Wiktionary talk:About Thai

Transliterations
I wrote "ISO 11940 has been used academically since 2003, but not by the common public due to its complexity." However, to err on the side of caution I have not removed any such (inflected) transliterations that I have run across. Does anyone knowledgeable on this subject have any suggestions in regard? DAVilla 14:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No transliteration?
If there is no standard, there should be one created for Wiktionary. Some conventions could be developed or an existing standard used. Anatoli 22:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Frequency list
I can share a frequency list (spreadsheet or other formats) to someone who interested in adding Thai entries or give translations. The list is missing transliterations and translations but online tools could be used (or your knowledge). --Anatoli 00:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Standardised formatting for Thai entries
et al.

I noticed that many native Thai editors (Iudexvivorum, หมวดซาโต้, YURi, etc. (?)) have been adopting a certain set of formatting rules for Thai entries, for example at:
 * , and
 * , and
 * , and
 * , and

Specifically, the features are:
 * Using  not   to separate the different English equivalents in definitions, and ending definitions in a period  ;
 * Listing synonyms, antonyms, related terms, derived terms, etc. in a collapsed view to prevent them distracting the reader from reading the definitions ; and
 * Listing different parts of speech alphabetically (i.e. Classifier before Noun, etc.).

Personally I find this format quite aesthetic, and have been trying to adhere to it whenever possible, although I think the parts of speech should be ordered by importance / usage.

I would like to ask for your opinions on the formatting, and whether we should try to codify a set of formatting rules so that the Thai entries have a more unified, consistent appearance. Thanks!

Wyang (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree with #2 and #3.
 * In most cases, synonyms, antonyms, related terms, derived terms, etc have only few terms; putting them in boxes make them more interesting; even many English words do not seem to follow the rule.
 * What is the advantage of alphabetical POS? In Thai language, there is the sorting of POS: (common) noun > proper noun > (collective noun) > classifier > (abstract noun) > pronoun > verb > adjective > adverb > preposition > conjunction > interjection > particle.
 * Proper noun, collective noun, classifier, and abstract noun are traditionally considered as subtypes of noun. In Wiktionary, col. and abs. nouns may not have to be categorized.
 * Adjective and adverb are traditionally called วิเศษณ์. Nowadays, they can be called คุณศัพท์ and กริยาวิเศษณ์. However, some วิเศษณ์ could be considered as other POS as well.
 * Other POS like numeral, prefix, and suffix should be appended at the end of the list.

--Octahedron80 (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) Please let me clarify: do you prefer putting synonyms, antonyms, etc. in collapsed / uncollapsed boxes, not in boxes at all? If something similar to is desired to achieve auto-collapse after certain # of entries, or just to simplify the maintenance of such lists, a corresponding Thai  may be helpful. For #3, I realise it may be difficult to maintain the strict ordering in all cases, but I guess personally I would prefer for the noun 'buffalo' sense of  to be listed first, before the adjectives. Wyang (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * IMO if there are not more than 6 (2x3) items in a list, leave them like that. More than 6, put them in common collapsible box. No new th-der needed. 3 columns in the box is prefered. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I use ";" and "." just to follow English dictionaries in general. I put synonyms in a collapsible box if they many (as in the noun section of - I put the synonyms in this entry's adj section in a box too just for the sake of consistency or uniformity). I think synonyms and other similar things really can't be left unboxed when they are in considerable numbers (like the very many derived terms of ). And I list parts of speech alphabetically because I have no idea how they should be listed, but I have no objection if they should be listed otherwise. Anyway, if you're going to create a -like template for the Thai language, I hope you enable it to automatically list terms alphabetically too - thanks a million! --YURi (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I welcome any improvements and will follow the adopted standard.
 * , vs ; - the normal way in the English Wiktionary is to use commas.
 * . at the end of definitions is not required, only non-gloss definitions may take them, not translations into English but this is not consistent with editors.
 * Other comments:
 * Thai entry generation template could use |cat= parameter. and |head= shouldn't be generated if not used in the template (happens occasionally on short words).
 * Sometimes Thai editors turn entries into hard redirects without any RFD discussion or agreement. Can we discuss first if it's OK? Yes, we agreed on country names and language names but entries like ปลาวาฬ or ดวงอาทิตย์ merit own entries, IMO. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * ^ Your comment is off-topic. Anyway, my short answer is that hard redirects are SOP in the same meaning of original terms; can't have their own entries. --Octahedron80 (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I created, , , and. After some fixing, these templates now seem to be sorting Thai entries correctly. An example showing the usage of these templates is. Please let me know if there are any comments or suggestions. Thanks!

Wyang (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Great work again, thank you! --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)