User talk:Espoo

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Connel MacKenzie T C 12:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

burden[edit]

Hi. You can add definitions yourself as well. Feel free to give it a go. Just be sure to not violate a copyright. Thanks! sewnmouthsecret 19:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i know, as you can see from my edit history, but i wasn't exactly sure what to do in the case of a homograph since Wiktionary doesn't use burden1 burden2 like other dictionaries. I don't have time to figure out how to change the layout, and in any case the links to the word in other languages would only be for one of the two words. This seems to be a major logical error in Wiktionary. --Espoo 19:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

key chain[edit]

Please note that there are minimal formatting requirements for Wiktionary entries, as specified on WT:ELE. In particular, every entry must have (1) a level-2 language header, (2) a level-3 part of speech header, (3) an inflection line, and (4) a definition. your entry for key chain was lacking the first three items. --EncycloPetey 18:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to turn people off by giving them a hard time and making them think that only pedants are welcome here, a friendlier way of saying essentially the same thing would be "please make a redirect if you don't have time or feel it's necessary to make a new full entry"...--Espoo 19:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't, because we don't want redirects. See Wiktionary:Redirections. --EncycloPetey 19:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, are you seriously saying that you think a missing entry is better than a redirect or an entry not fulfilling all ideal requirements? That would definitely discourage the majority of possibly interested new editors.--Espoo 19:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a community-wide decision, and there are many good reasons for it. We are a multi-lingual dictionary, and a redirect (1) does not indicate language, (2) does not allow for the fact that the particular spelling so redirected may be a word in more than one language. It's not about ideal requirements, but about basic ones. If a possibly interested new user can't be bothered to put in two headers, an inflection line (the word in bold), and a definition, then they should find something less strenuous to occupy their time. --EncycloPetey 19:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you explained the reasons for those additions 1-3, asking for them doesn't sound so pedantic anymore. But it'd be a good idea to not put people off by talking to them as if they've violated some rule or even committed an offense. On the contrary, it'd be a good idea to thank for any contribution, even one that wasn't as carefully or professionally carried out as you'd do it... --Espoo 20:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our editors and users speak many languages, and often don't speak English very well. Burdening them with a lengthy explanation is often more off-putting than briefly stating the basic facts. --EncycloPetey 20:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) It's mainly a question of not using the wrong tone. 2) What you wrote is in addition very much more difficult to understand for both native and non-native speakers than saying the same thing in a few words, e.g. "Thanks for your contribution. Please always add at least a language header as explained on WT:ELE. It'd be good to also add a part of speech header and an inflection line." --Espoo 20:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered adding a minimal user page? Babel boxes help here much more than on other MW projects, in part because we have a much higher percentage of contributors for whom English is a second language. A set of Babel boxes, even with no other page content, would help other users communicate with you, and if there are odd languages you speak, it would allow us to make better use of that expertise. --EncycloPetey 20:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old maid[edit]

Please use "Old maid (card game)" in a sentence. --EncycloPetey 19:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search of Google Books shows that having both elements capitalized is common in English. We don't limit ourselves to what print dictionaries do. Our underlying principle is to describe the language as used, not as described by other sources. We do sometimes rely on other dictionaries to assist us in making decisions, but don't ultimately rely on just what they say. --EncycloPetey 19:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the clarifying addition "card game" in the lemma is inappropriate according to Wiktionary conventions, we should delete this article completely and make it a redirect to old maid.
Card enthusiasts like to capitalise the names of games and playing cards and many other things that are clearly common nouns, but I'm sure you'll agree that it's incorrect to capitalise poker and chess and canasta, and that it makes no sense whatsoever in following the quirks of some printed sources when the majority or all major dictionaries use lowercase for all games they list. See e.g. here. As you know, modern dictionaries describe the most widespread usage based on extensive databases and research, so we don't need to engage in very unreliable research using Google searches to try to guess what is the most common usage. If you like, we can of course add a comment "sometimes capitalised" or "often capitalised" at old maid def. 5. --Espoo 20:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that clear; and we don't delete words that can be attested in published sources that meet WT:CFI. You seem to be working from a Wikipedia point of view, but this isn't Wikipedia. We deal with a different kind of information, and we deal with it (accordingly) in a different way. If a particular spelling is attested, per the requirements of WT:CFI, then that spelling gets an entry. Period. You may say that "it makes no sense whatsoever in following the quirks of some printed sources", but those printed sources are our primary literature references upon which this dictionary (and every other dictionary) is based. We can't ignore them because of someone's opinon. We don't restrict spellings to just the most common; we use them all.
And no, I would not agree that it's "incorrect to capitalise poker and chess and canasta", because those terms are names of games, which puts them in fuzzy ground between common noun and proper noun (i.e. "name"). Many of the most famous publications on games (such as Hoyle) routinely regard them as proper nouns and capitalize them. And English capitlaizes some nouns that are common nouns (such as days of the week and months of the year), so you can't really argue "correct" capitalization from the grammar. It ultimately comes down to what publishers are publishing. --EncycloPetey 20:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against recording all spelling variants, but am I incorrect in believing that Wiktionary usually puts detailed descriptions at the entry with the most common spelling and very little more than "variant spelling" at other entries? Is the Chess redirect incorrect, or would you agree that my suggestion to move the info to def. 5 at old maid and make Old Maid a redirect was quite in accord with Wiktionary policy?
I'm sorry I assumed you'd agree something was incorrect that perhaps isn't, but I must say I've never seen any reputable printed source capitalise "chess" or "poker". Are these also uppercase in Hoyle?!
In any case, it seems you're still questioning the reliability of the most reputable printed dictionaries and prefer to trust the haphazard results generated by Google searches to the databases and the expertise these reputable dictionaries are based on. Lowercase for games is definitely much more common usage today as shown by the unanimous entries for, e.g., poker[1][2], canasta, and chess.--Espoo 21:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the redirect is incorrect. See Wiktionary:Redirections. In general, we do not want redirects. Part of the rationale is that the other spelling could be a word in another language. So, for example, we wouldn't redirect Uterus to (deprecated template usage) uterus because the capitalized form is a German word (and German nouns are always capitalized). Yes, the game names are all upper case in Hoyle. I am not questioning the reliability of dictionaries, merely the interpretation you have made. Just because a dictionary has chosen to place a set of entries at lower case (or upper case) is not necessarily indication of what is done in use.
And the big dictionaries are not free of error. The OED, for example, gives as one of the definitions of parrot "the puffin". I have been actively researching this to improve our entry for that word, and can't find supporting citations. All citations I find have "sea-parrot", not "parrot". So, this appears to be an error in the OED. I have found others, and so have colleagues of mine, with regard to many issues. I've ever discovered senses of words that the OED did not include. Unlike Wikipedia, we are not bound to merely cite what other dictionaries have said. Wiktionary (ultimately) wants its entries backed up with source data in the form of verifiable citations from published references.
You are continuing to make faulty assumptions based on Wikpedia practice. We don't name "articles" based on their most common spelling as Wikipedia does. We have more than one method for dealing with variant spellings. When one spelling is overwhlemingly the norm, and when the variant has no additional useful data that might be given, then we may use a soft redirect with a {{alternative spelling of}} template. However, we don't always do that. For (deprecated template usage) color and (deprecated template usage) colour we maintain complete entries, since each spelling is geographically favored. In the case of (deprecated template usage) old maid and (deprecated template usage) Old Maid, the second spelling applies only to the card game; it is not an alternative spelling for all senses, so it is clearer to have a full separate entry. --EncycloPetey 21:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a dictionary has chosen to place a set of entries at lower case (or upper case) is not necessarily indication of what is done in use. You are quite misinformed about the editorial principles of all major English dictionaries. If they list a set of entries as lowercase, that is most definitely because that usage is more common. And when they don't even mention uppercase as a variant, that means that uppercase is much, much less frequent. They specifically base their decisions on citations in databases that cover all usage of the word. Even if the majority of books on games used uppercase, which I highly doubt, this usage would probably not be mentioned in modern print dictionaries because I'm quite sure that the majority of novels, essays, scholarly articles, newspaper articles, private communications, etc. very rarely use uppercase.
And the big dictionaries are not free of error. When they are all unanimous on a specific issue, pointing out that individual dictionaries make errors in individual cases is an extremely weak argument, to say the least... --Espoo 21:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you seem convinced of your position, so I won't try to clarify the issue further. You might want to re-check your data and also look at primary rather than secondary sources. --EncycloPetey 21:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing pronunciatory transcriptions[edit]

Hello there. It’s good to see another editor citing authorities whilst he edits. However, in future, please use in-line references like this when citing an authority to support an assertion of fact (such as an etymology, pronunciatory transcription, context tag, alternative spelling, definition, &c.) in a Wiktionary entry. Thanks. Regards, † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 10:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your alteration of contents of a quotation at ABD[edit]

Hello Espoo -- Regarding this edit, please do not under any circumstances alter the content of accurate quotations. To do so is considered to be vandalism. -- WikiPedant 16:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I simply didn't realise it was a quote, which I wouldn't dream of changing. If even editors don't notice a quote because it's not in italics or quotation marks, it's a good sign that the current Wiktionary quote layout confuses many readers too. The incorrect comma instead of colon helped confuse me (especially since i'm a professional copyeditor and notice punctuation marks), but a quote should be more clearly indicated than by a barely visible colon.
Please don't be so quick to accuse someone of vandalism when you can see they don't yet have much experience editing Wiktionary but have made enough edits to show that they are trying to help and are not careless or destructive. --Espoo 22:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPA brackets[edit]

Please do not remove slashes from IPA pronunciations. They're supposed to be there to note that the pronunciation is broadly phonemic rather tha phonetic. --EncycloPetey 19:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. --Espoo 19:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

context labels[edit]

Just so you know, you can (and should) combine labels, like so. See [[Wiktionary:Context labels]] for more info.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homes[edit]

Hi there. My understanding (and I've been through the system twice - once with my father-in-law, and once with my mother) is that a rest home is the same as a care home - the residents cannot look after themselves but don't need constant nursing, just help with simple tasks like bathing. But a nursing home is for people who can do very little for themselves and have medical conditions (as well as just being old and frail). Cheers. SemperBlotto 22:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The terms overlap, and they are also used differently in UK and US English. Please feel free to add explanations about the differences you've observed, but please clearly label what kind of English you observed them in. As you can see here, rest home = nursing home according to the extensive corpus that dictionary is based on. In any case, you're saying the opposite of what your edit did. Your edit removed three other synonyms and left rest home as a synonym of nursing home and vice versa. --Espoo 22:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

paprika[edit]

I'd imagine the problem here is that you've speedy deleted the vegetable sense with no prior discussion. Therefore, for an admin to revert you is entirely standard. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even more bizarrely, you've written "Not usually used to refer to the vegetable in English". So it does refer to the vegetable in English, so you've removed the sense whilst conceding that it's valid. Is that a pure error on your part or an actual attempt to damage the entry? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you can clearly see in the sources provided (which you removed) and as you know if you're a native English speaker, the vegetable sense is not English; its addition and re-addition was and is nonsense, a clear case of a false friend.
As you also know, English is an international tool of communication which is therefore used incorrectly by many people, but Wiktionary's purpose is not to record all mistakes made by non-native speakers when using English. I'll have to change the scientifically i.e. linguistically correct wording "not usually used" to "not used by native speakers" or "not used in English" to prevent rash edits like yours, which not only put the blatant error of the vegetable sense back but also removed other valuable information including sources and pronunciation corrections.
It should definitely not be standard for an admin to revert an edit supported by reliable sources. It should be even more clear that alluding to such a carefully done and supported edit as an attempt to damage the entry is not only extremely rude but simply silly and shows a lack of good sense or good judgment. --Espoo (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey wait, in your edit, even you concede the vegetable sense is valid. Do you often delete senses you yourself consider to be valid? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can speedy delete something as a new user and then complain when someone reverts you. We have processes here, processes which work which is why we stick with them. Please do not try and bypass those processes. Also, do any of your sources say that this does not mean the vegetable in English? If so, which? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked. Of the three sources you added, none of them say it's not a vegetable. If you're on a one-man (or one-woman) mission to change how Wiktionary works, fine, but don't be surprised if you come up against some resistance. Honestly I think this is just point of view pushing combine with a lack of research, you've confused 'this doesn't exist' with 'I don't like it'. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on here? I'm very confused. Are you a native speaker of English? I did not "concede the vegetable sense is valid". I said that non-native speakers sometimes use the word incorrectly that way, but as far as i know, Wiktionary does not record false friends and other incorrect usage by non-native speakers.

Is this perhaps a case of a regional difference? Do you know of any kind of regional English where paprika is used for the vegetable? Then please add the regional marker, but the article as it now stands is just plain wrong in US and UK English. --Espoo (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw on your user page that you are a native English speaker, so now i'm even more confused. I also saw that you're proficient in French. Would you agree that it would be incorrect to add "poivron" to the definition of the French word "paprika" in the French Wiktionary? It would be just as incorrect to add it to the definition of the English word "paprika" on that page or in paprika. --Espoo (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general (viz, not just for paprika), if you doubt that a sense exists for a word, and Wiktionary lists that sense, use {{rfv-sense}} rather than removing the sense. (And if you think two senses listed are actually one, use {{rfd-redundant}}. The latter template has no documentation (last I checked), but it's used the same as the other.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but there's no point in this case, see Talk:paprika. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, as shown on that page.
And why would you call someone who's been editing for many years a new editor, and what sense is there in accusing someone who's been making only constructive edits for those many of making an "actual attempt to damage the entry", and why would you call a fellow editor a "user", and why try to make them shut up by referring to administrators and processes, and what sense is there in claiming an editor is engaging in "point of view pushing combine with a lack of research" when that editor had even presented the sources he used?
Especially if someone is a new editor, but definitely not only then, you should be much less aggressive and explain the processes instead of bashing someone over the head with them.
In addition, you apparently don't understand some of the very basics of Wiktionary, like Help:Interacting with humans Never assume malevolence.
Where does one complain about an admin's improper behavior? --Espoo (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's WT:BP for complaints but (from my experience) don't expect too much.. -- Gauss (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Babel[edit]

Would you add a Babel template to your user page ({{Babel}})? I'd appreciate it. Are you a native English speaker? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

caffellatte[edit]

It is difficult, these days, to find evidence of the original (before Starbuckification) - but "If it is in the morning shortly after the espresso cups hits the saucer, a small pitcher of milk is steamed up and lands nearby, a caffe’ latte." is in [3]. "The coffee and the warm milk are served in separate pitchers." is in [4]. It looks like, these days, you get two jugs at breakfast in a hotel, but the combined form (often in a glass) in bars. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add your sources to Wiktionary and Wikipedia because even http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffellatte knows nothing about this form of the beverage, so it seems to have disappeared long before Starbuck was even founded. --Espoo (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latin diphthongs[edit]

Hiya! I hope you don't mind, but I've moved the thread about Latin diphthongs to Wiktionary talk:About Latin, since it's not really a general (multi-language) question but one specific to Latin. Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 05:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

aught[edit]

That's sort of mentioned in the etymology. Furthermore, aught didn't just mean something else, it met the exact opposite of naught; it means "anything". Tharthan (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

luggage[edit]

"Luggages" is clearly attested. DTLHS (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That list of hits is truly surprising, but the hits i looked at were apparently all written by non-native speakers and one self-published book with other peculiarities too such as lowercase proper nouns. What's the policy of Wiktionary on attestations like these? Shouldn't such usage be ignored or at least be clearly labeled as non native or regional or rare?

Apparently all dictionaries label this clearly as uncountable. I'm all for non-prescriptivism, but shouldn't we at least explain why we claim the contrary of all other dictionaries on countabiliy here and provide at least one example of this surprising use? --Espoo (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked it as nonstandard / obsolete. DTLHS (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"not usually the same thing as a demonstration"[edit]

Re diff: Excuse me but what the heck did that for? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to say in the edit summary is that a rally is not necessarily a demonstration, which is why I fixed the incorrect definition. In English, demonstrations are often called rallies, but some rallies are not demonstrations. There is a difference in meaning.
Because I corrected the definition of the word, the translations need to be checked because many languages make this distinction too. There is only one translation listed for many languages, which seems to usually be for the meaning of rally as a synonym of demonstration, so the translation for the other meaning is missing for the languages that make a similar distinction as in English. --Espoo (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

kansainvälinen[edit]

What did you mean by Special:Diff/62570371? "international" is indeed the correct translation for kansainvälinen in many contexts, as can be seen by comparing the definitions given in monolingual dictionaries. The usage notes you added on the other hand seem to imply that it basically never is, as did one of your earlier edit summaries on that page. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 09:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

responsible - usage note example sentence source[edit]

Dear user "Espoo", greetings from Helsinki! :D I'm referring to your recent edit on the "responsible" Wiktionary page. May I ask, did you write the usage note example sentence ("The powerful Russians who didn't oppose Putin's successful grab for […]") yourself, or did you find this example somewhere? The reason why I'm asking is that I am planning to quote your contribution in an academic publication and I'd like to mention the original source in more detail (rather than merely "Wiktionary contributors"). If you wrote this sentence yourself (kudos in that case!), would you like me to mention your name? I think there's some valuable thinking here behind this usage note. Many thanks. --Tilmanb (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Espoo&oldid=75889182"