Wiktionary talk:Community Portal

From Wiktionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The information on this page is very helpful, but I strongly recommend updating this and reformatting it so that it looks more presentable, with more useful links, etc. Let's get this thing looking professional, people! :D We want people to take us seriously. --Cromwellt|talk 21:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Irregular Verbs[change]

Has anyone any ideas how we should write irregular verbs, or indeed normal verbs? English Wiktionary uses the en:Template:en-verb - I'd be in favour of adopting this here. Also, should we have ~ing or ~ed redirect to the entry, or have their own entry (wikt:en uses seperate pages). Any and all ideas are welcome --H2g2bob 13:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see that template over there before. Either I never stumbled across a word with that template, or it is something new. Either way, I am 100% in favor of it. It is clean, nicely-colored, easy to read, and, most of all, simple. Let's go for it, the irregular one, and for the corresponding one on nouns as well! Of course, since all our entries are in English, I think we can just go with Template:noun, etc. instead of Template:en-noun. We should definitely not be limited by/to what English Wiktionary does, but if they do something well, I say we copy them. I think having a separate page for each form of the word will be important ultimately (since people who are learning the language will search for it that way), but at the moment I would say let's leave it as a redirect if anything, since we are still working on just getting a good set of basic entries out there.
Oh, and I would like to know what people think about having the word bold in the examples. I'm putting it here because if we change it, we should change the standard form listed here also. I have been doing it with bold, but I'm starting to think it is unnecessary, since they already know what word it is, and they aren't blind (though if they word, bold wouldn't help :D). What do you guys think? I support the removal of bold in examples as redundant. However, if there is are some good reasons to keep it or consensus says to keep it, I won't be at all disappointed. --Cromwellt|talk 03:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
To be honest I'm not worried either way whether we put bold in the examples or not. As you say, theres not too much point in having the word in bold, but there's also no reason not to have the word in bold either. I'd do whatever --H2g2bob 13:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, I did Template:verb. -h2g2bob
You're probably right about the bold, but it is still better to have a standard. I think we should have all examples in italics to set them off from the definitions. Also, how about a standardization of punctuation? Periods after definitions and examples, or just examples? I'd support periods after both. Oh, and I just made Template:noun. --Cromwellt|talk 17:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Just finished Template:adjective, too. I just realized that there is no irregular verb template, and there needn't be, since the verb format allows for irregulars as well. --Cromwellt|talk 17:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that we should have a page that lists all our templates, perhaps divided into sections on Wiki templates versus article templates. It would be nice to know what all we have. The index of templates over at EWikt is okay (though perhaps "Wiktionary:Template messages" would be the best, because it is more consistent with other projects), but I'd like ours to include lists of all templates. --Cromwellt|talk 17:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I just recently noticed that, while the verb template covers most verbs (whether regular or irregular), it does not allow for verbs where the past and past participle are different. I'm going to do what they did on EWikt and add a Template:verb2 for those. --Cromwellt|talk 21:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary link?[change]

Why in the world should each page have a link to the English Wiktionary? This is a Wiktionary, with very good definitions. If we do include a reference to the English Wiktionary, let's change the template to say something like "English Wiktionary has a more complex entry on:" because right now it looks like we're saying that these are not definitions, and that this isn't a Wiktionary (since it says "Wiktionary has an entry on" rather than using the term English Wiktionary). The way it is now works great on English Wikipedia, or on the Simple English Wikipedia for that matter (linking here, hopefully), but here we need the distinction. Actually, I'm going to change the template right now. Somehow, in my previous experience, that does not change all of the pages right away (possibly because of cached versions or something like that), but at least it will help all future pages and the other ones can be fixed later, hopefully. If anyone knows why the changes are delayed, I'd love some enlightenment on the subject (preferably on my talk page). --Cromwellt|talk 22:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've never understood why the pages need a link to en.wiktionary. I would be in favor of removing them. Gerard Foley 18:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Upon further reflection, I guess it isn't a bad thing to have a link there (giving people more options is a good thing), especially since the revised template now makes the distinction. However, I don't think it should be mandatory, just a good option, just like some articles in Wikipedia have a link to Wiktionary (English or Simple English), while others do not. It is helpful, but not necessary. Gerard, it would be good if the header at the top of this talk page linked to "Wiktionary:Community Portal" rather than to "Community Portal" which does not exist. I guess it could link to a page describing what the Community Portal is and does, but I think the original intent was to link to the actual page. Despite my earlier comments about a top-heavy organization here, maybe I should ask for admin status just so I can make these changes myself and don't have to bug you about them -- oh, now I have. If you are in favor of the idea, please add your support. --Cromwellt|talk 21:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer the link done the same as for other languages, as in [[en:Page name]], and have it show up in the other languages box on the left. According to Special:Whatlinkshere/Community_Portal, your link is the only link to Community Portal. Gerard Foley 22:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you're absolutely right. It is much better to have the link show up on the left. I was actually referring to the link in the text at the top of the edit page (where it says, "This is the talk page for discussing changes to the "Community Portal" article."). The link there is red, because it isn't linked where it should be. --Cromwellt|talk 16:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That's from Mediawiki:Talkpagetext. I'll take a look at it. Gerard Foley 23:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is much simpler now! It doesn't have that ugly redlink, although I did kind of like the colored boxes, etc. But definitely better to have it simple, considering what we are doing here. Thanks for the fix. --Cromwellt|talk 20:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


As I mentioned above, we could use a Wiktionary:Template messages or Wiktionary:Index of templates page. How about a template for the Help section? --Cromwellt|talk 18:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

How about we make all the categories lowercase unless they are names or something? That's the way the templates are, so why not have the categories the same? --Cromwellt|talk 22:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I changed my mind on this, as you can see on Wiktionary:Simple talk. --Cromwellt|talk 00:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Standard Format and overall format[change]

I have now created a page at Wiktionary:How to edit where I copied this standard formatting block and explained it at greater length (not to mention explaining how to edit pages that already exist). I will link to it from Help:Contents, but I think now that we have the formatting there (where I think it fits better) we should take it off here. I'd like this page to look more like the English Wiktionary Communty Portal. Obviously, we don't need to have quite so much, since we are much smaller, but it would be much more useful if it followed that sort of format. --Cromwellt|talk 22:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternately, we could make our Community Portal look more like the Simple English Wikipedia w:Community Portal. It is slick and clean but because of the slightly different focus of that project, perhaps that format is not as applicable here. --Cromwellt|talk 22:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I finally did a revamp of the page, mixing SEWP and EWT community portal ideas. It still could use some smoothing out and fixing. Feel free. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 10:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"Simple start"[change]

Should this be moved to WT:Simple start? πr2 (talk • changes) 23:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, this is where you talk about the community of Wikitionary! (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request[change]

Grammar -- "Although we failed to reach our target for 2011, but we have passed the 18,000-word mark on 8 March 2012!" -> "Although we failed to reach our target for 2011, we passed the 18,000-word mark on 8 March 2012!". (reduce redundancy, correct usage of subordinate clause/conj) Theopolisme (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. -Barras talk 07:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)