User talk:Aabull2016

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


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 (EL) 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! — Kleio (t · c) 02:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Citations and exact spellings[edit]

Hi. Your citations are really helpful, but could you please add them under the appropriate spelling? For example, a citation with tusseh should go at that entry, and not under tussore or tussah. After all, such a citation only demonstrates the existence of the particular spelling that it uses. Equinox 22:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your message. I have tried to group citations together regardless of spelling as I believe this provides the best overview of the use and history of a word It seems unhelpful, for example, to place citations for "lustreware", "lustre ware", "lusterware" and "luster ware" in four different entries, requiring users to flip back and forth or open four separate windows to make a comparison. I would have thought it would be generally more useful to choose one form as the primary entry providing and refer to it from the other variants. I realize that in a case like "tussar"/"tusser"/"tussah"/"tusseh"/"tussore" the variants may be phonic as well as graphic; however, I would have thought it was still clear that they are variants of the same lexical item, and not synonyms.
I'm very new as an editor and you've clearly got lots of experience. I absolutely don't want to tread on any toes! I definitely welcome discussion, and I recognize that I have some work to do to learn the details of how Wiktionary entries are (intended to be) structured. I most definitely want to contribute to creating more order, not more chaos!
They are absolutely variants of the same item, which is why we (usually) have a main entry for the commonest form, and other entries as shorter stubs like "alternate form of whatever". But the point of citations is to prove that each individual form exists, so putting every form's citations under the main form isn't really helpful, and isn't our convention. Make sense? Equinox 23:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I do understand if it's an established convention, and I will follow it in that case.
However, I don't agree that it makes sense. I believe the usefulness of the citations is not limited to proving the existence of a particular form or spelling, but also (and more importantly in fact) of demonstrating the use and shades of meaning of the item over time. If the citations are spread around among the different variants, it prevents the user from having a global view of the different ways in which the item has been used. In the vast majority of cases (e.g. -ize/ise variants, items written as two words, hyphenated, or as single compound words, etc.), the demonstration of the existence of variant forms is of little interest as they are entirely predictable, whereas citations using different variants can be crucial in demonstrating a particular use or context.
By way of example: the term "night cart" is spelled with a hyphen in the later citations, but without a hyphen in the earlier ones. If these citations are distributed between the entries "night cart" and "night-cart", the user loses the historical view. The consultation of "night-cart" does not allow her to see that the term was used as early as the 18th century, and the consultation of "night cart" fails to show that it was used by an African writer as late as the 1960s.
Do you think it would create problems to repeat citations in some cases, and include them both under the variant and as part of a broad view under the main entry?
What you're reminding me of is the OED convention of including all forms (sometimes going way back to Middle English, which we treat as a separate language, i.e. pre-1500 or so) under a single heading, with a large etymology section listing when and where the various forms were used — which is pretty reasonable. However, bear in mind that the OED doesn't actually publish all of its citations, so you can't drill down so deep; you just trust them on this. My feeling is that, ideally and ultimately, it should be possible to take a particular form/spelling (say, tusseh) and view only the citations for that spelling; it should also be possible to take a "main form" (say, tussah as representative of tusseh/tussore/whatever else) and view the citations for all of its forms, in date order, as you suggest. We don't have the technology yet to sort the citations in those various ways, and to be honest very few of our users are interested in working with citations: most people want to do neologisms, translations, appendices, or whatever. I would like to ask you to follow our conventions for the time being (since you say you'd prefer to "create more order"), but feel free to raise questions at WT:GP (technical issues about how the wiki works) or WT:BP (general discussions), because what you are suggesting might be something we can aim towards in the future. I'm not convinced it's practical yet. Equinox 01:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Ending your discussion comments with the four tildes ~~~~ is a good idea, because it leaves your signature (name, and the date when you posted). Thanks! Equinox 01:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Got it, thanks so much. I'm definitely here to contribute, not do my own thing regardless of how the wiki is organized! Yes, I do see the OED as a model, along with the Robert, the Trésor de la langue française and other major European dictionaries. I definitely like your suggestion of introducing alternative sorts for the citations. Since I have absolutely zero technical knowledge, I would depend on others to figure that out in the future.
Please do continue to give me a nudge if I go astray (or appreciation if I do something right!). Thanks for the tip about the tildes. Aabull2016 (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey! A year later, I'm glad you have stuck around. Seeing the addition of significant "classical lit" cites like Faulkner, rather than some subliterate drivel dug up on Usenet, feels good. (Ahah, my latent prescriptivism is showing. Not really. I just think that long, old-established words should be cited according to their lifetimes...) Sometimes I wonder if we are just messing around with words temporarily until the vote that everyone really wants, which is "shall we get rid of all this boring dusty book stuff and just make a massive Pokédex". Then I wake up screaming, etc. Equinox 00:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, and I really appreciate your encouragement! Wiktionary does seem to have become a bit of an addiction. I suppose there are worse ones. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the value in citing texts that have stood the test of time. It's also important to me to get beyond the Webster citations (mainly copied - occasionally miscopied - from Johnson) of venerable white male preachers and politicians. The language has been put to marvelous use by such a diverse range of writers since. Aabull2016 (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Comic strips, charges and cartoons (read below:)![edit]

Hello, exist a problem in several articles and verbets of Wikipedia and Wiktionary in Portuguese, English and Spanish![edit]

Was be saying that comic strip, charge and cartoon are synonymous, when, in really, are different things!

Below, the explanations of that are the comic strips, charges and cartoons:

  • Comic strip: comics of short duration with the charts disposed and organized in form of a strip, how the proper name already implies. The comic strips may or may not be humoristic and contains strong critics for the social values. They also can be daily, published in smaller quantities, and, generally, in black and white (although that some are colored) or Sunday, published in big quantities, ever colored and occupying a space equipollent to, in at least, a whole page. The term comes from the American English, comic strip and means comics strip.
  • Charge: humoristic comics of short duration and that contains strong critics of the people and things of the contemporaneity. The term comes from the Franco Belgian French, charger and means load or exagere.
  • Cartoon: humoristic comics of short duration and that contains strong critics of the daily to daily situations. Because of the similarities between the first animation short films and the cartoons printed and published in newspapers, magazines and books from the epoch, the animated drawing also is called of cartoon (or, unabbreviated, animated cartoon), be or not humoristic. The term comes from the British English, cartoon and that of the Italian, cartone and means piece of big card, stub or study.

Here they here the articles for be revised in the respective idioms:,,,,,,,,ômica,,,,,,ómica, andón!

Including and principally, the certain is that the Wikipedia articles (described soon above!) should receive the following names in each idiom: Tira de banda desenhada, Charge and Cartum (desenho humorístico) - in Portuguese, Comic strip, Charge (humoristic drawing) and Cartoon - in English and Tira de historieta, Charge (dibujo humorístico) and Cartón (dibujo humorístico) - in Spanish!

Remembering and highlighting that the caricature has nothing to do with the other three because isn't a form of comic: is, simply, a humoristic exaggerated drawing of something or someone, be real or not, does not even have texts!

And well, as you can see, the cartoon isn't a type of comic strip, neither the charge is a type of cartoon, if possible, please, warn to your fellow editors to make the changes, very thanks since now for all attention and interest and a hug!

Saviochristi (talk) Saviochristi (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


You removed a lot of content here, I reverted back to a previous version. DTLHS (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Looks as if I may have inadvertently removed things where I was attempting to revise. I'll take a closer look and propose revisions as appropriate. If memory serves, I was attempting to reorganize the senses in a clearer way that reflected the reality of usage. Aabull2016 (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Just went through item by item and in fact, I don't believe I removed a significant amount of content at all. I provided referenced correct versions of the Milton and Browning quotes - they have not been removed. Could you please identify the items you believe were removed? Aabull2016 (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You removed all the other language sections (Dutch, Hungarian, Norwegian, etc.) DTLHS (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
My apologies! I don't know how that happened. I'll reintroduce the intended revisions and be careful not to remove anything. Aabull2016 (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


Hello, would you mind sharing why you reverted my changes on a number of entries? Thanks. - TheDaveRoss 17:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was about to send you a message and then got interrupted - should have done that before the reversions. Thanks very much for your work on converting to the quotes template; however, unfortunately it has introduced errors (e.g. a chapter number being put in quotation marks as if it's the title of a chapter). I have chosen not to use the template as it does not provide enough flexibility to include all the information that can be required for referencing citations. I've modelled my formatting on existing citations and have tried to be quite consistent, so I'd really appreciate it if you'd respect that choice. Aabull2016 (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Regarding the error with the chapter number, I think that can be fixed. The problem is when the chapter number includes letters and the template considers it a chapter name rather than a chapter number. Concerning the flexibility of the templates, I only convert when the template handles all of the provided metadata, so on data should be lost. Consistency across all quotations is my goal as well, but wrapping the data in templates allows the quote format to evolve over time without losing consistency. While I do respect your choices in formatting, I don't actually look to see who created the quote initially when updating, so I am not sure how to avoid updating the quotes you have added as I work through. - TheDaveRoss 18:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, and I am definitely with you on the need to bring more consistency to quotations. From my perspective, they are vitally important in providing context for the various senses of a term, but when they are poorly presented or not well referenced, they lose their value. I understand your dilemma when it comes to identifying who added a quotation as you work on this. I wonder, would you mind if I simply roll back any that apply to citations I've added? Of course, you'll see after the fact who was responsible. I certainly don't want to stand in the way of your work and the last thing I want is to engage in any kind of format "war"! Thanks again for being willing to discuss this! Aabull2016 (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind if you revert changes I make, but it seems to me it would be better if we addressed your concerns with the templates so that you don't have to go through that trouble. The chapter part is straightforward and I think that can be fixed, what else would have to be changed to accommodate all of your concerns with the templates? I don't suggest that you need to change the way you contribute quotes, but rather that the templates could be robust enough to be acceptable to you if a quote you add is subsequently wrapped up in one. - TheDaveRoss 19:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
That sounds like the best approach, alright, and thanks for the offer! I don't have time to have a careful look at it at the moment, but can I get back to you within the next couple of days? Aabull2016 (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good, whenever you have time. - TheDaveRoss 13:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Some preliminary thoughts.

The challenge in creating a single template that can handle the full range of possible citations is that that range is vast. Without being at all exhaustive, citations may be taken from a novel, non-fiction work, work of sacred literature, poem, play, magazine article, academic journal article, newspaper article, website post, to name only the most frequent types. Each of these has conventions that may vary enormously. For example, although books are often simply divided into chapters, there can be various levels of division which may be designated by a specific term (e.g. volume, chapter, section), marked with a symbol (e.g. §), or not designated in any way, and may be assigned a title or a number. Poems may be divided into cantos, strophes, stanzas, verses etc. and line numbers may or may not be available. In addition to the more common division designations, some authors use fanciful, one-off ones, such as Dickens’s “Chirps” in The Cricket on the Hearth, or Lewis Carroll’s “Fits” in The Hunting of the Snark. In addition to these divisions, works may include Prefaces, Dedicatory Epistles, Introductions, etc. The open-endedness of the types and divisions of works also applies to the various categories of originators (author(s), translator(s), editor(s), etc.), and publishing information (publisher, edition, etc.). Do you think it’s possible to develop a template that can provide the level of flexibility necessary to handle this kind of variety?
Maybe we could learn from academic citation formats like APA. Equinox 15:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that we are aiming for a single template at this point, for now the model is one template per media type. Books, web pages, periodicals, songs, etc. each have their own template to handle some of their peculiarities. We can create additional templates if there are other media types which are not well handled. That being said, it is important that the perfect not be the enemy of the good, and if there are edge cases which are not well handled by templates we should format them without templates and not eschew templates if not every case is able to be handled. The vast majority of quotes on Wiktionary are well handled by only a few attributes.
Regarding books specifically, many of the things you mention are already handled by the {{quote-book}} template, (volume, chapter, edition, section, page, line, etc. as well as publisher, translator, author, editor, co-author, quotee, etc.). If there are other attributes which should be added there is no reason more could not be added. - TheDaveRoss 15:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both very much for your responses.
Equinox - yes, APA or MLA or Chicago provide great starting points, although I don't think any of these can be adopted as is as they are tailored to footnotes and bibliographies in scientific or other academic journals, and the requirements of a dictionary entry are somewhat different.
Dave - If you're willing to consider some suggestions for tweaking the existing templates, I'd be really grateful. I'll need to take some time to put those suggestions together - and I will try to keep them to a minimum! One issue that comes to mind off the top of my head: is it currently possible to divide citations into multiple lines, e.g. in the case of lines of poetry or of a song, or do original line divisions have to be marked with a slash? If it's possible to accommodate line breaks and even indentations within a citation, that would be fantastic. Aabull2016 (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
It is currently possible to add line breaks in a passage through markup, typically <br />. Indentations are trickier (at least as far as I know), but they can be accomplished using whitespace tricks (like chained &nbsp;). It is possible to make line breaks and indentations a feature of a template, but when it is an arbitrary number it can become quite complicated (what happens when you want to quote e e cummings!?). Since our purpose is not so much to ensure typographic fidelity and more to ensure lexical fidelity, I am of the opinion that some typographic features can be sacrificed in order to keep the interface usable. You (and others) may disagree there, and certainly there are ways to accomplish most anything.
As for suggestions, certainly bring them up. The best thing to do would probably be to add them to the talk page of the templates, since they will be seen by more people there than on this talk page, and they can be discussed more broadly. Probably the place to start is the talk page of {{quote-book}} since that is the most relevant to the types of materials we have been discussing, although {{quote-journal}} probably gets the most use. - TheDaveRoss 23:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I would be interested in compiling a list of troublesome formats or sources, that our templates cannot currently handle. DTLHS (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
For now, I think perhaps the best approach is for me to watch the results of wrapping for a while and raise any issues as I find them. That way I don't have to go searching for examples, which can take forever as there's no way (as far as I know) to directly search for quotes that use the templates.
So, first item I've noticed in the newly wrapped citations under Chinook and Chinaboy is that the chapter is presented in the same way as an article from a periodical or a piece of short literature from an anthology: before the title of the book, and followed by "in". The formula should be date - author - title - (publishing location: publisher) - either: [chapter name] or "Chapter" + number. (May I request that the word "Chapter" be capitalized?) Aabull2016 (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree, the location of chapter is awkward, I have made a note on the talk page of the template for discussion. As for capitalization, I am more ambivalent, I think I would personally prefer "ch. #" or similar, but I have no strong opinions.
As for finding quotes as examples, you can find all pages which use a particular template by using the "what links here" special page (Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:quote-book). - TheDaveRoss 14:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much. One of the main issues I'm finding at the moment is chapters numbered with Roman numerals, which are currently interpreted as chapter titles rather than numbers, yielding results that I believe can be puzzling and not just unattractive. I've started simply changing the Roman numeral to an Arabic one - how would you feel about making that change as you go, when you encounter this issue? I don't think it's important to preserve the type of numerals used in the original text (and in any case, this can sometimes vary depending on the edition). Aabull2016 (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The dilemma with changing them is that there are books which include both types of chapters, using Arabic numerals for the main text and Roman numerals for the index or appendix or similar. I am loath to change them without knowing the details of the source. I might be overestimating the impact of such changes, so perhaps it is worth doing. - TheDaveRoss 15:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it's important to be sure about that. For some time I've been substituting Arabic for Roman numerals in most cases, but of course I'm working with the source, so I can be sure there's no possible confusion. I was hoping to save myself the time it takes to check, but if you'd prefer, I'll keep on doing that and make the changes where I'm familiar with the source. Aabull2016 (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed in the Ulysses quote in forcible-feeble that the Part category simply disappears when you use the template. Obviously, this is an item that will need to be fixed when tweaking that template.Aabull2016 (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


Hi. To add an RFV, simply placing the template on the page is not sufficient; you must actually click the little + and create a new discussion. I was going to do that for you, but in this case, I don't see why you added the RFV template at all. Do the quotations at google books:"distinguishness" not seem to support the sense in the entry? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I am also unable to assess why you added {{rfv}} to a translation table at unreasonably. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your feedback and explanation. I'm relatively new at this and would definitely have created a discussion if I'd known how to do it at the time. The reason I wanted to flag distinguishness was that no citations were provided and morphologically it is an odd formation, with the suffix "-ness" added to a verb rather than to an adjective as is almost always the case. I think it would be helpful to provide at least one citation. With regard to the translation table at unreasonably, I don't see an RFV there and I have no recollection of ever adding one. I certainly can't see any reason for having done so, so if I did, I apologize! Aabull2016 (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I have removed both. In any case, RFV is for when we doubt the very existence of a word, but you should always check Google Books first (where you can find some fine quotations for this word, and many others). Anyway, please tell me if you need any help with making discussions or anything else. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Reversion at seraphic[edit]

Hi. I was wondering why you reverted my edit to seraphic. Nloveladyallen (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nloveladyallen, thanks for your message, and sorry for not sending you a word of explanation. I wasn't sure why you decided to revise the quotations I had added. I believe Early English Books Online and Eighteenth Century Collections Online are by far the most useful references for Wiktionary users. The texts have been painstakingly character-recognized and edited to ensure that they correspond to the originals, whereas Google Books versions are simply automatically character-recognized, with, for example, long s mostly (but not consistently) recognized as "f". So I have systematically used those sources for early texts, where available. Moreover, I don't believe using long s in quotes is especially helpful to the vast majority of users and it can be quite off-putting to many. In any case, it's not possible to reproduce all the print conventions of the original texts. If you think it's important for users to have access to the original appearance of the page, then by all means provide an additional link to the Google Books (or other) equivalent source, but please don't replace the quotes I have already added. Thanks for your understanding! (Aabull2016 (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC))

I believe Early English Books Online and Eighteenth Century Collections Online are by far the most useful references for Wiktionary users. The texts have been painstakingly character-recognized and edited to ensure that they correspond to the originals, whereas Google Books versions are simply automatically character-recognized, with, for example, long s mostly (but not consistently) recognized as "f".

I didn't blindly copy-paste the Google Books OCR text; I manually typed out the quotes from reading the images. So it doesn't matter if other sources have fewer OCR errors, since I didn't use the OCRed text.

Moreover, I don't believe using long s in quotes is especially helpful to the vast majority of users []

The entire quotations section isn't useful to the vast majority of users. Etymologies aren't useful to the vast majority of users. Pronunciations given in IPA or enPR aren't useful to the vast majority of users. Usefulness to the majority doesn't dictate what's included on Wiktionary.

[] and it can be quite off-putting to many.

The archaic language in seventeenth-century quotes is also off-putting to many, but we still don't update it, because that would be unfaithful to the original. Granted, not reproducing long s is less unfaithful than translating all quotes into modern English would be, but it's the same principle.
Finally, if an argumentum ad verecundiam will help my case at all, prominent Wiktionarians like EncycloPetey and Sgconlaw use the long s when quoting books that use it. Nloveladyallen (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Would it be possible for us to agree to disagree? As there does not appear to be a single accepted standard on this issue, rather than spending time editing the work other Wiktionarians have devoted their efforts to, wouldn't it be more useful to concentrate on entries to which no quotations have yet been added (of which there are very many)? Again, thanks for your understanding. Aabull2016 (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't solve the problem, though. I think that my edit should be un-reverted. You don't. And I think we would both agree that a clear policy would benefit everyone. I'm going to bed now, but you can go ahead and start a discussion at the Beer Parlour, or I can tomorrow. Nloveladyallen (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


I am enjoying seeing you taking my little rudimentary entries and bulking them up with some quality citations. Thank you! Equinox 06:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the positive feedback! Aabull2016 (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I second that! Great work - maybe you should be an administrator --XY3999 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I sometimes dabble in citations too - my go-to list to work off is User:Visviva/Cobwebs. I remove any entries from those lists when I'm happy with them. --XY3999 (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words and the tip, XY3999! Very much appreciated. Aabull2016 (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)