Wiktionary talk:Main Page/Archive 5

I was just watching Erin McKean: Redefining the dictionary a lexicogrtapher TED talker and points out something wiktionary is missing severly and is very important for a word's meaning to be understood in all its grace. It is the etmyology of the word. I think it will be very important for wiktionary to carry out a total reform of the presentation of the articles in order to include etmyology. How do one achieve such a global alternation in order to make articles include etmyology? Lordmetroid 21:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the fantastic link. --Connel MacKenzie 22:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome to add etymologies, and more importantly, ===Quotations=== to every entry. I think you have an button. But I don't see any "reform" needed to accommodate anything you mentioned. --Connel MacKenzie 22:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Likewise, I don't know what you mean. We already include Etymology as a standard section (see WT:ELE). Even if a particular entry doesn't yet have the etymology section, there is a place and format in which it should appear. We even have some contributors who specialize in adding etymologies. --EncycloPetey 15:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've now had a chance to see the talk. Etymology isn't what she's talking about, but the raw data of citations in context. We have those, and have even voted in a whole namespace to house the data. --EncycloPetey 05:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I completely concur with you that "is very important for a word's meaning to be understood in all its grace". I am doing my best in this field expanding etymologies. I am sure that every constructive fellow contributor is welcome.

Speaking of etymology, how are you meant to read these? For instance, from the etymology of the word 'fist', the Proto-IE "*pnsti-". What does the asterisk in front of the word mean? And the hyphen at the end? 77.193.115.56 16:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

PIE stands for Proto-Indo-European, a constructed proto language. The asterix means that the word is hypothetical (i.e. we have no direct that any of these words ever existed. I'm a little less sure about the dash on the end, but I believe that it represents a missing inflection suffix. PIE was a highly inflected language (take a look at some *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂s for an example with a full inflection table. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Usually, PIE words are written as "roots", because there were a lot of inflections which often did not survive into relevant daughter languages. Widsith 18:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just how accurate are comparative linguistics?

That's a difficult question. As in all science, some of the predictions of historical linguistics are probably wrong and will be corrected in the future. However, again, as in other science, this is not random guessing. There are very specific methods for constructing these hypothetical forms. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not so highly inflected or at least no more than Sanskrit and Pāli. Bogorm 10:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

A correction to Atelaes's generally excellent comments: PIE is reconstructed, not "constructed". Constructed languages, like Esperanto and Lojban, are designed. Proto-Indo-European was a completely natural language, but we have no documentary evidence of it. All that we know about it, or think we know, is deduced from the evidence left in living or recorded languages, and all PIE words, roots, and other forms are "reconstructed" from this evidence. --Thnidu 19:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I recently noticed that the search box at wiktionary.org (not en.wiktionary.org) directs to a search on wikiquote.org! Someone should let them know about that so they can fix it. I posted it here because I dunno where else to post it since wiktionary.org has no discussion page.

Thanks. I think Mxn is our resident meta: Admin, who takes care of http://www.wiktionary.org for us. --Connel MacKenzie 03:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

http://meta.wikimedia.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Www.wiktionary.org_template&curid=14228&diff=663930&oldid=662325 Thank you Dmc! --Connel MacKenzie 04:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi all (and hi Connel :) ),

The Irish language wikti is now up and running again and ... umm ... I was just wondering if you guys could add us to your interwiki links on the main page? Should look something like ga:Príomhleathanach - Thanks!! - Alison ^❤ 22:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC) (ga.wiktionary admin)Reply

It's already listed under the "100+" Wiktionaries in other languages. Wiktionaries are only added to the side bar once they reach 1000 entries. --EncycloPetey 23:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, okay. We're getting there fast , so hopefully won't be long before I'm back :) Thanks - Alison ^❤ 23:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

If wiktionary is really free, is it possible to download the dictionary databse in files to use it in applications? — This comment was unsigned.

Absolutely. (Several others exist, so far.) As long as you comply with the GFDL, you can reuse the content. Downloads are available at http //download.wikimedia.org/enwiktionary/20070914/ http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiktionary/latest/. --Connel MacKenzie 00:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (link updated 17:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC))Reply

Shouldn't we be changing the logo? They voted on a new one and I think I saw in another language Wiktionary. Æetlr Cregvgggggggggggvejl 03:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, that's the trouble. They voted for a new logo; we didn't. --EncycloPetey 04:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

What is it? Then I can decide for sure! LB22 12:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

meta:Wiktionary/logo. (Glad to know that someone with no NS:0 contributions can decide this for us!) --Connel MacKenzie 17:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

But since it's a nice looking logo, why don't we hold our own vote on it so we can use it? --Arctic.gnome 23:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you like you're welcome to start a discussion in the Beer Parlour about it, but I'll tell you right off the bat that it'll be a waste of time, as previous discussions have made it quite clear that the vast majority of regular users here don't want it (myself included). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am a regular user who does not appertain to this vast majority and considers the logo with the numerous writing systems attractive. May I start the dicussion in order to lay bare how vast the majority is? Is it appropriate to start a voting in the Beer Parlour? Bogorm 10:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are you and they not adopting it simply as a protest against the way it was chosen, as EncycloPetey's post seems to suggest, or do you honestly like the current text-only logo better? --Arctic.gnome 05:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, there is no protest. The reason why the fact that few people from Wiktionary actually voted for the logo is brought up is simply to reconcile two pieces of information: 1. The logo won by a vote. 2. Wiktionary editors don't like it. Wiktionary editors have a number of problems with the logo. First of all, it is a copyright lawsuit just waiting to happen. Secondly, a lot of us simply don't think it looks very attractive. I certainly don't. But again, if you want to get the input of the wider community, feel free to bring it up in the Beer Parlour, to find out exactly why everyone hates it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

While Hasbro will rightfully sue people who make forged copies of their game, I doubt that they would try to claim that they own the right to any representation of a letter inside a square. Nevertheless, I'm fan of neither the scrabble logo nor the current one. I think we should have one that matches the logos of the other sister projects better, meaning it should be blue and grey and roundish. I think some of the proposed logos fit this description, especially the speech bubble and magnifying glass ones. Once I've read all the past talks about the logo, I'll see how much support there would be for a home-grown vote on the topic. --Arctic.gnome 05:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, if a new logo is to happen, it would be best for it to at least start inside a Wiktionary (I imagine probably this one, as the English projects often lead the way). And it would have to be a damned good one, as I think most people are sick of the whole logo nonsense. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

How can I define my term, "meta-evolution" in the Wiktionary?...(I say "my terminology" in the sense that I have been writing about it for 3 years....have copywrited my journal entries, and HAD the first documentation of my terminology when I checked it on google last year....now I'm not even on the first page of search results...:(. Pls help...NearlySilentBob...P>S> (I will also try to contact the help desk. Thanks, NSB70.121.45.21 00:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

You can create the entry yourself and provide citations to verify it. See Criteria for Inclusion to see whether or not the term would be acceptable for an entry. If the term is cited in a refereed academic journal, that would allow it to qualify for an entry. --EncycloPetey 01:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I realise this has been done before, but the old topic seems - well old. I would like to propose that we redesign the main page.

The reason I do not like the current design is it is very dark and heavy on the eyes, I have created User:Conrad.Irwin/Main Page which I think looks slightly nicer, though it needs improving and I was wandering what anyone's thoughts on the issue were. Conrad.Irwin 02:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, I like it. I don't like the forced-white background (as that is hard on my eyes.) Definitely a major improvement for the top-bar thing. The midsection is very intriguing. Thank you for taking the initiative. New layout for Wiktionary Day? Neither here, nor there, I ran across this a little while ago: http://web.archive.org/web/20030209054814/http://wiktionary.org/ which viewed now, might be good for a chuckle. --Connel MacKenzie 07:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, Wiktionary day gives us something to aim for ;). Shall we continue discussion at User_talk:Conrad.Irwin/Main Page. How things change... Conrad.Irwin 10:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The main page looks very good right now. I don't know if it was changed recently, but it's good today. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

redesign looks nice. You may want to do some testing on MSIE 6, there is some issues with png transparency not working. 199.216.246.56 18:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC) (aka user:Bawolff)Reply

Arg, I don't have an IE6 handy to test with...could you please be a bit more specific? --Connel MacKenzie 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

The screenshot to the right shows the problem, It used to be the case that the words were to the right of the images, which was odd but not unacceptable. The other thing is to try and implement an AlphaImageLoader work around, but I am not sure whether it is worth it for the trouble. Conrad.Irwin 18:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the file http://en.wiktionary.org/images/wiktionary-en.png, I object that the pronunciation given of the word Wiktionary does not match any of its English IPA pronunciations given in its own entry. I request that someone who is able, please modify this png file to use either the British or American IPA pronunciation. Thank you.

I have been reading about andrew johnson. what exactly was his role as president? did he have a vice president? At first it seemed he was for the blacks... he freed his slaves and wanted the freemen to be 2nd class. But he wasnt for Civil rights? why not? too much freedom? he was not in office as president for long. Was he considered good? or Is he considered one of the great leaders?Ms.buie 18:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC) jbReply

This is a dictionary website. We deal with the use and meanings of words, not historical evaluation of individuals. --EncycloPetey 18:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ask Wikipedia: . Satori 03:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I don't really know who to address this to, but could someone please delete my user page? Please and thanks, Eric Wester 19:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

You don't need to do anything but tag it with {{speedy}}, which you did. --EncycloPetey 20:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have noticed that even though there is a new Wikisaurus page, the main page still links to the old sexually explicit one. Could whoever is in charge of the main page correct the thesaurus links so that they link to Special:Allpages/Wikisaurus:? Satori 03:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please set Lithuanian Wiktionary from 1,000+ to 10,000+ --Pdxx_aptarimas 07:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations, by the way! --Connel MacKenzie 19:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

the address is /wiktionary:main_page, whereas in Wikipedia, it goes /main_page.

I think you mean /Main Page. Both locations are identical. --EncycloPetey 19:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

The notion of having ] is to allow for a main page main-namespace entry that describes the English term main page. As yet, we still have far too many external sites pointing to it incorrectly as if it were our real main page, so the redirect remains, for now. --Connel MacKenzie 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why doesn't the new main page include a short index using Devanagari script? --EncycloPetey 04:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Becuase it would be very short, and I was getting bored by that point. If an admin wishes to add one, then Devanagari: अ-ध्व न-ॡ should be inserted after Arabic. Conrad.Irwin 12:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

That is '''Devangari:''' ] ] unless there is a more standard way to split it (the second page is currently shorter than the first). Conrad.Irwin 18:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm sick and tired of seeing this. Wii, a word created by Nintendo in 99% of the contexts it's used, is defined as fire or firewood. Can someone please put an end to this? Because it can be used to expose the Wiktionary website for its low quality aspects, and I will assist at helping spread the word about this definition.

You are confused about capitalization. The word (deprecated template usage) wii is a Gamilaraay word for firewood; the word Wii is a product name for which we do not have an entry, since it is simply a trademarked product name. For those, you can visit Wikipedia. We do not consider indigenous languages of the world to be "wrong" or "low quality" simply because they are not used in the United States. --EncycloPetey 15:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Was there some reason the Main Page history was thwacked? Is there some reason not to merge it back in? --Connel MacKenzie 20:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

The old page was moved to Wiktionary: Main Page/Old 2007, where the history is preserved, How do you merge them back in? Conrad.Irwin 12:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Connel: we can combine the history if we want to at some point (albeit a bit painfully), but separating it would be horrendous; and since the new page was set temporarily at first, it was important not to. In any case, the history is still there as Conrad points out; I see no reason why we need to combine it? (it isn't like a transwiki, where the uncombined history would be lost.) Robert Ullmann 12:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is also a serious downside: since they become one page, you can't see the old one without looking deep into the history. I think it's fine as is. Robert Ullmann 13:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please move ml.wikt from 100 article section to 1000 article section, thanks! --Jacob.jose 16:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why? Both the Meta list and Mutante's list show that Wiktionary has fewer than 900 entries, and there has been no announcement at Meta. While I can see the number 1,002 in bold on the ml Wikt main page, I cannot read any of the surrounding text to be sure what it signifies. --EncycloPetey 18:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

You have to refer http://ml.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Special:Statistics?action=raw. All other statistics have a lag. Further, the list in meta seems hasn't been updated for long. You can also refer www.wiktionary.org and find ml.wikt in the right place. --Jacob.jose 11:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hasn;t been updated? Their news page is where all the milestones are announced. It is updated regularly and anyone can post an announcement. This is a much better way to disseminate the information. --EncycloPetey 19:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the hint! I have added there.. --Jacob.jose 01:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please add an interwiki (ml:പ്രധാന താള്‍) to the left hand side of the page as well. 24.93.170.200 08:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done Thanks for the reminder. --EncycloPetey 15:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The heading for this site has "Wiktionary" in the upper lefthand corner, and below that is a pronunciation of the word.

1. The pronunciation given is based on British English, but, going by world-wide population figures, the average user is more likely to be a speaker of American English, where the word "dictionary" has four, not three syllables.
2. Even for British English, this pronunciation looks rather out-of-date: the vowel at the end of the "happy" rhyme is pronounced like the vowel in "team", not like the vowel in "Tim", by most speakers both in England and in the Americas (q.v. Wells); perhaps not so 50 or 100 years ago.
3. Even listing a pronunciation for "Wiktionary" seems a little odd since (by my random check) the majority of entries at this site do not list pronunciation as part of the entry.
4. Square brackets are used to contain the pronunciation-symbols, but that would imply that the transcription is phonetic, not phonemic. What did the author actually intend? Related to this is the question of standardisation: any legitimate dictionary uses a single system to show the pronunciation for all entries. I don't see such a system being followed here. Has there been much effort in this direction?Jakob37 09:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

See WT:FAQ. --Connel MacKenzie 10:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Holy hell! I think he may be right, fellas. Is some kind of award in order for bringing this to our attention? --58.105.156.48 22:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

For beating a dead horse? The most recent flare-up was on WT:BP with yet-another-replacement that corrected the errors. It was, of course, railroaded (again.) Thanks, but there really is nothing much more to be said on the topic. --Connel MacKenzie 00:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please set Latvian Wiktionary to 100+ category, because latvian wiktionary have more than 100 articles--Pdxx 19:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done. Congratulations. Conrad.Irwin 20:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Medical dictionary would be great to have as free open source dictionary. I think it is a valid project if anyone is up for the challenge. I also think there should be a way to only search specific dictionaries - like only search the medical wikitionary.

See my reply at Wiktionary talk:Community portal#I would recommend making a Medical wikitionary project. Conrad.Irwin 07:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Where are the old main pages? The history on the current pages goes back to only Nov 2007 - what about the previous versioned? Where are they found, or have they been deleted? --Keene 19:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah yes, Wiktionary:Main Page/Old 2007. It should be easier to find though. Maybe atop this talk page? --Keene 19:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done Conrad.Irwin 10:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I found it kind of silly to delete it. I mean, removing it from the history. --Steinninn 23:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

A minor detail: I don't fancy the bullets in the Behind the Scenes section. The definition-style explanation is good, but we don't use bullets when there's a single definition, and I wouldn't want it to confuse any visitors from pedia. Can we just drop them, using indentation alone? Or there could be something else like a dash before it, technically feasible with indentation if a tad tricky. DAVilla 10:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Removed the bullets. I think that box probably needs a rethink though, it started with having numbers -> bullets -> nothing. Conrad.Irwin 10:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please put the Tamil Wiktionary under the 10,000+ category. -- 122.167.247.199 03:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done --EncycloPetey 03:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. -- 122.167.247.199 07:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Now Tamil wiktionary crossed 1,00,000+ mark. Please update the list. Thanks--ravishankar 23:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done, wow! Conrad.Irwin 23:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks :) --ravishankar 09:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Uh, Conrad that's 10K, not 100K. (Fixed) Hmm.... I'm getting different values at different sites. Looks like it is 100K , but if I use the link from Wikimedia I get a lower figure (by one tenth!) weird. --EncycloPetey 04:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Uh, yeah EP. I was wondering if you had seen that bit about 100,000. I've rolled you back. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Too late; I already undid myself. I am still curious why I get two different statistics on two different "Main Pages". --EncycloPetey 04:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Because one of the links hadn't been purged, and the bot there added 90,000 entries in the last week or so!

I purged it and it went to 101,983. But it seems entirely bogus; the new entries are junk as far as can be seen, and almost certainly copyvio. Robert Ullmann 07:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why not linking the words "Thesaurus" and "Appendices" to their matching main pages (see )? 16@r 13:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think the way we've got it now is more useful for the average user. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

What do you think now that I've added the respective automatically-generated lists to both pages: Appendix:Contents & Wiktionary:Wikisaurus? 16@r 15:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I notice the Greenlandic wiktionary has more than 1000 pages, should it not be moved to the 1000+ section? —This comment was unsigned.

Moved it up. Thanks for the update. DaveRoss 21:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yet it's still in the 100+ section. — This unsigned comment was added by 74.12.125.208 (talk) at 19:48, 19 March 2008.

Fixed. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dankon! (Thank you!) — This unsigned comment was added by 74.12.125.208 (talk) at 03:37, 20 March 2008.

The Norwegian (Bokmål) wiktionary is currently listed as Norsk (Norwegian) on the mainpage, though it should mention that the Wiktionart is in Bokmål, as in the list of wiktionaries. --Harald Khan Ճ 17:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Malay Wiktionary has now more than 1,000 pages, shouldn't it be moved to the 1,000+ section? On Wheezier Plot 22:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Moved up, congratulations! - DaveRoss 22:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Gee thanks a lot! :-) On Wheezier Plot 17:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think the welcome message on the Main Page needs more links in it. In particular, see the bold terms below, which are the ones I'd recommend have links on them:

Welcome to the English language Wiktionary, a collaborative project to produce a free-content multilingual dictionary.

Designed as the lexical companion to Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia project, Wiktionary has grown beyond a standard dictionary and now includes a thesaurus, a rhyme guide, phrase books, language statistics and extensive appendices. We aim to include not only the definition of a word, but also enough information to really understand it. Thus etymologies, pronunciations, sample quotations, synonyms, antonyms and translations are included.

The links in the last sentence aren't as important, IMO, as the ones in the first two (especially the second sentence). I haven't suggested any link targets because I'm not sure I'd choose the most relevant ones, since I don't edit here very often anymore. - dcljr 22:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

lo.wiktionary.org has now 4000+ mainly Japanese and English (and Lao translations) words. Can someone plase add ] to the main page. (Tuinui 03:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC))Reply

I clicked experimentally on "could not find the word I want," not noticing that it was a link that gave Wiktionary feedback, rather than a link to a page. So now the statistics will be off just a bit. (Not that it matters really, but small pieces add up.) Wyctioped 20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, does anyone know how someone managed to alter the main page with the "What the heck" content? Was it an admin's "joke" or something? Just wondering if there is an exploit which affects all mediawikis or just someone compromised someone's account? 81.106.137.18 12:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

No security issue - just one of our long term contributors letting off some steam, it happens every now and again. Conrad.Irwin 13:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, the Sicilian wiktionary has now more than 10 000 articles. Would you please update your Main page which says that scn.wiktionary has more than 1000 words. Thank you in advance. Have a great day. Best regards. Sarvaturi

Very good. Done. Robert Ullmann 12:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can someone update the index to include Devanagari? While there is currently only 2.5 pages of entries in Special:Allpages, it is a script used in languages that nearly a billion people speak. Please at least add Special:Allpages/अ for the beginning of the Devanagari section. Thank you. - Taxman 04:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi all. Per Wiktionary_talk:Main_Page#ga.wiktionary above, well I did say I'd be back when we reached 1,000 words. And we have! Since last August, we've gone from about 20 words to over 1,000 :) Can we possibly be moved into the 1,000+ box on the main page, and (pretty-please!) added to the sidebar?? Thanks! :) - Alison ^❤ 06:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC) (ga.wikti sysop)Reply

Done, congrats. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yayy!! Thank you so much :) - Alison ^❤ 10:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Arabic has exceeded 10,000 words a while back; can someone please change it to 10,000+ --Maha Odeh 12:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done. Very good. Robert Ullmann 12:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

hi, i've made a template to help standardise the 'display of colours' in articles for colours. it is {{colour panel}}. the usage instructions are described on that page, and it outputs something like:

vermilion colour:

it basically creates the panel that was in most of the colours round the traps into a template. sorry but i have no idea where to 'let it be known' that i have done this, so feel free to move this message there, wherever it may be. i don't have time to put it into every single colour (though i did do about 4)...
...but that's why wikis are so-o-o-o good! because now everyone can help everyone else by doing it whenever they feel like it :)

cheerio, 116.240.241.38 12:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Copied to WT:GP. Very nice. Robert Ullmann 16:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The introduction on the Main Page lacks links. For example, you might want to add links to "etymologies". Minor Editor 10:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I suggested this, but you can not only do that but also add in links for other things!!!Minor Editor 08:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are you referring to the WOTD box?--TBC 18:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have recently seen numerous online pics of English teenage girls sticking their tounges out. What sociological meaning (were does it come from) does this have if any?

It's a fairly light-hearted and childish expression of disdain/scorn. No idea where it comes from. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

${\displaystyle \neg \exists ~Q\neq \emptyset \subseteq \left\{\pm {\tfrac {1}{5}}\right\}\cup \mathbb {N} :\ \sum _{q\in Q}\lim _{z\rightarrow \infty }{\dfrac {2^{q}\times {\sqrt{\pi }}}{\textstyle \int \limits _{y=\alpha ''}^{\omega }\partial _{x}f({\bar {z}})\cdot dy}}\not \equiv 0}$ a number that can be expressed as a ratio of two integers; such as a/b where b not equal to 0. What is this the definition of?

A rational number or fraction. --EncycloPetey 22:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

However, the math expression above does not represent that, as far as I can tell it is garbage. Spinningspark 19:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Norwegian has reached around 12 000 words now, can someone please change it to 10,000+? Thanks, Mewasul 07:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done, congrats. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

And I think Afrikaans has reached 10 000 as well. Mewasul 07:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is it possible to have someone change the title of the Perso-Arabic Alphabet category (http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Category:Perso-Arabic_Alphabet) into a lowercase A in the word alphabet? Thanks. Arvin 12:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

The link to the Wiktionary Mainpage labeled Mainpage-text is currently broken. It leads to an empty page entitledMainpage-url. Matthias Buchmeier 15:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Georgian Wiktionary (ka.wiktionary.org) is now +100 articles. Could someone please add it to the +100 section? Thanks, Malafaya 15:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done, and the other languages updated as well. --EncycloPetey 19:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The define a word box is too prominent. I keep mistaking it for the search box. Most people will come here to look up a word, not to contribute. Spinningspark 19:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is a search box. Have you tried it? It is you asking the wikt to define a word for you. Robert Ullmann 15:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The French are ahead of us once again, so we must release more bots into an entry creation frenzy! If not, they will beat us to the Millionth Entry and be the first Wiktionary to do so! We must stay ahead as we always have in Wikipedia and many other projects!

Also, please let the bots import new words from FreeRice. There'll always be more to choose from, at least for a long time! --Takamatsu 05:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Maybe User:TheCheatBot can run again. --Jackofclubs 16:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sadly, Connel MacKenzie said on his talk page that it can't be run without a successful XML dump (whatever that is) and apparently those haven't happened in a while. Teh Rote 18:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

However, we do have two new bots running, and at least one more in vote right now, and we have moved ahaed of the French. ...At least we think we're ahead of the French now. The automated page count is wildly inaccurate according to Robert (off by about 10,000 for en.wikt), so who knows what the actual pagecount total is right now. --EncycloPetey 18:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Even if it's off by 10,000 on both en.wikt and fr.wikt, we're still ahead. Their page count says around 939k, ours says around 967k. We're still way ahead, no matter which way we're off. Still, more pages must be made! Teh Rote 14:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

As of the dump just completed, there are 982,416 entries in NS:0. Of those, there are 1330+20091 (see User:Robert Ullmann/Not counted) that would not be included in the stats because they don't contain links. That means the stats counter should be at ~ 960,995. But, atm, it says 968,114. So ... I dunno. Robert Ullmann 16:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Maybe the dump has be saved some hours ago? At the moment my Bot is running and creating new pages at a rate of about 5 per minute, i.e. about 5k per day.Matthias Buchmeier 17:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, it has all yours. At the time it reports the total, it has included all your bot's entries up to current, within a few seconds :-) Robert Ullmann 17:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

So we have no way of knowing when we get to exactly 1 million? Teh Rote 20:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

What Robert's saying is that the counter on RC is always very up to date. So, when we get close, just keep your eye on Recent Changes. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree. And I've seen a problem with the jobs of bots. Their is a wiktionary entry for almost every single conjugation of almost every verb for french, italian, and most other popular romance language. This is nice; you don't have to bother to think of the root to find the page, you can just type in the conjugated form. But if you type in a simple German conjugation, nothing shows up but the search page. Considering their aren't that many conjugations of a german verb, how long would it take to make a proper bot to make pages for these conjugations?

Why is today's word of the day from US origin and used only in their dialect - highfalutin? Please stick to official English, otherwise we shall end up adding Scots bairn as word of the day. Both are completely incomprehensible for every Englishman and therefore inadmissible, right? (I am asking Englishmen, since I am not, but I revere British English!) Bogorm 10:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Er....Americans speak English. WOTD can be any English word, in any "dialect". Go ahead and nominate bairn if you wish. Besides, highfalutin is not exactly unknown in the UK either. Ƿidsiþ 10:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
• Bogorm, there is no "official" English. Unlike many other European languages, English is not regulated by any agency or institution. The language varies greatly from coutnry to country and from region to region. The English Wiktionary covers English from every place where that language is spoken. It would be wrong to limit WOTD to only words used in the British Isles, since the majority of English speakers don't live there. We have previously featured English words peculiar to England, South Africa, and Australia, so why should words from the United States be denied inclusion in WOTD? --EncycloPetey 22:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think most native English people use and understand "bairn". --BozMo 09:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The main page is reporting 1 million+ definitions. Is this correct? Where's the hoopla? What's the millionth entry? -75.73.141.201 04:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The discussion is in the Beer Parlour. --EncycloPetey 05:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

WTF? One million entries and no definition for word squinty???? — This unsigned comment was added by 70.52.184.174 (talk) at 03:56, 20 October 2008.

Hello, Polish Wiktionary has over 100k pages (see http://wiktionary.org/), can you move it into "100,000+" section on Main Page? Yarl 18:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Take a pro dictionary like PONS or Webster - entry important. Apart from the typical grammatical description the dictionary always gives some typical contexts/example phrases usually with the tilde to save space. It's considered the 2nd most important element after the explanation.

• PONS - important adj (significant) that's not ~ (doesn't matter)
• Webster - important adj 1. of much or great significance: an important event in world history. 2. of considerable distinction: an important scientist..

This is something missing from many entries in the Wiktionary. I hope to see more of that. Has an example/context/quotes section been included in the help files/templates? Some entries contain it - the one for important has a quote) but it's by no means a regular occurrence even though, in my opinion, it should be.

Best, Jasu 21:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Quite correct - but all our entries are added by amateur volunteers. You can help by adding such important material. SemperBlotto 21:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have just worked out that 22% of all Wiktionary articles is taken up by Italian Verb Forms articles, which are just completely unnecessary, pointless, and undermine the fact that wiktionary has reached over a million articles. It would be much better if they were just replaced by redirect articles which would be more helpful for everyone else, and less annoying for me.

Inflected form entries may seem silly, but to those who are learning a highly inflected language, such as Italian, they are quite useful (and a great deal more useful than a simple redirect). Concerning the fact that they constitute a large chunk of our entry count, the simply fact is that Wiktionary entry counts are far less meaningful than Wikipedia article counts. Finally, we do realize it sort of breaks "Random Entry". We are working on that. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Greetings all,

I am missing on the english wikt something like there is in the german wikt for the translations where the traslated word is linked to the wikt in its own language, this sounds a bit confusing so I think an example is in order, look at http://de.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Glück at the Übersetzungen section.

Kind regards, Notivago 16:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Yes - we have {{t}}, {{t+}} and {{t-}}. See naphthalene or fishbone as examples of use. SemperBlotto 16:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

• • Thanks, I stand corrected. Notivago 17:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I liked the search box being below the navigation. It was kind of centery and nice. What do you think?

There was a discussion at WT:BP#Position of the search box - but it's still open to negotiation. Conrad.Irwin 10:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply