User talk:Nicole Sharp

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

archive[edit]

Nicole Sharp (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Astronomical demonyms[edit]

  • Please do not make a new category like this without discussion first. You do not understand how the category structure or naming system work, and that's okay, but it means that you need to discuss this with the community before doing it. Please bring up the topic in WT:TR if you would like to proceed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Understood: Please see talk:Herculina on why we need this category. New demonyms for minor planets and other astronomical bodies are best built from common etymologies and astronomical precedents for demonymous terms. Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I checked the pre-existing categories, and will re-tag the words dually under "Astronomy" and "Demonyms" instead of one combining category. Nicole Sharp (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Apparently the category already exists: "[[category:en:Celestial inhabitants]]." Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixes[edit]

  • Hi, I fixed the entries you created so far today. Just letting you know, so you can take it into account in the future. —CodeCat 00:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi, I fixed Mooninite again. Please pay attention to this. —CodeCat 01:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I am very poor at remembering to use templates, sorry. I do not even know most of them. Is there a location with a list of all the templates that I should be using? Nicole Sharp (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
        • No, there isn't a list. There should probably be one, though. In any case, I'm talking more about the spacing. You can see the rules we go by on WT:NORM. —CodeCat 01:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Oh. Do you mean == Header == vs. ==Header==? I actually used to never put in whitespace for a long time, but I have been doing it now for a while since it improves legibility a little bit. Probably any headers that I have written on Wikimedia since September 2015 or so all have whitespace in them. I thought that MediaWiki ignores whitespace same as in any HTML? Nicole Sharp (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
            • The rules on WT:NORM don't affect the actual appearance of the page, they only concern the wiki code. But that's standardised too on Wiktionary, albeit only recently. Maybe we are neat freaks? —CodeCat 01:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
              • I agree that consistent wikicode is important. I am surprised there are no wikicode normalization pages for Wikipedia or MetaWiki? It is easier for contributors if they always create headers and lists they same way on each wiki. By the way, on the matter of consistency, how come lists use spaces and headers do not? Shouldn't lists be *List Item instead of * List Item? Nicole Sharp (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Taxonomy etc at Wiktionary[edit]

I am trying to improve our coverage of both taxonomic and English vernacular names without needlessly competing with the various taxonomic databases, all of which are much more complete than we are or are likely to be without having bots add entries.

My approach is to focus on taxonomic names that are topical, common, etymologically useful or interesting, or used as defining terms in Wiktionary, eg, for English vernacular names of groups of organisms. Our comparative advantage over other databases is limited to etymology, gender, translations, images, and linking. Also obsolete terms. In each of these areas there may be databases that are superior to us, but I'm hoping we can combine these to be useful at least to some population of users. We also have entries in miscellaneous areas that folks have taken an interest in, eg, flora and fauna of Finland, liverworts, many birds, certain spiders.

Do you think we have a chance to actually be helpful in any of these areas?

Also, I have been attracted to the recent publication by Ruggiero et al of a taxonomic classification down to the level of order to use as a default for the Hypernyms section of our entries at genus level and above. DCDuring TALK 18:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Official biological nomenclature requires the use of Latin. I have seen some really bad Latin translations used as species names unfortunately. So, yes, having translations and etymologies of taxa I think is very important, especially for biologists trying to think of new species names. New species are discovered nearly every day, and every single one requires a new name in Latin, so the (multi)linguistic resources of Wiktionary can make it arguably more effective at helping biologists than WikiSpecies does. Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)