Wiktionary talk:Example sentences

Example sentences
Do you think the page would be better placed in the Wiktionary namespace instead of Help? I usually think of the Wiktionary namespace as containing the style information and the Help namespace as providing technical guidance. Since the Example sentences page is more of a style guide, I tend to think it is misplaced in the Help namespace. --EncycloPetey 18:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Beats me. I never got the difference between those two namespaces. If the difference is in fact the one you mention then, yes, I suppose it should move; I wonder though how many other pages would also need moving in that case. For now there's a redirect, which should, I think, remain in place (though perhaps, as you say, reversed).—msh210 ℠  18:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I deliberately put it in the Help namespace because a) it gives help, and b) pages in the Wiktionary namespace seem to take on a special aura of authority (perhaps it's just because my initial foray into wikis was on the dark side). Although WT:ELE is strict policy, for a good reason, to encourage standardisation, WT:USEX is not strict policy, it just gives people an introduction. Maybe we shouldn't make that distiction, or I am making it in the wrong place - but that was my thought; however I don't mind particularly either way. (The other page that I can think of at the moment is Help:Dispute resolution - which was to replace the Wikipedia import in the wiktionary namespace). Conrad.Irwin 19:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Favor uses instead of usexes
I tend to remove use examples when citations are present. It would be nice if this were mentioned here. It isn't, not really. It could be deemed to be a logical extension of "Generally, every definition should be accompanied by a quotation illustrating the definition. If no quotation can be found, it is strongly encouraged to create an example sentence." Mglovesfun (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've now added this as WT:Example sentences. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Something we should add: no "politics"/agenda
i.e. don't deliberately add usexes that push a point of view. Equinox ◑ 20:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * and while we're at it, also promote gender neutrality in examples. – Jberkel (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't like the idea of "promoting" anything in examples. Avoiding deliberate bias should be enough. Equinox ◑ 23:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem showing some good examples of neutrally written sentences. – Jberkel (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Example sentences

 * was "Remember that your sentence will be read by a total stranger. You should write it so that it is unlikely to offend or embarrass anyone." BULLSHIT

Wow. That is a despicable suggestion. The example sentences should conform to the reality of actual usage, not to "friendliness".

I have changed:

Be friendly: Remember that your sentence will be read by a total stranger. You should write it so that it is unlikely to offend or embarrass anyone. Although some offensive or explicit words will require a sentence that demonstrates those qualities, most terms are normally used in everyday contexts, and the examples should reflect that.

to:

Be realistic: Example sentences for words which are commonly used in offensive or explicit contexts must reflect the way we use those words in real life. Therefore, a sentence that may of itself be offensive or embarrassing to some or many should be included if it conforms to the reality of actual usage. The reality of our languages can not be captured without reference to the way we really use our words, and the dictionary must reflect that. There is no need to self-censor your example sentences for any reason.

--Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the intention was to discourage an example sentence like To hell with your fucking assimilation bullshit. While accurately reflecting the way some people feel about assimilation (sense #5), there are less offending – yet probably equally or more effective – ways to illustrate this sense. That said, this was perhaps not a particularly effective way to further this noble aim; the nature is strong in this admonishment. Calling it despicable is IMO uncalled for, though.  --Lambiam 20:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. What I really want to convey is, I think that this dictionary can be better than all other dictionaries ever if we ignore "friendliness" in example sentences and focus on the reality of usage instead. If my wording isn't good, or if you really need to totally revert it, then that's okay too. I just don't think we should advise editors to confine themselves to "friendly" expressions of human language. To tell editors to self-censor genuine expressions of language in favor of the happy or the neutral and to ignore the ugly, a core element in all of our lives, is a mistake that makes the dictionary fake. For that reason, I used the word despicable- I feel the old rule undermines this dictionary (IMO). I looked at the BEANS page-- I agree that my wording would probably encourage some controversial edits. But in my ideal, a true dictionary reflects all of the ways we use language- including only the pious and prim is an insult to the horror that is human life on this planet. Merry Christmas Eve! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * If you care that much about reflecting the reality of a language you should probably be quoting (with attribution) instead of making up usage examples. DTLHS (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "There is no need to self-censor your example sentences for any reason" sounds a bit, er, emotionally loaded, not what I'd expect from what is basically an instruction manual page. Equinox ◑ 09:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not good at arguments like this; I can only say I hope that I have made a contribution that will be useful if someone wants to rewrite this page a little bit. It was definitely an illogical emotional impulse that made me rewrite the rule in this way. I hereby won't edit this page again; please edit it as you see fit. Thanks for taking a look at this. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Example sentences for inflected forms / alternative spellings?
Am I correct in observing that example sentences (and quotations) that use some inflected form of a word are appropriate for the main lemma page? And that example sentences are generally not given on pages for inflected forms?

For example, parrot gives the example sentence The interviewee merely parroted the views of her tabloid. And no such example is present at parroted.

And is the same pattern true for alternative spellings? For example, I see that color has a number of example sentences/quotations that use the colour spelling, and colour has no example sentences.

If this is accepted practice, perhaps it should be mentioned on this page and/or WT:QUOTE? It took me a while to piece together this understanding, and I'm still not totally confident it's correct. This quote from WT:Quotations seemed to suggest the opposite: "Reproducing the spelling is important as some variations in spelling can drastically affect the meaning; for example, breath and breathe are different words. Because Wiktionary has separate entries for different spellings of the same word (such as hajduk and hayduck), it is vital that the spelling of the word being defined is reproduced." i.e. I initially read this as saying "it's vital that the entry for hayduck have quotes that use the hayduck spelling, and that quotes at hajduk use the hajduk spelling". But I guess what it's actually saying is just that you should be careful to faithfully reproduce the spelling used in the source you're quoting? Colin M (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: I just stumbled on WT:FORMS, which answered my question. It's a very useful page (even if it's technically a "draft proposal"), and I wish it were more easily discoverable. Perhaps there could be a hatnote link to it at WT:ALTER? Colin M (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Linking in example sentences
I was trying to improve the Azerbaijani entry olmaq before my edits were reverted by the user Allahverdi Verdizade with dubious justification and his "advicing" (sic) me "to stop" my "edit-warring."

At present, the convention clearly discourages the linking of words in the example sentences, be they in English or in other languages: the second formatting example (let it be reminded, "for non-English words in the Latin alphabet") doesn't link words, and the last bullet from the official policy clearly prohibits linking: "Example sentences should: [...] not contain wikilinks".

I fail to understand why the said user would link "yaxşı" and "zarafat", but not "da", "mən" or "də"... which are all in their base forms... Overlinking only distracts readers unnecessarily. Especially when half of the example in itself is hardly useful: "Don't be such a child" conveys meaning to any native speaker of English. There is no need for an entire sentence before it to provide "context".

I am also not sure if some of the original material added by this user is being quoted from published works and translations without credit or if the user just takes pleasure in making up long dialogues, which I don't think serve the conciseness which should be found in the entries of the Wiktionary anyway.

Sahib1609 (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Post this to Beer parlor instead. You'll be waiting long here. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * No, thanks. Sahib1609 (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)