Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.
If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It 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.
These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:
~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to alert you that some of your entries, such as the USB types, may be liable to be deleted based on WT:SOP. Wiktionary is a general dictionary, not an encyclopaedia or specialist dictionary of technical terms, so multiword entries are generally expected to be either idiomatic or to be appropriate material for a phrase book. USB types are of course not suitable content for a phrase book. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
As a newer user to Wiktionary, I am learning the ropes to all of this. Of course, I assume that you, someone who has used this site far more than I, has far more knowledge on such topics. ←₰-→ StuckInLagToad (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The term Nescafe may or may not meet CFI due to WT:BRAND... @Lingo Bingo Dingo what do you think? User: The Ice Mage talk to meh 15:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
That's why I cited it, and didn't make an entry, for discussion's sake. StuckInLagToad (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
It's not a good idea to create citation pages for every single word or phrase used in word lyrics either. I have removed all of your recent additions - please do not do so again. Citations should only exist for pages that could potentially be entries. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 16:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
You don't need to put any edit summary for a page creation. It's better to leave it blank, so we can see the actual text that was added (the default behaviour). Equinox ◑ 17:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
We already had wear something on one's sleeve. Here we use "one" (if it's used about one's own self), "someone" (someone else) or "something" (a thing). Equinox ◑ 17:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Enjoying the new entries you're making. One thing, though: the definition of wipey is given as "variant of wipe" - you might want to say which "wipe" you're refering to. :) Indian subcontinent (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, please don't add rhymes that are not stressed on the indicated syllable. For example, "spelling" belongs at Rhymes:English/ɛlɪŋ, not Rhymes:English/ɪŋ. Ultimateria (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
It means "words that were formed by prefixing or suffixing something", not just "words that happen to begin or end with something". Equinox ◑ 22:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've been adding a lot of translations in various languages. I'm afraid this isn't a good idea, because you may not know nuances present in these languages. Glosses aren't always accurate, and some words may have a slightly different definition than their English equivalent. Furthermore, some of the languages you're adding translations for are minority languages, whose writing system may not be fully worked out, so while the entry will surely be noticed later on when a user will move the entries, the wrongly lemmatised translations may stay unchanged for years. So I'm afraid I must ask you to slow down and take it a language at a time, finding out how the language works, maybe adding an entry or two before heading towards the translations section.
Happy editing and I hope I haven't scared you off ;) Thadh (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Start from the stressed syllable. SWAZ-iness doesn't rhyme with PE-nis. Equinox ◑ 17:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
You can't transliterate something that's written in the same script- that would be like translating something written in the same language. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
First, let me make clear how much I appreciate the entries you are adding for English vernacular names of taxa. Nothing that follows takes away their value in the slightest.
Yesterday I took a look at Special:LonelyPages, aka "Orphaned pages". To my dismay I found that the listing of the first 5,000 only took us to Ceaprăzaru, excluding the rest of the uppercase Latin alphabet, and the entire lowercase alphabet, not to mention other character sets. I spent some time removing some of the taxonomic names and vernacular names (eponyms) by linking entries with synonym, hyponym/hypernym, or etymological relations to the orphaned entries. It took time. I'm hoping that we can avoid having too many names for organisms that are orphans. It would be nice if we had entries for all possible taxonomic names so that it was just a matter of making sure that the vernacular name appeared on the corresponding taxonomic name entry. We are far short of being able to rely on that.
For vernacular names, linking them from their component terms seems desirable. Eg, for Appalachian Jacob's ladder, in {{en-noun}} I set head=Appalachian Jacob's ladder and made Appalachian Jacob's ladder a derived term of Jacob's ladder. I could have also made it a derived term of Appalachian. There are many multipart vernacular names that should be shown as derived terms of personal names (eg Siebold viburnum from Siebold) or toponyms (as above). If you could look for such potentially useful links, it would enrich Wiktionary by giving users helpful connections between entries. It can be harder for single-word vernacular names, but avoiding orphan status for them is as desirable as for multi-word names. A general approach is to make sure that a taxonomic species name appears as a hyponym on the entry for the genus (if it exists). The vernacular name can appear in parentheses following the taxonomic name under the Hyponyms heading.
Sorry to go one at such length, but I am hoping to enlist you in the process of not just adding entries, but also, where possible, making high-quality entries that add to the value of those they link to and from. DCDuring (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Hey. I've seen you add some Romanian translations lately which I'm thankful for. Here are a couple of things to keep in mind while doing so:
|? and it will be placed into a maintenance category.Thanks. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 14:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Furthermore, Translingual taxonomic names refer to groups, not to individuals. Most vernacular names refer to individuals, though they may also be defined as referring to the group.
Please to not put taxonomic names in translations tables. I'll just have to delete them. DCDuring (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the entry. However,
{{taxoninfl}}.DCDuring (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Please look at the documentation for the {{taxoninfl}}, {{taxon}}, and {{epinew}}. Look at existing complete entries (that have pictures, etymologies, synonyms, hypernyms, hyponyms, and references or further reading) and those that lack some of these. Try to use the templates correctly and include the templates {{pedia}}, {{specieslite}}, and {{comcatlite}} under a references header.
Another approach you could take if you just want to run up your count of entries added is to add entries for extinct taxa, including the word "extinct" in the definition. People other than I pay attention to those entries and only rarely. You probably won't annoy them as much as you annoy me. DCDuring (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever seen a noun derived by adding "n" to the name of a genus that ends with "a". That kind of thing is usually reserved for higher taxa- order or above. Generally just the name of the genus is used as a common/vernacular name, if there is one. Sometimes you'll find an adjective constructed that way, since it's a regular part of English morphology, but it generally doesn't get used as a noun.
Count on any such vernacular name for organisms belonging to a genus being rfved and/or deleted unless there's already usage as a noun on Google Books or Google Scholar. While we definitely can use more entries for organism names, there are so many real names missing from Wiktionary that making up new ones would be inexcusable even if it wasn't totally dishonest and unethical. Wiktionary is a reference work, so a pattern of wilfully making up content can easily get you blocked. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
WT:TRANS: words added to translation tables are subject to attestation requirements as well.
Some of the translations you've added to Škrajnek were unattested protologisms (see WT:ATTEST) so I have removed the entire table from the entry. Don't add unattested translations anymore and please make sure that every translation you've added thus far is attestable (if it isn't, remove it). Note also that many languages have grammatical genders, so when creating entries such as Stryjewka, you should either provide the gender within the template {{t}} or at the very least use |? so that it is placed in the appropriate maintenance category for the languages that have grammatical gender.
Lastly, if you're using {{checktrans-top}} as you did in Pärnu County, please also use {{t-check}} in lieu of {{t}} because otherwise the entry is not placed in the corresponding maintenance categories. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
It's been three weeks since your last edit, so I suppose you've decided to take some time off. Sometimes I think our community can be a bit too harsh, forever rewarding hard work with criticism and with requests for more work, and so I don't blame you for being frustrated. Wikipedia seems to have an overall more positive community attitude. That said, the issues that others have raised here are real, and if you do decide to return to editing Wiktionary, please slow down and be more careful than you were in the past.
Best regards, —Soap— 12:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you added run around with one's hair on fire to Category:English 9-syllable words (diff). As I understand it, this category is only for single-word terms (i.e. terms that do not contain spaces), not multiword terms. The category's RFM discussion seems to support this understanding. What do you think? - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 20:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
do not nest {{der}}, {{bor}}, {{inh}} inside other templates. This is bad for many many reasons. Vininn126 (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
{{der}} says it cant be nested, so how was he to know? It's good that you brought this up, because I didnt know that they couldnt be nested either. I dont think I've ever done that, though, because I cant think of an instance in which I would need to. Best regards, —Soap— 15:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)