Template talk:context

Definition from Wiktionary, a free dictionary

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Documentation

Use this template to indicate definitions which are only used in a restricted context, as described in Wiktionary:Context labels. A label is placed before the definition, such as:

# {{context|AU|slang}} An [[insidious]] person.
  1. (Australia, slang) An insidious person.

This template provides consistency. The same visual result could be achieved with simpler formatting; however, context helps to ensure that the same labels are used across the project. For instance, {{context|math}} and {{context|maths}} both produce the same result, expanding to (mathematics). (Technically, this is because the templates {{math}} and {{maths}} redirect.)

Use of a context label also provides automatic categorization. For instance, the example above is categorized as Australian English and Slang. Likewise, any page with a context of math or maths will be automatically placed in category Mathematics. However, these templates should not be used merely for categorization. It is still preferable to list a [[Category: ]] when there is no specific context for a term.

Regions are meant to indicate where a term is used, not to specify location of an entity. For instance, the Sphinx in Giza should not be labeled Egypt. Rather, that's part of the definition. Also note that time and space are not contexts. The word “week” is understood to mean seven days whether one is discussing war or widgets or the weather, in speech or song or storybook.

[edit] Comments

[edit] Format suggestions for new label templates

Currently, the recommended wikitext for creating new context labels looks like this:

{{context {{{sub|}}}|label=(label)|topcat=(category)
|sub={{{sub|}}}|lang={{{lang|}}}|skey={{{skey|}}}|{{{1|}}}|{{{2|}}}|{{{3|}}}|{{{4|}}}|{{{5|}}}|{{{6|}}}|{{{7|}}}|{{{8|}}}|{{{9|}}}}}

I think it would actually look nicer like this:

{{context {{{sub|}}}|label=(label)|topcat=(category)
|sub={{{sub|}}}|lang={{{lang|}}}|skey={{{skey|}}}
|{{{1|}}}|{{{2|}}}|{{{3|}}}|{{{4|}}}|{{{5|}}}|{{{6|}}}|{{{7|}}}|{{{8|}}}|{{{9|}}}}}

The first line contains the parts that are expected to be customized for each template, the second line contains the named pass-through parameters, and the third line contains the unnamed pass-through parameters. I'd probably do the regional tags like so:

{{context {{{sub|}}}|label=(region name)|regcat=(region adjective)
|lang={{#if:{{{lang|}}}|{{{lang}}}|(xx)}}
|sub={{{sub|}}}|skey={{{skey|}}}
|{{{1|}}}|{{{2|}}}|{{{3|}}}|{{{4|}}}|{{{5|}}}|{{{6|}}}|{{{7|}}}|{{{8|}}}|{{{9|}}}}}

Any thoughts? Mike Dillon 02:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(edited Mike's comment to remove the "x" from sub|x, so it won't confuse people) Robert Ullmann 12:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to have these as templates, such as Template:new label, which can {{subst:PAGENAME}} for the label and is passed the category as its only parameter. (Something special would have to be done to avoid any of the other parameters from being evaluated upon creation.) Similarly another template for new regional labels would take the region adjective and default language. Do we need a template for parts of speech and modifiers? Why not. DAVilla 06:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Started Template:new label; seems to work OK with regular substitution (interestingly subst: and subst:msgnw yield the same outcome). I'm sure it's far from perfect, but it will at least be useful for poor schmucks like me who can never remember this stuff. -- Visviva 06:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes something like that. I'd like to keep all of the variants on the first line (e.g. the lang default), but that isn't critical (the python code that produces User:Robert Ullmann/Context labels depends on it being on the first line, but that is a SMOC ;-) and the separate line looks good. Breaking the second line (invariants) does look better, especially because it will pretty much always have a noinclude tag on the end. A "new label" template seems more trouble than it is worth; why not just copy and paste from the examples above? Robert Ullmann 14:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US vs USA vs U.S. vs U.S.A.

I have no idea how any of the wiki-markup works, but I noticed on corn that one sense of the word says US while the other says U.S.A., with the latter apparently originating here. In my experience living here, it seems that it's always U.S. or USA rather than visa-versa, but regardless, one of the templates should be changed so the spellings agree with one another. (Amusing from a lexicographical perspective, given the spelling confusion in this country, that there would be confusion over how to abbreviate the very country's name. :-D) Globish 02:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I feel silly. Maybe I was viewing a newer version of the source than the version I saw in my browser... It's been fixed either way. Sorry. Globish 02:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
There's a {{US}} but no {{U.S.A.}} -- an IP was adding {{italbrac|U.S.A.}} and I was converting to {{context|US}}. Cynewulf 02:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "context:language" seems to be broken

"context:language" seems to display empty parentheses, see the 2nd sense at drow. Language Lover 06:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely sure, but I think that template is used for calling up languages from SIL codes, not as context tag. You may want to leave a note with Robert Ullmann to double check this. I have changed the context tag on drow to linguistics, which seems to work. I don't know if this is the most appropriate tag for the sense; feel free to change it to something better if you can think of one. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, {{language}} isn't a context template. I'm working out a sneaky way to solve a number of glitches, borrowing a method from DAVilla's older version of {context} (which there was hacked pretty badly ;-). Robert Ullmann 13:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
This should be fixed, but it may be a bit too much magic. Robert Ullmann 14:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Haywireness

I don't have the competence to fix this, but the last change seems to have caused the rendering of wikified non-template arguments (e.g. {{context|[[coral]] science}} ) to go all screwy: (coral science). -- Visviva 13:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, I thought I had gotten that case correct! Will fix. Should be okay now. Robert Ullmann 19:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful, thanks. -- Visviva 23:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Multilingual

Should mul for lang= be ignored? --Ivan Štambuk 00:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you give varied examples of multilingual terms with a context so that their categorization can be examined? My guess is that excluding "en"/"English" where we would otherwise use the language to name categories makes it undesireable to categorize multilingual terms. DAVilla 07:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't remember exactly where, but when I posted this on some ==Translingual== entry I saw Category:mul:Something (i.e. lang=mul was used on context label), and it was not etymology related.
You're right, entries like Aves so far don't have lang= at all so they're Translingual terms appearing in English topical categories, which doesn't seem quite all right.
Moreover, {infl} recently enforced categorization, so for {infl|mul|PoS} in the inflection line numerous categories like Category:Translingual symbols started appearing which look anomalous (every symbol is inherently translingual, these are not symbols in some Category:Translingual language [hey - this category contains something!], but symbols independent of any language)
My guess is the the current mismatch for translingual code mul in a number of templates, which is caused by the fact that the adjective translingual does not mean her "belonging to a specific language", is best to be handled by completely ignoring him everywhere, so that e.g. {zoology|lang=mul} should display (zoology) but not categorise. That's the approach that {etyl} uses from the beginning. --Ivan Štambuk 12:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that mul should be ignored, but rather it should be a sort of kill switch, preventing any type of categorizing. Generally, translingual entries have been categorized into their own special cats, such as Category:Taxonomic names, and basically into no other categories (so, as Ivan notes, translingual entries derived from Ancient Greek do not go into Category:Ancient Greek derivations nor Category:mul:Ancient Greek derivations, the categorization is simply not done). While this is admittedly imperfect, until a solution is presented, it seems like the best SOP. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
That's what I originally meant by "ignored", i.e. not-categorizing, just haven't expressed myself more clearly. I was referring to those that use lang=mul, and thought on those translingual terms terms that don't use lang=mul in context labels like an anomalous cases which should be fixed with lang=mul, which would then be covered with the above "don't categorize" scenario.
Now if someone who actually understands the code would make the bold edit.. --Ivan Štambuk 01:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow. I didn't realize quite how complex a template this is. It's beyond my capabilities. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cases

I was wondering whether cases should be added into this. E.g. verbs that take the dative case one would simply write in the sense which takes the dative case (dative) and it would say (with dative) and even add a category like "Category:Latin verbs followed by the dative case". These are just suggestions, so please treat them accordingly. --BiT 02:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Qualifiers and usage labels

Category:Context labels has five, mostly exclusive, subcategories. This template only accommodates three of them.

  1. Category:Grammatical context labels: {{transitive}}, {{uncountable}} etc. [poscat=]
  2. Category:Qualifier context labels: {{mostly}}, {{chiefly}} etc. [qualifiercat=?]
  3. Category:Regional context labels: {{Canada}}, {{NZ}} etc. [regcat=]
  4. Category:Topical context labels: {{art}}, {{chemistry}} etc. [topcat=]
  5. Category:Usage context labels: {{slang}}, {{literary}}, {{dated}} etc. [usagecat=?]

Can support for the other two be added?

In the future I could also the benefit of splitting usage up into temporal (e.g., archaic), frequency (rare), taboo (vulgar), insult (offensive), slang (slang), style (informal), status (nonstandard) categories. —Michael Z. 2009-03-03 18:45 z

The template {context} itself only needs 4 types, reflecting the category naming systems that the entries themselves are placed in. The categorization of the label templates themselves is a different thing entirely. {context} just makes a best guess on the label cat when it can. Labels to be themselves put in other cats can use tcat=, e.g. tcat=qualifier. And that already allows for the labels themselves to be more finely categorised. Robert Ullmann 14:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
So what change has to be made to, e.g., {{NZ}} and {{slang}} to remove them from category:Topical context labels? —Michael Z. 2009-03-04 16:39 z
NZ should be a regional label (and not redirected to "New Zealand English", rather the other way 'round ;-) using regcat= and defaulting to English. {slang} should use tcat=usage, note that is in addition to topcat=,the latter is the category structure used for the entries, the first is the category for the template. (and lose the explicit category in both cases). ("slang" really ought to use POS-like categories, "French slang" and not "fr:slang", but that it a different matter!) Robert Ullmann 16:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I'm catching on. The instructions above are inadequate, and I think as a result there is a lot of category clean-up to do for these templates. —Michael Z. 2009-03-04 17:04 z

Okay, I cleaned up a whole lot of these labels, removed a whack of them from the top-level category and replaced literal categories with tcat, etc.

I notice that many have both topcat= and tcat=Usage, some have other combinations (e.g. {{US slang}} has regcat=US and tcat=Usage). I think these templates should automatically be placed in all the categories which apply based on these parameters, rather that overriding the others with tcat. I think this may work as expected, because tcat should only be necessary for grammatical, qualifier, and usage cats, which should be largely exclusive, while topcat and regcat can add their respective template categories. Is this possible?

[edit] Regcat

I've encountered a couple of problems in using regcat=. Regcat is intended to work with the form <region (adj.)> <language>, e.g. “American English.” I guess this is generalized so it will work with any language.

  1. Some names of dialects don't follow this form. What's the best way to deal with these labels? (Many of them incorrectly appear in category:Topical context labels due to the use of topcat=.) Some of these could be used with regcat as-is, if their categories were renamed to accommodate this – which may also make them more self-explanatory: Chakavian Croatian, Cumbrian English, Bristolian English, London English, Northern English, etc.
  2. Some of our category names don't follow the standard lexicographical names for dialects. No other dictionary uses the following.
  3. Some restrict the term by both dialect and usage.
  4. Some by topic and usage
  5. No idea what these represent:

I know I'm asking about a lot here. What's uncontroversial? Everything else I'll take to a broader forum. —Michael Z. 2009-03-06 07:56 z

There should be no problem changing the Old Korean cats (Baekje, Balhae, Buyeo, Goguryeo and also Silla) to "X_Old Korean". Many of those entries also need to be cleaned up and/or deleted... Anyway, I can do that batch right now. Done. Job queue's moving fast tonight. -- 08:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. —Michael Z. 2009-03-06 22:14 z
Looks to me like {{Filipino diacritic}} should not be using {{context}} or assigning a category at all, as it is just used to label transcriptions in pronunciation sections. Likewise, {{chu Nom}} is just being used as a placeholder in the Translingual section of a couple of entries; it seems like a {{non-gloss definition}} rather than a context. -- Visviva 08:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lexicography

I think I understand grammatical labels pretty clearly as relating to the grammatical function of the term. Everything else I'm a little less clear on.

My main question on topical labels is at what point they apply. Everyone knows what a down payment is, but apparently it's also a legal term. It would be misleading to use that context because it's understood outside of the legal world, but it would be incorrect to omit the label if it has a specific legal definition. The problem is that the definition is the same in both cases, so there is only one definition line.

As to regions, how does this relate to the pronunciation section? I'm sure dialectical use must vary in both accent and word choice. Would we want to be able to use any regional label, ideally, to mark pronunciation?

I'd like to establish the "other" category a little more clearly as well. I see words like diction, formality, distance, politeness, authority, status. Which of these are perpendicular? Do they define axes or even a basis? That is, can all of the labels be understood by pinpointing them on each scale? Or if it's more categorical, then how does each label file? DAVilla 08:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Re the {{legal}} context template, I suggest down payment is an excellent example of when not to use it because
  • "down payment" is now used metaphorically in many contexts (as per the Obama quote example), and is no longer restricted to its finance or commerce origins, and
  • many terms in many fields (e.g. finance, commerce, employment, human rights and information technology), have specific "legal" definitions which only differ in detail from the generally understood meanings (as DAVilla suggests). Having a "legal" meaning does not in itself make it a term which is (mostly) only used in a legal context.
I suggest Usage notes for the {{legal}} template recommend it only be applied
  • for meanings which are (mostly) only relevant to or used in legal circles, e.g. legal jargon, like "tort", or
  • if the legal definition given differs from other meaning(s) given, e.g. "appeal".
If down payment were expanded with several context-specific examples added, such as an actual monetary purchase: "The full price was $200, so I made a down payment of $5 and will pay off the rest over ten months", would it be appropriate to add a {{metaphor}} context template to the Obama example? I don't think it would be appropriate to add a {{finance}} one to the monetary meaning because that is the original literal no-context meaning. Comments?
-- Bricaniwi 15:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I've added a second sense supporting the Obama example, as an extension from the first sense. Obama's usage is, of course, not the traditional legal definition because neither the U.S. nor Afghanistan vests any legal rights or obligations in the act. bd2412 T 18:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
A good start to separate Obama's metaphorical usage from the (law) sense usage - it helps clarify what this discussion is about, thanks.
Can we get more comment please on the original point of this (law) sense being inappropriate on the first definition of down payment. The more I look at it, especially with another sense now added, the more I agree (law) should be removed (because this is the literal meaning) - (or maybe changed to (commerce) or (finance) (I don't know the full list) to indicate the origins?)
I still object strongly to the use of the (law) sense label for the first definition because it is misleading, it gives the impression that this is a legal definition of "down payment". Rightly or wrongly, some people come to Wiktionary for ammunition for disputes - there is no way we should be seen to be giving anyone legal advice by, apparently, giving a legal definition of what a down payment is.
The phrase "the right to continue making payments" (only a tiny possible part of any actual legal definition) may apply in some jurisdictions (and of course needs citation), but would always be qualified and balanced with vendors' rights, etc.
Context/sense labels indicate how a term is used in a special way in that context. The first definition of "down payment" is not special to the legal context - almost everyone would use it that way. -- Bricaniwi 13:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I happen to be a lawyer. If I were a realtor, I'd probably think of the phrase as relating to realty. However, when I see "down payment", my first thought is of the legal rights that, by definition, accompany such an act. bd2412 T 16:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Excellent examples, thanks. A few more examples maybe:
  • If I were a car dealer I'd be wanting a 50% down payment from any lawyer banker these days.
  • If I ran a furniture shop I'd advertise "no down payment and five years to pay!"
  • Builders only want a ten percent down payment because work is scarce.
No matter what the context, the sense of "down payment" is always buying and selling, i.e. (finance), even if it's used metaphorically, buying credibility or time or security.
  • If I was a lawyer, when I saw "surgical operation", my first thought would be of the legal rights that, by definition, accompany such an act.
  • If I was a lawyer, when I saw "school enrolment", my first thought would be of the legal rights that, by definition, accompany such an act.
  • If I was a lawyer, when I saw "peaceful protest", my first thought would be of the legal rights that, by definition, accompany such an act.
No matter what the context of any act, there are almost always legal rights that, by definition, accompany such an act. That does not give the definition of the act a (law) sense.
Meanwhile, back over on down payment I've just added a synonym, deposit, which is the more common British equivalent. The noun form of "deposit" has several senses, the appropriate one being already labelled (finance). -- Bricaniwi 22:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Although I have a legal right to have a surgical operation performed with reasonable care, the phrase "surgical operation" implies no legal consequence in and of itself. The phrases that carry those consequences would be duty of care, negligence, and medical malpractice. A down payment, on the other hand, is itself a legal act. I can pay some portion of money for something up front without it qualifying as a "down payment". It is the invocation of the phrase in connection with that payment which signifies that the money having been advanced, the recipient is forbidden to sell the property to someone else so long as I continue making timely payments per the governing agreement. bd2412 T 04:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I've looked back to the top of this page. It says "only used in a restricted context, as described in Wiktionary:Context labels." There it says "only used in a restricted context, as described in Entry Layout Explained." ELE says ... only applies in a restricted context ...or is used only by specialists in a particular field and not by the general population."
You agree above that realtors would use the phrase "down payment" in their context too. I've given examples of it being used in other contexts too.
Yes, I understand that using the term in connection with a purchase has legal consequences (probably in most jurisdictions), so I agree the term does have specialised legal definitions (probably different specific legal definitions and consequences in each jurisdiction, and even in each industry), but those are in addition to its everyday usage by the general population.
I suggest that because "down payment" is used (even if in a legally sloppy or incorrect way) by the general population in many contexts, it does not qualify as being used only in a restricted context or only by specialists.
(I'm going travelling so may not be able to get back here for a while) -- Bricaniwi 00:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Then it would behoove us, I think, to include both definitions with a context tag for the legal sense, so people will understand that putting the phrase "down payment" in a contract, for example, imposes enforceable obligations on them beyond the mere niceties of society. bd2412 T 03:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Categorisation

I've been trying to sub-categorize these templates to make them more findable, the problem is any template based on {{context}} is always categorized under Category:Topical context labels. If someone can remove this, then we can sort these into smaller categories. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Template_talk:context"