User talk:Spangineer

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary!

If you have edited Wikipedia, you probably already know some basics, but Wiktionary does have a few conventions of its own. Please take a moment to learn our basics before jumping in.

First, all articles should be in our standard format, even if they are not yet complete. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with it. You can use one of our pre-defined article templates by typing the name of a non-existent article into the search box and hitting 'Go'.

Notice that article titles are case-sensitive and are not capitalized unless, like proper nouns, they are ordinarily capitalized (Poland or January). Also, take a moment to familiarize yourself with our criteria for inclusion, since Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. Read our Transwiki process if you plan to work on importing information from Wikipedia. Don't go looking for a Village pump – we have a Beer parlour.

Finally, you can link Wikipedia pages, including your user page, using [[w:pagename]], {{wikipedia}}, or {{wikipediapar|pagename}}. Please do not create redirects to Wikipedia pages, though. They don't work.

We hope you enjoy editing Wiktionary and being a Wiktionarian. --Dvortygirl 16:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

short-shrift

Hello. Is this commonly used as an alternate spelling of short shrift? If so, we should give it an "alternate spelling" entry. If not, we should delete it. Equinox ◑ 22:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. It looks as though it might have a different meaning in your text: something that dooms the one who takes it — perhaps the shortest weapon, the short straw? (Not, as at short shrift, scant consideration.) As for "the hyphenated version probably [predating] the open version", I think that only tends to apply in compounds like type-writer and ice-cream where two nouns are being joined; short shrift is an adj and noun, like green apple, so I wouldn't ever expect to see it hyphenated in the sense that we have documented. Equinox ◑ 22:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Having read it again, I think you're right: if they are captured, they are sure to receive scant consideration and the (hangman's) rope. I'll see if I can find two more examples on Google Books. Equinox ◑ 22:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a peek at this: it's a search of all the books Google has scanned from between 1800 and 1900 (because the hyphenated form seems dated) with the exact phrase "the short shrift", hyphen or no. [1] The only one I spotted in the first five or so pages with the hyphen was the book you were reading, so I'm inclined to regard it as a quirk or error rather than an attestable alternate form. If you are able to dig out two more, we can keep it, but it looks like hard work! Equinox ◑ 22:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't use redirects very much; see [2]. The reasoning is that alternate spellings are (in themselves) words. It would be a bad idea to have colour as a redirect to color (or vice versa) because it would suggest that one was merely an error or mis-encoding of some sort and not a word in itself. Bots and scripts would also be likely to miss them. Equinox ◑ 23:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the grounds for attesting a word for inclusion are at WT:CFI. It is generally enough to find three unrelated citations from published books or Usenet newsgroups. Equinox ◑ 22:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)