Wiktionary talk:Entry layout/archive 2012-2018

Remove part about wikifying language names
The translations section currently says:


 * The names of languages which are expected to be well-known among English speakers are not to be wikified, while language names which may not be known to the average person or are potentially subject to confusion are to be wikified. Details and a list of affected languages are listed on Translations/Wikification.[1]

I propose removing this as languages are no longer wikified at all per consensus. —CodeCat 15:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I support your proposal. - -sche (discuss) 17:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Where's the link to that consensus? --Daniel 14:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WT:Beer parlour archive/2011/December. --Yair rand (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Daniel 15:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Votes/pl-2012-03/ELE text about wikifying language names. --Daniel 10:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Homonym example and flapping
As far as I know, flapping only takes place between vowel sounds, so "right" would not have a flapped "t" and would not, therefore, be a homonym of "ride".

Thus, the example should be changed from "right" to "writer" (or something like that), as in the running text preceding the example. -- pne (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right (no pun intended), but because of the way Wiktionary policy pages are maintained, it will unfortunately take a massive amount of bureaucracy to get it changed. —Angr 08:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there dialects where and  are homophones? In my dialect (Inland Northern American English), both words have, but they're non-homophonous due to a form of Canadian raising (which affects , pronounced something like , and not , which is pronounced something like ). Are there dialects that flap both /t/ and /d/, but that don't exhibit Canadian raising in ? (Feel free to just say "yes". I really have no idea.) And even in pairs where the vowel is not , so doesn't get raised before , the vowel before  is frequently longer. There certainly do exist some flapping-specific homophones, but we should consult authoritative sources for specific examples rather than trying to reason out what words seem like they should be homophones. —Ruakh TALK 12:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe an example with a short vowel would be better, like bidder and bitter? 12:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Writer and rider are homophones for me since I don't have Canadian-style raising, but I agree an example with a short vowel, like bitter/bidder or latter/ladder would probably be better. —Angr 19:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Capitalisation exceptions
I suggest SENĆOŦEN words be mentioned in the capitalisation exceptions. Nickshanks (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Occasional use of in translations
I thinks it's justified to use, instead of in translations when the translation is totally SoP:

Here's a section from WT:ARU about a translation for time-consuming, which has no full equivalent in Russian:

Translations for terms not having an equivalent in Russian can be split into individual words and link to lemma forms, can be used instead of  in this case. * Russian: требующий времени (trébujuščij mnógo vrémeni) Resulting in: требующий времени (trébujuščij mnógo vrémeni)

Also, we should mention the alt when using, like in the Japanese translation for tired:

* Japanese: Resulting in:

The translation links to the lemma form but displays 疲れた. --Anatoli (обсудить) 02:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That might work. I've long wondered how best to handle these sorts of translations, and that might be a sensible solution. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. These methods have already been in use by a few editors. Do I need a broader agreement to add this? --Anatoli (обсудить) 22:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What are the pros and cons of compared to ? —Ruakh TALK 23:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * One I have heard about, the other I haven't...? After looking at it, it seems that has no advantages over, and one disadvantage: it doesn't let you link to language sections unless you link to them yourself, which defeats the point of using it instead of ...  23:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't think of . I've seen it used but way less common than . Both produce a similar result, so I don't mind if either method becomes "official" or recommended. --Anatoli (обсудить) 00:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Following up on my earlier comment . . . one "con" of is that it italicizes the transliteration, which  does not. Anatoli works around that above by putting the transliteration outside the, but that's kind of ugly. ( is also ugly, as CodeCat points out, but maybe there's a non-ugly solution somewhere?) —Ruakh TALK 00:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps amend so it can link to language sections by itself? Just a thought. --BiblbroX дискашн 22:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's possible or easy to add links to language section because there are multiple words but thanks for the suggestion. --Anatoli (обсудить) 01:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is possible if you use one parameter in the template for every word. The downside of that is that it makes it harder to override the displayed word (for macrons and accents) in a neat way. 01:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If there are no objections, I'll formalise the (occasional) usage of in translations for SoP and non-idiomatic translations, OK? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added the two exceptions using Russian examples. I hope it was clear and understandable. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

unlimited possibilities
Buried in WT:ELE is the line "Other sections with other trivia and observations may be added, either under the heading "Trivia" or some other suitably explanatory heading. Because of the unlimited range of possibilities, no formatting details can be provided." But we don't actually want an unlimited number of different headers, do we? (AFAIK there's ===Trivia=== in 40 entries and ===Statistics=== in some more.) - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we don't. Personally, I'd prefer all the nonstandard ones to be ===Usage notes=== or ===Statistics===. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In principle, we need the flexibility of unlimited possibilities for PoS headers. I am still hoping for someone to propose some clever replacements for the 'nym' headers, which I often use despite their questionable intelligibility to most infrequent users. But I'd like there to be some approval process for such things. BTW, we also have some English entries with the ===Shorthand=== header, which should be kept as a cautionary example for grand projects. DCDuring TALK 03:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have replaced non-conforming wiki-headers with conforming ones where I could, but have converted some to bold using ";" at the beginning of the line. See кӀон. This defeats Autoformat, and may postpone the day when we have appropriate templates for Adyghe pronoun declensions, but seems an acceptable kludge to me. DCDuring TALK 03:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a note:

I would be glad to support moving the enPR vote links from WT:ELE to WT:PRON and/or WT:AEN, if needed, as long as these destinations become full-fledged completely-voted policies. At this moment, I believe the current place is the best place for those links to be findable and usable. --Daniel 00:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They are IIRC only on what to call enPR; since ELE doesn't mention the term "enPR", a link to them is AFAICT completely out of place. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 21:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

For future reference, the above is about. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 22:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Literal translation of idioms
I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask, but since it has to do with where to place information in an entry, I guess this is good enough. If an idiom in a language other than English is given a definition, often the idiomatic translation is given. But because it's an idiom, it might be totally different from the literal meaning. It's probably good to provide the literal translation too, at least so that the idiom might be easier to follow. But where should it be placed? It's not really part of the definition, but is it etymology? Not really either... 19:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's etymology; why do you say that it isn't? —Ruakh TALK 19:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When I think of etymology for a phrase, I think more about why the phrase came to mean that, and what words it consists of. But its literal meaning doesn't really seem like an origin, especially for fossilised phrases that were coined for a literal meaning that was originally different from what it is today. 20:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: "fossilised phrases that were coined for a literal meaning that was originally different from what it is today": in such a case, I think that the original/correct literal meaning is all that should go in the etymology. If the term could be interpreted literally today (that is — none of the terms are obsolete, but some of the specific relevant senses are), then that might be fodder for a parenthetical aside or for a usage note, depending on whether such an misinterpretation is actually relevant in some way to usage. (See don't ask, don't tell for one instance where such a misunderstanding affected usage in a way that demanded a usage note.) —Ruakh TALK 21:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I fully agree, and I believe that this accurately reflects current formatting standards. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've edited WT:Etymology to mention it. 11:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"Typical entry" contradicts order of headings
WT:ELE lists the "descendants" header immediately before the "Translations" header. However, the "typical entry" shown in the WT:ELE section shows an entry with a Descendants section right after a Translations section. Does anyone know which order is correct? Does the incorrect one need a vote to fix it? --Yair rand (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's fairly rare for English entries to contain a descendants header, so I don't think there is really an established practice. I think translations should come first, though. 22:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be rare, though; there are hundreds if not thousands of English loanwords floating around among the world's languages, not to mention the vocabulary of all the English-lexified creoles. —Angr 19:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Seconding CC: translations of this term first, links to other terms after. —Michael Z. 2013-06-12 00:22 z 
 * I'd agree with the after-translations position. Which wouldn't be a bad place for cognates, too. I hope we don't need a vote. But we should take it to the Beer Parlor. DCDuring TALK 00:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The Order of Headings section follows the VOTE we had on the issue, so it is the order we decided upon. There were no opposing votes in that decision.  "Descenadants" should come before "Translations" in the rare situations where both sections appear. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation before Etymology
Since when did we start practicing that instead of placing the etymology header before the pronunciation header? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One example I edited: тәмәке. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Lots of editors seem to just prefer it that way and do what they please. There are some ELE-compliant instances in which the pronunciation is shared by more than one etymology, though one would wonder whether the homophony applied over the entire period covered.  DCDuring TALK  11:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In most cases, it probably did; in other cases, the earlier pronunciation difference would better be shown at the Middle Foo/Old Foo entries than at the Modern Foo entry. In the few remaining cases, we can use inside the Pronunciation section to say that the two etymologies were formerly pronounced differently. —Angr 11:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"expression"
I just searched the page for "expression", to find out if there's a section for it, or whether those fit in "derived terms", and didn't make a hit. It seems to me that this word should be in here somewhere. --Jerome Potts (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't expressions fit under the "Phrase" part of speech header? 02:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Quotations
For quotations and examples, suggest a link to Quotations. For example, there is used:

# #: Quotation 1 of definition 1
 * 1) Definition 1

instead of :

#: Quotation 1 of definition 1 --Lagoset (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Definition 1


 * 1) There is a link to Quotations.
 * 2) Why would we want to make the change you recommend in probably scores of thousands of instances?

A rationale for a change is always helpful, especially, when it involves a change in a long-standing and widely used practice. DCDuring TALK 15:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A quick test shows that the spaced between "#" and "#" means that the second "#" appears. Without a space it breaks our way of hiding quotations. The second could be fixed if we still have the talent around, but I don't see the advantage of numbering quotations. They can be referred to by their date, which conveys more information than a mere number, with any disambiguation provided by "first", et seq. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

minor error
Found a minor error, but I don't have permission to edit this page. In section 3.3.4 Synonyms, the third rule should read (bolded word change): Use one line for each definition, beginning each line with a bullet. Otherwise it seems like each synonym should be on its own line. Origamidesigner (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hope others also view it as a minor error, rather than one requiring discussion at WT:BP or, worse, a vote. DCDuring TALK 21:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

External links before or after Anagrams?
At the indeed entry, the final three sections on the page are:
 * L3 Statistics
 * L3 External links
 * L3 Anagrams

The order of the last two of these feels wrong to me - links to external websites (excluding references and inline links) should (imho) come after all internal content. WT:ELE is essentially silent about this issue - the only occurrence of the two together is in the "Additional headings" example has an L4 External links section preceding an L3 Anagrams section. Anagrams are dealt with in the "Anagrams and other trivia" section, which says it should be under an L3 heading and implies that it should be placed before a references section, which is elsewhere noted as occurring before an external links section. The word "Statistics" does not appear on the ELE page at all, and so I am assuming it falls under the "other trivia" portion. There is no mention of what order multiple trivia headings should be in.

I would therefore like to suggest that the order is changed so that where "External links" sections appear, they are always the last header at that level. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Due to a vote sister project links (eg, wikipedia, wikispecies, wikicommons) are also "External links". There are many occasions where long right-hand side ToCs would push sister-project link boxes into language sections in which they do not belong, so External links is a better location. To put such links after trivia like anagrams seems very, very wrong to me. I don't know that a vote to "clarify" this will be productive, but we could go that route. DCDuring TALK 02:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Irregular definition headers?
Where a definition is preceded by a single "#" for list markup, should that symbol always be followed by a space? For example, in the results for this query the definitions under the "verb" part of speech appear as follows. (Please note the lack of a space between the "#" and the first curly brace.)

Having just begun to work with Wiktionary queries, I have found this to be unusual; most entries seem to have a space there. Should one expect the "#" symbol to be followed by a space? Texwaldo (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's nicer to have the space, and most entries have it, but not all of them do. You're free to add the space if you want to, but it's not a huge deal. —CodeCat 18:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Judging from User:AutoFormat, AutoFormat used to add the space automatically where needed. So yes, with space would be the standard-ish format, WT:ELE's examples also have the space. --Daniel 18:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC) Starred checkmark small star.svg


 * This is by far not the only irregularity. You ll come across them as you proceed with your scraper(?)--Dixtosa (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Since it makes no difference to display, it's a matter of no importance. For your own entries, do whatever you like. For existing entries, don't bother changing what's there. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Much appreciation for responses. Daniel's answer gets a starred checkmark. (@Dixtosa - Was afraid of that; and...yes, scraping.) Texwaldo (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Paronyms
In the French Wiktionary we publish a "Paronyms" header in our structure. [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=%22Paronyms%22&fulltext=Search A quick look today] showed me some "Paronyms" sections, but actually it's not here. So I propose to add it to enlarge the internal links to the words which look like themselves without being anagrams, [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=categorically&diff=33066205&oldid=30761262 like this]. JackPotte (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

not intuitive at all
§ A very simple example includes as item #3
 * the word itself (using the correct headword template)

with a footnote consisting of a link to Votes/pl-2015-10/Headword line (discussion and voting on a recent set of proposed edits to policies about the headword line). Proposal #3 there concerns Entry layout. In the discussion, under Oppose, item #6, wrote (emphasis added):
 * From the Entry Layout page, where we are instructed to use "the correct headword template", the contributor can just intuitively scroll down to the section on the Headword Line, click on the last link for Headword Line Templates "for those who prefer this technique", [...] go to the category for Headword-Line Templates by Language, find English Headword-Line Templates under E, and then click on the template name suspected to match the desired part of speech to hopefully read the intended purpose of that template and maybe even how to use it, presuming it's not something strange like -fucking- which requires use of.

Distinguo :* It is not intuitive. It may seem so for one already familiar with Wiktionary and its conventions, abbreviations, and so on, but it does not work for the novice. (I should qualify that term: I've been editing Wikipedia for 10 years, with over 10,000 edits, but I have done comparatively little editing on Wiktionary.) The section should have a link from the expression "the correct headword template" to the section on the Headword Line, or directly to Templates. But the file is protected, and I can't edit it, so I am requesting the change here.

* (And I would like to add this definition of "distinguo", but I hesitate from unfamiliarity. Besides, though I know I have read of it explicitly described as a term from English university debate, I can't recall the reference.)

--Thnidu (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC) signs. A section can have one or more subsections, which in turn can have subsubsections, and so on; the heading of a subsection has a longer -sign train than the parent section to which it belongs; this length goes up by one for each next deeper level. The text following a section heading belongs to that section (with its subsections included) until a section heading is encountered that has a shorter or equally long -sign train. This organization of a page into sections, subsections, subsubsections, ..., is reflected by the indentation levels in its table of contents.


 * If a word can be different parts of speech, for example a noun and a verb, each possible part of speech gets its own section. Everything that relates to the word as being a given part of speech should be stated in the corresponding section.

--Lambiam 17:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that the "indentation" is referring to the non-heading markup, e.g. lists. These are indented at various levels. I don't disagree that the content is potentially confusing. - TheDaveRoss  21:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You may be right as to what "indentation" is referring to, although I understood it differently. From the text it is not clear. But do you think the proposed replacement text is an improvement? --Lambiam 07:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Typo
In the "Description" section, it says "written work 'bank'", which clearly should be "written word". This, that and the other (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This, that and the other (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I've fixed it. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Page on entry formatting standards
I can't find the damned page on the little details about entry format, like that there aren't supposed to be empty lines above the first header (the details that make it easier for bots to work). Can someone locate it and put a link to it on this page? — Eru·tuon 21:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WT:NORM ? – Jberkel 21:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's it! Oh, it's linked at the top. Bleh. I was reverting an IP edit and couldn't remember what the page was called. I was looking up "format" in the Wiktionary namespace and couldn't find it. — Eru·tuon 21:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it should be mentioned in the text as well, I wasn't aware of it until recently. – Jberkel 21:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Two ways of entering synonyms, but only one is mentioned at WT:LAYOUT
Apparently Wiktionary has two standardized ways of entering synonyms, but only one is mentioned at WT:LAYOUT. This edit diff shows the one method being replaced with the other. I had never seen the Template:synonyms method until today. WT:LAYOUT § Synonyms should mention both methods, if both are accepted. The Template:synonyms method has some advantages, but the ===Synonyms=== (subsection) method seems better for anchor linking from elsewhere and (possibly) for machine analysis of the dictionary (e.g., looking at ===Synonyms=== subsections programmatically, seeing which entries don't have that section, etc). Another issue is that WT:LAYOUT § Further semantic relations says, "The following headers are available to define sections containing semantically related words other than synonyms: Antonyms, Hypernyms, Hyponyms, Meronyms, Holonyms, Troponyms, Coordinate terms, See also. Each of these sections is formatted exactly like the Synonyms section". But if one is using the Template:synonyms method, then one can't follow the latter instruction until all of the following templates exist: Template:synonyms, Template:antonyms, Template:hypernyms, Template:hyponyms, Template:meronyms, Template:holonyms, Template:troponyms, Template:coordinate terms, Template:see also. As I write this, half of those (4/9) are redlinks. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For machine analysis the templates are actually better, since you know exactly which sense the synonym belongs to. Otherwise you need to match the content of  which isn't always accurate, formatted inconsistently, or not present at all. From a user's perspective it's easier as well, since you don't have to look for synomyms in a different place, and match them up (trivial in the diff you mentioned, but imagine an entry with 10+ senses). And yes, we should update the layout guide. – Jberkel 05:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it is fine if and  are used, but do we really want to add all the rest of the "-nyms" below the definition? That would be an excessively large block of text. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, just synomyms / antonyms, the other -nyms are less useful and would add clutter. How should it be worded? We definitely want to keep the existing practice but additionally allow placement of synomyms/antomyms below senses. I think their use should be encouraged for longer entries with many senses. – Jberkel 06:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think using and  directly under senses is fine if just providing strings of words, but if it is necessary to distinguish between different senses then the synonyms and antonyms should be put in separate sections (that is, the practice before the templates were created). — SGconlaw (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it is exactly the other way around. Jberkel just explained why the templates are better when distinguishing between different senses. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 14:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what he meant! Silly me. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I subscribe to what Jberkel has laid out, and also please make a coordinate terms template someone. I would have used it some times already, for example for the compartments of the ruminant digestive tract ( and so on). I would heed myself to state a priori that one template is inherently less useful. Fay Freak (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jberkel that we should just stick to and  and not add more of such templates like  as that would lead to too much clutter below definitions. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Is night really an antonym of day, rather than its complement (ie, a coordinate term) (like yin and yang, black and white). I don't think that antonym is on all fours with synonym in clarity of meaning. I don't think we should waste definition space on it. It can go with the other semantic relations.
 * Also, why do we have synonyms appearing below definitions in which they are in the definiens. It makes it look as if out content was generated by a machine and wastes space. DCDuring (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do we have synonyms appearing under Synonyms headers with repetition of the definitions as glosses? It makes it look as if out content was generated by a machine and wastes space. DTLHS (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Space outside of the definition zone (PoS header or inflection line to next header) is obviously less valuable than the space in the definition zone. That's why we do things like: 1., have sense-specific citations "hidden", 2., discourage an excessive number of usage examples, and, 3., discourage long definitions (more than two lines). Everyone can get captivated by some content and try to promote that content by giving it a higher visual priority than it has enjoyed. The history of dictionaries (rather than thesauruses) shows that definitions have priority. DCDuring (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Space outside of the definition zone (PoS header or inflection line to next header) is obviously less valuable than the space in the definition zone". Citation needed. This is your personal preference that you have made into an immutable law. I reject the concept of "wasted space". Wasted to who? How does that outweigh the cognitive load if a user has to map a particular definition to a gloss somewhere else on the page? DTLHS (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * +++. Also there was a script for hiding etc. like quotations. Also, I find that  is easier to use than a synonym section to create. Time-saving and looking-better (also to machines), particularly one is already a header-level too deep. Time-saving is much of an argument with our personnel. Fay Freak (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Look at my examples. It is clutter and misleading to have that specific meaning in, and the like under a dedicated header, whereas the coordinate terms really belong directly under the definition as a compartment of a stomach is defined by the other compartments. As I said, don’t say a priori that we should not have templates, one may only say that one should contain oneself in using those templates (that do not exist). What has said is clearly coined on Translingual and English entries and can hardly happen on foreign languages plus is just individually stupid by-case usage that says nothing against the templates. Fay Freak (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Coined? Do you mean "based", "founded"?
 * Case examples are usually essential to illustrate issues, especially to those who are stupid like me. is bad because it is used to facilitate the application of a poor concept (for all real languages AFAICT). It is our universal experience that the existence of templates encourages their overapplication. I may not be in love with the use of, but it does not suffer from the same conceptual problems. I am unaware of any application, current or potential, of the antonyms concept to taxonomic names. DCDuring (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What’s the problem then? Does one need to thwart the possibilities to do it right if elsewhere it is possible to do it wrong?
 * Also such abstracted senses are not necessary to make a synonyms or antonyms distinction. We put a word as a synonym under a word when it can be used as a synonym, i. e. if it can be found in context where it is synonymous as perceived by the speaker, and antonyms are what is understood as having opposite meanings by speakers. With such argumentation we would need to stop track contranyms. Do we need a complement template and header? Now that would make things confused. It really looks like you coin complications though I only calqued . But you have argued why a template “coordinate terms” is more needed than a template “antonyms”. Fay Freak (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes one should anticipate and prevent problems even at a cost.
 * The purported benefits of the proposed change with respect to antonyms do not apply to a most entries which may benefit from the change with respect to antonyms synonyms, because the antonyms concept cannot be usefully defined for them. (Eg, provide the generally accepted antonyms of dishcloth, passerine, and, by (agency), plot.) DCDuring (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you cannot define, then don’t use it … – I find it good if both options exist. I am not always for, on some entries I like a synonyms heading section more (like which of course has endless synonyms), also we cannot link well to the Thesaurus namespace from under the definition line yet. Fay Freak (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Every departure from a standard mode of presentation, however justified in a particular set of instances, increases the chance that a user will become confused about how to quickly use an entry. Most users of dictionaries just want a definition. To some extent synonyms are helpful (except when they misleading as in the case of a less common sense of a polysemic word, or of a dated, archaic or obsolete word). A few words are often thought of in opposing pairs (eg, apogee and perigee), but those few cases can be readily addressed by usage examples, illustrations, as well as the L4 antonyms header.
 * The only way that I could support including more additional content than synonyms under each definition is if all the content under each definition were concealed by default with each class of additional content (eg, synonyms, other semantic relations, translations, citations, usage examples) capable of being selected for display. DCDuring (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Follow up vote created: Votes/pl-2018-11/Allow_semantic_relations_under_definition_lines, discussion on talk page. – Jberkel 17:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)