Wiktionary talk:Entry layout/archive 2010

Mutation

Where would mutation, mainly present in Welsh language entries, go in relation to everything else? I'd guess that it goes next to inflection, conjugation etc. but this needs to be clarified. Cdhaptomos 23:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

How many Welsh contributors are there? Is there an Wiktionary:About Welsh page? No one has objected to the current placements, so perhaps a review of those would suggest an answer. If you just want to get other views, you may need to ask folks who may know no Welsh (eg, me). You would have to frame the issues so they could understand them. DCDuring TALK 23:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is just an issue of codification; AFAIK, there is consensus about how to handle mutation, and it is pretty much as Cdhaptomos outlines. The only question is when an entry has both mutation and inflexion / conjugation headers: which should come first? In such cases, I think the mutation section should come after the inflexion / conjugation section, both because of the alphabetism of that order and because mutation is something very basic learnt early on in Welsh, whereas minutiæ of inflexion can still occasionally trick even native speakers. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

please clarify location of Alternative spellings and Alternative forms - preferably with a subsection for each

Can someone please clarify the location of Alternative spellings and Alternative forms - preferably with a subsection for each? Facts707 11:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternative spellings and Alternative forms - location and usage need to be explained

I brought this subject up 3 weeks ago (see previous subject). There have been no comments so far. I would suggest that the alt spellings (followed by alt forms) should go BEFORE the Etymology, UNLESS they are specific to a particular part of speech or usage, in which case they should go in the appropriate section. If no-one is going to comment on this for 2 months, I am going to try to add this information again (I was just reverted after trying to do so today). Facts707 18:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You're proposing that that's where the headers should go, or that that's what [[WT:ELE]] should say? either way, raise the issue at [[WT:BP]], where more people will see it than here. And note the "It should not be modified without a VOTE" text atop [[WT:ELE]].​—msh210℠ 19:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Both - that's where I suggest the headers go, and what WT:ELE (this article) should say (that's why I put it here). I will bring the issue up at WT:BP as well as you suggest. How long is an issue typically discussed before a vote? If there is no guideline, I will call a vote after 60 days. Thanks, Facts707 19:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the note at the top of page said "should", not "must". I would think that most people would consider basic changes that have been proposed for 3 weeks without comment "would" not require a vote. Facts707 07:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Although this is common practice, I don't think it's a good idea and I don't think it should be codified. IMO the best place for alternative forms is just above "See also", and this is where I have been putting the section when I've created entries recently. Since it's at L3 in either case (unless POS-specific), the structure of the data is the same, the only difference is in presentation. It's difficult for me to see the esthetic argument in favor of top placement. Many common English words have dozens of attestable alternative spellings, which while worthy of inclusion will be relevant only to a vanishingly small percentage of users; why would we want to use precious above-the-fold space to house such low-value-added content? -- Visviva 19:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fine reasoning for an active modern language with standardized spelling, but falls aparts for languages with little documentation, with significant regional variations, or which are no longer in use. It is very important to display UK/US spelling difference at the outset, lest people from the other country become confused. We have that problem all the time. The same can be said of Portuguese from Brazil and Portugal, Sardinian from northern and southern Sardinia, etc. Also, which of several Old French spellings of a word is "correct"? Likewise for Latin, Old English, Middle English, etc. Sometimes words in extinct languages are recorded from only a few citations, and judging the lemma is difficult or impossible. Quite often, it's the variation in spelling that is of key interest for words in such languages for many (if not most) users looking at those entries. --EncycloPetey 20:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Horizontal display reduces the space taken. Current regional alternative spellings are at least as valuable as what we have in {{also}}. Some way to de-emphasize obsolete, archaic, and typographical and other uncommon variants might help. DCDuring TALK 23:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this should come first, and that it would be well to economize space for all such subheadings by using horizontal lists rather than our conventional bulleted form. Vertical organization could subdivide alternative capitalizations, diacritical forms, near-variant spellings, differently-pronounced variants, rare forms, and variously dated forms.

“Alternative forms” is just another name for “Alternative spellings.” I don't think I've ever seen both in one entry, and spellings is not usable when the variation is merely in capitalization, hyphenation, or diacritics. Let's toss out spellings and only use the encompassing forms. (And let's economize with Alternate for Alternative.) —Michael Z. 2010-06-09 01:11 z

We already had the "alternate" discussion, and it resulted in a decision for "alternative". The word "alternate" has too many unintentional but possible meanings (and two pronunciations), and as a result just looks wrong. Part of the reason for this is that the adjective alternate means "every other one", and the noun alternate has a specific linguistic meaning of "allomorph", which is not the meaning we want in the header.

When there are both alt. spellings and alt. forms, I lump them all under "forms" so as to avoid having two sections, but it's rare that I have to consider that option. I'm not sure I like the idea of tossing out "spellings", but I'm not sure it would be a bad idea either. I'll have to think about it. --EncycloPetey 02:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternative also has the alternate meaning of “counterculture,” while alternate does not. Alternate doesn't look like a noun in “Alternate forms,” so it oughtn't be confused for “allomorph.” Anyway, it's not a big deal.

Regarding spellings, on the other hand, I have to change the heading quite often. We could be sure that none of them were wrong by having a bot change every one (is there ever a reason to change forms to spellings?). I can see no reason to use sub-versions of this heading like “Alternative spellings,” “Alternative capitalizations,” “Alternative hyphenations,” or “Alternative diacriticalization”. The inconsistency can only confuse editors and readers. —Michael Z. 2010-06-09 05:04 z

I'd be very much for moving to a single "forms" header. --Bequw → τ 05:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rename to Entry layout guidelines

An editor has proposed that this article be renamed to Entry layout guidelines, along with other suggestions from other editors. You may comment here.

This message should also appear in Wiktionary:Entry layout explained (the article itself) at the top of the page so that Wiktionary users who use the page but do not monitor its talk page or WT:BP have a chance to comment. However, apparently even suggesting a name change on Wiktionary:Entry layout explained requires a vote. Facts707 07:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sense / qualifier templates for synonyms

Today, WT:ELE#Synonyms says that:

1. Summarise the definition for which synonyms are being given, putting it in italics between parentheses, followed by a colon.
...
# (flrink with cumplus): flrink, pigglehick

It's a little outdated. :)

Administrators, please, add the notion into WT:ELE about sense / qualifier templates for synonyms, see: Template talk:sense and Template talk:qualifier. E.g. in such a way:

* {{sense|An oath or affirmation}} [[promise]], [[vow]], {{qualifier|informal}} [[word]]

• (An oath or affirmation): promise, vow, (informal) word

Thanks. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky 12:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I always put {qualifier} after the word, because the respective positions makes it clearer at a glance, and less awkward-looking, especially when there's only one word. —Michael Z. 2010-06-09 01:15 z

• (sense): (qualifier) term
• (sense): term (qualifier)

Minor formatting question: translations of us·exes

For foreign language example sentences, should their translations be italicized or not? Does it matter? —AugPi 06:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Help:Example sentences implies that they aren't italicized. --Bequw → τ 17:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's no consensus on this issue. ELE simply says the example sentences should be italicized, the Help page (which is not actual policy) states that the translation should not contain italicized or bolded text, which is certainly not the norm. I've been assuming (both while formatting pages and while designing the NEC) that all example sentences and their translations and transliterations should be italicized. We should really hold a vote to standardize this at some point. --Yair rand (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Quotation dropdown

When quotations are entered using the #* and #** syntax, a nice dropdown link to show or hide the quotation appears. However, in this guideline the recommended syntax is #: and #::, which doesn't trigger the dropdown link. Is this intentional, or should it be changed? Mysid 21:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Guideline says to use #: and #:: for example sentences, and #* and #** for quotations. The dropdown link isn't supposed to appear for example sentences, only for quotations. --Yair rand (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I see now, thank you. Mysid 05:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested addition to "Usage notes" section

If there is more than one note in the section it should be written with bulleted paragraphs, or as a single paragraph for a single note or when the usage applies to the entry as a whole. In all cases where confusion could occur the {{sense}} template should be used to highlight which sense(s) the usage notes. see Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#Usage notes for past discussion. —Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 09:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything except the wording, which I hate (sorry) for being hard to parse. Probably not perfect but

"Usage notes should be formatted as one paragraph per note, using bullet points in all cases where there is more than one note. In all cases where confusion may arise over the applicability of a usage note (e.g. if it doesn't apply to all senses), the {{sense}} template should be used to highlight which sense(s) each note applies to."

I wonder though whether we should create a series of examples at Wiktionary:Usage notes (currently unused) that document the relevant policies/standard practice? Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why limit a note to one paragraph?​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Translations dos and don'ts

Do not give translations back into English of idiomatic translations. For example, when translating "bell bottoms" into French as “pattes d’éléphant”, do not follow this with the literal translation back into English of "elephant’s feet". While this sort of information is undoubtedly interesting, it belongs in the entry for the translation itself.
— …when the "entry for the translation itself" exists ; until then it's valuable to have a, say, (lit., "elephant’s feet") follow "pattes d’èf". --Jerome Potts 06:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you add Japanese in interlang

The project page is protected, so I've been rejected to add Japanese in the interlang. Could you add Japanese in interlang?

[[ja:Wiktionary:スタイルマニュアル]]

--Akaniji 02:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Yair rand (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion from WT:RFM re ELE's name

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits.

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.

---

Wiktionary:Entry layout explained

was Wiktionary:Entry layout explained move to Wiktionary:Entry layout guidelines

The word "explained" on the end really does nothing to help understand or find the page, and there does not appear to be any other entry in Wiktionary (or Wikipedia, in which all entries could conceivably be suffixed with "explained") which uses this naming style. Thanks for considering, Facts707 16:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussion at WT:Beer parlour archive/2008/May#Wiktionary:Entry layout explained. --Bequw → τ 03:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up - just a small part of the 2008 discussion noted was about "Entry layout explained" vs. "Entry layout", with just three editors commenting on it, which I will repeat here: Facts707 06:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if you keep "ELE" instead of "MOS", I still have a bone to pick with the name. We don't call Wiktionary:Administrator, "Wiktionary:Administration explained", or Help:Tips and tricks, "Help:Tips and tricks explained", so I see no consistent reason in keeping the "explained" bit on the end of the title. Many of you will sit there reading this saying to yourselves "What's he on about, it sounds completely fine" - but that's because you're used to it; if you looked at it from a non-wiktionary-native view, it would seem very illogical and inconsistent. Wiktionary:Entry layout would be much more appropriate.Nwspel 09:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If we change the name as you suggest, then the shortcut would be WT:EL, but el is the ISO code for Modern Greek. The shortcut would become confusing to regular users (who are the most likely to use it). In any case, it is the page where entry layout is explained. Entry layout is one item here that really is so complex that it cannot be simply presented, but must be explained. The current title is logical. --EncycloPetey 13:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Tips and tricks explained" isn't an analogue of "Entry layout explained". One page is a page of tips and tricks (tips and tricks are its contents), while the other explains entry layout. I take your point, though, that most Wiktionary: pages don't have "explained" or the like at the end of their respective names. So what? They don't have to match each other. And it's not like someone is more likely to look at Wiktionary:Entry layout than at Wiktionary:Entry layout explained: neither is intuitive. (Nor is anything else. That's why we have links to policy pages: so people don't need to guess their names.) So there's really no need to change the name of the page; and it will serve to confuse those who know where it is already. That said, I see no reason not to make Wiktionary:Entry layout a redirect to ELE. As a side point, part of the reason I left WP and now edit (almost exclusively) here is that there was too much focus on administrativia (stub sorting, anyone? continual arguments over VFD procedures? etc.) and correspondingly not enough on making an encyclopedia. (Contrast [1] with [2].)—msh210℠ 16:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean about the comparisons with my edits? And ID is the ISO code for Indonesian, but it doesn't stop us having WT:ID, so that is not a valid point. If we don't have "Wiktionary:Administrators explained", then why should we add the explained onto this? Nwspel 18:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is still flawed for the reasons I stated above. The Administrators page does not "explain" administrators; it merely lists them and allows for voting. By contrast, ELE does explain (in detail) aspects of Entry layout. Do you really believe this one small point is critical to the development of Wiktionary? I won't be bothering to discuss it anymore, because I do not think it deserves this much attention. --EncycloPetey 13:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[end of 2008 discussion and back to normal indenting] Facts707 06:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

More comments welcome, thanks! Facts707 06:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I have amended my request to Wiktionary:Entry layout guidelines, as I think it is clearer than "Entry layout" and more "dictionary like" than "Entry layout explained", which is also in the past tense. Also WT:ELG is available and can't be confused with "el", the ISO code for Modern Greek. WT:ELE can still redirect there for historical purposes. Facts707 06:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely a "policy", not a guideline. I'd happily go with WT:ELP, but I think that there's not much point. Conrad.Irwin 19:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on any of "Entry level guidelines" (WT:ELG), "Entry level policy" (WT:ELP) or "Entry level" (WT:EL). The only other possible names that come to mind are "Entry level structure" (WT:ELS), "Entry structure" (WT:ES - confusion with Spanish possible, and the shortcut is already in use for Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium), and the completely different "Page structure" (WT:PS given that a page may contain more tha on entry), but as ps is the ISO code for Pashto, perhaps "Page structure policy" (WT:PSP) would be better. However, I don't really think there is much need to change it, and my only strong opinion is that if the page name is changed then the WT:ELE shortcut should remain. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe WT:Entry layout standards or WT:Entry layout protocol? Also Thyrduulf do you mean "Entry layout structure" instead of "Entry level structure"? Facts707 07:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Help:Contents#Editing says "Describes the standard layout for Wiktionary definition pages (see the simple example)", which seems to suggest WT:Entry layout standards. Facts707 08:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The name is historical now, it's unusual form flags it as a unique, important page, and I see no reason to change it. But if we're going to bother, than the only reasonable choice is “Entry layout.” Why trade one functionless appendix for another? We don't have wt: Administrators guidelines or wt: Tips and tricks guidelines, and since “guideline,” “policy,” &c is an official document's status that can theoretically change, then we shouldn't make it part of any title. —Michael Z. 2010-05-11 14:07 z

Hm... Is this guideline even about layout? Certainly not in the conventional publishing sense, where layout is the graphical composition of a page – the laying out of our pages is controlled by our style sheets. This guideline is about the content, its ordering, and semantic structure defined by wikitext and templates. It's also a guide for editors' activity of creating entries, rather than a description of the passive entry structure for readers. Why not retitle it more accurately, as in wt: Structuring an entry?

On the other hand, this is about the only guideline in the joint with a title that has a touch of character. All the others have the bland flatness of a fluorescent-lit committee room. I'd miss it. —Michael Z. 2010-06-09 05:20 z

My initial reaction to "Entry layout explained" was recent enough that I remember it, and the word "explained" actually flagged it as less important to me. It sounded to me more like a glossary than a standards document. - Robin 12:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I am archiving this stale discussion as "no action taken". Feel free to raise the issue anew. - -sche (discuss) 06:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)