Wiktionary talk:Word of the week

How it is done

(from Simple Talk)Yes, we can leave Wiktionary:Word of the day the way it is, as a historical archive. We can start over from scratch on Wiktionary:Word of the week. My suggestion is that we create a section for nominations on Wiktionary:Word of the week, after there is consensus we create a subpage like my example one, the format like this: Wiktionary:Word of the week/year/month first-of-week-through-next.(end Simple Talk)

When it is time to appear on the Main Page, we copy from the week's subpage to Wiktionary:Word of the week/current. Does this sound like a reasonable system? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think my proposal below helps to illustrate how the process would work. Razorflame 00:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

This page is currently a proposal to restart the Word of the Day and make it Word of the Week. The way that it would work would be as follows:

1. Any editor, including IPs, can nominate a word to become Word of the Week under the Nominations heading of the Word of the week page.
2. Any named editor then reviews the nominated words based on the criteria listed on the same page and sees if they are good candidates for to become a word of the week.
3. If it meets the criteria, it is moved to Wiktionary:Word of the week/queue under the correct date.
4. When that date comes around, it is moved to the Wiktionary:Word of the week/current page, which will transclude it onto the main page.
5. After that week is finished, it is archived under Wiktionary:Word of the week/archive.

Does everyone agree to this proposal? Razorflame 23:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I am following you. Do you mind doing an two examples (so I can see the how we would archive them and all)? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The queue would work as it is currently on the Wiktionary:Word of the week/queue page and would be archived every month under Wiktionary:Word of the week/archive/<insert month here> The archive page would be set up either with an archive box that would go straight to the month archive pages or would be a centralized list of all of the months currently done. Thoughts? Razorflame 00:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I like it very much. Nice work Razorflame :) Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. I think it'll help making editors interested in the project. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea. Yotcmdr (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting this going

What would be the next step in getting this going and active? Do we need to hold a !vote somewhere? On this talk page? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

We would need more of the active editors of this site to approve of the proposal above before we can actually get it going, Razorflame 00:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added the proposal to the sitenotice. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Format

If you're going to revive this (a waste of time, I think), please keep the WOTW tag on previously mentioned words' pages at the bottom of those pages (or don't include it at all). Don't clutter up the top. It's not something readers want to see right away, if at all.--Brett (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that we can include a WOTW tag up in the upper right hand corner (the same way that the English Wiktionary does it). That way, it isn't included in the entries, but in the upper-right hand corner, much the same way as the {{administrator}} template does it. Razorflame 18:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you could, but why would you?--Brett (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

To help us to know which words have already been WOTK? Razorflame 23:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't justify putting it on the page, let alone at the top. You could simply make a page listing all words that have been used.--Brett (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That is already a planned part of the WOTW. Anyways, we could make a category called WOTK or something like that that we would place on all entries that are WOTW. That way, it shows up on the bottom of the pages as well as makes a list of all the words that have already been used. I think that that might be the best way to go? Razorflame 00:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm excited that this is in the works again. I think it's a great idea, and I think putting a tag on the page is valuable. Don't be a spoilsport, Brett. A small tag in the upper-right doesn't hurt anything. I think these words don't have to be super-complete. As long as the basic stuff is there and they are valuable to someone who doesn't know a lot of English, they should be eligible. Besides, drawing attention to them this way means people will be fixing them up anyway. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 14:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Rules

I think a rule like "no more then xx redlinks" should be used. I don't really want a page on the main page with more red then blue links. Barras (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Taken care of with the clause "The page must be properly formatted". It can also be extended to include either no redlinks in the definition or few redlinks overall. I am leaning towards no redlinks in the definition or examples.

Furthermore, do we want to include a clause that states that the word that you nominate must have examples of how the word is used? Razorflame 20:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Means no exstub tag or something similar. Would fully agree. Only the best of our entries should be on the mean page. Not too short, good formatted and only a few or better no redlinks. Barras (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Changed rule #5 to show this discussion. Cheers, Razorflame 20:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Hello all!

Do we need to archive declined entries? It is imo not helpful. I would just make an archive /2009 and use:

Week 1 from xx to yy

word

and so on.

Perhabs we shouldn't even make an archive. We can simply poste a credit on the article's talk page as DYK does it on simple.

Any other thoughts? --Barras (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we need to keep a record of all words used so that we know which ones not to allow back as a WOTW. If we weren't to keep a record of all the words nominated, then we wouldn't be able to know which words have already been declined and which words have already been used as a word of the week. Razorflame 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible format

I'm going to make a a possible format of this in my userspace for those interested. --The New Mikemoral (talk) 05:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)