Template talk:new en useful

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Quotations and example sentences[edit]

I know I wrote this template, but the reason I'm writing to request a change is that it would involve a change in our policy, particularly of the use of italics in example sentences. By doing so I hope not so much to push through my suggested style changes as to establish this template or its new home as an authoritative source on style. That the move may be premature as the template is still unprotected, and in fact has yet to be reviewed, is of no concern to me. It was written following guidelines from entry layout and from what I've seen commonly used on entry pages, and where it differs, especially in the employment of small new templates, I expect that the proper corrections will be made.

Just FYI, I do not think these templates will be protected until they become the target of repeated edit wars or vandalism. I hope they will remain unprotected for three to six months at least. --Connel MacKenzie T C 09:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The following code:

# [[first|First]] [[definition]] of the entry.
#*'''1999''', Author, ''Title'', Publication
#*:''Quotation of '''entry name''' or its inflections.''
#*'''2000''', Author, ''Title'', Publication
#*:''Quotation of '''entry name''' or its inflections.''
# A  [[unique]] [[sense]]; a [[meaning]] possibly [[derived]] from the first.
#:''Example using '''entry name''' or its inflections.''

appearing as:


  1. First definition of the entry.
    • 1999, Author, Title, Publication
      Quotation of entry name or its inflections.
    • 2000, Author, Title, Publication
      Quotation of entry name or its inflections.
  2. A unique sense; a meaning possibly derived from the first.
    Example using entry name or its inflections.

should be replaced with:

# [[first|First]] [[definition]] of the entry.
#*'''1999''', Author, ''Title'', Publication
#*: Quotation of '''entry name''' or its inflections.
#*'''2000''', Author, ''Title'', Publication
#*: Quotation of '''entry name''' or its inflections.
# A  [[unique]] [[sense]]; a [[meaning]] possibly [[derived]] from the first.
#:* Example using '''entry name''' or its inflections.

so that it looks thus:


  1. First definition of the entry.
    • 1999, Author, Title, Publication
      Quotation of entry name or its inflections.
    • 2000, Author, Title, Publication
      Quotation of entry name or its inflections.
  2. A unique sense; a meaning possibly derived from the first.
    • Example using entry name or its inflections.

Besides the removal of italic text, the other change is an alignment of examples with quotations. Davilla 08:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Edited to reflect corrections made in template. Davilla 05:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree the italics are silly. I do not like the idea of using "*" to bullet-point the example sentences. I'd like to see quotation marks around actual quotations. I prefer ASCII quotation marks, but "real" or "smart" quotes would work too...especially if they are pre-placed and I don't have to figure out how to insert a left-hand quotation mark vs. a right hand quotation mark. Erm, double quotes, left and right, that is. --Connel MacKenzie T C 09:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Although your proposal leaves the current indentation, as shown at the top, I am adding an extra spacer to the example sentence to illustrate that it is not otherwise possible to align with the bullet-indented quotations. I would prefer the bullut to distinguish these sentences, but with quotation marks I would propose using single marks for the example sentences, as is sometimes the British practice for speech vs. citation. The new code:
# [[first|First]] [[definition]] of the entry.
#*'''1999''', Author, ''Title'', Publication
#*:“Quotation of '''entry name''' or its inflections.”
#*'''2000''', Author, ''Title'', Publication
#*:“Quotation of '''entry name''' or its inflections.”
# A  [[unique]] [[sense]]; a [[meaning]] possibly [[derived]] from the first.
#::‘Example using '''entry name''' or its inflections.’

would appear as:


  1. First definition of the entry.
    • 1999, Author, Title, Publication
      “Quotation of entry name or its inflections.”
    • 2000, Author, Title, Publication
      “Quotation of entry name or its inflections.”
  2. A unique sense; a meaning possibly derived from the first.
    ‘Example using entry name or its inflections.’

Both suggest can be refined simultaneously. Any comments? Davilla 05:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully Muke or Eclecticology will comment on the quotations format, as it seemed important to each of them. I personally don't want to have to learn a new style, so if the template will present the correct style for me, (that everyone or mostly everyone agrees on,) I'll be OK with it. Of course, about 100,000 entries are not be formatted that way. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, as far as style goes, it's not the quotation that's important to me, it's the italics which I would prefer be reserved for use-mention distinction in definitions. (Compare the use of "epithet" in you versus denomination.) 59.112.41.161 02:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The other style I've seen used, by Muke in particular, is a separate quotations section. I have no objection to this, especially in cases where several quotations are required. Combining some of the ideas above, one proposal is:

# [[first|First]] [[definition]] of the entry.
# A  [[unique]] [[sense]]; a [[meaning]] possibly [[derived]] from the first.
#:<tt>“</tt>Example using '''entry name''' or its inflections.<tt>”</tt>

===Quotations===
'''first definition'''

*'''1999''', Author, ''Title'', Publication
*:Quotation of '''entry name''' or its inflections.
*'''2000''', Author, ''Title'', Publication
*:Quotation of '''entry name''' or its inflections.

On my system, the quotes appear much nicer this way:


  1. First definition of the entry.
  2. A unique sense; a meaning possibly derived from the first.
    Example using entry name or its inflections.

Quotations[edit]

first definition

  • 1999, Author, Title, Publication
    Quotation of entry name or its inflections.
  • 2000, Author, Title, Publication
    Quotation of entry name or its inflections.

Thoughts? 59.112.41.161 03:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


I have a slight preference for no quote-marks, for a couple of minor reasons:

  • Many quotations already start or end with quotations:
    • "And so," he said, "it would be ugly and/or inconvenient to have yet more quote-marks around them."
  • Single-quotes are even worse: they'll often abut apostrophes for bolding or italicizing within the wiki-source, and spacing all those apostrophes and getting them to balance just right is an unnecessary hassle.

Not terribly compelling reasons, to be sure, but no worse than the reason for quote-marks. I think quotations and examples already stand out enough as non-definitions in Davilla's first proposal above -- definitely quotations with reference lines right above them, but even examples that are just indented-plus-bulleted. Keffy 21:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If this template is established as an authoritative source on style, then the talk page should be used for instructions/how to. To try to put all the instructions into the template as a Tutorial would be too complicated and confusing. Thus we will still need another page to discuss any possible changes/improvements to the template. At least, that would be my assumption. --Richardb 09:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Please add documentation[edit]

--Yecril 15:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Used?[edit]

Is this still used anywhere, even as a preload template. I can't find any evidence of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion debate[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.


Template:new en useful[edit]

This seems like a really old preload, maybe non-preload template. It uses loads of obsolete syntax, for example {{see}} instead of {{also}}. I was gonna clean it up, replacing almost the entire content, then decided it was way better to delete it. I would speedy it, but it's been around for quite a long time. Last modified in 2010. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. Doesn't seem highly useful to me nowadays at least. ;] User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 22:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)