Open main menu

User talk:Equinox


not the sharpest tool in the shedEdit

How is that a noun? It's interchangeable with "not very smart" or "dim", and it's only used to modify nouns. If it were a noun, it would be synonymous with "stupidity", not "stupid". Because it's a phrase, it's not really comparable and doesn't really work except predicatively, but that doesn't make it a noun. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"The sharpest tool in the shed" is certainly an NP. The applicable sense of "not" appears to be the adverb. Applying an adverb to an NP gives you an NP (like "hungry dog" becoming "surprisingly hungry dog"). Equinox 02:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
In your example, "surprisingly" is modifying "hungry", not "dog" (you can't say "*a surprisingly dog"). Likewise, "not" is modifying "the sharpest", not "tool". Chuck Entz (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Besides, this is really "not the sharpest" with "tool in the shed" tacked on in a way that doesn't diagram very well- that's part of the humor. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, roll 'em back if I'm wrong. Not sure that I agree but I can't articulately analyse and argue it right now. Equinox 03:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
It does seem to me that NOT(X) applies to all of X and I would like to see convincing proof otherwise. To take a really trivial example: if I say "Chuck Entz isn't a leopard in a zoo" then you would seem to be arguing that I'm saying you are in a zoo, merely not a leopard. Equinox 03:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
That isn't really analogous, because "not the sharpest" assumes membership in a set in order to allow comparison with the rest of the set. In fact, I think the underlying form is really something like "not the sharpest [of the] tool[s] in the shed". I'm not completely convinced this is an adjective, either- it seems like a (stative) verb phrase with the verb missing. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"named for", "named after", "from the name of"Edit

Those searches, while they generate a lot of chaff, also find lots of things to categorize as eponyms. You may already know, since I see many are already categorized, although I've found and fixed a few that weren't. - -sche (discuss) 20:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

We do have a named-after template of some kind, don't we? That automatically adds the category. I have never used it because it's another new thing to learn, being a trickless old dog and all, but it seems the best approach. Equinox 15:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
It's {{named-after}}. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


Hey Mineral Man. What was la,ce,pr,nd,sm, supposed to be on the murataite page? --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I had a bot that picked stuff off MinDat and generated the definitions based on the chemical symbols in the formula (so if the formula was, say, H2OCl3, which I've just made up and probably isn't chemically valid, we would say "a mineral made of hydrogen, oxygen, and chlorine"). If you find errors, it means that there was a typo or weird formatting on MinDat. Equinox 02:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The definitions are terrible. I wish that you had asked someone before doing it, because MinDat has the data to make much better entries. (If you're interested in improving them by bot, though, I could help you with the definitional aspect.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 11:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I do see them as stubs, but for me it's better to have a stub entry that acknowledges "this is a word, and this is VAGUELY what it means" (i.e. it's a mineral, and not a cake, or a dog) than not to have an entry at all. I can see how that is arguable. I'm not a mineralogist and mainly went for it at the time because it seemed like a way to generate (basic) entries for a large number of missing words. So I have no further plans. If you have a specific strategy for improving the entries that can be easily automated (and of course doesn't go so far as to violate another site's copyright) then I might be able to slap it together. Equinox 11:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I did take a mineralogy class, although I have to admit that I've forgotten a great deal of it. The single most important thing you can say about a mineral (besides stating that it's a mineral, of course) is its classification. Colour is deceptive and the elements in it are not very meaningful if you don't know the structure, but knowing the Strunz classification is a big deal. For murataite, the best ultra-stubby, automated def would be (IMO): A black oxide mineral. MinDat has a field for Strunz classification, and you can also get it from 'pedia (except for the fact that lots of minerals don't have an entry over there). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 11:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Well I took the existing stuff from MinDat (with some topical ignorance) and we may be in a position to improve on that. (BTW you will see that I always included them as a reference - not primarily because of my ignorance but because I think it's very rude to take someone's information, copyright or otherwise, without mentioning.) I think MinDat is the only place we are going to obtain mineral info en masse, but I am super-focused on my existing obscure word lists: can I be a bit rude and ask you to check it out and suggest how we can go through their entries and improve ours (without ripping them off too much)? As you are aware we need some kind of blanket algorithmic rule in order to do anything useful. Equinox 11:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm too inept to do the actual bot-work, or really figure out how exactly it ought to be done. Essentially, you should take the capitalised word in the Strunz classification field at MinDat, remove the final S and then make it lowercase, and insert it inside [[]] immediately before the word "mineral" in any entry you made that hasn't been substantially edited (those entries should be easy to find, as they will be members of both Category:Requests for expansion of etymologies in English entries and Category:en:Minerals (or Category:en:Mineralogy for the ones that haven't had their context label fixed yet by WF yet). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


8 years ago you expressed skepticism about a definition at wild-ass. In the course of revising other parts of the entry, I noticed your comment on the talk page. Your skepticism suggests that the term may be US. To me it is quite comparable to smart-ass. Also, the definition is not quite right. DCDuring (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, here on the other coast, I've never heard of any sense of wild-ass that was anything but wild with ass added as an intensifier and (sort of) slang marker, especially not one that could refer to a person. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know about my specific skepticism but this is a term that in general I'm not familiar with: if there is such a thing as a wild-ass (as opposed to a wild donkey) then I have no idea about it. I tend to put a US (or North America) gloss on anything with ass in it because over here we usually say arse. I suspect that will change over time, with the influence of Hollywood, Netflix TV, etc., but it would still (to me) be very strange to hear a native Brit say something like smartass rather than smartarse. Equinox 03:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
My memory or intuition have misled me. I couldn't find cites at books or groups. There is a biblical cite often referred to: "And he shall be a wild ass of a man: his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him". Should we respect process by RfVing it or just delete it? OTOH wild-ass as an adjective would pass RfV I think. DCDuring (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


This might be useful for you. —Rua (mew) 23:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

ohhhh there's so much damn stufffffff OK thanks. Do you mind if I drop a question on your talk page occasionally (definitely less often than tonight though). Like I said, no goal in mind, it just seems sensible to have half a clue about Wiktionary's favourite language. If I get super lazy then tell me to RTFM. Anyway thanks for your clearly knowledgeable help. Equinox 23:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


I agree that Breitbart is the Pravda of the alt-right, but it's invective and not really the kind of thing I expect to see in a dictionary. JzG (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Rollbacks for Fake WordsEdit

You've made rollbacks on false words, namely wossat and wassis. These rollbacks are in error, and I leave a message on your talk page. Aearthrise (𓂀) 15:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It's called eye dialect. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 18:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
AIUI, it's not eye dialect unless the words sound identical. ("Wossat" is a different, slurred pronunciation.) A lot of our entries are misleading in that respect. Equinox 19:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Ooh, interesting... Actually I feel like a lot of our entries are misleading in a lot of respects. So... (shrug) — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 20:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes. It's call eye dialect because it looks different even though it's the same to the ear. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
So basically it's some pretentious shit that writers do to make it more difficult to read speech they look down on. Instead of just rendering the nonstandard speech forms as they sound, they render all of it as if the speaker was ignorant. Got it. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 10:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
There is no easier way to summon up a cheeky Cockney than by writing "wot" instead of "what". WOT U GOT M8? Equinox 14:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
That raises the interesting point of what is standard. I'm playing around with different pronunciations of "what" in my dialect, and I'm basically getting things like [wʌt͡ʔ] and [wʌɾ]. I'm pretty sure there are some English snobs who would say nothing about Cockney is standard, so I'm seeing why "eye dialect" defies easy definition. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 21:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Procedurally, it makes no sense to nominate the only sense with {{rfv-sense}}. Besides which, both would pass rfv- it's very easy to find enough uses of wossat in Google Books, and of wassis in Google Groups. One could quibble over whether they're really eye dialect, but that's a matter for the Tea room. They're not really "false words": they're reasonable representations of the way people actually talk used in writing to give certain connotations to reported speech. We're a descriptive dictionary, so our coverage would be incomplete without these. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Mellis is the singular genitive of melEdit

Thanks for reverting your revert of my edit! (As I had already started writing this: I understand the need of protecting Wiktionary from vandalism, but mellis#Latin is the singular genitive of mel#Latin, as you can see in the declension table at mel. I also double-checked in a physical Latin dictionary.) (Please feel free to delete this, as it's no longer relevant.) Gephyra (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


Equinox I read your wiktionary entry of "whorephobia" and I wanted to know if you wanted to further explain the term more in your entry or if you could direct me to some other reliable sources? —This unsigned comment was added by Danithecounselor (talkcontribs).

You're in luck, Dani. Equinox is a world-class expert on whorephobia and the author of several books on the subject, including his best-seller The Horror of the Whores. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Getting caught in filter?Edit

Hi there. I'm trying to create the page 𒄑𒉈𒂵𒈩 and my edit is apparently 'automatically detected as harmful' for the reason 'female names vandal'. It said to contact an administrator so, here I am. Could you lend a hand here please? NiebuhrKarsten (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll disable it for now and see what's wrong. Equinox 20:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
See filter 46. You have to escape the square brackets, because they mean something in the regex syntax- I'm not that great at regexes, but I believe you were having it check for anything within the outer pair of square brackets.
I'm a bit nervous about blocking what are technically legitimate edits, which is why 46 is limited to pages without an English section. I'm also not sure that it will actually stop this IP: when filter 46 shut down their main type of edit, they started leaving out the brackets, "Category", etc. They don't seem to know why they're doing these edits or what the result is supposed to look like- they just have to make them. If it weren't for the occasional typos and other human-type errors, one could easily believe that this was some kind of malfunctioning bot. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realise we had already attempted to filter them. The one characteristic to me is that they blindly, idiotically always seem to add the exact same thing to loads of pages. Also: you are correct about square brackets; I'm fairly conversant with regex but the familiar wiki syntax gave me a blind spot. Do you think I should fix and re-enable it or is it too broad? Equinox 22:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Equinox".