| Wiktionary:Information desk Jul 4th 2012, 11:33 {{grammar}}: @Pereru | ← Older revision | Revision as of 11:33, 4 July 2012 | | Line 1,355: | Line 1,355: | | | :::::::There is relatively little reason for a print dictionary to note topic areas. For us, we have categories, which can help a user locate terms. The sole point of having topical labels at the sense level is that, in long entries (eg, [[[[head]]]]), a user coming to the entry from a category, might have trouble locating the sense(s) sought. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small > 13:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | | :::::::There is relatively little reason for a print dictionary to note topic areas. For us, we have categories, which can help a user locate terms. The sole point of having topical labels at the sense level is that, in long entries (eg, [[[[head]]]]), a user coming to the entry from a category, might have trouble locating the sense(s) sought. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small > 13:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | | | :::::::::I like the Collins solution. Now, speaking for myself as a consumer of dictionaries, I actually like it when there are topic labels -- even if they may be redundant (I knew the topic from the category search). I like it in print dictionaries when a certain mammal name is provided with a label ''(mammal)'' right at the beginning -- it confirms my expectations and makes it less likely that I may have gotten to the wrong word by mistake. True, this is more often done in dictionaries of foreign languages for learners (where redundancy is more important), but I don't think this disturbs the casual reader; quite the contrary, it may make him/her feel safer about having understood the word in the right way. In other words, why avoid topic labels? In what way do they cause disturbances or confusion? If space were costly here, as in many printed dictionaries, I could understand that -- but Wiktionary has the advantage of having all the space we need at no cost. --[[User:Pereru|Pereru]] ([[User talk:Pereru|talk]]) 06:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | | :::::::::I like the Collins solution. Now, speaking for myself as a consumer of dictionaries, I actually like it when there are topic labels -- even if they may be redundant (I knew the topic from the category search). I like it in print dictionaries when a certain mammal name is provided with a label ''(mammal)'' right at the beginning -- it confirms my expectations and makes it less likely that I may have gotten to the wrong word by mistake. True, this is more often done in dictionaries of foreign languages for learners (where redundancy is more important), but I don't think this disturbs the casual reader; quite the contrary, it may make him/her feel safer about having understood the word in the right way. In other words, why avoid topic labels? In what way do they cause disturbances or confusion? If space were costly here, as in many printed dictionaries, I could understand that -- but Wiktionary has the advantage of having all the space we need at no cost. --[[User:Pereru|Pereru]] ([[User talk:Pereru|talk]]) 06:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | | | + | ::::::::::The issue is how to indicate whether a sense of term is likely to be understood outside of a restricted group or usage context. In the case of ''verb'' as defined at Collins, I would mark the second sense with a ''linguistics'' tag and leave the other unmarked, though I don't object to their verbose equivalent. If the same label is used for both purposes then the user could not tell which we were trying to indicate. Formerly, some entries were marked with ''jargon'', but there was some agreement that the word is too pejorative. It certainly wouldn't be accurate for the difference between senses of ''verb''. We could insert <nowiki>{{context|among|_|linguists}}</nowiki> and make sure that {{temp|linguists}} categorized into [[:Category:en:Linguistics]]. Full implementation of such an approach would take a long time to complete, were it to get acceptance. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small > 11:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | | | | | | | | == old words templates? == | | == old words templates? == | | |
