Something else that could be added here is the info on "Gaps in entries" most recently discussed I think at Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2008/April#Gaps in entry titles.. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 04:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
In the section about adjectives with definitions like "Of or pertaining to", the style guide recommends that we use "related". The example for "lexicographical" uses "Of or relating to". The current definition for lexicographical uses "Relating to". I realize that we must be flexible, but please can we have some clearer guidance? When the definition is currently "Of or pertaining to", should we use "Of or related to", "Of or relating to", "Relating to", or something else? K1767 (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Entry layout explained. - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
For the benefit of readers who are just learning about language, especially English speakers learning about other languages that have gendered noun classes in the way that English does not, I think it would actually be good to expand "f." to "feminine", etc. -- Beland (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure how subsenses are supposed to be formatted, or if there's some template to use. Why is there no description or example — nor any link thereto — where the relevant recommendation appears?
—DIV (1.145.54.191 12:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC))
{{senseno}} cannot adapt to changes in formatting, which means a sense "1.a" would still be displayed as "sense 1.1". — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 08:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be encouraged (or required?) to mark each verb (sub)sense with a context label (using the lb template) as either transitive or intransitive?
Such advice could be included in this Style Guide under the "Verbs" subheading at "Patterns".
—DIV (49.180.206.58 01:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC))
Per this note by Benwing2, I'll update the phrasing here to make it clear there is now a consensus (?) that neither cf. nor confer should be used and to use compare in place of both. — LlywelynII 04:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
It seems to me that Wiktionary uses some narrow definition of gloss in Wiktionary:Style guide#Types of definitions, as well as in Template:gloss/documentation and Template:non-gloss definition/documentation.
According to the gloss entry, gloss is "A brief explanatory note or translation of a foreign, archaic, technical, difficult, complex, or uncommon expression, inserted after the original, in the margin of a document, or between lines of a text" (other meanings seem irrelevant). This definition kind of includes what {{non-gloss definition}} is used for ("A brief explanatory note"). And still, Template:non-gloss definition/documentation links to this definition.
I suspect it would be better to link to somewhere else for the definition of gloss, for example WT:Glossary, if such a definition were actually present. Because I, for one, was confused while trying to unravel this puzzle. This style guide is an option too – at least it has examples.
As for the definition itself, I think the line "That definition is not a gloss, because the words in the definition cannot be used as a substitute for “of”" pretty much clears up what a gloss is as understood by Wiktionary. JWBTH (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Greetings and felicitations. Would someone please rename one or both of the two "References" sections so that the links lead to the correct section and edits to them are properly credited? I'm not familiar with Wiktionary's practices, but this is standard in Wikipedia—see WP:SECTIONHEAD. —DocWatson42 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)