Wiktionary talk:Entry layout explained

Note the existence of page Wiktionary:Editable ELE where proposed changes to CFI are made, and discussed.

Archived talk

• 2002
• 2003
• 2004
• 2005 + BP discussions
• 2006
• 2007
• 2008
• 2009
• 2010
• All discussions after 2010 are on this page.

Some linking please

I'd like to see each word in "Antonyms, Hypernyms, Hyponyms, Meronyms, Holonyms, Troponyms, Coordinate terms" internally linked. Mikael Häggström 15:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In the headers in entries? Or in the document "Wiktionary:Entry layout explained"?​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Link to Wiktionary:References

The Wiktionary:Entry_layout_explained#References section would benefit from a link to Wiktionary:References, which explains in more detail the system for citing sources of factual information. —Morganiq 21:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Foreign words and English translations

It says: Translations are to be given for English words only. In entries for foreign words, only the English translation is given, instead of a definition. Any translation between two foreign languages is best handled on the Wiktionaries in those languages. Does this mean that foreign words can't have definitions, or that English definitions can't have "translations" (synonyms)? Vaste 02:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The former. But in practice foreign entries have definitions where no good translation exists.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitions of non-English terms are mostly the same as for English terms. The only difference is that for English terms, you can't define sleep to mean "sleep", while you can define dormir to mean "sleep". So foreign definitions are often much shorter, but they don't always have to be. —CodeCat 15:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Rhymes

Rhymes are commonly added without a colon, but only have a star. The script does it so, for example. Can this be fixed up? Thanks, --The Evil IP address 20:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather just remove the irritating colon. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I formulated that a bit misleading. I was actually asking if the colon can be removed from the instructions. --The Evil IP address 20:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"Alternative Spellings" section not listed

I don't see "Alternative Spellings" listed in WT:ELE#Additional headings. It seems to be used frequently, e.g. in afternoon. My guess is it should be just before "Alternative forms"? Facts707 17:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It was deprecated in favor of Alternative forms; we only use Alternative forms. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Good to know - thanks for the update. Facts707 19:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe someone can write a bot to fix the older entries? cheers, Facts707 19:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Example sentences: non-idiomatic collocations?

Goal number 2 of the example sentences section is "To provide notable collocations, particularly those that are not idiomatic." Not idiomatic? Wouldn't we want precisely those phrases that were common and natural, rather than weird ones? Leonxlin 19:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. We want common, natural example sentences. Either a joker got to ELE (unlikely, but I haven't checked the history), or, more likely, it's using idiomatic in the weird way we do here at Wiktionary, to mean "forming a phrase that means more than the sum of its parts". (See WT:CFI#Idiomaticity.) We'd want example sentences with non-idiomatic collocations (in that sense of idiomatic): for white, He lives in a white house is okay, but He lives in the White House is not.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps other verbiage should be used, then, to avoid this sort of confusion? — lexicógrafa | háblame — 22:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Or idiomatic can stay, but with an explanation appended.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't punctuate the first sentence of the definition as if it were a complete sentence.

There is a long tradition in English-language dictionaries of treating the first sentence of a definition as an incomplete sentence, made complete by the assumption that additional words are implied, either The <word> is a . . ., or <word> means . . ., or whatever is appropriate. In fact, it appears that most Wiktionary entries respect and follow this tradition. However, official Wiktionary entry layout rules (Wiktionary:Entry_layout_explained#Definitions) require that this first incomplete sentence be punctuated as a complete sentence would be; that is, with an initial capital letter at the beginning of the sentence, and a full stop at the end. This is contrary to traditional English-language dictionary entries, but my main concern is that this approach continues to confuse in the common mind the concept of what a complete sentence is. This confusion is further reinforced by text editing software that automatically capitalizes the initial letter of every line of text in a document, whether that is appropriate or not.

By removing the requirement to have an initial capital letter and a final period, and instead requiring that the definition be punctuated as the incomplete sentence it is, Wiktionary would not continue to confuse the reading public with regard to what a complete sentence is, and it would come more fully in line with traditional, professionally edited English-language dictionaries. Thills123 17:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It says "Each definition may be treated as a sentence: beginning with a capital letter and ending with a full stop" (emphasis supplied): in fact, some contributors do it that way and some do not. We haven't been able to reach any consensus on the issue, and the points you've raised have been among those discussed in the past.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

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.[1]

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)

WT:Beer parlour archive/2011/December#Poll: language linking in translation sections. --Yair rand (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Daniel 15:36, 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 [ɾ], but they're non-homophonous due to a form of Canadian raising (which affects writer, pronounced something like [ˈɹʌɪ.ɾɚ], and not rider, which is pronounced something like [ˈɹaɪ.ɾɚ]). 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. —Ruakh_TALK 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. [1] 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 много времени (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}}? —Ruakh_TALK 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)

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)

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?) —Ruakh_TALK 00:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps amend {{t-SOP}} so it can link to language sections by itself? Just a thought. --BiblbroX дискашн 22:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

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===. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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 conversation is no longer live.

It has been archived here from user talk:msh210 and removed from that page.

---

enPR vote links

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? —Ruakh_TALK 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.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree, and I believe that this accurately reflects current formatting standards. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've edited WT:Etymology to mention it. —CodeCat 11:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

See also

Wiktionary:Style guide. - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 16 March 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)