Open main menu



Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

  • Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
  • If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia surveyEdit

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)


Hello Dine2016 --

Minor point, but when manually entering romaji for Japanese terms, please make sure you're using the correct spelling. By way of example, 文法 is spelled in romaji as bunpō, not bunhō.

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Eirikr: sorry, I misremembered it. By the way, is it 日本語教育文法 or 日本語教育のための文法? And do the four forms 辞書形・~た・~ない・~なかった have names in 学校文法? --Dine2016 (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, didn't see the ping...
It's 日本語教育文法. See, for instance, the 日本語教育文法 subsection of the 日本語教育 article on the JA WP. More commonly, it's just w:ja:学校文法, and sometimes you might also see 国文法 (koku bunpō, literally national grammar).
 This section on 活用形 lays out the six names used in Japanese school grammar:
  • 未然形 (mizenkei, irrealis or incomplete form, mostly used with ない, ません, etc. to form the negative)
  • 連用形 (ren'yōkei, continuative or stem form, the stem used in the basic dictionary and -masu forms; also used adverbially and when forming compound verbs)
  • 終止形 (shūshikei, terminal form, used to end a sentence)
  • 連体形 (rentaikei, attributive form, used to modify a noun)
  • 仮定形 (kateikei, hypothetical form, mostly used with ば to form hypotheticals and conditionals)
  • 命令形 (meireikei, imperative form, used in abrupt commands)
Note that the 終止形 (shūshikei) and the 連体形 (rentaikei) have become the same thing in modern Japanese. Note too that the 未然形 (mizenkei) and the 仮定形 (kateikei) are the same thing for some verbs, such as 付ける (tsukeru, to stick one thing onto another): consider the identical stem 付け (tsuke) in the negative conjugation 付けない (tsukenai, to not stick something onto something else) and the hypothetical conjugation 付けば (tsukeba, if one were to stick something onto something else).
These all describe the form of the verb stem, however. From my own learning (not via the Japanese educational system, but with years spent living in Japan), 辞書形 (jishokei, dictionary or plain form) is the only name I've ever heard for this form. ~た I've only heard as 過去形 (kakokei, past tense), ~ない as 否定形 (hiteikei, negative form), and ~なかった as either 否定過去形 (hitei no kakokei, past tense of the negative) or 過去否定形 (hitei no kakokei, negative of the past tense).
Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
@Eirikr: Thank you. I borrowed a grammar book from the public library in the hope of revamping Appendix:Japanese verbs with it, but my lack of ability to write in English was a hindrance. --Dine2016 (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@Eirikr By the way, are causative and passive forms like 聴かせる and 言われる utilitizing the "mizen-ness" of the 未然形? --Dine2016 (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Huh, ping failed again... saw this by walking through my Watchlist.
By one analysis, yes: if we view the [[VERB mizenkei stem] as equivalent to "the action of the verb is incomplete", then the (su) causative suffix -- cognate with する (suru) and precursor to せる (seru) -- indicates the agent actively making the verb action happen. Meanwhile, the (ru) passive / spontaneous suffix -- ultimately deriving from Old Japanese auxiliary (yu) and precursor to れる (reru) -- indicates the spontaneous completion of the action, or the action being carried through to completion by some external force.
Though I haven't read Bjarke Frellesvig's works myself yet, I have had others explain to me that Frellesvig proposes a different diachronic analysis wherein the mizenkei itself is an innovation, and that it may have arisen from fusion with auxiliaries or suffixes that started with -a-. I believe Alexander Vovin also touches on a similar derivational mechanic for some verb forms. I'm not sold on that idea, but I'm interested to know more, and I expect I'll get around to reading some of Frellesvig's writings at some point.
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


Hi Dine2016. It seems you forgot to create the entry 案內狀. Could you please create it when you get a chance? Thanks. Wyang (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang: sorry, I probably intended to create the Hanja term for 안내장. Not sure if 案內狀 exists in any Chinese language. --Dine2016 (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks! Wyang (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

{{Han ref}}Edit

This data comes from here, BTW. Also, it might be easier to copy from the Thai Wiktionary, which already has pages for all(?) CJK characters and uses the same template :p —suzukaze (tc) 03:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@suzukaze-c: Thanks for the information. Would be great if a bot could fill the red links in the radical index, though. BTW, Unihan's coverage of dictionary indices is sometimes incomplete -- such as for 康熙字典·補遺 and rare kanjis in 大漢和辞典, which I add the page numbers when convenient. --Dine2016 (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@suzukaze-c Do you have any idea where the IDSs from the Thai Wiktionary come from? Their IDSs are sometimes different from the CHISE project ones, for example 𠂹 (Thai Wikt: ⿱丿⿲仌丨仌,⿻亻𠈌; CHISE: ⿸⿹亻仌仌) --Dine2016 (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I thought they were from CHISE too. @Octahedron80? —suzukaze (tc) 19:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
[1] from Andrew West who does also add many Han characters to Unicode. And I put them with my bot once long ago. (I should run another round to update.)--Octahedron80 (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I had forgotten about his IDS file. I wonder how big the differences are between the CHISE and BabelStone files. —suzukaze (tc) 04:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c If you are interested, I also have this: [2] They already filed my idea. --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Nice. 👍 —suzukaze (tc) 04:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Dai Kanwa numberEdit

I'm not too sure about the numbers you put in for Dai Kanwa. Are you sure that you are using the same edition as the Unihan database (Tokyo: Taishuukan Shoten, 1986)? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Yeah, I'm using the 修訂版 published in 1984–1986 (and I didn't refer to the Kanji Database Project). --Dine2016 (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Alright, thanks! Keep up the work! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Translingual definitionEdit

Please remove translingual definitions once you have improved the Chinese one.--Zcreator alt (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Volitional ending よう at よう#Etymology_3Edit

Your edit prompted me to have a go at things. :) I expanded what was there. I'm a bit concerned that it's too information-dense, but then again there's a lot to pack in... ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Eirikr Hi, isn't 上一段活用 -i-u instead of ? --Dine2016 (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
You'd think so, from a surface analysis. Per the KDJ entry for this よう volitional / suppositional auxiliary:


I also find this puzzling, as kanji readings clearly demonstrated a pattern of -ip (MZH) → -ipu (OJP) → -ifu・-iu (MJ) → -yū (JA), such as at . However, the existence of that consonant between the two original vowel sounds may well have changed how the vowels developed, perhaps accounting for why one combination of i + u resulted in /juː/ and the other in /joː/. Alternatively, it might have been that speakers preferred /joː/ for some reason, and the -e + -u-yō pattern overrode what would otherwise have been -i + -u.
I'm not aware of any easily-accessed corpus of late-Muromachi works that could be used to double check... Looking into it just now, I see that the University of Virginia Library's Japanese Text Initiative lists several works that might fit this time frame, so that's one place to start. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Labeling for copula-related termsEdit

Re: diff, I think I'd prefer copular rather than copulative -- the latter inexorably calls to mind copulation, more strongly than copula, which is distracting and irrelevant. :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


Good stuff, thank you!

Incidentally, I've been giving it a try, and found a potential hiccup at Japanese . Since the page and the referred 牡蠣 page are both kanji, I'd expect the template to say "alternative spelling", but it says "kanji spelling" instead. From the template's own code, it looks like it's supposed to say "alternative"... Could you take a look when you have time?

TIA, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


Thank you for adding this template, it's very useful! — Kiutsushou (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

(Sorry for the delay.) @Kiutsushou: You're welcome! Actually, the template follows the traditional description of Japanese verb conjugation in which each verb has six basic forms (mizenkei, ren'yōkei, etc.) and additioanl forms are formed by adding auxiliary verbs. Western textbooks seem to use a different set of conjugating rules, for example first teaching the masu-form and then back-forming the masu-stem or what the Japanese call ren'yōkei. --Dine2016 (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

user pageEdit

  1. I think your English is great.
  2. I think your templates have been great.
  3. I suspect part of the problem for Japanese is that everything is "good enough"/"works", it would be a massive change, and we can't decide on details, which is why discussions don't last :/ (well, these are partly the reasons why I haven't participated a lot; maybe I am just projecting on other people...)

Suzukaze-c 00:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Module Errors With Module:ja-seeEdit

There are several entries in CAT:E due to an invisible module error in {{ja-see}}. These entries don't show any error messages, but the error category goes away if you preview with {{ja-see}} commented out.

The only time I've seen this kind of thing before was when a template fed the output of a module into a parser function, which ignored it. That's apparently not the case here, but I think that somewhere up the chain of module calls a module is passing the error text to the module that called it, but the calling module isn't doing anything with it. I'm not very good with Lua, so I can't tell where the error is or provide much help. Even if I was, I suspect this is going to be real tough to debug. Good luck! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Ah, thanks. I spotted two problem. The first was that Japanese headword templates such as {{ja-noun}} needed to know the kana spelling of the entry it described. Thus “{{ja-noun}}” worked fine on かりそめ, but when copying it to 仮初め, it should be manually supplied with the kana spelling like “{{ja-noun|かりそめ}}”, otherwise it would complain. I was fully aware of this, but screwed up the code. I've fixed it now. The second problem was that my customarily-written wikicode parser mistakenly parsed {{lang|ja|[[w:ja:土井晩翠|土井晩翠]]譯『[[w:ja:オデュッセイア|オヂュッセーア]]』第二歌}} as {{lang|ja|[[w:ja:土井晩翠|土井晩翠]]譯『[[w:ja:オデュッセイア|オヂュッセーア]]』第二歌}}. I'll rewrite the template parser when I have time. --Dine2016 (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

diff @ Module:ja-kanjitabEdit

Category:Japanese terms read with kun'yomi and other similar categories are empty now. (;´∀`) —Suzukaze-c 06:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


Suzukaze-c 01:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: Thanks… By the way, I would like to apologize for being rude in a talk-page comment posted shortly after the completion of the new {{ja-see}}. I'm sorry. --Dine2016 (talk) 07:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
It's fine. I don't remember any such comment anyway.Suzukaze-c 09:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Module Error at 熱心腸Edit

As far as I can figure out, Module:nan-pron is having trouble with the second part of the Min Nan parameter for {{zh-pron}}, though I have no clue what's wrong with it. Please take a look. 谢谢! Chuck Entz (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I suppose the issue is using a number instead of the POJ tone-marking system? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Your edit commentEdit


Separately, thanks for fixing my typo in the sortkey. :)

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Eirikr: By "formatting instructions" I meant code like this:
<div style="float:right;">{{wp|lang=ja}}
{{wp|Dialectical materialism}}
Such a practice violates the principle of separation of content and presentation, with two consequences: (1) The editor must manually tweak the layout when there are complex box combinations like "wp + wp + kanjitab", which wastes CSS functionalities and burdens maintenance. (2) This forces boxes to appear on the right. If someone wanted to make boxes appear on the left (as was done to {{ja-spellings}}), there is no way they can change their personal CSS to achieve the effect if "float:right" is hardcoded in Module:wikipedia, Module:ja-kanjitab, etc., let alone in entries!
I think our entry layout is fundamentally flawed compared with Wikidata or EDICT, not only because they maintain real entries (Excel-like records) while we maintain spellings (Word-like pages), but also because:
  1. We put irrelevant information before the headword. For example, look up 日本, and you must skip over the etymology (“Coined in Japan of Sinic elements …”) and pronunciation ([ɲ̟ihõ̞ɴ]) before you can confirm the word you're looking for (にほん, Nihon)). I think this is because the entry layout is designed for English, where the spelling alone suffices to determine the word, and is unsuitable for Japanese, where requires "spelling + reading" as the headword for a large number of vocabulary.
    • By the way, Chinese has a similar problem, but {{zh-pron}} cleverly accepts and displays comprehensible romanizations instead of scary IPA; compare Chinese {: definitions; yuè: definitions} with Japanese {[ɾa̠kɯ̟ᵝ]: (らく) definitions; [ɡa̠kɯ̟ᵝ]: (がく) definitions}. Also, {{zh-pron}} has gray backgrounds, so it's easy to navigate in the page when there are multiple readings.
  2. Our entry layout is not very orthogonal. The problem is not only duplication of information, but also the context-sensitive grammar. For example, when there is a single {{wp}} there is no need of "formatting instructions" mentioned above, but when there are two or more {{wp}}'s they must be surrounded with a div style="float:right". This is not logical. Another example is {{ja-pron}}. If you use |yomi= then any additional pronunciations or notes must begin with two asterisks, otherwise they must begin with one. If you use |acc_ref= then you must put ===References=== and <references/> at the end of the entry, if you remove it you must also remove them. This burdens learning effort for newcomers and maintenance effort for editors.
  3. We divide parts of the entry using "hard-coded" L2-6 headers, which forces the parts (etymology, pronunciation, definitions, etc.) to be laid out vertically and left-aligned, in the strict order they appear in the source. If the user wants to change the order the parts appear in, they must write sophisticated JS to reorder the page, which can be error-prone. By comparison, EDICT and Wikidata entries are both structured records, which can be displayed in several ways. (Compare for example the presentation of query results of WWWJDIC and Also, if you want to add a wp link to an entry like 弁証法的唯物論, you must manually choose between {{wp}} on the right side of the page, or {{pedia}} in the "See also" section, depending on which looks better on the final page. This has the same problem as "formatting instructions" mentioned above.
While problem 3 cannot be solved at the moment, problems 1 and 2 can. Please take a look at User:Dine2016/sandbox for a way to combine {{ja-spellings}} and {{ja-kanjitab}}. --Dine2016 (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Cheers, thanks for expanding on your comment. I'm short on time, so I must be brief.
The initial issue was that our CSS makes various layout possibilities difficult. The <div> is a cludge to get around that. Many years ago, it was possible to stack the elements as:
 {{other wp}}
And that would render as:
===Etymology===                                     Kanjitab      WP box
etym etym etym etym etym etym                       Kanjitab      Other WP box
But at some point, someone reworked the styling and layout for the WP boxes, and they wouldn't stack like above, instead showing up as:
===Etymology===                                                   WP box
etym etym etym etym etym etym                       Kanjitab      Other WP box
There was other ugliness too, where the boxes were forcing the content lines further down, resulting in what looked like empty lines on the page. Hence the cludge.
If you're aware of any way to get the stacking in the above rendering without the div, I'm all ears. (FWIW, left-right options aside, the layout with the div works just fine for me on both PC and mobile.)
Re: entry structure in general, would your comments imply that you're advocating for putting pronunciation at level 3, and etym below that? Presumably then we'd have Pronuncation 1, Pronunciation 2, etc. for multi-reading entries. I would support this structure for Japanese entries, although I'm leery of the amount of work involved -- perhaps ideal for a bot?
If instead you intend to put the definition lines first, I fail to understand how that would work very well -- senses are dependent upon (and thus subordinate to) the reading, which in turn is closely tied to the etym. Do you have a mock-up of your desired structure? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Eirikr: Thanks for your reply.
Re: entry structure in general: No, I'm advocating neither. Reordering the sections (etym + pron + defs) would be a radical change and a great departure from the general entry layout, so it's unlikely to succeed. I think we can look for other ways to make the headword visually stand out. For example, we can make {{ja-spellings}} non-floating, so that it becomes part of normal running text. This way each etymology section begins with a table of the term's possible spellings, equivalent to the headword format "かえる かへる 【蛙・蝦】" in kokugo dictionaries. Or we can remodel {{ja-pron}} after {{zh-pron}}, so that the romaji (= reading) visually stands out in a grey box. Please see かとう as an example of the former approach and User:Dine2016/sandbox as an example of the latter approach.
Re: wp boxes: I think the boxes should be all laid vertically by default:
===Etymology===                 WP box
etym etym etym etym etym etym   Other WP box
and optionally in two columns when there is enough space:
===Etymology===                                     Kanjitab      WP box
etym etym etym etym etym etym                       Kanjitab      Other WP box
It would be great if we can achieve such an effect with CSS3, but if we cannot, we should look for other ways. For example we can move the wp links to a "See also" or "Further reading" section at the end of the entry, instead of floating on the right. (Similarly, if there are many images to display, they should put in a "Gallery" section.) As stated above, our entry layout is fundamentally flawed and we can never compete with Wikidata or EDICT in efficiency, simply because they maintain Excel-like records while we maintain Word-like pages. If you have edited long documents using Word, you know that every time you use physical markup (bold face, 16pt, ...) instead of logical markup (Heading 1, Heading 2, ...), you make further changes and maintenance harder. --Dine2016 (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Cheers, thanks for the layout illustration.
One reason why I started laying out the boxes to use more horizontal space was due to unfortunate vertical spillover as currently seen at 鑿#Japanese. The Japanese sidebar boxes intrude into the Korean entry and all the way through into the Vietnamese one. If we apply the static <div> as I've done in the past, it's not as bad (example, barely impinging on the Korean entry), and if we further use {{slim-wikipedia}} instead of {{wikipedia}}, it's improved a bit more (example 2, now only causing the horizontal rule to end prematurely, but otherwise not overlapping the Korean entry).
I don't suppose you can think of a way for the sidebar layout to automatically factor in the vertical height of the language section? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Use and layout of Template:ja-spellingsEdit

I was cleaning up Japanese and gave the "wago lemma at hiragana" approach a try.

I'm pretty happy with how looks.

However, I'm not so sure about うじ.

  • In the past, for hiragana entries with multiple pronunciations, I've put the pronunciations at the top and etyms under that -- users could conceivably get to the page after hearing the term, and this allows them to quickly find which pitch pattern they've heard.
→ Does this make sense to you? Do you have any objections, comments, concerns about this approach?
  • Regardless of whether we have the pronunciation or the etymology at the entry's top level, {{ja-spellings}} looks really odd when it's not at the physical top just under the language heading. For hiragana terms with multiple etyms and differentiated spellings, it doesn't make sense to have {{ja-spellings}} just under the language heading, since not all the spellings are applicable to all of the entry.
→ Could you have a go at reworking the structure at うじ into something that looks better to you, and let me know when you're happy with it? I'd like to get a better understanding of your view on how these templates are intended to work together.

Thank you! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, clearly I'm not doing something right. While the {{ja-see}} box at is working correctly and fetching summary info, the {{ja-see}} box at (uji, maggot) isn't able to fetch the defs. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Eirikr: Thanks for your experiment. You're changing the default format "etymology + pronunciation + POS/def" to the new format "pronunciation + etymology + POS/def". The soft redirection template doesn't support the new format yet, so {{ja-see}} fails to parse the lemma entry and regarded the whole page as a single word. (Therefore all definitions are copied, and the first {{ja-spellings}} takes precedence so fails.) It would be possible to make {{ja-see}} support the new format (pronunciation before etymology), but I'm afraid it would increase the difficulty of parsing, and hampers Wiktionary data reuse. For example, if there are two pronunciations but three etymology, you may need to have POS headers at L5! Instead, to facilitate looking up by pitch pattern, we can keep the current format (etymology + pronunciation + POS) but remodel {{ja-pron}} after {{zh-pron}}: as a box with gray background, and show romaji instead of IPA, to make it visually stand out and easily recognizable:
Etymology 1
hiragana (modern) うじ
hiragana (historical) うぢ

From Old Japanese うぢ (udi, clan). Found in the Man'yōshū completed some time after 759 CE.


blah blah blah ...



  1. (historical) a clan
  2. a family name, a surname
  3. one's house, birth, lineage

うじ (-uji)

  1. (historical, honorific) a clan (added after the clan name as an honorific)
Etymology 2
hiragana (modern) うじ
hiragana (historical) うじ

From Old Japanese. Found in the Kojiki completed circa 712 CE.


blah blah blah ...



  1. (less common) larva, maggot
Separately: please take a look at the current entry うじ. In Etymology 1, the {{ja-noun}} has |hhira=うぢ, but {{ja-pos|suffix}} does not, resulting in inconsistency. This is why I prefer to reduce headwords below POS headers to the barest bone and put these info somewhere else.
--Dine2016 (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :: We do have {{clear}}, which stops things from encroaching on other sections, though it also can leave a vertical gap on the left. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: (I think you have posted this comment in the wrong section) :: Thanks for your comment, but I think we should avoid using templates like {{clear}} in mainspace entries as much as possible. As stated above, we're at a disadvantage compared with Wikidata or EDICT because our entries are Word-like pages while theirs are Excel-like records. If you have edited long documents in Word, you know that you can insert a page break with Ctrl-Enter. If you're preparing a version of your document for printing, page breaks may help you get rid of orphans and improve the look of your document. But if you keep page breaks in the master copy of your document, you make further editing inconvenient. For example, add a paragraph before a page break, and the break may be pushed to the top of the next page, making it almost blank. Therefore master copies intended for editing should prefer logical markups to physical markups as much as possible. Similarly, if a Wiktionary entry has too many boxes floating on the right side and there are two ways to solve the problem, one logically (change some of the boxes to non-floating elements, such as {{wp}} -> {{pedia}}, or floating images to galleries) and one physically ({{clear}}, div wrapping, etc.), I think we should prefer the former to the latter. --Dine2016 (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
(Also pinging @Eirikr:) By the way, since we have ---- between languages, what about hr {clear: both;}? --Dine2016 (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


Maybe you might find wikisource:ja:Index:柳沢信大『粤東俗字便蒙解』.djvu interesting. Kundoku annotation of Cantonese, "improper" historical spelling, and what looks like a lot of arbitrarily "missing" dakuten. —Suzukaze-c 06:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


Hey, just reminding you that you forgot to create the fantizi entry for this term. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Dine2016".