User talk:Alumnum/2018
Missing head templates edit
Some of your Dutch edits don't have head templates and/or or incorrect POS. voorzichtig :) – Jberkel 14:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Bizarre formatting edit
What the fuck is this? Don't do that. DTLHS (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see what is the problem. - Alumnum (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- The template isn't designed for that. It works now, but who's to say that some minor tweak later on won't totally trash the entries- leaving it for someone else to clean it up. In addition, it's very confusing for anyone who edits the entry later- and the documentation won't help them. Believe it or not, this is a wiki and there are other people who shouldn't have to worry about breaking the entry because they can't figure out what your wikicode does (or doesn't do, in this case). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- It may sound a "bizarre" way of editing to some people (for a reason I really can't understand), but it's in fact a lot easier to just wrap sentences and use square brackets instead of repeating the goddamn code {{l|en|}} all the time. If the template can be used in that way, why forcing editors to use it in the tiresome way? - Alumnum (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Chuck Entz. The template is not intended to be used that way; please respect the existing formatting conventions of the site. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- What I'm doing is not harming the project. I'm not going to opt for a incredibly exhaustive way of using a template just because some users are butthurt and can't stand seeing something that looks different to what they are used, even though there is no real problem. - Alumnum (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- You have to abide by consensus, though. If you don't want to write
{{l}}several times, don't do it at all and just use plain links. By the way, why would you even want to include the head template in it? Per utramque cavernam 08:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)- Yes, don't use the
{{l}}template at all for definitions. Just use plain [[links]]. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- As an addendum, there appeared to be a rough agreement earlier this year not to use
{{l|en|...}}at all in definitions: see [[Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2018/January#Disallow_Template:l_in_glosses_and_definitions]]. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, don't use the
- You have to abide by consensus, though. If you don't want to write
- What I'm doing is not harming the project. I'm not going to opt for a incredibly exhaustive way of using a template just because some users are butthurt and can't stand seeing something that looks different to what they are used, even though there is no real problem. - Alumnum (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Chuck Entz. The template is not intended to be used that way; please respect the existing formatting conventions of the site. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- It may sound a "bizarre" way of editing to some people (for a reason I really can't understand), but it's in fact a lot easier to just wrap sentences and use square brackets instead of repeating the goddamn code {{l|en|}} all the time. If the template can be used in that way, why forcing editors to use it in the tiresome way? - Alumnum (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- The template isn't designed for that. It works now, but who's to say that some minor tweak later on won't totally trash the entries- leaving it for someone else to clean it up. In addition, it's very confusing for anyone who edits the entry later- and the documentation won't help them. Believe it or not, this is a wiki and there are other people who shouldn't have to worry about breaking the entry because they can't figure out what your wikicode does (or doesn't do, in this case). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
This came up in my patrolling of Special:RecentChanges- someone fixed a very basic mistake in the definition. When you created this entry, the definition was "The mother of one's grandaunt".
If you think about it (and I'm guessing you didn't): if 1) your grandaunt is the sister of your grandparent and 2) a sister shares parents with her brother or sister, then 3) the mother of your grandaunt is also the mother of your grandparent- your great-grandmother. Of course, a grandaunt can also be the wife of a granduncle, but in that case her mother is your granduncle's mother-in-law, not a great-grandaunt.
"Aunt" in the term for a relative can only mean that they are the sister of a direct ancestor or the wife of a brother of a direct ancestor. In the case of a great-grandaunt, she's either the sister of a great-grandparent or the wife of a great-granduncle.
The reason I'm bringing this up is that you obviously had no idea what great-grandaunt meant, so you guessed. And you were wrong. Wiktionary is a reference work: if you add a definition, you're claiming that you know the word well enough to teach other people what it means. Please don't lie to our readers. I would never create an entry for tia-bisavó without checking and double-checking to make absolutely sure that I completely understood the term and what it meant. You should have done the same for great-grandaunt. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. My bad. You're right. - Alumnum (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)