Wiktionary talk:Entry layout/archive 2003

I think this page needs to be made clearer. -fonzy


 * You're right! I'll take a a closer look at it based on what I've learned by trying to apply my "vision page" mentioned above.  Surprisingly, I haven't received too much flak on what I have done with individual articles.  There are still some issues about the template that I need to sort out in my own mind, but this may inspire me to deal with some of them.  Eclecticology 09:22 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)
 * One thing that is missing for sure is a section for declension schema of the word (Slavonic wored cannot be discussed without that, entries on German and French words would profit as well). As well, I'm puzzled by "Etymology" being so high in the hierarchy. Shouldn't "Definition" preceed it? Youandme 09:55 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I know I'm joining this discussion late, but I have some comments on the proposed templates. First, I think the definition should be closer to the top of the page. On some entries, you have to scroll down to see the definition. The only thing that should be first is the pronunciation and part of speech. I would think alternate spellings could be just before translations.
 * I can't agree, even though I understand your concern. There is a certain logic about what comes before or after a definition.  Much of what comes before are subjects that lead to different definitions.  What you say would work just as well in cases where there is only one definition or usage for a word, but things are a lot more tricky when there are multiple definitions.  Etymologies, in particular, lead to different situations.  Other words can appear with separate parts of speech.  -EC

I agree with the comment that there are too many blank lines. The issue of not having the definition close enough to the top of the page could be somewhat mitigated by being a little bit more economical with the lines. For instance, instead of using the heading "noun" for a definition, the heading could be the word itself (bold), followed by the part of speech in parentheses, and alt. spellings. The current layout makes it difficult to find the actual definition, because the only thing that jumps out are the headings, and there isn't a heading that says "Definition."
 * I have no problem with removing some of the blank lines. This is more a software problem than anything that's always intentional.


 * I've never been completely satisfied with using the part of apeech as the heading, and I've developed a certain momentum about doing it the way it appears. Perhaps changing the heading from "Noun" to "Noun defined" might be acceptable. -Ec

I don't like the idea of separating definitions onto different pages. One of the things I enjoy in reading dictionaries is trying to see how the different definitions are connected. Perhaps HTML anchor links could be used for the multiple definition problem, so that all the definitions are up front, but link to the full entries further down the page. This would satisfy the problem of not having to jump back and forth between pages to try to get the full meaning of the word, while not having to scroll through a very long page to find the definition you're looking for. Also, I'm no HTML wizard, but wouldn't this resolve the numbering problem? The anchors would follow the words, not the numbers. Of course, this wouldn't solve the problem of too long pages.
 * I also oppose regularly spreading a word across multiple pages. Those that are still there will either have a special reason or it's a left over from an earlier attempt to deal with this.  If it's the latter case, then by all means consolidate.

The Wiktionary seems like a worthwhile project, but formatting is much more important here than in the Wikipedia. (oh - any word on changing the entries to be lower case unless they are proper nouns?)  -Aion 19:01 Jul 13, 2003 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with this last paragraph. Eclecticology 02:03 Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)

I came here intending to contribute (I enjoy Wikipedia), but found the system flawed in basic organization. Portmanteau is much closer to what I see as necessary than any other plan I've seen. I'm strongly considering starting a new wiki on my own machine to create proof of concept of A) what I see as the only feasible organization schema for something like this B) a dictionary done the way I would do one (which is different from formatted the way I would do so... it's complicated) and C) I'd probably end up using it as a base for my mad master plan of making a 'Standard According To Me' version of English (which might evolve into something that doesn't quite qualify as English). A would work in Wiktionary. B? Possibly, but I don't think most people would go along with it. C? (barring far-future speculation) No. To end ramble and say something that actually makes sense for the most part: Go with the Portmanteau system, though it still has minor execution flaws (the dating to identify is rather dodgy - arbitrary numeration seems to be the best primary identifier. -- JakeNelson 11:22 Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)

How about our adding an item "mnemonic devices" for example sentences which could help individuals remember the word. These could be English-English for more complex words (whether for foreign learners of English or high school students, etc.), or if the words are non-English, the mnemonic could employ the foreign word to help make it more memorable to English-speakers....If these do not seem as essential, they could be put towards the bottom. I think Wiktionary is a logical place for these things since it help people remember the words they are taking the time to look up, and it could distribute the work of thinking up good mnemonics... Brettz9 03:13, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)