Help talk:How to edit a page

French

I added the link for Templates because I could never find the link when I was editing a page, so I thought I would put it here as a suggestion. -- Kiwiinapanic 06:54, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This site (and page) really needs a Page Template. And I'm not talking about those little {{}} things that are called "templates" in Wiki; I'm talking about a full "straw-man / fill-in-the-blanks" template page. Wiktionary:Article template 128.107.253.41 05:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The suggestion for linking to Wikipedia seems not to be in-line with current practice.

In addition, is there some way of automatically generating the Link to Wikipedia article on... text which does seem to be used currently, to save it being repeated (and taking up bytes!) on every page that contains a link? trunkie 14:19, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is, see w:Wikipedia:Template namespace. I don't know if anyone has currently created a template for this use, but it wouldn't hurt to make your own. You could probably name it something like Template:WpLink (short is good, hell you could probably make it just Template:Wp), content would be something like ] and usage would be {{WpLink|Word|WpArticle}}, i.e. {{WpLink|cricket|cricket (sport)}} would output Wikipedia article on cricket. Also, it's best to keep things simple. You don't need to include something like a ===See Also=== header, that makes it harder to include any similar templates. --Jshadias 15:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I use either {{wikipedia}}, {{pedialite}} or {{wikipedia2}}. I don't think they've been around for a year, but they have been active for a while now. --Connel MacKenzie 09:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

{(Eclipse1973 (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC))}Reply

What's the general behavior on redirecting commonly misspelled words to the correct ones? Should I redirect pages like irrelevent to irrelevant, or just leave them? --Jshadias 15:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the rewrite Ncik did here was a good thing. I like especially that it remained (properly) short, as it is a brief introduction. It now seems like a coherent page. Well done. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is there a facility to link to a particular wicktionary definition, rather than simply one of the part of speech section headers?

Not yet. — Vildricianus 22:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Any closer yet? Is anyone actually working on it? (I've been hunting for any hint of this, or a place to suggest it, so it's good to see someone else saw the need.)

But I suspect it's in the ] because if you had a method to create a link to a particular target definition within an etymology and POS, how do you update that link if other etymologies or definitions are added before it, changing the target definition number? Do you add software functions to the "Save page" routines to check any links to the page for numbered references, look up the previous version to get the old etymology and definition numbers and work out the new etymology and definition numbers by matching the new and old definition texts (as if they wouldn't have been boldly edited too!)? Or maybe when any definition is first created it is given a unique big ID number (automatically generated, and hidden), which the definition keeps regardless of it's position number on the page? Hard to do in a free-form, plain-text editing environment. Might need the "page template" idea mentioned above and have fields for each definition, so the field has the unique number. But still, someone would "correct" a definition without changing its number or position, and the definition would no longer be what was intended! So, a bot to report all such changes to a lucky admins so they can manually check that the links still make sense? Hmmm. -- Bricaniwi 01:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Our current "best idea" (that I know of) would be to use Glosses and hope that the gloss is unique for every sense on the page. This would require manually adding the gloss to every definition line, and yes, manually fixing the cases where the gloss is edited at one end and not the other (though it is actually possible quite often to match a gloss to a definition, so it may be partially automatable). The major barrier now is firstly persuading people that yes, we really do want a gloss that summarises the definition on the definition line, and secondly converting the several million definitions we have already (it is likely that it will have to be done semi-manually). Once we've done that, then we can start benefiting from it. (I hope that, eventually, we'll get some syntax to help us, otherwise what is currently # definition will have to be {{d|gloss|definition}} which is considerably moer work. Even when it is done, we have the problem that re-editing pages often leads to totally different sets of definitions, though providing the gloss was correct enough it should semantically still match one (or two) of the new definitions and so a human can rectify it. Conrad.Irwin 01:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is me or there is not yet a way to make link from one language subdomain to an other? Could be useful for heading like ===Translations===. For exemple, see Happy_New_Year. Someone have try to link unexisting english entries to original language ones but this work is actualy lost even if it was, I think, a good idea. In wikis, multilingualism is at its very beginning. No multilingual account, got to manage an account by spoken language. No multinlingual search nor the possibility to ask to do the same search in an other language. I constantly have to re-type the subdomain myself to quickly switch from languages to languages. w:fr:Utilisateur:Lacrymocéphalefr:w:Utilisateur:Lacrymocéphale (a consequence: no possibility to aim a wikipedia page of an other language) 82.245.156.14 20:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

This can be done with {{t}}. See Wiktionary:About Hungarian#Hungarian translations for English words for some examples of how this works. --EncycloPetey 20:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

For the interlingual link, it was my "mistake". I still don't really understood why ] was not good and need an underscore instead of a space... No it doesn't! I try back what I have tried before getting upset and it all works! Driving me nut...

But you shouldn't link from the English page for Happy New Year to the French Wikipedia page about the celebration. You should only link to Wiktionnaire in the translation. You can see how this is done on the page now. --EncycloPetey 20:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's a link to the french wiktionary page for the expression in the translation part. And it is now added.

I see that you have added the 't' template since. Thank you. I think it's better than the "(fr)" trick.

I don't think it is ever advisable to point fr.wiki to en.wikt:. You are supposed to point to fr.wikt:'s copy of those words, from fr.wikipedia, since Wiktionnaire has a copy of English words and French words, there is little point in explicitly confusing readers. --Connel MacKenzie 20:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I won't do encyclopédik link from en.wp to fr.wik or such. It was just because there is no cross-account. Some one working on wikipédia might work on wiktionary one day and maybe in several languages. This was a community contest cross linking I was trying to my french user page on wikipédia. I don't want to register myself on every "sub" project! :)

I'm sorry for having mixing subjects.

• first, I thought there was a problem with interlingual links inside the wiktionary.org domain. There was no problem, the ] is working well. But this mistake and message bring me the 't' template usage knowledge and it's a great deal so thank you.
• second, I was thinking about the multilingual wikis community and the difficulty we have to manage our accounts. I thought I could sign with a link to my fr.wikipedia.org user page to save the time of creating an account here but without let unsigned my entry in the discussion. It's actualy impossible with simplicity like with a ]. It could be called "an utopic RFE" :)

Some improvements to facilitate access to mobile browser editors (i.e. editors that use Symbian phones - ). 1. They cannot easily include carriage returns, so add a link when editing to easily include them 2. Create"== New header == " to easily add new headers.--JackPotte 20:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

• To complete the edition mode buttons, it's possible to use the Firefox module: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1347, by setting a template like:

==English==
===Alternative spellings===
===Etymology===
From {{prefix|||lang=en}}
===Pronunciation===
*{{audio|{{PAGENAME}}.ogg|audio}}
* {{a|UK}} {{IPA|//|lang=en}}, {{SAMPA|//|lang=en}}
* {{a|US}} {{IPA|//|lang=en}}, {{SAMPA|//|lang=en}}
* Phonetic transcriptions
* Audio files in any relevant dialects
* Rhymes
* Homophones
* Hyphenation
===Noun===
{{en-noun}}
Declension
# Meaning 1
#* Quotations
# Meaning 2
#* Quotations
     etc.
====Usage notes====
====Synonyms====
====Antonyms====
====Derived terms====
{{der-top|}}
{{der-mid}}
{{der-bottom}}
====Related terms====
====Translations====
{{trans-top|}}
* French: {{t|fr|}}
{{trans-bottom}}
====References====
====External links====
===Verb===
Conjugation
# Meaning 1
#* Quotations
     etc.
====Usage notes====
====Synonyms====
====Antonyms====
====Derived terms====
====Related terms====
====Translations====
====Descendants====
====References====
====External links====
===Anagrams===
]

• To check if a Wikimedia article exists and read it without going into (for instance from another article which would reference to it), use the following module: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7675. JackPotte 20:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Lupin's popups do the same.​—msh210℠ 21:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

• To "search and replace" one article characters by another ones by pressing one key: https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/6510.
• To be corrected while writing: https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/3366. JackPotte 22:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Re "I have used an unusual word in a definition" in the Links section: Sorry, I know it's just an example, but newcomers could be confused (reverted even), by this example "definition" which includes a link. Definitions are not supposed to have links in them, and they are not supposed to have unusual words in them either - see Help:FAQ#Wikifying. I've expanded this page a lot, but I'm hesitant to remove someone else's work without discussion. Any thoughts? Thanks. -- Bricaniwi 15:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

But, I have just re-visited Wiktionary:Entry_layout_explained#Definitions and see a clear instruction: "The key terms of a definition should be wikified." This sent me back to check Help:FAQ#Wikifying again, and this article. Now I see Help:FAQ#Wikifying is talking about example sentences: "None of the words in example sentences or quotations should be wikified."

The example in the Links section is NOT misleading, it is fine. I have struck out my query. My apologies, I was confused. Thanks, -- Bricaniwi 20:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Being a positive sort of fellow myself, I have taken the bold liberty of putting the reference to manners in the Signing section in the positive mode. I'll cite copiously if you like, but I think it's common knowledge now that the attitudes and behaviour you want and expect are the ones you should talk about. Cheers, Bricaniwi 16:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

When you write a definition onWikitionary , you do not sign it. You only sign on comment . 173.178.93.250 22:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

What about putting Help:Edit on your talk page? 173.178.93.250 22:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

This article doesn't say how to list references correctly. I tried using help, but I still could not do it correctly.50.103.226.135 18:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

An apostrophe, a single (opening or closing) quotation mark, and a typewriter tickmark are all different. —DIV (1.136.105.199 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC))Reply