User talk:PeterHitchmough

bobbitt

I have just fallen about laughing. I was inspired by the articles Lorna Bobbitt and w:John Wayne Bobbitt to add an entry for bobbitt. That definition is bizarre enough, but what really creased me up was when I naively declared it to be a stub.

Ouch!

Dizzley 22:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion

Peter, Before I revert my correction, I'd like to know which is correct. I saw your request to have Template:Wiksaurus:Shorten deleted, and fixed the syntax so it pointed instead to the WikiSaurus:Shorten entry, but now I'm not sure. Did you intend to request they both be deleted?

FYI: An admin, admonished me for clogging the automated list (with no corresponding request in Wiktionary:Requests for deletion) quite recently.

--Connel MacKenzie 08:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Calling card

Hi Connel,

I see you have corrected all kind of silly mistakes I have made around the site recently. I think these will reduce in number as I get used to it. I am familiar with Wikipedia but find some of the local practices on Wiktionary a little hard to remember sometimes. Please be patient with the newbies, esp. me. :-) -- Dizzley 08:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was a newcomer quite recently; I feel your pain. Let me just say, Welcome Newcomer! Enjoy! Yes, it is different from 'pedia over here. Hopefully you are not upset that I made corrections to your entries. The more subtle the mistake, the less I like to draw attention to it. Most of the time. --Connel MacKenzie 08:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's the attitude! I feel more at home already. I've been in some of the dingier corners if you look at my contributions. I thought the frequent word list you collated (with help) was very useful as a prompt. --Dizzley 09:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shorten

In reply, I want to delete the WikiSaurus:Shorten page, and the WikiSaurus:shorten page needs to be changed into a real WikiSaurus page for 'shorten'. Can you help?

It seems I got the wrong end of the stick having read the text in the WikiSaurus template. Dizzley 08:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WikiSaurus is a new concept here. I have not been one of its proponents (to say the least!) At the same time, I do see the extroardinary value of a thesaurus; my worry is that it may not fit well into the goal of a dictionary. For the time being I've tried to limit what I do with it.

This past week, Richardb (inadvertently) informed me of the template characteristics of pages in the Wiktionary:Projects namespace. I am very encouraged that a similar technique can be used to make WikiSaurus quite functional. But, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. I've yet to see a sample entry that meets my personal expectations of a thesaurus entry. (I'm quite hung up on the extra click from an article to a WS: entry, as you may have noticed.)

It's too bad there are so few people on Wiktionary on the weekends. I wish someone more involved with WS were around to help you. The last I heard, they were still experimenting on only a tiny handful of entries.

What I would do:

In WikiSaurus:Shorten put the text #REDIRECT [[WikiSaurus:shorten]]

Then start the "real" article for WikiSaurus:shorten as normal.

I hope this is at least a little helpful. --Connel MacKenzie 08:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RfD vs. Rfd

The text appearing in the template, apparently, is (mostly) wrong. Adminstrators are volunteers, just as you and I. Some check the automated list (infrequently) but others do not. At least two feel that even if an entry appears on the automated list, it still deserves a discussion on the manual list.

Also of note: Here, RfD is only a redirect to rfd. The "Sentence case" vs. "Title Case" extremists gone too far, I say. --Connel MacKenzie 08:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to drop a note in the Rfdiddley-dee talk page. Dizzley 09:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

from Talk:Objects

Connel -

You say keep objects - do you expect a redirecting entry for every plural noun in the dictionary? It seems wrong to me.--Dizzley 21:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC).

Ultimately, yes. For external searches having the plurals defined is crucial. Database "cost" is negligable. Occasional irregular plurals benefit from having separate entries. Plurals with extraneous meanings require separate entries. External spell-check searches ultimately will depend on this assumption. "bots" later in the process will auto-populate entries (I bet.)

The only argument against the concept is that it could be construed as artificially inflating the count. But Wiktionary is not paper, so even that argument is specious. --Connel MacKenzie 23:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-- moved to talk:objects

Your article "review"

I'm quite surprised to read that a review is a "revision or bringing up-to-date". I completely agree that it is a revision. But both revision and review leave their object unchanged, whereas a bringing up-to-date can be an actual change of something. Ncik

Hi. Review is the same as revise -> to "look again". When a text is changed for a new edition, it can be safely described as "revised". I am looking for a citation. However, I am less comfortable with it now, and may delete or reword it... Thanks for the heads up. There are a couple more senses to add, such as, review (project management, engineering): a formal or informal examination of a requirement, specification or computer program; a general oversight of what's going on in the word of x, y, z (leads to the Times Lit. Review etc.). Thanks. --Dizzley 22:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pardon Me

for butting in, but we had a vandal adding a bunch of links into several entries, and as this was one, I went ahead and deleted them from here, too. Hope you don't mind. . . .Welcome to Wiktionary--Alia H 05:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: Calling card

Well, I didn't actually move it. I added it without seeing that you had already added it with the other name, and got myself confused. I used to be an IBM mainframe Systems programmer by the way. SemperBlotto 11:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

. . . and my last job was Database analyst for Tesco Stores. SemperBlotto 16:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

way

Peter,

I moved your meaning of slipway down to Derived terms in way. I think your meaning for ways likewise belongs in a separate entry. Since that is a different word and not just a plural, it (also) really deserves the clarity of its own entry.

Thanks also for entering the various plurals and other senses. There does seem to be growing concensus that they ultimately will be needed. I guess I was wrong that any sort of decision had previously been reached, though.

--Connel MacKenzie 16:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)