User talk:--Stranger/template

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

template creation



Alternative spellings[edit]

Alternative forms[edit]


(don’t include this section if blank)

  1. etymology one
  2. etymology two



  • (UK) SAMPA:/pronunciation/
  • IPA:/pronunciation/


(example: the entry for "right" would list the homophones "rite" and "write")




word (comparative: worder and superlative: most word)




Intransitive Verb[edit]

hrunk (third person: hrunks, present: hrunking, past: hrunked, past participle: hrunked)

  1. To flrink with cumplus.


word (plural words)

  1. A person who furps. (perhaps in paratheses after definition reference etymology one and/or pronunciation one)
    Text of quotation using the English noun form properly
  2. Second definition
  3. third definition




Proper Noun[edit]

Definition classification



(List words with same meaning)

  • (definition-summary-1): syn1, syn2
  • (def-sum2): alphabetical order and separated by commas, wikifying each synonym


  • synonym (definition~number)

also see: WikiSaurus


Usage Note[edit]


  • 2003: citation
  • 2004: I really love to word! — Book Title, Author
  • 2005: Use this style for quotes as well


Also See[edit]

Derived terms[edit]

(list words that have this word in their etymologies)

Related terms[edit]

(list words that are morphologically related) (example: "morphology" lists "morph")

External Links[edit]



definition summary

  • French: french-word gender-m-f-n-c=common
  • German: german-word m-f-n-c

Category Material[edit]


[[Category:English nouns]] [[Category:English verbs]] [[Category:Eponymous terms]] [[Category:German adjectives]]

To Add/Refine[edit]


Hi Sally and welcome to Wiktionary.

Please take a look at the changes I've made to chocolate. Unfortunately due to the concise nature of the heading labels it's not obvious enough what they are intended for. Here is a brief rundown:

Derived terms:

Words, phrases, idioms created by adding prefixes, suffixes, or extra words to the headword.

Related terms:

Words, phrases, idioms which are lexically related, not semantically related. This is for words with common roots, etymology, etc which do not fit in the Derived category which is in one way a specialised subsection of Related terms.

See also:

Words, phrases, idioms which are of interest in any way shape or form to any subset of people who might look at the current article. Semantic relationships are best included here.

Let me know if you need clarification and keep up the good work. — Hippietrail 6 July 2005 02:07 (UTC)

Hi Hippietrail! Thanks so much for the clarification!! I will keep these in mind, and try to go back and fix the ones I already put in. Another question relating to this... sometimes, the list of these terms gets quite long. Is it okay to split into 3 columns (like I have done with chocolate), or is there a policy on this? — Sally Ku 6 July 2005 02:24 (UTC) Actually I really liked the 3-column layout and hope nobody objects. Some wiktionaries just put them all inline with no list but I find that too difficult. The 3-column approach (2-columns would also work for many articles) seems to be a very nice middle ground. There is probably no policy yet but a bit of experimentation is tolerated here most of the time. — Hippietrail

6 July 2005 02:43 (UTC)


English template



  • /ˈflipˌflop/, /"flIp%flQp/



Some ancient tongue


term (plural: termata)

  1. a thing


Related terms[edit]



eat (ate, eaten)

  1. do something

Related terms[edit]



pink (pinker, pinkest)

  1. like such and such

Related terms[edit]


Related terms[edit]

See also[edit]

Chinese template



  • Yale: fóo bár (foo2 bar2)

  1. blah blah blah.


Japanese: 外人 (fūbā)

Thanks for the link from WS:ELE. It does make this easier to find. --Connel MacKenzie 22:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] see also We'll be wanting to put in somewhere the see also for the capitalisation

[edit] opinions Here are a few thought which you are welcome to shoot down. There's probably a more appropriate place, but I'm putting it here because it applies at least to this article.

Like the rest of the site, the article seems to lack an audience, although the error isn't as egrigious as with other pages. In fact this is probably the most useful of any resource. But even this page could be tailored further.

Who's our audience? Admittedly not much more than a guess, I'd break people down into the following groups, starting with the base of the pyramid:

Wikipedia users These are people who use the resource as a dictionary. They judge the dictionary against others, whether printed, online, free, commercial, or in their fantasies. They're impatient and ill informed. They're the reason we're here. This group needs to know how to use Wiktionary. For instance, entering search words in lower case is pretty standard. Sure, they may need the obvious, but that can be reserved for a failed search page. It's confusing to provide a long history of the change and how it impacts not them. This group would want to know how to use the pronunciation key, especially as it pertains to English. In some cases they may need a more complete chart. However, they don't want to be led to long discussions about the differences between IPA and SAMPA and benefits thereof. They need to know how to get the characters to display correctly on their browsers. They make comments in the most accessible places, e.g. the talk page of individual entries. If they offer information about actual use and applicability to their needs, they shouldn't be scolded for putting it in the wrong place, stating it as a complaint, or being flat wrong. They're not going to find an answer to their question in the middle of someone's treatise or pretty much in any document more than one click away. They should know that the content can be edited, and when they try to do so they should be provided with the most basic resources: a statement about the license and copyrighted works, a guide for style ("This is a dictionary," etc.), a current guide for layout, and a secondary guide for more obscure questions about markup, etc. Typical contributor These are English speakers, usually registered, who add the bulk of content to the English site. Mere users at one time, they have become involved with the project. They are more likely than occassional contributors to rely on resources such as the secondary guide above, and may need some clarification on rare or ambiguous issues. They are more likely to raise questions about the language and even provide feedback for others. They are more likely than occassional contributors to start a new page, but they don't need a lesson on parts of speech to determine that their word isn't a preposition. They're encouragable and want to know how to satisfactorily complete a page. It should be easy for them to learn about using the templates and categories provided for them. They shouldn't be led to guides on how to create useless new categories if they aren't aware of the policies, although the more technically oriented will stray into these areas. Most won't be interested in hammering out policy, but all will have specific issues on which they'll want to be heard. Translators These are typical contributors placed in a different class because they have an extended set of goals, issues, and resources that most contributors don't need to muddle with. Of course, they are part of the same community, if other communities as well. Knowledgable users The audience I'm trying to persuade. Vandals The obvious. Luckily, this is the smallest group. In short, it has taken too much reading to familiarize myself with the basics of this community and the mechanisms of this project, and I want to implement changes to streamline that process. Davilla 20:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


Part of speech In identifying the part of speech of an entry, such as one of the following. Numerous others are possible. Note that they are entered in alphabetic order.

Article (example: the) Adjective (quick) Adverb (quickly) Conjunction (and, because) Idiom (great minds think alike) Interjection (wow) Measure word (used in Asian languages) Noun (dollar, money) Number Cardinal number (twelve), Ordinal number (twelfth) Particle (used especially in Asian languages) Phrase (used for set phrases or phrasebook entries) Preposition (from) Postposition (used in some languages) Pronoun (we, this, my) Proper noun (Antarctica) Verb Action words (to kill, to die) [edit] Inflections and standard forms These appear on the line immediately following the part of speech, and are without bullet or indentation.

A bolded example to show normal capitalization. Inflections if any, particularly if these are irregular, or prone to other uncertainties such as whether consonants should be doubled. See the reference page on English inflections to find out what "regular" inflections are. For words in some foreign languages this may be a small table. Verb examples should be in the infinitive ("to ____", e.g. "to walk") unless this is an article about an inflected form (in which case, provide a link to the infinitive form). List inflections wikified also on same line. For several inflected languages there are templates that will generate the inflections from the stem, that will save you having to type out the inflections, and label each of them, longhand. For adjectives and adverbs, give the comparative and superlative forms (when applicable), especially if they are irregular. [edit] Definitions These are listed, and soft numbered, in an order that takes into account the age and frequency of the usage. Some usages derive from other; and this makes it impossible to firmly prescribe the order in which these should be shown. An inflection or spelling variant is adequately defined by so indicating. Thus "(past participle) of ...", or "variant spelling of ... as the case may be.


all English categories start with a capital letter

Just a minor point - in headings, the convention here is to capitalise only the first word. So it's "Proper noun" rather than "Proper Noun".

WS:ELE, the parts of speech headings go alphabetically

a real definition for an inflected form would read:

hrunked# past tense of hrunk >>>

more headings - user suggested:

words: Synonyms: Words which mean the same in some context. e.g. close is a synonym of shut. Antonyms: Words meaning the opposite in some context. e.g. big is an antonym of little Attribs: A noun for which the adjective expresses value e.g. big is an attribute of size. Type of: Shows less specific words. e.g. a comedy is a type of play Types: Shows more specific words. e.g. flower has daisy as one of its types Parts: Shows words for part of an object. e.g. tree is one of the parts of a forest Part of: Shows words for a collection or the whole. e.g. bumper is a part of a car Similar: Words with meanings that are close. e.g. big is similar to huge See also: Phrases that include the word. e.g. for get, see also get ahead, get along, get on, get over Causes: A verb X causes Y if X denotes the causation of the state or activity referred to by Y. (An action tending toward a particular end.) Entails: A verb X entails Y if X cannot be done unless Y is, or has been, done. - These are relations between two verbs, indicating that the action denoted by one verb necessarily precedes, or follows the action denoted by the other verb. To "awake" entails to "sleep", because it is not possible to awake without first sleeping. In order to "travel" it is necessary to "move". (Have as a logical consequence.)

False or Folk etymologies.

Also a "Phrases containing" and "Related phrases" headers might be useful (e.g. gluttony -> "eaten out of house and home").

"Often used in the same context:", "Appears in the definition of:"

"Contains" for related words (e.g. "raindrops" contains "rain") Anagrams unnecessary but fun

"Synonyms", "antonyms" and "see also" are already being used. The problem with the other relational headings lieas as much in the subjectivity of their interpretation, and whether people will actually use them. Some are already built into the definitions, and that would make those headers redundant. Those which require cataloguing elements of a set strike me as beyond the scope of this project. Whlle their are some interesting innovations in the sites that you cite, I don't think that the software is yet able to handle that kind of diagrammatic approach. Eclecticology 20:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) Have you looked at the WordWeb program? What



Forms and Variants[edit]

having the only exception being translation headers (but they would be consistently at level 4

etc. --Connel MacKenzie 20:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC) >>>

by anon:

"beginner's entry layout" (Language, word, definition, and wikipedia link?)

, "moderate user's entry layout" (etymolygy, pronunciation, synomyns, and quotes?)
and "advanced user's entry layout" (everything else). .


use (italics) bullet-space-definitionsummary-space-synonmy- don’t use definition numbers because they might change

its up to the advanced users to make allowances for the newbie, and make “fool proof” rules

>>> >>>


Connel, could you please take a quick look at aisle and admit and tell me if I'm on the right track formatting/uploading/license-wise, preferably *before* I do another 150(0) edits? Do we have a convention yet for which comes first, IPA/SAMPA or audio? Thanks! --Dvortygirl 23:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) I don't know of a conention yet for which comes first...but I would think the audio should probably come after? Otherwise, yes, this does look great >>>


to look at for template info: word "mulching" from the article mulch? Mulching has its own entry in the Wiktionary and in my opinion it's not a mistake. It's not just a participle from mulch. Marac 8 July 2005 10:38 (UTC) Yes, mulch should (and does) link to mulching, as an inflected form of to mulch (verb.) Having it listed as a regular inflection, there really is no point in listing it again as a derivation. If you want to put it back in there, I'll try to not remove it...but it is redundant. --Connel MacKenzie 8 July 2005 15:52 (UTC) Oh, you're right. I just didn't notice it is already listed as a regular inflection. I thought you removed the only reference to "mulching". >>>

>>> It's an Idiom. By the way, we don't pipe links over here normally. So I changed responsibility to responsibility. Cheers. SemperBlotto 08:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) >>> Could I make a couple of requests of you, please? Can you list alternative forms under a heading enclosed in sets of four equals signs rather than as the respelling of the entry? So, for example, "get someone's goat", which can also be "get somebody's goat", might look like this:

English Intransitive verb phrase get someone's goat

Alternative forms get somebody's goat Could you then create a redirect page for each of the alternative form(s) to the form you have created, which would look like this (without the "nowiki" tags):

  1. REDIRECT get someone's goat

Creating the redirect pages means that no one will come along and duplicate your work by creating a page for "get somebody's goat", which would rapidly get out of synch with "get someone's goat".

Hello Ncik,

I am comforted to see you adapting to some of the general practices around here. In the conversation you started over at WS:BP#Part_of_speech, it pretty clearly (to me) says that "===Idiom===" is a very good way to identify idioms. There are not many exceptions to the PoS rule, but the ones we have (Idiom, Phrase, Proper noun, Acronym, etc.) are quite well established. Idioms, in particular, can fit in as several different PoS; "Idiom" is a better grouping for them.

I'm glad we got to hear from a few others, on the BP, about it.

--Connel MacKenzie 21:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? You just reverted my latest, only recent, edit of eat one's own dog food in which I changed the PoS from "Idiom" to "Verb". I oppose headers like "Idiom", "Phrase", "Proper noun", "Abbreviation", "Transitive verb", etc. and shall not use them. Ncik 10:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC) I was talking about some of your other recent edits. "Idiom" is clearly preferred by everyone else here at Wiktionary. --Connel MacKenzie 13:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC) Dvortygirl, one of the main contributors to Category:Idioms, uses proper PoS headers. Ncik 13:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC) I don't know that we have a firm policy on this matter yet, but I can certainly explain how I catalog idioms. If I can clearly identify the part(s) of speech, I do. I think it is a far more useful piece of information than "Idiom," which usually appears elsewhere in the article, anyway. Occasionally, though, idioms consist of phrases that are not so well-behaved or obvious (to me, at least), in which case I do fall back on {{idiom2}}, which inserts "Idiom" as a heading. In either case, I make a particular effort in idiom articles to compose an example sentence or two for each definition, so that somebody unfamiliar with the expression can see how to use it. --Dvortygirl 17:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)