Wiktionary talk:About Czech

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

Basic entries[edit]

  1. I would place an empty line between {{cs-noun|g=m}} and # [[wind]] (''movement of air''). This is the way most Czech entries and most English entries are formatted.
  2. I would indicate that the most basic entry is one without declensions and conjugations, not one with them. I understand declensions and conjugations are useful. But they take a lot of additional work to create; I think it should be of high priority to have a correctly translated entry in the first place. --Daniel Polansky 11:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed and updated. ThomasWasHere 15:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


I think references are not part of the most elementary article. --Daniel Polansky 11:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and updated. ThomasWasHere 15:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Proprietary resources on Czech[edit]

I would avoid referring to proprietary resources on Czech from this policy page. --Daniel Polansky 11:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and updated. ThomasWasHere 15:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of references[edit]

I estimate that dictionaries are not even proper references. There is a policy saying that Wiktionary is a secondary source, for which the primary sources are the texts in which the terms occur. To use another dictionary, a secondary source, as a basis for Wiktionary is to make Wiktionary a tertiary source, which is not wanted. That is at least my understanding of this policy: Wiktionary:Wiktionary is a secondary source.

Based on this consideration, I would propose to drop references from the policy altogether. --Daniel Polansky 16:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Let's just drop this section, it's anyway not a priority for Czech entries. I have read what you pointed out but I have also read Wiktionary:Entry_layout_explained#References that links to Category:Reference_templates where you can see a lot of public domain dictionaries. Maybe in the far future it will have to be considered again or if there is a public domain Czech-English translation dictionary. Thanks for your reviews. ThomasWasHere 16:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for referring me to Wiktionary:Entry_layout_explained#References. I must have I misunderstood something; it seems that referring to public domain dictionaries is wanted. --Daniel Polansky 18:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
A common sense rule seems to be that use of dictionaries are weak references but still useful. See Wiktionary:Referencing dictionaries. ThomasWasHere 11:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Adjectives - feminine and neuter gender[edit]

I am so far not convinced that bílý is a good pattern or model for adjectives. Above all, I would prefer to align the Czech policy for adjectives with multilingual policy for all the languages having gender. Unfortunately, I do not know of such a policy.

So far, I have avoided creating any other than masculine adjectives. And when entering masculine adjectives, I have avoided entering feminine and neuter forms.

So instead of:


{{cs-adj}}, [[bílá]] {{f}}

# [[white]]

I would prefer



# [[white]]

If you would really want to have masculine and neuter forms in the policy, then I propose that you research into the current use in other languages.

The current proposal, even if accepted, would have to be extended to:


{{cs-adj}}, [[bílá]] {{f}}, [[bílé]] {{n}}

# [[white]]

And it leaves other questions open: what should the entry for bílá look like? Should it also link to bílý and bílé?

Also, the minimal entry should IMHO not require the statement of feminine and neuter forms; the main point should be that there is a correct translation.

--Daniel Polansky 09:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was not very clever from me to put this example : /. I have replace the example with malý. The masculine singular nominative form should be the only entry like for noun (gender apart) but I propose to add the comparative and superlative form in the template like in english for small. See also malý in the Czech version and malý in the German version (full table). It will need later a declension template {{cs-decl-adj}}. ThomasWasHere 10:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that adding a comparative and superlative to {{cs-adj}} would be valuable, modelled on {{en-adj}}. Still, to provide for automatic formation of comparative and superlative would be a bit more tricky, which is why I have avoided the task so far.
A declension template is still missing; right. --Daniel Polansky 10:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple gender[edit]

From the page text it seems that decision hasn't been made yet of how to handle adjectives with multiple gender like "noční". At Wiktionary:Index to templates the template {{ c }} is listed, standing for "common" - why not use that one? (Or does "common gender" mean something else?)Duncan MacCall 18:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK common stands from a merging of masculine and feminine genders in certain languages, such as Swedish, judging from W:Grammatical gender, and specifically W:Grammatical_gender#Common_and_neuter. So common and the template {{c}} should better be avoided at Czech entries. --Dan Polansky 08:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


I have created a dedicated section for proverbs, as a more detailed policy is probably needed. It is unclear--to me anyway--where to add literal translations, and what to do in case of not finding a semantically equivalent English proverb. --Daniel Polansky 10:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't find any policy for proverbs in any language but most of them give the equivalent in English if it exists and the literal translation. Here are some ideas:
  1. If there is no equivalent in English we should provide a link to the Czech Wiktionary. Unfortunately there is no proverbs category in the Czech Wiktionary. Maybe we can find a public domain repository of Czech proverbs explained in English to link ?
  2. For the literal translation even if it is useful I would more just wikified the words of the proverb because it is redundant to translate the proverb. The only exception is when there is no English equivalent of the proverb. Yet, there is still an exception = ) if you use the Etymology header where you can give the etymology of the Czech proverb. ThomasWasHere 12:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems that providing an explanation of the idiomatic meaing of the proverb is what is wanted, judging from à bon chat, bon rat and falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus, also judging from Connel MacKenzie's comment in his RFC in my tak dlouho se chodí se džbánem pro vodu, až se ucho utrhne. Explanations of idiomatic meanings are what is found in English proverb entries. I do not think that providing a link to Czech Wiktionary solves the problem of information missing in English Wiktionary.
There is Q:Czech_proverbs, explaining some of Czech proverbs. I have added a link to it to Category:Czech proverbs some time ago.
I do not see that it is redundant to translate the proverb. The literal translation is still an interesting piece of information, isn't it?
I still do not know how to format the literal translations. --Daniel Polansky 12:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, providing an explanation of the idiomatic meaning of the proverb is useful. However if there is an equivalent proverb in English, a link to it can be enough. I missed the quotation page, it's a valuable resource, thanks. As for the literal translation it is useful too but if you use the principle of Wiktionary to the extreme you can say that the user should refer to the entry of each word or group of words in the proverb, thus wikilinked the proverb could be enough. For the formatting of the literal translation the nicer form I have seen is for Japanese proverbs that add it after the translation with a Lit. in front. I prefer this to add the literal translation in bracket after the entry header. Below is a prototype you can copy and paste in tak dlouho se chodí se džbánem pro vodu, až se ucho utrhne to see how it looks. And also good point to have put the lemma of the word in the wikilinks. Damn, it's not easy to format this = ) ThomasWasHere 14:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

{{cs-prov|sg=[[tak|Tak]] [[dlouho]] [[se]] [[chodit|chodí]] [[se]]
[[džbán|džbánem]] [[pro]] [[voda|vodu]] [[až]] [[se]] [[ucho]] [[utrhnout|utrhne]].}}

# '''No English equivalent'''. ''Literally'', so long does one walk with
a jug for water, until one day the handle breaks off.
#: Explanation.

From what I now think to understand, the literal translation should not be after "#". And there is no need to state "No English equivalent" explicitly; that is obvious from not providing a link to that equivalent. The only issue open right now is where to put the literal translation; what belongs after "#" is either a link to the English equivalent if there is one or an explanation of the meaning of the proverb.

I do not know what "the principle of Wiktionary" you are referring to. I assume that you simply mean what you say after the invocation of "the principle of Wiktionary", namely that you can click on the single words. But clicking some ten words in some cases is a lot of work; forming a translation from these is still a further task, not necessarily easy one for a non-native speaker of Czech. --Daniel Polansky 17:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the the principle of Wiktionary, I should have been tired : ). I have look at every language about page and the talk page that goes with and found nothing for proverb. The same for a search on proverb in all talk pages. I am waiting for the answer of Connel too.


To resume:
  1. Wiki links on the words or group of word of the Czech proverb: yes, in lemma form
  2. Translation with the equivalent proverb in English: with a # after the entry, if not just omit
  3. Literal translation of the Czech proverb: on the same line as the entry, at the end, in bracket using the tr= parameter in the template {{infl}} but should only be used for transliteration or at the end of the definition in bracket ?
  4. Explanation of the idiomatic meaning of the Czech proverb: after the translation with #:, in italic ?

Formatting of literal translations[edit]

The formatting of literal translations in Wiktionary is currently inconsistent, as follows from:

Entry Note
a todo cerdo le llega su san Martín Entry line.
adar o'r unlliw hedant i'r unlle Entry line.
man kan inte lära gamla hundar sitta Entry line.
betri er krókur en kelda Etymology section.
Дурак дурака видит издалека Definition line.
船頭多くして船山に登る Definition line.
Bindfäden regnen Definition line.

Connel MacKenzie mentioned Category:zh-cn:Proverbs as a good model. In there, the literal translations, when present, are found in etymology section. I find it a bit strange though, as literal translations do not indicate the origin of the term or how the term came about. Sticking to the convention of putting the literal translations into the etymology section may be an okay temporary solution. --Daniel Polansky 10:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced either by using the Etymology section. This is definitely a question to ask in the grease pit putting a summary of our discussions and link to here and Connel talk section. ThomasWasHere 21:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See also[edit]

Phrase punctuation and first letter[edit]

I would rather use upper case for the first letter and an end punctuation. There seems to be no consensus because how are you is with an upper case first letter and how do you do is without. But anyway it seems to me more correct.

Another thing is the format of the entry. An upper case first letter or end punctuation is not necessary because a user would most of the time forgot to type it when doing a search and if the user type it it will be first in the possible results. So no need to add a redirection for the entry with an upper case first letter or an end punctuation. ThomasWasHere 12:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


'''Dobrý den!'''

# [[good day|Good day!]]

[[Category:Czech phrasebook]]
Hi, IMHO the prevailing Wiktionary practice is that phrases start in lowercase. Proverbs start with lowercase too, despite being complete sentences. How are you is an anomaly, entered in a lower-case entry anyway. --Daniel Polansky 19:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a policy concerning capitalization that suggest to use uppercase first letter if the phrase is a sentence, however there is no period at the end. --Thomas was here ☻Talk 17:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay. But the policy does not match the current common practice, as you can see from Category:Proverbs. --Daniel Polansky 09:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


There is no period at the end of a proverb entry. The punctuation at the end of a phrase could be omitted too. Some English phrase entries have an exclamation mark or a quotation mark at the end of the lemma, while many don't. I would tend to omit the punctuation, based on the proverb model. --Daniel Polansky 20:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to change the format of the name of the page but the format of the entry line. However, if you think that both should be the same I understand better why it should stay like this. ThomasWasHere 20:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that you want to change the format of the entry line, not the name of the page. I think above all that we should stick to what is a common practice: looking for what is already most common, checking examples and models, seeing what the community of the authors of Wiktionary has already been doing, instead of coming up with our own solutions. --Daniel Polansky 07:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Formatting of disambiguations/gloss[edit]

I have always formatted the disambiguations in brackets in italic. In the policy, you have changed the formatting to roman. What made you change it? Do you think it is common Wiktionary practice to format it in roman? --Daniel Polansky 21:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oups. Sorry I have changed it to fast. I should have first ask here before to change anything. I have put the italic back in the policy. I have to learn to be more patient, it is so tempting to change a page : /
As for the disambiguation at the end of the definition line called a gloss if I don't mistake like the template {{sense}} but not {{context}} or {{qualifier}}, I have found nothing on the format in the English policy. When I look at the most edited pages like cat and dog the gloss seems mainly non italic. But it is the English entries, for the non-English entries it can be italic or not. There is a template that could be use: {{italbrac}}, it allows people to choose how it looks in modifying their own style sheet. The template {{i}} you are using is a shortcut of {{qualifier}} and is maybe not the best to use for that. I just have seen in the history of the template that italbrac is a split of qualifier so I understand better why you use this one. I propose to use italbrac or even sense because it is better to use semantic template than just formatting template. ThomasWasHere 20:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I have started to use {{i}} when accidentally coming over it, without looking at its documentation, assuming it is equivalent to the longer {{italbrac}}. It seems that {{sense}} would fit the purpose, as the gloss is in a Czech entry to indicate which of the several senses is meant; it is there in an English entry in synonyms section for the same purpose.
It seems okay to me if the Czech policy uses (''...'') instead of using a template. I personally am going to let my practice evolve, as things change here in Wiktionary, codifying only these things at my user page that I feel a need to get codified. --Daniel Polansky 08:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, {{sense}} cannot be use because it adds a colon at the end so only {{italbrac}} can be use or like you do now just (''...''). ThomasWasHere 16:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Model language policy[edit]

Is there any nice, model language policy in Category:Wiktionary language considerations that the Czech policy considerations could be modeled on? That could save some work. --Daniel Polansky 07:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have formatted this page with Wiktionary:Entry layout explained as model and I find this structure easier to read than the variants you can find in other about language pages. However, we should have only two levels in the content table at the beginning of the page. A new section at the end of the page entitled Czech in non-Czech entries does not seems useful for the moment as the link Wiktionary:Translations given at at the beginning of the page is enough. Wiktionary:About Latin, Wiktionary:About Greek and Wiktionary:About Japanese are the biggest page at this time.
Here are some rules I have followed :
  • Start with basic entries, then more complex
  • For each section: first the example, then short explanations, then long explanations
  • Give example with the source code and a link to the entry each time necessary
  • Do not explain something already explain in Wiktionary:Entry layout explained
ThomasWasHere 16:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Wiktionary:About Hungarian has also grown to considerable size. Since it was written more recently than some of the other pages, it may contain ideas not in the older pages. --EncycloPetey 17:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Desired entries[edit]

In the "Noun form other than singular nominative" section of the policy page, it currently states, "To use only for an already existing page in another language or for a very frequent form."  I think this is backwards.  The rare forms, not the freqent forms, are the ones people are going to go hunting for in the dictionary (I do, anyway).

I guess I think the better answer is to have complete declension tables and have Wiktionary's search be able to find those things, but until that happens, adding any form of a word should be encouraged, not discouraged. — V-ball 08:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Rejzek 2015[edit]

I created the template {{R:Rejzek 2015}}, which is similar to {{R:Rejzek 2007}}. Besides the year there are two differences:

  1. It does not use {{pagename}} in the beginning, because some information can be referenced by entries with a different name than the Wiktionary page name. For example orba is referenced by the Rejzek's entry "orat" (which includes info on the expression "orba", too). There is an optional parameter to be filled with the name of the entry instead.
  2. ISBN and page number were added.

See also the documentation subpabe. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the ISBN as excessive for unique identification. It is IMHO visual noise that the reader should not be presented with. Most reference templates in the English Wiktionary do not provide ISBN; I like that practive. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. It helps the reader to find the book on the Internet. I often use ISBN when I search books and so I suppose that there are other people who do it too. Besides that, it was an optional parameter. So I will put it back. Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
It is uncustomary in English publications to provide ISBN in references; I checked the references sections of multiple English books including Gödel, Escher, Bach. I am okay with putting ISBN into a tooltip.
For a comparison of ease of finding a book, here's google:978-80-7335-393-3, and here's google:2015 Český etymologický slovník Rejzek. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Paper publications do not enable the reader to make full use of ISBN search: for example the publisher cannot link it to a seaching machine, or the reader cannot copy it by CTRL C/V, so no wonder that paper book publishers do not find it so useful, but this is not our case. I understand that you do not like it, but you do not have to use it, you can still use the other provided information to search the book. But it does not mean that other people, who are accustomed to using it, cannot use it either. It might not be a common pracise at English language paper publications, but it is a common practise at en.wiktionary (and other Wikimedia project including English Wikipedia too). Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
It is not a common practice in the English Wiktionary to provide ISBN in reference templates. I admit that, in attesting quotations, many editors are given to providing ISBN, and that I probably cannot do much about it. Nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of attesting quotations are provided without ISBN, fortunately.
As to the point that I do not have to use it, that is really irrelevant. The presence of ISBN increases the amount of material the eye has to scan through on a page. It makes the user experience for people like me much worse. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, you feel a problem if there are several more digits that your eyes have to scan, but I feel a problem if the digits are not there because I cannot use some common searching methods. I think that my problem is worse. Nevertheless, I asked at Beer parlour if the community could provide here more opinions. Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The links I have posted above show that search methods that do not rely on ISBN are entirely adequate. Furthermore, I am okay with providing ISBN in a tooltip. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I include the ISBN in every reference template I create, provided there is one. I cannot think of a single reason to exclude such essential information, especially since MediaWiki automatically creates a link allowing the reader to find the book in a library or online bookseller. If anyone considers it "visual clutter", they're not obligated to look at it; if it isn't customary to include ISBNs at Wiktionary, we need to make it so. If anything, they should be required in both reference templates and citations for any work that has one. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I have provided that reason: it is visual noise. The "they're not obligated to look at it" argument is nonsense: people cannot avoid looking at visual noise presented to them. ISBN is not "essential information", and the referencing practice in the books I have checked confirms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


I added optional parameters to the {{Template:cs-decl-noun}}, which a) enable to add alternative forms and link them to their entries, b) add qualifiers behind the alternative forms. See Template:cs-decl-noun/documentation. If there are no objections, I will also ask some bots if they could add the optional parameters to the templates where needed, as can be seen e. g. at the dative singular of chlap (the two forms are added into a single parameter, which does not enable correct linking). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to the above but it seems preferable to luacize the template. With Lua, parameters like "chlapovi, chlapu" could be automatically parsed by Lua and rendered into proper wikilinks, albeit without qualifiers. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I have nothing against this, but I am not able to do it :-( Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Audio links categories[edit]

What is the difference between Category:Czech entries with audio links and Category:Czech terms with audio links? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Czech entries with audio links is an explicit category (not from the audio template) that should be removed. DTLHS (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
That is exactly what I thought, but I asked for sure. Thanks for the answer. Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Czech "uncountable" nouns[edit]

It seems to me that the Category:Czech uncountable nouns is redundant to the Category:Czech singularia tantum. Czech grammar does not use this term, it uses only terms as collective nouns, hromadná, or material nouns, látková (which do not have a category here yet, but still fall under the broader category singularia tantum). Therefore I suggest to nominate the category Czech uncountable nouns for deletion. Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Let us be careful when applying Czech terminology in the English Wiktionary. Trying to limit the grammatical terminology used in the English Wiktionary to describe Czech to English analogues of Czech terms used by Czech grammarians to describe Czech can all too easily do a disservice to the native English speaker. For a native English speaker, "uncountable noun" is a well understood concept: a noun for which a plural cannot be formed. There certainly are such Czech nouns and can be placed into the category. The term "collective noun" refers to the likes of "smečka", as per collective noun, but I am not sure it refers to the likes of "uhlí" or "listí"; maybe it does. Even if it does, "collective noun" is not a hyponym of "uncountable noun" per "smečka". The term "uncountable noun" occurs in Czech: An Essential Grammar, by James Naughton, 2006, and in Legal Translation and the Dictionary, by Marta Chromá, 2004. The following two searches do not suggest to me that "singularia tantum" is unequivocally preferable to "uncountable nouns" in reference to Czech: google books:Czech "uncountable nouns", google books:Czech "singularia tantum". An obvious disadvatange of "singularia tantum" is that it is a Latin term, less accessible than "uncountable nouns". --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
For the record: now that I have undone a premature category depopulation, it contains the following items: chudina, rákosí, uhlí, člověk. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
You are right that the English term "collective nouns" is not the same as the Czech term "hromadná podstatná jména", which I did not realize.
Emptying the category "uncountable nouns" was not my primary goal, originally I only wanted to replace the parameter "uncountable" in the {{template:context}} for "singulare tantum", similarly as "plurale tantum" is used. As a result the category got empty and I suggested to delete it. It does not make sense to me to have both categories: singulare tantum and uncountables, and it does not make sense to me that one of them is a subcategory of the other.
As for the comprehensibility, when you use the parameter "singulare tantum", it shows text saying "singular only", which is very understandable, I think. If words like plavky are accompanied by text "plural only", than doubí should be accompanied by "singular only". This is my main point and if this is fulfilled, I do not care very much, if it is also added into the (imo redundant) category of Czech uncountables, or not (e. g. by adding the category manually at the end of the entry in square brackets). Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)