JesseW

is there really a point in giving various verb tenses seperate definitions? Seems like redirects would be enough. Regular dictionaries don't have seperate entries. There should be a good reason to do something if a pulp dictionary doesn't do it. Imagine if seperate definition pages were given for verb tenses in romance languages! --Eean 19:27, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have no opinion on creating "soft redirects" vs "hard redirects"(i.e. standard, #REDIRECT sort of thing). I think it is important to have pages for all the tenses, so that any word can be looked up in the wiktionary. That's where I've been getting the words; looking for words in text at the Beer parlor or other places that are red links. I think the general consensus is neurtal on creating the pages, and supportive of making them soft redirects, although I didn't find explanation of this. My guess on this is that having soft redirects allows for quotations for each tense, but IDKWITA. Thanks for asking me about it. JesseW 09:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've been making hard redirects of pages not properly formated and ignoring pages which are. I think the policy right now is that it doesn't really matter enough for folks to argue about it. Ultimately a person will get to the correct page either way. I just worry about the future when it could lead to splitting up content that should/could be on one page into multiple pages.--Eean 17:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could you point me to some pages you've made hard redirects? I'm not sure what you mean by "not properly formated". AFAIK, a page at Wikitionary should have all the content related to that set of characters, independent of tense, part of speach, or even language; so, by that def, hard redirects should not be made. But, as I said, I don't really care. JesseW 02:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By not properly formated I mean they don't list the ==language==, the ===part of speech=== and such or sometimes incorrect syntax. an example. I think in that example the user wasn't aware of how to make a hard redirect.

Yes, you are correct that Wiktionary should have all those things. Doesn't mean we need everything to have its own article. If there is no advantage to having a seperate article, no reason to have it. With each article it means more articles to maintain, split effort, more articles someone might to look at to find their wanted definition etc. It isn't too hard to think of some circumstances were a verb tense or pluralization might need some extra defining that wouldn't be appropriate to have in the main article. In those instances, it should.--Eean 00:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the example, now I see what you mean. I think I'll make hard redirects for regular tenses or plurals now, but soft redirects for irregular ones. We'll probably have to fix this up later, but that's later. JesseW 02:58, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WT:QUOTE

Hello! I've used {{quote-book}} for the habnab quote, as this is the easiest way to format things according to the Wiktionary layout policy for quotes. Thanks for your work so far! Conrad.Irwin 23:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was looking for the proper format for that... I'll use it from now on. JesseW 23:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Help:titleparts etc.

Hi,

Thanks for your contributions!

I'm wondering — Help:titleparts etc. don't seem to be linked from anywhere; and it seems unlikely that the software makes use of them, because the software only uses pages in the MediaWiki: namespace, which only admins can edit. So, what am I missing? What purpose do they serve?

—Ruakh_TALK 02:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. JesseW 02:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WT:ELE

Please note the large banner at the top of this policy page. It noted that changes to the policy document should not be made without a vote (usually following discussion). --EncycloPetey 08:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. JesseW 09:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you add instructive content that was not previously on the page, then you have changed it! The page is already protected somewhat. And yes, making any changes to the content without vote is frowned upon, unless they are corrections to typos, changed links, or other obvious errors. Adding new format examples is a significant change, and needs a proposal and vote. --EncycloPetey 17:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

{{citations}}

Please take a look at mean and its citations page to see a use of arguments with this template. I was looking for a way to conveniently have a link in a section header that went to a section of the main namespace entry. It would actually be nice for the link from {{seeCites}} to go to the appropriate section on Citations and from each header to the appropriate section of the entry. I would not have to use {{citations}} for the purpose, but it is handy. DCDuring TALK 19:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations redirects

Perhaps you should read the current discussion happening on the policy page. In my opinion, even if there are mixed forms on the lemma page, there should still be a page for the forms. In any case, the issue is far from settled. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you find the citations for compact then please?

That would be better and helpful. Thank you. I am also having a difficult time finding the quotes for them. -- Steel Blade 18:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, if you want to add new definitions, you need to find citations. I have found citations for various words (see my Contributions list), you can too. Do you know how to use Google Book Search? Try typing "compact" into it. If you want help finding citations, read over the existing help pages (start with Wiktionary:Entry layout explained), then ask in the appropriate forums. Some of your changes have been useful, but simply adding more definitions is not generally helpful, unless we have the citations to show they are really needed. JesseW 18:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I really useless in every way then? Steel Blade 18:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said above: "Some of your changes have been useful, but simply adding more definitions is not generally helpful, unless we have the citations to show they are really needed.". How you could interpret that as "useless in every way" is, um, puzzling to me. JesseW 18:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, JesseW

I wasn't trying to mislead others when in the edit summary. I meant I created a citation for enormously. Please be careful with the claims and statements you said about me. Also, I am never intentionally discourteous. When the citation section is created, its color code become blue, meaning it's there. Steel Blade 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now. I do apologize for not noticing the Citations pages. And I certainly believe you are not being intentionally discourteous. So am I -- I hope I'm not being accidentally discourteous, either. JesseW 19:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You're not. You can be, but not too much.Steel Blade 11:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

PIE categorizing

May I ask why you're putting everything in a master category? With all other languages we simply have the POS's in a master cat, and I don't really see why we wouldn't want to do the same with PIE. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll be glad to explain (and I've stopped doing it for the moment, as I have no desire to do it unless it's uncontroversial). I've been generally checking over the contents of the Appendix namespace and trying to make sure everything in it is cleanly categorized somewhere under Category:Appendices. (A few weeks back, I moved a large pile of "Variations of X" appendices out of the main category (there were already in their own specific subcat)). I came across the ~140 PIE pages, noticed that they didn't seem to be categorized anywhere in the Appendix hierarchy, and decided to fix this. Most languages go in the main namespace, rather than the Appendix namespace; I assumed, since we are putting PIE in the Appendix namespace, we should treat it like any other appendix. Hope this clears things up; please let me know if you have no further objection to me finishing the categorization job. JesseW 07:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.....that is an interesting thought. PIE is tricky, because most of the PIE appendices aren't like normal language appendices, but rather they're like main namespace entries, except they're not allowed in the main namespace because they're not attested words. I guess I would prefer to not dump them all in a large group like Category:Proto-Indo-European appendices. If you would like to make sure that all appendices link back to Category:Appendices by language, perhaps you could simply put Category:Proto-Indo-European language itself in Category:Proto-Indo-European appendices. Everything in there is necessarily an appendix, so it would be reasonable. Thoughts? By the way, I do appreciate it when folks take these sorts of cleanup and organization tasks upon themselves (God knows Wiktionary is always in need of them). I'm sorry to be a hassle for you. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with A: PIE entry stuff is in Appendix namespace not because they're really appendix stuff, but because they're not allowed in the main namespace per policy due to PIE being reconstructed and not attested language. Category:Proto-Indo-European appendices should contain material such as PIE Swadesh list, PIE inflection discussion or various listings (not that there are many of those now in the WTT), not the entries on particular reconstructions which should be categorised in the master PoS categories (nouns, verbs, roots..). --Ivan Štambuk 12:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; this certainly makes sense. I like Atelaes suggestion about putting Category:Proto-Indo-European language into the Appendices hierarchy, thereby slotting all the individual words neatly in. I also like Ivan's suggestion of what would be good in the PIE appendices category. I think I'll combine the two suggestions by putting the language category within the appendices category, then adding Ivan's other suggestions directly to that category. And I'll remove the individual words from the topcat, of course. Thanks for the discussion! JesseW 19:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)