User talk:Nwspel

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



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! --Ivan Štambuk 19:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirects, merging[edit]

  • redirects in the main namespace are forbidden, except for extreme purposes. Love and love mean different things. Note that WT is case-sensitive, unlike WP, which matters even in English to distinguish e.g. proper and common nouns.
  • merging - there's no need not to duplicate content in different spellings of the same word. In the worst case, they can be linked with {{alternative spelling of}} or by similar means. --Ivan Štambuk 19:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
For the best explanation your likely to find see Redirects (though it's not that good). Out system does not work well for internet slang, but it does work (approximately) well for the other 200 languages we deal with. Conrad.Irwin 19:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
And to reply you here: there's no difference in meaning between them, but the spelling is what matters (this software is unfortunately text-oriented, not meaning-oriented as it should be), and one can even argue that lol is a misspelling of LOL (or better said "casual miscapitalization") in a sense ethernet is a misspelling of Ethernet ^_^. So content should either be duplicated (with the exception of ====Translations==== section), or one of them should be treated as alternative spelling of another (see WT:ELE). Unfortunately there's no "unite" mechanism (at least that I know of). --Ivan Štambuk 19:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks[edit]

But why does Love need a separate page to love then? according to the policy, uppercase forms are only kept if there is a special need, and otherwise, all should be kept in the lowercase form, and therefore, the content of Love should be moved to love, and then Love should be deleted, so it "automatically" redirects to love, as the policy states. Nwspel 19:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be the case if Love wasn't a different word from love. It's the same with Pension and pension and thousands of others. I don't think that it's ideal, but it's how Wiktionary is set up - and that is unlikely to change in the near future as we'd have to get everyone to agree. Conrad.Irwin 19:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
But it's not a different word, as far as I can see. Is it? Nwspel 19:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Read the definition Love = A Swedish Male name, love = a strong liking (English). Conrad.Irwin 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not what I mean. For instance, the article A has its meaning in all languages, even though they all mean different things. Therefore, surely, love should just contain all the meanings from both love and Love, under the different language headings, like they do in A? Nwspel 19:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I know where you are coming from, I agree with you. Unfortunately Wiktionary does not. See a which is not the same word as A. Conrad.Irwin 20:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
That is so strange - those two articles basically say the same thing. Are there many other supporters of modifying the system? As having worked on several other wiktionarys before, I know that when they were translating articles from the "English" one, several complained of difficulty of understanding the capitalizations, but i never knew what they meant until now. Nwspel 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I like to hope there are a few, but I doubt we are in the majority as there are good reasons for splitting it thusly. Wiktionary really needs a layer between the entries and the search so that we can provide sensible output for normal people - but as no-one's gotten around to getting it written we'll just have to put up with the status quo. Conrad.Irwin 20:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
We basically try to make do by placing {{see}} templates at the top of entries that differ only in capitalization or accents. DCDuring TALK 16:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Would it not make more sense to just include them all in the same article? For instance, having a separate article of lol to LOL is quite ridiculous, wouldn't you agree? Nwspel 16:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of GISS, giss, and GISs? Should they be merged into one entry?—msh210 17:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The idea of each page, is to give every definition of the word with that spelling, so yes, I think they should all be put under giss, but with each of the meanings and capitalizations listed within the page, just in the same way that all the different meanings of love are listed within the same article. I think there is a problem here - that problem being that the wiktionary is being built in such a way that only people very familiar with the system are able to use it, and not those who simply come here occaisionally to find the meaning of a word. For instance, if I wanted to find out what lol meant, and was confronted with a page that told me that LOL may also be what I was looking for, how would a non-wiktionarially experienced user deal with this? You are only seeing from your, experienced perspective. I understand the workings of this system, but the majority of people will not. It is inconsistent and causes many other problems. Nwspel 17:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Some of us couldn't agree with you more about the problems that various aspects of our design pose for casual users, that is, those who are are best hope for growth. After being here a while, it is very easy to "go native" and forget the needs of ordinary users. In addition, most of us are vastly more fascinated with words than most of our normal users. We have very little actual knowledge (intuitive or statistical) of our normal users. DCDuring TALK 17:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone coming across "GISS" might either (1) assume it's spelled "giss" (and capitalized for emphasis) and look up giss or (2) look up giss because it's easier to type. So you're right: people look up the wrong capitalization. (That's part of a larger problem, which I'll get to in a second.) But the {{see}} link atop the page immediatel directs them to the word they want. Is it invisible? (That's not a sarcastic or rhetorical question: I mean it. Sometimes something can be right in front of your nose but there are too many distractiosn to see it. But if it's in fact visible, then in my opinion it suffices.) The other issue concerning people's looking up the wrong capitalization is that they also look up the wrong spelling altogether: "jiss" for "GISS", for example, and cannot find what they were looking for. For more on this, see WT:FEED. There oughta be a Soundex-like search mechanism, but we're a logn way from having one as far as I can tell. Just some thoughts to mull over.—msh210 18:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Why would the capial GISS be used for default? Surely it would be giss? Anyway, if love can list both the verb, noun, etc etc etc, then why can lol have both "lol" and "LOL" (not that I can particularly see much difference between the two anyway). Nwspel 18:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


Wiktionary does not use redirects for alternative spellings. See luvs for one way of handling this. Conrad.Irwin 20:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Form of's[edit]

Please see my changes to luvz, luvs and luvd. They are different words and are not pronounced the same way as love. Conrad.Irwin 20:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Kei, i see, thanks. Nwspel 20:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


Please stop removing content. See google:luvver. It most certainly does exist. Robert Ullmann 15:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As a WMF wiki, we welcome participation. Wiktionary is very incomplete and needs much more content that meets our standards than it has. We try to include many colloquial and slang expressions, far more than most print dictionaries. We also include foreign languages and differentiate capitalized and non-capitalized forms, hyphenated and non-hyphenated forms, etc. Please do not remove any content unilaterally. If you object to something, please insert a tag requesting deletion {{rfd}} or verification rfv. You can participate in the discussions on the forums and see what we think about in considering a word and its presentation. BTW, thanks for the idea of linking luv to wuv. I placed "luv" as a synonym, though. The idea is to make it as easy as possible for someone learning English to find the meaning of "luv" without wasting time on extra clicks. OTOH, "luv" and "wuv" are obviously in the same spirit. DCDuring TALK 16:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Stay away[edit]

OK these Nazi's are censoring me now [1]. I'm sure they will censor this too but perhaps you will see it in you history. My advice is to stay the fuck away from this project. Kappa 00:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Kappa is clearly in a bad mood right now; I'd advise you not to worry about it. Robert Ullmann 01:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
To clarify one reason why you wouldn't want to be here, the discussion for woz puts you in a position of either doing the work yourself and thus becoming a catamite for some guy who doesn't actually care if Wiktionary has a gap in it or not, or allowing it to fail and have this guy pat himself on the back for a good job of "verification". You lose either way, but I believe you'll find it better for your self-respect to walk away and forget about this place. Kappa 01:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand that there are currently many, many problems with wiktionary, but I set out to change these. My main issue with it is that the capitalization system is a complete mess. Another thing I have a problem with is the Wiktionary logo, and I think it is important, since it appears to contradict everything Wiktionary stands for. Even if for some odd reason, some speakers did get pronounce Wiktionary without the /ɛ/ in ['wɪkʃɘnɛri] to give ['wɪkʃɘnri] (which I have not heard anyone do), why on earth is the last vowel 'ɪ' and not 'i'?? I am not really sure where to take this up, but anyway... lol. Nwspel 12:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you can see why Kappa should be ignored, as he has now resorted to crude insults.

On your points:

The capitalization system being messed up: all page title are words as written. Proper nouns and such that are written capitalized, including things like German nouns, are entered as written; others are entered lower case, again, as written.

On the logo: it is intentional, and we like it a lot. Partly it is in the nature of an "inside joke", but it is also quite correct. It is RP (aka BBC English, or the Queen's English, although both have shifted more toward the vulgar tongue). See w:Received Pronunciation. And yes, the second /ə/ is omitted, and the final y is /ɪ/. This was considered to be Standard English. The current pronunciation of dictionary (outside of Yorkshire, where it is preserved) in the UK is more like /ˈdɪkʃən(ə)ɹi/. Note the optional second /ə/. If the logo leads one to ask such questions, it has succeeded. (People who whine that it is wrong just need a bit of edification ;-)

As to woz, we require citations and sources just like any other credible work. While most entries do not have them, being entirely uncontroversial, they all should. Any entry that is dubious—and slang will always be in this category—needs to be carefully sourced. I'm sure you (unlike perhaps some others) would like to see this level of integrity in something you are putting effort into. Robert Ullmann 13:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am still baffled by the idea that someone with RP would pronounce it as "...ɪ" rather than "...i", as when I say the "ɪ" version out loud, it seems more scottish than anything. Lol, but I will take your word for it.
With regards to the capitalizations, I really do think that over time, something does need to be done, since wiktionary is meant to be utilizable by anyone, but the current capitalization system seems to be only comprehendable for those who have become "native" to the project. For instance, a non-wiktionarially experienced user might want to look at lol and find what they are looking for, yet at the top of the page, see something which directs to LOL, which also appears to deal with what they wanted to know. How would the user understand which one is supposed to be which, unless they had prior experience to the project? I have worked a tiny amount on other wiktionaries and wikipedias in the past, and I found that there lack of capitalization system tended to work quite well, which is something I would like users here to look into, but I understand this is going to be a very controversial discussion.
Regarding the RFV of woz, I have left several references on the verification page; I hope you will take a look at them. Thanks Nwspel 13:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


I'm going to attempt to cite woz ("wuz"). I might get lucky and cite "worry" sense. Do you have any knowledge of how this is used? It is easier to put the citations on the citations page or on the main entry page than to put them on the RfV page. I personally would not credit usage in titles (or in puns or poetry), so the "Woz woz"-type punning usage wouldn't make it in my book. Of course, Wiktionary isn't my book. I believe we should have a rule explicitly excluding puns and, probably, poetical usage. In any event, woz should make it, in at least the one sense. Citing entries is unremunerated work. We who cite and all those who work on Wiktionary ruthlessly exploit each other for the benefit of each other and for other users. DCDuring TALK 15:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I was slightly skeptical about the pun reference, but will the other two be OK? As I said on the RFV, the most common phrase I have heard they worry sense in, was "dont woz"; I think it's going to be a very hard job to reference it, which is a shame. Nwspel 15:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It's very difficult to cite colloquialisms that don't get taken up in television, sports pages, fiction dialog, or in usenet groups. The web is an indication of usage, but doesn't count for attestation. I don't really think we have to worry about the "be" senses. One of them is already cited, one is just one short. DCDuring TALK 16:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So, you're from the same country as that deletion-happy admin...[edit]

Hey, this is the same guy from the paycheck-to-paycheck article. Some Croatian elohssa blocked the other IP I was on, so I had to use this one.

You aren't Sempo Blotter's son, are you? He's also from the UK so the way you've been comporting yourself makes it seem like you are. I have a feeling you both have similar tendencies, the way that father & son often are...

And how did you find a Citations tab? I couldn't see one until I checked your contributions, so how do you have access to a Citations tab while I don't??? Is there a secret code or something? -- 15:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, I have no relations working on any Wikimedia project, so no, I am not his son. O_o
Look, swearing is not going to help your case, and will actually turn other users against you. I suggest you try and be civil, k?
People act different under high blood pressure. It's since lowered now. -- 15:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason you should not have been able to access the page as far as I am aware. You see where you have the "discussion", "edit", tabs at the top of the page, it was up there for me. If you still can't see it, then I can only presume that perhaps you have to be logged into an account to see it, but I wouldn't have thought so.
I'll see if I can see it when under an account. In any case, there's no reason for IP anons not to see a Citations tab. -- 15:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
And no, I am very much an inclusionist (someone who disagrees with deletion), or a mergist (someone who supports merging articles), but you need to do things properly; the way you originally wrote that article when I saw it - did you really expect anyone to want to keep it like that? Nwspel 15:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
No, of course not. I was calling urgent attention to the article. I wanted somebody to improve it, and how I made the article "look urgent" was supposed to get somebody's attention really, really quick, but since no one would take the initiative, I had to myself. -- 15:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I can tell that you have good intentions, but we perhaps need to go over a couple of things. If you call people names, swear, or act rude, the chances are that you'll get blocked - so here's what I do if I'm getting worked up while editing here - I take a break; go have something to eat; go watch a bit of television; and then come back later after I've calmed down - it's better to do that, than to let yourself get wound up, and potentially be blocked. Secondly if you ever have problems with an article, don't do that. Simply come to another user (I'm usually available) and ask for help. Doing what you did will make you seem like a vandal (which i'm sure, and hope, that you do not want to be seen as). Everyone is here to help you; but if you call them names, they may be less willing to do so - it doesn't take much to work it out ;) Did you make the account? Nwspel 15:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The Citations tab requires javascript, which is a bad limitation. I've blocked the above IP as this is the second time they've been up to no good. Conrad.Irwin 15:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't usually do this, but I am going to ask that the IP be unblocked, on their behalf. I think we should WP:Assume Good Faith, and now that I have had a little chat with them, I hope that they will have listened to what I said and taken it on board. I will help develop the user, as they seem like the could be a potential help to the project, but they just needed a little help themselves. What do you think? Nwspel 15:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. Though I'm going against my judgement. Conrad.Irwin 15:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. If they cause disruption again, then by all means, indef block them. To the IP, I hope you will show gratitude to Conrad, as he has shown great kindness here. I also hope you will listen to what I have said, ok? Nwspel 15:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi, when updating the shortcut index could you please leave the old shortcuts in the list. They are the ones that everyone (apart from you perhaps) uses. Feel free to add, but please stop replacing. Conrad.Irwin 20:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK :) Nwspel 20:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop.[edit]

Please stop. People use these shortcuts and expect them to work as they always have. You will be blocked if you continue to disrupt wiktionary. I notice you recieved the wrong welcome template, perhaps the following will make our position clearer. Yours Conrad.Irwin 20:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary!

If you have edited Wikipedia, you probably already know some basics, but Wiktionary does have a few conventions of its own. Please take a moment to learn our basics before jumping in.

First, all articles should be in our standard format, even if they are not yet complete. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with it. You can use one of our pre-defined article templates by typing the name of a non-existent article into the search box and hitting 'Go'. You can link Wikipedia pages, including your user page, using [[w:pagename]], {{pedia}}, or {{wikipedia}}.

Notice that article titles are case-sensitive and are not capitalized unless, like proper nouns, they are ordinarily capitalized (Poland or January). Also, take a moment to familiarize yourself with our criteria for inclusion, since Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. Don't go looking for a Village pump – we have a Beer parlour. Note that while Wikipedia likes redirects, Wiktionary deletes most redirects (especially spelling variations), in favor of short entries. Please do not copy entries here from Wikipedia if they are in wikipedia:Category:Copy to Wiktionary; they are moved by bot, and will appear presently in the Transwiki: namespace.

A further major caveat is that a "Citation" on Wiktionary is synonymous with a "Quotation", we use these primary sources to construct dictionary definitions from evidence of the word being used. "References" (aka "Citations" on Wikipedia) are used predominantly for verifying Etymologies and usage notes, not the definitions themselves. This is partly to avoid copyright violation, and partly to ensure that we don't fall into the trap of adding "list words", or words that while often defined are never used in practice.

Note for experienced Wikipedians:
Wiktionary is run in a very different manner from Wikipedia and you will have a better experience if you do not assume the two are similar in culture. Please remember that despite your experience on Wikipedia, that experience may not always be applicable here. While you do not need to be an expert, or anything close to one, to contribute, please be as respectful of local policies and community practices as you can. Be aware that well-meaning Wikipedians have unfortunately found themselves blocked in the past for perceived disruption due to misunderstandings. To prevent a similar outcome, remember the maxim: be bold, but don't be reckless!
Having said that, we welcome Wikipedians, who have useful skills and experience to offer. The following are a couple of the most jarring differences between our projects that Wikipedians may want to learn up front, so things go smoothly for everyone. Changing policy pages on Wiktionary is very strongly discouraged. If you think something needs changing, please discuss it at the beer parlour, after which we may formally vote on the issue. You should also note that Wiktionary has very different user-space policies, we are here to build a dictionary and your user-page exists only to facilitate that. In particular we have voted to explicitly ban all userboxes with the exception of {{Babel}}; please do not create or use them.

We hope you enjoy editing Wiktionary and being a Wiktionarian.

Agreed. Please spend some time doing entry work before you completely rework our policy pages. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


with æ and a? O_o

and also, for estuary english, are we th-fronting the pronunciation guides?

additionally, what is the estuary english for "all", and what is the vowel in it that makes it sound like "school", and contains the same vowel as in the second half of the diphthong in "bowl". Sorry to ask these questions, but I am becoming more and more confused, and I don't want to make a mistake. Nwspel 22:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[æ] sounds like /ɛ/ to most modern UK ears. Steve Bell, the Guardian cartoonist, actually writes As as Es when he's doing dialogue by the Royals, to represent this "posh speech". Imagine a toff from the 50s saying "Good Lord! I like your het, what!" The OED have stopped using [æ] (and so have I and some others, although it still exists in many UK pronunciations on Wiktionary, so we are in a bit of flux about this one right now). [a] is pretty simple, it is a more open sound and basically it is the sound everyone uses in England now to say man, hat etc.
If you are confused by all this, I suggest you wait a little while before working on pronunciations too much. Native speakers can easily get subconsciously thrown by orthography, eg many Spanish-speakers swear they can hear a difference between B and V (which are both /b/). And diphthongs are notoriously hard to interpret. If you are hearing similarities between all and school, you are probably realizing /ɔː/ as [oʊ] and /uː/ as [ʉ] (both common phenomena in London/SE but not UK-wide) which makes them much closer together, and makes me wonder if you are from Bromley! Widsith 06:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, forgot to say: we are definitely NOT representing th-fronting in pronunciations. That is limited to a few dialects and is not heard as being "standard" UK speech. In fact most people would think of it as sloppy I suspect. Widsith 06:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


Do you have a purpose (use) in mind for this template? Note that we already have the {{rel-top}}, {{der-top}}, and {{trans-top}} (see category:Column templates). Do you propose to supersede all those with this? (That's not necessarily a bad idea; I'm just wondering.) Note, by the way, that having a capital letter start your template means everyone who uses the template will need to type a capital letter each time, which is a shame; better to call it multicol imho.—msh210 18:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Documentation subpage also starts with a capital letter, I see; and it also duplicates current practice (which is to put documentation on the template's talk page; see, e.g., template:en-adj).—msh210 18:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there were already templates :\ but there currently seems to be no consistency between wikiprojects as how to generate it, so I am trying to put all the ones from Wiki onto here first, and then I will bring the templates from here onto Wiki, so that wherever one is coming from and going to, they will be able to use what they know, so it won't take them so long to settle in. And I don't understand what you mean about the capital letters; perhaps after the whole set of templates (the ones needed to make the whole thing work- and there appear to be lots) are brought over, you could correct/move it then? :) Nwspel 18:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I really don't like going around cleaning up after people. Nonetheless, if it's required, I'll do it, or someone else will.—msh210 18:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This is, again, something that you should, at least, discuss in the BP. Quite frankly, I think your attempts are misguided. We have our own templates, and wp has theirs. If you import all of the 'pedia's, unless you can find some justification for having them here, I'm just going to delete them (or someone else will). Ultimately, I think that your attempts to make the transition from wp to wikt more transparent are 1. a bad idea (while that may seem counterintuitive, there are reasons for it) and 2. not feasible (for anyone, but especially for one who does not have a solid understanding of what we do here, such as yourself). However, if you really want to keep trying on this, I suggest you at least talk to people who have lots of experience with both projects (there are a number of folks listed at WT:A who are admins on both projects). Without an understanding of what we do here, and why and how we do it, you're simply trying to make us more like the 'pedia, which a number of folks (including myself) are going to fight tooth and nail. I apologize for taking such an adversarial role against a lot of your actions. I honestly don't have anything against you personally. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hear, hear.—msh210 19:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
What is wrong with having both templates?? Nwspel 19:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It encourages inconsistency and makes it harder for people to learn. The less un-needed syntax the better, Wiktionary is already overcrowded with messy code. Conrad.Irwin 19:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. Just go ahead and delete it all then! I'm not going to bother next time. Nwspel 19:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Template doc[edit]

This is not how things are done on Wiktionary. There has been previous discussion. I will delete it. We use {{seeTalk}} so that all the template information is in one place. Please discuss it before importing uesless cruft from Wikipedia. Conrad.Irwin 19:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Vandalism vs. Wiktionary:Warning[edit]

Please note that all of the relevant warning templates are already listed (though apart from the occasional {{test}} I have never seen any of them used). As {{test}} is currently on WT:RFDO I strongly suggest waiting before importing any of these or similar templates. Conrad.Irwin 10:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The templates listed are hardly useful. I am currently working on modifying Wiktionary:Warning so it becomes simpler, with fewer templates, and more appropriate to us here, and it is taking a while, and some research. The current state of the page is not how it will be when it is finished. :) Nwspel 10:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Good! Thank you very much. You may find interesting debates about the way Wiktionary patrolling works in the WT:BPA, it essentially boils down to revert nonconstructive edits, revert and warn testers, revert and block vandals (i.e. no second chances are generally given). This is for many reasons, but mainly because we do not have enough time to waste pandering to those who are clearly not going to do anything useful.
I'd also like your thoughts on something, I never subst: these templates because I feel that it is better if the person to whom I am talking knows that they are getting a standard message (the same with {{welcome}}) and also so that if the template is updated, then it is kept up to date everywhere. Why do you think people (particularly on Wikipedia) advocate subst:ing these, I've never really understood. Conrad.Irwin 10:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Well wikipedia has 6 levels (assume good faith, no assumption of faith, assume bad faith, assume bad faith and last warning, assume bad faith with first and last warning, block), and I think you'll agree this is rather excessive, so after I've reduced the number of reasons for warning, I will compact these (based on wiktionary's current ideas on warning); so yes, by the end, there won't be templates for "fourth second chances" etc.
The reason subst: is used on wikipedia is so that if the template changes, the message the user gets won't change in the future, because otherwise their history will show them getting something different than they did. However, I feel that this is not such a big issue, and it is in some ways better not to subsitute, and if wiktionary does not do this anyway, then I shall put up no objection to removing the part about substituting. What do you think? Nwspel 10:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's over the top. Either a {{welcome}} can be used to advise, or one warning can be given to warn about more serious mistakes. There are a number of different warnings that could be given, but I feel that using one template per user is enough. Hmm, I suppose that makes sense - but I don't think it outweighs the advantages. I don't think it really matters though I'd prefer not to advocate substing. The opinion is divided, and so neither is more right in terms of consensus. Conrad.Irwin 11:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thought you would like to know that {{test}} no longer in WT:RFDO, since it got so many keeps. --Neskaya talk 00:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


Hey, thanks for helping with RFV, you seem to be labouring under the common-misapprehension that other dictionaries count in the verification process. While they are often considered, they cannot by themselves cause a word to meet CFI. The rules for CFI boil down to the basic mantra "Three independent durably archived citations of usage spanning at least three years." 'Citations of usage' => The word as used in some prose where it is not explained. 'independent' => Not by the same author or about the same particular organisation. 'durably archived' => books that are actually printed, and durably archived web-resources such as the WayBack machine (though that may be controversial, I've only just thought that it counts), and usenet groups. I've tried writing my thoughts about the reasons for this at Wiktionary:Descriptivism, though I'm beginning to be of the opinion that that page needs deleting and starting afresh. Conrad.Irwin 16:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sig tips[edit]

If you want to change your signature to leave a {{User:Nwspel/sig}} then you have to create {{User:Nwspel/subst_sig}} which contains it and use that in the Special:Preferences box. See User:TheDaveRoss/sigsub. Also, User:nwspel sig is not in your userspace, could you please move it to start with User:Nwspel... - note the uppercase Nwspel. Thanks Conrad.Irwin 21:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you it works :) And I've moved the page. --nwspel tork kontribz 21:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed, thanks! —This unsigned comment was added by Conrad.Irwin (talkcontribs).
It still isn't in your userspace. You need to add a "/" to the name. Try User:Nwspel/sig and User:Nwspel/sig-code. Mike Dillon 23:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: translations[edit]

The syntax looks fine to me, maybe you change something in your preferences? Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to fix it. Sorry. --Panda10 14:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"References" vs. "Quotations" or "Citations".[edit]

What we call a quotation or citation (we use both terms — don't ask) is what quotes/cites a durably archived text using the headword in a certain sense. To demonstrate that a given word and sense meet our criteria for inclusion, we typically need three of these that are somewhat independent, are spread out a bit time-wise. Quotations/citations are placed and formatted as described at Wiktionary:Quotations.

Conversely, what we call a reference is what refers to a reputable source making a certain claim about the headword. (This is just like Wikipedia; for example, hypothetically speaking, horse#English and w:The English word "horse" could have very similar reference lists.) References appear in a level-3 section within a language section, and are formatted much as at Wikipedia, much like the description line of a quotation/citation (except without the year being placed first and made bold), and so on.

We try to support definitions with quotations or citations (which would be original research by Wikipedia's definition, but it's our standard operating procedure here), but we try to support etymologies and usage notes with references.

We generally don't support translations with anything; horse will do nothing to support listing cheval; but this is O.K., because in theory cheval will offer support for this claim, in the form of French quotations/citations.

Does that make sense?

RuakhTALK 14:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're not bothered by foul language, see e.g. pimp slap for how it all fits together. (Note that that entry is a bit unusual in that there are references in sense lines as well as in usage notes; but then, most of our entries are unusual in one way or another. :-)   —RuakhTALK 15:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well that's quite complicated 0_0 lol. er... hang on... so... a reference is something that gives the definition. a citation is where the word is used... is that right?
So what about at hew?
--nwspel tork kontribz 15:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: "a reference is something that gives the definition": Usually, no; we generally support our definitions by providing citations/quotations of the word in use, rather than by quoting other people's definitions. (pimp slap was a bit of an exception in this regard, because an anonymous editor here was making false prescriptivist claims using UrbanDictionary for support, so I gathered some other references as well as quotations to make a coherent, factual entry.) But you have the right general idea; the only other thing to keep in mind is simply that references are generally there to support ancillary information — especially etymologies and usage notes — rather than definitions proper. —RuakhTALK 16:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
So er... in hew, how should the citations be put there?
Coz they don't come out...
--nwspel tork kontribz 16:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
See Wiktionary:Quotations for the general idea. For a more usable model for Usenet cites, you can take a look at Citations:angst bunny. But to be honest, I don't think those citations should be put there. This sense of hew is very common, and I don't think it would be hard at all to find plenty of examples from b.g.c.; why resort to Usenet? —RuakhTALK 18:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


Template:warn test is not a good replacement for this for these reasons:

  • They are worded very differently, {{test}} is not <edit>necessarily</edit> for vandalism, it is for test edits.
  • The icon is pointless, all it does is ensure that the user can tell instantly they've been given a templated message.
  • The template had an extra newline in it which meant that leaving {{warn test}} ~~~~ causes the signature to be rendered in a grey box and fixed width font.

I have, needless to say, <edit>reverted your edits removed the redirect</edit>, please let me know before you plan to do anything radical to that template in future. Conrad.Irwin 12:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC) <edit 13:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)>

The test template is copied from wikipedia, so that is already correct and i shall undo your revisions.
The icons help to make the template slightly more visual - they do no hamr.
--nwspel tork kontribz 08:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
We are not Wikipedia. Personally, I like Wikipedia; I'm O.K. with much of how it does things; but that doesn't make us it. And plenty of our editors here do not like how Wikipedia does things. So the next time you revert an action here and have no justification besides some sort of crackpot theory that the way Wikipedia does a thing must perforce be better for Wiktionary than the way Wiktionary currently does it, don't be surprised if you receive a block. (For that matter, don't be surprised if I'm the one who gives it — and I'm generally anti-block.)
The icons do make the template slightly more visual. They also make it obvious to the editor that (s)he has received a template warning message, and can give the effect of a bot comment rather than an actual comment by a human editor who's paying attention. We might decide that the one outweighs the other, but when you've received a comment explaining the harm that they do, you can't simply reply that "they do no hamr [sic]" without justifying that reply somehow.
RuakhTALK 11:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, it's my fault for mentioning the icon (which is personal taste and really irrelevant), I should have left that out but I was feeling particularly petty. The points about the different purpose or the template and broken newline still stand. Your change caused the template to break on the 50 or so pages it is transcluded, which is not acceptable. (While I'm here I'll be nit-picky again) The template links to Wikipedia's article on vandalism which is utterly irrelevant (the link should be either to Wiktionary's entry or to whatever explanation we have here) and also to a Help page explaining how to revert (not what reversion is), instead of just using the globally understood word "undone". I would advise you to read the "Warning to experienced Wikipedians" in {{welcomepedia}} which has been reworded since it was initially left on your talk page (although still carries the same message). Conrad.Irwin 18:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)



I just thought you might like to know that I deleted hadoken, as it sat on Wiktionary:Requests for verification for a few months without any verification being provided.

Also, in the past week you've made 53 contributions, of which none were to entries or other content pages (categories, appendices, citations pages, entry-templates, etc.), or even to secondary pages like entry-discussion pages, RFV, and so on … I don't mean to denigrate your contributions, but I think you could help a lot more by contributing to the dictionary itself. :-/

RuakhTALK 14:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#flesh fair[edit]

Figured I'd at least make you aware of this conversation, as the entry's creator. I have deleted it, as I can see no possible way that this meets CFI. However, if you can make a convincing argument for its existence and sway some others, it can certainly be undeleted. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


I've just noticed that your signature is being transcluded from a page in your userspace. Certainly on Wikipedia there is a rule that signatures must be substituted as this is apparently significantly less intensive in terms of server requests (see w:Wikipedia:Signatures#Transclusion_of_templates). Although we do not have an explicit policy on this, the factors are the same.

You can create the same code by using the raw signatures option on the user profile tab of special:preferences. Thryduulf 15:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it is OK, for the reasons given in the WP policy. See WT:BP#Signature templates. Thryduulf 15:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Informing blocked users[edit]

Users who are blocked that try to edit get told they are blocked by MediaWiki:Blockedtext. Users who are blocked who don't try to edit don't need to know they are blocked. Adding a notice to their talk page that duplicates the information in the message is at best pointless, as they see a marginally more informative message anyway; and at worst aggravates them, because without the message they would go away in happy oblivion. Or is there a reason for doing it that I'm missing? Conrad.Irwin 08:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it would be helpful, so that other editors can see they've been blocked already. --nwspel tork kontribz 08:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


Is there a good enough reason you are creating these cross-namespace double-redirects in the content namespace? Conrad.Irwin 09:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed a while ago on one of the discussion rooms, remember? I think it was during the discussion of renaming the ELE. It was decided that to help integrate migrants from Wikipedia into Wiktionary, it would be helpful to redirect WP:BLOCK, for instance, to WT:BLOCK, since a newcomer wouldn't realize how to get to the page. I'll try find the discussion in a minute if you'd like? --nwspel tork kontribz 09:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh so it's to point people to the redirect, rather than to the page itself... OK then - but it might all get undone when it is filling up Special:DoubleRedirects. Conrad.Irwin 09:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Flesh fair[edit]

Hi - thanks for notifying me. Does the usage by the BBC not warrant it? [2] --nwspel tork kontribz 14:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I know the source is still to do with the film, but does it not show it entered English vocabulary? --nwspel tork kontribz 20:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay in response. The problem is one of independence. Our criteria for inclusion require three independent cites. Since all cites (that I've ever seen anyway) are clearly referring to the movie, they can't claim independence. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok I understand. Thanks --nwspel tork kontribz 20:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)