Wiktionary talk:Style guide

Discussion

Material to integrate

Something else that could be added here is the info on "Gaps in entries" most recently discussed I think at Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2008/April#Gaps in entry titles.. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 04:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably better at Wiktionary:Editable CFI. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 02:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarify what we are aiming to use instead of "pertain"

In the section about adjectives with definitions like "Of or pertaining to", the style guide recommends that we use "related". The example for "lexicographical" uses "Of or relating to". The current definition for lexicographical uses "Relating to". I realize that we must be flexible, but please can we have some clearer guidance? When the definition is currently "Of or pertaining to", should we use "Of or related to", "Of or relating to", "Relating to", or something else? K1767 (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

See also

Wiktionary:Entry layout explained. - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Wiktionary:Entry layout. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 23:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Gender abbreviations

For the benefit of readers who are just learning about language, especially English speakers learning about other languages that have gendered noun classes in the way that English does not, I think it would actually be good to expand "f." to "feminine", etc. -- Beland (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Subsense formatting/syntax

I'm not sure how subsenses are supposed to be formatted, or if there's some template to use. Why is there no description or example — nor any link thereto — where the relevant recommendation appears?

—DIV (1.145.54.191 12:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC))

Commonly in print dictionaries the format is a multilevel list, with distinct formatting of each level. For example:

I. ETYM/PoS ONE

1. Defn — sense one

(a) Subsense one

(b) Subsense two

2. Defn — sense two

II. ETYM/PoS TWO

1. Defn — sense one

(a) Subsense one

(b) Subsense two

2. Defn — sense two

Wiktionary, by contrast, doesn't number anything above the 'sense' level within the text (although all headings & subheadings are numbered in the ToC).

Even so, there's still ambiguity in formatting of subsenses according to the present Style Guide, as e.g. either

1. Defn — sense one

(a) Subsense one

(b) Subsense two

— as I've implemented at exponentiate — or

1. Defn — sense one

1. Subsense one

2. Subsense two

— as seen at e.g. raise. (And which I dislike the look of.)

Perhaps part of the issue is that there may be no built-in wiki markup for other enumeration styles, requiring either hard-coded values (as in my implementation) or resorting to HTML encoding. Or perhaps the creation of an ad hoc template?

—DIV (49.180.206.58 01:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC))

The correct formatting is as in raise, and nonstandard formatting shouldn't be used. The appearance can be changed relatively easily with CSS, but any sitewide changes would require consensus. Another issue is that the newly created {{senseno}} cannot adapt to changes in formatting, which means a sense "1.a" would still be displayed as "sense 1.1". — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Surjection.

1. There was no official guideline (that I could find) specifying the "standard" formatting for Wiktionary. On that basis, what we can find in printed dictionaries could be as valid a reference as anything else. Sure, a few (admittedly experienced) WT editors have responded to my comments by stating that the standard formatting is to just use (Arabic) numerals, but that's not the same thing as having a specified standard that can be confidently referred to. Rather, there seems to be merely (at best) a de facto standard, which I think is not good enough — and certainly is unhelpful for newer editors.
2. Without repeating myself too much, we should start with the question of how we want the entries to look. Would you steadfastly say that the numbering of senses at stroke#English is the best we can do?? Once we agree on what the ideal formatting would be, then the technology can be made to fit in with that, I am sure.

—DIV (1.145.0.140 05:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC))

I don't personally see the issue with the numbering at stroke, but as I wrote, it's possible to change subsenses to use letters as a sitewide change if consensus emerges for that kind of change. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Transitive versus intransitive label

Shouldn't it be encouraged (or required?) to mark each verb (sub)sense with a context label (using the lb template) as either transitive or intransitive?
Such advice could be included in this Style Guide under the "Verbs" subheading at "Patterns".

—DIV (49.180.206.58 01:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC))

Edit to update the discussion on cf

Per this note by Benwing2, I'll update the phrasing here to make it clear there is now a consensus (?) that neither cf. nor confer should be used and to use compare in place of both. — LlywelynII 04:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Definition of gloss

It seems to me that Wiktionary uses some narrow definition of gloss in Wiktionary:Style guide#Types of definitions, as well as in Template:gloss/documentation and Template:non-gloss definition/documentation.

According to the gloss entry, gloss is "A brief explanatory note or translation of a foreign, archaic, technical, difficult, complex, or uncommon expression, inserted after the original, in the margin of a document, or between lines of a text" (other meanings seem irrelevant). This definition kind of includes what {{non-gloss definition}} is used for ("A brief explanatory note"). And still, Template:non-gloss definition/documentation links to this definition.

I suspect it would be better to link to somewhere else for the definition of gloss, for example WT:Glossary, if such a definition were actually present. Because I, for one, was confused while trying to unravel this puzzle. This style guide is an option too – at least it has examples.

As for the definition itself, I think the line "That definition is not a gloss, because the words in the definition cannot be used as a substitute for “of”" pretty much clears up what a gloss is as understood by Wiktionary. JWBTH (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)