User talk:EVula

Standard welcome template. :-) Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary!

If you have edited Wikipedia, you probably already know some basics, but Wiktionary does have a few conventions of its own. Please take a moment to learn our basics before jumping in.

First, all articles should be in our standard format, even if they are not yet complete. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with it. You can use one of our pre-defined article templates by typing the name of a non-existent article into the search box and hitting 'Go'.

Notice that article titles are case-sensitive and are not capitalized unless, like proper nouns, they are ordinarily capitalized (Poland or January). Also, take a moment to familiarize yourself with our criteria for inclusion, since Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. Don't go looking for a Village pump – we have a Beer parlour. Note that while Wikipedia likes redirects, Wiktionary deletes most redirects, (especially spelling variations) in favor of short entries. Please do not copy entries here from Wikipedia if they are in w:CAT:MtW, they are moved by bot, and will appear presently in the Transwiki: namespace.

Finally, you can link Wikipedia pages, including your user page, using pagename,, or. Please do not create redirects to Wikipedia pages, though. They don't work.

We hope you enjoy editing Wiktionary and being a Wiktionarian. Dmcdevit·t 05:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Bwuhaha, I love the WP admin-specific notice there. Trust me, I know better than to start swinging my weight around where I've got no damn right to do so... I'm just here as a gnome, nothing more. :) EVula // talk // 22:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

interwiki
Some points: However, given the more stringent rules (and my subsequent mistake), I think I might just stick to interwiki-ing project- and template-namespace pages instead; less chance for screwing up. :)
 * 1) entry names are case-sensitive, not like WP. You were linking to German entry on ru.wikt ^_^
 * 2) entry names in the main namespace of en WT must correspond to those of forign WT
 * 3) these things are usually done automatically by User:Interwicket, so you don't need to waste your time. --Ivan Štambuk 17:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...wow, I thought I knew the whole case-sensitive thing, but damn, you're absolutely right... the russian link back to Frack is totally different. Very sorry.
 * Er, I'm not entirely sure I follow. What exactly do you mean?
 * Well, I tend not to rely solely on bots for interwikis; there's always stuff that they miss, as I've found in my interwiki (mis)adventures.


 * Thanks for the feedback. EVula // talk // 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The second point is just a continuation of the first; i.e. because of case sensitivity one must link to other wikt only to entries with the same name. Of course, this all applies to NS:0, What happens in Template:, Wiktionary: and Appendix: requires human intelligence, and is only partially bottable (unlike the main namespace, which is 100% bottable). Cheers ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk 17:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it. Had to re-read, but then it made absolute sense. Bit of a moot point (talking to myself); I'm planning on just staying out of the mainspace unless I've got interwikis that are obviously related.


 * Not to self: have to actually use use brain cells on Wiktionary. Dunno if I'll fit in here. ;) EVula // talk // 18:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Interwiki bots on the 'pedia, and the same sort operating under wiktionary rules (linking to same entry name), do tend to miss a lot because they need "hints", and only run on (for example) new entries. Our Interwicket bot uses an index of all 168 wikts, and updates every page that needs it on the en.wikt, so nothing gets missed. It is run through the whole wikt after each full XML dump is available. So you needn't worry.


 * Do note that we (like pedia) do not put iwikis on templates; they go on the Talk: page. cheers! Robert Ullmann 09:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That last bit about 'pedia interwikis going on template talk pages is not correct (check any WP template, like w:Template:AfD), and, in fact, I don't understand why we should be any different. It's not clear to me why the template namespace would be special in this regard (though we don't have to bother EVula's talk page with that discussion). Dmcdevit·t 09:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dmcdevit: look again. They are on the /doc subpage, not on the template. Just cause they transclude the /doc page when you look at the template doesn't put them in the template. Likewise, we put the doc on the Talk: page (and could transclude it with onlyinclude or LST, but I don't think anyone has bothered ;-) Robert Ullmann 10:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, my point was (as I said) that they don't go on talk pages on WP. My larger point is that it makes more sense for these links to go on the main template page, regardless of how it is done technically, be it through transclusion or whatever. If there is any use for interlanguage links at all, they are more useful displayed on the actual page they indicate, rather than less visible on the talk page. Dmcdevit·t 11:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * /doc subpages are not universally used, I've found, nor are they always actually useful. If I run across a template (on any project in any language) that has a documentation page, yes, I use that. However, I've never run across interwikis being placed directly on the talk page on any other projects (and I feel supremely confident that I have more direct experience with interwikis than most Wikimedia users).


 * If Wiktionary is alone in not putting interwikis on templates, that's... well, that's a unique take on it. However, that really doesn't make any sense (to the point of it making me go "what the hell?"), and doesn't seem to be something that is widely followed. I see that they are hidden away on Template talk:User fr, and then called up on Template:User fr, but that strikes me as a rather backwards way of doing things; why shuffle them off to a (technically) unrelated page? EVula // talk // 16:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Literal
Actually, you do not have to revert them. The interwiki bots will do it sooner or later. :) I just told you to avoid you possible further fruitless work. Regards. ---Piolinfax 18:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of making others clean up my messes, even if those others are bots. :) It's just a personal accountability thing for me. Thanks though. EVula // talk // 18:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

vampire
Please do not remove category tags and wp links. --EncycloPetey 17:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Since it was a legitimate edit, I'd appreciate it if you explained exactly why you reverted me. I'm also curious as to why you think a vampire is a mammal. EVula // talk // 17:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First, please go read all three definitions of vampire:. This will provide the answer to your second question, and will help you understand that your edit was not legitimate. --EncycloPetey 17:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough about the mammalian issue; legitimate mistake, my bad. However, I still think creating duplicate entries in the "in other projects" section is confusing, especially since the "External links" section comes under the Romanian heading, even though they link back to the English project, and are redundant to the box further up the page. (though I do understand the value of linking to the disambiguation page, it's still a bit confusing) EVula // talk // 17:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The confusion is a known problem that a few contributors here have actually improved over the situation a year ago. The problem comes from the fact that we have pages on individual words, while Wikipedia has pages on individual topics.  We always want to link to the disambiguation page, if there is one, and also to pages on topics that cover specific definitions.  However, in this case the External links appear in the Romanian section, which they should not.  They should be in the English section, because they are links to the English Wikipedia.  The Wikipedia box is a visual courtesy, and sometimes it does duplicate a link, but we never have more than one box in a language section (usually to a disambiguation page), whereas the "External links" should point to each specific article (and the disambiguation page) on Wikipedia.  --EncycloPetey 18:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, is there a way to tweak so that it doesn't kick out a redundant link? I understand the value in having a large visual cue to readers, but it'd be nice if we could have both the visual cue and only a single link to Vampire in the sidebar. Just a simple "|hidesidebar=yes" variable that would turn it off on an as-needed basis. EVula // talk // 18:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, no way to prevent a redundancy with the current system. The template is independent of the  template. It might be possible to devise a custom user setting to do that, but I'm not skilled enough to do so.  You could make an inquiry/request at WT:GP (our technical forum) and see what people think. --EncycloPetey 18:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, I might just play around with it later to see if I can get something working. EVula // talk // 18:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you do, I recommend playing with a template copy under a different name. Editing templates here is considered bad voodoo most of the time, without discussion. --EncycloPetey 18:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup yup, I know how the score goes. Not exactly my first wiki. ;) Besides, the template's fully protected anyway; I couldn't edit it even if I wanted to... EVula // talk // 18:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)