Open main menu

User talk:LinguisticsGirl.Librarian

WelcomeEdit

Hey, welcome to Wiktionary. I reverted some of your edits and adjusted others because they didn't quite conform to how we typically do things at Wiktionary.

  • Regarding -on; the -on in Teuton is not a productive English suffix nor is it identical to the -on- in tectonic (which is also not a suffix), nor is -on an alternative form of -an as far as I can tell.
  • Regarding prolactin - your edits were mostly fine and thank you for them, but there are some remarks on the formatting: the etymology ought to have a subheader introducing it, so ===Etymology===. See Wiktionary:Entry layout, which is quite a long read but acts as a good reference. (Or just copy how it's done elsewhere.) Do also note that the {{etyl}} template is deprecated and in the process of being replaced: we now use various alternatives (mainly {{derived}}, {{inherited}} and {{borrowed}}).
  • Regarding lactorrhea - the formatting wasn't quite right, and I figured it's an exact synonym so I replaced the definition you added, which was redundant to the galactorrhea entry, with the {{synonym of}} template.

Hopefully this is helpful, if you have any questions feel free to ask. (There is more info for newcomers in the generic welcome message, which I think is boring so I didn't use it here but which may come in handy.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

FormattingEdit

Hi. Thanks for your additions. Could I ask you to take a look at WT:ELE to get some hints about how to format entries properly? If you don't use the correct indent level (number of equals signs on a ===Noun=== header, etc.), or mix up things like * and # when starting a new line, then the entries will look visually wrong and won't categorise properly in the software. Equinox 21:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

You've been making a lot of messy entries. The best way to improve is to look at the changes that experienced editors have made to your entries, but also take a look at how other entries are formatted and copy them. For example, you created plasticness with a capital letter and started your definition at thauma that way as well — a glance at our entries will show that none of them start with a capital letter unless they're always written that way, like Mars. Another thing is that you'll notice that none of our entries lack a definition line, like when you added ichorhemia. It takes a lot of work for people to clean up after you, so please try to pay attention to these changes, and feel free to ask questions if you're unsure about anything. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

SynonymsEdit

I am confused about the synonym placement on plasticness. Why does the synonym go under the 1st definition? On the style sheet, synonyms are in a heading farther down:

NounEdit

Headword line

  1. Meaning 1
    • Quotations
  2. Meaning 2
    • Quotations
    etc.

Usage notesEdit

====Synonyms==== LinguisticsGirl.Librarian (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems like you left this note for yourself, but I happened to notice it so I hope you don't mind if I respond. The format using a special section for synonyms is the old, original format, but for a while now there has been a second possibility to specify synonyms and other such terms directly below the sense to which they belong. In the recent vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-11/Allow semantic relations under definition lines, the new format was officially approved. The older format is still allowed, but given the overwhelming approval for the new format, it seems likely that that's what most people on Wiktionary prefer to use now. —Rua (mew) 17:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

somniloquaciousnessEdit

I deleted this, because it seems that you made it up. It is extremely important that you only add words that are actually used, rather than ones you want to be used. For more on how we determine whether something can be included, see WT:CFI. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

About this projectEdit

Hi! I am aware of your interesting language blog and I don't want to drive you away or anything, but you have been doing a bunch of edits here and basically not engaging with the community at all, and sometimes you are making mistakes. If you keep making mistakes and not engaging, you will get blocked.

The latest thing I noticed was your creation of "anxiodepressed", which only appears to be attestable (according to our WT:CFI rules) in a single paper, that is the 1989 Chabannes & Douge paper called "Efficacy on anxiety of fluvoxamine vs. prazepam, diazepam with anxiodepressed patients". Is this a word that you think you can source according to our requirements, or do you just not really give a fuck about our requirements? Please respond. Equinox 03:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

RespondingEdit

I was given this page to follow for formatting: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Entry_layout LinguisticsGirl.Librarian (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I am also confused as to why a word is listed as a Derived term (in this case anxiodepression under anxio-) if the Derived term is not an accepted word.

My guess is that the person who linked to anxiodepression back in 2009 (User:Ruakh, who is still editing here ten years later - you could ask them if you like) thought it was valid but never got round to making it. We have got a lot of red links on Wiktionary, all of which in theory should one day be turned into blue links (but the possibility of that happening is nil - we are always gonna be a work in progress) --I learned some phrases (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
You are correct in that, if an entry shouldn't exist, links pointing to it shouldn't exist either. But it may be the case that the editor simply didn't know that the entry was not inclusion-worthy. In theory we could request verification of linked words before an entry exists, but in practice we only ever verify words once they have an entry. So the validity of the link would not have been contested until the entry was created. —Rua (mew) 16:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Quotations at yesterdaysEdit

The quotes you added were nice ones. One problem, however, is that they aren't valid here because they are not on permanently recorded media (a term I personally have never 100% understood, but blogs and Instagram are definitely not it). There's a section at Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Attestation which explains a bit more. Thanks for your collaboration. --I learned some phrases (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Entry formatsEdit

Hi, the usual way we add quotes is this way:

# Definition.
#* '''date''', Author, “Article”, in ''Work'', page #:
#*: Here is the quote.

An even easier way is to just use {{Q}}. It will put everything in place for you. Thanks! Julia 23:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 14:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 19:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 17:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "LinguisticsGirl.Librarian".