User talk:AuthorityTam

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
• Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
• Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including, there is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
• The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
• We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome!

We are not Wikipedia, and strongly discourage their usage, except in certain predefined cases (e.g. different forms of a phrase, which you cannot treat as "inflection"). See our tentative guidelines at WT:REDIR. For misspellings see {{misspelling of}}. Cheers. --Ivan Štambuk 13:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ivan Štambuk apparently refers to my Wiktionary entries for disfellowshiped and disfellowshiping.
Since he deleted both of those entries, it would seem that he believed those forms to be merely misspellings; they are not.
Furthermore, they are not merely regional or historical differences, such as are mentioned at WT:REDIR.
Regarding my choice to use a simple REDIRECT for each (rather than a brief entry)...
An editor may be interested in this, from WT:SPELL:

"Use a simple REDIRECT entry if, in your opinion, as the creator of the variant entry, the spelling you are entering is simply a valid variant of an already existing entry, and you can see no difference in meaning, usage, etymology etc."

Editors should not assume that other editors are poorly informed.
I plan to re-create each entry in a form which should immunize them against repeated deletion, but then I'll edit that entry to the form I believe best-serves the Wiktionary community (that is, simple REDIRECT to the more common spelling). --AuthorityTam 14:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

That policy is obsolete. Again, if they're full-blown variant spellings themseleves, make them full-blown entries, e.g.

==English==

===Noun===
{{en-noun}}

# {{alternative spelling of|]}}

Redirects must be kept at minimum. --Ivan Štambuk 14:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also, I assume that you've mised "NOTE: This has been repeatedly rejected by the Wiktionary community. read on..." note at the beginning of the section you quote. --Ivan Štambuk 14:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

It seems obvious the supposedly-though-not-actually-"mised 'NOTE'" merely rejected blindly applying the verbatim instruction of the section title (that is, "use a simple REDIRECT if there is no good reason to have multiple entries").
WT:SPELL#Generally,_use_a_simple_REDIRECT_if_there_is_no_good_reason_to_have_multiple_entries
It's obvious that opinions will differ regarding whether a particular "reason" is "good", and it's obvious that subjectivity is not an ideal part of a policy. By contrast, that section's body seems quite logical and objective (rather than subjective), and I've not seen any contradictory policy.
I'm comfortable adhering to a published policy (such as that at WT:SPELL).
I'm uncomfortable adhering to an uncited and arguably illogical policy.
It might be better for an editor to link to (and quote) an actual policy rather than to advocate some personal interpretation of some uncited policy. --AuthorityTam 18:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

That is merely a draft, not a voted policy you must strictly abide by. 99% of common practice policies here are not voted on at all, you simply get used to them as you edit. Variant spellings must have full-blown separate entries, with their own citations, PoS templates (generating inflected forms) etc. REDIRECTS ARE EVIL. --Ivan Štambuk 18:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Allow me to rephrase...
It might be better for an editor to link to (and quote) an actual draft policy rather than to advocate some personal interpretation of some uncited draft policy. Unless a particular editor's ideas are purely personal, he can surely find his ideas reflected in such a draft policy (perhaps presented more persuasively than he could present them himself).
--AuthorityTam 18:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

that draft policy has an explicit notice "NOTE: This has been repeatedly rejected by the Wiktionary community. " in the very section you cite. As I said, it's not my "personal opinion", but a common practice so far enforced on thousands of entries. --Ivan Štambuk 18:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

It seems that an associate of User:Ivan Štambuk has recently edited the policy section in question
(see diff). What a coincidence!
--AuthorityTam 19:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

There are many very good reasons for having different pages for alternative spellings. Here are three major reasons.

• A first reason is that, if a redirect is created, the information it brings will be lost when a full entry will be created (section for another language). As an example, imagine there is a redirect for an Albanian word, and somebody wants to create an Occitan word with the same spelling. The redirect would be lost. It's not only theoretical, it already happened a number of times.
• Now, suppose that, before the Occitan word is created, somebody looks for its meaning: will he be happy to be redirected to a page describing an Albanian word with a different spelling?
• A third reason is the Anagrams section... Lmaltier 18:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is there not a separate Wiktionary for each language? --AuthorityTam 19:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is a separate Wiktionary in all languages. But each of them includes all languages. This is quite logical: if you don't know a single word of Japanese, and you can learn it only in a Wiktionary written in Japanese, you won't learn much... Lmaltier 21:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've now turned the redirects to full entries , and added them as alt. spellings at the inflection of the main verb . --Ivan Štambuk 18:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Now I really feel stalked. Allow me to suggest repurposing some of the time currently used for condescending haughtitude toward formalizing some useful policy documentation. Then, editors will have something non-contradictory to which they can refer!
And, is there no way to indicate which variant spelling is preferred (or not preferred)?
Incidentally, see this diff and that diff. --AuthorityTam 19:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Usually the spelling which has significantly more usage is the preferred one. Also, there is a strong desire in community not to duplicate content among entries that are regularl variant spellings of one another (such as British and American -our/-or, -ise/ize etc.), but no one has actually came up with a solution that would both be 100% NPOV, and evade pointless content duplication (c.f. (deprecated template usage) color : (deprecated template usage) colour and the associate talkpage wars). Also, feel free to comment on the WT:SPELL talkpage, or in the BP. Mglovesfun is not my "associate" (I don't think I every exchanged a word with him :) - it's simply that the community itself is self-organizing, and the self-initiative is more than welcome. Be bold ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk 20:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, deleted entries are recoverable. If you like, I can e-mail you the old wikitext of Horsemen of the Apocalypse. —Ruakh_TALK 18:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, please do. Appreciate it. --AuthorityTam 18:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply