Wiktionary:Simple talk/Archive 13

From Wiktionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

15,000 entries!!![change]

Hi all! Just posted this on our main page as we did with the 12k mark. Hope you don't mind. -Barras (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I rung the bell. I-20 (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Good work, everyone :) Congratulations. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Separating different parts of speech[change]

Hello there all. I would like to suggest that we start using a system similar to the one used on the English Wiktionary to separate languages to separate parts of speech here. Basically put:

# Definition
#: Example

===Related words===
===See also===


# Definition
# Example

What does everyone think about such an idea? Of course, this would mean a lot of gnome work to get all the entries that we already have to conform to this new standard, but I don't see that as a big problem. What does everyone think about such a plan? Razorflame 21:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

New section of Simple talk[change]

Hello there all. I've also thought of another good idea, and that would be to make a new Wiktionary:Simple Talk-type page that would handle all the questions regarding words, and other things that don't have to do with the Simple Wiktionary as a whole? What does everyone think about such an idea? Thanks, Razorflame 21:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Another page when this one does just fine? Maybe when we get 10x bigger. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary, IMHO it'll just be another page to maintain, with little added benefit. This page doesn't get a lot of traffic as it is and I'm of the opinion it can handle all issues site-wide for the moment. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the input. I'll put this suggestion aside for right now :) Razorflame 23:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

English Wiktionary's layout[change]

why does this wiki not have the same outline as english wiktionary? --Snb32 (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

We try to make things simpler. Also, we only have English words. πr2 (talk • changes) 21:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


Hello there all. Formatting has been a big issue as of late, and I believe that we need something set in concrete in relation to how entries should be formatted. This has been a cause of contention for some users on this site, and I believe that we should work on unifying the formatting that we use for all of our entries.

Currently, I've been making entries based on this set-up:

* Audio
* Hyphenation

==part of speech==
# definition
#: ''example''

===Related words/Synonyms/Antonyms/See also===

The current policy is having us use level 2 headers instead of Level 3 headers when it matters to every part of speech, however, I don't think that this is the right way to go about it. Furthermore, there are several changes that I'd like made to the formatting as based on Help:Creating a new entry:

  1. Change all current Related words, Synonyms, Antonyms, and see also headers to Level 3, even if they are used in multiple parts of speech, and especially on entries with only one part of speech.
  2. Format synonyms and antonyms using {{sense}} to denote which sense they belong to.
  3. Add hyphenation to pronunciation sections

Does anyone else have any suggestions, or want to comment on this? Razorflame 09:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I see two common-sense options here regarding what level a section belongs at if it refers to all parts of speech:
  1. It goes as level 2 after all parts of speech
  2. It goes as level 3 under each part of speech it relates to
I think either one is fine and I'm not even sure we need to unify which way it's done. But if people want it unified one way or another, go for it. · Tygrrr... 14:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer Level 3 under each part of speech that it applies to. That is the way that I've been writing my entries, and in my opinion, they make our entries look more professional and might draw in more new users. That's my two cents. Razorflame 00:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


I see that the feedback link has expired ([1]). Anybody know how to fix this? · Tygrrr... 14:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The only way that I can think of getting it fixed would be to talk to the owner of the account that it says has expired and see if he can get his account un-expired or something like that. Other than that, I have no idea how to get it fixed. Razorflame 00:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I will be willing to host the feedback tool on the Toolserver. I have an account on it. I-20 (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
It is now running at http://toolserver.org/~andrew/simplewikt/ now. I-20 (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so maybe I'm lame, but I don't get it, lol. Where do I click to see the feedback from that page? Could you please update Wiktionary:Feedback's "go here" link so all I have to do is click it, cuz I can't figure it out. Thanks! · Tygrrr... 18:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
First, edit User:Conrad.Irwin/feedback.js and replace
  var url = "http://tools.wikimedia.de/~cmackenzie/feedback.php"+


  var url = "http://toolserver.org/~andrew/simplewikt/"+
    "?action=feedback&wiki=simple.wiktionary" +

so that I can get the results. I-20 (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, done. · Tygrrr... 23:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I will change the page now. I-20 (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The page has been changed to point to the feedback tool hosted on my Toolserver account. I-20 (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Audio files[change]

Does someone think they could program a bot to go through and put the audio files in alphabetical order (like so)? It would save me a terribly large amount of time if we could automate this process. I asked Derbeth in April to fix his bot to not just add the UK files to the bottom in the future, but he has not edited either Wiktionary since February. And of course that would only prevent future issues, not fix the mistakes that have already been made. Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! · Tygrrr... 23:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can scrounge up. It seems like a fairly simple find, copy, and paste type bot, but I'll need to ask around for some help. Let's see if I can get it going for you :) Razorflame 00:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


Why isn't the first letter of the title always capitalized? For example:

--Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 05:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Because English words are normally not capitalized. There are exemptions like proper nouns. Neon is normally written without capital letter. -Barras (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

At wikipedia if type both the words, both appears through the search box it automatically do it, but here no.--Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 16:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the way that Wiktionaries/Wiktionarys are. πr2 (talk • changes) 17:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Read en:Wiktionary:CAPS. That might help... πr2 (talk • changes) 17:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Word of the week[change]

Word of the day was closed, can't we now start Word of the week and include it on the main page. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 05:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think our main problem here is that we don't always have enough helping hands. There's Razorflame who is fairly active. I'm often around even if not editing and then Tygrrr and Brett. Some people come here occasionally or in the last time more often (PiRsquared17). DoN#t know if we can manage this here. -Barras (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll be around. I think it's worth a try at least. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
^ πr2 (talk • changes) 14:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would we do this?--Brett (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If editors have time to help out, it can't hurt. But that's the big if. It would certainly make the main page more interesting and less stale looking. I think that at the moment we could manage a word of the week (not a word of the day), but if not, we could always take it down. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
But it can hurt, by diverting resources from expanding and improving the content of the dictionary. And if the best you can say about something is that "it can't hurt," then I'd say let's not.--Brett (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Well again the plus would be sprucing up the main page in a big way. It seems like a good way to encourage our readers to learn new vocabulary. Whether or not it's worth the time it would take, I don't know, because as you said, expanding and improving the content here greatly benefits our readers as well. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

To throw in my two cents, I don't think a wotw would add anything to our wiki. I also agree with Brett that it would divert resources and attention from other, more important things. Count me as a strong no. · Tygrrr... 15:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. I think it's definitely something we should pursue in the future, once we're a bit larger, but I suppose there's no need at all to start it now. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
WOTW/D is a nice idea in general, it can add some interest to an otherwise unchanging main page (I, for one, enjoy checking en.wikt's daily selection). However, I think it's best to focus as much as we can on expanding entries and attracting new users for the moment, while our resources are limited. We used to have a WOTD, and it took a lot of effort to keep it maintained. But it's something we should possibly revisit in the future, though. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

<-The wiki doesn't have the manpower to maintain such a program, as the wiki is barely active as it is. A much better focus is expanding the userbase and the project. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:proper noun[change]

Just a note that I made some changes too Template:proper noun to allow plural functionality. Hopefully this is okay and doesn't disturb any entries (although the changes I made should have been backwards compatible). See Canuck for an example. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's backwards compatible, it's good. These changes make sense. πr2 (talk • changes) 01:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Image captions[change]

What are the style guidelines for image captions? If the name of the entry is included in the image caption, should it be bolded (see bunch, for example)? Can/should captions be complete sentences like definitions? Maybe there's already some precedent, but I didn't find anything at Wiktionary:Entry layout explained at least. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it should just look nice. Complete sentences would be nice, imo. The word doesn't need to be bolded. -Barras (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, we do have set formatting for captions: Help:How to use images#Caption. As you can see, words should not be bolded, can be complete sentences or just one or two words, and should not use periods/full stops unless there is more than one sentence. There probably should be a link from ELE, but I'm not sure where. · Tygrrr... 15:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I created an 'Images' section at Wiktionary:Entry layout explained based on this (and Help:How to use images). Feel free to expand/modify/fix it as much as needed. Hopefully what I put in for starters is align with the current precedents (but change if not!). Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Have a script[change]

User:Yair rand/adddefinition.js - Adds "Add definition" and "Add image" buttons to the toolbox. Might be useful to have it available as a gadget or on by default. Or it might be totally useless. :) --Yair rand (talk) 06:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I will test it in the next days. If it works, I make a gadget. -Barras (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Works fine! Now available as gadget. Thanks for this great tool. -Barras (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Yair rand/editdefinition.js might also be helpful. --Yair rand (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm going to test this and see how it works and either enable it as gadget or by default. -Barras (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Looks good. I'm going an enable it as a gadget. I think it is not the best to have it for readers and so. -Barras (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Bot permissions request for Arbitrarily0Bot[change]

Hi all. I'd like to request bot permissions for User:Arbitrarily0Bot. It is a bot that works only through AutoWikiBrowser and was approved on en.wikipedia in January 2009 (see en:w:User:Arbitrarily0Bot). While the bot approval on en.wikipedia should have little bearing here, I mention it only to show that I've had experience running such a bot through AutoWikiBrowser. I am asking that this bot be approved in order to work on uncontroversial formatting tasks automatically and without disrupting Special:RecentChanges. An example of the bot's task would be fixing bad {{context}} tags ({{context|uncountable}} → {{uncountable}}), a project which I've started into a bit already. The bot would also be available to take requests from editors, minding that any even possibly controversial task would have to gain consensus here first. What is the community's thoughts on this? Is a trial period in order? Best regards to all, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Apporoved for test edits - Please perform some 30 test edits with the bot to show what exactly it does. -Barras (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting wait.svg Trial in progress. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg 30-edit trial run completed. See Special:Contributions/Arbitrarily0Bot. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svgY Bot flag granted. Please always ensure that the template exists. Contributions look fine. -Barras (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That's normal...[change]

2010-08-28 14:00	Special:AllPages	Incomplete

You can guess by now... I-20 (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean huh? (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Gadgets by default[change]

Hi all!

I'd like to make the accelerated tool and the add definitions tool enabled by default. Means people get a checkbox in there settings to disabled the extra tools. If people don't want, but I think most, if not all people here use the scripts anyway. Might be useful for newcomers, especially the ones from enwikt. Any objections to this? -Barras (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a fine idea to me. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I would support the add definition tool only. (And I fixed the link for the tool) I-20 (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Last call for input before I get EhJJ to help me with this. Are there any real objections with good reasons or not? -Barras (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
    I'm fine with enabling both gadgets as default. The green-link tool especially saves a lot of time and I think some contributors aren't aware that it even exists. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • As soon as EhJJ has the time, I ask him to do this. He actually has a better knowledge of those pages. -Barras (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Per the requests above, I'm going to make the accelerated tool and add definitions tool default enabled for all users (which should theoretically include IPs). Users will have the option to disable those scripts with new settings in the Gadgets section of Special:Preferences. EhJJTALK 22:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Given names[change]

Hi all! What is (or what should be) our policy on given names? How common do given names have to be for us to have an entry on them? See Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Mitt for an example of this concern. Your thoughts? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, this is a rather grey area; I don't think we have existing policy on it. Looking at en.wikt, they seem to be fairly liberal with what they allow. I don't see any harm in doing the same - as long as at least a few notable people share the name (e.g. no "Moon Unit" or the like). Tempodivalse [talk] 17:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! I certainly see no problems with this. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong in writing about names. I especially like learning about how the word came to be. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

New Words[change]

Hello, I apologise if this is not the proper place for my question, but I would appreciate a reply. I have created a new word that would be useful in describing a common occurence. Is it possible to have my new word added to Wiktionary?

Thank you, This unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

E-mail address and name removed; please don't post private information here. Battleaxe9872 14:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

[post edited for correct formatting] Hi, I'm afraid that we will most likely not be able to accept your word, unless it's been used or cited by well-known sources; you may wish to read our inclusion policy on new words. (And yes, this is the right place for this sort of query. :-) Regards, Tempodivalse [talk] 17:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be revdeled. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
An email address is not enough to warrant revdeletion, and probably not a name either (unless the author of the post is not comfortable with having it remain publicly visible). If it were an actual street address or phone number we could act, but probably not here. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:TeacherJeff[change]

shows a number of pages of lists compiled (as he says on each page) by Paul Nation but unfortunately that work is copyrighted at the bottom (© 2007 Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand). What should be done about these so-called test pages taken from another list? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


I've seen a few titles having the word Appendix: etc. and I thought that they were used as a sort of standardization, but it looks like they were only meant to reflect the ones already existing on enwikt. Should these pages deserve their own namespace, following the tradition of measuring up to the English Wiktionary version, similar to this? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)