Wiktionary talk:Feedback

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


The page is for collecting feedback from anonymous Wiktionary readers.

Your replying and discussing comments on the page is welcome, but the authors will likely never come back to read your replies.

Archiving: The page should be cleaned out regularly. To archive a month, delete it from the page and copy it to the end of Wiktionary:Processed feedback.



Proper idioms of words[edit]

Did this user mean idioms or usage examples or something else ? DCDuring TALK 03:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Alas, this is where the anonymous feedback falls down, there can be no meaningful dialog, but I think we will get some useful information nonetheless. - [The]DaveRoss 03:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is this?[edit]

How do anonymous users find this page? --Keene 12:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at the bottom on the left... The idea is that not too many people see the box so that we are not overwhelmed. See the WT:GP discussion for any improvements you want made to it. Conrad.Irwin 12:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


I think these should be cleared out somehow, rather quickly. Should we be using these to expand WT:FAQ? --Connel MacKenzie 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Only if we get more that one user asking the same thing. I think that, in the process of archival, things should be split out - i.e. word specific stuff should go to word talk pages, general comments should go to the /Archive pages, topics that are in need of discussion (like the Wikisaurus one) should be left on this page, and chucked onto the Beer Parlour at opportune moments. I think it is important to do this dividing up now so that we have a relatively small task, to get all the feedback and then try and go through it will be a nightmare. Conrad.Irwin 19:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


We seem to be allowing email addresses to remain posted here. Is that intentional, or just the path of least resistance? -- Visviva 14:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's path-of-least-resistance. We should be removing them, since we have no way of knowing whether people are actually posting their own e-mail addresses, and no way of knowing whether the people posting realize that their comments are going to be visible for all the world (and all the world's spambots) to see. —RuakhTALK 15:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
We (more precisely, a steward) should be oversighting them, actually, no? But to do so would, I suppose, require someone to remove the e-mail address (by editing) before the page history gets much longer, preferably before it gets any longer.—msh210 16:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Responding to feedbackers[edit]

Does anyone think it would be problematic to respond (where appropriate) to civil feedback questions on the asker's IP talk page? I'm thinking this might be a good idea... anonymous users can't watchlist this page, so aren't likely to notice they've been replied to here. And the IP address is in the page history anyway; this wouldn't actually lower the veil of anonymity any further. -- Visviva 12:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems to me to be a good idea. Conrad.Irwin 12:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
What not just include a link back to the feedback page? There is a broader audience than the specific feedbacker. A template that provided a link (to the section title) and encouraged them to register would be nice. DCDuring TALK 12:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Shorten Wiktionary:Feedback/preload?[edit]

I wonder if maybe [[Wiktionary:Feedback/preload]] should be shorter:

Please type your feedback in this box, clicking "Save page" when you're done. Thanks!

Then we don't need to worry about any subtleties like {{subst:blank}} or <!-- -->, since who cares if some/most/all of the comments are prefaced by that? —RuakhTALK 21:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't even think to check the talk page. I strongly dislike showing a prefix like that when it's so easy to get rid of. I do take your point about people putting stuff within the {{blank}}, but feel that the comment syntax, as it can't lead to lost comments, is harmless while still useful. Conrad.Irwin 21:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Since I made that change, the majority of feedback-givers (feedbackers? backfeeders?) have understood to clear the existing text from the box; but the remaining minority is kind of annoying. :-P   —RuakhTALK 21:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

no archive ?[edit]

What happened to the voluminous content some days ago? I do not see any link to archive and I have some comments left there. Is there an archive of this page? Bogorm 15:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

some legal stuff[edit]

For GFDL purposes, here's some source info for the page:

  1. (cur) (prev) 17:49, 3 March 2009 (Talk | block) (132,556 bytes) (→tyrant: new section) (undo)
  2. (cur) (prev) 12:56, 3 March 2009 (Talk | block) (132,456 bytes) (→tá grá agam dhuit: new section) (undo)—This unsigned comment was added by Msh210 (talkcontribs) at 19:25, 3 March 2009.

Archiving again[edit]

Per comments on other talk page, there isn't enough good stuff here to bother archiving it. If it were solely up to me (which sometimes it is, i.e. nobody replies to my comments) I'd archive any 'real' discussions about the words to the given talk pages and then delete the lot. Maybe leave the last two months on this page, and delete the rest on the first of each months to save space. I hate overlong pages as it's difficult to find what you're looking for, edit conflicts are common, and even when using section editing, you have to wait a long time for the page to load. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, deleting old stuff is fine. Conrad.Irwin 10:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree - simply delete monthly sections over two months old. (I have just done so) SemperBlotto 10:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I've moved them (for now) to Wiktionary:Processed feedback in order to archive anything usable. I certainly wouldn't mind if the rest of that page were deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There really is very little point, but sure, if you want to. [1] is a list of previously split out discussions from this page. Conrad.Irwin 10:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary phonetic transcription[edit]

Thought that I would point out The site's phonetic transcription of "wiktionary" in the trademark namesake in the upper left had corner of the site on every page is incorrect. That particular phonetic transcription listed here is missing a syllable. When you transcribe that phonetic transcription back into English graphemes, the word result is "wiktionry". I suppose that some people might pronounce the word that way, but if you want the phonetic transcription of wiktionary to sound like dictionary as the site would elude to, then you'll have to change the trademark.

Derweinerschnitzel 16:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This has been mentioned lots of times, there is even an entry in the FAQ about it. The answer is basically, we know that it could be better, but nobody wants to fix it. :P —CodeCat 16:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
... and the standard pronunciation here in England is three syllables for both "dikshənry" and "Wikshənry". I know four syllables are common in some places in England and especially in the USA. Does anyone pronounce the words with five syllables?

Feedback about page quality[edit]

Does the feedback about our pages' quality (the links that let users mark pages as "good", "messy", etc) go anywhere? Or is it just a placebo button? lol. - -sche (discuss) 17:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

From Exile[edit]

Concerning the origins of a word, I recognize that this is the norm, but it is bothersome. The use of the preposition "from" is out of control. If we say that a word is "from Proto-Indo-European *__", not only are we grammatically incorrect, we're completely incorrect! No word can be attested to have originated "from" any linguistic reconstruction. Reconstructions, like PIE, are inherently comparative. Aside from rewording every one of these instances you should encounter, I think it is appropriate that we discuss an alternative format for categorizing factors concerned with etymology. As a subtopic to the "etymology" topic, I think a list of "reflexes" would be sufficient (where possible). I think there should be an obvious degree of separation between a word's attested origins & reconstructions. This has just come to my attention & I haven't given much thought to a solution, but I recognize the error.

It would be best to distinguish the various cognates/reflexes by organizing them (where possible, chronologically) into their appropriate language families as subtopics within the main topic of etymology. However, how do we best distinguish those which are attested from those which are unattested? Lostubes (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You may want to move this comment to the WT:Beer parlour/2014/August. Few people read this page. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Graphical error[edit]

https://sa.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/मुख्यपृष्ठम् On this page a border line is crossing over the Emblem of India. This should be corrected. Ravi arnie (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You'll have to talk to the people at Sanskrit Wiktionary, which is a completely separate project. Looking at the HTML in the template for that box (sa:फलकम्:अन्यासु भाषासु विकिशब्दकोशः), it seems to me that it was set up like that intentionally, and it's been that way for 4 1/2 years- so they may not agree with you that it needs to be corrected. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)