User talk:SenseiAC

--Barytonesis (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

clickbait
Usage examples aren't meant to be from outside Wiktionary; that's what quotations are for. Indeed, copying something from elsewhere and using it as an usage example is arguably a copyright violation. &mdash; surjection &lang;?&rang; 19:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Surjection and User:Jberkel: do you really think that the current example is relevant? Do you think that it gives an actual example of use of this word, i.e. something that shows the reader how the word can be used in some relevant context? Can you please tell me what the current example provide to the reader with respect to this word? (Knowing that you can just replace "clickbait" by whatever word in your sentence to make it waht you call an "example".) Can you please tell me what it gives in addition to the quotes? Can you please tell me what the point is to have a link to WT:BJAODN = Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense (!!!) behind “You'll never believe what happened next!”? (It doesn't use the word supposed to be examplified and doesn't provide anything relevant relative to it, plus obviously the non-relevance of the link itself.) I won't fight more about it, I have more interesting things to do, but this “example” does not seem to have anything that could make me thing that it is relevant, and I think that it is a really bad example of what a Wiktionary article can show to the readers (what really saddens me, since I think it is a great project). To finish, can you please give me any actual reason why it would be more a copyright violation here than in the quotes? (Given that I gave the source, including by a link, what unfortunately is often not the case in the supposed-to-be quotes...). SenseiAC (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, my bad (partially), I had not understood that the example here was supposed to be clickbait itself (and since clickbait has the “magic” ability to annoy me quite easily, it didn't help...). However, I think that “Example” is ambiguous, maybe voluntarily. Normally (I mean, besides the present article), is the “example” supposed to be an example of use of the word (as I supposed initially), or is it supposed to “materialise” the word (as e.g. here, where the example is clickbait by itself)? If it is the second option, it would not have been difficult to explain to me that I was misunderstanding the goal of this “example”! If it is the first option, I then keep (partially at least) my comments above. If it can be any of the two, chosen as the writer wishes to understand it, then “Example” is deliberately ambiguous and I am really not sure it is the clearest way to explain something to the reader. Anyway, there is one point about which I would in all cases not be convinced of the relevance: why have a link to “Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense”? Don't we have anything more encyclopedic to put as a link? (This question is rhetorical, obviously.) SenseiAC (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The link could just point to itself, instead of going to the jokes page. Or be removed (the link, not the text), and it would still be an example of a headline written to get clicks, without annoying/confusing users. – Jberkel 23:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean, making a red link? Why not. I am just a bit afraid that some people would attempt to create the page --> should the linked page be preemptively blocked from being creatable, knowing that it has no chance to become a real page? And what about my other previous question (especially which content “Example” is really supposed to have)? SenseiAC (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are usage examples (below the definitions) which show how the word is used (see WT:USEX). The example boxes on the right illustrate the word's concept with one more examples/instances (see, which has metonyms listed in the box). – Jberkel 09:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. Then OK, let's just change the link in the example. SenseiAC (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)