Wiktionary talk:Votes/2007-11/Lemma entries 2

Exceptions?
I think words and phrases like "ordinarily" and "though exceptional cases may need to be handled differently" should be sprinkled liberally. If the idea is that this duplication of information is usually detrimental, it might nonetheless be worthwhile in some unusual circumstances. (I actually think such duplication is never worthwhile, but clearly there is disagreement about this, and apparently wikis are supposed to be about compromise or something?) —Ruakh TALK 04:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, so please sprinkle away. It's a wiki, so I can always just revert you.  ;-)  Rod (A. Smith) 04:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Links to main entries
I'm still a little off about the "See full entry x for additional details," at least where it is after the definition. It doesn't look/feel right. It might be better italicized, or in a usage notes section. I think that would probably be the best way, actually. If no other real "additional details" exist (like if a word really only does have one meaning) then those things don't need to be pointed out, but if they do, a usage notes section with a note to check the main entry would be a good little combination. I think it's safe to assume that if someone wants more information on a word (other forms, definitions or whatever) that they will go back to the main article to check it out, whether there's a note to do so or not. — [ ric &#x7C; opiaterein ] — 15:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah. The link to from the secondary entry to the main entry doesn't look quite right to me, either.  Currently, it uses the “form of” styles, which readers can customize using WT:PREFS or WT:CUSTOM for various combinations of italics, bold, etc., but there is room for improvement.  You also make a good point that it may be more effective for some secondary entries to put it in the usage notes section.  If we do that, what wording can we use to ensure that readers know to check the main entry for additional senses, synonyms, and translations?  Even if the main entry only has a single sense when the secondary entry is created, other senses are likely to be added to the main entry at some later date.  So, where are appropriate places and what is effective wording to tell readers that the main entry may have more senses, synonyms, translations, etc.?  Rod (A. Smith) 18:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of your comment, but disagree with this part: “I think it's safe to assume that if someone wants more information on a word (other forms, definitions or whatever) that they will go back to the main article to check it out, whether there's a note to do so or not.” On the contrary, I think it's safe to assume that if someone is visiting a non-main entry, it's because they don't realize it's not the main entry or don't know what the main entry is. Some editors here want to be uberhelpful and make non-main entries as useful as possible for such people, but the more we add to such entries, the less obvious it will be that they're not main entries and that the main entry has more information. (Granted, some editors apparently want to eliminate the main—non-main distinction completely, and this would also eliminate that problem; this comment isn't directed at them.) —Ruakh TALK 18:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Scope reduction
Trying to confine foreign term definitions (translations into English), any language synonyms, and further semantic relations to “main” entries seems likely to encounter heavy to opposition since some see that as an anti-freedom-wiki-joie-de-vivre restriction for problems that they think bots will some day solve. A more conservative approach that only limits translations (from English to foreign lemmata) would presumably encounter less opposition. Some contributors also oppose lengthening WT:ELE because of TLDR. To kill two birds with one stone, then, I propose the following tack:


 * 1) Update Translations to explain that full translation tables should usually only be in “main” (lemma) English entries and should only list the foreign language lemma (e.g. fabulor) or, if the community prefers, only the “second language lemma” (e.g. fabulārī).
 * 2) Vote to upgrade Translations to a policy page and to trim WT:ELE to one brief paragraph, directing further interested readers to Translations.

What say ye? Rod (A. Smith) 05:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what's this "foreign language lemma = fabulor" vs. "second language lemma = fabulārī" thing? I don't get it at all. —Ruakh TALK 05:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, that would be good to explain. Some foreign language resources traditionally use a different grammatical forms from English as the citation/lemma form.  For example, Latin dictionaries traditionally use the first person singular present tense indicative form of verbs as the lemma/citation form.  In Languages with more than one grammatical gender, a contributor recommended to translate English terms into the “second-language lemma” form, giving ambulare: as an example, as opposed to the traditional Latin lemma .  My compact bilingual Latin-English dictionary uses that form as well, so it seems to deserve consideration.  Rod (A. Smith) 07:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh. I don't see that as an issue for Translations, but for the relevant language-considerations page. As of right now, we do have lemma and non-lemma entries, and the language-considerations page should decide which word is the lemma. It would be rather sucky if translations tables linked to non-lemma entries; that would just be more work for the reader, with no benefits whatsoever. —Ruakh TALK 18:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, some editors don't think that we should restrict translations to lemma forms, but would prefer to encourage translations into each of the inflected foreign forms that might be used as a translation of a given English form.  It seems important for Translations or some other language-agnostic project page to restrict translation tables to lemma forms, and to explain somewhere why that restriction is important.  Rod (A. Smith) 19:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)