User talk:Facts707/archive 1

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

staggering[edit]

We usually place the Verb ahead of the Adjective for English participle entries, since the adjective derives from the verb. --EncycloPetey 04:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the info! Facts707 04:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Interjections[edit]

I noted that you have taken some interest in interjections. Dictionary practice seems to differ. Some dictionaries seem to strain to reduce the category to cover only terms that have no obvious alternative PoS (eg, ahh) and others seem to include any grammatical isolate that is sometimes accompanied by strong emotion or is not a typical member of the alternative category (eg, yes, no don't seem like adverbs to most people). But we haven't determined the details of their systems. One can only assume that they have given some thought to the effect of these alternative presentations on users but come to different conclusions based on their assessments of who their users are.

My inclination is to reduce the category. We haven't reached a consensus. You have a fresh perspective which would be appreciated whenever the subject comes up. DCDuring TALK 22:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments. I agree with keeping as few single word, non-idiomatic interjections as possible. Otherwise there could be tens of thousands ("Green!", "Mom!", "swim!"). But I did want put in "well" as an interjection - (idiomatic) Used to acknowledge a statement or situation (short form for "that is well"). It was already an "adverb" in well for "used to introduce a statement that may be contrary to expectations" so I generalized it and put it in as an interjection instead. Facts707 22:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

English[edit]

You have started to omit the ==English== language heading. SemperBlotto 22:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, thanks, I'll watch out for that. Mostly I'm creating new entries or missing entries by copying other entries and changing them. Facts707 22:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

moon[edit]

Your quotation says Moon not moon. The Moon is the proper nouns, not the moon. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Label links[edit]

Please don't put fixed links on regional templates. {{Canada}}, for example, is used to put entries into Category:Canadian French, and potentially for regionalisms in many other minority languages. Michael Z. 2010-02-07 17:34 z

Thanks for the info, I didn't know Template:Canada had multiple uses like that, the template only says "Puts an entry into Category:Canadian English" (I will update that after investigating further). I don't see any template such as {{Canada English}} (template "Canadian English" redirects to Template:Canada); but I guess we can live without them if Template:Canada is language sensitive. At entrée a defn discusses both Canadian English and the French Canadian region, but I think this can go in the usage notes instead. (also posted to user's talk) Facts707 20:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess it's not clear: each of the regional templates has a default language, but is usable for other languages thus: {{Canada|lang=fr}}. This applies to the Scottish and Irish labels, for example, but I haven't reverted them because as far as I can tell they have only been used for English to date. Michael Z. 2010-02-08 21:16 z
In the past, I've handled examples like entrée by including the general regional template which applies the appropriate category, and then a more specific region for information (e.g., {{Canada|Northern Ontario}}). I've also created a few more-specific templates like {{Canadian Prairies}} to cover Canadian provinces and regions I've seen labelled in some other dictionaries, but I may have been getting too specific (at least it can help keep the label text consistent). Michael Z. 2010-02-08 21:25 z

Clarifying our meaning of idiomaticity[edit]

I have reverted for now your removal of the idiom category for rhetorical questions. As idiomaticity (in some sense) is supposed to be a requirement for inclusion of multi-word entries in en.wikt (excluding Category:Phrasebook/Category:English phrasebook), there is a presumption that such terms are idioms in some sense.

The larger question of which definitions of "idiom" should be used for purposes of inclusion in wiktionary has not been addressed to my satisfaction. Our discussions often never rise above our slogan, "all words in all languages", and the uselessly inclusive Pawley criteria. I would welcome your thoughts on the substance of idiomaticity and on some useful process for harnessing thought in idiomaticity to our inclusion/exclusion decisions.

The inclusion/exclusion debate is, in my view, mostly a kind of strategy or timing question. I believe that we need to encourage efforts to improve quality to get repeat usage and word-of-mouth. Others believe that inclusiveness will lead more people to us. Very little of this is explicitly discussed, however. DCDuring TALK 16:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

==> copy of reply to DCDuring talk: Thanks much for your comments. After looking at the "English rhetorical questions" category I agree that they should all be idiomatic (I did remove two entries from that category because they were not defined as questions). I don't mind have the "English rhetorical questions" (sub)category in with the English idioms category, it should be useful.

Lately I've been to trying to trim down the "English idioms" category to remove unnecessary duplicates such as all 26 of the appendices of the editors' picks (which are included in a separate box, now just one line, at the top).

I don't know if there is a way for anything included in "English rhetorical questions" to be automatically included in "English idioms". There doesn't seem to be a template for "English rhetorical question" as there is with "idiom". Also, one "rhetorical question", who's 'she', the cat's mother? is listed with a question mark at the end, while all the others are not. I think it should probably be one way or the other - I kind of like the question mark at the end personally.

Finally, I agree, the idiomatic inclusion/defn. criteria could be better defined.

thanks again, <== Facts707 20:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternative spellings - formatting[edit]

What makes you think that this is the preferred formatting of alternative spellings? --Dan Polansky 13:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

See following section. Facts707 19:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Should alt forms/spellings have idiom tag?[edit]

This would be a worthwhile principle to establish, one way or the other. I think I agree with your approach. But rather than implement it wholesale or in edit wars, it might be better to bring the matter up at WT:BP with a rationale. It could then become a matter of cleanup and be implemented universally (one way or the other). DCDuring TALK 18:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to start an edit war. I don't think the others actually had a problem with removing "idiom" from, say, bassackwards when bass-ackwards has "idiom" and is the main entry. I think the problem was when I went a step further and removed the "en-adj" etc. subheadings for bassackwards, etc. My thinking was that since it is only a minor alternative spelling (with a hyphen), the definition including "en-adj", etc. was redundant since the user would just to go the main entry. This would eliminate having to maintain two entries and would avoid inconsistencies, such as the currently existing one where bassackwards is defined only as an adjective, while bass-ackwards is defined as both an adjective and an adverb. I'd be happy to post this subject at WT:BP or where otherwise appropriate as well. Facts707 18:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Also vs. See also[edit]

{{also}} is for very similar page titles, while the header ====See also==== is for topically related words. Cheers. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

possessive adjectives are the same as possessive determiners. I'll change both articles to indicate they are the same thing. Wikipedia-logo.png possessive adjectives on Wikipedia.Wikipedia:possessive adjectives Facts707 18:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The membership is the same in English, but these concepts are not synonymous across all languages. Determiners are a separate category of parts of speech from adjectives, and behave differently from them in many languages. --EncycloPetey 06:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:gay[edit]

Three letter code = language code. {{top}} and {{mid}} are to be deleted for the same reason. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. There is no mention of the Gayo language at either Gayo or Template:gay.
And there is a Category:War although Template:war goes to the Waray language. I will come up with something else ("gay culture" or "homosexual"?). Also Template:warfare might be useful. Facts707 00:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Template "Warfare" would only be useful if there were a jargon specific to warfare, separately from military jargon. This isn't very likely. The context taxts in front of definitions are not there for contegorization, but for usage context. This often has some categorization associated with it, but we don't create new context labels simply for categorization purposes. As an example, rat is a rodent, and should be in Category:Rodents, but its use is not limited to rodent jargon, so it should have a (rodent) context tag.
Also note, I have removed musclehead from the list of Related terms at gym rat. That section is for etymologically related terms, not for topically related ones. The words related by topic are merely categorized together. When there is a closer relationship, we use a section like Synonyms, Antonyms, Hypernyms, etc. --EncycloPetey 06:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Related to this question: homosexual is not a term used solely in gay culture; it is used widely in mainstream culture. So (gay culture) is not an appropriate context tag for that word. A context tag should only appear when usage of the term is restricted to a particular profession, subculture, or region, and is therefore not used by the general population. --EncycloPetey 19:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Think of it this way: is a straight person outside of the gay community likely to use the word queer? If so, then it doesn't merit a (gay culture) context tag. A word should only be tagged that way if the majority (or only) people who use it are part of the gay culture. --EncycloPetey 21:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. And I've missed that distinction a couple of times already. I'll be more careful. Also I think we need a "gay related" category that includes all things homosexual. It could be called Category:Gay, but we can't use Template:gay (Gayo language). Maybe Template:gay related? What do you think (anyone?) Facts707 21:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, you can still add a direct category link at the end of the language section of those words, so that they are listed in Category:Gay culture. The restriction is only in use of the context label, and not in which category it appears. --EncycloPetey 21:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree, writing [[Category:Gay culture]] is not infinitely harder than writing {{gay culture}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

section breaks[edit]

Please do not remove horizontal rules between language sections. They're supposed to be there, and our maintenance bots will only put them back anyway. You don't need to be in an edit war with the bots. --EncycloPetey 19:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

homo[edit]

As I indicated (twice) in my edit summary, the "homo bar" quotation you provided is attributive use of the noun, and not an example of an adjective use. This happens often in English, although it is seldom taught in school. Phrases like "computer table", "horse pasture", "book cover", etc. are all using a noun in front of another noun as a modifier. We don't provide separate definitions for these uses.

You might find better quotations for the adjective by searching for collocations of words like "more homo", "most homo", "very homo", which will more likely produce results demonstrating use as an adjective. --EncycloPetey 21:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

gym rat and idioms in general[edit]

Please look at the definitions of "rat"; there is more than one. The combination "gym rat" adds no additional idiom. Also, we tend to avoid using {idiom) on Wiktionary except in rather picturesque situations, like horse's mouth. Some users have argued quite strongly that the "idiom" tag ought to be eliminated in favor of something more precise. --EncycloPetey 21:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes, I had looked up rat, but my thinking was that gym rat was idiomatic because it restricted the sense of rat to one particular sense and specifically excluded other senses like rodent. However, w:idiom on Wikipedia only says: "...a figurative meaning that is comprehended in regard to a common use of that expression that is separate from the literal meaning or definition of the words of which it is made.", but does go on to say: "John Saeed defines an “idiom” as words collocated that became affixed to each other until metamorphosing into a fossilised term".
I will take the "stricter" interpretation you suggest and only use the {{idiom}} tag in Wiktionary for two or more word phrases where the meaning cannot be inferred from any combination of the definitions of the component words. Thanks for being patient! Facts707 21:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"Idiom" vs. "Idiomatic"[edit]

Appendix:Glossary#I says that the adjective idiomatic includes idioms as well as other things like colocations (which may be idioms as well). Note that idiom implies idiomatic, but idiomatic does not imply idiom. However, Template:idiom redirects to Template:idiomatic. I think is a least an inconsistency, if not an error. Facts707 22:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Posted above to the Beer Parlor. Facts707 22:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Category placement[edit]

Please note that we place all category links at the end of the language section, after all the other information about the word. This way, they're always in one place and easier for future editors to find. --EncycloPetey 15:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, that sounds logical. I hope a bot will move them. Facts707 15:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Clarification: This does not mean "last thing on the editing page". The interwiki links always come last. And, if there is a section for the word in another language, then that too will come after the category listings. Look at where the category is placed on biceps as an example (this is a "model page" for entries with multiple langage sections). Do you see how the Category:Muscles is placed at the end of the English section?
Recently I've been editing the English section and then putting the categories at the end. Some of my earlier edits (before you pointed this out) are probably in the wrong location. thanks, Facts707 17:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Similarly, I've made this edit to butch to show category link placement (and moved the Etymology to its appropriate location. The additional change to the location of Etymology results because we follow a rather strict sequence of headers, so that every page has the same information in the same location. If we didn't do that, then the entries would be very difficult to use, because every page would have the information in a random location at it would be hard for users to find. --EncycloPetey 16:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

price of tea in China[edit]

It may be "easier to find", but the point of the original pagename is that it's a set phrase that includes the verb. Your change implies that "price of tea in China" can be used in other expressions. If so, then you really ought to document that with some quotations. --EncycloPetey 18:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my change does imply that. And quotations added. Facts707 22:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

teahead[edit]

Not really related to a tea category? Equinox 22:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither is spearmint! Please think more carefully. Just having "tea" in the entry doesn't make everything a tea word. Equinox 22:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Try "spearmint+tea" on Google (22,000+). Clearly you have never enjoyed a cup of spearmint tea. Facts707 22:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
And Facts, tea man, can I request an entry for fruit tea please. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 22:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Never heard of it. I didn't know you could make tea from fruit. Facts707 22:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Liqeur[edit]

I've deleted this mainly because it was misspelled, and category moves don't work. However, you might want to reconsider having it. Wiktionary does not rely on the many layers of categories like Wikipedia. We prefer larger incllusive categories, rather than numerous subdivisions. Too many categories means that non-English-speakiing users can become lost in the unfamiliar terminology. --EncycloPetey 06:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Alcoholic beverages[edit]

I don't see how teetotaller is a word about alcoholic beverages. It'd fit much better is a Category:Alcohol, as there are words that pertain to alcohol (like drunk, drunken, drunkenness) that don't pertain to beverages. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Context templates[edit]

We link only key words likely to not be known by users. We do not link every word, just as we don't in the definitions. Links can be more distracting than helpful in some situations. --EncycloPetey 05:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, please see [1]. The templates are designed to word together,m so only one set of parentheses is used instead of several. --EncycloPetey 05:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. Although I don't think we can with let's not and say we did - I think it is chiefly sarcastic and dismissive and often childish. Facts707 05:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure, it works with that as well. The modifier (chiefly) only affects the following term. --EncycloPetey 20:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleting etymologies[edit]

This section has been moved to WT:BP#Etymologies - invitations for, compounds, hyphenated compounds, compounds containing spaces vs. phrases, etc. Please make any new comments there. Thanks for the lively discussion, Facts707 14:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

{{compound}}[edit]

So, originally it resolved as "foo + bar". A lot of editors (including me) prefer full sentences for Etymologies, so there are many entries which say for example From {{compound|foo|bar}}. which after your changes came out as "FromCompound of foo and bar." There are also more discursive etymologies which say things like, "Origin uncertain, perhaps {{compound}}..." where the initial capital isn't appropriate. Also, more broadly, I think a + b is better than saying "compound of", which is a little jargony, not used by any dictionaries AFAIK, and in my opinion best kept for conversations between editors. Ƿidsiþ 05:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Canada[edit]

Hi. The major English dialects all have labels in adjectival form, e.g., Australian, British (the label is not “UK”), Irish, Scottish, South African, etc. The exception is “American”, which is ambiguous because historically American English has often included Canadian English, so we use US. This is in accordance with all major English dictionaries; see J. Norri (1996), “Regional Labels in Some British and American Dictionaries.”[2]

Oh, and the other exception is India instead of Indian, because the latter could be confused with American Indian, etc. Michael Z. 2010-05-07 19:35 z

WT:ELE[edit]

Read the box at the top. Conrad.Irwin 19:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The box says "It should not be modified without a VOTE". Note "should", not "must". I would think that most people would consider basic changes that have been proposed for 3 weeks without comment "would" not require a vote. Facts707 07:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Babel box[edit]

Hello, any chance you would put a babel box on your page? See also {{Babel}}. --Dan Polansky 08:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

hit the ball twice[edit]

What primary reference is this? The citation you added uses it with no capital letter, so it's not that. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean now, but that's just voluntary bad capitalization, like my bills for Water Rates or Car Insurance. In the same way we don't have an English entry for THE although it's often written in all caps in some fairy stories, or indeed THE END at the end of films/movies. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
In this case it's a carefully defined "dismissal" (out) in cricket. Facts707 09:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Erm, so? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
A dismissal in cricket is an event (a noun). That's why they capitalized it to clarify. Do you have to revert me so fast before I can even explain? Facts707 09:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Right, the definition is wrong. You could add a noun section, but how would you cite it? Can you find cites for "a hit the ball twice" or "the hit the ball twice" - what's the plural? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Which definition is wrong? It's a cricket term. It's not used in the plural. Its used as in "out (hit the ball twice)" or "out 'hit the ball twice'", or "out, hit the ball twice". The same goes for hit wicket (a much more common method of "out" in cricket): there is no use of "hits wicket" or "outs, hit wicket".Facts707 09:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
As for capitalizations, Google Books seems to be split about evenly between caps and no caps, so without caps is fine with me. Facts707 09:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
It's kind of like a DUI or DWI, although DUIs and DWIs are sometimes used.Facts707 10:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Best defn. seems to be as a rule "A rule which when invoked results in..."
I would have liked to just say: {{en-noun|[[hit]] the [[ball]] [[twice]]|!}} (plural not attested), but the template isn't happy with that. Facts707 10:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
As you know, we go by usage. Anyway, thanks for citing the adverb. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that is an adverb or an attributive use of the noun. Good discussion though, we've definitely made progress and are almost there. Facts707 10:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think the rule is "hit the ball twice" and the ruling is "out hit the ball twice" (or "out, hit the ball twice", etc.). Facts707 10:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah good work. By adding rfv-sense we should get some more opinions. Thanks. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
It would be much clearer if the cricketeers could write it as "out (hit the ball twice)", or "out (hit wicket)", etc. Facts707 10:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleting images[edit]

You should not be deleting images from articles[3]. --Dan Polansky 10:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)