User talk:Brett

From Wiktionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hey. should attributive adjectives (e.g. legal, clean) be connected to article after the {{grammar context}} explanation is added? Minorax (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you rephrase or give me an example?--Brett (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For example
{{old}} When you language with someone ...
"old, no longer used" is linked to old
{{usually passive}} If something is pictured, it is shown in a picture.
"usually passive" is linked to passive
{{attrib}} A clean piece of paper ...
So where should "usually before a noun" be linked to? Minorax (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Link to attributive.--Brett (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Brett. Can you expand/fix this page? Thank you. --Minorax (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

done--Brett (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, please deal with this vandal if you are online. Thanks! Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,please tell this person to stop typing emojis.user: Linxi 1234 (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi,Brett I would like to know how to make a link . Linxi 1234 (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what kind of editor you're using and what kind of linke you want to make. The simple answer is, click the link icon. For more details: (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need to copy and paste the URL? Linxi 1234 (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried one to make a link .but it's a bit confusing. Linxi 1234 (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to link to and do you edit the source or do you use the visual editor?--Brett (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make a link on my user page.Then I deleted it. Linxi 1234 (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do you become an admin?I really want to be one. Linxi 1234 (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just have no idea how people become Bureaucrats. Linxi 1234 (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to be an admin, the best thing to do is work very hard for months, learning how the wiktionary works, adding high-quality content, and making useful improvements. When people see that you are trustworthy and competent, somebody will nominate you or you can nominate yourself. Then there is a vote.--Brett (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@koavf told me to ask you become an admin.I will follow your advice .But where do I start from? Linxi 1234 (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,Kaovf told me to ask you OR Minorax. Thanks! Linxi 1234 (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do you become a member of the small wiki monitoring team? Linxi 1234 (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Let's start with the basics. First, read. Look at a lot of dictionary entries. Look at how they are constructed. Look at how the exaplanations are worded. Look carefully at the formatting.
  2. Next, choose a word to create a new entry for by looking at the red words in this list: Wiktionary:BNC_spoken_freq_01, commentary, for example.
  3. Reread othe entries that are grammatically and semantically similar to the word you've chosen, and then look at other dictionaries to see how they've explained it. Do not copy these dictionaries. Think about how you would explain it in the style of the Simple English Wiktionary.
  4. Create the entry with the correct formatting and a clear explanation. Do it as well as you can, but don't worry if it's not great to start with.
  5. Look at the COCA collocations for the word you've chosen to see what words often appear together with your word and choose some sentences that exemplify the word well. Edit those sentences to make them short and simple.
  6. Write a few of these each day.
  7. After a few months, when you've produced a good body of work, then start thinking about other stuff.
  8. Finally, please, ask for help when you need it, but do your own reading before asking. That is to say, use the other members here as resources to clear up things that were not clear in the reading, rather than as your first stop for information.--Brett (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello. Hope you're doing well. Can you create a page for these entries: phonetic, clan and renaissance? Thanks in advance. --Minorax (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. What was the occasion?--Brett (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just had some problems in simplifying the explanation for these words. Minorax (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We sent you an e-mail[change]

Hello Brett,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At dawn, before dawn, go to school[change]

Are the nouns dawn, school countable here? The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language explains them as bare NPs with. It also explains them singular count counts, however, in this dictionary I saw that dawn is uncountable in the example "before dawn". Would you please shed some light on it? Saigudfin (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although nouns such as noon, dawn, sunset, morning, etc. can be counted (two mornings ago), they're not typically treated as countable nouns (e.g., it's noon; evening came and went). As for school, when we refer to the building, it is typically countable, while the social institution is uncountable. So, we have both I'm at the school, which means I'm at the building but not engaged in learning (maybe I'm picking up a child), and I'm at school, which means I'm engaged in the institution of school, whether I'm physically located in the building or not. We have similiar uses with work, hospital, synagogue, etc.--Brett (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I made that was reverted[change]

Hello! I’m Shift674. I noticed one of my edits was reverted on the word terminal, so I hope not to make a mistake like that again. I’m sort of confused though, as I removed only red links. Is there a rule for something like this? Thanks! Shift674 (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Shift674:. Thanks for the good faith edit! It was undone, rather than reverted. The red links are there for future words. Instead of unlinking them, you can add the word by clicking on it. Or you can just leave them as they are.--Brett (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Shift674 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm new here[change]

Hello Prof Brett. I am new here so please do spare me some slack. I am still trying to settle in and find my way around.

It is really quiet here. Is there a place where I can talk to other humans and work together? I am interested in helping out around here. (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, person
To be honest, there's not much of a community and very few discussions. If you have any questions, though, I'd be happy to try to answer them. I think the first thing to do is to make yourself a username.--Brett (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi prof Brett, sorry for the long time gap before my reply. Well Easter weekend came around, and okay to be honest, real life commitments got in the way as they tend to do, and with Simple Wiktionary being voluntary work... I won't be making an account yet, until I become more active and more committed. Don't want to make one more underused account at the moment.
I am above en-2, so I say tentatively en-3. At this level I can read and write more difficult texts, but conversely I find myself doing worse at writing simply and clearly. Instead, I have developed an interest in supporting a harmonious and cohesive community on simple WT.
I find the Project:Simple talk page problematic, for starters. It has too many newsletters from WMF and reads like my email choke full of corporate communications. Feedback if any gets lost. I do say we need a separate talk page for humans to talk to other humans in peace, our readers with our resident content creators, definitely not among blaring loudspeakers. This will be a step from only leaving profile messages like Telegram, towards Internet discussion boards. I do hope more wiki activity would not attract unsavory people, nevertheless promoting healthy communication between people does good for the project. I have some simple names for the fresh new discussion board, like Wiktionary:Talk (play around like WikiMedia and MediaWiki) or Wiktionary:Townhall. Then we can invite the recently active editors (like Tahmudxxxxx) to a get-to-know-each-other session. Sounds good? (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no harm in what you suggest, but I think starting a new community and making it into a community is much harder than you're anticipating.--Brett (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again prof. Been a while. I have been working on this on my own time, but I do worry that I have commitment-load problems. It does not look easy, but it can be worthwhile, so I will see how far I can bring it.
The draft with me now is as a bulletin board for the community. (Not the real one with felt and thumbtacks of course). From the top down, a notice board, an editor expertise and also research/volunteer(?) interests where editors can sign on, and finally the usual discussion sections. That's what 's with me now119.56.101.73 (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It exists, but it's not well used. The technology isn't the issue. The demand is.--Brett (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did suggest that that talk is too full of posters so it is in a bad state. So that is one of the main reasons for this.. project? (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
in theory, simple talk is for the whole community to talk. However there isn't much talk going on and the only thing that you'll see, because of that, are the automated announcements. --Ferien (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Brett! I'm pretty new to simple.wikt, and I was wondering if you could clarify the reason for deletion of the page Prohibition. I see from the page on the Renaissance that this wiki sometimes lists proper nouns under the heading of their corresponding common noun--is this wiki-wide practice? Should the US's Prohibition be defined under prohibition? Winthrop23 (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Winthrop23:. Sorry I got pulled away. I should have left an explanation. Please, add Prohibition to prohibition, as you see Rainaissance is part of renaissance.--Brett (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thank you! Winthrop23 (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions regarding what type of words are allowed on Simple Wiktionary[change]

Hello. I recently created a page about “turboencabulator” but it is deleted because it is not appropriate in this Wiktionary. I understand this because “turboencabulator” is an invented term.

But, what about other words like

-“turbogenerator”, “barium copper silicate”, etc. that sound a bit technical but are also English words?

-“lightsaber” that are fictional but are used a lot?

-“copypasta”, “creepypasta”, etc. that are internet slangs?

I know these words are on regular English Wikipedia, but I’m not sure if they are also appropriate on Simple Wikipedia. Thanks. --Trezoo (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word should be in common use. You should be able to find it regularly in published sources, movies, TV shows, dictionaries, etc. The word should generally be a word. So something like capital city would not typically appear because it's just the sum of capital and city. But we do include common phrases that have a distinct meaning as a phrase that may not be predictable from the meanings of the individual words. For more detail, see Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion.--Brett (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Trezoo (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I was on the fence with the phrase "between two" in the context of a collision because I wasn't sure it was simple enough. I was afraid the double meaning of between: in the middle, and involving, would be a source of confusion. What are your thoughts there? I very much appreciate your input. Thanks! --Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's always important to think about simplicity, so kudos for doing so! In the context of a word like collision, I think that collision between two is simple enough. It's also a very strong collocation, and one important aspect of the examples is to exemplify the most common patterns in which the word is used.--Brett (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]