Instead of the Wikipedia "W" as the favicon, could it be changed to something more... different? I have both icons in the search bar and the only way to differentiate the two is to remember where each one goes to. Yes/no? Colinstu02:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue has come up many times. Personally, I think Wikipedia ought to change theirs to the little globe they always use. The English Wiktionary has no cute little icon. --EncycloPetey02:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary should use the phonetic w for the favicon. It would be ['w] I guess. I don't know much about phonetic spelling or if that's even what it's called, but that would be the best symbolism. — This comment was unsigned.
It is inconvenient to have to vary the favicon across projects, and in some languages it wouldn't begin with W (or that letter wouldn't even exist in the alphabet). Oh yeah, the icon is already a W. Still, it sucks. Equinox◑22:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Words used in English should have their own English section (it's a general principle). Also note that the meaning is often slightly different (see lycée, autoroute). Other differences include pronunciation, anagrams, etc. Lmaltier13:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to apologize for bringing this here, I couldn't find where requests for admin action should go for the life of myself over here. Per an SPI case at enwiki a CheckUser was requested, CU evidence (here) and editing habits confirm that User:33ohmygad is one of many abusive sockpuppets at enwiki. After checking with the SUL utility I figured I would alert you guys that one of the 20+ accounts has registered here and am requesting an indefinite block on the account. Thanks, Stepshep00:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WT:VIP is probably the most suitable venue, though generally we're not that interested in results from en.wp (the chances of them coming across is relatively rare). Conrad.Irwin01:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I saw that page but thought of it more for vandalism, over socking (though they are generally seen as one and the same). As you guys aren't intersted I figure I'll leave it at that. Thanks for your time, Stepshep01:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if technical dictionaries could also be added to wiktionary. The reason is that I was looking for an online platform where I could build a list of technical words I bumped into as I did my research. I am looking at areas of computer system administration, security, and tcp/ip, but I am sure there are other people who would be looking to build technical dictionaries in other fields too.
There are a couple routes you could take. The first is to simply start adding the words to Wiktionary. Not knowing exactly what kind of words you're thinking of, I can't say for sure whether they'd be allowed or not, but it's probably worth a shot. A second approach is to create an appendix, as appendices have generally more lenient rules than mainspace entries (we stick a lot of the crap there which we don't want in the main section of our dictionary). While you're almost guaranteed to be allowed to proceed with the appendix, it is kind of stuffed in a corner, to be seen by few. Additionally, you could certainly create your own dictionary site at Wikia. Hope that helps at least a little. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί23:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. It seems to say it is the inly one. How about Dictionary.com? 12:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)12:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)12:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)12:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)~~
Dictionary.com doesn't let you use it's information freely (though it is free in the money sense, it isn't free in the sense of unconstrained), you are right however, there are other truly "free" dictionaries as well. (Urban dictionary may not be counted as a "dictionary" by some people, but there are others). Maybe we could get away with being the "free multilingual dictionary" but we could just say "a free dictionary". Conrad.Irwin12:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also--could the argument not be made that Wiktionary is the free dictionary in the sense that it is far and away the largest and most comprehensive of the free dictionaries? The title seems fine to me, but I suppose 'a free dictionary' would be a bit more accurate. Mitchell Powell03:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you click on "refresh" in the WOTD box, the browser takes you to a different page rather than refreshing the same main page; and in the same box, when you click on the "edit" link, it says the page is protected from editing, so the link is useless and should be removed. Also at the bottom of the main page, "wikimedia" should be uppercase. Other than that, the design is nice and attractive. 213.163.65.3317:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Refresh" refreshes the box, which is a separate page. So clicking "Refresh" puts you on that page, yes. The WOTD box is transcluded within the main page, but is itself a separate page. The "edit" link is not useless; administrators like myself can (and do) use that link. --EncycloPetey18:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But wouldn't it be better to make "refresh" purge the same main page? See for example the bottom of "On this day..." section at Wikipedia's main page; that footer is transcluded from Template:SelAnnivFooter which uses the magic word {{FULLPAGENAME}} to make the "refresh" link purge same pages that transclude the template. Regarding the "edit" link, I just feel it's misleading to put that link when almost all of the site's visitors will not be able to edit. 213.163.65.3314:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How could it do that? The coding is on the WOTD box page. That box is transcluded into many other pages, not just the Main Page. A "Refresh" acts on the page where it is located. If we had it refresh the Main Page to the user, that action would be even more confusing, as it would confuse someone who hit the "Refresh" from the box on this page, for example. Regarding "Edit", this is true of any edit tab on any protected page, on any MW project. If the internet had no vandals, we wouldn't have to protect such items. --EncycloPetey16:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, I think the IP's saying that the refresh could be given enough intelligence so that it refreshed whatever page it was found on. Secondly, I wonder about the edit link. Seems to me like the only one using that edit link on any kind of a regular basis is you, EP. If we could make it a bit more inconspicuous without interfering with your work, that would probably be a good thing. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί18:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, this is what I'm saying. EncycloPetey, no, actually when a page is protected, we see a "view source" tab instead of "edit"; besides, all section [edit] links disappear. Try logging out of your admin account and see. 213.163.65.3319:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the edit link for now, but if anyone uses it regularly, please feel free to re-add it. I have updated the refresh link, it will now take you to Template:WOTD. Using {{fullpage}}, like Wikipedia, causes the Main page to refresh, but does not cause the template to be updated everywhere. There is no easy way currently to provide a refresh link for one page and redirect to another. I don't see this as too much of a problem; and while it might be slightly disorienting I imagine that anyone who clicks the refresh button will be interested in reading the resulting template. (The previous link purged the specific days word of the day, which caused the general WOTD template to be updated as a side-effect). Conrad.Irwin19:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the new changes to the refresh link, I now get a blank Word of the Day box when I click on refresh. The box tells me "Please leave a note in the Beer parlour to tell us that there is no word of the day." It doesn't refresh the Word of the Day box, and my browser is showing the word for March 31st when I go to the Main Page. I am using IE 6.0 as part of Windows 2000. 64.175.231.3016:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK... Whats the deal with 'Scots' on all these pages? Its listed seperatly to English yet is also listed under English...Is this seperate Scots sillyness really nessesary? All a bit silly really.--130.243.155.22913:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our current lack of Flemish language may well be simply because there are no editors interested in Flemish. My point is simply that, if someone wanted to add such content, they would be protected in doing so by current policy. It is certainly possible that the division made by the ISO codes is a poor one (knowing next to nothing about Flemish and Scots, I'll take no position), but it is one we are de facto choosing to follow. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί08:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the laceration of Flemish from Dutch, Scots from English (Moldavian from Romanian? it was revised in ISO) and Macedonian from Bulgarian is definitely a very poor one. Just mine opinion. The uſerhight Bogormconverſation09:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as Scots goes, I'm with ISO. The language may be a close relative of Middle English, and might be on its way to complete assimilation, but it at least once had enough phonetic features that separated it to be considered a different language. Whether or not there is currently a Scot language as spoken that is completely distinct from English is another issue (and probably would invovle a LOT of billingualism, code-switching and slow transition to muddle the debate). Circeus00:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have studied Dutch formally (albeit only a little). The linguistics professors and texts I have seen uniformly consider Flemish to be a dialect of Dutch, as we treat them here as well. The only literature I've seen advocating recognition of Flemish as a separate language is nationalist literature that cannot be considered unbiased. However, I have never heard anyone describe Scots as a dialect of English. Personally, I have worked alongside a specialist in Scottish linguistics (modern and historical) who completed her doctoral studies in Scotland, and she too considers Scots a language distinct from English. --EncycloPetey00:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made a mistake that needs to be fixed immediately![edit]
I was trying to help the community out by trying to fix articles that had mistakes in the definition (the link on the left side of every page on en.wiktionary.org), unaware that the link would alert the community that the current page had a mistake in the definition!! I accidently did this on the main page as well as the entry for the word piggyback, and I am truly sorry. Please, if anyone can revert these alerts, please do so. Thanks! unsigned comment by User:68.114.252.12
I am interested in knowing the correlation between teacher and avatar. It has been used in the book "The Secret"; ..."all geat teachers and avatars down throght history". I did not realize that avatars were teachers. Could you please enlighten me? Thank you Ernest Rivers
It is probably the second definition of avatar, an embodiment of an idea - so both teachers and avatars are "inspiring" some kind of thought. Just a guess though, in future direct this kind of question to WT:ID. Conrad.Irwin16:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear whom it may concern. Would you please change the status of tk.wiktionary from 100+ to 1000+ since it has reached 1028 good articles. You may check it --Hanberke07:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Stephen! Would you also give tk.wiktionary a sidebar status since the following note exists in Main Page: All Wiktionaries with over 1000 entries get a sidebar entry! Thanks in advance! Best regards!--Hanberke10:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now don't kill me if I shouldn't post here, anyway the Italian Wiktionary has reached 100000 words, so it should be added in the list together with the other ones in the homepage...
Cheers.
It would be very useful if the following two aspects can be included along with definition & etymology:
1. Usage of the word in a sentence - At times the meaning is not enough. So example(s) of its usage in a sentence would be extremely helpful in developing a better understanding of the word. A typical example would be the word 'zeitgeist'. Even if one knows its meaning, he/she might still not be able to properly use it in a sentence.
2. Origin of the word - It would be also be helpful to know how the word originated from certain historical/literary aspects. If one is aware of how a word originated, he/she would develop a certain familiarity with it. That way, it won't be necessary to mug up the word or its meaning anymore. A typical example would be foreign-origin words like 'bildungsroman'.
From front page -"Wiktionary is a wiki, which means that you can edit it, and all the content is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License."
And where does "GPL" appear in that? Your comments are rather cryptic, so please elaborate on what the problem is that you see, why it is a problem, what solution you recommend, and why this solution is appropriate. --EncycloPetey04:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well he does have a point - the disclaimer at the bottom says "Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported." while the Main Page says "all the content is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License" and, further at the bottom, "From en.wiktionary.org, www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html license.", which is a discrepancy. -- Prince Kassad09:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the name of the site, an entry to "Wiktionary" is given with pronunciation transcribed [ˈwɪkʃənrɪ], which is a little peculiar. I think [ˈwɪkʃəˌnəri] would be an improvement. For one thing, the lax vowel [ɪ] is impossible word finally in standard English.
Greg Lee, U Hawaii Linguistics Dept.
This is a perennial topic here. What do you mean by "standard English"? The Received Pronunciation of the United Kingdom, the General American dialect, the standard for Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa? The final lax vowel is not possible in the United States, but is possible in other varieties of English. Since Wiktionary is multinational, the transcription is not wrong. As I say, we've had many people (especially Americans) confused over the years, but this is a possible and legitimate transcription for dialects in the UK. --EncycloPetey18:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is a final lax [ɪ] really possible in other varieties of English? How about some evidence? I don't recall having heard it. To check if what you say about UK pronunciation might be correct, I just looked up "dictionary" in the Cambridge On Line Dictionary and found word final [i] and also an extra syllable between [n] and [i], as in the transcription I gave. --GregLee03:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found this footnote in Wikipedia on the pronunciation of "happy" (note the discussion is about phonemic values, not the actual sound): "Pronounced /iː/ in dialects with the happy tensing, /ɪ/ in other dialects. British convention used to transcribe it with /ɪ/, but the OED and other influential dictionaries recently converted to /i/." (See [2].) --GregLee03:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the arguments given against the "Tile Logo", I see this: "How are tiles relevant to dictionaries? ... -BlueCaper (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)" Tiles are, actually, relevant to dictionaries, because the purpose of words is to be combined into large scale designs, yet they have natures which allow for certain combinations and not others. Just like tiles. --GregLee03:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are aware that the transcription of /i/ in the Cambridge dictionary is only one option, and that each dictionary has their own personal system of transcribing phonemes. Notice that Cambridge uses /e/ where the sound is generally agreed to be IPA /ɛ/, and they do this consistently because /e/ does not exist as a separate phoneme in most English dialects (only as part of the diphthong /eɪ/). Most dictionaries (OED included) transcribe the sound of "r" as /r/, even though the sound is not trilled or rolled in most English dialects. Noting what that dictionary or other uses for transcription is only meaningful when examined in toto with the full system of idiosyncracies they've chosen. As far as I am aware, the choice between terminal /i/ and /ɪ/ in British dictionaries depends on whether the choice is to represent the standard dialect as taught in schools or to represent the language as spoken by the populace in some areas. --EncycloPetey00:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are referring to the practice of using the letter for the tense vowel variant "i" or "e" for either a tense or lax vowel, indifferently, when there is no need to distinguish tense from lax. I am aware of that practice. This is not relevant to the transcription of "dictionary" in the Cambridge dictionary which I mentioned, because the first vowel of the word is given as lax "ɪ" in the transcription, but the last is given as "i". Clearly, the Cambridge dictionary does distinguish two vowel variants in their transcriptions, and for the word final vowel of "dictionary", the symbol ordinarily associated with the tense vowel has been used instead of the symbol for lax vowel. Are you saying that this vowel is actually lax in UK English and it is represented as being tense just because of some weird convention? --GregLee03:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Standard English'
In United Kindom dictionaries the 'Standard English' pronunciation is given in phonemic script, followed by alternate English dialects (if applicable), Weak form (if applicable) and American-English pronunciation (if applicable). 'Recieved pronunciation' is not the same as 'Standard English'. 'Standard English' is spoken (generally speaking) in the South of England. Only a small percentage of people in England actually use RP; Stephen Fry for example. The term is referring to pronunciation and NOT accent.
dgabrielm — This unsigned comment was added by Dgabrielm (talk • contribs) at 02:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Even though Kannada language has 10,000 words which is reflected properly in the en.wiktionary.org page the same is not the case with the www.wiktionary.org which shows Kannada in the 100+ category. Please rectify this asap - Vivek Shankar
The number 300+ is probably based on the number of languages with ten or more definitions (see Wiktionary:Statistics). However, I don't really see the point in not counting the languages with less than ten definitions. The French Wiktionary does in fact say 700+ languages. --Yair rand11:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors here have long supported the 10 minimum entries in a language before counting it. I didn't at first, but have come to agree that counting every language that has a single entry is not representative of what Wiktionary has to offer. --EncycloPetey03:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly fixed that. Now that we're nitpicking on grammar/orthography, shouldn't there be a comma following the initial <In particular>, and a lexical companion instead of the lexical companion ? --Ivan Štambuk19:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the upper-left corner of the English laugnuage Wiktionary, there is a box with the work "Wiktionary" and the corresponding IPA [ˈwɪkʃənɹɪ] The IPA ends with a capital I symbol, that I think sounds like the I in "hit".
Shouldn't it end with a lowercase i that sounds like the ee is "see", as the IPA for the word "dictionary" does? Something like [ˈwɪkʃənɛɹi] or [ˈwɪkʃən(ə)ɹi] ?
Sorry, I see this has already been discussed. I'm a Yank, I can imagine a Brit saying "WIK-shun-ree" but not "WIK-shun-rih." At least the Wiktionary entry for "dictionary" has the "correct" IPA (both variants).
This claims to be English language Wiktionary, and Multi-lingual. Confused?[edit]
The opening paragraph says
"Welcome to the English-language Wiktionary, a collaborative project to produce a free-content multilingual dictionary."
Well, my understanding is that ALL the Wiktionaries are working toether to produce a free-content multi-lingual dictionary ?
So what makes this edition different to the others. The difference is that this one "has the explanations in English". Somehow we need to put that in there up front.
My suggestion is "Welcome to Wiktionary, a collaborative project to produce a free-content multilingual dictionary. This edition uses English for all the explanations",
Now, no doubt someone could phrase that more eloquently. But my point is that it needs saying up front. For quite some time I did not appreciate what the different lnaguage versions of a MULTI-LINGUAL dictionary were for. Now of course, it's obvious to me.But let's make it obvious to newbies to.
A bit further down, this page already states "This is the English Wiktionary: it aims to describe all words of all languages using definitions and descriptions in English". Is your criticism that this isn't in the first paragraph? --Bequw → ¢ • τ15:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
over the past few months a new word has come up over the enternet. The word is inpiscinate, and I support this word. If you would please make this word a word on Wiktionary.
It means to throw into a fish pond and it comes from Latin In + Piscina
to you who do no the people want the like the word inpiscinate:
if multiple people use a word it is a word. and the word means what the people use it to mean — This comment was unsigned.
This is a well-known example of a group of people trying to get an invented word into online dictionaries. It will fail until they can provide evidence of actual use. SemperBlotto16:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all! THe Simple English Wiktionary reached today the 10,000 entries mark. (Stats) Please move it from +1,000 to +10,000. Thanks Barras16:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are effectivly TWO English Wiktionaries, the regular one AND the Simple English Wiktionary, I think this should reflect more prominently on the start page.
Right now a link to the Simple Wiktionary appears only far down the page in the summary of all languages that have their own Wiktionary, as if it was a DIFFERENT language!
Perhaps a link should be added in the blue box on top?
What about adding it as one of the items behind "Browse:" or otherwise right below the alphabet?
The Simple English Dictionary at least lists this Wiktionary on the bottom of its main page as one of the "Sister projects in English".
--KaiKemmann11:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everybody! I've a very important question to do: I speak a language which is spoken lonely in a town in sicily, Messina. It descends from sicilian but it has different grammar and structure. Can i contribute with it? I don't know if this is the right post to insert my question and please excuse my bad english. Hi!--Zoologo01:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All natural languages are acceptable. The only issue could be whether the language is part of Sicilian. What is the language name? --Yair rand03:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the language has a language code assigned to it, then it is not a problem. For example, at Arabic#External links, you will find numerous Arabic languages, each with its own language code. But if you do not have a language code yet, then you must at least reveal the supposed language name. Then it will be necessary to try to determine whether it is truly a separate language or if it is considered a dialect of another language. —Stephen05:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i'm referring to it, Messinese dialect (dialect is right term to indicate it because derives from Sicilian language). [[3]] ... --Zoologo19:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then you would enter words in the Sicilian language (scn) and indicate that a spelling, meaning, or usage is Messinese dialect (similar to the way we do English dialects, as in naner or hound dog). —Stephen04:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The admins at Meta are now troubled with masses of IPs voting on the new Wiktionary logo, when only registered Wiktionary users are allowed to vote. They even had to temporarily semi-protect the voting page to stop the IPs. Most of these IPs arrive there from the Sitenotice here on the English Wiktionary. It would be very helpful if you modify your Sitenotice to make it appear to registered users only. 216.245.202.3413:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the logo vote notice by a fundraiser notice for anonymous users, it is quite possible that those who appear as anonymous users there are not so anonymous here. Comments of this nature should really be in WT:BP for future reference. Conrad.Irwin13:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under 'Wiktionaries in other languages', Nynorsk (Norwegian) is erroneously spelled 'Nyorsk (Norwegian)'. Please add an 'n'. Thanks.
--Ohtavala18:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This would make the "project page" tab display "main page" instead, and would add "Complete list" to the sidebar. This would have no effect on anything else (at least as far as I can tell). --Yair rand06:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In particular we have strict layout conventions and inclusion criteria" appears in the third paragraph of the introduction. Could an admin please add a comma after "particular"? Nyttend03:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On "Wiktionaries in other languages" is Česká (gender feminine) (it's ok if that means Czech version (Česká verze - that's ok)), but if thats mean Czech Wiktionary, than would be Český (gender masculine). So what it is? Czech version or Czech wiktionary?--Slfi15:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected it to Český. I'm under the impression it should be masculine, similar to how the Russian link says Русский (Викисловарь) rather than Русская (версия). -- Prince Kassad19:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the other languages and for example Slovak is Slovenčina (=name of the language), but in czech there is "český" (=adjective; czech language = český jazyk)... So if that should be name of the language, than would be "čeština" (short for český jazyk, like is "angličtina" short for anglický jazyk (english language)). I don't know.--Slfi20:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isnt dictionary pronounced [dɪkʃənɛɹi], not [dɪkʃənɹi]? I've never heard that pronunciation in my life, not that that means it's wrong. 173.70.226.18719:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a non-answer. It even says it's not heard outside the UK and even there it's not universal. Then it goes on to say that everyone is too lazy to make a minor change that would do a lot. Is there a way to propose it be modified to reflect reality? 71.172.201.24822:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the word 'Wiktionary' have an extra syllable by means of the 'a' before the 'ry'? The phonetic pronunciation in the main picture (top-left of page) disregards this 'a'. I live in the States, so I'm likely unaware of some pronunciation elsewhere, but we generally pronounce the word dictionary as 'dick-shun-air-ee'.
For some reason Java keeps telling me that some program (Cortado) is unsafe and blocks it. That way I cannot play soundfiles anymore. Does someone know how to fix it? 81.68.255.3612:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How come the transcription in the Wiktionary logo is phonetic?[edit]
A website showing recent changes with different languages?[edit]
I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this question, but I have been searching everywhere on the Internet without any luck. I once found this link, which wasn't a part of Wiktionary, however it showed all the recent changes on the English Wiktionary, filtered by the different languages. For example you could see all the recent changes for the Italian entries only, or all recent changes for the Spanish entries only.
Does anybody know which link I am talking about? I think one of the administrators here might have created the link. Placebo18:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The page at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stammen says German "stammen" means to come, while the Dutch definition above says it means "to descend or derive from", which is exactly what it means in German as well. (I'm a native (Swiss) German speaker.)
Come may be right in certain situations (e.g. "Der Term stammt aus [...]" -> "The term comes from", but in the sense of "The term descends from"). It is somewhat misleading as it seems that the Dutch stammen doesn't have the same definition as the German stammen.
The example given in Dutch can be translated word by word into German:
De uitdrukking 'rechten' stamt uit het
Der Ausdruck 'Recht(?)' stammt aus dem ... 66.91.85.4504:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC) (lKj)[reply]
Could "Other wikimedia projects" be changed to "Other Wikimedia projects", at the bottom? Also the "The Free Encyclopedia" under Wikipedia there doesn't flow with the text under the other icons. — lexicógrafo | háblame — 14:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to get on facebook.com but when I do I get auto-directed to wiki. so idk what's up with that... it almost makes me not want to use wiki if it's gonna stop me from my entertainment. --— This unsigned comment was added by 71.194.169.99 (talk) at 02:53, 11 November 2010.
In the past hour or so there are now many new "Javascript-type" boxes (including a pastel blue bar at the top of my edit screen) that make me accidentally click on them again and again. Can this please be turned off? This is very problematic. 71.66.97.22807:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you sign in to an account, then you will see a menu at the top of your browsing window which will have an item called "my preferences." If you click on "my preferences" you will then see a row of tabs, including one which says "Editing." If you click on the "Editing" tab you will then see a check box which says "Show the edit toolbar (requires JavaScript)". If you uncheck it and then click on the "Save" button below, then those pesky boxes at the top of your edit screen will disappear. So you might consider either creating an account to log into, which is fairly easy to do... you are not required to put anything in your user page (self-description or anything like that) if you don't want to... or you could disable your browser's JavaScript... —AugPi08:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you don't like the new overall Vector design, if you have an account you can click on "my preferences" (menu item) > "Appearance" (tab) and then choose a different (older) skin, such as MonoBook... Creating an account is as easy as 1, 2, 3: username, password, email address (which I am told is even optional)... —AugPi08:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I can't understand your response. Thankfully, this new, horrible design has gone away and I can edit effectively, as before. 71.66.97.22820:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now it is back, and interfering with my editing (slowing everything down). Please remove this unnecessary code or make it optional, thank you. 71.66.97.22802:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New "high-tech" design interfering with editing[edit]
Now this has gone too far. The new, "high-tech" design (which includes squeezing together buttons at top) is making it impossible to edit certain pages, due to a complete absence of an "edit" button. This is the case both at the break a leg entry as well as at Talk:break a leg, where the only buttons are "Entry," "Discussion," "Citations, and "History" (the latter being unnecessarily "hidden" by a small dark gray arrow). Can these "improvements" please be rolled back so that editors can edit without difficulty? I have asked about this before and the situation has not improved. 71.66.97.22823:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I log out and see the Vector skin, I still see an "Edit" button, though it is on the right side, nestled between two other tabs... —AugPi00:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, different browsers might display things differently. E.g, I use Firefox on my PC and Atomic on my iPad. Wiki pages look slightly different (with regard to placement of various page elements). Maybe you could give us more information on the WT:Grease Pit page, so we can troubleshoot for you. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C00:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the Basque edition of the Wiktionary has reached more than 5,000 articles and now is among the +1,000-articles ones. You should change that. And, what's more, you should check it periodically because all wiktionaries grow in number of articles every day and they can't be always in the same rank. Thank you very much. --Me in the Catalan Wikipedia. 87.219.34.5301:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, adjusted. It’s actually much more practical for us to wait until someone from the other wiktionaries comes to notify us of a change in level. Be sure to let us know when Basque reaches the 10,000 level. —Stephen(Talk)02:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm writing just to inform that the Basque wiktionary has reached the 10,000 articles level. Can you please change the level? Thank you. Regards. --Zuiarra22:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really, it is. I doubt anyone could find what they're looking for using it. I propose that we change all the letter links in the top box to link to sections of Index:English, remove the "Global alphabet" link, and switch the contents "Index" box for a list of indexes, something like the "Languages of the world" box at the Wiktionary:Main_Page/2009_redesign. --Yair rand (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is already there in the "1,000+" section. It does not qualify for a regular interwiki until it reaches 100,000 entries. Right now it only has 7,700. —Stephen(Talk)17:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand it. But I don't agree because there are 77 "regular" interwiki links, and our wiktionary, which is in the 56th place, it isn't listed as the 78th link in the main page. I'll wait until we write 100.000 entries. Have a nice day. --Zuiarra18:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The mobile site's main page is currently completely blank (http://en.m.wiktionary.org/). Apparently we can fix that: The mobile site's main page just displays everything from the main page that has an id that begins with mf-. Any ideas as to what it should look like? --Yair rand00:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Welsh Wiktionary has just exceeded to the 10,000 entries mark. Could somebody please move us up to the next category? Cheers. Pwyll08:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do all or most Wiktionaries have lists that must be manually updated like this? If not, why does en.Wikt? Is there a way of grabbing another site's NUMBEROFARTICLES periodically, via (interwiki) bot or script? - -sche(discuss)22:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, be aware that these are far from complete, because indexing of these languages is made difficult by the special collation that they use. -- Liliana•13:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but shouldn't the "Index" box link to Index:All languages? It looks a bit strange to have this small list of languages with no indication there are similar things available for other languages. - dcljr22:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. It's linked at the top of the Main page after "Browse", but should also be linked in the "Index" section, probably at the bottom in the middle. I'll make that change now, and if it becomes controversial we can discuss it. I've linked as "All indexes" rather than "all languages", since the index listings are limited to those languages that have an index page generated, and therefore does not include some languages that Wiktionary covers. --EncycloPetey23:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"All Wiktionaries with over 1000 entries get a sidebar entry"[edit]
With the recent growth of Wiktionaries, this seems a bit outdated, since very few Wiktionaries have less than 1000 entries by now! Should the limit be raised to 10,000? -- Liliana•17:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both Encyclopedia and Encyclopaedia are correct forms. You might want take into account different varieties of English before jumping to conclusions like this. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C02:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the assertion you've made is correct about the spelling "encyclopedia" being more common, however that spelling is the one used by the English Wikipedia on its main page, so we ought to use that spelling if we're going to reference them. --EncycloPetey04:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "ae" is 7% as common as the "e" spelling in the US, or am I misunderstanding what "7% as common as" means? I'm guessing "e" is more common than "ae" in the US. - -sche(discuss)20:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was searching 'Cololory ' for but could not remember the spelling. Searched for 'coloary' on http://en.wiktionary.org but was prompted for color only. Suggest the search be improved for words that sound like a search term. Another website gave me a few words that sounded like my search term (dictionary.reference...) and I was able to find the word I wanted.
Only Wiktionaries with more than 10,000 entries are listed in the sidebar. The Western Punjabi Wiktionary does not have that many entries yet. --Yair rand (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few links to <10 000-entry wikis still there, added under the old 1 000-entry cutoff — even after the decision was made to switch to the 10 000-entry cutoff; look at the sections immediately above this one! Some checking and pruning will have to be done. - -sche(discuss)20:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Congratulations. -- Prince Kassad 07:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)