Wiktionary talk:Translations/Usage Notes
<Jun-Dai 21:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)> I have peripherally argued this point before: I think that pretty much every foreign term should have a usage note. It is not enough to provide a definition; we should also provide an understanding of how a term is used and in what contexts, etc. (would it be okay to use this term in front of your friend's parents? when addressing a teacher? will it make you seem bookish? is it really popular right now? is it common?). This isn't to say that everyone starting an article should feel obliged to try and add one, but we should encourage their addition in general. </Jun-Dai>
<Henri de Solages 14:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)>
- Wouldn't it be more efficient if you include this in the entry of the relevant Wiktionary? If not, one will add usage notes for, say, a French word. In Spanish Wiktionary, they may need to add the same usage note. In Russian Wiktionary too. Etc..
- To my mind, usage notes should be welcome, in the concerned language and in English, in the word's language Wiktionary.</130.120.105.237 16:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)>
<Jun-Dai 17:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)> I'm not so concerned about how this is handled in other Wiktionaries, but these usage notes should only be in English. A Spanish word entry in the English Wiktionary deserves an explanation in English of the usage of that word. Thus there would be no overlap, except in meaning, between the Wiktionaries, and that overlap is the same for all multilingual wiki projects (en.wikipedia has and should have much of the same information as, say, it.wikipedia, but in a different language) </Jun-Dai>
- I agree with this. The English Wiktionary is primarily for an English audience. Explaining usages in the language of the word will be completely meaningless. Similarly a person who looks up English words in the Spanish Wiktionary will want the explanation there to be in Spanish. Eclecticology 21:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)