Is there are rule against it? There are a couple of small benefits:
- If, a new L2 is added, no need to add it. Some new editors forget this.
- If you copy/paste an entry to another busy page, it makes it easier to format.
- @Atitarev: There might well be a rule (or not), but I don't feel like looking for it. In any case, the vast majority of entries don't do that, and imo it's better to be consistent. I guess if you want to keep using it I won't object, but I don't think that's a good idea. PUC – 15:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
As far as I know, the template 'taxlink' is supposed to be used only when there's no Wiktionary entry for that specific taxon. If one tries to use the template in such case and one clicks 'Show preview', the preview page will display the instructions to this end. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
It is you!Edit
Bary! Barytonesis, my guru! It is really you. How nice to see you - thanks for this. I always remember your lessons, back in 2018, when you patrolled me: I have been studying since then (Fromkin) and now trying to move to 2nd year curriculum! Truly: I appreciate your effort to teach me, to introduce me to your science, since I was a random ignorant user.
So, it is PUC -At first, I thought from Puck-. Hope you are corona-well. Stay safe!@ ‑‑Sarri.greek ♫ | 23:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Removals and edit summariesEdit
I would like to request that when you remove something from an entry, you indicate so in the edit summary. Disclaimer: Unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary does not have any formulated requirements on edit summaries. My request is not based on policy but rather on my common sense, which may not really be common. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm reading a book about French colonial history which uses this verb. It seems to meet CFI (and mean "marry below one's station")... should it be created (with a conjugation table) at mésailler or se mésailler? - -sche (discuss) 02:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Your interest in "if"Edit
Hello, PUC. Notwithstanding your interest in my edits, I'm not satisfied that being unable to see how they're an improvement qualifies as a reason to discount them. If you had read the corresponding tag for my initial edits you would have seen the purpose in addressing the circularity issues that were apparent in the original entry.
Namely, the parenthetical text merely repeats what's in the definitional text. As Wiktionary strives to eliminate such circularity/reflexivity wherever practicable, the edits conform to that standard of practice. More specifically:
- "Tell me whether you can see her. (the speaker wants to know whether the addressee can see her)" provides no linguistic reference point; "Tell me whether you can see her. (the speaker wants to know the positive or negative instance of the addressee's ability to see her)" supplies linguistic reference points for "whether" (i.e. stemming from the "whether or no" phrase attested from the 1650s) and "ability to" relates to the meaning denoted by "can."
- "Tell me if you can see her. (if the addressee can see her, then he or she must tell the speaker something)" includes identical verbiage that lacks any provision of further linguistic reference points; "Tell me if you can see her. (if the addressee can see her, then he or she must let the speaker know") supplies a linguist reference point for "tell" in order to establish which of its several meanings is intended.
Despite the foregoing, I admit a bit of negligence in failing to provide a cognate meaning of "if" in the final parenthetical I provide above. At the time the definition was beginning to seem hopelessly circular/reflexive. I welcome anyone to improve that part of it. --Kent Dominic (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Idioms within idiomsEdit
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2020/February#Idioms_within_idioms --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
What's the point ?Edit
as_I_live_and_breathe&oldid=59371736 : translate this third meaning. I think that in a literal use. What's the point put this third sense?. The same for other languages.--BoldLuis (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Patch box entryEdit
Hello; I was in the process of trying to enter patch box (without a dash), as the primary entry for patch-box, the current entry in the Wiktionary. Per Merriam-Webster, the correct spelling is without a dash. Thank you for correcting my capitalization error. Unless you have an objection, or alternate source for the spelling, I would like to proceed with making "patch box" the primary entry, and "patch-box" the alternate spelling. I haven't worked on Wiktionary much, so your help and suggestions would be appreciated. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Hey Puck, would you be able to track down early hits for médiathèque? The oldest attestation date in a reference work is early seventies, but I strongly suspect it's a few years older than that. If so, we can straightforwardly state that mediatheek was borrowed from French.
←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Lingo Bingo Dingo:
- This 1969 book apparently has it ("Bref, il est peut-être temps de modifier le nom de ces institutions qui de bibliothèques sont devenues de véritables "médiathèques"."), but I can't see the relevant passage, unfortunately.
- Or does this instance from 1870 count? PUC – 16:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)