User talk:Paine Ellsworth

Template:projectlink

Found a new word!

Welcome to my Wiktionary Talk page. Believe it or not, I actually found a real word that was not yet in Wiktionary! What are the chances of that! The word was anthropomorphite. Pretty kewl!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  07:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

WT:WFW

We don't create redirects like that here. Please read this link, which is a primer to Wiktionary for Wikipedians like you. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! I did it right, this time. Thanks for the heads up! For future reference, if you'd like your comments to be read and answered in less than two months, eight days, then please use the link at the TOP of this page. – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 08:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

paywall

Hi. The issue here was you adding a definition of the word "paywalled" to the entry for "paywall". They are not spelled the same and do not belong on the same page in the way that you did it. (Compare, say, the separate entries for kerchief and kerchiefed.) "paywalled" has its own entry here: paywalled. Equinox ◑ 20:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Equinox, and thank you for taking the time to help. Unfortunately, I have the same problem with kerchief as I have with paywall: While there is a link to kerchief on the kerchiefed page, there is no link in the reverse direction, that is, from kerchief to kerchiefed. How are readers to know the adjectives even exist? There is something wrong with this picture. It's okay to include a plural (which is not spelled the same as the singular, by the way), but it's not okay to include a "sister" part of speech? There are dozens of pages I could point you to that contain the nouns and the adjectives on the same page along with verb forms, etc. So don't you see anything wrong with a page that does not even link to an associated part of speech? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Please take another look at paywall. If this is acceptable, then the same can be done at kerchief. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 22:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at it now. It's one thing to provide a link to the other form, using headers such as "Derived terms", "Related terms", "See also", etc., as appropriate, but another entirely to duplicate the definition. Having the same definition in two places means that any changes made in one place will be missed in the other, resulting in entries that disagree with each other. You have to remember that you're not the only one editing these entries, and most people don't look at the related entries when they make a change. The only workable solution we've been able to come with is to make each entry self-contained, with other entries linking to it, but not duplicating the information from it. Please read through the pages linked to in the text from the welcome template, especially WT:ELE, for more detail on how entries are put together. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

And as I mentioned to you below, "derived term" is shown at kerchief to be something entirely different than "part of speech". So maybe we could use a part-of-speech header at paywall, as suggested in the policy you linked, and then just simply link under that header to the paywalled adjective page? If headers are not acceptable, then I really don't understand why just a brief content-template line, such as the one I used that you reverted, wouldn't be acceptable. Even if the other page is expanded, the base meaning won't change anytime soon, if ever. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Okay, now you've taken out the content template at kerchief and placed "kerchiefed" down under "Derived term". Is that more to the policy than what I did? Please explain your rationale? Please? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Like I said above, the idea is to avoid having kerchiefed content in the kerchief entry, so that we don't have to update kerchief every time someone changes kerchiefed, or vice versa. I'm not sure "Derived terms" is the best header, but it would be a header along the same lines, if not. It's definitely true that kerchiefed is derived from kerchief, but it may be better to just use the generic fallback, "See also". Chuck Entz (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the policy you pointed out earlier clearly shows that parts of speech are treated differently than derived terms. It talks about separate headers for them and so forth. What will happen when some chairman of the board states, "We're not making enough money, so we're going to have to paywall our website!" Now you have a verb, as well as a noun and an adjective. Will this call for a new "verb-only" page? or would it become more like brief? Just askin'. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

In such a case, you would add a Verb header and a verb definition to paywall, because that's how the verb is spelled. Other forms such as paywalling and paywalls would be linked to in the [[paywall] page verb section, but each would have its own page (though paywalls would contain a noun section for the plural and a verb section for the third-person singular form, because they're spelled differently. You would also add a verb section to the paywalled page for the past participle of the verb paywall. I hope you're starting to see a pattern: everything goes with its spelling, with links connecting the pages. It's really quite simple and straightforward, but you've gotten used to thinking in terms of different structures. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The verb would then be added to paywall. The exact spelling is the important thing. paywall is not an adjective, so that page does not include an Adjective header. paywalled is an adjective but not a noun, so that page includes an Adjective header but not a Noun header. Yes, the (en-verb) template does show the various forms (e.g. build, builds, building, built) but the actual verb definition still only belongs on the page for the infinitive, or lemma form. Equinox ◑ 04:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome

I hope this answers some of your questions. Sorry for not doing it sooner. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Chuck; I was welcomed a long time ago. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Question for you, Chuck... What if the first time I ever heard of or read the word paywall or kerchief was its usage as a noun, and so I come to Wiktionary and find the word I want. How am I to know that there is also an adjective form for either of those words? (paywalled or kerchiefed) I myself didn't have that problem because the first time I read about the concept of "paywall" was in its adjective form, so that is what I came to Wiktionary for and found "paywalled", which linked to "paywall". But what if it had been the other way around? How would I know that the adjective form even exists, since there is no link to "paywalled" from the "paywall" page? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Um, Chuck? Not for anything, but is calling the adjective part of speech a "derived term" similar to that phrase's usage at kerchief? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 22:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)