Talk:ennealogy

Request for verification

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

This has been deleted about a million times (look at the history). The citations supplied this time are not very encouraging; one is in quotation marks and the other appears to be a theoretical counting game. Equinox ◑ 00:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The first second one, though in quotation marks, is a use, not a mention; and it doesn't define the word, so a reader might well want to look it up. The second first one, however, is pure mention. —Ruakh_TALK 01:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Updated 21:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC) to reflect reordering of quotations in entry.

I disagree. The first one is a mention as well. There, the word appears as an example of a word formed from a particular root, which is meta-knowledge of the word's physical structure or etymology. It is not used in any context other than that of its spelling/origin. --EncycloPetey 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have updated my comment after reordering the quotations in the entry. I agree that the now-first quotation is mention-only; but I maintain that the now-second quotation, the one using quotation marks, is a use. —Ruakh_TALK 21:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry moved to Citations:ennealogy. —Ruakh_TALK 21:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Re-creation of entry

I just re-created ennealogy after digging up 2 additional definitions. Our definitions and uses now span 3 centuries, proving this is no protologism. (I've got another several dozen from books, if any doubt remains.) Since Citations:ennealogy was created by moving from the old entry, I tried to move it back so the new entry would retain the old one's edit history, but CodeCat moved it back in the five minutes (!) it took me to copy in all the new material and do some format editing. (Apparently it didn't like the format, which I was in fact changing back to entry-style. There's something to be said for delaying auto-repair for to allow for reasonable human actions. ☺) Let me know if I should do any Transwiki-like copying of the edit history, or any other remedial actions. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I moved it back because we like to keep Citations pages around even when the entry already exists. This is useful when there are many more citations than would fit into the entry neatly. Usually, any quotations that are given in the entry are only a small selection of what is found on the Citations page. So it would be preferred if you could recreate the entry from scratch. However, I can help you and restore the version that was previously deleted, if you want? —CodeCat 02:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm mostly concerned that everyone who contributed to the version that became Citations:ennealogy is properly credited by Wikimedia's rules. I'm not frequent enough a Wiktionary editor to know how WT handles these things. For myself, I'm happy with how it is, but if WT would prefer what you suggest, I'll follow up your restoration with another edit if you wish. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, apologies for implying you're an automaton, which assumed from your 1-minute response to my entry re-creation. You're incredibly swift! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I certainly feel like an automaton a lot of the time... >.> At Wiktionary what we host is mostly information in a concise and systematic format and there is very little room or regard for creative expression, so attribution is probably not a huge issue. So there is no problem with copying quotations from one page to another. However, the references section you added is not how we normally format quotations. On Wiktionary we distinguish quotations/citations from references; the latter applies to factual information that is taken from another source (as on Wikipedia), the former applies to uses of words themselves (which has no Wikipedia equivalent). There is also a difference between quotations (WT:QUOTE) and citations (WT:CITE). Quotations are citations that are added to the entry to illustrate (to users) with real-life examples how the term is used in a phrase. What counts towards attestation is citations (3 mininum) and citations are collected on the Citations page. Every quotation is a valid citation, but there is no harm in having only a select few quotations in the entry itself, as long as they are helpful in illustrating usage.—CodeCat 03:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)