User talk:Oknazevad
Hi! Based on your comments, I especially recommend that you read WT:WFW. The standard welcome message follows. Thanks!
Welcome!
Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- How to edit a page 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.
- 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 do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
- Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
- If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide to 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.
- We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
Also, please add a BabelBox to your userpage so we can help you with the languages you'll be working in.
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! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Closing RfV and RfD[edit]
I don't think you are a vandal. But we usually like to have a relatively senior person (also one not actively participating in the debate) close RfDs and RfVs. The idea is to get a relatively neutral set of eyes to look at the evidence and arguments. Occasionally the person challenging the entry may close it out, in effect withdrawing the RfD or RfV, but not if others have taken up his side of the argument.
In general, most folks find Wiktionary different from many other MWF projects. Some folks like the differences, some don't. I hope you will like the differences. DCDuring TALK 03:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding your deletion of the usage notes at olive drab with the edit summary seems to me that these are unverifiable comments based on personal perception. It is more like firm knowledge and verifiable facts. Militaries do use definite colour charts when specifying colours (see [1] for US and [2] for UK), the vast majority of uses in ordinary conversation concern military style clothing or modelling - see the ghits. If you look at the cites I put in at khaki (2nd sense) you will see durably archived cites for the military colours. On the other hand, citations for actual usages of the X11 colour are as rare as rocking-horse shit. Before I added to the page, the only colour there was the X11 colour, but if anything deserves removing, it is that. If you think I am wrong about that, then this really ought to be the other way round and some unambiguous cites for X11 provided. SpinningSpark 15:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I think the X11 color is straight olive, not olive drab. That's why you haven't found it. Oknazevad (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- The X11 colour shown is called Olive Drab in the X11 spec and is recognised by that name in HTML and CSS in all browsers, see [3]. It is exactly my point that the colour normally called olive drab is something else and X11 names are not generally found in usages in lannguage (as opposed to programming). SpinningSpark 16:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- True that. Problem with using only one color box for any color is that the names of colors are inherently imprecise, and so any choice would be arbitrary. To show them as examples of shades which are described by that name, but we shouldn't try to claim any one as definitive, nor should we dismiss anyone as atypical to easily. For example, the X11 olive drab more closely resembles the one used in early WWII American uniforms, which was known as OD3, before they switched to the darker OD7 a year or so into American involvement. Oknazevad (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- The hue might be about right but it is much too bright. Anyway, three colour boxes gives the reader a good idea of the range the colour can cover. SpinningSpark 18:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'm not sure stating that the X11 color is "rarely used" so categorically is a good idea, but I wouldn't start an edit war over it.Oknazevad (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- The hue might be about right but it is much too bright. Anyway, three colour boxes gives the reader a good idea of the range the colour can cover. SpinningSpark 18:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- True that. Problem with using only one color box for any color is that the names of colors are inherently imprecise, and so any choice would be arbitrary. To show them as examples of shades which are described by that name, but we shouldn't try to claim any one as definitive, nor should we dismiss anyone as atypical to easily. For example, the X11 olive drab more closely resembles the one used in early WWII American uniforms, which was known as OD3, before they switched to the darker OD7 a year or so into American involvement. Oknazevad (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- The X11 colour shown is called Olive Drab in the X11 spec and is recognised by that name in HTML and CSS in all browsers, see [3]. It is exactly my point that the colour normally called olive drab is something else and X11 names are not generally found in usages in lannguage (as opposed to programming). SpinningSpark 16:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)