Speednat

You are using {{reference-book}} as if it were for references for "References" section. However, the template seems to be inteded for quotations of use: it has the parameter "quote", and it ends the work identification with a colon, suggesting a quotations is comming.

Furthermore, why are you providing all the empty parameters like this?

* {{reference-book | last =| first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | editor =Gove, Philip Babcock | others = | title = Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged | origdate = | origyear = 1909 | origmonth = | url = | format = | accessdate = | accessyear = | accessmonth = | edition = | date = | year =1976 | month = | publisher =G. & C. Merriam Co. | location = Springfield, MA | language = | id = | doi = | isbn =0-87779-101-5 | lccn = | ol = | pages =9| chapter = | chapterurl = | quote =}}

This can much more succintly be entered like this:

* {{reference-book | editor =Gove, Philip Babcock | title = Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged | origyear = 1909 | year =1976 | publisher =G. & C. Merriam Co. | location = Springfield, MA | isbn =0-87779-101-5 | pages =9}}

There are many templates used in the references sections that you can use as a model for formatting, such as {{R:Webster 1913}} and {{R:Century 1911}}. You can find more of them at Category:Reference templates. They usually do not provide such details of ISBN, as that is not necessary for the identification of the source. Of course, they do not provide a page number, as that would be specific for a particular entry, and seems too much detail anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

On a second thought, ISBN is probably not a bad thing, as it provides a unique identification. But the editor of the work is superfluous, IMHO, as long as publisher is provided. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have looked at the reference templates on file, but could not find the ones that I needed. Also, I also am not sure why I still use all of the parameters on the templates that I use. It probably was because I wanted to add as much info as possible, and when I filled it out I didn't delete the empty fields once I realized that they would remain empty. Regardless, I have fixed that now, which should allow for a cleaner "edit" page. I believe that they can be used for quotes; however I do use the {{quote-book}} template when I add a quote as that one seems to have been designed for quotes. Thanks for your input. Speednat (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Okay. I ask you to no longer use {{temp|reference-book} in References sections. For common practices in referring to sources from "External links" section, see {{R:Webster 1913}}, {{R:Century 1911}}, and Category:Reference templates. Furthermore, notice that Wiktionary does not depend on dictionaries to verify or source its definitions, relying on actualy quotes of use instead. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thus, instead of the improper template, you can write this:

''Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged'', G. & C. Merriam Co., 1976.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your zeal, but I believe that the templates I am and will continue to use are correct, as I have had many conversations with admins and other editors over my use of the "reference" templates. Speednat (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I ask you to stop reverting me at Abyssinian primrose. Your use of the template is incorrect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please read the following This template is used to cite sources in Wiktionary. It is specifically for books. This is pulled off of the page for the reference-book template in question. It is very clear what it is to be used for and what I am using it for, citing a source, is correct. Please stop reverting my edits. Speednat (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

The template description is confusing. By looking at the template page, you may find it is tagged for RFM: WT:RFM#Template:reference-book. As I have pointed out to you, the template text ends with a colon, unsuitable for refernce section. Finally, the template formatting does not match what is customary in reference sections. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dan is correct, that this is a citation / quotation template for use in supporting usage examples taken from reference books. It is not for the citing of factual information, and in fact we don't really care whether our words appeared in other dictionaries or not. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

How did you find the quotation that you have placed at Abyssine? --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

What did I do wrong now? Speednat (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Will you answer my question? --Dan Polansky (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I searched through the internet for the use of the word, am I not allowed to use the internet now? Speednat (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

So where in the Internet did you find the quotation that you have placed at Abyssine? --Dan Polansky (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am not going to waste my time communicating with you, if you persist on asking inane questions. I documented the quote. Leave me alone. Speednat (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I cannot find the quote in the Internet. Thus, I am asking where you have found the quote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've always seen alternating current abbreviated as AC or A.C.. Are you sure you've seen it written as a.c.? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

quotes are in, I only threw those 2 quotes up, and 1 is shaky because, but I can find more if you need. Let me know Speednat (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please be more careful. When you created "Template:not productive", then moved it to "Template:productive", you left behind a redirect that changed all instances of (not productive) in entries to say (productive) instead. That's the opposite of what the entries should have said. I have deleted the redirect for you. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

You have not answered my question in #Source of quotations about the origin of your quotations in a satisfactory manner. Thus, there is an uresolved suspicion.

Be clear about this: collections of dictionary quotations are subject to copyright of the dictionary that collected them. While each individual quotation can be used in Wiktionary under fair-use rationale if not yet in public domain, the process of selection of quotations applied by editors of a dictionary creates a unique work. Thus, if you ever decide to copy a singificant portion of one dictionary's selection of quotations to Wiktionary, that is going to be a copyright violation. I am not saying you are doing that; however, if you have in part done that or are planning to do so, please refrain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

In case of doubt, please ask your advisor in the high school or university that you are studying. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Advisor, actually professor of my college research class asked and verified that I am correct in doing what I am doing. As long as citations are used, you may quote verbatim out of books, regardless of how often you do it. I didn't need my professor to tell me that, but since you asked, I obliged. This will be the final conversation with you on the subject of copyright violation I will have, as obviously you do not understand the fair use rules. Speednat (talk) 06:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you state the question that you have asked the professor? You can quote verbatim out of copyrighted books, but you cannot use a copyrighted dictionary as a means of selection of these quotations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please note that for alt-forms, we do not add interproject links, translations, contexts, glosses, pronunciations, or anything else unless any of those would differ from the main page they are pointing to. All of these hold true for the page (deprecated template usage) acanthodian, so they are unnecessary. Thanks! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The lang parameter in {{borrowing}} refers to the language of the entry, not the language of the etymon. This is different from {{term}}, hence the confusion.

Also please use a space after a fullstop.otherwise it looks really ugly. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you seem to have been misusing {{etyl|en}} a lot. Doing that categorises a word into Category:English twice-borrowed terms, which is only appropriate if the word came from another language which had already borrowed it from English. Good examples are anime and wantok, which are from animation and one talk respecively, but have undergone semantic, orthographic and phonologic shift in the mean time and are now wholly separate English terms. {{etyl|en}} is useful, but should only be used in certain uncommon cases, not any time an English word is from another English word. Thanks so much! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I should note that a lot of time, you can avoid using it by using {{suffix}} etc more effectively. For example, see this edit I made to your etymology at abietic. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you are interested, see Template_talk:mul-proper_noun. DCDuring TALK 00:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove information about the use of the a- prefix in the Appalachian dialect? It still exists in use on a daily basis. Wōdenhelm (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

What makes you think Acanthasitta, which you created, is a real word, meeting WT:ATTEST? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure why you think you can single me out, but if you spent less time attacking me and more time searching for words and their usage you would find things like this. http://newzealandecology.org/nzje/free_issues/NZJEcol34_1_28.pdf or this http://www.boprc.govt.nz/media/33700/Wildland-091118-TaurangaEcolDistPhase1.pdf or this http://www.sahs.uk.net/BoTNHAS%20Trans%20Vol%20V,%20Part%20II.pdf on Page 186. Please before you attack me in the future, do your research with the same dedication that you use to, well, attack me. Sincerely Speednat (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

He's not singling you out- he haunts several other talk pages. I'm not sure whether to recommend an exorcist or a proctologist. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

FYI, I created some new reference templates for works that I saw were being cited quite often: {{R:CDOE}}, {{R:OCD2}}, {{R:RHCD}} and {{R:SOED5}} (quod vide); they all allow one optional parameter, "page=", which specifies a page number. You can now use those templates rather than writing out the same long list of {{reference-book}} parameters over and over. More generally, if you find yourself citing the any reference work over and over, consider creating a dedicated template for it like those four, if there isn't one in Category:Reference templates already. Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 03:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've also created {{R:MW3 1976}} and {{R:American Heritage 1971}}. - -sche (discuss) 21:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

You Rock !! Speednat (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply