Hi, thanks for bon rétablissement etc.! Two things, could you put them into Category:French phrasebook - and under the === Phrase === header put a line {{infl|fr|phrase}} which helps with categorizing and also adds a required line. If you are feeling uber-generous you might consider adding an example sentence below the definition (#:All examples start with a #:). I've attached the standard wikimedian welcome and hope to see you around! Conrad.Irwin 10:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
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 ], {{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.
{{Babel}}; please do not create or use them.We hope you enjoy editing Wiktionary and being a Wiktionarian. Conrad.Irwin 10:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know we don't have such a template - if you are very worried about your formatting just put an "{{rfc}}" on the entry, but from what I've seen so far you should be fine. If you've got time, perhaps you could translate the example sentences into English - but that's not compulsory as far as I know. As the rate of changes here is quite slow most edits get reviewed by someone knowledgeable, and we have a bot that fixes some of the more common issues automagically - so if I were you I wouldn't worry. Conrad.Irwin 23:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent edits, and welcome to Wiktionary. You may wish to know that there's no point in adding interwiki links (of this sort), as we have a bot that does that automatically for us. So you needn't bother. Certain plural forms and the like are also added automatically by bot (it checks the noun page and adds the plural form that's listed in the inflection line), but I'm not sure which languages we do that for. (I'm pretty sure we do it for English, though.) Someone at WT:BP or WT:GP should be able to tell you which inflected forms we do that for, so you can skip adding them by hand. Anyway, welcome, again, and I hope you enjoy Wiktionary. Please don't hesitate to ask me any questions on my talk page; I'll also keep this page on my watchlist for a short while.—msh210℠ 17:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
SoP is our jargon (see WT:GL for most of our jargon) for "sum of parts", that is the whole phrase has no meaning other than the meaning of its words. Or that it is not idiomatic. If something is not idiomatic, it could be deleted. We tend to interpret these things loosely, but things do get deleted sometimes. This is guaranteed to seem arcane to someone new to the process. We have ways of retaining the meat of entries for SoP phrases that have good content. For inclusion generally see WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 21:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
As to the word in question traveljunkie has no parts, but also is not easy to find in sources that we would credit for including the word. "travel junkie" or "travel junky" are very common in those sources, but don't seem to me to mean more than the individual words. If "travel" were one of the more common or distinctive/common words used with "junky" or "junkie", then we might include it in a usage example. Similarly, if there were a colorful quotation in which illustrated one of the definitions of the "junky" or "junkie" and just happened to have "travel junky" in it, we might well keep that quotation on the main entry page. (Otherwise, it would go to the less-seen "Citations" page.) DCDuring TALK 21:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a source for "bandoleer" being "the only accepted spelling in the United Kingdom"? A check of the 2000 edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary does not have an entry at all under "bandoleer" and the following under "bandolier":
bandolier /%band@"lI@/ (also bandoleer) · n. a shoulder belt with loops or pockets for cartridges. – ORIGIN C16: from Fr. bandoulière; perh. from Sp. bandolera (from banda ‘sash’), or from Catalan bandolera (from bandoler ‘bandit’).
The lack of an entry under "bandoleer" and the "also bandoleer" implies to me that, not only is "bandolier" the primary way to spell this word, but that the claim that it is unacceptable in the United Kingdom is incorrect.
By the way, behind this Canadian IP address is an immigrant born and educated outside of Canada under British education systems using wholly British spellings, not the mishmash seen in this country. I'm well aware of spelling differences, but I have to say that I've never seen "bandoleer" before, although it's not a word you'd see every day anyway.