User talk:ReidAA

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

Welcome!

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! Ƿidsiþ 08:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

factory[edit]

Hi. 1. Please don't put those weird non-breaking spaces in entries. We don't do this, and if we did want extra space there, it would need to be done in a better way than that (maybe through stylesheets). 2. Not sure that the "sense" you added is a separate sense, any more than "tractor" in "tractor parts"... it's just attributive use of a noun. Equinox 02:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

As to 1., I've been putting in a lot of them, yes, simply to improve the look of those senses that have a parenthetic prefix. Yes, it would be better done in a style-sheet, but (a) I don't know how, (b) I fancy that, as a newbie, I wouldn't have the authority or bravado to do so anyway, and (c) using the grease pit or beer parlour seems unlikely to get things done. As to 2., I was merely (for the first time) copying attributive senses that I had noticed elsewhere. Is there some sort of guidance as to such matter? ReidAA (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, I don't see why using the discussion pages wouldn't get things done; many decisions have been made there in the past. I see you're still putting in non-breaking spaces in certain places (e.g. within quotations); I would urge you not to, because (i) this is a hacky way of achieving double-spacing; (ii) HTML in general, and MediaWiki in particular, does not double-space after full stops/periods by general consensus. Just a thought. I do appreciate the good work you're doing by adding these quotations though. Equinox 13:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
About the  s I've been putting in while tidying a bit as I add quotations: I've stopped putting them in after simple full stops, though with a background in formatting writings I strongly believe there should be double spaces between sentences for aesthetic reasons. However, as an act of tidying I've sometimes been putting multiple examples into single lines in which case I've been putting extra spaces between examples. I do this to help the reader, but if you think I should stop this then I will. ReidAA (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I've also been using  s to keep ellipses in place. Assuming they're the ones in quotations that are objectionable, then I'll stop that practice. ReidAA (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. Since the purpose of quotations in Wiktionary is to show the use of words in a sentence, I have reduced many of your recent quotes to the single sentence actually containing the word being defined. Please avoid putting additional sentences in quotations, as we do not want our readers to be hunting through long tracts of text to find the word being defined. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll try, but I have been doing this to make plain the sense and context of the target word. Given that quotes are now able to be hidden I had imagined that most readers would keep them hidden (certainly if their density increases, which is what I'm trying to do to make Wiktionary more generally useful) and only bring quotations into view if the examples don't clarify the sense enough. ReidAA (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Example sentences go above quotations.[edit]

We put example sentences above quotations, not below them. —RuakhTALK 15:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I put them after quotes so that when quotes are displayed an extra line is not used for tag that gets them hidden. In other words so that the user's display is both neater and holds more to read. ReidAA (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, we put just one example sentence per line. —RuakhTALK 15:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Again I bring the examples together to improve the reading experience; catenating them, provided there's extra space between them, puts them closer together, makes them easier to read, and fits more into the reading space. ReidAA (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I second: We put example sentences above quotations, not below them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I've started doing so, and "repairing" others, but I think it's very bad for the Wiktionary readers because it takes up at least one more line and usually two more lines. I've set up ask to show this. Of course it might be possible to code Wiktionary's working so that this didn't happen, because of course it would be a bit better to have the examples before the quotes but not nearly enough better to compensate for the extra two lines (in my opinion). But since I haven't a clue how to make the change myself, I started putting the quote before the examples as the lesser of two evils. ReidAA (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Simple method is just to remove example sentences when a quotation is present. Example sentences are "pseudo-quotations" and are never better than the real thing. Only better in that it's quicker to make something up than to research it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's not the way my several hard copy dictionaries treat them. They use brief, usually phrasal, examples to illustrate the sense, especially when there are several or many senses (see Collins for example). Quotations, usually one or two sentences, are used to validate the sense along a timeline (see OED for example). This is where the Wiktionary has a great advantage because quotes can be hidden from the casual reader, which allows the quotes to be longer and their source to be more specific (see the brief and usually enigmatic quotations, many from the Bible, that are left in Wikipedia (I assume) from the 1913 Webster's Dictionary on which Wikipedia is based). Furthermore, links can be given to online source text (such as Wikisource) and to biographies of an author. Quotes are not better than examples at clarifying senses; examples should be simple and several and carefully composed to clarify the sense. There are many bad examples in Wikipedia, but that does not make examples poor in principle. They are quite the opposite, especially for non-native speakers. Indeed all senses should have at least one simple example, and they should be carefully chosen and, if appropriate, for several contexts. ReidAA (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I generally tend to agree with this, as far as example sentences. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Re: "Simple method is just to remove example sentences when a quotation is present.": I disagree with that method. I find good example sentences preferable over quotations, as quotations present metadata such as the year or even ISBN that are of little interest for the purpose served by example sentences. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Political quotations[edit]

Your habit of including politically-charged quotations is quite annoying. It is being discussed on Wiktionary talk:Quotations#Using quotations for an agenda. Choor monster (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see them as politically charged (I presume your target is the ones I chose from my weekly reading of The Economist which is right-wing but in a very small way), just sentences or paragraphs chosen from my regular reading usually for having an unusual word in them. (Then I use the text for quotes for other words that don't yet have quotes for their sense in the text.) For my part I am offended by the widespread obtrusion of sexual slang senses without any validating quotes apart from occasional links to online blogs but I just ignore them. My view is that quotes should include links to an online source of the quote itself and to its author(s) so that readers can check and follow up. ReidAA (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
In the above, by "links to an online source" I meant to a relatively formal source, such as Wikipedia or a commercial publication. ReidAA (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks![edit]

Thanks for your quotes, by the way. What you're doing is fundamental for the website. From what I've seen, all of them have been well-chosen quotes. --ElisaVan (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your appreciation. I too consider my work fundamental to the kind of facility I feel a Wiktionary can and should become. What I do comes from my daily reading. I feel there should be quotes from across a range of dates, and my modern ones come from the magazines I have long subscribed to, and others from my bookshelves. As to the quotes themselves I try to include URLs for both the author(s) (where there is one) and to the work being quoted. This gives the reader three phases if needed: sense with examples; quotes; background information through the URLs. ReidAA (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

No sooner has a synthetic drug been blacklisted[edit]

You have added a single cause-promoting quote to several pages: diff diff, diff. It is perfectly clear that the words "cycle", "identify" and "authority" can be illustrated using quotes that are not there to advance a particular cause. I ask you to stop adding similar cause-promoting quotes, especially from current news to illustrate a word that has been in use for decades or even centuries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, User:ElisaVan, who has encouraged you to add more of these quotes, is probably thereby trying to make trouble. He is known as user:Wonderfool, and is temporarily tolerated each time he creates a new user until he starts making trouble, after which he gets blocked, and, well yes, the whole cycle starts again. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It has been my practice to select for quotation a sentence or two or three with an uncommon word in something I'm reading. Then I look in Wikipedia for other words in my selection that are without roughly contemporaneous quotes and use my selection there. Is this practice what you are objecting to ? If so, please explain the basis for your objection. If, on the other hand, you are objecting to the content as "cause-promoting" would you please tell me what cause this quote from the venerable international highly-respected weekly, "The Economist", you see them (or me) promoting ? ReidAA (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The article is Legal highs: A new prescription. Its subtitle is "New Zealand’s plan to regulate designer drugs is better than trying to ban them and failing". I now admit that my language of "cause-promoting" is a bit strong and possibly misleading, yet you can see that the article takes a particular non-descriptive stance, namely that something is better than something else without saying better for what. Furthermore, it deals in the controversial subject of illicit drugs. Of course, if the word being attested is "drug", the quotatations will quite often deal in the subject. But this is not the case with "cycle" and "identify". The things pointed out make the quotation linking to the article a fairly poor one for a dictionary citation of such words as "cycle", especially given that it does not illustrate the meanings of "cycle" and "identify" particularly well. Put differently, Wiktionary is not a collection of random quotations containing the attested words but rather aims to contain quotations that well illustrate the word. Moreover, the quote is implictly promoting Economist, I believe; to illustrate a word that has long been in use, we do not need to cite modern periodicals with economic interest in being mentioned on as many places on the Internet as possible, especially in a leading free-as-in-freedom dictionary. As an aside, the URL you have entered into the quotations is http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21583277-worlds-biggest-polluter-going-green-it-needs-speed-up-transition-can-china21583270-new-zealands-plan-regulate-designer-drugs-better-trying-ban-them-and-failing-new, and it does not lead anywhere. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much for noticing my bubu. I've fixed them all (I trust) and will try to be much more careful in future (especially as I've bubued twice ver recently). Perhaps it's age-related: I'm into my 80s. ReidAA (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
You have further quoted the single article in diff ("easy"), diff ("blacklist"), diff ("ban"), diff ("synthetic"), diff ("fight"), diff ("Sisyphean"). So the single Economist article is quoted in at least 9 (3+6) very common words that have little to do with the subject of the article. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
So, using this search for the URL, I have found 23 entries linking to the article: adjust, easy, ban, task, fail, synthetic, sell, churn out, Sisyphean, blacklist, recipe, identify, subtly, banned, chemist, authority, few, next to, cycle, window box, hillside, high, fight. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
@User:ReidAA, please just be aware of how these uses are perceived. Also, please consider using short sentences that can easily be interpreted without reference to any material outside the sentence. Our readers shouldn't have to parse an essay to see how a word fits into a sentence. The more concise, the better. bd2412 T 21:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • My expectation is that, as the use of the Wiktionary as a dictionary builds up, users (not editors) will not see quotations when they bring up a Wikipedia page (only the two wasted lines that shove the quotation tag into the user's face). All they need at first is a list of senses to choose from with simple examples to help them. Even the examples would not be needed if the senses were cleaned up; many long sense lists are scruffy in the extreme (now that usex works better I intend to tidy some up as I add quotes by improving the list structure) and the examples could be hidden like the quotations and only brought into view if needed.
      The quotations should, in my view be regarded (a) as an enrichment that might be very useful for students, particularly if each quotation is linked to good Web pages like Wikipedia's; and (b) as a validation and history of the sense (and eventually outdo the magnificent OED), again using links, which should be formal and long-lasting.
      As for as my using an extract to quote in several (even many) senses, this is a natural way to build up the quotations. As I read I sometimes notice an interesting word being used and I set up a template in a text file for an extract using that word. Then I can very quickly use that template to use the extract as a quote for senses of other words in the extract. But I do not replace existent quotes, nor do I add a quote where there is already a quote of very roughly the same date. When I find a quote I have done in the past that also uses a word sense in the extract I'm quoting then I'll replace it if it's of about the same date and the new quote seems better, but I don't do this for other people's quotes whatever my (sometimes very low) opinion of them. Surely this is a sensible and effective way to build up the Wiktionary's quotation bank ?!! ReidAA (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Merging usexes with nbsp[edit]

In diff, you have merged usexes with nbsp. I will be undoing such changes until you show there is consensus for this kind of thing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Use of usex lang equals en to format example sentences[edit]

I don't like your adding "usex|lang=en", but I do not know whether I am in the minority. Thus, I have started Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2013/October#Use_of_usex_lang_equals_en_to_format_example_sentences. I note that "usex|lang=en" is currently only rarely used in English entries in the mainspace, so unless consensus arises to use "usex|lang=en", the status quo ante should prevail, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Removing senses[edit]

In diff, you have removed sense "The butterfly Gonepteryx rhamni of the Pieridae family", while your edit summary said "Quote added". You cannot remove senses like that; if you think a sense should be removed, you have to use {{rfd-sense}} or {{rfv-sense}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing my error, for error it was - unintended and unnoticed by me. You don't seem to have restored it yourself so I have done so. ReidAA (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Adjective vs. verb[edit]

Hi. I did a merge here [1] because "braided rope yarn" seems to be just "rope yarn that has been braided" (verb), not a true adjective. True adjectives are usually comparable (e.g. "the biggest [most big] thing"); past tenses of verbs in "-ed" usually just express a completed action on a noun. Equinox 04:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

If that's the way Wikipedia treats them then I'll follow suit in future. I've done one or two similar additions recently, and I'll try to find and fix them. Thanks for your advice. ReidAA (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
How about "fading", as it's not a completed action ? ReidAA (talk) 04:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
No, to me that's not an adjective. e.g. "the Sagalassa valida larvae have a chewing mouth" = "a mouth that chews"; it is the typical form of the verb, as in "I am chewing". Appearing before a noun does not automatically turn a word into an adjective; consider "tractor" in "some tractor parts", and see attributive. Equinox 04:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Then I'll fix "fading". But would it be proper to add the quote to the verb in a separate sense with an attributive context ? It seems to me that it would be useful that way. ReidAA (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
AFAIC, the fact that verbs can be used in an attributive way, and in an adjectival position, is part of the grammar. I don't believe it's a separate sense because the actual sense (meaning) of the word is not different: we would be duplicating. If you strongly disagree with this then do raise it in the WT:BP because my opinion might not be the consensus. Equinox 05:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I only disagree mildly, as is my habit. Cheerio. ReidAA (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A repeated misunderstanding in your use of {{quote-book}}[edit]

Hello ReidAA -- I generally like the quotations you add, but, when using {{quote-book}} please note that the "chapter" parameter produces information that displays before the book's title. A numbered chapter should display after the title, and a good way to achieve this is by using the "section" parameter, as in the example shown below (a modification of one of your edits):

{{quote-book|year=1914|author={{w|Louis Joseph Vance}} |section=chapter 2 |title=[http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29671 Nobody] |passage=She wakened in sharp panic, bewildered by the '''grotesquerie''' of some half-remembered dream in contrast with the harshness of inclement fact, drowsily realising that since she had fallen asleep it had come on to rain smartly out of a shrouded sky.}}

which produces this result:

  • 1914, Louis Joseph Vance, Nobody, chapter 2:
    She wakened in sharp panic, bewildered by the grotesquerie of some half-remembered dream in contrast with the harshness of inclement fact, drowsily realising that since she had fallen asleep it had come on to rain smartly out of a shrouded sky.

The "chapter" parameter may be suitable for identifying a chapter by name, but please consider switching to the "section" parameter when identifying a chapter by number. -- · (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The point you make about putting the chapter number after the book name is fair enough, but I would have thought that modifying the template code to put it in the right place would be the best way to fix the problem. Coding "section=chapter 2" is very clumsy. However, as a very inexperienced editor I wouldn't be able to do this myself, and I don't know how to get someone else to do it, particularly if you wanted to put a chapter name in a different place from a chapter number. Of course, if you assure me that it can't be done then I'll have to put up with the clumsiness. Thanks very much indeed for your concern. ReidAA (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello ReidAA -- Thanks for your considered response. I do agree that, by rights, the "chapter" parameter should always insert its content after the title (whether that content is a chapter number or name). But I'm not a coder and wouldn't try to touch this template myself. I've seen nasty disputes erupt even among the seasoned programmers here when one of them changes a template, and have come to the conclusion that, unless there's no alternative, it's best not to fiddle with the damn things. It almost always involves opening a can of worms. -- · (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, well, in that case I'll adopt your suggestion in future quotes, but going back to make changes in old quotes is a tad too challenging. Thanks again, ReidAA (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I've just put a request into the GreasePit and will wait to see what comes of that. ReidAA (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Nested definitions[edit]

Let it be made on record that I dislike what you are doing to the entries in an edit like diff or diff. I fear that my dislike is not supported by consensus, though.

I think the results are rather inaccurate. For instance, "Something to look at, such as scenery" is not "Visual perception".

When I check http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/view, I see you do something quite different from what these lexicographers do. I think you are doing harm to Wiktionary, one that I fear is supported by a couple of other editors.

I think you tend to enter grouppings that are wrong. I would be really happy if you stopped.

I might play the "no-consensus => status quo ante" card and revert your additions, but I don't really want to get into revert wars, and keeping reverting your systematic activity. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I agree with you in that I've not been being rigorous enough in the sense structuring I've been doing. However I do feel strongly that the senses should be structured, especially when there are dozens of them. The ordinary user needs the structure to be able quickly to resolve a puzzling usage.

My focus is on adding a spectrum of quotations to add OED-style depth to the Wiktionary. My principle is that all senses should be reliably and broadly attested; most are not. As I'm not a grammarian I leave the other aspects relatively alone, even when I disagree with them, as I often do. Of course, when I have a quotation with an absent sense, I add the sense with the quotation, but only if I can find the sense in several of my shelf dictionaries.

I started structuring the senses from a feeling of great frustration, and hoped that other editors would notice what I was doing and would, through whatever community channels they use, agree that the idea was an improvement, and would take the project on, as a community.

Anyway, I apologise for my carelessness and will be more careful until I no longer feel I have to do it. — ReidAA (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

By it just above I meant sense structuring, not carefulness. And by the way, my criterion for sense structuring is when the number gets above 9. Also by the way, the slang senses seem to be proliferating and they're mostly without quotes or examples. You've probably got a way into the community; do you think they would agree to set up a slang dictionary (there's plenty of precedence, Partridge for example) with two-way links between the two dictionaries? For one thing this would make oldies like myself much more comfortable, since most of the new slang senses are sexual. — ReidAA (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
My main problem is that you are forcing the structure mostly with only little regard to semantics, just to get any structure at all. The resulting structures are implausible to me, and do not match the structures that I can find in modern online dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster.
Furthermore, the grouping headings are not clearly labeled as grouping headings only. In fact, sometimes they are attested senses. The result is a mess. For instance, in stage, "A phase." is a sense with its own quotations and nested subsenses, while "Of a journey or route divided into phases" is not a sense and is not even defined as a noun phras but rather as an adjective phrase.
Finally, the resulting structures are not objective or inter-subjective: I do not see how disagreements about them can be meaningufully resolved using evidence and referencing. They are a whim of one editor, which is quite bad for what is to be a wiki. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
What I try to do is to get groupings of senses that would make it easier for users to find the sense they need. In stage it seemed to me that "one of the sequential areas making up the game" was a simply a kind of phase, so I subsumed it where you found it. In "Of a journey or route divided into phases" I brought together senses that seemed to me to all be related to staged travel. I take your point, however, that my "sense" is actually a heading. Nevertheless I feel, on the basis of many other similar cases, that such grouping is useful to users. So, maybe I should put such headings into italics? And/or label/context it as a heading? I seem to remember noticing senses in italics from time to time, but couldn't figure them out. Seemed to be about non-gloss senses, if I remember correctly, whatever they are.

What worries me more about the structuring is the changing of their sequence, as I had noticed, in usage notes and a few other places, editors referring to senses as "first" and "third" and the like. Does this also mean that new senses should be added at the end of the sense list? If so, then this denies the possibility of useful, logical sequencing of senses even. — ReidAA (talk) 11:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

A note on the sequence of senses: there is no consensus in Wiktionary in which sequence senses should be ordered. Some people prefer chronological order (oldest first), placing obsolete senses as the first ones. Other people prefer order by frequency, myself included. What you are doing is yet another order, which you call "logical". Evidence of consensus or its lack is at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2012/December#Support ordering senses oldest first, even if obsolete. The discussion does not really take what you are doing as a separate option, AFAICS, but it is a separate option. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Abbreviated Authorities in Webster[edit]

I would like to propose, with no intent to create any pressure at all, if you would consider editing this page offline for a while, so that the number of edits descreases. Each edit creates a copy of the page in the database, and the page now has over 200 KB; thus, each edit adds 200 KB to the database. What I do is I create a new .txt file, edit it, and preview it in MediaWiki without saving. After I have collected an interesting number of changes, I save it. Again, this is just a proposal; there are many people who do not care about the number of edits per page at all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the unanticipated side-effects of my small edits. On this computer I used to do long ones, but it became erratic in its responsiveness. So I've been having to use another one while that one was being fixed for me. But the replacement PC has hardware problems that cause an utter crash ("page error in non-paging area") sometimes quite frequently. Now I'll be able comfortably to do long edits again.

As for editing offline, I'm afraid I've never used Mediawiki. I guess I could copy the source code into a .txt file on my own machine but I suspect that testing as I go along the changes I make would become a lot more difficult. And mightn't there be a problem of my copying the file into the Wiktionary: a danger of overwriting changes someone else has made meanwhile? I think someone else is occasionally making changes like mine up at the front end of the alphabet. That's why, when I decided to knuckle down to fixing up the abbreviations file, I started at the tail end of the alphabet.

As to the expanding database, wouldn't it be better to put the code for each letter of the alphabet into a separate file? Then the saves would be much smaller. I could try to do this myself but, as an unskilled editor, I would be helped if you would separate one letter (should you agree with me) to show me how it can be done. By the way, wouldn't there be an automatic deletion of such back-ups after a year or two? — ReidAA (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not realize you would not know how to edit it offline and preview it in Wiktionary without actually saving using the "Show Preview" button. Let's not complicate it, then. As for mergining your changes with those of other editors, that would only need to be done if anyone else actually edited the page, but that was recently not much the case, as per revision history. Again, don't worry about it, then. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Context vs. label[edit]

In edits like diff, you are replacing {{context}} with {{label}}, with the summary "Tidy". This is a bad practice, IMHO. First, is there a consensus for this sort of replacement? If yes, we can produce objective evidence of the consensus existing, and run a bot. Second, this replacement is nowhere a tidying, so the summary is inaccurate. Many years ago, at least one editor was replacing "from" with "<" in etymologies, and called it "cleanup" or the like. Later, when we set up a proper poll and a vote, we found that users preferred "from". What the editor was doing was dishonest and unproductive. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I was merely following what seemed to me to be a common practice, one that had the advantage of being shorter. I have also, on somewhat similar lines, been replacing {{usex}} with {{ux}} and in this case also using the {{ux}} where an example had no template.

In both these cases I saw an advantage in having the en parameter immediately following the template name rather than trailing lengthily and awkwardly at the end of the heading or example. I was also felt that I was "tidying" by promoting uniformity where there seemed to be a variety of practices.

However, acting on your advice I will immediately stop both practices, and quite happily because it will allow me to spend much more time on adding quotations. May I presume, however, that it would be alright for me to use {{label}} or {{ux}} on those relatively rare occasions when I restructure senses or add an example? — ReidAA (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It is one thing to be adding label as part of newly added definitions, it is quite another thing to be replacing "context" with "label".
I don't see why you should be converting anything to label when you restructure senses (an offense big enough in itself) or when you add an example. If you believe there is actually a consensus for converting "context" to "label", make sure you produce objective evidence of there being the consensus, and we can run a bot. The minimum standard for producing such evidence is starting a Beer parlour discussion. Wiktionary is not a sandbox and not a kindergarten; it is a non-profit collaborative project to build a dictionary.
How did you arrive at the conclusion that the use of label instead of context is common practice? I looked at the dump using Windows command line and found this:
  • Running 'find /c "{{label" enwiktionary-20140728-pages-articles.xml' yields 17,441 occurrences.
  • Running 'find /c "{{context" enwiktionary-20140728-pages-articles.xml' yields 456,675 occurrences.
  • Thus, there are about 26 times more occurrences of {{context}}.
This argument with "promoting uniformity" is nothing but ridiculous. Not too long ago, we had neither "usex", nor "ux". Our formatting of example sentence was fairly uniform, following WT:ELE. Then someone comes along, and claims to promote uniformity by first introducing a deviation from a common practice, and then aligning Wiktionary with that deviation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Alright, already. I'll give up restructuring senses as well as using {{label}} and {{ux}}. But I'm not giving up my opinions that uniformity and brevity are proper objectives and that dozens of senses in illogical sequence (and often of mixed but unacknowledged etymology) is forbidding for the ordinary Wiktionary user, especially if they're not familiar with English. — ReidAA (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I support converting to {{label}} and {{ux}} and I think it's fine if you continue to do so. —CodeCat 00:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you support, but have not produced evidence of consensus. Right now, label and ux are tiny minority of what is being done in the mainspace. Manually performing conversion instead of establishing consensus is just silly. --Dan Polansky (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure, if you support uniformity, just replace all uses of "label" with "context" and you are going to get there much sooner. Actually, your edits moved us away from uniformity, and since they were manual and unable to achieve bot volumes, they would keep doing so for the foreseeable future. --Dan Polansky (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)