPetey 09:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Software modified/corrected. Far too much work would be involved in correcting previously generated pages. Feel free to correct any that you come across. SemperBlottoBot 11:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please conjugate préconiser

• Done. WF - you could have added it to the /feedme page - then I wouldn't have had to logon here. SemperBlottoBot 22:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Template:mf is deprecated and has been deleted. Please use {{m|f}} instead.Matthias Buchmeier 16:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I'm not aware of its use. Can you give me an example? SemperBlotto 16:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • monarchistes, bibliothécaires, bouquinistes and anthropoïdes (I have already corrected them).Matthias Buchmeier 16:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • Ah the effing French. It's because the singular uses mf in its template. I'll fix it. SemperBlotto 16:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey, SB, do you think you could have a look at [[WT:TR#Latin genitive -atis nouns]], please? I have no idea whether it's up your alley or not, but if not then I have no idea whose it would be up.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for replying there.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

diff, not sure why, not too many entries affected right now, just 9 including that one. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Looks like my owner entered a find command when editing the python code and typed on the wrong part of the screen (in Mr Magoo mode). All fixed. SemperBlottoBot 16:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, there's some weird pronunciation going on over here. Is possibly my fault --Rockpilot 21:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

minauder can be added to the FeedMe page. Thanks --Simplus2 12:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• rémunérer too
• inspecter three

It seems that there's a missing macron here; it says dēsertorum, but should be dēsertōrum, at least according to the inflection table at desertus. Could this be a systematic problem? – Krun 01:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, but it was fixed some time ago. I haven't gone back and corrected all the bad entries. Please fix them as you find them. SemperBlottoBot 08:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can you update the bot syntax to do this? Reasons are two fold. lang=French produces {{French/script}} (doesn't exist) and French has two plural past participles, masculine and feminine. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• OK. SemperBlottoBot 09:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Category:it verb forms. Maro (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

• ??? Do you mean Category:Italian verb forms? SemperBlottoBot (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Words in this category have wrong L2 header and category. See for example coproduca. Maro (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

It does seem to be limited to one verb, so presumably a one-off typo. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see what you mean. That was due to a newly added verb of an unusual form. I had to dig a model out of long-term backup. I have fixed the model, and will fix the entries next. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. there was a mistake with transpercer - see [1]. Perhaps a bug in the code. --Coippf (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if there is only one verb with that bug but I found one. Forms of imprimo, for example impresserat, link to the verb imprĭmo instead of imprimo. Another: imprĭmis also links to imprimo but No pages link to imprĭmis. Maro 22:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

• A rogue breve had got into a conjugation table and caused havoc. Should all be OK now. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

It looks like the bot ended up not adding inflections of the Latin discus to disco and disce. Would this have happened for all cases where a page already existed for an inflected form, or just if a page already existed and already had a Latin section? Emufarmers (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

• If it already exists with a Latin section, it is not clever enough to add to it properly so just ignores it. The bot is better than nothing but not perfect. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Does it generate a list of the cases where it's forced to ignore an entry? And if so, do you still have that list (from a year and a half ago, I guess)? Depending on the size of such a list, I could potentially go through and add the missing entries by hand. Emufarmers (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • Sorry. It just displays a warning message. But, as it normally runs in the background, I don't even see that very often. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/pourfondre . You mistook pourfondre for pourfendre. Regards --Maria.Sion (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Bot added a French entry, I removed it and went to modify radical only to find it already said 'radicaux' not 'radicals'. What happened? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Hah! The bot didn't recognise mplural=... it was looking for mp=... (and fp=...) only. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Still happening (niveaus, plateaus). I searched the French Scrabble dictionary, zero words end in -eaus, a couple end in -aus (landaus is the only one I can remember). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • Undocumented use of "x" as a second parameter. Please fix documentation. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Take a look here. --WikiTiki89 11:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

• The problem is with (deprecated template usage) Fleischlaberl - it has "?" as a genitive. I'll fix the German noun, and add a check to the bot. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Also you entered a dash as the plural form of Humus. PierreAbbat (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I have now corrected the headword for (deprecated template usage) Humus so that it shows the correct genitives, and uses the correct hyphen to show absence of a plural. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

You should fix your definitions of all French participles: the definition does not mean anything, it should be singular feminine past participle of envoûter (not envoûté). Lmaltier (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Such a change was made some time ago. See (deprecated template usage) claquemurer for the current text. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Thank you. But you forgot to update a number of entries, such as envoûtée. Lmaltier (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Well, I'd have to identify all the many pages affected and then write a program to update them. I haven't really got the time or inclination. Feel free to correct any that you come across. SemperBlottoBot (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your bot is still adding raw links to entries, like affûtiaux, even though that has been deprecated for a long time. I am working on cleaning up such usage right now (see Category:Entries using form-of templates with a raw link), so could you fix your bot so that it doesn't do that anymore? Thank you. —CodeCat 16:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• OK - but what's the harm? SemperBlotto (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Raw links can't be made to link to the proper section on the page, which breaks things like tabbed languages and is generally inconvenient. Also see WT:Grease pit#updates to User:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js. —CodeCat 17:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • I noticed your bot is still doing this, like on desorbendo. —CodeCat 16:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
• Your bot is still creating entries without a headword template. Please fix this, as it creates work for other editors who have to clean up after your bot. —CodeCat 13:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Why add {{rfc-auto}} on entries like [2]? Thanks by advance for your answer, Automatik (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

• It's lets another bot know to shuffle the entries into country order. SemperBlottoBot (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Ok, thanks! Automatik (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I noticed your bot added a space after the word it links to. This is causing problems because the template thinks that the parameter is not a valid page name, so it omits the link. There are others in Category:Entries using form-of templates with a raw link/conjugation of. —CodeCat 15:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

• No, it doesn't. I (the human) must have added a space in the input file. I'll fix them. SemperBlottoBot (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Thank you, it's appreciated. —CodeCat 16:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

In this series of edits [3], it looks as though the Norwegian change is correct, but the Latin changes are not. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Norwegian changes aren't correct either. It should have been changed into {{form of|Imperative|vise|lang=nb}}. —CodeCat 01:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've put it back the way it was. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Jeff.

Do you think you could have your bot add lang=fr to {{homophones}} when it creates French forms. This will (as the template is currently configured) do nothing except that it will change the links to section-sepcific links (so pastiches rather than pastiches).

Thanks.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

• OK. I've updated my -er file. I'll try to do others as they are needed. SemperBlottoBot (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks!​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Do you think you could do whichever files generated [[décrucifia]] et al. and [[ensella]] et al., please?​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

This edit correctly found a problem, but it mangled the fix. — Carolina wren discussió 01:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your bot did something wrong here: diff. It now shows "a fucking of"... —CodeCat 13:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your bot created some entries for Portuguese verb forms, but it seems to have neglected to provide several required parameters, so those pages are showing script errors instead. See prevedes for example. —CodeCat 11:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

• See User talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV‎. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

These are incorrect

Latin declension tables no longer need separate parameters for the macrons. So these have been removed. I didn't realise your bot used these templates, but I just noticed it now so I'm letting you know. The verb tables still work the old way, but they will probably be changed as well at some point. If I am the one that does it, I hope I remember then to notify you. Could you place notices on the documentation pages, like you did with the Italian templates? —CodeCat 16:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. I have modified the bot to handle the new noun and adjective formats (and tested most forms). SemperBlottoBot (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

{{plural of}} doesn't categorise anymore (see WT:NFE), and I noticed your bot hasn't been updated yet, so now it's creating orphaned entries. I've fixed the ones you created, but I'm letting you know in case you need to update your script. —CodeCat 20:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Could you point me at a plural form that is properly constructed according to your new rules. Then I can make sure all the ones I create are similar. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Instead of {{head|xx}}, use {{head|xx|plural}} or {{head|xx|noun form}}/{{head|xx|adjective form}} depending on what the language uses. —CodeCat 13:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
• I noticed your bot is adding nocat=1 to {{plural of}}. I'm guessing you copied it from some existing entries, but it was never meant to be a permanent thing. I only used the parameter to keep track of things, and now I'm removing it from the entries again. Could you change that in your bot? —CodeCat 19:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes, I noticed it myself an hour ago - bots updated. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dear SemperBlottoBot,

I created a category for you to work on if you want to. An admin has deleted it, but it's still usable.

--Kc kennylau (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

• I am only a de-1, and don't understand the complexities of German verbs. This bot won't be adding German verb forms for quite some time. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • But it did; SemperBlottoBot created g wächs, g milk, and wächs, all in error (there are no such forms), and I've deleted them. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm planning to do some cleanup work on the template, which will mean shuffling parameters around a bit. Could you hold off making any bot creations for this template until it's finished? —CodeCat 01:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hold on, before you do stuff, don't you think there should be a discussion about what changes you're going to make? --WikiTiki89 02:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's mostly just removing different parameters that do the same thing. —CodeCat 02:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

If you mean this then I'm ok with it, but I think fplural should also be renamed to fpl. --WikiTiki89 02:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, like that. I also want to make 2= replace pl=, because that parameter is underused, and 3= and othergender= will become m= and f=, so that 3= can replace pl2=. It mainly brings the template in line with other similar templates like {{ca-noun}} and {{en-noun}}, which already work this way. —CodeCat 02:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, that's fine. --WikiTiki89 02:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK. I'll keep an eye on it. SemperBlottoBot (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think the changes are done. I've asked Wikitiki to check to make sure I didn't miss anything. The documentation has been updated. —CodeCat 23:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if your bot still uses these, but in case it does, it needs to be changed because these have been deprecated and will be orphaned and deleted soon. You can use the g= parameter on {{head}} instead, if needed. —CodeCat 21:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm working on Module:la-verb, which could replace the templates we have now. Could you hold off from creating new entries from these templates for the moment? —CodeCat 02:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

• OK. They are a real mess - good luck! SemperBlotto (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi SBB. Please see these corrections I've made. For {{la-decl-1st-Greek-Ma|num=sg}}, the quantities of the final -ā̆ of the ablative and vocative forms are different, and grammatical number should not be listed in the form-of definitions of pluralia and singularia tantum; also, your bot should be able to distinguish between common and proper nouns (proper nouns have their own form-of headword template, viz. {{la-proper noun-form}}). Just flagging this up FYI. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your bot's still making mistakes with forms of Latin proper nouns; see the entries it's created recently for the forms of Geraestus. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

You should use |g= in headwords instead. Keφr 10:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your bot has been generating a few entries which call {{head}} with g=mf, which triggers errors. "mf" is not a valid gender code in Module:gender and number, it's only supported by some templates as a specific exception. For {{head}} you need to use g=m|g2=f. —CodeCat 16:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Fixed for Portuguese nouns. SemperBlottoBot (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

An edit by this bot removed the plural from "notte", changing it from "notti" to the base form. I have undone this edit. I think this might be an error with the bot. Velociraptor888 (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

• The error was in the module that is used by {{it-noun}}. It had been changed to provide the wrong plural. Fixed. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Special:whatlinkshere/disciformus is nonempty even though [[disciformus]] has never been created AFAICT.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Hmm. Added. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please do not create disconvenior for disconvenio. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey. If you get some time, why not auto-generate thousands of Spanish verb forms? --Type56op9 (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

An old error, but an odd one. Checking the latest database dump for other instances of [[=, I see that frendendus, extergens, extergendus and praedandus (just RFCed) were also affected; I just cleaned up abominandus and frendendus. (I initially noticed this thanks to DTLHS' cleanup list of instances of mismatched [[ ~ ]], Wiktionary:Todo/bad links.) - -sche (discuss) 04:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi SBB. To let you know, your bot has made the mistake to put masculine gender on some feminine past participles, for example here. I'm sure there's hundreds of other like that. Is there a quick fix? --Type56op9 (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

This template was recently merged into Template:inflection of. I noticed your bot is generating entries with the old template still, could you update it? —CodeCat 21:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Note that I had to fix trimée, trimées, trimés : https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=trim%C3%A9s&diff=32235599&oldid=27458207 But only for this verb. Are there many such cases to be fixed? Is you bot now OK? Lmaltier (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I now see that I already asked the question... Lmaltier (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I consider that fixing my (bot or manual) mistakes is an absolute priority.

Also note that these forms normally don't exist (intransitive verb). They exist only because of a new (missing) transitive sense derived from the English verb (trim). I'm afraid that your bot created many such inexistent forms for French intransitive verbs. Lmaltier (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your bot is creating module errors on French past participle forms. For example at arrhés,

===Verb===
{{head|fr}} {{m|p}}

# {{masculine plural past participle of|arrher|lang=fr}}

should be

===Participle===
{{head|fr|past participle form|g=m-p}}

# {{masculine plural past participle of|arrher|lang=fr}}

Thanks! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

• OK. I'll fix it. But I can't be bothered running the bot against French verbs anymore. Somebody else can do it. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

One of us hit 4 million. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your bot has made a few mistakes in entries it generated recently:

• ottriati is marked as the plural past participle form, but it's the masculine plural form.
• bouturée uses {{f}} which was deleted over a year ago.
• Many of the entries are missing the category parameter of {{head}}. I've fixed these with a bot for the most part.

—CodeCat 17:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can you slow him down? --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto, please delete this pile of crap that your automaton created. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 16:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

• It wasn't a pile of crap when created. The verb was changed afterwards. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

In this edit diff your bot added a French section when there was already an existing French section. DTLHS (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

• No it didn't. SB did it himself accidentally later. SemperBlottoBot (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've copied Template:de-noun's pluralization functionality over to this template and updated the documentation. This has not changed how any of the existing named or positional parameters work, it merely adds an unnamed positional parameter 3 and two named parameters pl2 and pl3, which function the same way they do on Template:de-noun. - -sche (discuss) 05:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

See Cat:E. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I added a |num= parameter to Module:la-adj to make it easier to create inflection tables for singularia and pluralia tanta and to make it more consistent with other Latin templates (such as {{la-decl-1st}}) for which you can do the same thing. I've removed all |type=pl parameters from existing entries and replaced them with |num=pl. Edit the bot accordingly. Esszet (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks. I'll investigate. SemperBlottoBot (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that while Portuguese verbs have been fixed to follow the 1990 Orthographic Convention, the third person plural subjunctive form of dar still has the old spelling dêem; it should be "deem" without the circumflex. The individual pages for those two spellings may also need updating. S. Neuman (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi @SemperBlotto. When your bot creates non-lemma entries from transclusions of {{la-decl-3rd-comp}}, could you use {{la-comp-form}} to generate the headword lines, rather than {{la-adj-form}}, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

• This bot no longer works (since https change). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi SB(B). I've made some changes:

1. In {{la-decl-1&2}}, the old |type=greek is now |type=greekA. |type=greekA displays as in adespotos.
2. |type=greekE has been added to {{la-decl-1&2}}. |type=greekE displays as in rhētoricōteros.
3. I have created a new declension template, viz. {{la-adecl-2nd}}. In that declension, the feminine forms are isomorphic with the masculine forms; in non-lemma entries, the masc./fem. forms will need duplicated sense lines, as in the case of non-lemma forms of adjectives declined per {{la-decl-3rd-2E}}.
   1. Its normal display is as in chrȳsocarpus.
   2. Its Greek variant, |type=greek, displays as in chrȳsocarpos.

I hope that's all clear. Ping me for further explanation if not. Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

• This bot no longer works (since https change). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto: Thanks for letting me know. What https change are you referring to? Is there another bot that does this kind of work? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

See [4] - I may be able to fix it if I have any spare time (busy in the real world these days). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto: OK, I understand now. Thanks and good luck, both online and IRL! — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please see the documentation for the new format. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

@kc_kennylau: “This bot no longer works (since https change).” :-(  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: I got it to work again (we are both using pywikibot). --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

@kc_kennylau: Excellent! @SemperBlotto, nota bene. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Adding an -n to dative plurals in German is not always correct. I found a few examples where your bot did this, for example Rektan. --Bruno413 (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi! There are a bunch of module errors (Cat:E) for some edits adding entries for Portuguese verb forms. This relates to the list of conjugations in Module:pt-verb-form-of. Not sure how to fix this, though I added a more informative error message. — Eru·tuon 02:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, a bunch of missing parameters in entries for verb forms of spaurarsi. — Eru·tuon 19:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I therefore marked the word as junk. Christa Bella (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Have you checked? The entry as it stands now is, of course, an error- but the word seems to have been in use. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

It looks like a conjugated form of sum, and occurs a few times on Latin Wikisource, but isn't listed in the conjugation table for sum. — Eru·tuon 20:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I asked a university Latin teacher about this, and I was told that the word doesn't exist. Latin students could make that error while conjugating sum because there are 3rd person plural future perfect forms ending with "-erint", and future perfect forms are usually made by attaching sum conjugation to the end of the word, but the 3rd person plural future form of sum is actually erunt. I'm unable to tell what the word stands for in the Wikisource texts mentioned above. Christa Bella (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

A Latin teacher doesn't necessarily know every word in every Latin text ever written. Consider how many words in your own native language you don't how about yet. :) —Rua (mew) 21:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

All three uses in thee Latin Wikisource are from after 1500. DTLHS (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Let's wait for someone to tell if it is in all cases an error or not. If no one can verify that the word has a dictionary definition or that it is an error common enough in literature to mention here, we have to delete it eventually as undefined, right? --2001:14BB:42:940F:8D54:328C:59DF:9418 23:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

The first two use "erunt" where wikisource says "erint": Prodromus florae Novae Hollandiae et Insulae van-Diemen, Biblia Sacra Vulgata. The use in "De re metallica" seems to be a scanno for affuerint. DTLHS (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think that the current text on the page is alright. 2001:14BB:42:940F:8D54:328C:59DF:9418 08:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

You auto-generated entries for forms of the Latin adjective "citer" on 9 March 2016. Unfortunately, while they all seem to have been generated on the right pages, a number of them managed to misspell the relevant form within the Latin entry itself, omitting the 'r' in the following forms: citrum, citram, citrae, citri, citrorum, citros, citrarum, citris, citras. I have corrected these typos; however, I am concerned, since the entries were auto-generated, that a similar problem may have arisen in the auto-generation of forms of other similar Latin adjectives (or nouns) ending in -er, so I wanted to bring it to your attention. [I also note that you auto-generated an entry for "citre" as a putative masculine singular vocative form of "citer" (also with typo, as above), but the correct form is in fact "citer" so I deleted this entry.] LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply