User talk:John Cross

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

Here are a few good links for newcomers:


==language== then ===part of speech===

Then it's the headword surrounded by triple quotes (and wikified if multiple words)

Then each definition starts with a #


You may find it easier to use {{maintenance box}} than to import the Wikipedia mess. Conrad.Irwin 09:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


I found one [1] (quoting something else). Technically we nearly always need three; however, I seem to remember an exception for attestation of certain plurals. Maybe somebody else on the Tea Room would remember what I'm talking about. (In this case, since it's an old dialect word, it's going to be quite hard to find in print.) Equinox 10:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, we don't require references for definitions (to do so would mean we could not include words not already in dictionaries - which would make us somewhat of a second place), a quotation underneath (using a template like {{quote-book}}) is ideal for purposes of demonstrating that a word exists and that the definition looks correct see criteria for inclusion for more details, or Help:Citations, Quotations, References for the terminology. Conrad.Irwin 11:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
This would be a really good thing to read up on. Citations are a lot more valuable to Wiktionary than references. Equinox 00:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both for your advice. John Cross 07:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Appendix:Thai alphabet[edit]

As this was not a definition of the noun "Thai alphabet", I moved it. Please continue cleaning it up, as you were doing. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Focus of discussions re: 1992 et al.[edit]

A worthwhile issue. WT:BP is the locus for the general issues raised. I know of no reason under our existing practice to exclude a year number, though I would argue that one could argue that numbers manufactured by the trivial rules of combining 10 number symbols are not "words" in the meaning of CFI when referring solely to a numerical value. (That ship has sailed, I suppose, but to no great benefit to users.)

How we attest to the meaning of a year is more significant because it can make the difference between having 5000 calendar year numbers as entries or 5. Having 5000 may mean that the year numbers that really are distinctive in their use (like "1992" in the opinion of the OED editors and probably in ours) might not be recognized for their distinctiveness. DCDuring TALK 20:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

offices category[edit]

Hi there, please fix this; it would seem that you forgot to start with a capital letter ; it should be at Category:Offices. Thanks for creating it though as it does seem like something that could be useful. 50 Xylophone Players talk 16:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


Please do not add text that simply points to another project. The etymology section should be independent in its content, even if this means repetition. --EncycloPetey 22:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That explanation doesn't leave me any the wiser. Do you mean that the sizes were arbitrarily assigned designations by some unspecified person or organization? Why "B1", and not something else? --EncycloPetey 22:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, is this a designation specific to English, or is it Translingual? If Translingual, then it should not be under an English section, but under a Translingual header above the English section. --EncycloPetey 22:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Webster 1913[edit]

The Webster 1913 templates are useful markers of entries that often have obsolete elements, including senses and usage examples, bad structure, and missing senses. I now regret my removals (10, 20, 50?) of the template from entries that were not fully brought up to date. I would give the entries a light going over, think the matter settled, and mark my "victory" by removing the tag. Please reconsider removing these before the entry is substantially modernized. DCDuring TALK 21:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It really is a stronger condition than the text suggests. What seems to have happened is that each person would make a modest improvement and remove the tag, a behaviorally satisfying thing to do. The remaining improvement needs would then be unmarked. Some very basic entries have really not been brought up to a reasonable standard of suitability to contemporary use. It is fairly time-consuming to do so. In any event, it is not as if you were doing something wrong, not even something that others wouldn't do or agree with.
User:Visviva/Cobwebs has some clean-up list of entries that have various indications of insufficient updating from Websters (approaching 100 years!!!) The ones that overlap with the General Service List of high frequency lemmas offers many opportunities for much needed and challenging improvements. DCDuring TALK 19:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:priority requests[edit]

Just notifying you that it's up for deletion at WT:RFDO. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)