Wiktionary talk:Entry layout/archive 2012-2018
| This is an archive page that has been kept for historical purposes. The conversations on this page are no longer live. |
Remove part about wikifying language names
The translations section currently says:
- The names of languages which are expected to be well-known among English speakers are not to be wikified, while language names which may not be known to the average person or are potentially subject to confusion are to be wikified. Details and a list of affected languages are listed on Wiktionary:Translations/Wikification.
I propose removing this as languages are no longer wikified at all per consensus. —CodeCat 15:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- I support your proposal. - -sche (discuss) 17:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Where's the link to that consensus? --Daniel 14:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/ELE text about wikifying language names. --Daniel 10:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Homonym example and flapping
As far as I know, flapping only takes place between vowel sounds, so "right" would not have a flapped "t" and would not, therefore, be a homonym of "ride".
Thus, the example should be changed from "right" to "writer" (or something like that), as in the running text preceding the example. -- pne (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're right (no pun intended), but because of the way Wiktionary policy pages are maintained, it will unfortunately take a massive amount of bureaucracy to get it changed. —Angr 08:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Are there dialects where writer and rider are homophones? In my dialect (Inland Northern American English), both words have , but they're non-homophonous due to a form of Canadian raising (which affects writer, pronounced something like , and not rider, which is pronounced something like ). Are there dialects that flap both /t/ and /d/, but that don't exhibit Canadian raising in /aɪ/? (Feel free to just say "yes". I really have no idea.) And even in pairs where the vowel is not /aɪ/, so doesn't get raised before /t/, the vowel before /d/ is frequently longer. There certainly do exist some flapping-specific homophones, but we should consult authoritative sources for specific examples rather than trying to reason out what words seem like they should be homophones. —RuakhTALK 12:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe an example with a short vowel would be better, like bidder and bitter? —CodeCat 12:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Writer and rider are homophones for me since I don't have Canadian-style raising, but I agree an example with a short vowel, like bitter/bidder or latter/ladder would probably be better. —Angr 19:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Capitalisation exceptions
I suggest SENĆOŦEN words be mentioned in the capitalisation exceptions. Nickshanks (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Occasional use of {{l}} in translations
I thinks it's justified to use {{l}}, instead of {{t}} in translations when the translation is totally SoP:
Here's a section from WT:ARU about a translation for time-consuming, which has no full equivalent in Russian:
Translations for terms not having an equivalent in Russian can be split into individual words and link to lemma forms, {{l}} can be used instead of {{t}} in this case.
* Russian: {{l|ru|требовать|требующий}} {{l|ru|много}} {{l|ru|время|времени}} (trébujuščij mnógo vrémeni)
Resulting in: требующий (trebujuščij) много (mnogo) времени (vremeni) (trébujuščij mnógo vrémeni)
Also, we should mention the alt when using {{t}}, like in the Japanese translation for tired:
* Japanese: {{t+|ja|疲れる|alt=疲れた|tr=つかれた, tsukareta}}
Resulting in: 疲れた (ja) (つかれた, tsukareta)
The translation links to the lemma form 疲れる but displays 疲れた. --Anatoli (обсудить) 02:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- That might work. I've long wondered how best to handle these sorts of translations, and that might be a sensible solution. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. These methods have already been in use by a few editors. Do I need a broader agreement to add this? --Anatoli (обсудить) 22:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- What are the pros and cons of
{{l}}compared to{{t-SOP}}? —RuakhTALK 23:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)- One I have heard about, the other I haven't...? After looking at it, it seems that
{{t-SOP}}has no advantages over{{l}}, and one disadvantage: it doesn't let you link to language sections unless you link to them yourself, which defeats the point of using it instead of{{l}}... —CodeCat 23:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- One I have heard about, the other I haven't...? After looking at it, it seems that
- I didn't think of
{{t-SOP}}. I've seen it used but way less common than{{l}}. Both produce a similar result, so I don't mind if either method becomes "official" or recommended. --Anatoli (обсудить) 00:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't think of
- Following up on my earlier comment . . . one "con" of
{{l}}is that it italicizes the transliteration, which{{t}}does not. Anatoli works around that above by putting the transliteration outside the{{l}}, but that's kind of ugly. ({{t-SOP}}is also ugly, as CodeCat points out, but maybe there's a non-ugly solution somewhere?) —RuakhTALK 00:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Following up on my earlier comment . . . one "con" of
- Perhaps amend
{{t-SOP}}so it can link to language sections by itself? Just a thought. --BiblbroX дискашн 22:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps amend
- I don't think it's possible or easy to add links to language section because there are multiple words but thanks for the suggestion. --Anatoli (обсудить) 01:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is possible if you use one parameter in the template for every word. The downside of that is that it makes it harder to override the displayed word (for macrons and accents) in a neat way. —CodeCat 01:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- If there are no objections, I'll formalise the (occasional) usage of
{{l}}in translations for SoP and non-idiomatic translations, OK? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- If there are no objections, I'll formalise the (occasional) usage of
- I have added the two exceptions using Russian examples. I hope it was clear and understandable. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
unlimited possibilities
Buried in WT:ELE is the line "Other sections with other trivia and observations may be added, either under the heading "Trivia" or some other suitably explanatory heading. Because of the unlimited range of possibilities, no formatting details can be provided." But we don't actually want an unlimited number of different headers, do we? (AFAIK there's ===Trivia=== in 40 entries and ===Statistics=== in some more.) - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, we don't. Personally, I'd prefer all the nonstandard ones to be ===Usage notes=== or ===Statistics===. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- In principle, we need the flexibility of unlimited possibilities for PoS headers. I am still hoping for someone to propose some clever replacements for the 'nym' headers, which I often use despite their questionable intelligibility to most infrequent users. But I'd like there to be some approval process for such things. BTW, we also have some English entries with the ===Shorthand=== header, which should be kept as a cautionary example for grand projects. DCDuring TALK 03:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have replaced non-conforming wiki-headers with conforming ones where I could, but have converted some to bold using ";" at the beginning of the line. See кӀон. This defeats Autoformat, and may postpone the day when we have appropriate templates for Adyghe pronoun declensions, but seems an acceptable kludge to me. DCDuring TALK 03:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from the page user talk:msh210.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Just a note:
I would be glad to support moving the enPR vote links from WT:ELE to WT:PRON and/or WT:AEN, if needed, as long as these destinations become full-fledged completely-voted policies. At this moment, I believe the current place is the best place for those links to be findable and usable. --Daniel 00:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- They are IIRC only on what to call enPR; since ELE doesn't mention the term "enPR", a link to them is AFAICT completely out of place.—msh210℠ 21:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
For future reference, the above is about diff.—msh210℠ 22:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Literal translation of idioms
I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask, but since it has to do with where to place information in an entry, I guess this is good enough. If an idiom in a language other than English is given a definition, often the idiomatic translation is given. But because it's an idiom, it might be totally different from the literal meaning. It's probably good to provide the literal translation too, at least so that the idiom might be easier to follow. But where should it be placed? It's not really part of the definition, but is it etymology? Not really either... —CodeCat 19:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's etymology; why do you say that it isn't? —RuakhTALK 19:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- When I think of etymology for a phrase, I think more about why the phrase came to mean that, and what words it consists of. But its literal meaning doesn't really seem like an origin, especially for fossilised phrases that were coined for a literal meaning that was originally different from what it is today. —CodeCat 20:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Re: "fossilised phrases that were coined for a literal meaning that was originally different from what it is today": in such a case, I think that the original/correct literal meaning is all that should go in the etymology. If the term could be interpreted literally today (that is — none of the terms are obsolete, but some of the specific relevant senses are), then that might be fodder for a parenthetical aside or for a usage note, depending on whether such an misinterpretation is actually relevant in some way to usage. (See don't ask, don't tell for one instance where such a misunderstanding affected usage in a way that demanded a usage note.) —RuakhTALK 21:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I fully agree, and I believe that this accurately reflects current formatting standards. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I've edited WT:Etymology to mention it. —CodeCat 11:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- I fully agree, and I believe that this accurately reflects current formatting standards. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
See also
Wiktionary:Style guide. - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Done (I've added a "see also" link to the bottom of the page) - -sche (discuss) 07:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
"Typical entry" contradicts order of headings
WT:ELE#Order of headings lists the "descendants" header immediately before the "Translations" header. However, the "typical entry" shown in the WT:ELE#Additional headings section shows an entry with a Descendants section right after a Translations section. Does anyone know which order is correct? Does the incorrect one need a vote to fix it? --Yair rand (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's fairly rare for English entries to contain a descendants header, so I don't think there is really an established practice. I think translations should come first, though. —CodeCat 22:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be rare, though; there are hundreds if not thousands of English loanwords floating around among the world's languages, not to mention the vocabulary of all the English-lexified creoles. —Angr 19:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Seconding CC: translations of this term first, links to other terms after. —Michael Z. 2013-06-12 00:22 z
- I'd agree with the after-translations position. Which wouldn't be a bad place for cognates, too. I hope we don't need a vote. But we should take it to the Beer Parlor. DCDuring TALK 00:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Seconding CC: translations of this term first, links to other terms after. —Michael Z. 2013-06-12 00:22 z
- The Order of Headings section follows the VOTE we had on the issue, so it is the order we decided upon. There were no opposing votes in that decision. "Descenadants" should come before "Translations" in the rare situations where both sections appear. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Pronunciation before Etymology
Since when did we start practicing that instead of placing the etymology header before the pronunciation header? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- One example I edited: тәмәке. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Lots of editors seem to just prefer it that way and do what they please. There are some ELE-compliant instances in which the pronunciation is shared by more than one etymology, though one would wonder whether the homophony applied over the entire period covered. DCDuring TALK 11:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- In most cases, it probably did; in other cases, the earlier pronunciation difference would better be shown at the Middle Foo/Old Foo entries than at the Modern Foo entry. In the few remaining cases, we can use
{{sense}}inside the Pronunciation section to say that the two etymologies were formerly pronounced differently. —Angr 11:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- In most cases, it probably did; in other cases, the earlier pronunciation difference would better be shown at the Middle Foo/Old Foo entries than at the Modern Foo entry. In the few remaining cases, we can use
- Lots of editors seem to just prefer it that way and do what they please. There are some ELE-compliant instances in which the pronunciation is shared by more than one etymology, though one would wonder whether the homophony applied over the entire period covered. DCDuring TALK 11:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
"expression"
I just searched the page for "expression", to find out if there's a section for it, or whether those fit in "derived terms", and didn't make a hit. It seems to me that this word should be in here somewhere. --Jerome Potts (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Wouldn't expressions fit under the "Phrase" part of speech header? —CodeCat 02:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Quotations
For quotations and examples, suggest a link to Wiktionary:Quotations. For example, there is used:
# Definition 1
# #: Quotation 1 of definition 1
instead of :
# Definition 1
#: Quotation 1 of definition 1
--Lagoset (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- There is a link to Wiktionary:Quotations.
- Why would we want to make the change you recommend in probably scores of thousands of instances?
A rationale for a change is always helpful, especially, when it involves a change in a long-standing and widely used practice. DCDuring TALK 15:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- A quick test shows that the spaced between "#" and "#" means that the second "#" appears. Without a space it breaks our way of hiding quotations. The second could be fixed if we still have the talent around, but I don't see the advantage of numbering quotations. They can be referred to by their date, which conveys more information than a mere number, with any disambiguation provided by "first", et seq. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
minor error
Found a minor error, but I don't have permission to edit this page. In section 3.3.4 Synonyms, the third rule should read (bolded word change): Use one line for each definition, beginning each line with a bullet. Otherwise it seems like each synonym should be on its own line. Origamidesigner (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I hope others also view it as a minor error, rather than one requiring discussion at WT:BP or, worse, a vote. DCDuring TALK 21:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
External links before or after Anagrams?
At the indeed entry, the final three sections on the page are:
- L3 Statistics
- L3 External links
- L3 Anagrams
The order of the last two of these feels wrong to me - links to external websites (excluding references and inline links) should (imho) come after all internal content. WT:ELE is essentially silent about this issue - the only occurrence of the two together is in the "Additional headings" example has an L4 External links section preceding an L3 Anagrams section. Anagrams are dealt with in the "Anagrams and other trivia" section, which says it should be under an L3 heading and implies that it should be placed before a references section, which is elsewhere noted as occurring before an external links section. The word "Statistics" does not appear on the ELE page at all, and so I am assuming it falls under the "other trivia" portion. There is no mention of what order multiple trivia headings should be in.
I would therefore like to suggest that the order is changed so that where "External links" sections appear, they are always the last header at that level. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Due to a vote sister project links (eg, wikipedia, wikispecies, wikicommons) are also "External links". There are many occasions where long right-hand side ToCs would push sister-project link boxes into language sections in which they do not belong, so External links is a better location. To put such links after trivia like anagrams seems very, very wrong to me. I don't know that a vote to "clarify" this will be productive, but we could go that route. DCDuring TALK 02:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Irregular definition headers?
Where a definition is preceded by a single "#" for list markup, should that symbol always be followed by a space? For example, in the results for this query the definitions under the "verb" part of speech appear as follows. (Please note the lack of a space between the "#" and the first curly brace.)
#{{label|en|intransitive|archaic}} To ]; to ], be lucky.
...
#{{label|en|transitive|archaic}} To ] someone, to give them fortune; to aid or favour.
...
(etc.)
Having just begun to work with Wiktionary queries, I have found this to be unusual; most entries seem to have a space there. Should one expect the "#" symbol to be followed by a space? Texwaldo (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's nicer to have the space, and most entries have it, but not all of them do. You're free to add the space if you want to, but it's not a huge deal. —CodeCat 18:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Judging from User:AutoFormat#POS sections, AutoFormat used to add the space automatically where needed. So yes, with space would be the standard-ish format, WT:ELE's examples also have the space. --Daniel 18:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Judging from User:AutoFormat#POS sections, AutoFormat used to add the space automatically where needed. So yes, with space would be the standard-ish format, WT:ELE's examples also have the space. --Daniel 18:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- This is by far not the only irregularity. You ll come across them as you proceed with your scraper(?)--Dixtosa (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Since it makes no difference to display, it's a matter of no importance. For your own entries, do whatever you like. For existing entries, don't bother changing what's there. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Much appreciation for responses. Daniel's answer gets a starred checkmark. (@Dixtosa - Was afraid of that; and...yes, scraping.) Texwaldo (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Since it makes no difference to display, it's a matter of no importance. For your own entries, do whatever you like. For existing entries, don't bother changing what's there. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- This is by far not the only irregularity. You ll come across them as you proceed with your scraper(?)--Dixtosa (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Paronyms
In the French Wiktionary we publish a "Paronyms" header in our structure. A quick look today showed me some "Paronyms" sections, but actually it's not here. So I propose to add it to enlarge the internal links to the words which look like themselves without being anagrams, like this. JackPotte (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
not intuitive at all
§ A very simple example includes as item #3
- the word itself (using the correct headword template)
with a footnote consisting of a link to Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-10/Headword line (discussion and voting on a recent set of proposed edits to policies about the headword line). Proposal #3 there concerns Wiktionary:Entry layout#Headword line. In the discussion, under Oppose, item #6, DAVilla (talk • contribs) wrote (emphasis added):
- From the Entry Layout page, where we are instructed to use "the correct headword template", the contributor can just intuitively scroll down to the section on the Headword Line, click on the last link for Headword Line Templates "for those who prefer this technique", go to the category for Headword-Line Templates by Language, find English Headword-Line Templates under E, and then click on the template name suspected to match the desired part of speech to hopefully read the intended purpose of that template and maybe even how to use it, presuming it's not something strange like -fucking- which requires use of
{{head|en|infix}}.
Distinguo:* It is not intuitive. It may seem so for one already familiar with Wiktionary and its conventions, abbreviations, and so on, but it does not work for the novice. (I should qualify that term: I've been editing Wikipedia for 10 years, with over 10,000 edits, but I have done comparatively little editing on Wiktionary.) The section should have a link from the expression "the correct headword template" to the section on the Headword Line, or directly to Wiktionary:Templates#Headword-line templates. But the file is protected, and I can't edit it, so I am requesting the change here.
* (And I would like to add this definition of "distinguo", but I hesitate from unfamiliarity. Besides, though I know I have read of it explicitly described as a term from English university debate, I can't recall the reference.)
--Thnidu (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Thnidu: I linked "the correct headword template" to WT:EL#Headword line as you requested. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Daniel Carrero: Thanks. :-) --Thnidu (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Thnidu: You're welcome!
- I'd like to clarify something: @DAVilla was being sarcastic in the text you quoted from Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-10/Headword line, so I don't think he actually believes people would "intuitively" scroll down to the right section. I take his remark as a criticism of WT:EL, unfortunately the policy has its flaws. I've been proposing new edits to the policy lately. If you spot any other problems in the page, let us know. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Daniel Carrero: Thanks. :-) --Thnidu (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Interwiki
Hi! There is not pt:Wikcionário:Livro de estilo in the interwikis list. Please add it. --Luan (discussão) 22:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
L4 header missing at #Additional_headings
Beneath the usage examples and before the usage notes, the L4 "Declension" is missing completely in the example list. Korn (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge can you add this (probably as "Inflection")? been this way for a while. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem. That list is merely an example; below that, a more complete list of headers is given. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Pronunciation position in words with multiple etymologies
Should the pronunciation really be nested under the etymology 1, 2, .. headers in words with multiple etymologies, but the same pronunciation? Never really seen that anywhere, the pronunciation is always above the first etymology in those entries (lame, dam, etc) but would be incorrect according to the Etymology guidelines on this page, which shows the pronunciation twice, nested for each etymology. — Kleio (t · c) 19:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, it is our common practice to put the pronunciation first when all etymologies are homophones. This page should be edited to reflect that. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Does that need to be voted on at all? It seems like a tiny change. — Kleio (t · c) 20:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I won't revert you if you change it without a vote, but someone else might, and if they do, then I guess there has to be a vote. *Sigh* —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the page's locked, so I can't do it myself either way. — Kleio (t · c) 22:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I won't revert you if you change it without a vote, but someone else might, and if they do, then I guess there has to be a vote. *Sigh* —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Does that need to be voted on at all? It seems like a tiny change. — Kleio (t · c) 20:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Before the first language section
I'd add a line to section "Before the first language section" to mention that a bot (User:Orphicbot) deals with the {{also}} stuff--Derrib9 (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Why does this need to be mentioned? --WikiTiki89 14:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps so that us human editors don't need to worry about adding it. --Derrib9 (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- This page doesn't have to talk about it in order for us to stop worrying. Anyway, the also-adding bot is not perfect yet, so we still have to worry about it. --WikiTiki89 17:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The precedence of English
- Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/November#Splitting pages by language (again).
- Can we move this discussion to the Beer Parlour? — Ungoliant (falai) 12:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sure.__Gamren (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Shortcut
I've redirected WT:ALTER to the section Alternative forms. Could {{shortcut|WT:ALTER}} be added to that section? — Eru·tuon 01:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
what if an alternative spelling corresponds only to one sense?
Russian letter э, but also an interjection with some variation in spelling. d1g (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Better now? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I like current appearance, but not sure if bot owners would appreciate it. It would be more complex to parse all variations of layout. d1g (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe the Wikidata project can treat alternative spellings as features of individual definitions and allow us to present the information in a form more suitable to humans until the project can take over the responsibility for converting such detail to a layout well-suited for us meat machines. DCDuring TALK 17:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- nouns with few values (e.g. multiplication as process) - map well to Wikidata items: Q40276
- Current problem on WD part is that you cannot assign qualifiers to labels (about "borrowing from" or "start date" or "popularized by"). Wikidata shows perspective on the process, not on each label in each language.
- Current problem on WT part is that Module:Wikidata (present at Commons, Wikidata) is missing, we can't use WD items at WT. d1g (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- nouns with few values (e.g. multiplication as process) - map well to Wikidata items: Q40276
- Maybe the Wikidata project can treat alternative spellings as features of individual definitions and allow us to present the information in a form more suitable to humans until the project can take over the responsibility for converting such detail to a layout well-suited for us meat machines. DCDuring TALK 17:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I like current appearance, but not sure if bot owners would appreciate it. It would be more complex to parse all variations of layout. d1g (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I think what we currently do is to list the alternative spelling under an ====Alternative forms==== heading, and adding before the spelling {{sense|to indicate doubt, disgust}}. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- {{sense|Q40276|multiplication, process}}
- third parameter potentially can use label from Wikidata (in native language, not just English) d1g (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The current version of the text initially had me wonder whether the template would somehow autonomously go through the databank as a 'bot' to find all terms similar to "pan" and list them.
thanks, KaiKemmann (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@KaiKemmann: That might be tough to do. For instance, in entries on characters, the things linked by— Eru·tuon{{also}}are frequently other characters that look similar: for an example, see the page for the pharyngeal fricative symbol in the International Phonetic Alphabet, ʕ. At the moment, the links in{{also}}are often added by bot, so it's semi-automated.
- I think Kai is proposing adding this example to clarify that someone (user or bot) must specify which forms are similar, which seems sensible. - -sche (discuss) 02:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oops. — Eru·tuon 02:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think Kai is proposing adding this example to clarify that someone (user or bot) must specify which forms are similar, which seems sensible. - -sche (discuss) 02:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Perfect, -sche,
thank you.
And please excuse my misleading description of what I meant to say, Erutuon.
--KaiKemmann (talk) 09:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Interwikis
@Daniel Carrero: Actually, we don't — interwikis are no longer a part of entry layout. Secondly, what could be more bureaucratically stupid than putting something back in that is wrong because you want it to be right? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- It's a good point that interwikis are no longer part of entry layout. Now that I think of it, it would be like using WT:EL to explain the buttons "Privacy policy About Wiktionary Disclaimers Developers Cookie statement Mobile view" or the Wiktionary logo or the search button. They just appear automatically by design and are not affected by the wikitext in entries.
- For a moment there, I was thinking we could edit the existing section "Interwiki links" to explain that the code ] still works in entries, but I guess in practice we'll never actually need it, so I support removing the section. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- This is about entry layout in wikitext. Interwikis are no longer in the wikitext, so they don't need to be mentioned here at all. —CodeCat 18:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. I said that in my message above. You were better than me at summarizing it, though. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- This is about entry layout in wikitext. Interwikis are no longer in the wikitext, so they don't need to be mentioned here at all. —CodeCat 18:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Definitions of foreign languages
Some words in foreign languages are strong related to many of the definitions of an English word, but not exactly all of them. Since many of the definitions do not have distinctive context labels that only applies in a restricted context they cannot be interpreted clearly by using an alike context label. Therefore which is the "correct editing style"?:
A:
# ]
## blah, blah
## blahblah
## third blah
or
B:
# ], blah, blah
# ], blahblah
# ], third blah
or
C:
# {{non-gloss definition|xxxx in senses}}:
## blah, blah
## blahblah
## third blah
--Xoristzatziki (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've seen all three, but I personally find nested definitions confusing, so I prefer layout B, although I would only wikilink "xxxx" at the first mention. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- For this purpose B is the best. Nesting definitions isn't meant to be used for this purpose. --WikiTiki89 19:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- I strongly oppose the use of “all senses” as a gloss. It is always a time bomb for incorrect information; even “]” is better than “] (all senses)”. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The appropriate templates, please?
Hi there,
i came to WT:ELE to find which template is required if i create a section for an adjective (such as for the comparative, superlative), but searching for "adj", got 3 hits, none of which helped me out. --Jerome Potts (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Use
{{en-adj}}. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
See also 2
I suggest making a change to "See also" to clarify that it should only link to Wiktionary pages of the same language (ping @Metaknowledge). – Jberkel (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Jberkel: I support that, and it's been our practice, but I think you'd best raise that in the BP and ensure there's consensus before getting someone to add it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The layout/format of Wiktionary entries is confusing to me
My comments below reference the layout of the 'helter-skelter' definition page, but only as a useful example. My comments are meant to apply to the layout of all entries...
Below the table of contents on the 'helter-skelter' page it says "English" with line under it that runs the full page-width. Below that is "Etymology" in bold, and below that the (non-bolded) one sentence etymological description. Good so far. Next (bolded) is "Adverb", below that "helter-skelter" (bolded) and its grammatical forms (eg 'superlative, most helter-skelter'), and below that the adverbial definition. Good so far.
But here is where I got confused. The next line is "Translations" (bolded) and below that is a full page-width gray rectangle. Below that, it says "Adjective" (bolded) followed by the same sequence (and formatting) of lines as what followed "Adverb" with the addition of a "see also" line below "Translations". Finally, below that the same sequence and format repeat for "Noun" ending with "Translations". My initial, um, 'instinct' was that everything below that first "Translations" line pertained to languages other than English. While the table of contents explains the page layout pretty clearly, I suspect I'm not the only one who skipped it and went straight to the body of the entry.
My confusion stemmed from a couple things. First, the biggest word, font-wise, is "English" which also has a full page-width line under it. Naturally, I assumed that all that followed (until I next encounter the next big-font word with a full page-width line under it) fit the "English" category. So, when I reached "Translations" with a full page-width gray rectangle, I thought 'okay, we're done with the "English" portion of the definition. All that is below (until something else seems to indicate a transition - e.g. another full page-width gray box, or a full page-width line, or word(s) whose font ) must relate to other languages.'
Add to this the fact that the 'height' of the white space between "Adverb" and the "helter-skelter" line below it is equal to the height between "Etymology" and the line/sentence below it; and these are equal to the height between the adverbial definition ("1. In confused...") and "Translations" below it. Yet the height of the white space between the bottom of the gray box and "Adjective" is smaller, even though the transition from "Adverb" to "Adjective" is, in my opinion, a bigger one than the transition between the word "Etymology" and the etymological description, and the transition between the word "Adverb" and the adverbial form (which happens to be "helter-skelter")...neither of which is really a 'transition' at all.
So, my long-winded suggestion is to alter the layout/format so that it is clearer to readers that the format is: Adverb ; Adjective ; Noun . How to go about doing this I will leave to the more computer-savvy and more design-oriented among you. Niccast (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Niccast
- The full-width gray rectangle labeled "Translations" is supposed to be a collapsible table of translations into other languages; anything after that gray rectangle still pertains to the English word. If there isn't a link that says "" in that rectangle, allowing you to uncollapse the table and see the translations, there's something wrong with your Javascript. Sometimes refreshing the page helps, but sometimes it doesn't. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 22:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- That's how we interpret it and how we wish others to do so. But Niccast, apparently assisted by Beginner's mind, has done us the favor of suggesting that our wishes might not be fulfilled for some users.
- @Niccast: I take it that the Table of Contents did not help you decode the layout, at least initially. DCDuring (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- The distinction between level 3, 4 and 5 headers is not particularly clear. I would very much prefer it if there was a better distinction. I would also prefer it if the same section were always at the same level, with none of the numbered etymology nonsense. Either nest all POS sections under etymology, or none. —Rua (mew) 22:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- One alternative solution would be to use homographs instead of etymologies. An etymology could be specified under a homograph header but wouldn't be required to be. Entries would be grouped as Homograph 1, Homograph 2, etc. DTLHS (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Niccast: Try the tabbed languages gadget in the preferences on the top right of the screen; it separates the language sections into easy to navigate section. Still, I agree that the entries are too complex; etymology and pronunciation ought to be collapsed or in smaller font size, and be kept under the definition. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 23:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Here are all my responses to the above comments in one 'reply' because I'm lazy ;) ...@Mahagaja: as DCDuring said + implied, the gray rectangle "Translations" appeared appropriately; there was nothing wrong with my Javascript. I was simply letting you all know that it is not intuitive. Similarly, @DCDuring: the Table of Contents did help me decode the layout...once I bothered to slow down, go back to the start of the article, and read it more carefully. But I suspect I'm far from the only one who tends to just skip past it. My suggestions (and they are all just suggestions) are intended to let you know that some may find the present layout confusing. I can't remember exactly, but there's some eponym or axiom which suggests that the goal when designing a product or writing instructions should be that the bottom quintile gets it (it's kinda like 'Beginner's Mind').Niccast (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)niccast
- Even the smartest, most MW-savvy among us can have Beginner's Mind experiences on trying something unfamiliar. Such experiences are useful reminders of what it might be like for not-so-smart, non-so-savvy, not-so-committed users when they encounter what is familiar and obvious to us. DCDuring (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Images
I noticed that images aren't mentioned anywhere in EL. Oversight? There's Help:Images but it doesn't seem to get updated very often. – Jberkel 15:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Indentation?
The text in the section List of headings gives a "typical entry". (IMO, an entry with that many headings would be quite atypical.) The text following that laundry list of headings may be confusing to readers unfamiliar with this way of structuring using wiki markup. A potential main source of confusion is the use of the term "indentation". Both in the wikitext and in their renderings of a subsection, neither the heading nor the body is more indented than those of their parent section. It is only in the table of contents that you see indentation.
Here is my attempt at a replacement text:
- The section headings are enclosed between trains of two or more
=signs. A section can have one or more subsections, which in turn can have subsubsections, and so on; the heading of a subsection has a longer=-sign train than the parent section to which it belongs; this length goes up by one for each next deeper level. The text following a section heading belongs to that section (with its subsections included) until a section heading is encountered that has a shorter or equally long=-sign train. This organization of a page into sections, subsections, subsubsections, ..., is reflected by the indentation levels in its table of contents.
- If a word can be different parts of speech, for example a noun and a verb, each possible part of speech gets its own section. Everything that relates to the word as being a given part of speech should be stated in the corresponding section.
--Lambiam 17:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think that the "indentation" is referring to the non-heading markup, e.g. lists. These are indented at various levels. I don't disagree that the content is potentially confusing. - TheDaveRoss 21:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- You may be right as to what "indentation" is referring to, although I understood it differently. From the text it is not clear. But do you think the proposed replacement text is an improvement? --Lambiam 07:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Typo
In the "Description" section, it says "written work 'bank'", which clearly should be "written word". This, that and the other (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge This, that and the other (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I've fixed it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Page on entry formatting standards
I can't find the damned page on the little details about entry format, like that there aren't supposed to be empty lines above the first header (the details that make it easier for bots to work). Can someone locate it and put a link to it on this page? — Eru·tuon 21:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Erutuon: WT:NORM ? – Jberkel 21:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Jberkel: Yeah, that's it! Oh, it's linked at the top. Bleh. I was reverting an IP edit and couldn't remember what the page was called. I was looking up "format" in the Wiktionary namespace and couldn't find it. — Eru·tuon 21:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Erutuon: I think it should be mentioned in the text as well, I wasn't aware of it until recently. – Jberkel 21:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Jberkel: Yeah, that's it! Oh, it's linked at the top. Bleh. I was reverting an IP edit and couldn't remember what the page was called. I was looking up "format" in the Wiktionary namespace and couldn't find it. — Eru·tuon 21:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Two ways of entering synonyms, but only one is mentioned at WT:LAYOUT
Apparently Wiktionary has two standardized ways of entering synonyms, but only one is mentioned at WT:LAYOUT. This edit diff shows the one method being replaced with the other. I had never seen the Template:synonyms method until today. WT:LAYOUT § Synonyms should mention both methods, if both are accepted. The Template:synonyms method has some advantages, but the ===Synonyms=== (subsection) method seems better for anchor linking from elsewhere and (possibly) for machine analysis of the dictionary (e.g., looking at ===Synonyms=== subsections programmatically, seeing which entries don't have that section, etc). Another issue is that WT:LAYOUT § Further semantic relations says, "The following headers are available to define sections containing semantically related words other than synonyms: Antonyms, Hypernyms, Hyponyms, Meronyms, Holonyms, Troponyms, Coordinate terms, See also. Each of these sections is formatted exactly like the Synonyms section". But if one is using the Template:synonyms method, then one can't follow the latter instruction until all of the following templates exist: Template:synonyms, Template:antonyms, Template:hypernyms, Template:hyponyms, Template:meronyms, Template:holonyms, Template:troponyms, Template:coordinate terms, Template:see also. As I write this, half of those (4/9) are redlinks. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- For machine analysis the
{{syn}}templates are actually better, since you know exactly which sense the synonym belongs to. Otherwise you need to match the content of{{sense}}which isn't always accurate, formatted inconsistently, or not present at all. From a user's perspective it's easier as well, since you don't have to look for synomyms in a different place, and match them up (trivial in the diff you mentioned, but imagine an entry with 10+ senses). And yes, we should update the layout guide. – Jberkel 05:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)- I think it is fine if
{{synonyms}}and{{antonyms}}are used, but do we really want to add all the rest of the "-nyms" below the definition? That would be an excessively large block of text. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)- No, just synomyms / antonyms, the other -nyms are less useful and would add clutter. How should it be worded? We definitely want to keep the existing practice but additionally allow placement of synomyms/antomyms below senses. I think their use should be encouraged for longer entries with many senses. – Jberkel 06:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think using{{synonyms}}and{{antonyms}}directly under senses is fine if just providing strings of words, but if it is necessary to distinguish between different senses then the synonyms and antonyms should be put in separate sections (that is, the practice before the templates were created). — SGconlaw (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)- No, it is exactly the other way around. Jberkel just explained why the templates are better when distinguishing between different senses. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, I see what he meant! Silly me. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I subscribe to what Jberkel has laid out, and also please make a coordinate terms template someone. I would have used it some times already, for example for the compartments of the ruminant digestive tract (Russian се́тка (sétka, “reticulum”) and so on). I would heed myself to state a priori that one template is inherently less useful. Fay Freak (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Jberkel that we should just stick to
{{synonyms}}and{{antonyms}}and not add more of such templates like{{coordinate terms}}as that would lead to too much clutter below definitions. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)- Is night really an antonym of day, rather than its complement (ie, a coordinate term) (like yin and yang, black and white). I don't think that antonym is on all fours with synonym in clarity of meaning. I don't think we should waste definition space on it. It can go with the other semantic relations.
- Also, why do we have synonyms appearing below definitions in which they are in the definiens. It makes it look as if out content was generated by a machine and wastes space. DCDuring (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Why do we have synonyms appearing under Synonyms headers with repetition of the definitions as glosses? It makes it look as if out content was generated by a machine and wastes space. DTLHS (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Space outside of the definition zone (PoS header or inflection line to next header) is obviously less valuable than the space in the definition zone. That's why we do things like: 1., have sense-specific citations "hidden", 2., discourage an excessive number of usage examples, and, 3., discourage long definitions (more than two lines). Everyone can get captivated by some content and try to promote that content by giving it a higher visual priority than it has enjoyed. The history of dictionaries (rather than thesauruses) shows that definitions have priority. DCDuring (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- "Space outside of the definition zone (PoS header or inflection line to next header) is obviously less valuable than the space in the definition zone". Citation needed. This is your personal preference that you have made into an immutable law. I reject the concept of "wasted space". Wasted to who? How does that outweigh the cognitive load if a user has to map a particular definition to a gloss somewhere else on the page? DTLHS (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- +++. Also there was a script for hiding
{{syn}}etc. like quotations. Also, I find that{{syn}}is easier to use than a synonym section to create. Time-saving and looking-better (also to machines), particularly one is already a header-level too deep. Time-saving is much of an argument with our personnel. Fay Freak (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- +++. Also there was a script for hiding
- "Space outside of the definition zone (PoS header or inflection line to next header) is obviously less valuable than the space in the definition zone". Citation needed. This is your personal preference that you have made into an immutable law. I reject the concept of "wasted space". Wasted to who? How does that outweigh the cognitive load if a user has to map a particular definition to a gloss somewhere else on the page? DTLHS (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Space outside of the definition zone (PoS header or inflection line to next header) is obviously less valuable than the space in the definition zone. That's why we do things like: 1., have sense-specific citations "hidden", 2., discourage an excessive number of usage examples, and, 3., discourage long definitions (more than two lines). Everyone can get captivated by some content and try to promote that content by giving it a higher visual priority than it has enjoyed. The history of dictionaries (rather than thesauruses) shows that definitions have priority. DCDuring (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Why do we have synonyms appearing under Synonyms headers with repetition of the definitions as glosses? It makes it look as if out content was generated by a machine and wastes space. DTLHS (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Jberkel that we should just stick to
- I subscribe to what Jberkel has laid out, and also please make a coordinate terms template someone. I would have used it some times already, for example for the compartments of the ruminant digestive tract (Russian се́тка (sétka, “reticulum”) and so on). I would heed myself to state a priori that one template is inherently less useful. Fay Freak (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, I see what he meant! Silly me. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, it is exactly the other way around. Jberkel just explained why the templates are better when distinguishing between different senses. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, just synomyms / antonyms, the other -nyms are less useful and would add clutter. How should it be worded? We definitely want to keep the existing practice but additionally allow placement of synomyms/antomyms below senses. I think their use should be encouraged for longer entries with many senses. – Jberkel 06:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think it is fine if
@Sgconlaw Look at my examples. It is clutter and misleading to have that specific meaning in се́тка (sétka), кни́жка (knížka) and the like under a dedicated header, whereas the coordinate terms really belong directly under the definition as a compartment of a stomach is defined by the other compartments. As I said, don’t say a priori that we should not have templates, one may only say that one should contain oneself in using those templates (that do not exist). What @DCDuring has said is clearly coined on Translingual and English entries and can hardly happen on foreign languages plus is just individually stupid by-case usage that says nothing against the templates. Fay Freak (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Coined? Do you mean "based", "founded"?
- Case examples are usually essential to illustrate issues, especially to those who are stupid like me.
{{antonyms}}is bad because it is used to facilitate the application of a poor concept (for all real languages AFAICT). It is our universal experience that the existence of templates encourages their overapplication. I may not be in love with the use of{{synonyms}}, but it does not suffer from the same conceptual problems. I am unaware of any application, current or potential, of the antonyms concept to taxonomic names. DCDuring (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)- What’s the problem then? Does one need to thwart the possibilities to do it right if elsewhere it is possible to do it wrong?
- Also such abstracted senses are not necessary to make a synonyms or antonyms distinction. We put a word as a synonym under a word when it can be used as a synonym, i. e. if it can be found in context where it is synonymous as perceived by the speaker, and antonyms are what is understood as having opposite meanings by speakers. With such argumentation we would need to stop track contranyms. Do we need a complement template and header? Now that would make things confused. It really looks like you coin complications though I only calqued gemünzt auf. But you have argued why a template “coordinate terms” is more needed than a template “antonyms”. Fay Freak (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes one should anticipate and prevent problems even at a cost.
- The purported benefits of the proposed change with respect to antonyms do not apply to a most entries which may benefit from the change with respect to
antonymssynonyms, because the antonyms concept cannot be usefully defined for them. (Eg, provide the generally accepted antonyms of dishcloth, passerine, and, by#Preposition (agency), plot#Verb.) DCDuring (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)- If you cannot define, then don’t use it … – I find it good if both options exist. I am not always for
{{syn}}, on some entries I like a synonyms heading section more (like jeść which of course has endless synonyms), also we cannot link well to the Thesaurus namespace from under the definition line yet. Fay Freak (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)- Every departure from a standard mode of presentation, however justified in a particular set of instances, increases the chance that a user will become confused about how to quickly use an entry. Most users of dictionaries just want a definition. To some extent synonyms are helpful (except when they misleading as in the case of a less common sense of a polysemic word, or of a dated, archaic or obsolete word). A few words are often thought of in opposing pairs (eg, apogee and perigee), but those few cases can be readily addressed by usage examples, illustrations, as well as the L4 antonyms header.
- The only way that I could support including more additional content than synonyms under each definition is if all the content under each definition were concealed by default with each class of additional content (eg, synonyms, other semantic relations, translations, citations, usage examples) capable of being selected for display. DCDuring (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- If you cannot define, then don’t use it … – I find it good if both options exist. I am not always for
- @DCDuring, DTLHS, Fay Freak, Sgconlaw, Metaknowledge, Quercus solaris Follow up vote created: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-11/Allow_semantic_relations_under_definition_lines, discussion on talk page. – Jberkel 17:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)