User talk:Mjquinn id

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * Wiktionary Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to start a page
 * Our layout policy (nicknamed "ELE")
 * Criteria for inclusion (nicknamed "CFI")
 * Wiktionary Sandbox (a safe place for testing syntax)
 * What Wiktionary is not
 * FAQ

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

—Ruakh TALK 00:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Categories
P.S. You recently created [[:Category:Racquet Sports]], but I think Category:Racquet s ports]] would be a better title. Also, you added a comment at [[racquetball]] that it should eventually be removed from [[:Category:Sports]], but I don't think that's true. —Ruakh TALK 00:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nuts, You are absolutely right about "Racquet sports"! I will put in a Speedy rename Monday.
 * With regard to racquetball, I was assuming the category standard where articles should not belong to both a parent and child category...? -- Mjquin id 06:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: speedying [[:Category:Racquet Sports]]: no need, done. (I'm an admin here, which makes life faster. :-P)
 * Re: category standard: I believe that's Wikipedia's standard, but it's not ours, at least for lexical categories; for example, Spanish infinitives in undefined: are categorized both into [[:Category:Spanish verbs ending in -ir]] and into [[:Category:Spanish verbs ending in -&iacute;r]], the latter being a subcategory of the other. For topic categories it might make sense to follow Wikipedia's norm, but AFAIK that's not our current practice. ( would know, if you want to ask him.)
 * I hope you like it here; we're very different from Wikipedia in a lot of ways, which sometimes really throws people for a loop, but once you get used to that, I think you'll find a lot to like here. :-)
 * —Ruakh TALK 14:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Page moves
(to Ruakh) I really appreciate your help. I am trying to expand tennis entries both here and there, but am finding it hard to find policies in order to understand the difference. I found tennis racket, which I think is inaccurate, but am not sure what to do with it. I proposed "tennis racquet", but had someone else just propose basically eliminating the seeparate page in favor of just a definition line on the racquet page; which actually might be more like a "dictionary". But where could I find a policy regarding "non-single word" terms or "derived" terms and how they should be created? -- (I appreciate your support) Mjquin id 18:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

unless
I've done my best ... to fulfill your request ... unless you object to the quote that I got ... and what you'd object to I know not. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 01:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Spectacular! -- Mjquin id 05:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

tennis racket et al
I have rolled back your changes. Our procedures differ from Wikipedia's. We have WT:RFD and WT:RFV processes. We also have WT:TR for questions about an entry. DCDuring TALK 12:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All due respect, I was trying to follow that procedure, but really was hoping to find a Template:merge tag...which would have been more appropriate...WT:RFD doesn't give me much about the "procedure" for tagging..or proposing...?? -- Mjquin id 20:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about your partially wasted effort. By my taste/interpretation, both tennis racket and tennis racquet do not fit our rules for inclusion (WT:CFI. But take a look at fried egg and hippie movement. Then follow the link to the RfV discussion of hippie movement. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...I don't believe they meet criteria for inclusion either...that is why I tried to tag them as "proposed for deletion", but I did not know about the "verification" phase...which is what I am trying to promote them for now. (Though I found a cute "merge" template...which actually does not say "merge"...) Still learning...ever learning... -- Mjquin id 23:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)