Template talk:&lit

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from User talk:Msh210.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


float around and {{&lit}}[edit]

[[float around]] made me appreciate a weakness of the displayed text for {{&lit}}. I am not sure what the right answer is or indeed if any change can be an improvement.

It now says "Used literally". The problem is that most use of "float" is figurative: "He floated around from job to job." etc. This would not be the only instance in which "literal" is not 100% accurate.

What we intend when using {{&lit}} is something like "Used compositionally" or "Used non-idiomatically". The first is not suitable for normal users and the second is somewhat controversial and subject to the ambiguities of "idiom" and its derivatives. Perhaps we can think of other wording. Mind you, we can certainly live indefinitely with what we've got. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Right. I just got this note, but I'll ponder this. (Merely responding to this because I'm responding to the following, and I don't want you to think I'm ignoring this.)​—msh210 14:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, it would be useful to have pipes for the component terms in {{&lit}}. It is often useful to be able to send the user to the correct PoS. DCDuring TALK 19:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You can use pipes, but then you have to spell out "See foo and bar". (Unless someone's changed the template?) See the documentation.​—msh210 14:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I know, I know. RTFM. I thought I had, but apparently not. It works as you and the documentation said. I don't think my, erm, "usability" problem is worth worrying about.
The other one is somewhat misleading for users and, therefore, worth a bit of thought. "Used non-idiomatically" is still the best I have to offer, but it isn't even all that satisfactory for users. Longman's DCE does not use "literal", "figurative", or "idiom" (or abbreviations) as labels. Perhaps augmented by a hover box or a wikilink? Would "Not as idiom" be better wording than "non-idiomatically"? DCDuring TALK 15:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
"Used not as an idiom" sounds okay. "Used other than as an idiom" is more idiomatic, I think. Or were you thinking of just "Not as an idiom" (or even "Not as idiom")?​—msh210 16:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes slightly odd wording cautions people more effectively, but "other than" is better than "not". As the sense line in question will almost always (proverbs?) have a lot of white space, we can use some space for better wording. DCDuring TALK 16:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hm, I've changed template:&lit now to use "Used other than as an idiom" thinking you were agreeing with that, but on rereading what you've just written I now think you were actually arguing for "Other than as (an) idiom". Obviously, feel free to change the template again to whichever of the two possibilities indicated by the parenthetical "an" you prefer.​—msh210 16:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


Deletion debate[edit]

Green check.svg

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


Template:&lit[edit]

This template is redundant to the {{literally}} template. TeleComNasSprVen 00:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No. {{&lit}} is for terms that are sum of parts. {{literally}} is for literal senses that are also idiomatic. (Is that even possible?) -- Prince Kassad 01:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep. {{&lit}} is "literally" as opposed to "idiomatic", and is only used at multiword entries (typically when the listed idiom is rarer than other uses of the word-sequence); {{literally}} is "literally" as opposed to "figuratively", and is mostly (but not exclusively) used at entries for individual words. I suppose {{&SOP}} might have been a better name for the former, but regardless, the two are completely different and non-redundant. —RuakhTALK 02:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, I named {{&lit}} after &lit. Not that the template has anything to do with the term's referent: I just liked the name.​—msh210 (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Clever! I was not aware of &lit. Now I like it too. :-)   —RuakhTALK 12:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Ruakh. DCDuring TALK 03:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Ruakh.​—msh210 (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep, ditto. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, keep. --Daniel. 11:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Kept by early very strong consensus. --Daniel. 11:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Script support[edit]

Can this template use better script support? For example, the use at 小人#Mandarin would look better if the words weren't bolded. Can this be automatically suppressed for certains scripts (like {{Hani}})? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that what MediaWiki:common.css is for? --WikiTiki89 20:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I guess... CSS is a weak point for me in terms of wiki architecture. How would we fix it there? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Well that is where the appearance of normal, bold, italic, and all that stuff is defined for each script. If bold doesn't look good with {{Hani}}, then we can (like we did for {{Hebr}}) make the text slightly larger instead of bolding it. I don't know much about the specifics, but I think Ruakh knows a lot about this stuff. --WikiTiki89 21:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving to a GP thread, then. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)