discussion of revert
The following definition, taken directly from the Random House Dictionary was reverted:
- "a person engaged or experienced in warfare; soldier."
- "a person who shows or has shown great vigor, courage, or aggressiveness, as in politics or athletics."
It was modified to the following:
- A person who is actively engaged in battle, conflict or warfare; a soldier or combatant.
- (by extension) A person who is aggressively or energetically involved in an activity
As I am new to Wiktionary (though old to Wikipedia), I would appreciate a more detailed explanation of the revert. Adding a source is standard in the Wikipedia so I assumed it would be so here as well. Also, the rewrite of the second definition borders upon original research since that is not exactly what the Random House dictionary states. "By extension" is not offered in the dictionary - rather this definition is offered as a secondary one. In addition, the rewrite of the second definition is not exactly the same as what is in the Random House dictionary - the terms "shown great vigor, courage" were replaced by "energetically" and "politics" or "athletics" were deleted. Since they are in the actual definition, I believe that all of these terms should be reinstated. Thank you, -Classicfilms 05:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wiktionary does things a little differently than Wikipedia. One thing we try not to do is take definitions directly from other dictionaries. While any single definition is probably too short to run afoul of copyright law, the collection is certainly copyright. One thing we don't do is refuse what you call "original research". For example, we have developed our own programs to scan the corpus of Gutenberg texts for word frequency. If you'd like to add references, I recommend that you find and add citations. --Dvortygirl 05:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Dvortygirl, Many thanks for this explanation as well as the welcome to my talk page. Since things work a little differently here, I would appreciate some further advice from you. I have read through the basic policies and understand them. I have two questions for you:
- I still believe that the rewrite - which I understand was done for copyright reasons - does not express the second definition to its full extent. The second use is figurative which is more specific than "by extension". And it is frequently applied to acts of great courage or athletics. One possible re-write is: (figuratively) A person who is aggressively, courageously, or energetically involved in an activity, such as athletics
- On the help pages, I couldn't find the style guide for adding citations. If you could direct me to that, I will add one. Thanks again for your help, -Classicfilms 05:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Just how much help did you want? I don't know whether that page yet says that there is a citations sub-page now, but you'll see a special tab for it at the top of your screen. As for the definition you'd like rewritten, this is a wiki. Go right ahead and rewrite it. (The above looks fine to me.) --Dvortygirl 06:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- A dictionary is not an encyclopedia. We try to keep each definition brief and not have overlap between senses.
- The core sense refers to one who is an experienced fighter in wars, battles. It is now extended to political, business, and sports conflicts and contests. There might be a general usage as an honorific, reflecting someone's courage, skill, and energy. For example, the late US Senator w:Hubert Humphrey was known as "The Happy Warrior" (1950-70s). If we are going to add a sense that is not accepted by most dictionaries (RHU seems the only one at OneLook.com) we should find citations unquestionably supporting that specific sense. Google books and Google news are two of the best sources for such citations that are "durably archived". DCDuring TALK 16:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
What's the etymology of -rior? 18.104.22.168 20:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- The word is from Frankish werre (war) + Old French -or (-er). —Stephen 22:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Are there areas of the USA where the usual pronunciation is /ˈwɔɪ.ə(ɹ)/? In the UK, I would think that anyone pronouncing the word that way was "short-tongued" (or maybe Cockney?), but I know there are some regional American shortenings of words with omission of consonants that sound very strange to British ears. I can't find the variation in any British (/ˈbwɪt.ɪʃ/) or American (/əˈmɛwɪkən/) dictionary, so I would regard it as non-standard. What does anyone else think? Dbfirs 16:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)