Talk:Wiktionary


 * This talk page is for discussing the word Wiktionary. For discussions about the project, see Beer parlour, Tea room and Grease pit.

Esperanto
Cxu bona traduko de Wiktionary en Esperanto estus "Vikivortaro"? --Chuck SMITH
 * jes, mi konsentas, "Vikivortaro" estas perfekte planlingva traduko :-)
 * simile por la ĉeĥa estus pli bona (natur-ĉeĥa) vorto "Wikislovník" ol la
 * ne tute eleganta anglisma "Wikcionář" - jes kara Ĉako, mi laŭdas vian Vikivortaron!
 * --Janjosef 08:09, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

yawiktionary
Does yawiktionary classify as a derived word? http://www.yawiktionary.com


 * Well, a derived jargon term. --Connel MacKenzie 08:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikzionario
Is "Wikzionario" the official Italian translation of "Wiktionary"? It looks a bit of a monstrosity to me. W and K do not appear in native Italian words. I understand it is supposed to have "Wiki" in it somehow (although the Latin version doesn't, directly). Maybe "Vizionario" might be better, or "Wizionario" as a compromise. What do others think? Or is this already a done deal? -- Paul G 13:37, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't have an opinion one way or the other. For what it's worth, the Italian Wikipedia just uses "Wikipedia" and doesn't try to translate it. -- Ortonmc 22:56, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Italian Wiktionary actually uses the word Wikizionaro - from Wiki and Dizionario. SemperBlotto 23:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

pronunciation
Some anon thought the following was worth adding to the article:

The Wiktionary logo [ˈwɪkʃənrɪ] is incorrect and should be changed to [ˈwɪkʃən(ə)rɪ] or, for simplicity's sake, [ˈwɪkʃənərɪ]. (The ə sound is generally speaking more or less optional in most dictionary pronunciation guides.)

Reasons: Compare UK pronunciations of "dictionary" listed in reputable dictionaries, e.g., /ˈdɪkʃənərɪ/ (Oxford), /ˈdɪkʃən(ə)rɪ/ (Longman). In addition, US speakers will not feel that [ˈwɪkʃənərɪ] is completely incorrect, which is what they feel about [ˈwɪkʃənrɪ]. In fact, in order to be less provincial and to reflect the global character of (Wikipedia and) Wiktionary, the logo should show the pronunciations of both major kinds of English separately ([ˈwɪkʃənərɪ], [ˈwɪkʃənerɪ]) or combined [ˈwɪkʃən(ə/e)rɪ]

I'd suggest that the I-sounds in British English do differ and would suggest /ˈwɪkʃənri/ and between slashes because it's a broad transcription. Don't the I-sounds also differ in American English? Is there a policy on whether the transcription that appears in the graphic should be American, modern British or RP, which is an archaic British and scarcely spoken. pauldanon

(Comment: the symbols ɻ and i look strange and are not helpful; please provide a link. Is there really a different i sound at the end than at the beginning and than in UK English? Instead, I would suggest [ˈwɪkʃənerɪ])


 * "Don't the I-sounds also differ in American English?"
 * Yes, we differentiate them as well, pronouncing the word as [ˈdɪkʃəˌnɛri], so [ˈwɪkʃən(ə/ɛ)ri] would accomodate both the UK and US pronunciations. --Undomelin 03:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with changing the logo to [ˈwɪkʃən(ə)rɪ]. --Abdull 11:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Nobody leaves out the sound between the n and the r. Also note that the Wikipedia entry sports a new logo. -kslays 16:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I posted a similar item to the following in the FAQ discussion as well:
 * If the pronunciation of a particular word is contentious, I don't believe that one of the possible pronunciations should be "shouted" from the top of every page on the site. In this case, where the Wiktionary logo contains a contentious pronunciation of the name of the site, the majority of the world's English speakers are being alienated. This is a major turn-off and reduces the perceived reliability of the site as a whole. The local dialect pronunciations of this word should be merely pointed out in wiktionary, not fought on the site's FAQ. --Gadlen 18:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The final vowel should be a tense /i/ (words tend not to end in lax vowels; the vowel sounds more like in bead (/bid/) than bid (/bId/)), so that it rhymes with dictionary. I have made the correction. Eb.eric 04:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The [r] should also be [ɹ]. The [r] is a trilled R, which is not found at all in standard US or UK English, let alone in this word. I suggest [ɹ] over [ɻ] because the latter looks substantially more unfamiliar to a naive reader; either way, it's embarrassing as it is currently.

+English?
Should ==English== be at the top of this, and all headers dewikified like all other articles? --Connel MacKenzie 20:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * On de-wikifying matter, yes and no. Yes, because it is an article, and a user might look to this is a paragon of articles. No, because it's a special article, and linking to the headers seems somehow appropriate.
 * On the ==English== matter, I think it should be. Although this is technically not an English word as such, it is term used in English, and there are other terms in other languages, as evidenced by the translation table. This would of course mean adding other language headers for those that use the same word. --Wytukaze 16:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Logo
This article has a difrent definition af Wiktionary than the logo wich has "a wiki-based Open Content dictionary". Should we change the definition? Pyramide

Another thing wrong with the logo is the difference in pronunciation of Wiktionary in the logo and the article. 24.71.246.81 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For as long as I've been here, I've wanted the logo changed. There is significant resistance to changing it though; at the time it was devised, it was clever and appropriate.  The general formatting style has changed significantly since 2002.  At least one of the pronunciations actually does match the Royal British RP that was originally entered (although I had to pull teeth for about a year to get it.)  --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the RP stress patterning in the logo, however, the word final lax vowel is probably a no-no. I'm not familiar with any dialect of English in which lax vowels are allowed in open syllables. A more accurate RP transcription is probably [ˈwɪkʃənri]. Indeed, the entry for the word "Wiktionary" includes three pronunciations, all of which have a high front unrounded tense vowel /i/ word-finally. This is something that should probably be changed. ibarrere 16:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding Urdu Dictoinary
How can i help in Adding Urdu Translation /Dictionary to the languages of Wiktionary??


 * Users Taxman and User:Dijan have been approaching a mass upload - perhaps you could ask them about their progress on their talk pages. --Connel MacKenzie 21:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

2 definitions
Do we actually need the second definitions of "The dictionary resulting from this project"? Its been bothering me since I've been here. We can just get rid of it surely? --Dangherous 12:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a See Also link that leads to itself in the Contents box. --{gues}

Translations
Excuse me, but are any of the words different in the two translation tables for 'wiktionary as the project' and 'wiktionary as the dictionary'? I do not seem to notice any differences. Therefore, couldn't it be the same table, and both meanings given? It seems terribly reduplicative. Beobach972 18:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Combining them would be ambiguous. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary in Irish
Could someone add Irish: ga:Vicífhoclóir from Vicí (wiki)+ foclóir (dictionary). Joe Byrne 14:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary in Czech
"Wikislovník" sounds perfectly Czech to me.


 * But in actual practice, Czech uses Wikcionář. —Stephen 05:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Red links
Wiktionaut? Wiktionarist? Are these words real/notable, or did someone just add them for fun? They are red links. Someone remove them if they're not "real" terms. Thanks. Steevven1 04:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The logo relation
The logo says that the definition of Wiktionary is "a wiki-based Open Content dictionary" The article, however does not say this.

The definition on the logo is not in the article. Recommend adding of the definition shown on the logo.

Guess what format was followed? TI-83 family low battery message.

--Onekopaka(talk)


 * I agree; we should add this definition. TomasBat 15:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I´ll add it now... TomasBat 00:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sicilian Wiktionary
This page wiktionary is blocked. I can't modify it. Would you please change the Sicilian Wiktionary name "Wikizionariu" in "Wikizziunariu"? "The new name is the correct name ("wiki" + "dizziunariu" = "wikizziunariu"). The former name was wrong because it was written in italianized Sicilian. The former name had been choosen by a non-Sicilian person. But now it is written in real Sicilian language: wikizziunariu. Thanks in advance for changing this horrible italianism. Best regards. Sarvaturi (administrator and bureaucrat on Scn.wiktionary)

Witgensteinally
Is "Witgensteinally" a valid English word? Have I just googlewhacked it as ? --124.19.0.118 12:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not so far as I can tell, bad luck ;). Conrad.Irwin 12:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

categories

 * template:wjargon
 * category:Wikimedia
 * category:WMF jargon

Feedback
I suggest the pronunciation offered for "Wiktionary" needs refining, with an optional (a) in the last syllable: ...(a)rI. At least, that is how it is pronounced here in Ontario, Canada.

Thanks!


 * Really? You pronounce it "Wik ch'n are ee" like in "On tar ee oh''? Most people I know pronounce an "e" there though I have also heard the pronunciation with no vowel there at all. &mdash; hippietrail 00:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

RFV discussion
Both senses: (uncountable) "A collaborative project..." and "(countable) Any of the dictionaries resulting from this project". I imagine many people would wish to keep it regardless of citations but it can't hurt to try and find some. Polarpanda 12:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, personally. We don't do website names, and I don't see why ours should be any different, particularly when it's not really in widespread use. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 13:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It would need to pass WT:BRAND. RFD seems fair as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What MG said. DCDuring TALK 14:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Some cites possibly meeting the BRAND criteria are at citations:Wiktionary; please have a look. Others can be found at (I've gotten through the first 22 results there, but the 23d looks promising, and there are doubtless more further down.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ 17:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, actually, never mind. None of those is good. I was forgetting the CFI when I was finding them and posting the above. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 14:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be categorized in category:Wikimedia, category:WMF jargon, and use the template:wjargon ? 76.66.193.224 07:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 15:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

RFD discussion
Failed RFV. I deleted it, and started to resolve the inbound links (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Wiktionary), but there are just so many … —Ruakh TALK 16:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Some are very silly (eg, having a wikilink in a sentence defining Wiktionary on a welcome page, many are on user pages and talk pages. A redlink would in many cases serve to suggest the substantive obsolescence of the discussion. A soft redirect to the glossary or Wikipedia would also be sufficient. DCDuring TALK  17:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, there is always the contributors-have-already-wasted-time-on-translating-it argument for keeping it (which might apply to any entry whatsoever). DCDuring TALK 17:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep regardless of current policy/attestation. If this can't pass CFI, there's something wrong with CFI, not with this entry. --Yair rand (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm, this doesn't really belong here, and a "keep" comment is not topical. It failed RFV and can be deleted. If it has incoming links that need modifying (as it does), that's a job for RFC. I'm not saying the one who brought it here did badly, but merely that a "keep" comment is a waste of bandwidth. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Orphaned in the mainspace, except for links from . &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Orphaned in the template, help, mediawiki, and category namespaces. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The recently added citations don't meet WT:BRAND. If one doesn't like WT:BRAND, on can challenge it at WT:BP, where a presumption in favor of wikijargon of all kinds was rejected. DCDuring TALK 19:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Orphaned, I think, in the project namespace, except in archives of old discussions. Orphaned in the appendix, concordance, and rhymes namespaces. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Replaced with template:only in. Any further incoming links not from discussions or userpages (which I think there are none) can be fixed as they are found. Striking. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion 2
Can someone explain to me why Wiktionary failed RFV per inclusion of brands? The Citations:Wiktionary are the following ones: The requirements on the brand to be included are the following: Which of the requirements R2-R4 do the provided citations of "Wiktionary" fail? Do all the citations fail the requirements or do some of the citations meet the requirements R2-R4?
 * Q1: 2008, John Broughton, Wikipedia: the missing manual, O'Reilly Media, page 428
 * The sister projects that the Wikimedia foundation supports, such as Wiktionary, fulfill some of the roles that Wikipedia does not.
 * Q2: 2009, Isabel González-Pueyo, Teaching Academic and Professional English Online, Peter Lang, page 169
 * Besides the renowned Wiktionary (http://www.wiktionary.org/), a multilingual, Web-based project to create a free content dictionary, available in over 150 languages and run by the Wikimedia foundation...
 * Q3: 2009, Thanaruk Theeramunkong, Boonserm Kijsirikul, Nick Cercone, Tu Bao Ho, Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining: 13th Pacific-Asia Conference, PAKDD 2009 Bangkok, Thailand, April 27-30, 2009 Proceedings, Springer, page 275
 * In this regard, we are planning to incorporate dynamic linguistic resources such as Wiktionary to complement the encyclopaedic nature of Wikipedia.
 * R1. It is used in at least three durably archived independent citations by different authors spanning a period of at least three years;
 * R2. The citations do not identify the type of product to which the brand name applies, either by stating the class of product, or by stating some feature of the product known to be unique to the class of product;
 * R3. The citations are not written by or about the manufacturer of the product, nor are they by or about a person, group, or agency associated with the manufacture or sale of the type of product;
 * R4. The citations are not from a source which is about the type of product in general.

If some of the citations meet the requirements, I would add more citations so that "Wiktionary" can be included. I do not claim to fully understand the requirements. --Dan Polansky 09:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, Votes/pl-2007-07/Brand names of products is not the policy. That vote failed, and was restructured as Votes/2007-08/Brand names of products 2, which passed. --Yair rand (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I am sorry; I should have looked at Votes/pl-2007-08/Brand names of products 2. Which of the requirements stated in that vote do the citations above or their sources fail? Do all the citations fail the requirements? --Dan Polansky 11:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if we take Wiktionary to be "a brand name for a physical product" (such that Criteria for inclusion applies), then the Wikimedia Foundation must fall somewhere in the set of "the manufacturer, distributors, retailers, marketers, and advertisers, their parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates", such that the 2008 and first 2009 citations are invalid. And the second 2009 quotation seems to be "stating explicitly or implicitly some feature or use of the product from which its type and purpose may be surmised, or some inherent quality that is necessary for an understanding of the author’s intent". So if — if — we apply the brand-name-for-a-physical-product requirements, then I don't think any of those quotations is valid. (If we don't apply those requirements, then I have no idea which rules do apply. Criteria for inclusion?) —Ruakh TALK 11:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you say that the citations fail to meet the following requirement: "The source of the citation must be independent of any parties with economic interest in the product, including the manufacturer, distributors, retailers, marketers, and advertisers, their parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates, at time of authorship"? Or any other requirement?
 * I have broken down for me the requirements as follows:
 * There must be three independent citations spanning a period of at least three years, from durably archived sources, such that each of the following requirements holds of each citation.
 * R1: The source of the citation must be independent of any parties with economic interest in the product, including the manufacturer, distributors, retailers, marketers, and advertisers, their parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates, at time of authorship.
 * R2: The source of the citation must not identify any such parties mentioned in the previous point.
 * R3: The source of the citation must not indicate any legal protection of the brand name as a trademark.
 * R4: The source of the citation must not be written by any person or group associated with the type of product.
 * R5: The source of the citation must not be written about any person or group specifically associated with the product.
 * R6: The source of the citation must not be written about the type of product in general.
 * R7: The text preceding and surrounding the citation must not identify the product to which the brand name applies, whether by stating explicitly or implicitly some feature or use of the product from which its type and purpose may be surmised[inferred?], or some inherent quality that is necessary for an understanding of the author’s intent.
 * The second citation seems to fail R7; I can find citations that hopefully meet R7 if this is the major problem. --Dan Polansky 11:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Wiktionary" is not a brand of a physical product, but I have assumed that the "physical" differentia is mainly irrelevant anyway; "Windows" by Microsoft would also come under that regulation regardless of whether it is a physical product. Formally, CFI would have to be amended, and "physical" would have to be removed, but I take WT:BRAND to apply to "Wiktionary", for the sake of this argument anyway. --Dan Polansky 11:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The first citation seems to fail R2. --Dan Polansky 11:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What about Q4: 'The term vibe is also defined in the Wiktionary as "The atmosphere or aura of a person ..."'. Which requirement does it fail? Does "defined in the X" imply that X is a dictionary, leading to the failure of R7? --Dan Polansky 11:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, precisely. See [[Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names]]. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So you say that Q4 fails R7. From what specific text of Criteria for inclusion/Brand names does it follow? If a word is defined in X, how do you know that X is a dictionary rather than a book on a specific subject that also contains definitions, as many scholarly texts do? I am not convinced. Of course, the very name "Wiktionary" is suggestive of its being a dictionary, but that should not really count toward anything. And on the wording of R7: "The text preceding and surrounding the citation must not identify the product to which the brand name applies": what does it mean to identify a product? The product is the particular work, right? Does the author of the sentence mean "product type" ("dictionary") rather than "product" ("Wiktionary")?
 * See my response below. DAVilla 14:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you say about Q3, given above?
 * What do you say about Q6, given below? --Dan Polansky 07:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What about Q5, as vulnerable to R7 as Q4: "Wiktionary defines luck as, "Something that happens to someone by chance, a chance occurrence."
 * More quotes of the sort of Q4 and Q5 can be found in Google books.
 * What about Q6: "If you were to build a viewer based on Wikipedia or Wiktionary and prevent users from interacting with WV, they would only be able to view the entry that came up based on the word they typed into a filed you provide for them on the layout."
 * Some of the criteria mentioned are very sound, especially R1, but, if this word fails RfV, then rules have to be improved. Another rule states that we accept all words, everybody seems to forget this other rule. Lmaltier 17:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added some quotations to Citations:Wiktionary. From what I can see, they could be vulnerable to R7, but I really wonder how the case that they fail R7 would be specifically argued. --Dan Polansky 11:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Q6 passes, I think. This cite might work, as it's not completely clear that it's referencing a dictionary, but the one above it probably doesn't pass R7. Q3 probably doesn't pass R1. --Yair rand (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How does does Q3 fail R1? The authors of the Q3 scholarly article are from School of Computer Science and Software Engineering, University of Western Australia. What has this to do with "R1: The source of the citation must be independent of any parties with economic interest in the product, including the manufacturer, distributors, retailers, marketers, and advertisers, their parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates, at time of authorship"? --Dan Polansky 06:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How does does Q3 fail R1? The authors of the Q3 scholarly article are from School of Computer Science and Software Engineering, University of Western Australia. What has this to do with "R1: The source of the citation must be independent of any parties with economic interest in the product, including the manufacturer, distributors, retailers, marketers, and advertisers, their parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates, at time of authorship"? --Dan Polansky 06:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

[unindent] I'm sure the wording could use some refinement, and although it was that wording that passed the vote, it may be useful for me to clarify the intent. By "identifying the product" one would be giving as much information about the product as is necessary to understand the quotation. So if Wiktionary were noted as a dictionary then the citation would almost certainly not count. (A counterexample might be something that refers to the wiki rather than dictionary aspect of Wiktionary without further explanation. "ABigCat.com is to Rosetta as Wiktionary is to Webster." I couldn't imagine any author using this in analogy, so the example is mostly theoretical. The Jonathan Stars quotation is good as it seems to not indicate either.) In my view, even though some of the newer quotations do not state the product type, they identify Wiktionary as a place where things are defined, which (unless I missed something) is all that's really necessary to understand the meaning. DAVilla 14:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me ask specifically: which of the four quotations Q3-Q6 do pass the requirements, according to your reading of the requirements? (Q1 and Q2 are out, as they mention Wikimedia.) --Dan Polansky 07:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Q3 identifies Wiktionary as a "dynamic linguistic resource". Q5&6 identify Wiktionary as a place where words are defined. "An understanding of the author’s intent" could be gained without the example, by saying passively (with no subject) words are defined as such and such. In my view, only Q4 has any claim. It does not occur in a parenthetical or nonessential phrase, being used in fact to explain another idea. No appositive substitutes as a synonym, nor more generally does Jonathan Stars explain the term anywhere in the work. It's not a great citation since you really only have to understand that these webpages are interactive to get his point, plus you could guess at what Wiktionary is knowing the meaning of Wikipedia (the rules are not clear here), but arguably interactive webpage doesn't technically "identify the product" with any information that would indicate "its type and purpose". DAVilla 18:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Striking, as the discussion seems to be dead. No one seems to actively disagree with DAVilla's last comment. The discussion can certainly be revived in the future, should anyone wish to revive it. —Ruakh TALK 18:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary ≠ Word?
I was surprised that Wiktionary doesn't have an entry for itself. There's an entry for Wikipedia here. Surely enough people know what Wiktionary is that it can be considered a word. Alphius 20:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * FWIW I don't consider this to be a word, no. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is more well known, and the citations reflect that. DAVilla 16:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it does have its own entry now. Alphius 03:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Word
What about "Wiktionary [the pronunciation thing] n., a wiki-based Open Content dictionary" (like in the logo)? Currently this page is roughly similar to a diambiguation pg. UNIT A4B1 19:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Not until we have sufficient citation of Wiktionary. DAVilla 16:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The current revision of "Citations:Wiktionary" contains a number of citations.

I believe the first four of them (just the first four!) are enough for the entry Wiktionary to be attested according to the rules of WT:BRAND. (In fact, one of these citations is listed at Citations:Wikipedia too, presumably to attest "Wikipedia".) --Daniel. 01:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The first and fourth cites in that revision do IMO count as good. In the second and third, the context that makes clear that Wiktionary's a source of a definition. Now, that doesn't imply it's a dictionary (math books have definitions, for example), so I'd like to say those are good w.r.t. BRAND, too, but I seek others' opinions. Note further that the second and third cites are of self-published books (possibly available only online??), the use of which as citations for RFV purposes I know some people object to. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

from RFV, re translations
¶ Does anyone want to verify a translation here? --Pilcrow 18:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Logo - Pronunciation of Wiktionary
The logo is still wrong, while this entry has the correct pronunciation indicated. I strongly suggest the community to check all English entries for [r], the trilled "r", which is neither RP nor GA. [ɹ] should be used instead. A counterargument I often hear are that there is no confusion and that [ɾ], [ɹ] and [r] are allophonic. However, using the latter definitely shows a foreign accent. Another counterargument is that it's easier to type [r] than [ɹ], but laziness is not an excuse at all. Finally people might say that [ɹ] is too confusing for people and that we should keep it simple. That is not the intention of IPA. IPA should help people to pronounce words correctly whatever their native language is. If someone is confused, then they should probably first learn what IPA is and what the symbols mean.You may argue that [r] is just a broad transcription. No, it's not. It's an entirely different sound produced very differently than [ɹ] although they are both written as "r". It's not that we forgot to add diacritics, the two sounds have nothing else in common. If we keep writing [r] instead of [ɹ], that means if every language decides on it its own which symbol corresponds to which sound, IPA loses its meaning. It would be just an alphabet, not a phonetic transcription. --2.245.192.127 14:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

RFD discussion: August 2019–February 2020
Smartly, we deleted Wikibooks. This has failed RFD a couple of times, but without any decent reasons. --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Before we start this, please remember that the argument "we are Wiktionary so we should have an entry for ourselves" sucks. --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It was deleted in 2009 having failed RFV, this should be an RFV not an RFD. I wouldn't be shocked if Wikibooks would be citable now. - TheDaveRoss  02:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Disconfirmed by the log. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Those are the logs for, I was talking about . You can feel free to confirm it with the logs if you want. - TheDaveRoss  11:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sigh, really, move to RFV. Equinox ◑ 03:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No point moving this to RFV; there are already seven citations on the entry page added by me so it clearly passes RFV (note that this entry was WOTD on 12 December 2017). If any decision is to be made about the status of the entry, it should be made here. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary did not fail any RFD discussion, as per Talk:Wiktionary; the only RFD discussion there is Talk:Wiktionary and it seems to have been not a RFD proper but rather a request to help resolve the inbound links. Talk:Wiktionary contains two archived RFV discussions; Talk:Wiktionary discusses whether the provided quotations meet WT:BRAND. Logs for Wiktionary entry show the entry was deleted on 18 August 2010 as "Failed RFV" but then it was restored on the same day: "restore until Special:WhatLinksHere/Wiktionary has been addressed". The question probably still remains whether Citations:Wiktionary has citations meeting WT:BRAND. The following citation is example of what I think meets WT:BRAND: 'The Wiktionary says that an atheist is "A person who does not believe that deities exist; one who lacks belief in gods"'; definitions are found not only in dictionaries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that "The Wiktionary" is quite possibly just a mistake for "Wiktionary" -- someone not knowing how to correctly refer to it. (What they quote is our old definition e.g. at .) You see it as something more than this? Mihia (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My only concern is whether the quotation supports WT:BRAND; it seems to me that it does, and if you think it doesn't, let's hear what part of WT:BRAND it fails and why. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't claim to understand WT:BRAND. However, I just assumed that referring to a brand name in its normal meaning would not qualify. For example, a citation "Collins Dictionary says that an atheist is ..." would not be grounds for our including an entry for "Collins Dictionary", would it? Your quote is likely just the same as this, except miswritten. Mihia (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The particular wording of WT:BRAND has to be used to exclude a quotation. A quotation using the term "Collins Dictionary" fails "must not identify the product or service to which the brand name applies"; this does not apply to "Wiktionary" unless one considers the term "Wiktionary" to automatically fail by its *tionary shape. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean, unless it is a silly quibble about "Collins Dictionary" including the word "Dictionary". Just substitute anything else. Does a citation 'Wiktionary says that an atheist is "A person who does not believe that deities exist; one who lacks belief in gods"' support inclusion of "Wiktionary" or not? If it does, then you could substitute any normal reference to any brand name. Mihia (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What I mean is indeed in reference to "Collins Dictionary" containing the word "dictionary" and that is in reference to "The text preceding and surrounding the citation must not identify the product or service to which the brand name applies, whether by stating explicitly or implicitly some feature or use of the product or service from which its type and purpose may be surmised, or some inherent quality that is necessary for an understanding of the author’s intent." But maybe I am applying it wrongly and I should look at text preceding and surrounding the quotation rather than at the quotation itself. In fact, reading the policy as written, it would be okay if the quotation itself identified the product or service; it is just the text around it that must not do so. I find the quoted passage of WT:BRAND really unfortunate and worthy of removal. In any case, what matters is the wording of WT:BRAND, not vague hunches that make no reference to the wording. As for your question, you can see that whether a quotation supports WT:BRAND depends not only on the quotation itself but also on the text around the quotation. Link to the text around is at Citations:Wiktionary. Using the wording of WT:BRAND, it seems to me that the quotation and the text around it support inclusion of Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think technically you may be applying it wrongly since "Dictionary" is actually a part of the brand name, but all this is missing the main point that I am trying to make, which is how is 'Wiktionary says that an atheist is ...' different from any possible citation that you could find that refers to any brand name in its ordinary capacity, and if such a citation qualifies "Wiktionary" for inclusion then we could find an essentially analogous citation to support inclusion of any brand name whatsoever, which surely cannot be the intention of WT:BRAND. This is what I do not understand. It can't just be because the text does not say "by the way, for those who don't know, Wiktionary is a dictionary", can it? This would be dependent on readership. Some gaming magazine or whatever might refer to a video game that you and I have never heard of, without saying "by the way, this is a video game". Mihia (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (outdent) A point of contrast is "Besides the renowned Wiktionary (http://www.wiktionary.org/), a multilingual, Web-based project to create a free content dictionary, available in over 150 languages and run by the Wikimedia foundation...": this clearly states what Wiktionary is, and therefore, does not imply that readers are supposed to know what Wiktionary is without introduction or description. A quotation that uses a brand name of a game in a game magazine would fail "The sources also must not be written ... about the type of product or service in general" in WT:BRAND. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. Well, as I say, I do not claim to understand "WT:BRAND", but I just assumed it would be stronger than allowing any mentions of something that assume readers will understand what it means. Mihia (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: Citations:Wiktionary has quotations that AFAICS support WT:BRAND. Bringing this to RFV will bring nothing: we do have attesting quotations, and they need to be assessed as for meeting WT:BRAND. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Dan Polansky (above). John Cross (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Dan Polansky, as well. Слейерtalk 20:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Pretty obvious, in my opinion. — LissanX (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * RFD kept. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Stricken out. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)