User talk:PaparazziPulse

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! —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 01:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikisaurus

Please do not remove headwords from the lists of synonyms in Wikisaurus, such as "sexy" from Wikisaurus:sexy. Each Wikisaurus cluster stands for a particular sense rather than for the headword, so "sexy" also belong to the list of words that describe that sense. Hence my correction. --Dan Polansky 08:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: it is better to place senses to separate headwords when possible. So the noun sense "one who predicts future events" from WS:precognitive would be better placed to WS:augur, WS:foreteller or any other headword that fits. --Dan Polansky 08:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. I'd thought repeating the headword would be redundant, but I'll be sure to include it from now on. As for WS:precognitive, I thought it would make sense to include both the noun and the adjective together, since the word has both meanings. For related verbs, like foretell, I was going to create WS:predict. Would that work? And hey, if there's a Wikisaurus help page detailing the guidelines on this kind of stuff, I'd appreciate it if you could direct me to it. And lastly, I'm unclear as to whether or not I should be ordering the entries for each sense in alphabetical order. I tend to do that by default, because it's much easier to read, but some of the huge entries, like WS:sound are sometimes alphabetized and sometimes not. Any idea why that is? Thanks. --PaparazziPulse 08:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to reduce the number of senses per headword to one, but many pages in Wikisaurus still have several senses. For instance, I have created WS:trash and WS:junk so that there is a dedicated entry for the noun and a dedicated entry for the verb. The entry WS:sound is my nightmare: I would like to move most of the senses out to separate pages but have not found time and energy yet to do it.

The main guideline is Wiktionary:Wikisaurus; it is sketchy on many points. There is more detail in User:Dan Polansky/Wikisaurus, which is my personal guideline and consideration page; it not quite polished, and may be difficult to understand at times.

I do not care to alphabetize entries, but it probably most often harms not when you alphabetize them. However, some entries have subsections separated by {{ws ----}}: alphabetizing such a list with subsections into one unseparated list would be a poor thing to do I think (an example: WS:mammal). --Dan Polansky 09:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Great, the User:Dan Polansky/Wikisaurus page looks helpful, and I don't mind if it's imperfect, any sort of guide is appreciated. After looking at WS:mammal, I see what you mean about separating subsections in ways that shouldn't be alphabetized, so I'll use common sense when dealing with those. I never knew there were Wikisaurus entries like WS:canid and WS:equid, though. That's really cool. Hmm, I wonder if someone should create a WS:cryptid or even a WS:draconine entry. That would be fun. Anyway, thanks for the advice, I appreciate it. --PaparazziPulse 09:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

oraculum

You have created WS:oraculum as "an instrument used for predicting the future". But Wiktionary does not have "oraculum" as an English word; other dictionaries also do not have it - “oraculum”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. What makes you think "oraculum" is an English word? --Dan Polansky 08:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In order to contain a word, Wiktionary requires that the word is attestable per WT:CFI#Attestation. --Dan Polansky 08:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I, too, coudn't find oraculum defined as an English word, but I thought I'd give it a shot because I'd heard it used in English before, and it sounded phonetically similar to ws:oracle. But if you can substitute it for a more common word, that's probably best. I just couldn't think of one. --PaparazziPulse 17:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Re "... it sounded phonetically similar ...": So what? Phonetic similarity does not establish the meaning of a word. I think you should better find a word that actually means "an instrument used for predicting the future". Wiktionary is based on research and verifiable knowledge rather than on wild guesses. I would recommend WT:CFI#Attestation for your reading. --Dan Polansky 10:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand. But even if I can't verify the word, isn't it better to create the entry anyway? It's true that I failed to come up with a better word, but it's possible that someone else might be able to: that's the beauty of a wiki. And even if the headword is wrong (or nonexistent), the synonyms are still related, and therefore the functionality of Wikisaurus is improved. Why shouldn't I be bold? --PaparazziPulse 20:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Babel

Would you add a {{Babel}} template to your user page? Like {{Babel|en-N}} or whatever the languages are that you speak. --Dan Polansky 08:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, although there's not much information to provide. I'm just your run-of-the-mill American English speaker. --PaparazziPulse 17:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

utter

In WS:utter, you have defined "utter" as "to communicate verbally or in writing". I cannot find the "in writing" part in some of the dictionaries I have checked. What makes you think that "utter" includes written communication? --Dan Polansky 20:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

My bad, that was not you[1]. --Dan Polansky 20:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and I agree with you, that part is inaccurate so I've gone ahead and removed it. Almost none of the entries have to do with "communicating in writing", but I've moved the ones that do. --PaparazziPulse 20:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You guys are probably right. I forget what I was thinking at that time. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 02:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, perhaps we should move those words to Wikisaurus:say, what do you think? —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. Maybe check on WS:talk, as well. --PaparazziPulse 03:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

correspondent

You have defined "correspondent" in one sense as "happening simultaneously". I do not find this sense in dictionaries. Whence this sense? Do you have some quotations from durably archived sources such as books that attest this sense of "correspondent"?

Also, I would really appreciate if you would restrain each Wikisaurus entry to one sense. --Dan Polansky 09:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we could move the "happening simultaneously" sense to its own entry, maybe WS:simultaneous, if you want. Personally, I'd consider it accurate, coming from correspond, but it's all the same to me. But why should I restrain each Wikisaurus entry to one sense? Many English words have widely differing, even contradictory senses, and it's not wrong to list a thesaurus accordingly. --PaparazziPulse 20:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

decoy

I am somewhat suspicious about some of your definitions. You have defined "decoy" as "a substitute of a person". I do not quite understand what it means, but you have entered "doppelganger" as a synonym. Yet "decoy" is defined by Wiktionary as "A person or object meant to lure something to danger". I have checked other dictionaries and I do not find your sense of "decoy". --Dan Polansky 09:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Decoy was the closest hypernym to doppelganger I could think of, but you're welcome to try something else, like say maybe WS:imitation. --PaparazziPulse 20:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let me ask: what do you mean by "a substitute of a person"? What dictionaries have this sense of "decoy"? What quotations attest this sense? --Dan Polansky 22:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have any quotations, this is based solely on inference. The dictionary's definition for "decoy" may be "a person or object meant to lure something to danger", but in my experience it's broader than that, it's more like: "a person or object meant to mislead, to draw attention away from the real thing", and therefore by extension "a substitute of a person". The dictionary definition seems incomplete, but this is just from my own experience as an English-speaker. --PaparazziPulse 22:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Section "Various"

Please do not remove the section "Various"[2]. --Dan Polansky 10:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed "Various" because I moved its entry, knowledgeable into the "see also" section. To me, "Various" is another way of saying, "these words are related, but not in any easily definable sense". Therefore, might as well fold them into "See also". --PaparazziPulse 20:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

non-English synonyms

The English section of Wikisaurus should only contain English synonyms[3]. --Dan Polansky 10:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, wait a minute. c'est la vie and qué será, será are used in English all the time. How do you think words like doppelganger and uber became used in English? --PaparazziPulse 20:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you show that "qué será, será" is used in English? Put differently, can you give three quotations of the phrase being used in English? The thing is, qué será, será has no English entry. (WT:CFI#Attestation). --Dan Polansky 22:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Funny, it has a Spanish entry, but the phrase isn't even used in Spanish. Anyway, as for quotations, I can't think of any, but I'll keep my eyes open. What sort of source would be sufficient? Could I, for example, quote an English film or song, or just a passage from a book? --PaparazziPulse 22:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Quoting a passage from a book would do; that is, quoting passages from three books. You only need to show that the word is really used. Citing a dictionary would not help. Quoting a film should also be okay, I think, but quotations from books can often be verified online in Google books. Actually, searching Google books for the term is the first thing I do to see whether the term is attestable. --Dan Polansky 22:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

münchausen

Can you demonstrate that "münchausen" is an English word with a meaning that is hyponymous to "deceiver"? Thus, can you point me to three quotations from durably archived sources such as books that attest the use of the term? (See WT:CFI#Attestation.) --Dan Polansky 10:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I can't, but what harm is there in leaving the word on the page until someone manages to do so? I know that the word is used [4], and it's not like I'm trying to create a new Wiktionary page for it. And yes, I know that the Urban Dictionary isn't a verifiable source, I'm just using to to prove a point. --PaparazziPulse 20:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If you cannot demonstrate it, then you should not be entering it. Wiktionary should only contain demonstrable knowledge. Again, see WT:CFI#Attestability. You do not prove a point by listing Urban dictionary as a reference. To show that "münchausen" is actually used, it suffices that you provide three quotations from durably archived sources, such as Google books. For an example of a set of citations attesting a word, see Citations:numeral. --Dan Polansky 22:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I concede the point. I should point out, though, that a large number of other Wikisaurus entries are being linked to not-yet-existent words. --PaparazziPulse 22:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Only a fraction of all Wikisaurus entries contains redlinked (not yet in the main namespace) terms. If you see some dubious redlinked terms in Wikisaurus, let me now: I will examine them and remove them from Wikisaurus if they look unattestable. --Dan Polansky 22:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

aggregate

What do we need WS:aggregate for when we already have WS:group?

Is "wikisphere" attestable?--Dan Polansky 22:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I created WS:aggregate primarily for the word blogosphere, and its many derivatives, such as twittersphere. No, wikisphere is not attestable, and I freely acknowledged that in my edit summary. It was just written in fun. Personally, though, I think that it'll eventually be a real word, with a meaning similar to Wikimedia. --PaparazziPulse 23:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You should not be acknowledging bad acts just when you commit them; you should be avoiding them. Wiktionary is no fun park; this is a collaborative project to build a professional dictionary and thesaurus. You do not seem to know what you are going. Again, check WT:CFI#Attestability. Only attestable terms may be included. --Dan Polansky 23:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're being unfair. I knew when I typed in wikisphere that you (or someone else) would catch it and remove it, but in the meantime I thought I'd add it in as a fun, lighthearted little homage to the entire wiki system, because I have great faith in it and want it to succeed and thrive. I can't argue with your by-the-book logic, it's all true, and you should know that I'm not here to sabotage the system or change the rules. But I'm a human being, not a robot, and I'm going to take liberties. I've already contributed a large amount of helpful material to Wikisaurus, and I'm going to continue to do so, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't fixate on my errors. I'll do my best to learn from them, and in the meantime, we're better off trying to get along. --PaparazziPulse 23:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Re "I've already contributed a large amount of helpful material to Wikisaurus": You must be kidding yourself. You have contributed a very little amount. The little that you have contributed is of mixed quality; much of it will need to be clean up and sorted out, especially the entries with several senses and two to four synonyms per sense. You proceed by touching as many entries as possible, doing mostly such trivial work as alphabetical sorting, and tweaking definitions that are perfectly fine. You seem to imagine Wiktionary as some kind of free-for-all place where anyone can post anything as they see fit, but that is not what Wiktionary is. Wiktionary has standards such as WT:CFI. You should better find some other playground. You are not learning from your errors: when I point out that you should not add unattestable terms, you proceed to do that anyway, "for the fun of it". If you want to start doing good job at Wikisaurus, what about you start to clean up your mess: find an English word for "an instrument used for predicting the future" and move WS:oraculum to that headword. --Dan Polansky 07:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have read (and am continuing to read) the guidelines such as WT:CFI, and by my interpretation, which is much less stringent than yours, I am not doing anything wrong. Yes, I may have broken the rules in a few isolated cases, which you are determined to stay fixated on, but that is easily attributable to inexperience. You unjustly belittle my contributions, and continue to unjustly insult me, and you continue to ignore my attempts to reconcile things. I do not treat Wiktionary as my playground, but I do approach things with a sense of humor, and there's nothing wrong with that. You seem to have vilified me for some reason, but I say again, I am making my contributions in good faith. We're both Wiktionarians here, we both want the same thing. Can't we just get along? --PaparazziPulse 08:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to get along, start cleaning up your mess: fix WS:oraculum. --Dan Polansky 09:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

On another note, you have linked to several pages on Wikipedia. This is Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Furthermore, some of the pages you have linked to are mere essays expressing views of individual contributors: Wikipedia:Wikipedia should be fun is marked as a mere essay rather than policy or guideline, and was created by a single person on 3 November 2008 (by Thumperward). You would do well to stop quoting Wikipedia essays, and start behaving like a responsible contributor. It is okay when people have fun editing Wiktionary, but being fun for editors is not the ultimate purpose of Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky 09:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

When last I looked, Wiktionary was a sister project of Wikipedia, but if you choose to ignore that, that's your call. Some of the pages I linked to may be essays, but the rest, including assume good faith, do not bite the newcomers, and no personal attacks, are guidelines or policies. The fact that you choose to ignore them, while following the rules that you agree with, lessens my opinion of you considerably. I respectfully refuse to do anything about WS:oraculum, because I can't think of a better headword to replace it. Since you seem to feel so strongly about it, go find a replacement word yourself instead of wasting your time berating me. I now consider this matter closed. I have done my best to resolve things, and have no further inclination to do so. If you have further comments or criticisms about my contributions, I will be happy to correspond, but if you continue to deride and insult me in this way, I will have no choice but to simply ignore you. --PaparazziPulse 23:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You come to Wiktionary, do a poor job, create entries for non-existent terms, and seem from the very start well versed in wiki-lawyering: when I ask you to clean up your mess, you refuse to do so, listing a list of Wikipedia guidelines and essays instead.

I ask you to stop contributing to Wikisaurus until you fix WS:oraculum. --Dan Polansky 08:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The other entry waiting for fix is WS:decoy: "decoy" almost certainly does not mean "doppelganger"; the definition "a substitute of a person" is incomprehensible. --Dan Polansky 08:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see [5] and note that sister projects do not follow identical policies. -- Gauss 09:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I still don't agree that I'm doing anything wrong, but in the interest of making the peace, I propose changing WS:oraculum to WS:horoscope or WS:forecaster and splitting WS:decoy between WS:double and WS:substitute. Would that be agreeable? --PaparazziPulse 10:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's see: what makes you think that "forecaster" is a good headword for "an instrument used for predicting the future"? Is the word "forecaster" used to refer to an instrument? What dictionaries contain the word "forecaster" in such a sense? If no dictionaries do, what quotations use the term "forecaster" in that sense (google books:"forecaster")? --Dan Polansky 12:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

All right, what about WS:predictor, then? And the sense defintion could be changed from "an instrument used for predicting the future", to "something that anticipates, predicts or foretells". Any objection then? --PaparazziPulse 19:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Are you saying that a crystal ball and a horoscope are predictors? Can you find sentences that use "predictor" in a corresponding sense? --Dan Polansky 21:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that's necessary. They fit "something that anticipates, predicts or foretells", don't they? Under crystal ball, it says "used to foretell the future", and horoscope says "astrological forecast of a person's future", with forecast defined as "to estimate how a condition will be in the future". --PaparazziPulse 21:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and you don't see how it is necessary that a Wikisaurus headword should be a real English word ("oraculum"). The thing is, "predictor" is probably only incompletely defined as "something that anticipates, predicts or foretells". To have "crystal ball" as a hyponym in the entry "predictor" when it does not hold that "a crystal ball is a predictor" is a poor practice. --Dan Polansky 07:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand you. How is it for you to say if a Wiktionary entry is "incompletely defined"? That's purely your own conjecture, and if you won't accept it coming from me, why should I accept it coming from you? I would indeed hold that a crystal ball is a predictor, but if you disagree, it seems that's all that matters. I'm afraid I'm all out of ideas. Deleting the page seems to be the only course of action you will accept, and if you want to, then go ahead: I won't object. --PaparazziPulse 09:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not merely my conjecture. I have searched google books:"predictor" and have found no quotation that suggest that a crystal ball is a predictor. If you can find such a quotation, please show it to me. If not, then the hypothesis that a crystal ball is a predictor has to be rejected, as a serious attempt has been made to confirm the hypothesis and the attempt has failed. From what I have found in Google books, "predictor" is something in statistics or articial intelligence, hence my claim that the definition is incomplete; a harsher way to put it is to say that the definition is wrong, as it fails to mention critical differentia, thereby including too many cases under the head of "predictor". --Dan Polansky 11:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Borg

You have added "Borg" as "See also" to "WS:aggregate". What has "Borg" to do with "aggregate"? --Dan Polansky 07:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The Borg is a hivemind, and therefore an aggregate. --PaparazziPulse 09:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see in Appendix:Star Trek/Borg (a page whose deletion is pending), Borg is (a) A fictional humanoid race; (b) A member of a fictional hiveminded humanoid race universe who seek to assimilate all intelligent life into their number. While it is true that a human race is an aggregate of human individuals, it is pointless to list one such particular fictional race as a hyponym or even "See also" of "WS:aggregate", as then we would need to include all human nations as hyponyms of "WS:aggregate" (actually instances, but let us ignore this nicety for now), and that would only be the start, as all sorts of things in the universe are aggregates. Thus, the section "Hyponyms" or "See also" in "WS:aggregate" would become unmanagable.

Along similar lines, it is pointless to add "heather" to "WS:plant".

Similarly pointless is your entry "WS:capable", in which you have listed four hyponyms: airworthy, roadworthy, seaworthy, and spaceworthy. Along these lines, the hyponym section of WS:capable would become huge and unmanagable.

Creating decept hyponym sections takes more effort than just haphasardly pile a few selected terms under a head that is approximately their hypernym. --Dan Polansky 11:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't list Borg because they're an aggregate in the manner of the human race, I listed them because they're an aggregate in the manner of a hivemind, a collective in a psychic sense, a series of individual entities which make up a single whole. Compare Formics. --PaparazziPulse 12:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Now you seem to be forbidding the addition of various words based solely on the nebulous concept of "making an entry large and unmanageable". Kindly point me to the Wikisaurus guideline page where this is spelled out, in order to prove to me that it is indeed a rule, and not merely your own preference. So, you disagree with my headword choices. By all means, then, under what headword would you place heather and airworthy, etc? --PaparazziPulse 12:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Should I add "dog" as a hyponym of "aggregate", per dog's being a whole made up of individual entities, namely cells? If dog is not the sort of aggregate that you want to single out in "WS:aggregate", what are the sorts of aggregates that deserve being singled out, and why do they deserve so?

The rule that arbitrary hyponyms should not be added to top-level entries such as WS:plant is not written anywhere. The rule follows from the aims of a thesaurus and the fact that adding all hyponyms to "WS:entity" would be completely unmanagable, as almost all things referred to by nouns are entities.

To decide where to place "heather", I would have to look into biological taxonomy. That takes some effort. Do you have any idea how many plants there are, that is, how many items would be added to "WS:plant" if all plants were added as hyponyms? --Dan Polansky 13:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your point regarding the excessive number of terms that could be added to a high-level entry such as "entity", but there's an inherent problem with what you're saying. Namely, since no rule is clearly defined as to what constitutes an "appropriate" versus an "inappropriate" hyponym, different people are going to have different ideas about it, and are going to conflict with one another. Now, in and of itself, this doesn't bother me: it's irksome but can be lived with. However, your solution to a collection of "inappropriate" hyponyms (or senses) is to simply delete them, even if they are still semantically related to one another, and that does bother me. Surely, since you're coming to me with a rule that "follows the aims of a thesaurus", you can't claim that deleting usable entries also "follows the aims of a thesaurus"?

And I take your point with heather, but am still curious as to how you would handle airworthy, etc. --PaparazziPulse 13:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Let us be clear about one thing: no one has a full-fledged algorithm for creating a thesaurus. I am not here to write down rules for you; I am here to fix the mess that you are introducing. You have to start to actually think about what you are doing. When pondering a candidate edit, you have to ask yourself: what are the reasons against this edit? What are the consequences or implications of this edit that speak against the edit? There are grey zones where it is not clear whether a hyponym is too specific, but in case of "heather" it is very clear.

The written rules have to be written down and stipulated by someone. Wikisaurus has one long-term contributor: me.

I do not know where to place "airworthy" right now. Making decisions about Wikisaurus entries require a lot of thought and research. That is much more work than just creating "WS:oraculum" for someone else to research and fix. --Dan Polansky 13:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I concede that you have many valid points. I am gradually improving my ability to weigh the pros and cons for each edit, just as you're suggesting, and although you might not believe me, I actually spent a good deal of time finding a suitable headword before creating WS:capable. I probably wouldn't have created it at all if you hadn't deleted it from WS:sound, but that's beside the point. Summarily, I will do my best to follow your advice, and continue to learn from my mistakes. But I will not stop editing or creating pages: I have just as much right to do that as you do. And if you are Wikisaurus' sole long-term contributor (a claim I'd like to see validated, but I'll assume it to be true for now), then I genuinely respect your hard work. I have seen many pages created by you attesting to that. But I will not, under any circumstances, accept your word as law. Even if you know what you're talking about from a linguistic sense (and that does seem to be the case), that doesn't mean you can (or should) decide the policy of Wikisaurus. Policy should be decided by the consensus of many, not by the opinion of one. I'd rather see anarchy around here than singular sovereignty. I'll take your rules under advisement, but in order for them to be binding, they have to be affirmed by others.

Regarding WS:oraculum, I already said you can delete it. I don't know why we're still talking about it.

And I would still like to know your rationale for deleting usable entries under WS:sound. --PaparazziPulse 04:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And additionally, as per your advice, I have removed the bulk of WS:decoy and split it between WS:counterpart and WS:substitute. --PaparazziPulse 03:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetizing Wikisaurus

Can you forego or reduce your alphabetizing Wikisaurus entries? Some of the best things you can do is stop alphabetizing altogether. At least, you should not alphabetize lists of hyponyms that show some order, even if that order is not explicitly stated. For instance, WS:container was so organized that various trashcans were next to each other. This was not explicitly marked in the entry but could be spotted by anyone who cared to look. --Dan Polansky 08:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Alphabetizing entries not only makes them easier to read, it also removes accidental redundancies, something I've encountered several times in the past, especially with longer entries. Based on that alone, I feel I'm justified in alphabetizing. Why are you against it? You're grouping words together based on common criteria that are obvious to nobody except you: it runs contrary to your usual mentality. If you want to group a bunch of trashcans together, you should create a more specific headword for them, such as Wikisaurus:trashcan, or the like.

I don't wish to get into an edit war with you, but you erased several words I added when reverting Wikisaurus:container, and this cannot be tolerated. Out of courtesy, though, I'll wait for your response before reverting back. Remember that just because lists of hyponyms "show order" to you, that doesn't mean the ordering will be obvious to others. And even if it is, it seems subjective, and should therefore be avoided.

I'm willing to put forth a compromise: I'll revert the entry, but create some new, more specific entries (such as Wikisaurus:trashcan) for the specific groupings that you can point out to me. How's that sound? --PaparazziPulse 17:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that an order in hyponym lists should only be created by creating new entries. If the order is not obvious to you, I can document it for you in the entry, at least in part. Roget's Thesaurus from 1911 has an order shown by commas, semicolons and periods rather than having things alphabetically listed. I have no problem with you readding your entries to WS:container, but please do not alphabetize it again. There is nothing subjective about trashcans being listed next to each other. I do not share your enthusiasm about doing the rather pointless (and sometimes harmful) mechanical work of alphabetizing things instead of doing the real hard work of research for new entries. --Dan Polansky 18:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are so in love with alphabetical lists, why are you not working on Wiktionary topical categories instead of on Wikisaurus? These are automatically alphabetically sorted. There is Category:Containers and Category:Plants. --Dan Polansky 19:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've stated the benefits of alphabetizing and you've ignored my statements, so I think we should just stop our debating. Whether you like it or not I am going to continue alphabetizing, so we must find a middle ground in order to avoid continued clashes with one another. Although I maintain that grouping words together in a non-alphabetical order is subjective and unwise, I'll respect any existing groups I come across if their existence is made obvious to me. Ergo, that means using {{ws ----}} to denote different subsections. When I run across {{ws ----}}, I leave any existing separations alone and alphabetize only between each instance. This is as far as I'm willing to go. Please add {{ws ----}} into Wikisaurus:container, then allow me to readd my entries and alphabetize again, this time only between each instance of {{ws ----}}. I hope you'll concede that this is an acceptable compromise, and that the alphabetizing, even if you think it unnecessary, will no longer hurt anything.

And regarding the topical categories, I'm unfamiliar with those, but they look interesting. Could you direct me to a page explaining how they're used? --PaparazziPulse 19:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If you continue alphabetizing, I will continue reverting when this alphabetizing breaks something. That is an impasse. Given the overall low amount of work you have done for Wikisaurus, and given there are almost no regular Wikisaurus contributors, the way out of the impasse is that you yield to the normative opinion of the major Wikisaurus contributor. It took me several hours to figure out WS:increase; it has taken you a sec to alphabetize it and add one term "propagate", which is not even a synonym. It is clear which of the edits in WS:increase is a major substantive work, and which is mere pushing one's normative opinion while doing almost not substantive editing. Both our normative opinions are just that, but I do not see why the normative opinion of a minor contributor should prevail over the normative opinion of a major contributor.

As regards topical categories, it is like with Wikisaurus: look around and see for yourself rather than asking for written guidelines. If you cannot do it, you need to go somewhere else where they provide handholding services. There is something in WT:Categorization#Topic, but not much. --Dan Polansky 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be better to avoid an impasse: neither of us will benefit from it. I'm going to take a moment and separate your Wikisaurus:container groups with {{ws ----}}, and then alphabetize them. Before reverting, take a moment to look at the change, and tell me if it objectively makes any difference from the organizational method you used before. A compromise is much more beneficial than an impasse.

Also, the fourth definition of propagate: "to multiply; to increase". --PaparazziPulse 02:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me try another bent: can you point me to a printed or a completed thesaurus that orders words alphabetically? I have one printed thesaurus (Penguin Thesaurus) that does not list words alphabetically; Roget 1911 does not do that either; Moby II does that. Can you point me to thesauri that you have had a look at? Are these Roget-like semantic-bucket thesaurusi or synonym-only thesauri? --Dan Polansky 08:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Besides Moby II, the only other precedent I can think of is Aiksaurus [6], which is, I believe, a defunct experimental thesaurus. It lists words alphabetically. --PaparazziPulse 13:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not know of this thesaurus, thanks. It seems based on Moby II. Is there any printed or completed thesaurus you can point to? --Dan Polansky 13:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)'

No, nothing else comes to mind. --PaparazziPulse 15:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

efficient

Into WS:efficient, you have entered the following:

• sense: making good use of time and energy
  • synonyms
    • efficient
    • logistical

Can you explain what you meant by that? Is "logistical" a synonym of "efficient", and if so, per what definition of "logistical", either from Wiktionary or another dictionary? --Dan Polansky 15:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe I misinterpreted the definition. From Wikisaurus:efficient I have removed the sense "making good use of time and energy", and moved "logisitical" into the "Various" section. It seems as though multiple senses are discouraged in Wikisaurus, anyway. --PaparazziPulse 15:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now how is "logistical" related to "not drawing on more than what is needed", and per what definition of "logistical"? Why should "logistical" be present in the entry at all? --Dan Polansky 15:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed "logistical". --PaparazziPulse 23:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

attendant

I have just fixed the entry WS:attendant. Do you sincerely believe that "apprentice" is a synonyms of "attendant"? It it really true that every attendant is an apprentice and every apprentice is an attendant? --Dan Polansky 14:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to work on that entry myself. I freely admit that most of its entries were inaccurately arranged, including "apprentice". Glad you took the initiative. --PaparazziPulse 17:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Youngling and instances

In WS:Youngling, I have moved "instances" to "hyponyms", as that is what they are. To clarify on an example: each calf is a youngling, so "calf" is a hyponym of "youngling". Compare to Mars to which "each" cannot be meaningfully applied and which is an instance of planet. Typically, only individual objects referred to by proper nouns are in the instance of relationship with anything else. There may be a blurred case with chemicals and elements, each of which such as "gold" may be viewed as an individual object, but nothing of the sort is there with "calf", which is a clear-cut countable noun. --Dan Polansky 10:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

All right. I appreciate the clarification. --PaparazziPulse 19:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

uggo

You have created "WS:uggo" to mean, roughly, "ugly person". Is "uggo" an English noun? Can you show it by providing attestations? I have not found "uggo" in dictionaries[7]; google books:"uggo" and google groups:"uggo" finds nothing promising. Do you personally use the term, or do your friends or acquaintances use it? (Does not count as attestation anyway, but I just wonder where you got the term from.) --Dan Polansky 10:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I might have heard it used in casual conversation, but I'm not defending it. I used it because Wikisaurus:ugly person redirects to Wikisaurus:ugly woman. Wikisaurus:ugly person was my first choice. Would you agree to moving Wikisaurus:uggo to Wikisaurus:ugly person? --PaparazziPulse 19:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I do agree, and I have moved WS:uggo to WS:ugly person. Still, if you cannot demonstrate that "uggo" is actually used, the term should better be removed from the list of synonyms in WS:ugly person.

I wonder about the other terms in the entry. "choad" is defined as "loser or undesirable person"; does that imply an ugly person? "schlub" is defined as "A person who is socially awkward, unattractive, clumsy, or oafish[stupid]"; so unattractiveness is not a necessary property of "schlub", right? (Which would make "schlub" quite fit for "Various" section.) --Dan Polansky 09:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Great, I appreciate your moving it. I've nominated Wikisaurus:uggo for speedy deletion. It's not attestation, but uggo is present in the urban dictionary [8], and I'd like for it to stay, but if you remove it I won't argue. The other words seem fine to me, but if you want to move them, I won't oppose it. --PaparazziPulse 18:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

WS:resound

You have defined "resound" as "to produce a sensation perceived by the ear". But that is not that the word means according to Wiktionary. Where have you that definition from? What makes you think the definition is accurate? Do you really believe that "speak" is a hyponym of "resonate" and "resound"? --Dan Polansky 08:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The words "resonate" and "resound" were listed as synonyms under the original verb sense entry of Wikisaurus:sound. I guess I didn't check them thoroughly enough. I can think of two options here. Either we change the headword from "resound" to "resonate", which better fits the definition, or change Wikisaurus:sound to Wikisaurus:audio, then move Wikisaurus:resound to Wikisaurus:sound, making it a verb sense. --PaparazziPulse 12:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If what you meant in "resound" was "make sound", the entry can be moved to "WS:make sound".

The other senses in the old revisions of WS:sound were rather bad, and fixing them is a lot of work. I discourage you from copying more of them to other Wikisaurus pages without significantly revising and checking them. Nonetheless, what you have created in WS:resound is not even a mere copy of the old verb sense of WS:sound, which contained merely five synonyms: echo, reecho, resonate, resound, reverberate.

I ask you to carefully check your additions to Wikisaurus for accuracy. --Dan Polansky 12:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice. Moving the entry to Wikisaurus:make sound is fine, although I would prefer Wikisaurus:produce sound, since that's the wording that appears under the verb definition of sound. --PaparazziPulse 13:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that "produce sound" is any better than "make sound". The latter is shorter and simpler; the former sounds needlessly academic. Incidentally, MWO uses the wording "to make a sound" for one of its verb definitions for "sound"; Encarta has "make a noise". --Dan Polansky 13:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Let it be Wikisaurus:make sound, then. But the definition might need to be changed into "to make a sensation perceived by the ear". --PaparazziPulse 13:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "make" is synonymous with "produce" in the relevant sense. Swapping "make" for "produce" won't hurt, but the definition is broken anyway: to make sound is not to make a sensation. Admittedly, the first def of "sound" defines it as sensation, but that seems really wrong. The easiest way around is to define "WS:make sound" plainly as "make sound" and be done with it. --Dan Polansky 14:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

How about "to make a vibration, in the air or other medium, resulting in a sensation perceived by the ear"? --PaparazziPulse 14:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That is too long. Furthermore, sound does not need to result in a sensation perceived by the ear. The definitions provided in Wikisaurus do not need to be very detailed. I am okay with "to make sound", but if you want something longer, then "to make vibrations perceptible by the ear" looks fairly accurate and not too long. --Dan Polansky 15:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

All right. "To make vibrations perceptible by the ear" seems good to me. --PaparazziPulse 15:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Changes made. Wikisaurus:resound is now Wikisaurus:make sound. Wikisaurus:resound has been marked for speedy deletion. --PaparazziPulse 00:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your work on the ever useful Wikisaurus, for example Wikisaurus:fleet. – b_jonas 15:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)