Wiktionary talk:Community Portal

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

Various[edit]

Shouldn't Community Portal be moved to Community portal? Ncik 15:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think some of the stuff at the Main Page can be moved here: it can be put here and removed at the main page. The main page should stick to what a user expects from a dictionary, and here we can have the stuff that an editor wants to see. Of course, there will be overlap, such as the new entries, for which I've just created a template. Guaka 18:22, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


I would like to see a dedicated search page optimised for PDAs. PDAs are not broadband and the pages here take too long to load.


I would like to see links to related wiki projects - Wikipedia, any others.

Is there a Wiki Thesaurus ? We need one, instead of multiple antonyms for each Wiktionary entry.--Richardb 00:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is a Romanian version of the Wiktionary (ro.wiktionary.org). How can one add a link to it under 'other languages' on this page?

Is there a standard place to report acronyms? Thanks you in advance.

page reform[edit]

This page needs some colour! --Dangherous 19:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Granted, 70 odd days later --Dangherous 21:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiktionary:Utilities[edit]

I have just finished deprecating Wiktionary:Index to Internals in favour of Wiktionary:Utilities. In the course of doing that, I came to realize that there is much duplication between this page and the utilities page. My merger of the other two pages was certainly with a view to avoiding needless duplications. Since Wiktionary is not paper we do not need to worry about space for storing duplicate material. Nevertheless, duplication tends to encourage divergent and unco-ordinated views where a person who is ignorant of a similar page unwittingly develops conflicting policies.

We need to find some co-ordination between this and the utilities page. My first impulse was to deprecate the entire utilities page, but it may be enough for this one to include the most common links while the utilities page includes those that have less demand. I'll wait a few days for comments before proceeding with this. Eclecticology 19:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New project[edit]

I'm relatively new to Wiktionary, and I wasn't sure where to go to propose this new project, so I came here. I think we should consider having pages in Wiktionary which will be more-or-less completely equivalent (in terms of listing the words on one page with etymologies given, at the least) to those controversial lists in W:Wikipedia: "W:List of English words of French origin", "W:List of English words of Spanish origin", "W:List of English words of Sanskrit origin", etc. etc., which in the opinion of many, many editors would have a better place in Wiktionary. But the argument against that was that Wiktionary's format was inferior, because we couldn't list them all on one page ("one click, see 'em all"). Well, let's fix that, start a new project, and unburden Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an etymological dictionary. Opinions? Alexander 007 06:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They can argue what they want; Wikipedia can decide for itself what it will accept. We can generate these lists with "Categories" Eclecticology 12:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spellcheck[edit]

The "Contact Us" section says, "For general comments/question, see our Beer parlour." Shouldn't that read comments/questions (multiple comments and multiple questions)? --Elkman 21:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

logo !![edit]

guys, that logo really needs to change. the worst bit is the grey text at the top - a lot of people arent getting that that comes from a supposed prior definition of Wikipedia, and confuse this place with an encyc.

other than that, it's just not a very nice logo is it? suggest a competition like what was done on wikipedia. --131.111.8.97 16:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC) (w:User:Alfakim)Reply[reply]

Comments are appreciated at meta:Wiktionary/logo. --Connel MacKenzie 21:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AMA[edit]

Does anyone object to me starting a chapter of the AMA? Geo.plrd 21:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The AMA? Sorry, we're tring to write a dictionary here... --Connel MacKenzie 21:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry,I meant Association of Members Advocates. Are there any objections or comments?Geo.plrd 21:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do we need it? We don't have dispute resolution/ mediation/ arbitration/ mentorship/ probation/ conflict resolution/ request for comment/ surveys/ whatever Wikipedia keeps inventing. We don't even have userboxes. In that aspect, Connel's comment is correct. — Vildricianus 21:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To do list[edit]

I just finished putting together a Wiktionary to do list based off Wikipedia's. I sincerely urge you to give your thoughts and ideas on it 'cause Rome wasn't built by one person. Foxjwill 22:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spanish Translation Project[edit]

I have no idea where to put this in here. It needs to get a link on a well trodden page so that people will know that it exists and be able to contribute.

My idea is to link to a "Translation" page will all the translation project such as that and translation of the week.

Any help is a appriciated.

Bearingbreaker92 03:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Catching up with policy[edit]

Looking for an overview of policy, it was confusing to follow the "obvious" link to such from the front page (Wiktionary Policies- a list of all policy documents. Both established policies, and policies in development) to get presented with a big "nominated for deletion" scrawled over the top of the page.

I'd suggest removing this entry until and unless the CFD fails, and making the following one more clearly offer what I was looking for; something like:

Hv 11:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Yes, the bad link has been removed. --Connel MacKenzie 14:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Text Speak Wiktionary[edit]

I don't know where to put this so I'm putting this here: Should there not be a text speak Wiktionary? It's almost a full language and would help people find what a word is in Txt speak?

See Category:Text messaging for some txt speak --Keene 16:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Txt spek Wiktionary[edit]

Should dere not B a txt spek Wiktionary? it full lingo u no?

See Category:Text messaging for some txt speak --Keene 16:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New redesign needed[edit]

After the success of the new Main Page, this page would benefit from an overhaul. It's been like this for 2 years, and there's lots of stale links and less-than-helpful descriptions. Anyone interested? --Keene 03:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I quite like the appearance of it, so it would only be the links that need changing, though in several cases it may well be that the page at the other end of the link needs changing. I suppose it reflects well on the community that we concentrate so exclusively on the dictionary - but it is nice to keep the site running smoothly too. Conrad.Irwin 09:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would recommend making a Medical wikitionary project[edit]

Medical dictionary would be great to have as free open source dictionary. I think it is a valid project if anyone is up for the challenge. I also think there should be a way to only search specific dictionaries - like only search the medical wikitionary.

I don't think we need a specific medical dictionary as Wiktionary can (and does) contain medical words. The think that needs to happen is for people to put {{medicine}} at the start of medical definitions: this then adds the word to Category:Medicine. I don't think a special medical search is warranted as searching for a medical word will automatically return it. Conrad.Irwin 07:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where do we put sources?[edit]

and references?150.140.227.137 16:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia

please add firefox search form extension suggestion[edit]

.-Qdinar (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community portal or Community Portal?[edit]

The page is named "Community Portal" but the link in the main menu is to "Community portal". Shouldn't one of these change? Nurg (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seconded! --2001:14BA:804D:9F00:0:0:0:5D9 06:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Colours[edit]

I remember some dude put loads of colours on this page. It used to look good, man! WTF happened? --SimonP45 (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

lexicographic approach to learning[edit]

Hi, one the main uses of a lexicographic resource is that of educational learning, therefore it would enrich Wiktionary to create a discussion room to ask for advice from advanced users regarding the learning process itself. The feedback would enable discovering current weaknesses and so improve Wiktioanry on the whole. --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What exactly do you mean? Asking questions about a particular language? — Ungoliant (falai) 12:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ungoliant: Not necessarily, but strategies to learn chinese characters and their respective pronunciation (homophones), or arabic broken plurals (unpredictability). Especially, personal advice from those who are already fluent, what they'd do differently knowing what they know now, mistakes to be avoided, grammatical aspects which the entry of a certain term doesn't clarify, etc. --Backinstadiums (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you can use the Tea Room and the Information Desk for these types of question, but having a special page wouldn’t hurt. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ungoliant: Then, I'd like to know the procedure to create such a page --Backinstadiums (talk) 07:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Backinstadiums Make your case in the Beer Parlour; receive ideas and feedback. When you are pleased with the results of the discussion, create the page like any other and link to it from the community portal and main page. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

çapulcu[edit]

Hi! çapulcu is the word in Turkish from which chapulling (Q13417998) is derived.Please create thais item. Thabks abd best regards
no bias — קיין אומוויסנדיק פּרעפֿערענצן — keyn umvisndik preferentsn talk contribs 04:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category moved[edit]

Category:Wiktionary:Reference has recently been moved to Category:Wiktionary reference, so the link given under Reference should be updated accordingly. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 21:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link to style guide[edit]

Could someone add a link to Wiktionary:Style guide to the policy section? I was looking for it and had trouble finding it. A link to Category:Wiktionary policies could also work, and might be a good idea regardless. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theknightwho vandalizing articles to make a point / teach me a lesson.[edit]

I was going to be polite and say that they were making POINTy edits, but they object that POINT is not a thing on WT. So that leaves simple vandalism. In this case it's for Charonian, but they have a history of this kind of behaviour.

@Theknightwho, instead of edit-warring over introducing purposeful errors, as if WT were a bad joke, would you please tell me what I'm doing wrong, e.g. by stating or providing a link to the guideline. Not that you make some oblique mention in the past, but for the specific instance of formatting that you object to.

In this case, Theknightwho is claiming that a synonym, formatted they way they themselves format synonyms, is formatted incorrectly, and have moved it up specifically under 'noun' despite it being a general synonym -- the illustration for it is actually an adjective.

This trollish behaviour is getting extremely tiresome.

Theknightwho knows the formatting guidelines far better than I do. But fixing formatting is not an excuse for introducing errors. Better to have a correct article poorly formatted than a perfectly formatted article that is incorrect. kwami (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted your nonstandard formatting, as I have already explained to you. We have a standard way of laying out entries. Theknightwho (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have not "reverted" my formatting. There's nothing to revert to. You've corrected it, but you've made factual errors while doing so. Instead of fixing your own errors, you've doubled down on them, as if formatting overrides content. kwami (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't make any factual error. If you want a synonym to apply to two parts of speech, you need to mention it multiple times, or it is at best ambiguous. If you wanted it to apply to both, the obvious solution would have been to put it in-line under both after I amended it. Instead, you got defensive and decided to start flinging shit, which seems to be your MO. Theknightwho (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You claimed that Charontian was only a synonym for the noun Charonian. That is a factual error. Arguing that you're not doing what you're doing is beneath you, but then that seems to be your MO. It would also help if you were consistent with your own usage. I can copy your formatting, and you will still edit-war with me over it (while introducing purposeful errors) because you claim that your own formatting is bad. That's not professional.
Anyway, User:‎Fytcha played the adult and fixed the article, which would've taken you all of 2 seconds to do yourself, and only a few more seconds to explain to me so I would know to do it. kwami (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didb't claim it was "only" anything - I just can't mind-read that you intended a single synonym section to refer to multiple parts of speech, given that it's inherently ambiguous to lay it out that way and something that we don't do unless absolutely necessary. That's to say nothing of the fact I had to clear up your mess in the first place, given you seemed to just be using templates at random instead of making the effort to find out what each one is for.
Accusing me of making purposeful mistakes is utterly weird, by the way. It's not that I secretly think you're right and want to piss you off - I just think you're a blowhard who can't accept fault. The only reason your messes have been flying under the radar is because you're autopatrolled - something you definitely shouldn't be. Your comlete inability to handle disagreement is not doing you any favours, either. Theknightwho (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]