If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:
Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
Hi there. That protolangauge/language family is kind of controversial, so it's better to tone down derivations from such reconstructions, and always provide references in form of books or papers. References should be provided in ===References=== section using templates, which should specify work name and page number so that others can verify that you didn't made up your reconstructions. Data on the Tower of Babel website is taken from books anyway :) For the wording, I'd suggest possibly form Proto-Altaic *X, with cognates such as Y, Z or something similar. Cheers. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reminding :) I'll fix the Proto-Altaic sections with "possibly". Do we also have templates for "Tower of Babel" sources? --Hirabutor (talk) 11:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See this edit for the usage of {{etym}} with tut parameter (which stand for Proto-Altaic), the new template {{R:tut-pro:SDM}} (which I misspelled SDB originally) which references Starostin-Dybo-Mudrak's dictionary whose data is imported at the ToB web site, and the usage of {{term}} to link Proto-Altaic reconstructions, as well as to link individual entries, even for those provided only in transcriptions (see Mongolian and Korean). You could also create individual pages for Proto-Turkic or Proto-Altaic reconstructions so that this data becomes available to all the languages whose etymology sections link to them. For page numbers (the page= parameter for the reference template) I used the PDF version. There is also an additional but optional vol= for volume number but I doubt you have the paper edition :P --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you copy parts of etymologies to new pages, please make sure to fix the etyl templates. {{etyl}} takes two language codes as parameters: the first is the source language, and the second is the destination language. The second parameter should always be either the language code of the entry itself, or "-". That's because the etyl template doesn't just give the name of the language, it also adds the page to a category- unless you specifically tell it not to, by making "-" the second parameter. The name of the category is created automatically from the language codes in the template in the format "[[Category:" + <language name from the second code> + " terms derived from" + <language name from the first code>]].
That's fine when the language of the first language code is an actual source of the term and the language of the second language code matches that of the entry. In a Turkish entry, it's definitely a good idea to use {{etyl|tr|otk}}{{etyl|otk|tr}} in the etymology if the term is inherited from Old Turkic: that will put the entry into [[Category:Turkish terms derived from Old Turkic]]. If you're listing cognates, though, you don't want that second parameter. For instance, {{etyl|xng|mn}} will add the page to the as-yet-nonexistent [[Category:Mongolian terms derived from Middle Mongolian]]. Instead, you should use {{etyl|xng|-}}, which will just produce "Middle Mongolian" without a category. Until the entries were fixed, [[Category:Mongolian terms derived from Middle Mongolian]] contained pretty much all of the Turkish terms where you mentioned Middle Mongolian. Please be more careful. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 07:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note this change to your etymology section. You are linking all the terms to "otk", which is not what you intended to do. The parameter "otk" should appear as "lang=otk", and the English translation should be inculded as the third parameter.
Hi Hirabutor,
In ateş#Etymology you have used data from the Bashkir article ут.
You need to change the Old Turkic tags into Old Turkic so that this article gets automatically categorized as "Turkish terms...", not as Bashkir terms.
There are a lot of mistakes on this page; even the title is incorrect. Where did you get the information from? —CodeCat13:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected as much... That site really isn't very reliable. First of all, they include Nostratic etymologies which are widely discredited. Secondly, they rely on very old, pre-laryngeal reconstructions (using things like "ə" which modern Indo-European linguists don't use). And thirdly, they seem to have encoding issues as well (using some strange character ɵ instead of þ for Germanic languages), which you copied straight into the entry, thereby propagating the error. —CodeCat17:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It can be improved. The existence of the root as such doesn't seem in doubt, the descendants look ok for the most part. But it should be moved to its modern laryngeal-based form, *telh₂-. —CodeCat22:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Hirabutor, please be very careful when taking information from http://starling.rinet.ru/. It is not very reliable. And please don't use the {{R:tut-pro:SDM}} for linking to all pages on that site. The Altaic sections are indeed based on that printed work, but not others. In this case, the Indo-European page is based on outdated Walde-Pokorny and the Nostratic page—on Illyč-Svityč and an unpublished work by Aron Dolgopolski. --Vahag (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, ignorance is no crime. The damage was done by the proxy-ip vandal Krakkos, because he is the one who deleted tons of material (over 100 deletions!). That's why I asked you if you need glasses. Secondly, Wikipedia has nothing to do with Wiktionary, so if you keep your way, I have to report you. Krakkos is a wellknown POV-proxy-ip-warrior deleting everything Turk-related stuff. The last investigation showed that he spread his POV-vandalism also to the German Wikipedia by creating phantomball alibis. I am just 1 victim out of many. Your choice. --Hirabutor (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
