Talk:quaint

RFC: The formatting is non-standard and the looks aren't quite there.   t  h  e Dav eR  oss  


 * What exactly do you disagree with? The a and b are necessary as they are subsenses of the first. The quotes are set off nicely so they're easy to reference. Synonyms are set in capitals so they stand out, as well. Not many links are necessary as I didn't notice many words that a reader would not know. What do you think should be changed? --Primetime 05:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The formatting was not bad, it was just not standard. I reformatted it to a more standard look, because a uniform layout tends to be easier to read and use. -   t  h  e Dav  eR  oss  


 * Looks OK. I kept all of your changes, but the nested list wasn't showing up, so I had to encode that again in HTML. --Primetime 20:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean it didn't show up?   t  h  e Dav eR  oss  


 * All I saw for the first sense was two bullet points. --Primetime 21:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the addition of "sub-senses" regularly as they are ambiguous for translations and programmatic parsing. But if they are being used, the wiki markup "##" should denote the sub-senses, with "##:" for sub-sense examples. HTML is strongly discouraged, especially on pages in the main namespace. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * HTML is discouraged, but in this case, it's necessary. Otherwise, the entry would be inaccurate. --Primetime 08:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You can use ## for subsenses. SemperBlotto 08:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free to convert the subsenses into ## form. I'm obviously unsure how to do it here. --Primetime 08:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

HTML is discouraged, and as far as I know the "li" tags for definitions are forbidden. The use of # is standard policy by all means. Entries that do not have this numbering will always be found and reformatted. Divisions in subsenses has so far not yet been agreed on. &mdash; Vildricianus 09:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Show me where that policy you just mentioned is. Also please show me where subsenses have been forbidden. --Primetime 09:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder whether you've ever actually read WT:ELE. &mdash; Vildricianus 09:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I just looked through it and saw one mention of HTML. This allusion refers to the acceptability of using HTML anchor tags. --Primetime 09:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In any case, last time I checked, Eclecticology, Widsith, and Me were for subsenses. You and that other guy were against them. That's your consensus right there. --Primetime 09:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * While I agree that I have expressed that sub-senses are worth considering on an experimental basis, this does not warrant getting into an edit war on the matter. There is no consensus about how that question will be resolved.


 * Using HTML tags instead of wiki markups was certainly not a part of that discussion. It is understandable that you may use HTML tags when you first introduce a feature into an article, but when another user points out that there is wiki media markup that can accomplish this reverting his corrections is very strongly discouraged.


 * Anyone is welcome to use wikimarkup to create a subsense format for the first two list items. I'm not sure how to do that. Until they are able to nest them together, I think the HTML code should stay. --Primetime 06:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. Stop reverting while I'm still composing a response.  --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The use of hyper text markup language is a non-native mode of entering article formatting. In all cases, where possible, wiki markup is to be used instead.  Repeated reverting to a known bad state is irresponsible.  Had you patiently asked questions about the "##" syntax, you would have been walked through how to format them.  But your rash reverting to HTML is only alienating people.    --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So, you're admitting that you're willing to let the article look like shit because you don't have what it takes to help out? That's not an acceptable excuse for a grown man to make. Leave your personal issues out of this. Wiktionary shouldn't have to suffer because of your personal disputes. --Primetime 23:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Right now, (after reverting your last edit) it most certainly does not look like "shit." Your personal issues seem to be clouding your judgement.  Your personal attacks may get you blocked again.  --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
Quaint is often a term used by visiting US Citizens expressing the environment of Great Britain, much to the chagrin of local inhabitants.

(anon contribution removed from entry 18 October 2006 ;-) Robert Ullmann 23:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Vulgar noun form
I do not know if this is intentional, but the noun form of "quaint" which refers to vaginas/cunts is missing here. For my references, see here. --136.223.3.130 14:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)