text:
Wiktionary talk:Entry layout/archive 2008

Redirects in Wiktionary space
I propose that all of the "sections" used in the standard entry layout have a page in the "Wiktionary" namespace that either describes that section in more detail or redirects to this page. In particular, the redlinks below would need pages or redirects created: ==English== ===Alternative spellings=== ===Etymology=== ===Pronunciation=== *Hyphenation *Rhymes *Homophones *Audio files in any relevant dialects ===Noun=== Declension etc. ====Usage notes==== ====Synonyms==== ====Antonyms==== ====Derived terms==== ====Related terms==== ====Translations==== ====References==== ====External links==== ===Verb=== Conjugation etc. ====Usage notes==== ====Synonyms==== ====Antonyms==== ====Derived terms==== ====Related terms==== ====Translations==== ====Descendants==== ====References==== ====External links==== ===Anagrams=== (Dividing line between languages) ==Finnish== ===Etymology=== ===Pronunciation=== ===Noun=== Inflections ====Synonyms==== ====Derived terms==== ====Related terms==== The purpose is mainly to help those searching for these terms to find information on the proper formatting and contents of those sections. Any objections? - dcljr 20:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Meaning 1
 * 2) *Quotations
 * 3) Meaning 2
 * 4) *Quotations
 * 1) Meaning 1
 * 2) *Quotations
 * 1) Meaning 1 in English
 * 2) *Quotation in Finnish
 * 3) **Quotation translated into English
 * 4) Meaning 2 in English
 * 5) *Quotation in Finnish
 * 6) **Quotation translated into English

 * No, I think a better method might be to link Wiktionary:Glossary items where relevant. The POS headings already have their own subpage - making a maze of itty-bitty subpages to hunt down doesn't really help.  The end result should be maintainable, particularly in response to a WT:VOTE.  --Connel MacKenzie 20:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They don't have to be itty-bitty subpages, so long as they link to a relevant page that explains the proper formatting of the relevant type of section. I don't think you understood my original question. I wasn't asking if I could link the terms on this project page; I was asking if anyone had objections to creating these pages as redirects to the relevant info so as to make search results for things like "derived terms" more useful. - dcljr 01:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I object to have pages named Finnish and especially to English. The format page for English entries is WT:ELE.  For other languages, it is the same unless a About Finnish (or the like) exists.  This problem extends to the parts of speech.  The format for Noun is on WT:ELE, unless the noun is not English, in which case one must look on the relevant formatting page for that language.  The same is true of many other sections redlinked above.  --EncycloPetey 20:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, many can redirect to this page. When I can't find information about something on a Wikimedia wiki, I will often try a search for "Project:Topic", where "Project" is the name of the project I'm on (here, "Wiktionary"). Sometimes this works, sometimes not. I think it would be helpful to create these kinds of pages as (at least) redirects to the appropriate information. - dcljr 01:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Changed made without a vote
On the top of the page it says that the page shouldn't be modified without a vote. I made a couple of minor uncontroversial changes here. I'm going to be blocked again for that am I? --Keene 19:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Looks okay to me. That section (interwikis) could be made a bit shorter as well; 6 graphs on something the user/editor doesn't need to think about seems excessive. Robert Ullmann 11:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this bit
.. so maybe it should be re written:

 * Headings before the definitions

 * In general, this group does not depend on the meaning of the word. They give an environment that leads up to the word and its relation to other words, and allow us to distinguish it from others that may be similar in some respects.

In particular, this is the first mention of 'group' - what is a group? In the second sentence, surely 'They' should be replaced by 'Headings'? Earthlyreason 09:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

 * The "group" is all the headeings that come before the definitions section. --EncycloPetey 01:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks EncycloPetey. So maybe the first sentence should be rewritten:

 * Headings before the definitions

 * In general, headings that come before the definitions do not depend on the meaning of the word. They give an environment that leads up to the word and its relation to other words, and allow us to distinguish it from others that may be similar in some respects.

Or are we saying that ALL headings that do not depend on the meaning of the word should/must come before the definitions? Earthlyreason 07:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

 * No. References (for example) does not depend on the meaning of the word, but comes after the definitions.  And sometimes the pronunciation or etymology is tied to a specific definition, but these come before the definitions. --EncycloPetey 20:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The "group" may still be ambivalent. What makes it so is the ambivalency of the header "Headings before the definitions", if one reads that "Please place headings before the definitions" then it starts to mean that "group" would refer to "Additional headings". The header "Headings after the definitions" is so far down that it doesn't give a context. There would be no ambivalency if the header would become "Headings which come before the definitions". Best regards Rhanyeia ♥ ♫  17:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The list type of example sentences
Which of the two is the preferred list type of example sentences? In the section "Example sentences", #: is mentioned, while in the section "Additional headings", #* is used. My experience with entries says that #: is the common one. --Daniel Polansky 11:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't see the format “#*” used for examples sentences in the “Additional headings” section. It does show quotations, though, which properly begin with “#*”.  Note that quotations are not considered "example sentences" here, despite the fact that they show an example of a word's use. Here, "example sentence" means an example penned by a Wiktionary editor.  Quotation means an example taken from an existing work.  Anyway, (contrived) example sentences should be formatted with “#:”. Rod (A. Smith) 16:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I see, thanks. I have failed to distinguish "quotation" from "example sentence". --Daniel Polansky 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In translation example, add space after "*"
I have just modified the translation example, by adding a space after "*", matching the current usage. Now I have realized that I should not have done it without a vote. Next time around, I will stick to that rule. --Daniel Polansky 12:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Oh, please don't. And thanks for your improvement. -- Visviva 12:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Translation example: orange --> { { en-noun } }
In the translation example, should not orange be replaced with { { en-noun } }? --Daniel Polansky 12:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I think so, but then again that might distract from the clarity of the example (which is supposed to be about translation layout, not inflection templates). -- Visviva 14:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

 * That is right. Maybe a small note below that example, explaining that the use of templates is actually preferred, would keep the example simple while pointing out the preferred markup. Anyway, not a big issue for me. --Daniel Polansky 08:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Quotation formatting -- colon vs comma after the year
In the format of quotations, this article uses colon after the year, unlike Quotation, which uses comma. Which one is preferred? --Daniel Polansky 13:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A colon is not really an appropriate choice for punctuation for this. Most people I've seen use either a comma or an em dash. I prefer the latter, but I usually am putting Quotations into a separate section or the Citations namespace.  --EncycloPetey 17:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I insert commas and perform colonectomies. I don't use dashes and sometimes remove them if making other changes to quotations. I thought my preferences were based on a guideline, perhaps in the more specific page on quotations. (Yes, See Quotations). Guidelines aren't policies though. I would conform to any policy about such a formatting matter. Perhaps we need to formalize some aspect of this? DCDuring TALK 17:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We have tried, and there is old discussion that has established some of the norms. Last time we had discussion about citation format, only a few people ever commented and no consensus was reached, as the conversation became dusty and forgotten.  I'm interested in having more discussion and formalizing format, but don't really have a lot of time to put thought into such a discussion these days as my offline life is very busy. --EncycloPetey 17:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will use comma, then. --Daniel Polansky 02:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Coordinate terms
What are these? __meco 19:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Some sets of words have related meanings. For example, consider the words cold:, cool:, warm:, and hot:.  When the such a set is large enough, we usually create a category for them, but for small sets, it can be more effective to list them as "coordinate terms".  Does that make sense?  Rod (A. Smith) 21:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Semantic relations explains them as words that share a hypernym, but somehow that seems a bit off. To me, they're words that denote one particular value out of a range.  Usually, there would be a common hypernym for such terms.  Rod (A. Smith) 21:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hyphenation?
Could we add a section in Pronunciation on Hyphenation, similar to the Rhymes section? (Recommending interpunct and the template.)

Also, could we make a distinction between hyphenation and syllabification?

Nbarth (email) (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree that we should not say hyphenation if we mean syllibification. So I can better understand the issue, can you link to an entry that does so?   might be helpful.  An alternative to documenting hypenation policy on this page (which some feel is too long) is to link to a supporting Hyphenation (or some such) page.  Consider Pronunciation instead of the arguably over-long ELE.  To solicit more feedback on this idea, consider posting your suggestion on WT:BP.  Rod (A. Smith) 03:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

 * The way we're using Hyphenation, it has nothing to do with syllabification. We mean hyphenation.  It is in the "Pronunciation" section yes, but it has nothing to do with pronunciation or syllabification.  My recommendation would be to do as Rod says, and put it on the Pronuncation page, which is still a draft rather than policy.  Once things look OK there and people are happy, it's then easier to copy it into WT:ELE.  For the record, I would prefer "Hyphenation" to go last in the section always, since it isn't really about pronunciation anyway. --EncycloPetey 03:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Following Rod's suggestion and EncycloPetey's concurrence, I've added a section to Pronunciation at Pronunciation, with talk section at Wiktionary talk:Pronunciation. Presumably we should take the discussion there, and hope it looks ok.
 * Nbarth (email) (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Template for quotations
What about creating a template for quotations? Like:
 * 1) The definition of the term.

rendered as
 * 1) The definition of the term.
 * 2) * 1989, Author, Work name, Chapter V
 * The text of the quotation
 * Followed by another line.

The parameter t2 (and t3, and t4) is there mainly for multiple quotations, instead of quotations spanning several lines.

A gotcha: The quotations need different rendering when not following the definition, having their dedicated section, that is:

 * 1989, Author, Work name, Chapter V
 * The text of the quotation.
 * Followed by another line.

This can be handled by having two templates, or by adding to the template a parameter distinguishing the two cases.

Names that come to mind:

 * -- for quotations after definitions
 * -- for quotations in a dedicated section

Maybe the native speakers here can come up with better names.

Alternative using the parameter:

I am not sure whether this is the right place to propose this.

--Daniel Polansky 09:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

 * A simple solution would be to not include the spacing/indentation in the template, and leave that to the one editing the page. H. (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I am unsure whether I understand what you mean. To create the template is easy, just that I do not want to do it without first having a consensus. And one of the points of the template was that the formatting is defined in the template, based on a common consensus; that the formatting can be changed in one sweep at any later point as soon as the consensus changes. --Daniel Polansky 12:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

 * See WT:GP Conrad.Irwin 12:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks and sorry for this redundant commotion of mine. --Daniel Polansky 13:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Confusing presentation of order
When merely browsing the table of content, the "References" section comes much earlier than its correct sequential order when you look at the order list. I think this is unfortunate since many people are going to assume that the table of content reflects the order. Shouldn't the list and the table of content be corresponding? __meco 07:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Where would you put it? I'ts supposed to be a L3 header, so it doesn't come as a subheader of the POS. --EncycloPetey 22:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ordering definitions
Are there any criteria for the preferred order of definitions?

Most common usage first? Etymological parents first? —Michael Z. 2008-05-02 00:21 Z

 * There's been prior discussion, without much conclusion. A related matter is the notion of subsenses (See discussions about and the entry for head). Etymological/attestation order makes for a more satisfyingly readable entry, but can be hard to implement without more factual basis than we usually have. It also isn't believed to be as helpful to users as an order based on frequency of usage. Of course, we don't have the facts for that either. The result is often a jumble, but the older senses still in use tend to migrate toward the top. Sometimes archaic and obsolete sense migrate to the top if they make a major contribution to understanding the connection between the etymology and current usage. Rare, dead-end, specialized, and distasteful senses tend to migrate toward the bottom unless they have a clear home elsewhere on the list. That's how it looks to me. DCDuring TALK 00:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 * That's the best description I've seen of the status quo. —Ruakh TALK 02:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Glad you think so. I have been trying to pay attention. DCDuring TALK 03:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Looks good to me too. I'd say that this should probably be addressed in ELE somehow.  I've been tending to sort in this order: common - less common but standard and nontechnical - technical  - rare/obsolete - nonstandard/slang - vulgar/offensive slang, with reasonable exceptions for technical (etc.) senses which are particularly prominent.  I prefer to avoid any kind of etymological/derivational ordering, although I can see its attraction.  IMO the definitions should be focused on helping users to understand the senses, with as few distractions as possible; the story of how the word came to have those senses is best told in Etymology (where a cohesive tale can be told).-- Visviva 05:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 * What the etymology section does not tell is the tale of the evolution of the senses within English. The idea of subsenses is another idea that enhances the integrity of the entire article at the expense of the frequency ordering. The evolutionary, relative frequency, logical relatedness, and context-specific approaches lead in very different directions for highly polysemic PoSs, like head. To me it is an illustration of what makes it hard for us to satisfy the needs of our varied types of users (as we imagine them and as they reveal themselves in Feedback). The notion that we could allow customization of the order of presentation of senses is very attractive to me. I still wish I had some good basis for understanding what worked or might work for our anon, casual users, coming either from Google or WP€. DCDuring TALK 10:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 * It usually doesn't, but there's no reason why it couldn't, where suitable sources are available. I think I have added this information in a case or two, and nobody has yelled at me for doing so yet.  This approach allows us to have this information (which is Good) without obstructing other functions of the entry (which would be Bad).  -- Visviva 11:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 * That could be Good, but for using more of the first-screen space already squandered on the white space to the right of the ToC and on Pronunciation. DCDuring TALK 11:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 * True, but the question of what the Etymology section should contain is (or should be) separate from the question of where it should be in the entry. If the prominent position of Etymology is dissuading us from creating truly comprehensive etymology sections, that is a strong argument for the urgency of TOC and/or layout reform.  -- Visviva 11:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 * In terms of TOC whitespace specifically, drumming up community support for doing something like this in larger entries would be a noble project. Of course, we all know what kind of animal husbandry is involved in any such effort. -- Visviva 11:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Entry layout reform is the topic for a new discussion - however much it is needed. In terms of ordering the definitions, I would say from "simplest" to most "complex" - an utterly subjective layout that tries to ensure that the people looking for easy information find what they want easily, while those looking for more advanced information (and who will probably understand better what is going on) have to look harder. I think ordering by Etymology is just plain silly, as it requires a lot of guessing and does nothing to aid readability to anyone but the etymologists,(sounds like it's nearly as silly as putting the Etymology section first ;). Conrad.Irwin 12:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Right floating ToCs
That's an interesting idea - and can be achieved simply (and reasonably aesthetically) by just adding some CSS to MediaWiki:Common.css. There are some issues in that Wikipedia boxes will show above the ToC - but I think that it is a nicer default than having it pushing things down on the left. Maybe we should ask in the BP before forcing it site-wide, for those who want to test, try adding the following to Special:Mypage/monobook.css. Conrad.Irwin 12:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Nice! The pediabox issue can always be addressed with , if need be.  Yes, this had better be discussed on the BP/GP first, but it sure looks good from here. -- Visviva 12:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Right-floating ToC, coupled with nested "rel" templates to hide/show Etys, PoSs, Senses would enable dramatically greater information density on the initial screen. It might give us a lot of what we would need on long entries if we had the right text on the "rel" bars. What is the relationship of right-floating ToCs to images? Is it technically an all-or-nothing thing for right-floating TOCs? Is it possible that clicking on something in a TOC could automatically expand the items under "rel" templates? DCDuring TALK</i > 14:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Started BP discussion; perhaps it was premature (I'm concerned now about how this affects TOCs for big community pages like the Beer Parlour), but it's too late now. ;-)  Hopefully something will come of it.  -- Visviva 16:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

References at level 3 or 4??
Hey. The layout explanation is inconsistent as for the heading level of references. The very simple example here says it's three, and this says it's four. Which one of the two it is? Or could it be both? If it can be both of them, what's the criterion for that? Gosh, how annoying... :P -- Frous 17:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Most of the time it should be at L3. The only time I ever put it at L4 is when it is being used only for one particular POS and nothing outside that section, while another POS section has different references.  This is rare.  The Vote on including References at L4 merely indicates what sequence it shou,d be listed in the event that it appears at L4, and does not advocate for or against placing the section at L4. --EncycloPetey 19:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

 * If it is specific to an L3 POS, then it may, perhaps should, be at L4, under the POS (and as shown in the nesting examples); more typically just at L3 for the language section. Robert Ullmann 23:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Compounds should be differentiated from Derived terms
Whereas derived terms would be limited to a few words that are cognate with the entry term, the list of derived compound terms can often be exhaustingly long. The real derived terms will easily become lost amongst these if they aren't placed under a separate header. Many pages use the Compounds header even though it is not listed on the present page, and I think we should sanction this by including the term here. __meco 12:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Compounds is only (at present) supposed to be used on Han character pages, and only under the Hanzi/Kanji/Hanja/Han character L3 headings, not under POS headings. Also: people already can't tell the difference between related and derived terms ... Robert Ullmann 12:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I often don't know whether a particular word was derived from another or is just strongly related to it. In such situations, I use Related terms because it's accurate, albeit less precise than it could be if I stopped my train of work to research the etymologies further.  If I'm one of the editors who you say “already can't tell the difference”, rest assured that it's not because I don't know the difference between those headers, but rather because I don't know enough about particular words to make more specific claims.  Rod (A. Smith) 16:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I doubt that anyone had any particular contributor in mind, because the use of the Derived terms, Related terms, and Sea also headers has a lot of inconsistency and outright error from many sources. The practice you describe of putting a lot of things in Related terms because of not having time or knowledge enough to do the "perfect" job is fairly common. If I limited myself to perfect entries, I would only be doing certain types of English inflected-form entries. DCDuring <i >TALK</i > 17:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Prior discussions about this are probably findable by searching talk space for time and "derived terms". I think a leading suggestion was to have separate templates and glosses for classes of derived terms where there were long lists, but without very specific restrictions on the nature of the classes. If the gloss were specific, perhaps contributors wouldn't be too confused. DCDuring <i >TALK</i > 14:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dual-language grammar terminology?
For many if not most world languages, the monolingual wiktionary has far more entries than are provided bilingually in en.wiktionary. What limits the number of bilingual entries in en.wiktionary? Probably the communities of English-speaking learners of most second languages are orders of magnitude smaller than the communities of native speakers. If so there should also be fewer active contributors to bilingual segments of en.wiktionary than to monolingual wiktionaries. (OK, we can quibble that these are also bilingual, but y'all know what I mean here.)

This starts having a very practical impact when there aren't enough bilingual entries in en.wiktionary to enable a language learner to look up the unfamiliar words they encounter while reading. If they don't already know and can't look up at least 95% of the words encountered, text comprehension will suffer.

The number of root entries needed to cover 95% of the words in unsimplified text of a general nature varies by language and how efficiently the entries are biased toward higher-frequency words, but is usually over 10,000 lemmas even if these are efficiently selected by frequency. If we assume Wiktionary entries are not efficiently biased toward higher-frequency words, 20,000 root entries may be a realistic cutoff between languages with adequate and inadequate coverage in en.wiktionary. Looking at en.wiktionary language statistics, only English, Mandarin, Italian, Japanese and Finnish meet this criterion.

Learners outside this language realm will be forced into the monolingual dictionaries before they are linguistically ready. This creates a chicken-and-egg problem if the definitions use unfamiliar words. If definitions are confined to simpler words that can be found in a bilingual dictionary, the user may still be able to muddle through; otherwise it's an infinite regress.

SOme of this problem is tractable. Dictionary text has an unusual concentration of grammatical terms: preposition, noun, verb, adjective, present, past, perfective, dative, transitive and so forth. These words tend to be long, but they are finite in number. The more of them a reader knows, the more her workload in a monolingual dictionary is eased.

If Wiktionarians face the inevitable that in the short run there won't be enough bilingual entries in en.wiktionary for the majority of languages; that the audience is prematurely forced into monolingual dictionaries, perhaps we should look for ways to make this less painful.

So my modest proposal is to make grammatical terminology bilingual. Expose us to the target language's terminology alongside the English every time we look up a word, and we'll learn it fast and painlessly. LADave 22:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

 * If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that, for example, a Russian header should be changed from the current ===Noun=== to ===Noun/существительное===? —Stephen 23:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

 * That's right. Along with most or all other grammatical terms in an entry.  Often the majority of these will be captions in inflection charts.  Due to space considerations in captions, grammatical terms may need to be abbreviated.

 * Ru.wiktionary handles this well in the few instances I looked at, but of course it doesn't try to be bilingual. En.wiktionary actually does this for some Russian words I looked at, but doesn't become bilingual until you click on a caption.  In other instances there is no Russian whatsoever.

 * Mind you, I'm not suggesting this is an atrocity. In fact it's the prevailing mindset in most hardcopy Russian textbooks and dictionaries. Yet this begs the question whether a different approach might be beneficial, especially in this new medium. LADave 02:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I don’t understand a lot of what you are saying, about captions, prevailing mindsets (what mindset would that be?), does well (does what well?), etc.
 * Because of the need to run bots that rely heavily on headers, we allow only a fairly small, finite set of headers, and adding foreign terms to each header would make it difficult to write an effective bot. Other than that, we can do some things such as I did with the conjugation template at читать...if you click on any of the grammatical terms in the table, such as 1st-person or present participle, it links to the appropriate Russian term. —Stephen 10:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I was calling column and row titles in the inflection tables captions.

 * Mindset is speculation why instruction in Russian as a second language avoids native grammatical terminology. Why not embrace it instead?

 * Re bots and headers, читать is pretty darned good. I'm not sure what counts as a header, but I'd like to see impf. not abbreviated and translated.  Transitive and intransitive  should also be translated and perhaps given links.  It seldom pays to overestimate grammatical literacy!

 * In the conjugation table, Russian terms pop up when you hover over a title. I'd prefer to see the Russian by default without having to hover, so readers are routinely exposed.

 * From these titles, you often have to click twice to reach useful definitions. For example clicking on imperfective aspect brings up  несовершенный вид, but you don't get much help with that until you click on imperfective aspect a second time.  It would be good if the first click to несовершенный вид was more informative.  This isn't necessarily duplication because you could mention peculiarities of Russian aspect that would be out of place in imperfective aspect. Also not everyone has broadband.  If I were hooked up by modem, I might get annoyed over the second click thing.

 * I'd also love to see some etymology for несовершенный and even вид.
 * Likewise I think the first click on any participle (deverbal) title should be more informative. This seems to be a topic that first year (college) texts avoid, so it's probably better to be generous. LADave 19:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Headers are terms that occupy a separate line and are surrounded by a number of = signs, as in ===Noun===.
 * In Wiktionary, we give definitions of English words, but translations of foreign words. The only time we want definitions in foreign words is where there is no good English counterpart. So the only way to get the definition of imperfective aspect is by going to the English page. The Russian несовершенный вид can only contain a translation, since a perfectly good one exists.
 * Etymologies are welcomed for every word, and you may request an etymology by inserting after the ===Etymology=== header.
 * I suppose by "title", you mean header. We only allow the header ===Participle===, for the bot reasons already explained. —Stephen 17:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Can headers be followed by translation lines without bothering bots?

 * Although "perfective" is a perfectly good translation of совершенный, совершенный вид doesn't fit perfective aspect so neatly. For a sense of this, skim http://calper.la.psu.edu/russian/chapter3_3.php and then perfective aspect. The Wiktionary definition specifies, "viewing the event the verb describes as a completed whole, rather than from within the event as it unfolds".   However some совершенный verbs translate "to begin to {do something}" or "to {do something} awhile".    These seem to fall into a gray area between the obviously imperfective "My literature class is reading 'War and Peace.'" and the clearly perfective "Last year I read 'War and Peace' for a class."  Yuri Gagarin exclaimed "Поехали!" just as he blasted off to become the first human in space.  Вид was grammatically совершенный but Yuri was describing an unfolding event as a participant -- one of multiple participants.  An hour later Yuri could have said, "Поехали в космосе."  Same verb form, but now it's unambiguously perfective.

 * If a Russian conjugation table has a header perfective aspect, this must be a stand-in for совершенный вид in the strict Russian sense. If the header has a link, it should take you to something that tells you about Russian usage.  Taking readers to a global definition of perfective aspect puts the cart before the horse.

 * Re titles/headers, when I go to читать and then click on edit, I don't see participle anywhere in the content I assume gets mediated by a template to produce what Wiktionary users see. So "participle" must be in the template.  Aren't bots mainly concerned with the data part?  If so, how would adding  Russian words to titles/headers interfere with bots? LADave 00:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

 * No, headers have to be followed by certain things. The noun header has to be followed by the gloss and then at least one definition. I don’t know what you’re talking about with "совершенный verbs translate "to begin to {do something}" or "to {do something} awhile"". совершенный means perfect, absolute, complete. Words such as поехали, пошёл and пошли are, aside from their basic meanings, idiomatic interjections whose translations often do not agree in tense, aspect or number with the Russian word. In their guise as interjection, they are not perfectives, nor are they past tense, nor even indicative mood. They are a sort of 1st-person imperative. The Russian совершенный вид fits perfective aspect very neatly.
 * I have a very hard time trying to understand what you are saying. Links link to appropriate terms. If you go to perfective aspect, you get the definition of perfective aspect. If you go to совершенный вид, you get the translation of совершенный вид.
 * I’m trying to explain to you how it works here, and why. I can see that I will never be able to do it. The way we do it is the way we do it. It has been developed over a long period of time and there are good reasons for everything, even if the reasons are not immediately obvious. —Stephen 01:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitions should explain when to use restriction templates
There's no explanation here for when to use templates such as or  in a definition. I believe it's when that term is limited to jargon for the area, but it would be nice to have something in the guide. Scott Ritchie 08:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

 * In my experience, we only create such templates for areas that have such jargon, but we actually use these templates even for terms that are more widely used and understood. Hence [[odd]] has an tag for the sense “Not divisible by two”, even though most people do know that sense (more or less; a lot of people seem to believe, mistakenly, that zero is both even and odd; but I don't think that's because this sense is jargon). It's not all bad, though; it adds the category, it helps people find the relevant sense, and it makes clear that the term has a technical definition (as opposed to purely non-technical words, which I think tend to be fuzzier). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 14:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Order of POS section
Where does the adjective section come in relation to nouns and verbs. Does the page explain this? __meco 13:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

 * It is on Entry layout explained/POS headers: "The headers in an entry (or nested within an etymology section) should always be in (English) alphabetical order, except that non-POS headers describing characters or syllables should come first." --Panda10 14:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

 * But note that the POS page is a "Think Tank". There are some cases, especially in highly-inflected languages, where alphabetical order is less desirable, such as when an entry is the lemma for a verb, but a "form of" entry for a noun, adjective, or other part of speech that would normally come before Verb alphabetically. --EncycloPetey 23:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I've generally worked on the assumption that the headers should be in alphabetical order, unless another order is more logical for that entry. For example if the noun is derived from the verb, then it makes sense for the verb to come first. Equally, if an adjective is defined in terms of a noun then the noun should come first. Thryduulf 01:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The exception to alphabetical order (since I don't usually know derivation) is much more common POS uses go first. RJFJR 22:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

3.3.6 Translations and 3.3.7 Descendants
In Section 3.3 "Headings after the definitions", the position of the "Translations" and "Descendants" subsections does not follow the "Order of Headings" sequence. "Descendants" should follow after "Related Terms"; "Translations" should follow after "Descendants". Can the "Translations" and "Descendants" subsections be moved to the correct order?

The correct order would look like this: 3.3.5 Further semantic relations 3.3.6 Derived terms 3.3.7 Related terms 3.3.8 Descendants 3.3.9 Translations 3.3.9.1 Translation dos and don'ts 3.3.10 Anagrams and other trivia --AZard 15:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

 * The order is given in the vote for Votes/pl-2007-06/ELE_level_4_header_sequence and in the section "Order of headings". The section headers on the ELE may not follow this sequence, nor do they necessarily need to.  The Translations section is explained earlier because it is a more frequently used section, and is used by a wider group of our editors.  There are several other good reasons not to follow the page order in discussing some of these headers you propose to move.  For example, Derived terms and Descendants are frequently confused, so it makes more since to discuss these next to each other, rather than having "Related terms" between them in the discussion.  The whole purpose of the "Order of headings" section on the ELE is so that we have more flexibility in the sequence they are explained. --EncycloPetey 18:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the explanation. I have noticed a few entries where the translation subsection is out of order.  I wonder if the order of the explanations is the source of the problem.  I still prefer to make both orders consistent, but do see your logic. --AZard 03:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't thinnk that the ELE order is the cause of the problem. We have many, many pages where the Pronunciation comes before Etymology, even though Etymology should come first whenever there is just one of each section for a language.  I've also seen users put Etymology and Pronunciation as subsections under the part of speech.  Each Wiktionary has slightly different formatting standards, so I suspect the difference between Wiktionaries leads to more section order errors than our ELE does, and that most of the remainging errors are the result of editors being too new, too inexpoerienced, or momemtarily forgetting. --EncycloPetey 16:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Derived terms and related terms - alphabetical order?
Are lists of derived terms and related terms suppose to be listed in alphabetical order? If yes, where does it say that? If not, how are they suppose to be ordered? --AZard 16:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

 * We seem to assume it generally. There has been inconclusive discussion of grouping multi-word derived terms separately from one-word derived terms. The presumption is alphabetisation within such groups.
 * We often don't change pages that are policies or guidelines because doing so requires a vote, which generates a discussion which, though perhaps entertaining to some and educational to others, seems to be considered boring and/or a waste of time by many of the more experienced contributors. DCDuring <i >TALK</i > 16:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I find your response to be rather funny. On one hand, the general principle of wiki's is to allow anyone to make any edit at any time.  On the other hand, these voting requirements foster inertia in changing the formal policies.  I'm getting the sense that many people are okay with informal policies and are accepting of some inconsistencies among entries.  --AZard 17:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We are slow to set "policy" in writing for many reasons, both good and bad. The page About Latin is not yet formal policy, but does include a fuller and more up-to-date explanation of Related terms, etc. and how we format them.  This is one way that EL:E changes -- we try out policy changes on these unofficial language-specific pages, then (if all seems well) we can vote the same language into the main ELE document. --EncycloPetey 17:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, it is in the About Latin page. Alphabetical.  --AZard 23:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So that's where the thinking is. Just like in the typical legislature: all the action is in the committees. At least it's not actually in camera. Also a recapitulation of the history of grammar and linguistics: it all starts with Latin, that most perfect of languages. DCDuring <i >TALK</i > 23:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I try to maintain a sense of humor. More than WP, I think a dictionary needs structure that is not-so-intuitive for contributors. Also: we don't get that much good material from casual contributors; we have bots that detect format problems; serious contributors are expected to learn the ropes and usually do. I am not sure that serious contributors would do much better if we had more rules and documentation, though I believe that we could use a bit more. DCDuring <i >TALK</i > 17:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Grouping multiword separately? That would seem to make it more difficult to find, and contrary to alphabetization. In many cases such words are exact synonyms and freely interchangeable, so it seems quite wrong to actively separate them. I would think that it's easier to find and recognize three variants when schoolbus, school-bus, and school bus are right next to each other. As far as I can tell, professional dictionaries alphabetize thus; it's only lazy computer programmers who sort the space because it has a code point. —Michael Z. 2010-06-09 01:27 z

Inconsistencies between ELE and Templates
I have been editing based on the ELE, since I thought this was the governing document on layouts and formats. Thryduulf has been nice enough to point out to me a few templates - Alphagram, Homophones, and Sense. Unfortunately, there are inconsistencies between these templates and the ELE. Now, I found the Rhymes template page. The ELE format is colon asterisk ":*", while the template is just asterisk "*". I have found almost no rhyme entry with the ELE format. Maybe I need to "undo" some of my rhyme "corrections". Something tells me that there are more templates that have not been reflected in the ELE. I think this community needs to make a list of these "rogue" templates, undergo a quick and simple vote, and update the ELE. --AZard 03:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I just want to add that I've seen a number of entries where the rhyme format was asterisk colon "*:". Seems like this one might not be as easy as the other two templates.  Can I assume that the Homophones and Sense templates are not controversial?  --AZard 16:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I would be in favor of a vote to no longer require votes to update the ELE. That well-intentioned rule is a big part of why our policy pages are in such a chronic state of disrepair. -- Visviva 16:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But please remember why the rule was first instituted. We had editors coming here and changing ELE to suit their desires, then enacting them as "policy" without any consensus, and at times without any support from anyone else. --EncycloPetey 20:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

 * While I feel a vote should be unnecessary, we need some way to just tell people to piss off when they change this wrongly in a way that they cannot come back a whinge "but you never said...", or "but this is clearly right...". I have no problems with correct edits being made to the page by experienced users, however, experienced users is not a term that is easily qualifiable - there are maybe three people I'd trust to edit this page sensibly. If we don't want to have a full VOTE on each, then maybe having a poll on WT:BP would be sufficient. In any case changes must be discussed there first. Conrad.Irwin 20:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I think that a clear, but informal, consensus on the BP should be sufficient to change the ELE. In the case of something small like the template, I doubt that many people would be sufficiently interested to vote either way. Thryduulf 23:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

 * How about a vote, say, twice a year to nod through all template upgrades (or other more or less minor changes), as need be? Inconsistencies that AutoFormat can fix are probably not a big issue (as long as Robert is as active, committed and motivated as he is). -- Gauss 23:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Empowering three people to make changes without a vote makes a lot of sense to me. If any individual disagrees with one of their changes, that person can call for a formal vote on that issue.  If these three are not making proper judgments on a regular basis, I would guess the community would vote them out of the role.  --AZard 15:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

 * So what is the next step? There are now three "minor" changes that are needed to be made to the ELE: Homophones template, Sense template for synonyms, and the order of audio vs rhymes.  I'm told the correct order within Pronunciation is: Hyphenation, Audio, Rhymes, and Homophones. --AZard 03:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I just saw EncycloPetey's vote on the Pronunciation reordering. I guess that's the current way to fix the other two too.  --AZard 03:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: because the vote I started does not actually change any explicit policies, I went ahead without preliminary discussion (other than informal one-on-one conversations over the past months). Depending on the degree of the change, and whether it actually changes what ELE advocates, it may be worth having a brief discussion and straw poll before a more influential change is voted on.  Sometimes, the community reaction can surprise you over what you thought was a minor and simple change (I've had this happen to me personally).  Another thing you'll notice is that I've given the exact wording that is proposed for the change, and not simply described the kind of change.  It's easier for people to agree / disagree over specific language than over concepts. --EncycloPetey 09:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes in example (Translation section)
Excuse me, if I remember correctly, the language code for Latvian is 'lv' and 'lt' for Lithuanian. And orange means "oranžs" when it is an adjective, as noun it means "apelsīns" (m).


text: viskosmiskākajā

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: viskosmiskākajā


text: visanālākajā

title: visanālākajā


text:
Wiktionary talk:Entry layout/archive 2009

Figures, pictures, ...
Does exist any guideline about a picture which illustrates a word meaning?

E.g. like recommendations in Russian Wiktionary.-- AKA MBG 15:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

 * The most we have is Pictures, which has only a little information. --EncycloPetey 21:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Thank you. -- AKA MBG 08:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Alternating background color
It was already discussed how it is desireable to separate languages from each other on pages on words of multiple languages. Horizontal lines are the used method now, but I think it would be considerable having alternating background colors for the languages (on monobook white and pale light grey). That way it would be easier to navigate around. Qorilla 21:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly. This should be doable via JavaScript, I imagine. I think it has been discussed before, too. —  msh210  ℠  22:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Highlighting
Sometimes I feel lost in long explanations and definitions: when you just want to find the (say) verb sense of the word, you have to go through all the noun definitions, related terms, derived terms, antonyms, synonyms, declension, quotations, example sentences. I suggest highlighting the now only bold repetitions of the page title even more (the ones created by for instance). Maybe giving them a pale background color (grayish or yellowish) would help finding where definitions reside. Qorilla 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think of highlighting the entire section commencing with the inflection line (e.g., { {en-noun}}) and including the definitions and the examples/quotations interspersed among the definitions (but not any subsequent sections such as Quotations, Synonyms, etc.)? Just offering the idea, though it's not necessarily one even I think is good. —  msh210  ℠  21:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I gather that the problem is with our truly long entries, like head. Does the table of contents help? Would you consider other approaches besides highlighting? DCDuring TALK 22:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think (from WT:FEED) that some people have trouble finding the definitions among the other sections. I propose that we should change  to  .  —  msh210  ℠  22:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am reminded of Donald Norman's story about the high-style door that everyone kept trying to push to open, but needed to be pulled. The solution implemented was a big ugly sign that said "PULL". He advocated a door design that looked like it was supposed to be pulled. I wish we knew how to do the equivalent of Norman's door design. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * People don't look at the TOC, they want to jump into the jam immediately. It may also be better for people to spot other POS senses easily. That way they could see that there is still valuable information on the page by running down to the bottom and pay attention to highlighed parts. If there are no more highlighted parts they can know that all the remaining stuff is just "trivia" from their point of view. It is also a problem that level3 (POS) and level4 (-nyms) are not easily distinguishable, that is why I think an extra highlighting would help. Qorilla 22:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Some other on-line dictionaries have different structures. OneLook, for example, has quick definitions on the right. MWOnline forces you to pick a part of speech (and sometimes etymology without a hint of meaning) before letting you at a definition for a complicated word. To me there are at least two pieces:

 * 1) making sure that the landing screen makes the entry seem to be worth the anticipated trouble of navigating (especially for new users) so that users aren't driven away and
 * 2) minimizing the trouble of navigating so that users come back. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I definitely don't like the layout of the linked dictionaries. In Wiktionary it's good that it doesn't spare with space. Everything that is needed has its place here in a clear linear order from top to bottom, with headlines and gaps that let you breathe. What I don't like, is that entry points for the eye (definition starts) are hard to find. Either having a big distinctive bullet on the left of the boldword or highlighting the boldword are what came to my mind as a solution. Maybe both! Now that would be too perfect. Qorilla 23:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear, is the thing that you want to further enlarge/embolden in the "headword" that appears right after the part of speech heading (Noun etc)? What would you do in cases where we show two (or more) etymologies?
 * OneLook gets paid for click-throughs I think, but needs to get users to come to them first. MWOnline tries to have subscribers, but clearly depend on advertising. The advertising dependence puts them at a disadvantage.
 * One of the things we use to reduce the amount of vertical screen space is the "show-hide" bar, used for translations, related terms, derived terms, and see also. I've been advocating that and horizontalizing certain lists, like alternative spellings, which is near the top of the page. Also reducing the type size of the headings and relying more on indentation to convey the structure of the entry. I'm not sure that the Pronunciation section and sometimes the Etymology section are "paying their way" for the prime screen real estate they occupy. Thoughts? DCDuring TALK 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I for one like the clean and free feeling of seeing everything at once. Okay details like conjugation tables can be hidden, but the normal text (not tables) are nicer to me if seen always. Qorilla 00:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * That is just an argument for short entries. The issue is what to do when there are, say four blocks of definitions (1 Noun, 1 Verb for each of 2 etymologies), each with 4 definitions and one usage example, and with separate etymologies and pronunciations (2) and 4 separate related terms, synonyns, and translations. See lead. DCDuring TALK 00:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Is it not possible for individual users to customize the way headers (or certain headers) are displayed? Is it possible to set up something that wouldn't require changing the pages at all, but would allow users to choose one or more headers to be highlighted (e.g. Noun, Verb, Adjective)? --EncycloPetey 03:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * This capability (or potential) is one reason why I think we need to focus on the default view that we offer unregistered users and other newer users. In addition to the various current and potential customizations, repeat users have figured out other ways of dealing with our entry structure. Also, through survivor bias, the one's who remain and participate are the last people to have a perspective on ordinary new users. They aren't ordinary and they aren't new.
 * The folks who need our concern the least are the ones who have the most influence on usability decisions. DCDuring TALK 04:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is true. But even using Witkionary for a while now, I wanted to look up head (to see a special meaning) and it was real trouble to find what I looked for. Highlighting all the definitions, or just the headwords after the POS headers with a background color could address the issue. I am for only the headword as it would provide a catch-in entry point for the eye. Qorilla 08:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at apply, please. It has yellow highlighted parts where it asks contributors to help by adding definitions and stuff. I think that is what we need for the headwords, it is very easily spottable. Qorilla 08:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I made a sample at User:Qorilla/Highlight to illustrate what I was writing about. What are your opinions about it? Qorilla 23:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's highlighted enough. (It's hard for me to tell because, as DCDuring mentioned, it's hard for me to know what the average user needs.) It's merely a backgrounded box, of whihc there are others on the page (the inflection line, perhaps, but also images, inflection tables, translation tables, etc.). —  msh210  ℠  16:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not meant for the very-very-very first time ever seeing an entry at wiktionary. After seeing one single entry, one knows where to look for it (one will not look for it on the right side for example). The only problem is distinguishing it from all the headers and other gibberish. If one saw once that the word they were looking for was in a yellow-highlighted box and then came the definitions, they will be looking for it in other entries, too. What do you think? Qorilla 17:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Au contraire. I suspect that the very-very-first-time users are the ones who can't find the definitions, and the ones we're concerned about in this conversation. Once someone has found the definition once, he'll find it again, most often. That's my suspicion: lacking stats, who knows? —  msh210  ℠  17:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a yellow box with bold typeface is a very distinctive feature so a very-exactly-never-ever-heardof-newbie's eye will also be caught on it. Most of the things on the page are greyscale (white, black, grey). By the way I think it is also our goal to make the repeated use of Wiktionary also efficient. And such a highlighting could be a help for finding definitions. But let's hear more people. Qorilla 18:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This approach might work, but it could not be applied to all languages. Can we assume that the users having problems are primarily looking at English entries?  Otherwise, we'd be talking about revising every inflection line template on Wiktionary, and some languages (CJKV languages) cannot be represented in boldface because it renders the characters unreadable. --EncycloPetey 01:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why English would be special in this case. (There are of course more problems with English entries because: 1. that's the most popular language to search for, 2. they tend to be longer.) How much work needs to be done is unimportant. Right now we would need more people's opinion whether this would be useful, helpful. Then we can worry about how to iplement. Qorilla 09:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Idea for a more sophisticated navigation
Maybe having a nicer acttactive centered one-line header listing all the languages on the page could appear below the TOC. Then after the language header could be another line where links to the parts of speech would apperar. That way one could see at once which parts of speech the word belongs to in the given language. I somehow feel the TOC is too uninteresting-looking and full of unneeded information (on a long page the TOC is also a mess). Qorilla 08:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The TOC is not part of entry layout, so this is an inappropriate place to start that conversation. The WT:BP or WT:GP woud be appropriate. --EncycloPetey 14:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the point was that this list would be in addition to the TOC (or instead of it, if we hide the TOC, which IINM we can easily using existing wiki tools), not a modification of the TOC, and would be hand- (or bot-) written. —  msh210  ℠  16:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Please take a look at my suggestions. The source code is not important, it was just thrown together for demonstration. Find it at User:Qorilla/Design (! see the newer and better idea below !).
 * What to look for:
 * Language selector at the top.
 * * Highlighted headwords. The two are unrelated Qorilla 21:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * This makes things a little worse for an English-language-only user (actually top-placed language user) by taking about lines worth of useful information away from the landing page. It could help it the non-English portion of the ToC was replaced by the language-access means. What about:
 * placing a link to the language bar top right with the bar at the bottom of the English section OR
 * having a 1/5-screen-1/3-screen width language pull-down on the right-hand side. DCDuring TALK 22:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the second idea better if I understand right. We should float a box to the right side at the top, containing the language links in big letters. The TOC could be used for this, yes, but it is not very tempting. It is full of different levels saying all the -nyms etc, full of section numberings... A cleaner language select box would be much nicer floating on the right. And maybe it should only appear on pages containing more than one language Qorilla 23:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * How does any of this discussion pertain to our entry style guide? This sort of discussion should be moved to an appropriate location where interested editors can contribute. --EncycloPetey 01:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Synonyms, antonyms and derived words
The problem is that synonyms aren't, antonyms are never exactly, and derived words are all different; and the layout neither allows for nor encourages description of the differences between words.

Basically, the current layout says you just stuff a whole bunch of words as a list in the right section, and the jobs done!!!

What job? What use is a list of bare words to a user? What do they mean? Are you really expecting the user to click through hundreds of words and read each definition? That's never going to happen. For synonyms, it barely works at best ("there are no true synonyms"), for derived words and antonyms, it's a disaster.Wolfkeeper 15:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

 * You might call it a disaster; others might call it a work in progress. Nobody pretends that it is a finished part of Wiktionary. Please recognize that many of our users complain about the length of many of our entries even without well developed semantic relationships sections.
 * What you might be interested in are Wikisaurus and discussions about it and the discussion at Wiktionary talk:Picture dictionary. See especially the link to a page from fr.wikt. DCDuring TALK 15:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't have a problem with work in progress. On the contrary, I have a problem if some guys decided to write fascistic guidelines that prevent progress. Wiktionary is supposed to be useful. Some of these lists are hundreds of obscurely derived and rare terms. Apparently you/the guiedlines seem to think they should be exclusively in alphabetical order and totally without any information to support their usage and to differentiate between them for the user.Wolfkeeper 15:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a potential problem with the arbitrariness of the headings and the use of headings (vs other ways of organizing terms) for the purpose. For example, for "semantic relations" (See WT:ELE.) we use horizontal lists that match wikilinked terms to glosses of the the definitions of the headword. We haven't done that for Related terms (etymologically related, usually cognates) and Derived terms. When we have talked about doing it for Derived terms we found it easier to agree on the separation of compounds, hyphenated compounds, solid-spelled morphological derivatives, and multi-word idioms than on semantic categories with don't really fit with the purpose of the Derived and Related terms section any way.
 * You may be on to something with respect to improvement of the content of these headings. I came upon -gram only because it was flagged as not conforming to our header structure, using "illegal" headings. The glosses are also not in accordance with our approach. Taking things one at a time, I could see using an approach parallel to what we do with in some or our Synonyms sections. That template would carry what you had as a header and the terms you had below the header would be listed to its right. As to the glosses, that is more of a stretch, but might fit with Wilkisaurus, which has a few people interested in it, but also some major conceptual issues, IMO. DCDuring TALK 16:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikisaurus is none of my concern. This part of the policy currently seems very ill-advised. It does not seem to be in the best interests of wiktionary or the users. Right now, you're systematically going through and removing important information, and once gone, that information may well never return; I'm certainly not motivated by a wiki with arbitrary policies that proclaim that everything is the same as a synonym, and that that this can't be changed because there's no 'authority'.Wolfkeeper 18:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your views are ones that have been considered. We are open to reconsidering questions such are those you raise and to any proposals. WT:BP is the best place to raise questions to get the widest hearing. DCDuring TALK 20:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Including particles and articles in definitions and glosses
Headwords are not supposed to have leading articles (In English: a:, an:, and the:) or the "infinitive" particle to: unless they are indispensable. The issue arises most often for idioms. (See WT:CFI.) (Articles elsewhere in the headword should also be viewed skeptically.) Definitions, on the other hand, should have them because they clarify the definition (or gloss). Whether in a given definition watch: refers to, for example, a device for keeping track of the time ("a watch") or the verb ("to watch") is clarified by inserting these words where appropriate. The articles also can make clear whether a noun is countable or a proper noun. In some cases a determiner can serve the same clarifying function as an article and can be less misleading than the:, which often conveys an unwarranted implication of uniqueness. any: is often useful in such cases.

I believe that the same considerations a practice should apply for glosses wherever they may be used, for example, in, , and.

I would like to bring this to WT:BP for a review prior to a possible vote, but would like to get toward an actual proposal here so the discussion there can be more efficient. I would like to get clarification as to whether it should be even a guideline for other languages. DCDuring TALK 14:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

 * The practice I most often seen (as have followed myself) is to include initial articles and particles in definitions, but to omit these in the and  template glosses.  I agree that they are important for the clarity of definitions, but glosses are abbreviated forms of those definitions, and so the articles and particles are not needed in those situations. --EncycloPetey 22:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would hold that the same argument concerning cognitive load on short-term memory applies. In almost all applications there is an excellent chance that readers will not be able to distinguish instantly between a verb and a noun (or other PoS on occasion) and will not have anything on screen to augment their memory, requiring paging up and scanning, or hoping that the lack of direct understanding will not hinder their ability to find what they want. (BTW, the same applies to rel and der templates, which often need PoS included to prevent contributors from missassigning terms to the wrong part of speech or etymology.
 * Of course, it would be nice if we had a relevant fact base about user behavior that we all accepted that would make this easier to resolve. I can only hope that the basic statistics about error in oral speech give everyone some pause before making too many assumptions about how capable users are. I know that introspection alone never works because we humans are so good at optimistic self-delusion about our capabilities. DCDuring TALK 23:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Common misspellings
Are we allowed to list common misspellings of a word? Such as "memorium" for memoriam? -- OlEnglish 23:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Shortcuts
When Style guide was created, I redirected WT:STYLE and WT:SG point there rather than to WT:ELE. First, was that appropriate? Those other pages I presume can be edited w/o a vote. If it was appropriate, my second question is whether it's ok to update the shortcut box on the main page without a vote. Probably needs a vote, but maybe not? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 17:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


text: vishomoseksuālākajā

title: vishomoseksuālākajā


text:
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 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 . 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 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 Entry layout explained requires a vote. Facts707 07:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sense / qualifier templates for synonyms
Today, WT:ELE says that: 1. Summarise the definition for which synonyms are being given, putting it in italics between parentheses, followed by a colon. ...
 * 1) (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:

* promise, vow,  word
 * promise, vow, 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

 * term
 * term

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 template should be used to highlight which sense(s) the usage notes. see Beer_parlour 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 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 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

 * was Entry layout explained move to 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. --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 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. 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 with .)—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 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 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 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)


text:
benorilate

Noun

 * 1) An ester-linked codrug of aspirin with paracetamol, used as an anti-inflammatory and antipyretic medication.

title: benorilate


text: benorylate

title: benorylate


text:
codrug

Noun

 * 1) Two synergistic drugs chemically linked together, in order to improve the drug delivery properties (possibly by different mechanisms) of one or both drugs.

title: codrug


text: codrugs

title: codrugs


text:
ܣܘܢܩܘܪ

Etymology
From. Compare 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) tablet, paiza, gerege
 * 2) falcon

title: ܣܘܢܩܘܪ


text:
sultamicillin

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  An oral form of the antibiotic combination ampicillin/sulbactam.

title: sultamicillin


text:
sulfasalazine

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  A sulfonamide antibiotic used in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (including ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease) and several types of inflammatory arthritis (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis).

Translations

 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin: 柳氮磺胺吡啶
 * French: sulfasalazine
 * German:
 * Hindi:
 * Hungarian: szulfaszalazin
 * Italian: sulfasalazina, salazosulfapiridina
 * Japanese:
 * Kazakh: сульфасалазин
 * Portuguese: sulfassalazina
 * Romanian: sulfasalazină
 * Russian:
 * Spanish: sulfasalazina
 * Ukrainian:
 * Urdu:

title: sulfasalazine


text: Category:Classical Syriac terms derived from Middle Mongol


text:
betacetylmethadol

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  A synthetic opioid, a diastereoisomer of alphacetylmethadol.

title: betacetylmethadol


text:
blonanserin

Noun

 * 1) An atypical antipsychotic for the treatment of schizophrenia.

title: blonanserin


text:
Talk:pococurante

Wasn't this actually only used after Voltaire named a character in thus in Candide? --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:pococurante


text:
brinase

Noun

 * 1) A fibrinolytic enzyme and thrombolytic drug derived from.

title: brinase


text:
binedaline

Noun

 * 1) A drug investigated as an antidepressant in the 1980s but never marketed.

title: binedaline


text:
duocarmycin

Noun

 * 1) Any of a series of related natural products isolated from  bacteria, with potent antitumor properties.

title: duocarmycin


text: duocarmycins

title: duocarmycins


text: vissaulainākie

title: vissaulainākie


text:
bizelesin

Noun

 * 1)  One of the duocarmycins.

title: bizelesin


text:
carzelesin

Noun

 * 1)  One of the duocarmycins.

title: carzelesin


text:
adozelesin

Noun

 * 1)  One of the duocarmycins.

title: adozelesin


text: vislietainākie

title: vislietainākie


text: vismiglainākie

title: vismiglainākie


text: viskosmiskākie

title: viskosmiskākie


text: malabsorbtion

title: malabsorbtion


text:
hey ho

Interjection

 * 1) oh well;

title: hey ho


text:
broken windows theory

Etymology
After article propounding the theory by social scientists James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, “Broken Windows”, Atlantic Monthly (March 1982).

Proper noun

 * 1)  A criminological theory stating that signs of urban decay (e.g. broken windows, graffiti) signal that an area is not monitored, encouraging more destructive criminal behavior.

title: broken windows theory


text:
User talk:24.186.109.130

September 2, 2012
71.66.97.228 04:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:24.186.109.130


text: visanālākie

title: visanālākie


text: vishomoseksuālākie

title: vishomoseksuālākie


text:
ܟܐܢ

Etymology 1
From,.

Noun

 * 1) khan, ruler, emperor

title: ܟܐܢ


text: Category:Classical Syriac terms derived from Turkic languages


text: vissaulainākajiem

title: vissaulainākajiem


text: vislietainākajiem

title: vislietainākajiem


text: vismiglainākajiem

title: vismiglainākajiem


text: viskosmiskākajiem

title: viskosmiskākajiem


text: visanālākajiem

title: visanālākajiem


text:
bicifadine

Noun

 * 1) A serotonin-norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor developed as an analgesic.

title: bicifadine


text:
bicalutamide

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  An oral nonsteroidal antiandrogen used in the treatment of  and hirsutism.

Translations

 * French: bicalutamide

title: bicalutamide


text: vishomoseksuālākajiem

title: vishomoseksuālākajiem


text: vissaulainākos

title: vissaulainākos


text: vissaulainākajos

title: vissaulainākajos


text: vissaulainākajai

title: vissaulainākajai


text: vissaulainākajās

title: vissaulainākajās


text:
bucladesine

Noun

 * 1) A cyclic nucleotide derivative and phosphodiesterase inhibitor.

title: bucladesine


text:
bromvalerylurea

Noun

 * 1) bromisoval

title: bromvalerylurea


text: vislietainākajās

title: vislietainākajās


text: vislietainākajos

title: vislietainākajos


text:
bromisoval

Noun

 * 1) A hypnotic and sedative drug with IUPAC name 2-bromo-N-carbamoyl-3-methylbutanamide.

title: bromisoval


text: vislietainākos

title: vislietainākos


text: vislietainākajai

title: vislietainākajai


text: vismiglainākajai

title: vismiglainākajai


text: vismiglainākajās

title: vismiglainākajās


text:
bitolterol

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  A β2-adrenergic receptor agonist used for the relief of bronchospasm in conditions such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

title: bitolterol


text: vismiglainākajos

title: vismiglainākajos


text: vismiglainākos

title: vismiglainākos


text:
broxyquinoline

Noun

 * 1) An antiinfective drug.

title: broxyquinoline


text:
batroxobin

Noun

 * 1) A serine protease derived from the venom of.

title: batroxobin


text: viskosmiskākos

title: viskosmiskākos


text: viskosmiskākajos

title: viskosmiskākajos


text: viskosmiskākajās

title: viskosmiskākajās


text: viskosmiskākajai

title: viskosmiskākajai


text:
brodimoprim

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  A structural derivative of trimethoprim, having the 4-methoxy group replaced with a bromine atom.

title: brodimoprim


text: visanālākajai

title: visanālākajai


text: visanālākajās

title: visanālākajās


text: visanālākajos

title: visanālākajos


text: benzpyrazole

title: benzpyrazole


text: visanālākos

title: visanālākos


text: vishomoseksuālākos

title: vishomoseksuālākos


text: benzpyrene

title: benzpyrene


text: benzpyrenes

title: benzpyrenes


text: vishomoseksuālākajos

title: vishomoseksuālākajos


text: vishomoseksuālākajās

title: vishomoseksuālākajās


text: vishomoseksuālākajai

title: vishomoseksuālākajai


text:
అర్చనీయుడు

Noun

 * 1) person deserving of worship or reverence.

title: అర్చనీయుడు


text:
bolenol

Noun

 * 1) A particular anabolic steroid.

title: bolenol


text:
bufexamac

Noun

 * 1) An anti-inflammatory drug.

title: bufexamac


text:
betazole

Noun

 * 1) A histamine H2 receptor agonist.

title: betazole


text: అర్చనీయుఁడు

title: అర్చనీయుఁడు


text:
budralazine

Noun

 * 1)  A vasodilator drug.

title: budralazine


text:
butalamine

Noun

 * 1)  A vasodilator drug.

title: butalamine


text: అర్చకుఁడు

title: అర్చకుఁడు


text:
bitoscanate

Noun

 * 1) An organic compound used in the treatment of hookworms.

title: bitoscanate


text:
qwa'al

Noun

 * 1) A kind of hawk, perhaps the red-tailed hawk,

title: qwa'al


text: గ్రహం

title: గ్రహం


text:
buphenine

Noun

 * 1) A beta-adrenergic agonist that acts as a vasodilator via beta-2 receptors.

title: buphenine


text:
bromfenac

Noun

 * 1)  A nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug indicated for the treatment of ocular inflammation and pain after cataract surgery.

title: bromfenac


text: గ్రహములు

title: గ్రహములు


text:
broxaterol

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  A drug that is a.

title: broxaterol


text: జనకుఁడు

title: జనకుఁడు


text: heterosporic

title: heterosporic


text:
qwa'isneat

Noun

 * 1) sign, painting
 * 2) letter, writing

title: qwa'isneat


text:
శరము

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) An arrow.
 * 2) A sort of reed or grass.

title: శరము


text:
biricodar

Noun

 * 1) A pharmaceutical drug for the treatment of ovarian cancer.

title: biricodar


text:
qwai'isneill

Noun

 * 1) written word, writing

title: qwai'isneill


text:
ధనువు

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) A bow.

title: ధనువు


text: శరములు

title: శరములు


text:
taxqwa'isneva'al

Noun

 * 1) camera

title: taxqwa'isneva'al


text:
qwa'isnevash

Noun

 * 1) writer

title: qwa'isnevash


text:
cadexomer iodine

Noun

 * 1) An iodophor used in treating venous ulcers.

title: cadexomer iodine


text:
qwey'eqivash

Noun

 * 1) bug

title: qwey'eqivash


text:
సీతారాములు

Etymology
(ద్వంద్వ సమాసము)

Noun

 * 1) Sita and Rāma

title: సీతారాములు


text:
bretylium

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  An antiarrhythmic agent that blocks the release of noradrenaline from nerve terminals.

title: bretylium


text:
butynamine

Noun

 * 1) A tertiary aliphatic amine with antihypertensive effects.

title: butynamine


text: Template:RQ:Peake Gormenghast

title: Template:RQ:Peake Gormenghast


text: benzfetamine

title: benzfetamine


text:
qwiñill

Noun

 * 1) An acorn
 * 2) A , the California oak species with the best acorns for eating.

title: qwiñill


text:
Template:RQ:Peake Gormenghast/documentation

Usage
This template may be used on Wiktionary entry pages to quote 's work Gormenghast (1st edition, 1950; and revised edition, 1968); the 1st edition is not currently available online. The template can be used to create a link to an online version of the 1968 revised edition at the Internet Archive.

Parameters
The template takes the following parameters:

Examples

 * 1st edition (1950)
 * Wikitext:
 * Result:

 * Revised edition (1968)
 * Wikitext:
 * Result:


text:
కోక

Noun

 * 1) A woman's garment or cloth

title: కోక


text:
Skikavich

Etymology
Related to.

title: Skikavich


text:
cafaminol

Noun

 * 1) A vasoconstrictor of the xanthine class used as a nasal decongestant.

title: cafaminol


text:
Ziemsvētki

Etymology
From.

title: Ziemsvētki


text:
chlorisondamine

Noun

 * 1) A nicotinic acetylcholine receptor antagonist that produces both neuronal and ganglionic blockade.

title: chlorisondamine


text: Category:lv:Christmas

title: Category:lv:Christmas


text:
chlorbenzoxamine

Noun

 * 1) A drug used to treat functional gastrointestinal disorders.

title: chlorbenzoxamine


text: Category:lv:Holidays

title: Category:lv:Holidays


text:
casokefamide

Noun

 * 1) A peripherally specific synthetic opioid pentapeptide drug.

title: casokefamide


text:
lameesa

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) table

title: lameesa


text:
cipralisant

Noun

 * 1) A potent histamine H3 receptor ligand.

title: cipralisant


text: Ziemassvētkus

title: Ziemassvētkus


text:
canertinib

Noun

 * 1) An experimental drug for the treatment of cancer.

title: canertinib


text:
cinitapride

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  A gastroprokinetic agent and antiulcer agent of the benzamide class.

title: cinitapride


text: Ziemassvētku

title: Ziemassvētku


text:
gastroprokinetic

Adjective

 * 1) gastrokinetic

title: gastroprokinetic


text:
butaperazine

Noun

 * 1) A typical antipsychotic of the phenothiazine class.

title: butaperazine


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Philippine/qabu

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1) ash solid remains of a fire

Descendants

 * Northern Philippine
 * Batanic
 * Itbayat: avo, qavuq
 * Northern Luzon
 * Cagayan Valley
 * Northern Cordilleran
 * Dumagat
 * Central Luzon
 * Greater Central Philippine
 * Central Philippine
 * Visayan
 * Minahasan: *abu
 * Greater Central Philippine
 * Central Philippine
 * Visayan
 * Minahasan: *abu
 * Visayan
 * Minahasan: *abu
 * Minahasan: *abu
 * Minahasan: *abu

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Philippine/qabu


text:
suptu

Etymology
From. Compare 🇨🇬.

Adjective
(feminine suptã)

 * 1) having been sucked
 * 2) hollow, sunken
 * 3) thin, emaciated
 * 4) famished

title: suptu


text:
laqachill

Noun

 * 1) hide, leather, something made from leather

title: laqachill


text: Category:Proto-Philippine nouns

title: Category:Proto-Philippine nouns


text: Category:Proto-Philippine terms derived from Proto-Austronesian


text: Category:Proto-Philippine terms derived from Proto-Malayo-Polynesian


text: Category:Proto-Philippine terms derived from Austronesian languages


text: Category:Proto-Philippine terms derived from other languages


text: Category:Proto-Philippine terms derived from Malayo-Polynesian languages


text:
cabazitaxel

Noun

 * 1) A semisynthetic derivative of a natural taxoid, used to treat prostate cancer.

title: cabazitaxel


text: Ziemassvētkiem

title: Ziemassvētkiem


text: Category:phi-pro:Chemistry

title: Category:phi-pro:Chemistry


text: Category:phi-pro:Sciences

title: Category:phi-pro:Sciences


text:
taxoid

Noun

 * 1) Any of a class of taxol derivatives developed for their anticancer properties.

title: taxoid


text: taxoids

title: taxoids


text: Category:phi-pro:List of related-to categories


text: Category:phi-pro:All topics

title: Category:phi-pro:All topics


text: Ziemassvētkos

title: Ziemassvētkos


text:
Template:el-pbook-index

;Greek phrasebook sections

title: Template:el-pbook-index


text:
ciclopirox

Noun

 * 1) A synthetic antifungal agent for topical dermatologic treatment of superficial mycoses.

Derived terms

 * ciclopirox olamine

title: ciclopirox


text: Ziemsvētkus

title: Ziemsvētkus


text: Ziemsvētku

title: Ziemsvētku


text: cephapirin

title: cephapirin


text: Ziemsvētkiem

title: Ziemsvētkiem


text:
cefapirin

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  An injectable cephalosporin antibiotic.

title: cefapirin


text: Ziemsvētkos

title: Ziemsvētkos


text:
lavalvanet

Noun

 * 1) cottonwood,

title: lavalvanet


text:
Appendix:Greek phrasebook/Time

When, later, etc

 * Τι ώρα είναι;
 * Τι ώρα είναι;

Today, morning, afternoon, etc

Time

 * Τι ώρα είναι;

Calendar

 * or
 * or
 * or
 * or
 * or
 * or

title: Appendix:Greek phrasebook/Time


text:
dimethoxybromoamphetamine

Noun

 * 1) A psychedelic drug and substituted amphetamine of the phenethylamine class of compounds.

title: dimethoxybromoamphetamine


text:
cirazoline

Noun

 * 1) A non-selective agonist of the alpha-1 adrenergic receptor and antagonist to the alpha-2 adrenergic receptor, thus possibly an effective vasoconstrictor.

title: cirazoline