User:Ready Steady Yeti/Database/1

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

For the main page of the database, see User:Ready Steady Yeti/Database.

This section of the database archives Ready Steady Yeti's talk page, as of May 26, 2014. Please do not modify it, for it is part of the database.

Malagasy POS[edit]

Why are you using "Adjective" for language names, even when your definition says "the x language"? When I fixed the use of the non-standard "Proper Adjective" header on some of your entries, I looked them up at Malagasy Wiktionary, and the header used there seems to translate to "common noun".

In English, the "French" in "French language" is an adjective, but "French" by itself is a noun. When you define a word as "the x language", you're saying it's like the second case. You need to either use a different header or change your definitions. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


Per WT:REDIR, please don't create redirects unless you know that the spelling is never used in a way we would want an entry for in any language: it just so happens that Murica is a surname in at least one language, and murica is a technical term for some kind of a structure in zoology.

The correct thing to do is use the same headers and headword (but not etymology, etc.) as if it were a full entry, but use a template such as {{alternative form of}} or {{misspelling of}} or {{eye dialect of}} for the definition. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Sums of parts[edit]

Things like "cult film", "cult video game" are sums of parts: a film that is a cult one, a game that is a cult one, etc. It's like having an entry "brown leaf" for a leaf that is brown. Generally we don't have entries for these things and/or they fail WT:RFD. Equinox 22:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Verify them then. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
You asked me to do it, so why are you going around posting that they "shouldn't be deleted"? Remember, we're not saying that these things aren't real things. A cult film is a real thing; a brown leaf is a real thing. The point is, a cult film is a film that is a cult one; a brown leaf is a leaf that is a brown one. Not every Wikipedia topic needs its own dictionary entry. You can work out the meaning from the separate words. Equinox 00:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Well see kultfilm, real word, full word, no spaces, translation. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
You did read WT:CFI right? Equinox 01:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

political cartoon[edit]

This is definitely not an "alternative form" of editorial cartoon; it might have been if "editorial" were a synonym of "political", but it is hardly so. Also, WT:SOP might apply: I would argue that political cartoon is simply political + cartoon, likewise for the other term. If there is any drift in meaning in editorial cartoon, I would like to see it in citations.

And since I am already here...


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 explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. 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.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
  • If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! Keφr 17:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User:LalalalaSta and this account[edit]

Hi! I'm an alternative account of LalalalaSta. Just to let you know I like both usernames a lot so I hope it's okay that I switch back and forth every month or so. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Re diff[edit]

If you are "terrible at this", leave it alone. Do not create entries in languages you do not know. Keφr 08:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Danish, English, Malagasy, a little bit of Spanish, French, and Romanian, but not German. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
"Danish, English, Malagasy, a little bit of Spanish, French, and Romanian, but not German" what? Keφr 20:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Having entries for possessives[edit]

Just a thought: you say, "I think we could get bots to somehow do that", which means that forming a possessive from a base form (e.g. "dog's" from "dog") is a purely mechanical task that a machine can do. That's exactly why we don't have them, and why every serious dictionary in the world doesn't have them: if any user of the language can do it blindly, without actual thought (like a machine), then it's pointless to list them. You might as well ask for entries for "the dog", "the apple", "a dog", "an apple", etc. — these are just units of language that can be placed together. There has to be a line between a dictionary defining words and set phrases, and a speaker combining those things into new, original sentences. Equinox 00:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

"The dog" and "an apple" are words that are separated, but dog's is a word in itself. See Kurdish Wikipedia, I think they have those, I may be wrong. I know I saw in 1 Wiktionary entries for English possessives. (P.S.: also we here have entries for Danish possessives) Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
We do have entries for words such as baker's which are nouns used for types of shops. (Perhaps we should have an etymology section saying "possesive of ...") SemperBlotto (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

RFD - no need to give up[edit]

As for RFD: Even if at first some people seem to disagree with you, supporters of an entry that you created can pop up later. So no reason to give up too early AKA throw in the towel (kaste håndklædet i ringen). Furthermore, even if you were the sole supporter of the entry, you could still be right, and there is no reason to remove the record of your support of keeping from the RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I was careful in my explanations to frame it as "here's what you need to do to make your case", rather than "here's why you're wrong". If cult film were a completely open-and-shut case, it could have been simply deleted rather than spending the time and effort on rfd. I think most of the criteria you gave were wrong (at least as far as Wiktionary is concerned), but that doesn't mean you're always wrong- it's quite possible to be right for the wrong reasons. You've been creating some questionable and even downright bad entries because you don't understand things, but the remedy isn't to give up completely, but to be more careful and to learn more about why we do things the way we do. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I put a bit too much of a fit into this. And this morning I actually thought of a good idea for a way to keep this entry. I'll put it in the RFD discussion. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Cool it[edit]

Re diff: First, reduce use of boldface. If in doubt, use no boldface at all. Second, our processes take time; if you do not have the patience to wait, find another hobby after high school. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

How did you even know I was in high school? Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Why would you care. You can apparently tolerate uglier messages than excessive boldface. And I find your presumption that he’s in high school unnecessary, to say the least. --Æ&Œ (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Well I am in high school but I find it strange how he assumed that. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
One more thing. Abstaining from RFD for a while and just observing the process would be worthwhile. RFD is supposed to be based in part in policy and in part in non-policy reasoning. It is generally undesirable for newbies to jump into RFD and start voting their "keep" or "delete" on a whim. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)