Jmabel

Redirects

Please note that the circumstances under which a redirect may be used on Wiktionary are very limited, almost to the point that we tell newbies that we never allow them. Certainly for alternative spellings, and alternative captilisations a redirect is never acceptable. (Though for different forms of phrases or idioms they are sometimes allowed). See the template below for more information, and my talk page is yours should you have any questions. Conrad.Irwin 00:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary!

If you have edited Wikipedia, you probably already know some basics, but Wiktionary does have a few conventions of its own. Please take a moment to learn our basics before jumping in.

First, all articles should be in our standard format, even if they are not yet complete. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with it. You can use one of our pre-defined article templates by typing the name of a non-existent article into the search box and hitting 'Go'. You can link Wikipedia pages, including your user page, using [[w:pagename]], {{pedia}}, or {{wikipedia}}.

Notice that article titles are case-sensitive and are not capitalized unless, like proper nouns, they are ordinarily capitalized (Poland or January). Also, take a moment to familiarize yourself with our criteria for inclusion, since Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. Don't go looking for a Village pump – we have a Beer parlour. Note that while Wikipedia likes redirects, Wiktionary deletes most redirects (especially spelling variations), in favor of short entries. Please do not copy entries here from Wikipedia if they are in wikipedia:Category:Copy to Wiktionary; they are moved by bot, and will appear presently in the Transwiki: namespace.

A further major caveat is that a "Citation" on Wiktionary is synonymous with a "Quotation", we use these primary sources to construct dictionary definitions from evidence of the word being used. "References" (aka "Citations" on Wikipedia) are used predominantly for verifying Etymologies and usage notes, not the definitions themselves. This is partly to avoid copyright violation, and partly to ensure that we don't fall into the trap of adding "list words", or words that while often defined are never used in practice.

Note for experienced Wikipedians:

Wiktionary is run in a very different manner from Wikipedia and you will have a better experience if you do not assume the two are similar in culture. Please remember that despite your experience on Wikipedia, that experience may not always be applicable here. While you do not need to be an expert, or anything close to one, to contribute, please be as respectful of local policies and community practices as you can. Be aware that well-meaning Wikipedians have unfortunately found themselves blocked in the past for perceived disruption due to misunderstandings. To prevent a similar outcome, remember the maxim: be bold, but don't be reckless!

Having said that, we welcome Wikipedians, who have useful skills and experience to offer. The following are a couple of the most jarring differences between our projects that Wikipedians may want to learn up front, so things go smoothly for everyone. Changing policy pages on Wiktionary is very strongly discouraged. If you think something needs changing, please discuss it at the beer parlour, after which we may formally vote on the issue. You should also note that Wiktionary has very different user-space policies, we are here to build a dictionary and your user-page exists only to facilitate that. In particular we have voted to explicitly ban all userboxes with the exception of {{Babel}}; please do not create or use them.

We hope you enjoy editing Wiktionary and being a Wiktionarian. Conrad.Irwin 00:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: unreconstructed

Firstly sorry, I was wrong to revert. In a word of explanation: what I saw, in my "oh no not again" mode, was a Wikipedian coming and adding needless cruft into definitions (it happens far too much). Now reviewing it, it seems I was wrong - please accept my apologies and see my subsequent edit to unreconstructed where (I think) I have added back the meanings that you gave, though correct me better if you can ;). The reason that encyclopedic information (such as dates, boundaries and coordinates, motives etc.) should not be in Wiktionary is that Wikipedia already has all of that information to a much higher quality than we can ever hope to maintain. If the context or information beyond a definition is needed to fully understand something (as is the case for historical events, companies, and people) then a link to wikipedia in the definition is used. I hope this helps, yours Conrad.Irwin 21:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what more information a dictionary should have about it, but it is possible that a Wikipedia article might cover it in a paragraph somewhere. Citations of usage are formatted very specifically, they are normally given as quotes see Citations:hinder or true name for some examples. Details about when and where words are used should go into the Usage notes section, while details about their roots should be in the Etymology section. What more information would you add to the entry? the stuff you had before should (I think) have been in the Wikipedia article about the Reconstruction - though that means we need a link to that article too, do you want to fix it or shall I? Conrad.Irwin 23:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand which information you are referring to, ""the Reconstruction after the U.S. Civil War, the effort (1865-1876) to create a new, more racially egalitarian order in the U.S. South"" was read by me as giving information about the Reconstruction, not the unreconstructed; While "(as in the song "Unreconstructed Rebel" by Major Innes Randolph)" should be cited properly if at all - and might be (marginally) better as an "external link". Conrad.Irwin 11:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the conventions for how to cite in the Wiktionary. I believe the song "Unreconstructed Rebel" is the most famous use of the word "Unreconstructed"; it wouldn't surprise me if that song is how it passed into the language, though I don't know that, so I wouldn't say so in anything intended to be authoritative. It is certainly where I first encountered the word in the 1960s. I believe the lyrics date from the 1870s; Randolph died in 1887, although this site suggests it was not printed until 1914. Since the title doesn't appear in the song, it might be of that later vintage, and might not be Randolph's own. - Jmabel 20:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)