Wiktionary talk:Entry layout explained

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

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

Archived talk[edit]

Remove part about wikifying language names[edit]

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[edit]

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. —RuakhTALK 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (trebujuščij) много (mnogo) времени (vremeni) (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}}? —RuakhTALK 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?) —RuakhTALK 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[edit]

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===. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/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)
TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from user talk:msh210.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


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[edit]

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? —RuakhTALK 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.) —RuakhTALK 21:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I fully agree, and I believe that this accurately reflects current formatting standards. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/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[edit]

Wiktionary:Style guide. - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done (I've added a "see also" link to the bottom of the page) - -sche (discuss) 07:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"Typical entry" contradicts order of headings[edit]

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)
It shouldn't be rare, though; there are hundreds if not thousands of English loanwords floating around among the world's languages, not to mention the vocabulary of all the English-lexified creoles. —Angr 19:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Seconding CC: translations of this term first, links to other terms after. Michael Z. 2013-06-12 00:22 z
I'd agree with the after-translations position. Which wouldn't be a bad place for cognates, too. I hope we don't need a vote. But we should take it to the Beer Parlor. DCDuring TALK 00:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The Order of Headings section follows the VOTE we had on the issue, so it is the order we decided upon. There were no opposing votes in that decision. "Descenadants" should come before "Translations" in the rare situations where both sections appear. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation before Etymology[edit]

Since when did we start practicing that instead of placing the etymology header before the pronunciation header? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

One example I edited: тәмәке. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Lots of editors seem to just prefer it that way and do what they please. There are some ELE-compliant instances in which the pronunciation is shared by more than one etymology, though one would wonder whether the homophony applied over the entire period covered. DCDuring TALK 11:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
In most cases, it probably did; in other cases, the earlier pronunciation difference would better be shown at the Middle Foo/Old Foo entries than at the Modern Foo entry. In the few remaining cases, we can use {{sense}} inside the Pronunciation section to say that the two etymologies were formerly pronounced differently. —Angr 11:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"expression"[edit]

I just searched the page for "expression", to find out if there's a section for it, or whether those fit in "derived terms", and didn't make a hit. It seems to me that this word should be in here somewhere. --Jerome Potts (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't expressions fit under the "Phrase" part of speech header? —CodeCat 02:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)