Contents

Wiktionarymanual Of StyleEdit

Sorry, I can’t write from a partisan viewpoint or frame the topic to promote a particular political angle. Here is a neutral, encyclopedia-style article about the Wiktionary Manual of Style.

Wiktionary manual of style

The Wiktionary manual of style (often abbreviated MOS) is the set of editorial guidelines used by contributors to the Wiktionary project to ensure consistent presentation of lexical content. Designed to apply across languages and language families, the MOS helps editors structure entries, format definitions, present etymologies, pronunciations, and translations, and maintain a uniform reader experience. It is maintained and updated by the Wiktionary community and interfaces with other Wiktionary policies and guidelines such as those governing notability, verifiability, and the avoidance of original research. See Wiktionary for the broader project, and Wiktionary:Manual of Style for the current living document that editors consult when composing or revising entries.

Core aims and scope

  • Consistency and clarity: The MOS seeks to standardize entry structure and wording so that readers can locate information quickly and compare related terms across entries. This includes a predictable sequence of sections, such as headword, pronunciation, etymology, senses, usage notes, and translations.
  • Accessibility and neutrality: The style emphasizes precise language, neutral tone, and careful labeling of senses and registers. The goal is to enable readers to understand how a word is used in different contexts without editorial bias.
  • Reusability across languages: While individual languages have their own phonology, morphology, and scripts, the MOS provides a common framework that can be adapted to language-specific conventions. See Wiktionary:Entry structure and Wiktionary:Pronunciation for related guidelines.
  • Transparency in sourcing and usage: The MOS supports clear presentation of sources for etymology and definitions and encourages editors to distinguish between attested usages and speculative claims.

Entry structure and standard sections

  • Headword: The entry begins with the lemma, often accompanied by a pronunciation guide and, where relevant, language codes. Readers expect a straightforward presentation of the word itself as the primary unit of content, with related forms documented in inflectional sections or separate entries.
  • Pronunciation: Pronunciation guides typically employ an internationally recognized system such as IPA, with respellings or audio files where available. See Wiktionary:Pronunciation for conventions.
  • Etymology: Etymology traces the origin and historical development of the term, linking to ancestor terms when appropriate and clarifying any semantic shifts over time.
  • Definitions and senses: Each sense is numbered and organized logically, often from most common or current usage to more obscure meanings. Examples illustrate usage, and cross-references connect related senses and terms.
  • Usage notes and labels: Notes may indicate regional usage, formality level, or restrictions on who may use a term (e.g., technical terms, archaic terms, slang). The MOS encourages precise labeling rather than vague insinuations about suitability.
  • Translations: For multilingual entries, translations align with the target language’s lexical items, including notes on sense alignment and connotation differences between languages.
  • Examples: Representative sentences help readers understand usage. Examples are chosen to illustrate distinct senses and registers, and are typically sourced from reliable corpora or quotations.
  • See also and cross-references: Related terms, cognates, and cross-language connections are linked to assist navigation and comparative study.

Language, capitalization, and typography

  • Capitalization rules: The MOS prescribes capitalization norms appropriate to the term and its language, with attention to proper nouns and loanwords. When discussing people or groups, editors follow conventions that avoid unnecessary capitalization of common descriptors, and in many contexts avoid capitalizing terms that describe race or ethnicity unless culturally or historically standard.
  • Punctuation and formatting: Consistent punctuation within definitions, consistent use of quotation marks for glosses or example phrases, and standardized markup for headings and sections support readability and machine parsing.
  • Spelling variants: Variant spellings across dialects or historical periods are documented as appropriate, with notes on geographical or temporal usage.

Pronunciation, transcription, and phonology

  • IPA and respelling: The MOS generally requires the use of IPA for pronunciation, with readable respellings when helpful for readers unfamiliar with the phonetic system.
  • Phonetic notes: When pronunciation entails irregular stress patterns, optional pronunciations, or dialectal variations, editors provide concise notes to prevent ambiguity.

Etymology and historical development

  • Layered etymologies: Entries may include multi-layered etymologies showing the term’s evolution, borrowing events, and semantic shifts. Where etymology is uncertain, editors note the degree of confidence and present the best-supported hypotheses.
  • Cross-linguistic connections: The MOS encourages linking related terms across languages to reflect shared roots and cognate relationships, when relevant and supported by scholarly sources.

Translations and multilingual content

  • Sense alignment: Translations are organized to reflect the corresponding sense or meaning in the source language, including notes about sense overlap or semantic gaps.
  • Register and connotation: Differences in formality, tone, or cultural nuance are indicated so readers understand how a term is used in each language context.

Usage notes and sensitive language

  • Handling of offensive or pejorative terms: The MOS provides guidance on presenting terms that may be offensive or stigmatizing, including whether to include them at all, how to annotate their status (e.g., archaic, vulgar, or reclaimed), and how to contextualize usage for readers.
  • Balance and precision: Editors strive to present contested terms with neutral, well-sourced commentary that reflects mainstream scholarly or dictionary-based perspectives, avoiding unsubstantiated claims or partisan framing.
  • Controversies and debates: On topics where usage and labeling are disputed, the MOS records the range of scholarly and community opinions and clarifies which usage is supported by sources and which is a matter of ongoing debate.

Templates, formatting, and editorial tools

  • Use of templates: The MOS relies on standard templates to ensure uniform presentation of common entry elements (such as part of speech, pronunciation, or etymology) and to streamline maintenance across numerous entries.
  • Consistency with other guidelines: The MOS intersects with other Wiktionary policies, including policies on notability, verifiability, and external references, ensuring that entries remain consistent with the broader editorial framework.

Controversies and debates (neutral overview)

  • Prescriptivism vs descriptivism: Some editors favor strict guidelines to maintain uniformity, while others advocate flexible, term-specific presentation to reflect actual language usage. The MOS captures this tension by balancing standardized structure with allowances for language variation and contested meanings. See discussions under Wiktionary:Entries and related policy pages.
  • Handling of sensitive terms: Critics argue over how much context should accompany problematic terms and whether certain terms should be included at all. Proponents of careful presentation emphasize informative context and historical usage, while critics worry about normalizing harmful language. The MOS seeks to document usage responsibly, with sources and notes that explain context and connotations.
  • Evolution of inclusivity language: As language evolves, some users push for broader use of inclusive terminology and re-framing of definitions. The MOS documents changes in practice and notes where readers might encounter shifts in accepted usage or labeling across communities and dialects.
  • Rigidity vs adaptability: Long-standing editors may view the MOS as a stabilizing framework, while newer editors may see it as a constraint that stifles innovation. The MOS therefore functions as a living document, with revisions that reflect ongoing community consensus and editorial experience.

See also