User talk:Equinox

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

not the sharpest tool in the shed[edit]

How is that a noun? It's interchangeable with "not very smart" or "dim", and it's only used to modify nouns. If it were a noun, it would be synonymous with "stupidity", not "stupid". Because it's a phrase, it's not really comparable and doesn't really work except predicatively, but that doesn't make it a noun. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"The sharpest tool in the shed" is certainly an NP. The applicable sense of "not" appears to be the adverb. Applying an adverb to an NP gives you an NP (like "hungry dog" becoming "surprisingly hungry dog"). Equinox 02:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
In your example, "surprisingly" is modifying "hungry", not "dog" (you can't say "*a surprisingly dog"). Likewise, "not" is modifying "the sharpest", not "tool". Chuck Entz (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Besides, this is really "not the sharpest" with "tool in the shed" tacked on in a way that doesn't diagram very well- that's part of the humor. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, roll 'em back if I'm wrong. Not sure that I agree but I can't articulately analyse and argue it right now. Equinox 03:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
It does seem to me that NOT(X) applies to all of X and I would like to see convincing proof otherwise. To take a really trivial example: if I say "Chuck Entz isn't a leopard in a zoo" then you would seem to be arguing that I'm saying you are in a zoo, merely not a leopard. Equinox 03:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
That isn't really analogous, because "not the sharpest" assumes membership in a set in order to allow comparison with the rest of the set. In fact, I think the underlying form is really something like "not the sharpest [of the] tool[s] in the shed". I'm not completely convinced this is an adjective, either- it seems like a (stative) verb phrase with the verb missing. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

so is life[edit]

um, I think you might have made a mistake on adding those quotes to the second sense. I was careful to weed out the "life is too" from among the apples Leasnam (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The 1894 & 2007 ones can be either or. We might be best to remove them if they are not clear... Leasnam (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I feel absolutely certain from context. Maybe ask further editors for opinions? Equinox 23:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I'm good on all but the 2007 one. It would need to read "and so can life (be fatal)" to make sense as "life can (be) too" Leasnam (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
If it has respected me so far, I don 't see why it would decide to consume me now, when all my body has to offer are weakened bones and sagging flesh. Malaria can be fatal in the long run, I know. Well, so is life.
I don't see why. What's grammatically wrong with something like: "chips can be tasty, but popcorn is, too, and it's cheaper"?
Also, a bit more context shows that the writer is being defeatist/fatalistic: "I don't even take antibiotics. It's part of the job. ... Malaria can be fatal in the long run, I know. Well, so is life. When I use repellent, it's only so I can avoid ... the stinging sensation ... Maybe I brought so many [cans] because I didn't know when I was going to return. ... When I die, they should put a can of it inside my coffin..."
So he doesn't care if he dies. Malaria is fatal; so is life; he will die anyway. If it meant "such is life", he'd be saying: "malaria can be fatal, but oh well, I won't let that bother me!" which doesn't jive with the rest. Equinox 05:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"named for", "named after", "from the name of"[edit]

Those searches, while they generate a lot of chaff, also find lots of things to categorize as eponyms. You may already know, since I see many are already categorized, although I've found and fixed a few that weren't. - -sche (discuss) 20:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

We do have a named-after template of some kind, don't we? That automatically adds the category. I have never used it because it's another new thing to learn, being a trickless old dog and all, but it seems the best approach. Equinox 15:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
It's {{named-after}}. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


Hey Mineral Man. What was la,ce,pr,nd,sm, supposed to be on the murataite page? --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I had a bot that picked stuff off MinDat and generated the definitions based on the chemical symbols in the formula (so if the formula was, say, H2OCl3, which I've just made up and probably isn't chemically valid, we would say "a mineral made of hydrogen, oxygen, and chlorine"). If you find errors, it means that there was a typo or weird formatting on MinDat. Equinox 02:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The definitions are terrible. I wish that you had asked someone before doing it, because MinDat has the data to make much better entries. (If you're interested in improving them by bot, though, I could help you with the definitional aspect.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 11:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I do see them as stubs, but for me it's better to have a stub entry that acknowledges "this is a word, and this is VAGUELY what it means" (i.e. it's a mineral, and not a cake, or a dog) than not to have an entry at all. I can see how that is arguable. I'm not a mineralogist and mainly went for it at the time because it seemed like a way to generate (basic) entries for a large number of missing words. So I have no further plans. If you have a specific strategy for improving the entries that can be easily automated (and of course doesn't go so far as to violate another site's copyright) then I might be able to slap it together. Equinox 11:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I did take a mineralogy class, although I have to admit that I've forgotten a great deal of it. The single most important thing you can say about a mineral (besides stating that it's a mineral, of course) is its classification. Colour is deceptive and the elements in it are not very meaningful if you don't know the structure, but knowing the Strunz classification is a big deal. For murataite, the best ultra-stubby, automated def would be (IMO): A black oxide mineral. MinDat has a field for Strunz classification, and you can also get it from 'pedia (except for the fact that lots of minerals don't have an entry over there). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 11:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Well I took the existing stuff from MinDat (with some topical ignorance) and we may be in a position to improve on that. (BTW you will see that I always included them as a reference - not primarily because of my ignorance but because I think it's very rude to take someone's information, copyright or otherwise, without mentioning.) I think MinDat is the only place we are going to obtain mineral info en masse, but I am super-focused on my existing obscure word lists: can I be a bit rude and ask you to check it out and suggest how we can go through their entries and improve ours (without ripping them off too much)? As you are aware we need some kind of blanket algorithmic rule in order to do anything useful. Equinox 11:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm too inept to do the actual bot-work, or really figure out how exactly it ought to be done. Essentially, you should take the capitalised word in the Strunz classification field at MinDat, remove the final S and then make it lowercase, and insert it inside [[]] immediately before the word "mineral" in any entry you made that hasn't been substantially edited (those entries should be easy to find, as they will be members of both Category:Requests for expansion of etymologies in English entries and Category:en:Minerals (or Category:en:Mineralogy for the ones that haven't had their context label fixed yet by WF yet). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The locking of wenis talk[edit]

I was going to chime in with my opinion on the wenis talk page only to discover it's been locked. The discussion about adding the slang definition is old (the first entry being a decade ago and the last being 4 years ago), however I think the slang definition is common enough that it should be added. If thagomizer has its own entry I don't see why the slang definition of wenis shouldn't be included. --StarkRG (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You must bring the WT:CFI-compliant evidence first. We have too many people saying "oh it definitely means that" but they produce zero evidence when challenged to support their claim. Equinox 03:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Floydering citations[edit]

Thanks for your note on citations. I am endeavoring to provide a citation that uses the word Floydering in actual speech context, however the dilemma I'm having is they would be sourced from social media or blogs, which under wiktionary policies are not citable. I have provided published in speech citations for other variations on the word: Floyder and Floyders. Respectfully, I have provided published citations for the word ranging over years, used and referenced in multiple variations from no less than LA Times, NPR, The Hollywood Reporter and others. As a neologism, I understand about wishing to do due diligence, however, as is currently, it does feel like there has been far more required to be cited here than the majority of of Wiktionary entries. The citations I have provided both define the word, provide etymological background, and use variations on the word in speech.--2600:1700:5370:980:F5D0:497:D0EE:8AE4 22:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

A lot of trendy or faddish words appear briefly in newspapers and social media but see little to no actual usage. One particularly egregious example from some years back was "wilfing" (browsing the Internet idly: WILF = "what was I looking for") which turned out to be a pure marketing invention to promote a company, and yet received huge amounts of newspaper space. Equinox 23:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Understandable, and please know I'm not trying to be argumentative either. However, I will note the words have a 10 year history behind them now, having been in use throughout the Disney studio and by the Disney fan community since 2008. In that respect they could be considered a regionalism or localism of sort that has over time gained wider use. The published citations go back to 2015, with the wider attention/popularization of the words coming after the 2016 documentary on Norman's life and career.--2600:1700:5370:980:F5D0:497:D0EE:8AE4 00:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Literally all you have to do is find three citations that meet WT:CFI. If you can't, maybe wait a few more years. Equinox 00:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe I have and even newly provided this one as a quotation for Floydering:

    • 2015 September 2, Jamie Greene, “Great Big Beautiful Podcast: Episode 26 - Floyd Norman”, in[1]:
      Floyd continues to work for Disney on a freelance basis (as he prefers it) and can still be found Floydering around the Disney Animation campus.

What I remain perplexed by is that Wiktionary policy states that as neologisms these words meet the criteria of meriting their own entries, and despite the truckload of seeming WT:CFI compliant citations I've provided to support and substantiate the entries, there is a push to nit-pick or delete, instead of editors collaborating for improvement? I believe I've shown good faith in my contributions and in meeting what has been requested, so I'm confused by the rather subjective notation that the citations feel too "mentiony" and the suggestion to delete by the same editor that deleted my first try at this entry - with the only note being that it was "totally wrong"? In some manner, this does feel a bit discriminatory and exclusionary. --2600:1700:5370:980:F5D0:497:D0EE:8AE4 00:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I have helped you as much as I can. Once you start crying "discrimination" and "exclusion" you better take it to the Wikimedia Foundation, and set up some kind of witch-hunting tribunal. Goodbye. Equinox 00:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate your insights and the opportunity to have these entries comply with Wiktionary policies by being well supported and cited. Thank you. --2600:1700:5370:980:F5D0:497:D0EE:8AE4 01:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

droop off[edit]

Why did you delete that? It was cited, I don't think it is a misspelling but even if it is, that's no reason to get rid of it, it's very common. 18:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you think that every combination of a verb and an adverb like off that is attestable should be included in dictionaries? See droop off at OneLook Dictionary Search. Does the OED have an entry for it? DCDuring (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


8 years ago you expressed skepticism about a definition at wild-ass. In the course of revising other parts of the entry, I noticed your comment on the talk page. Your skepticism suggests that the term may be US. To me it is quite comparable to smart-ass. Also, the definition is not quite right. DCDuring (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, here on the other coast, I've never heard of any sense of wild-ass that was anything but wild with ass added as an intensifier and (sort of) slang marker, especially not one that could refer to a person. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know about my specific skepticism but this is a term that in general I'm not familiar with: if there is such a thing as a wild-ass (as opposed to a wild donkey) then I have no idea about it. I tend to put a US (or North America) gloss on anything with ass in it because over here we usually say arse. I suspect that will change over time, with the influence of Hollywood, Netflix TV, etc., but it would still (to me) be very strange to hear a native Brit say something like smartass rather than smartarse. Equinox 03:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
My memory or intuition have misled me. I couldn't find cites at books or groups. There is a biblical cite often referred to: "And he shall be a wild ass of a man: his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him". Should we respect process by RfVing it or just delete it? OTOH wild-ass as an adjective would pass RfV I think. DCDuring (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)