Wiktionary talk:Glossary
2004-2005 discussions
Since Wiktionary:Abbreviation insists there are only four abbreviations used throughout Wiktionary, I thought we'd better have another page for all those other terms that just look like abbreviations, and are used within Wiktionary! :-)
Plus a few other Words/Terms that might need some explanation for novice dictionary builders, and defintion, for helping to standardise usage in Wiktionary.
I'd be happy to merge it in some way with Wiktionary:Abbreviation, though possibly both pages have their place.--Richardb 12:49, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please to not add to this Glossary. It is being incorporated into other parts of Wiktionary. --Stranger 16:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
My hope was that this could be replaced by a category: {wjargon}, so that it would be maintenance-free and automatic. --Stranger 12:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- The page Wiktionary:Abbreviation has been deprecated and the contents moved into the Glossary page. Eclecticology 20:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Line format
There are a number of difference line formats in the glossary, could these be standardised? Examples:
- c. = circa or about - often used in quotations.
- c : common (in word genders)
- en - English
I suggest that the headword be in bold (to stand out), only in italics when the original (eg c is. And that they are separated from their definition by a n-dash, thus:
- c. - circa or about - often used in quotations
- c - common (in word genders)
- en - the ISO 639-3 code for English
—Saltmarsh 11:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Paul Willocx 11:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree —This unsigned comment was added by Enginear (talk • contribs) 12:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
- Sounds good, except — you say "n-dash", but your examples use hyphens. (En dash: –; hyphen: -.) Which did you mean? —RuakhTALK 19:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Transliteration is not phonetic
Transliteration involves replacing letters (or letter sequences) in one script with letters (or letter sequences) deemed "equivalent" in another. The main motivation for deciding that two letters (or letter sequences) are equivalent is that they make roughly the same sound; but once this decision has been made, phonetics exits the picture.
The phonetics-oriented alternative to transliteration is transcription, which replaces sounds (or sound sequences) with letters (or letter sequences) in a script.
—RuakhTALK 17:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Abbreviations for specific users
Does anyone else think that these should be removed from the glossary? --Yair rand 18:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yep. Sorry it took 13 years to do it. You know what bureaucracy is like Jin and Tonik (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
would understand better
from sarri.greek to the Master of this page. 2017.11.05. As a newcomer, I would understand better:
- the title: Appendix:Glossary of Terms for philology?grammatical? something like that... instead of Appendix:Glossary,
- the title Wiktionary:Glossary of Wikitext Commands instead of Wiktionary:Glossary
- if every entry had underneath an example-page with the word in it. Especially for the Wikionary:Glossary, so that we can go to Edit and COPY-PASTE the corresponding wikitext syntax for it?
I am posting this at both Glossary pages. It's just an idea. Thank you, sarri.greek (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Sarri.greek: I agree, it would be much clearer. --Barytonesis (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
RFV discussion: June–November 2024
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).
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.
This term appears to have literally never been used outside of Wiktionary:Glossary. I'm not sure if CFI applies in this case... Ioaxxere (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- The term was first added by our very own DCDuring waaaay back in 2007 as part of the definition of dystmesis. How good's your memory, DC? This, that and the other (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I know that many of such older entries must have been done by an impostor, because there are entries appearing over my name that I have no recollection of adding. But I was captivated by rhetorical terms for a while. What does look attestable is expletive infixation. The impostor must have made a mistake. DCDuring (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @DCDuring. Useful info. I moved the term to Appendix:Glossary as expletive infixation. Hopefully this resolves the situation, @Ioaxxere. This, that and the other (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Such infectious/explosive infestationa are an example of tmesis, but the latter has a more general sense, as in the family-friendly a whole nother. All examples I can think of that exploit expletives are semantically intensifiers, often used without a pejorative sense (unbefuckinglievable). --Lambiam 22:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @DCDuring. Useful info. I moved the term to Appendix:Glossary as expletive infixation. Hopefully this resolves the situation, @Ioaxxere. This, that and the other (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I know that many of such older entries must have been done by an impostor, because there are entries appearing over my name that I have no recollection of adding. But I was captivated by rhetorical terms for a while. What does look attestable is expletive infixation. The impostor must have made a mistake. DCDuring (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
RFV-resolved, to archive to Appendix talk:Glossary This, that and the other (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Add entry, sense, subsense, and gloss
I propose that the terms "entry", "sense", "subsense", and "gloss" to be added to Wiktionary:Glossary. They are used throughout Wiktionary documentation. Wiktionary:Entry redirects to Wiktionary:Entry layout, which extensively describes an entry but doesn't provide a definition or concise description. I'm surprised that Wiktionary:Sense doesn't exist. I suppose it can redirect to the entry in the glossary after it is written. Subsenses are briefly described in Wiktionary:Style guide § Definition sequence Are these terms already defined elsewhere on Wiktionary? Daask (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I came here to plead for a 'gloss' entry to provide clarity for new Wiktionary editors, so I'm glad you already raised this! As this article is locked from edits, it's surprising no one has responded in 2 months. Hoping a mod/admin is following the discussion for this page!
- I also posted a version of this example on Help talk:Glosses, but thought it would be useful here to illustrate why a Wiktionary Glossary entry is needed for 'gloss' and why editing guides should link to this instead of a generic dictionary entry for the standard.
- It took 30 minutes of searching to find Help:Glosses, search being required to understand introductory page Wiktionary:Entry layout, which refers to the term 'gloss' as a layout/formatting option, but only links to the basic page gloss. First, I read the basic definitions on page gloss, but couldn't find any links or clues to where I could read more about the specific Wiktionary layout function. Next, I checked Appendix:Glossary, which was very helpful with other editing-specific terms earlier in my tutorial, but 'gloss' wasn't defined. I also searched the 'Discussions' tab for all Wiktionary pages above. Then, I searched for 'gloss' within Wiktionary general search but results only included definition pages, and typing the word in general search and hitting Enter took me back to the (now-hated) gloss page. Finally, I went to my search engine and did a site-specific search for 'gloss', which finally revealed Help:Glosses. Unfortunately, even after reading the Help:Glosses page, it is still unclear how to actually 'include a gloss' or 'expand with a gloss' as was so casually referenced in the intro article Wiktionary:Entry layout. There were some instructions that seem to give direction on how to use a template to reference a gloss later in an entry (in Synonyms, Derived terms, etc.) but from this article and further searching, I could not deduce how to create the initial gloss (definition sense shorthand) these templates were referencing. Sbee27 (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- I doubt that we want to have definitions in Wiktionary:Glossary for any of these. OTOH, I was not happy to find that we didn't have a suitable definition at gloss (See new def. at etymology 2, noun, def. 6). I have found citations that support this definition (to show that our use of this term is not idiosyncratic).
- OTOH, I'm not sure what it is about how things work at Wiktionary that you will learn from such definitions that is not better learned by studying examples of entries. DCDuring (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)