User talk:Wolfkeeper

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, 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! --EncycloPetey 20:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


Please notice this correction [1] that I made to your edit. Your exmple sentence clearly shows use of the mord as a verb, not as a noun, so your addition was made under the wrong part of speech header (or was mismatched with the example sentence). --EncycloPetey 20:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's why I brought this to your attention. Your example sentence was clearly a verb, so if there is a noun use, can you come up with a sentence using surge as a noun in the way you mean? I'd be better able to help you with a definition if I had a good sample sentence expressing your notion of the word. --EncycloPetey 21:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

internal combustion engine[edit]

NNeither jet engine s nor rockets are internal combustion. Both are open to the surroundings. --EncycloPetey 00:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the Encyclopedia Britannica says. There's actually two definitions. The normal one is any fuel powered piston/rotary engines, but the full technical one is inclusive of all fuel powered engines where the hot gases directly cause motion including those where the hot gases act on a nozzle, such as a ramjet, turbojet and rocket. (c.f. steam engine where the heat goes through a heat exchanger system to boil water which then in turn does work- this is an example of an engine known as an "external combustion engine".)Wolfkeeper 00:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly: It's an external combuation engine, not an internal combustion engine. They are not the same, although both are combustion engines. --EncycloPetey 00:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, no, you didn't read what I wrote. Read it again. I've corrected your error in the entry and added the ref.Wolfkeeper 01:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a common mistake.Wolfkeeper 01:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I see now. However, the edit you've made is still an error. you've altered the wording of the definition, and now the gloss on the translations table matches neither of the new definitions. The Translation gloss must match the definition it is paired with. --EncycloPetey 01:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

vertical, horizontal[edit]

I've reverted your edits to vertical, and altered those of horizontal. The problem with both was that you were adding multiple lines for the same sense, giving the impression that there are more meanings than there really are. Please try to bear this in mind in the future. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


Why did you remove the Wikipedia template? Your second "definition" is self-referential "#(astronautics)a requirement for rocket delta-v to be able to achieve a particular manoeuvre". I have seen and used the term in many other contexts. SemperBlotto 19:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not actually self-referential. And apparently the same term is used in different differently contexts.Wolfkeeper 19:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to ask you in turn why you removed a definition you self-evidently didn't understand.Wolfkeeper 19:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand it, but it's still self-referential. A definition should never use the term that is being defined. Also, all category names must begin with a capital letter, never a lower-case letter. The category "Astronautics" was recently deemed to be deletable in discussion. --EncycloPetey 19:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. This dictionary is really rather unpleasantly user hostile. I spend half my time undeleting stuff that was deleted for relatively obscure (and in many cases incorrect) reasons. You may find your time is better spent tagging stuff that is wrong rather than outright deleting it. I'm quite frankly considering stopping my contribution to this place, and I'm on 15,000 edits on the wikipedia.Wolfkeeper 19:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The category was deleted because (unlike a page) a category cannot be moved. This is true on both Wikipedia and Wiktionary. An incorrectly named category must be deleted and recreated under the new name. The additional problem is that Wikitonary (unlike Wikipedia) is case-sensitive. The difference between a capital letter and a lower-case letter can completely change the meaning of a word, so we have to be consistent about this. The category was deleted correctly. Please read WT:AGF; it is not the same as the Wikipedia version because we have to contend with many hostile newcomers. --EncycloPetey 19:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
You're technically correct I'm sure.Wolfkeeper 19:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)



FYI, I reverted your edits to [[suborbital]], since that's the adjective section, and the definition needs to be the definition for an adjective. If you feel that parts of your edits were improvements, then please feel free to revert back and then fix.

RuakhTALK 23:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


This is not an adjective. Nouns may be used attributively in English, but this does not change the underlying part of speech. Also, the company responsible for the plane is irrelevant to a dictionary definition; that information belongs in the companion encyclopedia article on Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey 01:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the company does actually matter here. Concorde is not just a name for any supersonic aircraft, it is only the one made by BAC & Co.Wolfkeeper 01:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
But the fact is irrelevant to the definition. The Great Wall of China is the wall built in a particular place, of a particular length, by a particular dynasty, at a particular time, but none of those details are necessary to define the term. --EncycloPetey 01:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it actually matters. The TU-144 was also a supersonic airliner, but it's completely incorrect to call it Concorde. To be honest, I'm not even sure that proper nouns should be here at all, but if it is, it needs to be defined correctly.Wolfkeeper 01:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Your example is not comparable, there was only one wall built to protect China in that way, there was more than one supersonic airliner.Wolfkeeper 02:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
One thing I do is define proper nouns as "A certain _____". This makes clear that the term has a specific referent, but that not all the details are within the scope of the dictionary. —RuakhTALK 18:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Also you reverted the other stuff about the usage- you're simply incorrect to do so. If you read the Wikipedia article, the article is written to follow the normal usage of the BBC and BA and the reasoning and justification is described extensively on the talk page. Dictionaries have to follow actual real-world usage.Wolfkeeper 01:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Please format your additions following our standards. Sloppy additions are fine for the newest of the new, but you've had a chance to see a number of articles and begin learning standard Wiktionary format. --EncycloPetey 01:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Its actually a very complicated corner case in the language and violates most of the normal rules of English. I'm trying to see if I can improve it.Wolfkeeper 01:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Let me phrase it this way. Learning to format on Wiktionary is like potty-training. Infants are not expected to be potty-trained yet, but adults are. If you learn to use proper format, you will be considered more of an adult. If you do not learn Wiktionary format, people will treat you like a child, and will not thank you for creating messes for others to clean up. Proper format is a huge community issue on Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey 02:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I certainly do not claim to be an adult in that sense on wiktionary yet, but I'm not entirely sure you are either if you are treating contributors as children, rather than students.Wolfkeeper 02:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
You have been notified, and shown no desire to learn formatting, nor have made any adjustments to the problematic edits. You have instead been defensive and accusatory. Fine. But you have been warned, so don't be surpised when an admin blocks you for refusing to follow formatting standards. I don't bother alerting people who show no inclination to accept instruction. --EncycloPetey 03:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I find you offensive and condescending. I find your revert to have been inaccurate and negative to the wiktionary. You have not indicated how this difficult example could be better formatted, and I have read the material you suggested, and it simply did not help. Please leave me alone; you're simply bugging the hell out of me, and your edits are quite simply, wrong in this case.Wolfkeeper 03:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


May I ask why the removal? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing in the definition that in any way requires it, and it seems unnecessary and really rather creepy to include it. The term is really much more general; that's not even what the term means specifically. It's like somebody has gone out of their way to be provocative, and it reflects badly on the wiktionary. If this was a loaded term, then absolutely fair enough, but it's just not.Wolfkeeper 06:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've replaced it with a slightly less risqué quote. That's the last time I do a google search for "interspecies." Gross. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
LOL.Wolfkeeper 05:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


I think you should probably have requested a Transwiki for this. Would you be offended if I delete it in order to transwiki it and start over again? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to, but you should get a move on, because the pedia article is already up for deletion, and is unlikely to survive there.Wolfkeeper 16:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the version in the wiktionary is probably better than the pedia one though; there's cut and paste mistakes in the pedia one that don't make a lot of sense.Wolfkeeper 16:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

meth- etc[edit]

I have formatted meth- according to our conventions. I don't really understand the part that I have moved to the usage notes (and I was a professional organic chemist). I am also not happy with ar- or alk-, they need a lot of work if they are going to stay (for instance, you should not put etymological information into the definition - it has its own section). alkyl comes from the German for alcohol I seem to remember. SemperBlotto 16:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm just doing a quick first cut and then I'll go back and tidy up. I'm probably going to mark them as stubs anyway. As you are a professional chemist any improvements would be most welcome of course.Wolfkeeper 16:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
We don't have stubs here. Our entries are simple definitions. If anything, your entries are too encyclopedic. SemperBlotto 16:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Something is not encyclopedic or not due to mere length of definition. This is an affix, and affixes are entirely valid entries in the wiktionary.Wolfkeeper 16:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally affixes are not valid articles in the wikipedia...Wolfkeeper 16:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Better now - but hasn't methacrylic acid got three (not one) axial carbon atoms? SemperBlotto 16:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, there's probably some weird rules about 'radicals' or something- in other words acrylic is a thing in its own right, so doesn't count as part of the parent chain. The source to this stuff is here, I'm having a quick flick through to see if there's something we could just steal and reference.Wolfkeeper 16:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


Numerous elements of this entry were and are not in conformity with our formatting standards. Please feel free to make them conform to WT:ELE. Most especially the headings are non-standard. We also no not have glosses for terms under the various semantic relationship headings. DCDuring TALK 09:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The deleted terms were 3 (as best I remember) I knew were included in the category link that I added. It is a more economical approach. The logic of Wiktionary is that material about each word (lemma actually) is in the entry for the word. That does mean that an extra click and download is required, but it reduces the size of download for entries such as -gram.
None of us own the content that we provide. We are, most of us, doing the best we can. There are many areas that need improvement and even reform, but some policies and practices reflect the thoughts and efforts of many who have wrestled with the issues of how to make this software serve the purpose of providing a great online dictionary. DCDuring TALK 15:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
No, not good enough. Your interpretation of the policy leads to sections of the wiktionary being functionally irrelevant; nobody can look at a list of English words and reliably know what they mean, and nobody will click on them to find out. If you do not gloss them, you might as well remove all the derived words from the wiktionary, they're then irrelevant sections.Wolfkeeper 15:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
You may be right, but there are multiple considerations. You might like to get involved in some current discussions on related matters and check out some earlier discussions, especially about Wikisaurus. It might be a worthwhile experiment leading to a project or a policy change. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Gas generator[edit]

I do RC patrol. I look at between 500 and a 1000 edits daily, winnowing out the [parking place] and [eff you michael smith], as well as marking other edits which I can as having been patrolled. You can see some of this work at my patrol log, but also deletions and blocks. Note, for example, the shits n giggles entry, which I spent about 10 minutes checking the attestations for only to find the entire content was a slag fest between two young people interested in testing their facility in using offensive language. Phrases which are more likely to be SOP than not do not get as much attention, perhaps 15-30 seconds of my time, because if they are valid phrases they will undoubtedly be resubmitted with attestation.

In regard to your specific phrase, I have not looked for attestation extensively. What I have seen refers to the actual fuels, not the devices, and that use would be a sum of parts. Feel free to recreate the entry with attestations.

Well, I have two textbooks in my hand, and neither refer to the 'fuel' in either case. A gas generator is a device used to make gas in aerospace. If you have attestations that define it as fuel as well, then that only shows that this term is defined in signficantly different ways, and proves that we actually do need an entry.Wolfkeeper 13:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity, could you give me the titles or ISBN of the text book glossaries you are working from? - Amgine/talk 16:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I've only got two to hand:
  • isbn 1 -56347 -013 6 Design of Liquid-Propellant Rocket engines by Huzel and Huang: figure 4-63 has a schematic of a gas generator intended for use with hydrogen peroxide, showing the catalyst pack, retaining grid and valve etc. etc.
  • isbn 0 -471 -32642 -9 Rocket propulsion elements 7th edition Sutton Biblarz "in the gas generator cycle the turbine inlet gas comes from a separate gas generator" and theres a diagram showing a block labelled gas generator that is fed propellant from the main tank.
I've also seen the term being used for gasoline fuelled electrical generators, but that's quite different. It does suggest though that when there are multiple uses of the same term that this isn't just SOP; if there's multiple ways to stick the parts together it all, that's a dictionary entry right there IMO.Wolfkeeper 01:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Pricey texts! I'll be interested in looking these up, but you might look for attestations at BGC and Scholar; most of these seem to be the simple sum of parts attests, but I'm sure a more careful search will turn up the set phrase, the class of propellants, and probably the device as well. Again, as I said earlier, feel free to recreate the term with attestations. - Amgine/talk 02:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Derived terms[edit]

Could you please not create lists of derived terms with definitions? Duplicating information leads to problems when one instance changes and the other doesn't. Nadando 20:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct. I fundamentally disagree with the heap of garbage that is the current guideline. It is completely incorrect for the users and unhelpful in every respect to the ends of the wiktionary.Wolfkeeper 02:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the definition of words changes that frequently, most of these words are rooted in greek, this seems to be a non issue.Wolfkeeper 02:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Regardless, it is clutter that doesn't belong in the entry- the suffix entry is for defining the suffix, not other words. Nadando 02:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Screw the users! It's the wiktionary way! You know it makes sense! So long as it looks tidy!!!Wolfkeeper 20:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
It is also inappropriate to add lists of protologisms to entries. Our investigations have revealed that most "-phile/-philia" and "-phobe/-phobia" terms are found only in the dictionaries that purport to define them. They aren't used outside of those dictionaries, and so do not meet Wiktionary inclusion standards. We have an appendix where those words are listed, and that is the only place they should appear. --EncycloPetey 03:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
That could be fair enough if you'd even bothered to add a link from (for example) the phobia article. Which you haven't. Of course. Are the editors supposed to be psychic? Are the users? Obviously yes in the wiktionary.Wolfkeeper 20:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
There are some seriously bad culture issues in this place. It's a strange mixture of anal retentiveness and editor hostility. It's a freaking wiki for heck sake. You're supposed to throw a lot of stuff in and clean it up over a period of time. That's the wiki model. Use tagging and cleanup categories and stop trying to do everything.Wolfkeeper 20:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
If you continue to throw a lot of junk into articles, expecting others to clean up after you, then you will continue to have an impression of hostility. No one here (or anywhere) likes it when they have to clean up other people's messes. You have been told more than once that this is not how Wiktionary works. It is your responsibility to learn to edit your contributions here. --EncycloPetey 01:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I speak to general cultural issues, and you simply attack me personally. That's my point in a nutshell, right there.Wolfkeeper 18:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


Even when only one is listed, the standard header we use is in the plural as "Antonyms". We stick to strictly standardized section headers because we otherwise would not be able to use bots to help us out. --EncycloPetey 02:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


Please do not remove {{also}} templates from the tops of pages. They're supposed to be there to guide users to pages with the same sequence of letters but different diacritics. --EncycloPetey 02:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


That information is already on the page for the singular glamour. We don't add information to the plural page unless the meaning is substantially different, as with weeds, for example. --EncycloPetey 05:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


...isn't a suffix. Its use in placenames is simply as a noun, forming compound words. Ƿidsiþ 20:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


I thought that all German nouns had an initial capital in standard orthography, Category:German nouns seems to agree. What was your reason for moving it? Conrad.Irwin 00:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It came across from wikipedia with a capital, and it seemed inappropriate, I'm not an expert on German.Wolfkeeper 04:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


Hello there, would you add a Babel box to your user page, using {{Babel}}? --Dan Polansky 12:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)