end redlink for appearances sake - I have 20K edits on the project I think by now
- The reason in one case is the use of a separate listing for a plural. Where the enWiki article defines a term, it is inane for Wiktionary to be used for a less proper definition. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- You realise we do have separate pages for singulars and plurals, right? Otherwise they wouldn't categorise correctly, or appear as anagrams, among other things — and somebody might be looking up e.g. fungi because they don't know that the singular is fungus. Equinox ◑ 13:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- @Collect, one of the stated missions of Wiktionary is "every word in every language". That's not really feasible for practical purposes, but it's one of the goals here. As such, plurals are completely appropriate.
- Bear in mind too that this dictionary may be used by people for whom English is not their native language. Assuming that they'll immediately know that the "-s" on the end indicates a plural is misguided at best. Add in the fact that an "-s" on the end doesn't always mean a plural, and that some plurals don't take an "-s" on the end -- such as houses when used as a verb, or taps as the bugle tune, or multiple moose or deer -- and listing singulars, plurals, declined forms, conjugated forms, other inflections, etc. all makes quite a bit of sense. The main reason that paper dictionaries do not do this is the constraints inevitable when dealing with physical media.
- "Every word in every language".
- You apparently have a lot of experience with wikicode judging from your statement of 22K+ edits on other Wikimedia sites, but Wiktionary conventions are not something you seem all that familiar with. I'd strongly recommend that you read Wiktionary:What Wiktionary is not, and Wiktionary:Wiktionary for Wikipedians. In addition, read through some of the threads over at Wiktionary:Beer parlor and Wiktionary:Tea room to get a better sense for how we do things here. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by "NYT usage" as a justification for the comic hero? The New York Times has named many human beings and characters from pop culture; however, e.g. Barack Obama and Tekken II do not belong in a dictionary. Equinox ◑ 15:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Last I checked, Barack Obama is not a fictional character. Likely this should be listed as the origin of the name of the helicopter in any case. The word, however, on Wiktionary is capitalized, and likely should include the reason why it is capitalized - which is due to the comic book character <g>. Collect (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)