User talk:Alastair Haines

Salve

Sorry, I don't know what source you're getting your info from but I'm putting up stuff from Lewis and Short. I'll take a dim view if you revert it. For all I know you know better than they do, but I can't presume that, sorry.

Cheerio. 124.184.219.219 02:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Signed in now :) Alastair Haines 02:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem: (1) This is one of those cases where L&S aren't just giving the definition, but are dancing all around it indirectly. (2) You've altered the definition without moving the quote to follow. The quote should remain under the definition to which it belongs. --EncycloPetey 02:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you griping about? We can do much better than L&S; please do not imply that they are the end-all and be-all of Latin. Their dictionary is replete with errors. --EncycloPetey 02:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that format doesn't fit with our conventions. There are some experiments underway to have secondary senses, but I don't think that applies in this case. Individual definitions are listed as numbered items, with the number supplied by the hash (#). I won't have time this evening to help acquaint you with standard format, since I'm about to log off and this isn't a simple case. I should have more time this weekend, especially Saturday. Are you still in Australia (as I presume from your user page)? If so, that would be Sunday morning for you, which may or may not work for your schedule. --EncycloPetey 03:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Since EP's leaving, I have a bit of time to work on it with you. Would you be terribly offended if I worked on your subpage? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Atelaes can help. If it were as simple as linking to the conventions, I'd do that. The problem is that the conventions document is long, difficult, and out of date. There is a supplement on Latin conventions (largely written by me), but it is still missing great chunks of information and hasn't had key portions updated (it doesn't deal with post-Classical entries, for example). I'd point you to model examples, but we don't have good examples yet for Latin. For now, the best way to learn the ropes is to work with someone who knows them on a few entries. The entry for virgo could become such a model entry with your help. --EncycloPetey 03:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've got a first draft. A couple of things to note. First of all, I've removed all of that nonsense about "literal," "general," "particular." Those added nothing useful to the definition. Secondly, I've made some combinations for redundant senses, such as the virgin sense. Thirdly, we usually don't add references (i.e. Horatius Flaccus, Carmina 1:12:22). Since we're not limited by space, as paper dictionaries are, we find it far more helpful to put the actual quote, if we can get our hands on it. I'll take a peek at the Latin Wikisource, and see if I can track something down (although, admittedly, I don't have all the time in the world; I have schoolwork myself). Finally, the proper noun senses should not go in this entry. The constellation should go at Virgo, and I think the aqueduct should probably be at Aqua Virgo, although I'm not positive that it would merit inclusion........but it probably would. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a cite. Now, bear in mind that I don't know Latin (I'm an Ancient Greek guy myself), so I don't really know if the quote is necessarily appropriate for the sense, but you can at least get a feel for how it should look. Additionally, the quote should have a translation, but again, I don't know Latin. :-) -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed from your note to EP that you have a thing for classical Hebrew. Well, I have a boat-load of messed up classical Hebrew that needs some cleanup(actually, a lot of cleanup). So, once we get you up to speed on formatting conventions, there's plenty of work to be done in that area, if you feel like it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

virgo

Looks as though, once again, you're arriving as I'm about to log off and go to bed. However, I can direct you to two entries that will show you comething of how a Latin entry is formatted. The entry for (deprecated template usage) cornu will give you idea of how a long list of definitions from L&S can be converted to Wiktionary formatting. In particular, the {{context}} template can be useful. The entry for (deprecated template usage) sentiō is one that I've been working on today, and it will demonstrate how to incorporate quotations.

For quotations, there is specific formatting, and it's not all that easy to remember, so having a model to follow helps. The first line provides the bibliographic info; this is indented and bulleted. We like to link the author's name to his/her Wikipedia article, and link the source to its Wikisource location. This allows users the opportunity to glean additional context. The quote itself comes next, and is further indented. The entry word is put into bold font to make it easier to spot. The third line (indented further and italicized) provides a translation of the quotation, with the translation of the entry word bolded. This basic layout is the same for quotations throughout Wiktionary, except for some older pages that have not been updated. See WT:QUOTE for more, but note that this policy page deals primarily with English quotations, and so lacks some of the useful info for Latin entries. --EncycloPetey 03:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You may not find it easy to glean formatting knowledge from watching my edits. I'm rather prolific here, and edit in multiple languages. For example, today I have edited about 50 English interjections lacking categories. Edits were necessarily minimal, focussing primarily on adding the inflection line templates rather than improving the entries to the desirable full length. I sometimes do the same for Latin, though lately I have been trying to add inflection information, related terms, and some descendants in other languages. It's often much easier to learn from model pages and from user interaction.

One helpful point you may not be aware of is that Wiktionary has a much smaller set of discussion pages than Wikipedia. Most discussions happen in one of these fora rather than on individual entry talk pages. The primary discussion pages are the Beer Parlour (general discussion); Tea Room (usage and etymology); Grease Pit (technical issues); Information Desk (questions about Wiktionary itself); Requests for Verification; and Requests for Deletion. It is actually possible for a user here to find and follow every discussion of interest. Such a thing is impossible on Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey 02:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)