Wiktionary talk:Etymology scriptorium

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

When can this new page be included in the Wiktionary:Discussion_rooms in order to be visible for as many users as possible? Bogorm 19:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not yet operable.. I'm waiting for some technical issues to be resolved before writing usage guidelines. This will be quite different type of discussion room though - discussions will be held on various entries' talkpages and transcluded here with some Wiki markup magic, so that they can all be monitored in one central place. And it'll all work transparently (you click on "edit section" here, and end up editing the talkpage section of the article where the discussion was initiated). Patience.. :) --Ivan Štambuk 19:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Festina lente. I am patient and supportive of the new section. Bogorm 19:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name of this SIG discussion room[edit]

Etymology scriptorium

“Chamber” seems a little generic to me. Our other discussion rooms are a bit literary or fun or imaginitive or at least thematic. I’d like to propose “scriptorium”. — hippietrail 00:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

chamber sounds too claustrophobic to me, scriptorium would be much better..perhaps accompanied by a convenient image like the one one the right? ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk 04:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the image elates the spirit of the studious, diligent man as if he is summoned to share the knowledge and arguments bestowed upon him and repels the haphazard visitor whose præoccpation may be far from immersion in the stringent linguistic sources supporting or refuting the etymological hypotheses. In other words, it is conducive to assiduous work and would deter from possible botchworks or original research. It is enlivening. Bogorm 12:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harmless drudge. — hippietrail 12:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who? The monk? Bogorm 12:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Johnson and his ilk. [1] — hippietrail 13:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do not remove my signature henceforth, someone may think I forgot to sing. I am almost sure it was inadvertent. Bogorm 13:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we stole the name from s:project:Scriptorium, but I won't tell if you don't.—msh210℠ 21:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually I didn't know they were using the name at all. I was thinking of Johnson defining lexicographer as "harmless drudge" which made me think of the library in "The Name of the Rose" which made me think of the beautiful word scriptorium. — hippietrail 04:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation[edit]

I wrote the initial docs, feel free to expand/correct it.. --Ivan Štambuk 08:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iclusion[edit]

Please include this new page in Wiktionary:Discussion_rooms so that there can be an influx of new users and a quick access from the start page for them. Bogorm 19:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would if I could figure out the magic that puts "Newcomers' questions, minor problems, specific requests for information or assistance" on a different line from "comment | history".—msh210℠ 21:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:SectionWatchLinks.js[edit]

Since this page is transclusion-oriented, y'all might want to know about [[MediaWiki:SectionWatchLinks.js]], which automatically adds "watch" and "unwatch" links next to the "edit" links of transcluded sections. This might make it easier to keep track of discussions that interest you, but that you don't want to (or aren't ready to) participate in.

(And if you'd like any changes made to it, let me know. I stopped thinking about it after we decided not to start using transclusions for WT:TR etc., so it may not be "production-quality". That said, I've had it turned on this whole time, and have found it useful at WT:VOTE, so it certainly does work, at least on my systems.)

—RuakhTALK 03:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works awesome, thanks :) Might be even worth of putting a link of interest to it on the page itself. --Ivan Štambuk 04:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary talk:Etymology[edit]

Since Wiktionary talk:Etymology will have some etymology discussions that aren't related to specific entries, wouldn't it make sense to add at least a link to that talk page in the scriptorium? Carolina wren 20:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't work with appendices?[edit]

This does not work with appendices or I'm doing something wrong. I added a discussion at Appendix talk:Proto-Indo-European *wĺ̥kʷos with wiki-markup required and a line here: {{#lst:Talk:Appendix:Proto-Indo-European *wĺ̥kʷos|etymology}}. The discussion, however, won't transclude. --Vahagn Petrosyan 02:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It works, you just needed Appendix talk: instead of Talk:Appendix:.Nadando 03:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks. --Vahagn Petrosyan 03:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion page like any other[edit]

Seems like we can stop transcluding talk pages and and just make this like other discussion pages. We could create an archive box in seconds. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what is with this? Why must Wiktionary take simple processes and hide away their workings with opaque transclusions? Why do the same thing in two completely different ways in different places? It's just confusing. —Michael Z. 2010-05-30 17:13 z
There are a couple of reasons we set this up this way. The first is to allow individual watchlisting. If you watch, you'll notice that any given Beer Parlour topic only lasts for perhaps a week. They are often not resolved, because people forget about them. The instant that a few big topics come up, everyone forgets about everything before them. Additionally, this system allows for easier archival, as the discussion is actually taking place on the talk page for the entry in question. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is only a feed of discussions elsewhere, then let's make it not look identical to all the other group discussion pages. I went to edit under a monthly header, and was completely puzzled at what I saw. I left a note, with no response. I think I may have inadvertently removed topics in previous months. And it's not like I'm a rank noob. This page is a very bad, opaque interface. —Michael Z. 2010-05-31 01:25 z
Something really needs to be done to reduce the load time, whether it's archiving or just plain deleting transclusions. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of biological terms[edit]

I've been working with taxonomy recently and wanted the etymology of the terms to be easily accessible. However, for many taxonomic groups, three (possibly more) wiki pages exist. There is an article on wikipedia, species.wikimedia, and wiktionary. I'm not sure which page needs this information most, or how I would go about formatting the addition.Foxboyprower (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wiktionary is the most immediate place for that information (being a dictionary!), but Wikipedia reaches a wider audience so that information would be useful there too. Wikispecies doesn't do etymologies. As for how to do it; adding etymologies to wiktionary is not difficult; Chordata is a good example of what you might be doing. NB: Etymologies don't all have to be that short (e.g. very). It might take a while to get the hang of the formatting, but you can copy and paste the code at Chordata to start with. Just leave a message on someone's talk page if you need some help.
P.S. If you want to discuss this further then I suggest you move this to the main Etymology Scriptorum; not the talk page (which not so many editors look at). Hyarmendacil (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WT:ES and WT:TR[edit]

I guess it doesn't matter that much where it is, but I worry that ES might start to get less usage if etymologies are discussed more at TR, that's all.

I've just worried lately that more people are using the Tea room to discuss etymologies than here. Sorry for the abrupt move, and sorry the ping didn't work. I guess it's not a really huge deal which discussion room is used, though, just worried about the usage becoming unequalized. @MGorrone PseudoSkull (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2020/October[edit]

I made a post earlier and it's not showing up on the main page. What's going on? I've never had this issue before. —Globins (yo) 08:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Globins I think the cached version of Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium didn't pull in the content from October yet. It shows up for me now. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 08:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With a term like “scriptorium”, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to make the whole name Latin?[edit]

I don’t know Latin, but as far as I know, it would be something like Scriptorium Etymologiae (or -æ). Eiliv / ᛅᛁᛚᛁᚠᛦ – Write to me 17:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would not make sense for English Wiktionary to carry a name like Scriptorium Etymologiae. Although the English word etymology can be traced through Latin, and scriptorium comes from Latin, they are now English words, and in English we say "Etymology scriptorium". Leasnam (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. That would make it harder to find and harder to remember for 99% of our readers. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary_talk:Etymology_scriptorium&oldid=69938778"