Wiktionary talk:Entry layout

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

Archived talk[edit]

Remove part about wikifying language names[edit]

The translations section currently says:

The names of languages which are expected to be well-known among English speakers are not to be wikified, while language names which may not be known to the average person or are potentially subject to confusion are to be wikified. Details and a list of affected languages are listed on Wiktionary:Translations/Wikification.[1]

I propose removing this as languages are no longer wikified at all per consensus. —CodeCat 15:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I support your proposal. - -sche (discuss) 17:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Where's the link to that consensus? --Daniel 14:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
WT:Beer parlour archive/2011/December#Poll: language linking in translation sections. --Yair rand (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --Daniel 15:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/ELE text about wikifying language names. --Daniel 10:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Homonym example and flapping[edit]

As far as I know, flapping only takes place between vowel sounds, so "right" would not have a flapped "t" and would not, therefore, be a homonym of "ride".

Thus, the example should be changed from "right" to "writer" (or something like that), as in the running text preceding the example. -- pne (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right (no pun intended), but because of the way Wiktionary policy pages are maintained, it will unfortunately take a massive amount of bureaucracy to get it changed. —Angr 08:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Are there dialects where writer and rider are homophones? In my dialect (Inland Northern American English), both words have [ɾ], but they're non-homophonous due to a form of Canadian raising (which affects writer, pronounced something like [ˈɹʌɪ.ɾɚ], and not rider, which is pronounced something like [ˈɹaɪ.ɾɚ]). Are there dialects that flap both /t/ and /d/, but that don't exhibit Canadian raising in /aɪ/? (Feel free to just say "yes". I really have no idea.) And even in pairs where the vowel is not /aɪ/, so doesn't get raised before /t/, the vowel before /d/ is frequently longer. There certainly do exist some flapping-specific homophones, but we should consult authoritative sources for specific examples rather than trying to reason out what words seem like they should be homophones. —RuakhTALK 12:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe an example with a short vowel would be better, like bidder and bitter? —CodeCat 12:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Writer and rider are homophones for me since I don't have Canadian-style raising, but I agree an example with a short vowel, like bitter/bidder or latter/ladder would probably be better. —Angr 19:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Capitalisation exceptions[edit]

I suggest SENĆOŦEN words be mentioned in the capitalisation exceptions. [1] Nickshanks (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Occasional use of {{l}} in translations[edit]

I thinks it's justified to use {{l}}, instead of {{t}} in translations when the translation is totally SoP:

Here's a section from WT:ARU about a translation for time-consuming, which has no full equivalent in Russian:

Translations for terms not having an equivalent in Russian can be split into individual words and link to lemma forms, {{l}} can be used instead of {{t}} in this case.

* Russian: {{l|ru|требовать|требующий}} {{l|ru|много}} {{l|ru|время|времени}} (trébujuščij mnógo vrémeni)

Resulting in: требующий(trebujuščij) много(mnogo) времени(vremeni) (trébujuščij mnógo vrémeni)

Also, we should mention the alt when using {{t}}, like in the Japanese translation for tired:

* Japanese: {{t+|ja|疲れる|alt=疲れた|tr=つかれた, tsukareta}}

Resulting in: 疲れた (ja)(つかれた, tsukareta)

The translation links to the lemma form 疲れる but displays 疲れた. --Anatoli (обсудить) 02:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That might work. I've long wondered how best to handle these sorts of translations, and that might be a sensible solution. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. These methods have already been in use by a few editors. Do I need a broader agreement to add this? --Anatoli (обсудить) 22:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
What are the pros and cons of {{l}} compared to {{t-SOP}}? —RuakhTALK 23:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
One I have heard about, the other I haven't...? After looking at it, it seems that {{t-SOP}} has no advantages over {{l}}, and one disadvantage: it doesn't let you link to language sections unless you link to them yourself, which defeats the point of using it instead of {{l}}... —CodeCat 23:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't think of {{t-SOP}}. I've seen it used but way less common than {{l}}. Both produce a similar result, so I don't mind if either method becomes "official" or recommended. --Anatoli (обсудить) 00:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Following up on my earlier comment . . . one "con" of {{l}} is that it italicizes the transliteration, which {{t}} does not. Anatoli works around that above by putting the transliteration outside the {{l}}, but that's kind of ugly. ({{t-SOP}} is also ugly, as CodeCat points out, but maybe there's a non-ugly solution somewhere?) —RuakhTALK 00:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps amend {{t-SOP}} so it can link to language sections by itself? Just a thought. --BiblbroX дискашн 22:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible or easy to add links to language section because there are multiple words but thanks for the suggestion. --Anatoli (обсудить) 01:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It is possible if you use one parameter in the template for every word. The downside of that is that it makes it harder to override the displayed word (for macrons and accents) in a neat way. —CodeCat 01:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'll formalise the (occasional) usage of {{l}} in translations for SoP and non-idiomatic translations, OK? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I have added the two exceptions using Russian examples. I hope it was clear and understandable. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

unlimited possibilities[edit]

Buried in WT:ELE is the line "Other sections with other trivia and observations may be added, either under the heading "Trivia" or some other suitably explanatory heading. Because of the unlimited range of possibilities, no formatting details can be provided." But we don't actually want an unlimited number of different headers, do we? (AFAIK there's ===Trivia=== in 40 entries and ===Statistics=== in some more.) - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't. Personally, I'd prefer all the nonstandard ones to be ===Usage notes=== or ===Statistics===. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
In principle, we need the flexibility of unlimited possibilities for PoS headers. I am still hoping for someone to propose some clever replacements for the 'nym' headers, which I often use despite their questionable intelligibility to most infrequent users. But I'd like there to be some approval process for such things. BTW, we also have some English entries with the ===Shorthand=== header, which should be kept as a cautionary example for grand projects. DCDuring TALK 03:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I have replaced non-conforming wiki-headers with conforming ones where I could, but have converted some to bold using ";" at the beginning of the line. See кӀон. This defeats Autoformat, and may postpone the day when we have appropriate templates for Adyghe pronoun declensions, but seems an acceptable kludge to me. DCDuring TALK 03:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from the page user talk:msh210.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

enPR vote links

Just a note:

I would be glad to support moving the enPR vote links from WT:ELE to WT:PRON and/or WT:AEN, if needed, as long as these destinations become full-fledged completely-voted policies. At this moment, I believe the current place is the best place for those links to be findable and usable. --Daniel 00:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

They are IIRC only on what to call enPR; since ELE doesn't mention the term "enPR", a link to them is AFAICT completely out of place.​—msh210 21:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

For future reference, the above is about diff.​—msh210 22:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Literal translation of idioms[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask, but since it has to do with where to place information in an entry, I guess this is good enough. If an idiom in a language other than English is given a definition, often the idiomatic translation is given. But because it's an idiom, it might be totally different from the literal meaning. It's probably good to provide the literal translation too, at least so that the idiom might be easier to follow. But where should it be placed? It's not really part of the definition, but is it etymology? Not really either... —CodeCat 19:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's etymology; why do you say that it isn't? —RuakhTALK 19:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
When I think of etymology for a phrase, I think more about why the phrase came to mean that, and what words it consists of. But its literal meaning doesn't really seem like an origin, especially for fossilised phrases that were coined for a literal meaning that was originally different from what it is today. —CodeCat 20:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Re: "fossilised phrases that were coined for a literal meaning that was originally different from what it is today": in such a case, I think that the original/correct literal meaning is all that should go in the etymology. If the term could be interpreted literally today (that is — none of the terms are obsolete, but some of the specific relevant senses are), then that might be fodder for a parenthetical aside or for a usage note, depending on whether such an misinterpretation is actually relevant in some way to usage. (See don't ask, don't tell for one instance where such a misunderstanding affected usage in a way that demanded a usage note.) —RuakhTALK 21:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I fully agree, and I believe that this accurately reflects current formatting standards. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I've edited WT:Etymology to mention it. —CodeCat 11:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

See also[edit]

Wiktionary:Style guide. - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done (I've added a "see also" link to the bottom of the page) - -sche (discuss) 07:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"Typical entry" contradicts order of headings[edit]

WT:ELE#Order of headings lists the "descendants" header immediately before the "Translations" header. However, the "typical entry" shown in the WT:ELE#Additional headings section shows an entry with a Descendants section right after a Translations section. Does anyone know which order is correct? Does the incorrect one need a vote to fix it? --Yair rand (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It's fairly rare for English entries to contain a descendants header, so I don't think there is really an established practice. I think translations should come first, though. —CodeCat 22:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
It shouldn't be rare, though; there are hundreds if not thousands of English loanwords floating around among the world's languages, not to mention the vocabulary of all the English-lexified creoles. —Angr 19:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Seconding CC: translations of this term first, links to other terms after. Michael Z. 2013-06-12 00:22 z
I'd agree with the after-translations position. Which wouldn't be a bad place for cognates, too. I hope we don't need a vote. But we should take it to the Beer Parlor. DCDuring TALK 00:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The Order of Headings section follows the VOTE we had on the issue, so it is the order we decided upon. There were no opposing votes in that decision. "Descenadants" should come before "Translations" in the rare situations where both sections appear. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation before Etymology[edit]

Since when did we start practicing that instead of placing the etymology header before the pronunciation header? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

One example I edited: тәмәке. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Lots of editors seem to just prefer it that way and do what they please. There are some ELE-compliant instances in which the pronunciation is shared by more than one etymology, though one would wonder whether the homophony applied over the entire period covered. DCDuring TALK 11:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
In most cases, it probably did; in other cases, the earlier pronunciation difference would better be shown at the Middle Foo/Old Foo entries than at the Modern Foo entry. In the few remaining cases, we can use {{sense}} inside the Pronunciation section to say that the two etymologies were formerly pronounced differently. —Angr 11:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


I just searched the page for "expression", to find out if there's a section for it, or whether those fit in "derived terms", and didn't make a hit. It seems to me that this word should be in here somewhere. --Jerome Potts (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't expressions fit under the "Phrase" part of speech header? —CodeCat 02:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


For quotations and examples, suggest a link to Wiktionary:Quotations. For example, there is used:

# Definition 1

# #: Quotation 1 of definition 1

instead of :

# Definition 1

#: Quotation 1 of definition 1

--Lagoset (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  1. There is a link to Wiktionary:Quotations.
  2. Why would we want to make the change you recommend in probably scores of thousands of instances?

A rationale for a change is always helpful, especially, when it involves a change in a long-standing and widely used practice. DCDuring TALK 15:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A quick test shows that the spaced between "#" and "#" means that the second "#" appears. Without a space it breaks our way of hiding quotations. The second could be fixed if we still have the talent around, but I don't see the advantage of numbering quotations. They can be referred to by their date, which conveys more information than a mere number, with any disambiguation provided by "first", et seq. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

minor error[edit]

Found a minor error, but I don't have permission to edit this page. In section 3.3.4 Synonyms, the third rule should read (bolded word change): Use one line for each definition, beginning each line with a bullet. Otherwise it seems like each synonym should be on its own line. Origamidesigner (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope others also view it as a minor error, rather than one requiring discussion at WT:BP or, worse, a vote. DCDuring TALK 21:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

External links before or after Anagrams?[edit]

At the indeed entry, the final three sections on the page are:

L3 Statistics
L3 External links
L3 Anagrams

The order of the last two of these feels wrong to me - links to external websites (excluding references and inline links) should (imho) come after all internal content. WT:ELE is essentially silent about this issue - the only occurrence of the two together is in the "Additional headings" example has an L4 External links section preceding an L3 Anagrams section. Anagrams are dealt with in the "Anagrams and other trivia" section, which says it should be under an L3 heading and implies that it should be placed before a references section, which is elsewhere noted as occurring before an external links section. The word "Statistics" does not appear on the ELE page at all, and so I am assuming it falls under the "other trivia" portion. There is no mention of what order multiple trivia headings should be in.

I would therefore like to suggest that the order is changed so that where "External links" sections appear, they are always the last header at that level. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Due to a vote sister project links (eg, wikipedia, wikispecies, wikicommons) are also "External links". There are many occasions where long right-hand side ToCs would push sister-project link boxes into language sections in which they do not belong, so External links is a better location. To put such links after trivia like anagrams seems very, very wrong to me. I don't know that a vote to "clarify" this will be productive, but we could go that route. DCDuring TALK 02:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Irregular definition headers?[edit]

Where a definition is preceded by a single "#" for list markup, should that symbol always be followed by a space? For example, in the results for this query the definitions under the "verb" part of speech appear as follows. (Please note the lack of a space between the "#" and the first curly brace.)

#{{label|en|intransitive|archaic}} To [[succeed]]; to [[prosper]], be lucky.
#{{label|en|transitive|archaic}} To [[help]] someone, to give them fortune; to aid or favour.

Having just begun to work with Wiktionary queries, I have found this to be unusual; most entries seem to have a space there. Should one expect the "#" symbol to be followed by a space? Texwaldo (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's nicer to have the space, and most entries have it, but not all of them do. You're free to add the space if you want to, but it's not a huge deal. —CodeCat 18:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Judging from User:AutoFormat#POS sections, AutoFormat used to add the space automatically where needed. So yes, with space would be the standard-ish format, WT:ELE's examples also have the space. --Daniel 18:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC) Starred checkmark small star
This is by far not the only irregularity. You ll come across them as you proceed with your scraper(?)--Dixtosa (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Since it makes no difference to display, it's a matter of no importance. For your own entries, do whatever you like. For existing entries, don't bother changing what's there. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Much appreciation for responses. Daniel's answer gets a starred checkmark. (@Dixtosa - Was afraid of that; and...yes, scraping.) Texwaldo (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


In the French Wiktionary we publish a "Paronyms" header in our structure. A quick look today showed me some "Paronyms" sections, but actually it's not here. So I propose to add it to enlarge the internal links to the words which look like themselves without being anagrams, like this. JackPotte (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

not intuitive at all[edit]

§ A very simple example includes as item #3

the word itself (using the correct headword template)

with a footnote consisting of a link to Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-10/Headword line (discussion and voting on a recent set of proposed edits to policies about the headword line). Proposal #3 there concerns Wiktionary:Entry layout#Headword line. In the discussion, under Oppose, item #6, DAVilla (talkcontribs) wrote (emphasis added):

From the Entry Layout page, where we are instructed to use "the correct headword template", the contributor can just intuitively scroll down to the section on the Headword Line, click on the last link for Headword Line Templates "for those who prefer this technique", [...] go to the category for Headword-Line Templates by Language, find English Headword-Line Templates under E, and then click on the template name suspected to match the desired part of speech to hopefully read the intended purpose of that template and maybe even how to use it, presuming it's not something strange like -fucking- which requires use of {{head|en|infix}}.

Distinguo[1][2]:* It is not intuitive. It may seem so for one already familiar with Wiktionary and its conventions, abbreviations, and so on, but it does not work for the novice. (I should qualify that term: I've been editing Wikipedia for 10 years, with over 10,000 edits, but I have done comparatively little editing on Wiktionary.) The section should have a link from the expression "the correct headword template" to the section on the Headword Line, or directly to Wiktionary:Templates#Headword-line templates. But the file is protected, and I can't edit it, so I am requesting the change here.

* (And I would like to add this definition of "distinguo", but I hesitate from unfamiliarity. Besides, though I know I have read of it explicitly described as a term from English university debate, I can't recall the reference.)

--Thnidu (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ C.S. Lewis, habitually, to J.R.R. Tolkien
  2. ^ in the dialectic of the medieval scholastics
@Thnidu: I linked "the correct headword template" to WT:EL#Headword line as you requested. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@Daniel Carrero: Thanks. :-) --Thnidu (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
@Thnidu: You're welcome!
I'd like to clarify something: @DAVilla was being sarcastic in the text you quoted from Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-10/Headword line, so I don't think he actually believes people would "intuitively" scroll down to the right section. I take his remark as a criticism of WT:EL, unfortunately the policy has its flaws. I've been proposing new edits to the policy lately. If you spot any other problems in the page, let us know. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


Hi! There is not pt:Wikcionário:Livro de estilo in the interwikis list. Please add it. --Luan (discussão) 22:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

L4 header missing at #Additional_headings[edit]

Beneath the usage examples and before the usage notes, the L4 "Declension" is missing completely in the example list. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation position in words with multiple etymologies[edit]

Should the pronunciation really be nested under the etymology 1, 2, .. headers in words with multiple etymologies, but the same pronunciation? Never really seen that anywhere, the pronunciation is always above the first etymology in those entries (lame, dam, etc) but would be incorrect according to the Etymology guidelines on this page, which shows the pronunciation twice, nested for each etymology. — Kleio (t · c) 19:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, it is our common practice to put the pronunciation first when all etymologies are homophones. This page should be edited to reflect that. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Does that need to be voted on at all? It seems like a tiny change. — Kleio (t · c) 20:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I won't revert you if you change it without a vote, but someone else might, and if they do, then I guess there has to be a vote. *Sigh* —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, the page's locked, so I can't do it myself either way. — Kleio (t · c) 22:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Before the first language section[edit]

I'd add a line to section "Before the first language section" to mention that a bot (User:Orphicbot) deals with the {{also}} stuff--Derrib9 (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Why does this need to be mentioned? --WikiTiki89 14:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps so that us human editors don't need to worry about adding it. --Derrib9 (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
This page doesn't have to talk about it in order for us to stop worrying. Anyway, the also-adding bot is not perfect yet, so we still have to worry about it. --WikiTiki89 17:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The precedence of English[edit]

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/November#Splitting pages by language (again).
Can we move this discussion to the Beer Parlour? — Ungoliant (falai) 12:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure.__Gamren (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)