User talk:Mjquinn id

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Mjquin id in topic tennis racket et al
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 one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

RuakhTALK 00:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Categories

[edit]

P.S. You recently created [[Category:Racquet Sports]], but I think [[Category:Racquet sports]] would be a better title. Also, you added a comment at [[racquetball]] that it should eventually be removed from [[Category:Sports]], but I don't think that's true. —RuakhTALK 00:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nuts, You are absolutely right about "Racquet sports"! I will put in a Speedy rename Monday.
With regard to racquetball, I was assuming the category standard where articles should not belong to both a parent and child category...? -- Mjquin id 06:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Re: speedying [[Category:Racquet Sports]]: no need, done. (I'm an admin here, which makes life faster. :-P)
Re: category standard: I believe that's Wikipedia's standard, but it's not ours, at least for lexical categories; for example, Spanish infinitives in (deprecated template usage) -ír are categorized both into [[Category:Spanish verbs ending in -ir]] and into [[Category:Spanish verbs ending in -ír]], the latter being a subcategory of the other. For topic categories it might make sense to follow Wikipedia's norm, but AFAIK that's not our current practice. (EncycloPetey (talkcontribs) would know, if you want to ask him.)
I hope you like it here; we're very different from Wikipedia in a lot of ways, which sometimes really throws people for a loop, but once you get used to that, I think you'll find a lot to like here. :-)
RuakhTALK 14:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Page moves

[edit]

(to Ruakh) I really appreciate your help. I am trying to expand tennis entries both here and there, but am finding it hard to find policies in order to understand the difference. I found tennis racket, which I think is inaccurate, but am not sure what to do with it. I proposed "tennis racquet", but had someone else just propose basically eliminating the seeparate page in favor of just a definition line on the racquet page; which actually might be more like a "dictionary". But where could I find a policy regarding "non-single word" terms or "derived" terms and how they should be created? -- (I appreciate your support) Mjquin id 18:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

unless

[edit]

I've done my best ... to fulfill your request ... unless you object to the quote that I got ... and what you'd object to I know not. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 01:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Spectacular! -- Mjquin id 05:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

tennis racket et al

[edit]

I have rolled back your changes. Our procedures differ from Wikipedia's. We have WT:RFD and WT:RFV processes. We also have WT:TR for questions about an entry. DCDuring TALK 12:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

All due respect, I was trying to follow that procedure, but really was hoping to find a Template:merge tag...which would have been more appropriate...WT:RFD doesn't give me much about the "procedure" for tagging..or proposing...?? -- Mjquin id 20:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Sorry about your partially wasted effort. By my taste/interpretation, both tennis racket and tennis racquet do not fit our rules for inclusion (WT:CFI#Idioms. But take a look at fried egg and hippie movement. Then follow the link to the RfV discussion of hippie movement. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm...I don't believe they meet criteria for inclusion either...that is why I tried to tag them as "proposed for deletion", but I did not know about the "verification" phase...which is what I am trying to promote them for now. (Though I found a cute "merge" template...which actually does not say "merge"...) Still learning...ever learning... -- Mjquin id 23:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply