Template talk:term/archives/2007

Interwiki links
The current draft version of this template creates an interwiki link to the non-English Wiktionary entry if the named parameter is given. This matches the style used by, but is a divergence from conventions, which restrict interwiki links to the translation section and to the page housing the English Wiktionary entry. Since bots usually populate entry pages with interwiki links, this feature will be of limited use whenever the English Wiktionary already has an entry for the linked term. So, should I remove that nonstandard interwiki link feature? Rod (A. Smith) 06:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don’t like them. They are distracting. H. (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It does seem like overkill. And there is a difference between here and {t}: an English-speaking user seeing a {term} reference will want to look at the en.wikt entry; and will usually not find the FL.wikt entry useful. A user looking at translations is interested in the FL word for a specific language, and may very well find the FL.wikt entry comprehensible and useable. I'd drop the FL.wikt links from {term}. Robert Ullmann 12:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Removed. Rod (A. Smith) 16:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Requirements analysis: Types of mention
Below is a list of various types of mention in English Wiktionary. I will use this list to ensure that the forthcoming proposal covers our needs. (Thanks to DAVilla for compiling the original list.)
 * From achieve: Old English acheven, Old French achever, achiever, French achever, to finish; à (Latin ad + Old French chief, French chef, end, head, from Latin caput head. See chief
 * From achieve: Old English, Old French achever:, French achever:; à: (Latin ad:) + Old French chief:, French chef:, from Latin caput:. See chief:
 * From alma: From colloquial Arabic (‘ālima) ‘singer’, originally a feminine adjective meaning ‘learned, knowledgeable’, from  (‘alima) ‘to know’.
 * From alma: From colloquial Arabic, originally a feminine adjective meaning ‘learned, knowledgeable’, from.
 * From box: Middle English < Old English < Latin buxus < Greek πύξος (pyxos, box tree).
 * From box: Middle English < Old English < Latin buxus: < Greek πυξος:.
 * From but: Old English būtan, corresponding to "by + out".
 * From but: Old English butan:.
 * From Dutch: From Proto-Germanic þeod (meaning a people, a nation); akin to...
 * From Dutch: From Proto-Germanic þeod:; akin to...
 * From half: Anglo-Saxon healf, half ('half'); as a noun, 'half', 'side', 'part'; akin to...
 * From half: Anglo-Saxon healf:; as a noun, 'half', 'side', 'part'; akin to...
 * From hold: From the verb, influenced by Old Norse hald (hold, custody).
 * From hold: From the verb, influenced by Old Norse hald:.
 * From news: Plural of obsolete noun "new", meaning "something that is new"; not, as is sometimes assumed, an acronym for "North, East, West, South" or anything else.
 * From news: Plural of obsolete noun ; not, as is sometimes assumed, an acronym for "North, East, West, South" or anything else.
 * From resume: From Latin resumere (re- + sumere)
 * From resume: From Latin resumere: (re-: + sumere:)
 * From usage notes for ghey: The spelling is typically used to differentiate the meaning of "lame" from the homophonic meanings of "homosexual" or "happy," so as to retain the pejorative meaning, without the "happy or joyful" misinterpretation.
 * From usage notes for ghey: The spelling is typically used to differentiate the meaning of “lame” from the homophonic meanings of “homosexual” or “happy”, so as to retain the pejorative meaning, without the “happy or joyful” misinterpretation.
 * From usage notes for god: The word "god" is often applied both to males and to females. ... Christian usage shifted the gender to masculine, necessitating the development of a feminine form, "goddess".
 * From usage notes for god: The word is often applied both to males and to females. ... Christian usage shifted the gender to masculine, necessitating the development of a feminine form, goddess:.
 * From usage notes for hopefully: Many adverbs are used as sentence modifiers in this way without comment, like interestingly, frankly, clearly, luckily, unfortunately—it is unclear why hopefully has been singled out for deprecation. ... Merriam-Webster, on the other hand, calls the usage "entirely standard".
 * From usage notes for hopefully: Many adverbs are used as sentence modifiers in this way without comment, like, , , , —it is unclear why has been singled out for deprecation.... Merriam-Webster, on the other hand, calls the usage “entirely standard”.
 * From usage notes for in: The preposition "in" is used with accusative case if...
 * From usage notes for in: The preposition undefined: is used with accusative case if...
 * From usage notes for jive: "Jive" and "jibe" are frequently used interchangeably in the U.S. to indicate the concept "to agree or accord". ...
 * From usage notes for jive: and  are frequently used interchangeably in the U.S. to indicate the concept “to agree or accord”....
 * From usage notes for le: à le is never used: contracted into au.
 * From usage notes for le: undefined: is never used: contracted into au:.
 * From usage notes for 's: Usage of the possessive marker with words ending in "s" varies. ...the strictly correct form is to form the possessive of both names, as in “Jack’s and Jill’s pails”.
 * From usage notes for 's: Usage of the possessive marker with words ending in “s” varies. ...the strictly correct form is to form the possessive of both names, as in “Jack’s and Jill’s pails”.
 * Stop words (well-known and understood, usually very short, words): e.g. “the”, “and”, “where”
 * Stop words (well-known and understood, usually very short, words): e.g., ,

Paul G also notes the following types of mention that may need special treatment (in summary, embolden English terms, italicise those in other languages that use the Latin alphabet, and leave words in other scripts unchanged):
 * English vs. non-English: Italicising referenced non-English words also distinguishes them from both surrounding text and from English words; a possible case against the need to make the latter distinction is that Wiktionary defines non-English words too.
 * noun is from Anglo-French noun, from Old French nom (also spelled non), from Latin nomen ("name").
 * is from Anglo-French noun:, from Old French nom: (also spelled non:), from Latin nomen:.
 * Latin script vs. non-Latin script: It is important that terms in scripts other than the Latin alphabet are not emboldened or italicised as fine detail can be obscured by doing this. In any case, the fact that the terms are in another script is sufficient to distinguish them from any surrounding text.
 * First recorded in the Yongbi eocheonga, 1447, as 말.
 * First recorded in the Yongbi eocheonga, 1447, as.
 * non-words: Hypothetical etymons (such as those in Proto-Indo-European) should be are treated like other non-English terms, but not italicised wikified, as Wiktionary does not define them (they are non-words).
 * From Middle English < Old English word < Proto-Germanic *wurða- < Proto-Indo-European base *werə- ('to speak').
 * From Middle English < Old English word: < Proto-Germanic *undefined: < Proto-Indo-European base *undefined:.

The above lists are my scratch pad used to outline the requirementsbelow. Rod (A. Smith) 21:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Mentions by type
Following is a condensed version of the scratch pad above, showing each distinct type of mention required.

Some readers may want English mentions to display in a different style from non-English mentions. allows that distinction. Readers can choose between several styles through WT:PREFS, including italics, double-quoted, single-quoted, or bold (default pending discussion and vote). As User:Paul G notes, a possible case against the need to make the English/non-English distinction is that Wiktionary defines non-English words too. Thus, may be abandoned if the community so chooses.
 * Simple English mentions:
 * From word: + ...
 * From + ...
 * English mentions with alternate text:
 * From inflect: + ...
 * From + ...
 * English mentions with a sense-refining gloss:
 * From gloss: + ...
 * From + ...
 * From gloss: + ...
 * From + ...
 * Non-CFI, stop words, and other unlinked mentions:
 * Common short words such as the:, and:, where:, ....
 * Common short words such as, , , ....

Readers can also customize how displays Latin (Roman) script (e.g. English, French, German, etc., not just Latin-language) mentions through WT:PREFS. Per the straw poll Votes/2007-08/style for mentioned terms, the preliminary default is for italics.


 * Simple Latin (Roman) script mentions:
 * From verbum: + ...
 * From verbum: + ...
 * Latin (Roman) script mentiones with alternate text:
 * From verbo: + ...
 * From verbo: + ...
 * Latin (Roman) script mentions with alternate text and English gloss translation:
 * From verbo: + ...
 * From verbo: + ...
 * Latin (Roman) script mentions with just a gloss:
 * From verbum: + ...
 * From verbum: + ...
 * Non-CFI or otherwise unlinked mentions (e.g. hypothetical etymons such as those in Proto-Indo-European):
 * word: < Proto-Germanic *undefined: < Proto-Indo-European base *undefined:.
 * Old English word: < Proto-Germanic *undefined: < Proto-Indo-European base *undefined:.
 * Mentions that link to a language-specific-section:
 * The preposition in: is used with accusative case if...
 * The preposition is used with accusative case if...
 * Mentions that require special formatting (leave blank to customize wikilinks):
 * undefined: is never used: contracted into au:.
 * undefined: is never used: contracted into au:.

Mentions in non-Latin (non-Roman) scripts follow different style guidelines. As many people have noted, using bold or italics for terms in scripts other than Latin (Roman) can obscure fine detail (e.g. with Chinese characters) or significantly alter the term's appearance (e.g. with Cyrillic). The fact that the terms are in another script is usually sufficient to distinguish them from any surrounding text. (Exceptions such as кот are duly noted but seem negligible.)
 * Simple alternate script mentions:
 * From λόγος: + ...
 * From λόγος: + ...
 * In many cases, this character is exchangeable with 辭:.
 * In many cases, this character is exchangeable with 辭:.
 * Unlinked alternate script mentions:
 * From colloquial Arabic undefined:, originally..., from علم:.
 * From colloquial Arabic, originally..., from.
 * First recorded in the Yongbi eocheonga, 1447, as undefined:.
 * First recorded in the Yongbi eocheonga, 1447, as.
 * Mixed Latin (Roman) script and alternate script mentions:
 * buxus: < πύξος:
 * Latin buxus: < Greek πύξος:

Rod (A. Smith) 05:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Greek script
Can we have this template edited to use for Greek script sc=Grek ? This would match what we currently do for Etymologies etc.--Williamsayers79 07:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would think you would just use sc=polytonic? Robert Ullmann 09:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Or look at the font support in polytonic and in Grek (ex ELchar) and see what Template:Grek should be doing. (I haven't looked) Robert Ullmann 09:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * uses . Should  be changed to match ?  Is there clear consensus on which set of fonts is better for Greek script?  Rod (A. Smith) 17:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Language sections
If lang is given, I'd suggest using (and not "L"), so it doesn't require the lang:xx template if the xx template isn't linked, and catches the other optimizations. (understanding that this is brand new) Robert Ullmann 09:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And you don't need #if:lang if not desired,  {{{lang|}}}|word  will work just fine. (It will always call t-sect, but that isn't an extra template if {{temp|t}} is also used in the entry. If not desirable, it takes a bit more magic anyway; the existing code references {{temp|lang:}} every time ;-) Robert Ullmann 09:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * At WT:GP, DAVilla suggested supporting {{{L}}}, so let's have him chime in about the suggestion to remove it. DAVilla?  Rod (A. Smith) 17:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought we were doing away with {{temp|language}}, but if Robert supports it then {{{L}}} isn't necessary. The one thing I would suggest, though, is moving the special code at {{temp|t-sect}} to {{temp|language}} if it's really more efficient, and the code at {{temp|language}} to a subtemplate, so that all functions that call {{temp|language}} can take advantage of this. DAVilla 23:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is more efficient iff there are a number of calls (10-hundreds). It is just extra overhead if there are 2-5 or so. Here, {term} should be calling {language} or {t-sect}, not referencing the lang: templates (so it is easier to make them go away). As it is now, {language} is fine until we decide to unlink all of the plain templates (no hurry at this point, we'll get to it, probably take a vote but there is enough going on now that I wouldn't start it for the present). Robert Ullmann 12:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. The code is now using {{temp|t-sect}}.  I will let the two of you sort out any moves between {{temp|language}} and {{temp|t-sect}}.  If {{temp|t-sect}} is eventually deprecated, I'm sure somebody will update {{temp|term}} as necessary.  Rod (A. Smith) 16:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

section links?
How does one include a link to another language section in the same page with this template? For some reason, using  or   in the first field will add an extra "#" at the end... see e.g. acharnement or fermata. Circeus 16:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Use the parameter.  I have added that parameter in acharnement as an example.  Rod (A. Smith) 18:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, it works with the abbreviations only. Circeus 21:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. Currently, the parameters that accept languages as their arguments (e.g. the first parameter of ) only accept ISO codes.  If you feel strongly that it should also accept the English name for the language, say so.  Perhaps the folks in WT:GP can shed some light on the issue.  Rod (A. Smith) 22:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's okay. I could swear I hit a template or two that used full names at some point, though... Circeus 22:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, the template now supports ad hoc section links, so if you want, you can use syntax like, , or even , although in the last case the parameter is perhaps preferable.  Rod (A. Smith) 00:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Separate styles for English and non-English mentions

 * The following discussion, up to 05:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC), moved here from WT:BP. Rod (A. Smith) 05:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Category:Form of templates is now at Category:Form-of templates. - dcljr (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

We have no standard format for mentioned terms. Mentioned terms be in any language, may be written in roman or non-roman scripts, and may display with alternate text, transliterations, and/or English translation glosses. Some editors use bold to mention terms. Others use italics  or just wikilink them. Some editors italicize transliterations and some just enclose in parentheses. Some editors designate English translation glosses with single quotes, some with double quotes, some with italics, some with parentheses, and some with no marking at all.

The most conclusive agreement about formatting mentioned terms was the vote about formatting “form of” definitions. I believe a significant component to the agreement was that readers can customize the format of “form of” definitions so they don't have to live with the default.

For consistency, I hope to propose one or more templates for mentioning terms, especially terms that require special scripts, transliterations, or gloss translations. The templates will allow each reader to customize their output format. For example the simplest use of displays the linked term using whatever format the user has chosen for the “form of” templates, e.g. “ From  + ... ”:
 * From word: + ...

Common formatting options match the “form of” options in WT:CUSTOM:


 * Customize the output of by adding any of the following to Special:Mypage/monobook.css:
 * For plain mentions (i.e., to mention word ), use this:
 * For bold mentions (i.e., to mention word ), use this:
 * For italic mentions (i.e., to mention word ), use this:
 * For italic mentions (i.e., to mention word ), use this:
 * For italic mentions (i.e., to mention word ), use this:

are exposed through WT:PREFS and explained at WT:CUSTOM. 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional benefit comes with non-English and non-roman script terms, e.g. in an ===Etymology=== section, one might use “From + ...”, which produces this:
 * From + ...

Using one or more templates like can help us standardize the format of mentions while allowing each reader to choose the style he or she prefers. In order to determine the number of templates, their names, their default styles, and their options, I need to know what conditions guide your choice of formatting for mentioned terms. The conditions I know about are these:


 * In ===Etymology===, terms that meet WT:CFI
 * In ===Etymology===, terms that do not meet WT:CFI (different because they are not linked)
 * In ====Usage notes====
 * In definitions that don't use the “form of” templates
 * In ====Synonyms====, ====Derived terms====, and similar lists
 * In templates that perform their own formatting (e.g. “”, “”, and “” )
 * Mentions of individual IPA characters (added 00:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC) per User:EncycloPetey in WT:GP)

Are there others? Rod (A. Smith) 04:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Commented in Grease pit. Synopsis of my view:
 * I have no opinion about mentions in Usage notes, and probably have not been consistent there in the past.
 * I use no special formatting for synonyms, etc.; the only issue there is transliteration format within the Translations tables.
 * Definition formats should follow the "form of" templates, which style we voted on.
 * Putting mentioned words in italics is frought with peril since it can radically alter the appearance of scripts like Cyrillic, as Stephen and I both argued when the "form of" vote occured.
 * I see Etymology format as special and separate from all the others.
 * --EncycloPetey 04:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The italic Cyrillic issue will not be a problem because mentioned terms of roman script (ISO code “Latn”, which would be the default) will be formatted differently from mentioned terms in other scripts (e.g. Cyrillic). For non-roman script mentions, the appropriate script template will be used.  For roman script mentions, whether to italicize will be based on user preferences.  Rod (A. Smith) 05:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pro-italics but anti-italicized-Hebrew-lettering. The solution? automatically de-italicizes its contents using CSS.  can do the same thing. —Ruakh TALK 05:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

and now meet the requirements I have received so far. is intended for use in running text outside of “form of” definitions (e.g. in ===Etymology=== and ====Usage notes==== sections). It allows readers to choose the format for mentions of Latin script terms. is intended for non-Latin script entries and gloss-accompanied entries in ====Synonyms====, ====Antonyms====, ====Related terms==== (“paronyms”), and other simple lists. To give a full demonstration, I first need to know the correct default format for Latin script mentions in ===Etymology=== and ====Usage notes==== sections. DAVilla points out that the draft policy Etymology formats non-English Latin script mentions with italics:
 * Following copied from User talk:DAVilla:
 * If you look at Etymology you will see italicized Roman text. While it's unclear what style should apply to English words in the etymology, and while usage notes are even less clear, in practice italics is used almost universally for at least foreign words in Roman script in the etymology. As you know, Roman roots in definitions should be boldfaced by default. Therefore there are already at least two conventions for mention. DAVilla 01:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume the primary reason this is done is that such works are primarily in one language and are citing "foreign" words. On Wiktionary, that doesn't apply because we include all languages. It would also be confusing to sometimes have the mentioned term in italics and sometimes to have a transcription in italics.  We already have confusion over whether transcriptions get their own entries, and I forsee inconsistent italicization int he Etymology section leading to more of that. --EncycloPetey 18:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

However, EncycloPetey points out that bold has advantages even for Latin script mentions in etymologies. So, should we vote on the default style for mentions in ===Etymology=== and ====Usage notes==== sections or should I assume either format for this demonstration? Rod (A. Smith) 06:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean; could you elaborate a bit on what you're asking? --EncycloPetey 18:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant that the draft Etymology guideline says to use italics, but a vote about a closely related style decision (and the actions of many editors) chose bold. I would be quite happy to change the draft Etymology guideline and use bold as the consistent default, but hesitate to do so without clear community consensus.  You actually answered my question above, stating your preference for consistent use of bold (“It would also be confusing to sometimes have the mentioned term in italics and sometimes to have a transcription in italics”).  So far, DAVilla is the only person who has stated that the community may actually agree with maintaining two separate format styles for mentioned words in Latin script that appear in running text (one format for mentions in etymologies, per Etymology, and one for “form of” definitions, per the vote).  If DAVilla acknowledges that it would be OK to update Etymology to make bold the Latin script default (keeping in mind that individual readers can override that default with whatever style he or she prefers), I will be able to proceed.  If DAVilla does not so acknowledge, we may need a vote to determine the default style for mentions of Latin script terms and phrases within etymologies.  Rod (A. Smith) 18:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I also prefer that mentioned terms be italicized, not bolded, in etymologies and usage notes. I have no idea where the community consensus might lie. —Ruakh TALK 19:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a short (one week) straw poll would be useful to get a feel for community opinion. --EncycloPetey 19:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Done: Votes/2007-08/Formatting of mentioned terms . —Ruakh TALK 21:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Redone: Votes/2007-08/style for mentioned terms. (Not meant to be dismissive.  It will just be much easier for me to turn feedback from this straw poll into a proposal than it would be from Ruakh's.)  Rod (A. Smith) 22:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The straw poll closed with weak support for the default as italics. Italics will be used for demonstration purposes, and an official vote will be held before promoting  or italics for general use.  Assistance would be much appreciated in better structuring such a vote to allow for meaningful abstain votes.  Rod (A. Smith) 18:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read quite a few archives and understand that this whole thing was set in motion long ago. I just feel that having mentioned terms in the Latin script differ from those of other scripts is confusing and seems to lend credence to a difference in value between these writing systems; something that should be discouraged. I'd like to see a consistent form across all words shown. BTW, I chose single quotes for mention out of respect for the traditions that do follow this usage and because it sidesteps the issue of italicized Cyrillic, Greek, Hebrew, etc. or emboldened Han characters, Hangeul, metric terms conflated, etc. The following is only an example and, given the weight of precedence here, probably cannot be considered for implementation, but the overarching theme is what I'm getting at. What do you people think of such a theme for every visible word for users that have no preferences set, regardless of the writing sytem?


 * Actually (use):
 * When writing up railways, the vibration can spill your ink.
 * Conceptually (mention):
 * When writing up 'railways', their history should be noted.
 * Grammatically:
 * When writing up "railways", inflect your verbs to reflect its plural nature.
 * Emphatically:
 * When writing up 'railways', try not to use "railroad".
 * Orthographically:
 * When writing up railways, dot the "i".


 * Sorry, pro-italic people, for the last one being so weak. I couldn't think of a better type of printed word that would be orthogonal to the others. Thecurran 23:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are nice distinctions that could be made with writing elsewhere, Thecurran, but for the purposes of this project, such a diverse set of distinctions would likely confuse readers and contributors more than it would clarify. So, your list would probably be simpler as this:
 * When riding up railways, the vibration can spill your ink.
 * When writing up the entry railways:, the relevant history should be noted.
 * When writing railways:, inflect your verbs to reflect its plural nature.
 * When writing railways:, try not to use railroads:.
 * When writing railways:, dot the "i".
 * As you can see, if we only distinguish use from mention, there appears to be no loss of clarity. Rod (A. Smith) 18:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

To simplify this discussion, I have restricted the proposal to mentions of terms and phrases withing running text, e.g. etymologies and usage notes, but not -onyms. User:Paul G suggests that some readers may want English running text mentions to appear in a different format from non-English, Latin (Roman) script running text mentions. As he and User:EncycloPetey note, however, English Wiktionary has entries for all languages, so there may be no need to make the English/non-English distinction. allows some readers to choose to see such a distinction while other readers can choose not to have any such distinction. Readers can choose between several styles through WT:PREFS, including italics, double-quoted, single-quoted, or bold. To illustrate the difference, I have the preliminary default format for showing as bold, to distinguish it from the default format for non-English :


 * From + ... (use  for English term)
 * Old English word: < Proto-Germanic *undefined: < Proto-Indo-European base *undefined:. (use for Old English and Proto-Germanic terms)
 * The preposition often precedes this... (use  for English term)
 * The preposition is used with accusative case if... (use  for German term)
 * From + ... (use  for English term)
 * From verbo: + ... (use for Latin term)
 * From λογος: + ... (use for Greek term)
 * From colloquial Arabic, originally..., from . (use for Arabic terms)

Readers can customize the format of mentions, so the only problem with is that, if we keep it, editors would need to distinguish between English and non-English mentions, as above.

Should we have one mention template or two (one for English, the other for non-English)? Rod (A. Smith) 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems like this is already quite complex, and it seems like its only saving grace is the potential for bots to do it automatically and correct any errors. (There are limitations even to that — for example, editors will need to specify KUchar if they wish to prevent bots from assuming Arab for Kurdish words in Arabic script — but overall I think it should work.) I don't think the same can be said for a – distinction; I think it's too much to expect editors to do this consistently, and too much to expect a bot to correct mistakes by determining whether a Latin-script term is in English or not. —Ruakh TALK 19:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that feedback. So far, one editor favors a single mention template; zero favor two mention templates.  Rod (A. Smith) 18:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, do I hear the call of the cat-herder? ;-)  For my part, I think the standard  style looks very weird for English terms.  I can live with it, but it's definitely not how I'd prefer to see this handled.  -- Visviva 15:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you use bold for English mentions but italics for non-English Latin (roman) script mentions? Rod (A. Smith) 16:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I prefer to just keep English terms in plain text. But actually, I don't feel strongly either way. -- Visviva 16:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Parentheses
I’d really appreciate if at least there also was a possibility to switch of the parentheses, just like the double quotes. I think they are completely redundant around glosses. H. (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. First, let me be sure I understand what you want.  Taking three examples from above:
 * From λόγος: + ...
 * undefined: is never used: contracted into au:.
 * From colloquial Arabic عالمة:, originally a feminine adjective meaning ‘learned, knowledgeable’, from علم:.
 * The transliteration and gloss are parenthetical reiterations of the mentioned term, so the above displays as follows:
 * From + ...
 * undefined: is never used: contracted into au:.
 * From colloquial Arabic, originally a feminine adjective meaning ‘learned, knowledgeable’, from.
 * If I simply create an option to strip the parentheses, they would appear something like this:
 * From  lógos + ...
 * à le “to the” is never used: contracted into au.
 * From colloquial Arabic ‘ālima, “singer”, originally a feminine adjective meaning ‘learned, knowledgeable’, from علم ‘alima, “to know”.
 * To me, that seems non-grammatical because, for example, the preposition "from" in the first and last example appear to govern multiple objects instead of one object with a parenthetical reiteration and the second example appears to have two subjects. If there were a way for the template to know whether it appears at the end of a sentence, I could have it replace the parentheses with commas or with an em dash for you.  Should I look into that?  Rod (A. Smith) 16:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Connel requested maximal removal of parentheses at WT:GP. With two editors requesting parenthecide, it's desirable whether I can understand it or not.  :-)  So, I implemented the ability to hide parentheses around transliterations and glosses.  See “Hide parentheses around transliterations and glosses” in WT:PREFS or “The parentheses around transliterations and glosses can be hidden” in WT:CUSTOM.  If my assumption was wrong and you just want to hide parentheses around glosses but not around transliterations, please let me know.  To allow that will require additional tags in, but adding them will not be difficult.  Rod (A. Smith) 08:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the latter is correct: I want them for transliterations, but not for glosses, since I think the quotes signs around the glosses distinguish them clearly enough already. So what I’d like it to look like:
 * From  (lógos) + …
 * à le ‘to the’ is never used: contracted into au.
 * From colloquial Arabic (‘ālima) ‘singer’, originally a feminine adjective meaning ‘learned, knowledgeable’, from علم (‘alima) ‘to know’.
 * Note that I did not simply add brackets again: I want transliterations non-italic, and I removed some comma’s as well: if there are parentheses, they are not needed. I’m sorry I’m making life so difficult on you, but hey, if the technology is there, why not, right?  Thanks for your efforts! H. (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. I have the changes ready.  The tricky new piece is the closing parenthesis between a transliteration and a gloss, which must be hidden by default.  It thus required a change to MediaWiki:Common.css.  Browser caches of that style sheet last up to 31 days:
 * @import "/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.css&usemsgcache=yes&action=raw&ctype=text/css&smaxage=2678400";
 * So, I need to wait 31 days before adding the internal parenthesis to . Otherwise some readers will see an extra parenthesis between transliterations and glosses. In 31 days, I'll change  to support the parenthesized non-italic transliterations with non-parenthesized glosses.  (Feel free to remind me.)  In the meantime,  shows the pending changes.  Too see pending effect, add the following to Special:Mypage/monobook.css:
 * .mention-tr-paren, .mention-tr {font-style:normal}, .mention-tr-gloss-separator-paren {display:inline} .mention-gloss-paren, .mention-tr-gloss-separator-comma {display:none}
 * Then, refresh your browser cache and view the following:
 * undefined: is never used: contracted into au:.
 * From colloquial Arabic, originally a feminine adjective meaning ‘learned, knowledgeable’, from.
 * Coolio? Rod (A. Smith) 18:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Rod (A. Smith) 03:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ... and implemented in WT:PREFS. Select "Hide parentheses around glosses" and "Show parenthesized plain (non-italic) transliterations".  Rod (A. Smith) 07:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Perfect, thanks. H. (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-links?
Sometimes I want to format a word -style, but without a link; for example, part of the etymology of mithridatism is Mithridates, which probably doesn't meet CFI. Or, for a more common example, usage notes very often refer back to the current headword. So, it seems to me that should support a   boolean parameter; and, if this isn't too complex to be a good idea, I think it should automatically not link the headword unless   is specified. Thoughts? —Ruakh TALK 16:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait, never mind, that's already supported, and quite cleverly! —Ruakh TALK 16:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Transliterations beginning or ending with apostrophes.
Things like these: work inconsistently, because the template works by wrapping  in pairs of single-quotes, so transliterations that begin or end with apostrophes produce trios of single-quotes, which can cause bolding instead of italicizing if there's something else on the line to match.
 * — איש:
 * — לא:

This is easy to fix by using HTML-style tags instead ( and  ), but I thought I'd comment to make sure no one preferred a different way of doing it (like inserting   or   or something — though I haven't tested these and can't vouch that they'd work), or perhaps preferred creating a new class for a CSS file somewhere so readers can present them differently if they want. And also, to make sure there's no other change that should be implemented at the same time, since this is by now quite a widely transcluded template.

—Ruakh TALK 08:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The version Rod is going to replace in uses a CSS class, so this will be fixed. Robert Ullmann 08:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. Thanks for the reminder, Robert.  :-)  The new version (supporting  above) is now in place.  Ruakh, does that address your concerns?  Rod (A. Smith) 03:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like it, yes. Thanks. :-) —Ruakh TALK 07:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The proper way is (would have been) to use a proper quote sign, instead of a single quote: ’, available from the misc menu under the edit box, or Right Alt+0 on US-intl keyboards. H. (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Multiple-element terms
This template is not equipped to link to mentioned terms with a space in the middle, such as Dark Ages or et cetera. --EncycloPetey 04:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the problem. Are you trying to write something like Dark Ages:, undefined:, or something else?  Rod (A. Smith) 04:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah! So the secret is to bump everything into the display slot and leave parameter 1 blank, like this: . I recommend adding such an example to the documentation above, as this is not intuitive. There are situations where a whole phrase will not merit an entry, but linking the components and giving a translation in an etymology is important. --EncycloPetey 04:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. I think the way demonstrated above is the most compact syntax we can accomplish without MediaWiki string functions, but you're right that it's far from intuitive.  I'll just borrow your example.  Rod (A. Smith) 04:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Including  (s)
See. The  tags used inside the  transclusion do not display — is there any way to make them show?  †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 06:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This edit shows the two tricks required. One key is to use explicit parameter numbers.  The other is to omit parameter 1 and use explicit wikilinks in order to separate the linked term from its linked superscripts.  Rod (A. Smith) 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)