Template talk:vern

Desired changes

This would probably be better if it showed the link as red or orange if Wiktionary didn't have the appropriate definition, providing a link to a WP article of the same name or a very similar alternative vernacular name. I am not sure of the desirability of having a link to a WP article or section thereof if the article does not have a very similar alternative name. DCDuring TALK 14:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. False blue links are not a good solution. I suggest something like template:taxlinknew or template:taxlinkwiki with a link only to the appropriate Wikipedia article. Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Using a word like false is a good way to ensure that any discussion is contentious. DCDuring TALK 02:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not mean it offensively. I just meant to express that they are not typical blue links indicating existence of the entry and this may mislead some readers. I meant it in a similar way as is the linguistic meaning of the phrase false friend. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said ensure. But, because I was tired when I read your note, I was a bit annoyed.

Substantively, the problem I have with redlinks is that we aren't offering the user available information. Adding links, as {{taxlinknew}} does, distracts normal users. For regular contributors, there are many pages that have lists of taxonomic names that 'need' to be added. See Wiktionary:Redlink dumps#Translingual and my pages at Wiktionary:Redlink dumps#English. For such pages we could use improved or alternative versions of {{vern}} and {{taxlinknew}} or, more extravagantly, {{taxlook}}. DCDuring TALK 13:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Lists of needed entries are good, especially for experienced contributors, but the red links within entries have also other advantages: 1) even less experienced contributors or people who have not contributed to dictionary so far may be moved to write the entry, 2) even experienced contributors may feel more temptation to make the red link blue, 3) there certainly are experienced contributors who do not follow lists of needed entries but from time to time make some red link blue. The template {{taxlinknew}} may distract users because there are too many links (WP, WS, Commons). This is really not necessary, as the templates like {{taxlink}} or the current version of {{vern}} also offer just one link, either to Wikispecies or to Wikipedia. For the template vern I suggest just to keep the link to Wikipedia combined with a red link.

Another advantage of such a solution would be that the readers would know that the link goes outside Wiktionary and so they would use it only if they really want to go there. I am usually slightly annoyed when I click on a link thinking that it would take me to a Wiktionary entry but I appear at Wikispecies or Wikipedia instead. The links to these projects are a sort of added value, but they are not what the readers expect from us on the first place. Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been disappointed in the quality of such entries, even those by experienced contributors. It's almost as bad as my attempting to contribute a German entry. Most contributors don't speak Taxon. DCDuring TALK 18:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I certainly do speak Taxon IRL, so I hope I haven't offended by any errors I've made. I'm always meaning to add more taxa, but there are just so many languages to do as well. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't qualify my "disappointment" comment properly. Most of the contributions of taxa have been very good, though some less experienced users make a bit of a mess of it. Also, there are thousands (>5K) of bird entries made a few years ago by an experienced editor most of which still need a lot of tedious work.

Perhaps it is vernacular-name entries that are more of problem. They often lack links to WP, links for any taxonomic names used, current taxonomic names, and pictures or links to Commons. If they at least used {{taxlink}}, I would find them and bring them up to a standard. DCDuring TALK 19:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Although I understand this, I am not sure whether the removal of temptation of unexperienced users to found an article by not showing them the red links is a good way. Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If possible, I would like to have terms that can be broken down to its constituent parts, eg. "Chinese nutmeg yew " ({{vern|Chinese nutmeg yew|[[Chinese]] [[nutmeg yew]]|nopedia=1}}) instead of "Chinese nutmeg yew" ({{vern|Chinese nutmeg yew}}) which leads to a non-existent item. Note that the scientific name Torreya grandis is already glossed after its vernacular name. See 榧 for example. KevinUp (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@DCDuring Any thoughts on this? I know this template exists to create a category for vernacular names that lack their own pages but the non-existent blue links are confusing. KevinUp (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I have gotten so used to using the 'search for "[eg] Chinese nutmeg yew" in existing articles' option that I've forgotten about the inconvenience for normal users. I wouldn't want to type the name twice. Perhaps someone could use Lua to achieve what you suggest without reversion on the other aspects:

1. Categorization into Category:Entries missing English vernacular names of taxa when the full name is not yet in Wiktionary.
2. Categorization into Category:Entries with redundant template: vern the full name is in Wiktionary.
3. Link to Wikipedia article (or redirect) when there is one.

One simple solution is to add the missing redirect at Wikipedia, which I did for w:Chinese nutmeg yew. DCDuring (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the redirect page at Wikipedia. Seems like someone will have to redirect the false blue links to the page containing its taxonomic name at Wikipedia. KevinUp (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not a trick. Many vernacular names redirect to full entries either under another vernacular name or under a taxonomic name. But they still miss many. DCDuring (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a bit curious, but may I know the correct formatting to use when we are referring to a specific taxonomic species, eg. Miscanthus sinensis (Chinese silver grass), as found in the definition for 芒 (máng)? I'm not sure whether "Miscanthus sinensis" and its vernacular name "Chinese silver grass" should link to Wiktionary, Wikipedia or Wikispecies (if the link exists). Also, will this template ({{vern}}) be removed eventually after entries for vernacular names have been created on Wiktionary? I've always assumed that we should link within Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia unless the term does not meet WT:CFI and I'm not sure whether vernacular names fulfill the criteria or not. KevinUp (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The basic logic for both {{vern}} and {{taxlink}} is the same. They should be used for all vernacular and taxonomic names, respectively, that have no entry in Wiktionary. If they are used where they do not have to be, the entry is added to Category:Entries with redundant template: vern or Category:Entries with redundant template: taxlink, respectively. If you put the categories on your watch list you will see that there are a few users besides me who use the templates and promptly remove them once they determine they are redundant. For those who do not remove the redundant templates that they add, I monitor the categories and remove the templates. I also remove the templates when I add names from User:DCDuring/vern and User:DCDuring/MissingTaxa. DCDuring (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Here are some of my pet peeves:

1. Long lists of synonyms that all have WP links. If you think about it, if they're all synonyms, the preferred destination for all of them would generally be the same WP article. Instead, we send them off as guinea pigs to test WPs redirect and search resources for the article. Not only that, but we often do this in spite of having also added a WP template. My very subjective guesstimate is that maybe three quarters of the vern bluelinks are unnecessary detours.
2. Difficulty telling which bluelinks go to WP (or nowhere, as mentioned above) and which go to actual WT entries.
3. Indiscriminate data dumps posing as -nym lists. Because the items in the list look like perfectly respectable bluelinks, it's too easy to just throw everything in there without thought about which ones are entry-worthy, or even if they're minor variations on entries we already have.

I spend a lot of time looking for uncategorized/invisible entries, and going through taxa on WP to see if we have entries for the vernacular names (it's what I do for fun when I'm not patrolling or other chores). What I find that way only rarely matches more than half of what's in the -nym lists.

I realize that the last one isn't really fair, since we're all volunteers and absolute perfection is too boring for anyone to keep up for long. Tracking down information on vernacular names can be really hard: Most of the primary usage doesn't make its way into print, while taxonomists don't know much about real vernacular names, so they make up their own versions calqued from taxonomic names, and most of the older sources on the vernacular names don't bother with the taxonomy, or get it wrong.

It's just that the terms in the -nym lists are too easy to ignore, so they get fossilized in place and never checked until someone decides to create an entry (and I have my doubts as to how many editors actually decide to create entries based on the -nym lists- I don't think I ever have).

What I'd like to see: let's make the vern template more like the translation ones: have real blue- and redlinks, with a little symbol in parentheses for the link to a WP article. Perhaps we could have a |wp= or |w= parameter that could be "-" for no link, "+" for a WP article spelled the same as the name linked to, and the name of the WP article if it's different and we want to link to it.

Extra credit for making the red link an accelerated page-creation link (I think it's safe to say they're all English nouns, so a plural is probably the only extra information required).Chuck Entz (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with all of these shortcomings and don't object to Chuck's idea, though I am not intimately familiar with {{t}}. Any reasonable solution that does not involve a reversion of the features I use is fine with me. A well-designed template that met these objections and did not involve reversion of current capabilities is beyond my paygrade. Perhaps someone could produce templates, {{vern2}} and {{taxlink2}}. We could then use them for a while to make sure they did all and only what has been agreed to and then substitute them for {{vern}} and {{taxlink}}. DCDuring (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How about my suggestion of using something like {{vern|golden cicada|[[golden]] [[cicada]]|nopedia=1}}) instead of "{{vern|golden cicada}}"? Its vernacular name is a literal translation of Chinese 金蟬／金蝉 (jīnchán). I'm not sure which species of Cryptotympana it belongs though. Thanks for taking the time to create entries for vernacular names on Wiktionary. Perhaps someone familiar with Lua could fix this template so that {{vern|[[golden]] [[cicada]]}} would give the desired output as well as the categorization needed. It makes sense for users unfamiliar with taxonomy to pair up {{vern}} and {{taxlink}}. Editors familiar with taxonomy can then check and create entries for vernacular and taxonomic names (when they are free). KevinUp (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

As for the differentiation of blue links between Wiktionary and Wikipedia, perhaps we could modify Template:w to use a slightly different appearance for outgoing links (eg. font size, hyperlink color) so that editors can differentiate between the two different links and convert unnecessary links to Wikipedia back to Wiktionary. I hope my suggestions can be considered and thanks for replying. KevinUp (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't found any evidence that golden cicada is the vernacular name of a species. It is not unusual that a genus should be given a name that applies to some of its species.

I'm not willing to do the extra typing for the purpose of eliminating dead WP links which are actually often leads to WP articles that contain the term. The problem seems to be a second-order problem compared to our lack of coverage even among common taxa and vernacular names thereof. One possible solution would be to skip the WP failed pagename search and link to a full-text search page. DCDuring (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

As to golden cicada, it might refer to Huechys fusca on Wikispecies.Wikispecies , also known as the black and golden cicada. However, I don't think either name would turn out to be attestable as an English vernacular name of that species. Therefore they probably should not be enclosed in {{vern}}. The translated proverb "the golden cicada sheds its shell" might warrant inclusion as a proverb and golden cicada orchid seems inclusion-worthy. DCDuring (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, the term golden cicada seems to be a direct translation of the Chinese term 金蟬／金蝉 → 金 (“gold”) + 蟬／蝉 (“cicada”) and lacks actual citations in English publications. Interestingly, I found an encyclopedic page for the Chinese term, along with pictures of the golden cicada and its taxonomic name (Cryptotympana atrata) at https://baike.baidu.com/item/金蝉. However, assigned taxonomic names for Chinese entries are often problematic and incorrect, eg. Torreya grandis (Chinese nutmeg yew) was mixed up with Torreya nucifera (Japanese nutmeg yew). This problem is much more prominent in single character Chinese/Japanese entries because it is hard to determine the actual species mentioned in historical literature. This is why I suggested the use of individual links for its definition, eg. [[Chinese]] [[nutmeg yew]] instead of {{vern|Chinese nutmeg yew}} until further evidence can be found regarding the usage or existence of its vernacular name in English. This is probably not a good solution, so please disregard it. KevinUp (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Note that golden cicada orchid is a direct translation of its Chinese vernacular name 金蟬蘭／金蝉兰 → 金 (“gold”) + 蟬／蝉 (“cicada”) + 蘭／兰 (“orchid”). Same goes for the proverb "the golden cicada sheds its shell" which is translated from 金蟬脫殼／金蝉脱壳. Also, usage of 金蟬／金蝉 (“golden cicada”) in historical Chinese texts is mainly figurative or metaphoric. Not sure whether the species (Cryptotympana atrata) mentioned in this page is correct or not: https://baike.baidu.com/item/金蝉 but according to the Chinese Wikipedia page for Cryptotympana atrata, 紅脈熊蟬 (English Wikipedia page not yet available), the term 金蟬／金蝉 (“literally golden cicada”) appears to refer to the pupa of Cryptotympana atrata which is served as a deep fried dish in Shandong cuisine. KevinUp (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, it's still confusing to click on {{vern|golden cicada orchid}} → golden cicada orchid to find an empty link (no Wikipedia page). Same goes for its taxonomic name, {{taxlink|Chrysoglossum ornatum}} → Chrysoglossum ornatum (no Wikispecies page). Note that a picture of the species: [[File:Chrysoglossum_ornatum_Orchi_4-2011.jpg]] exists at Wikimedia Commons. Another possible solution would be to add another parameter, eg, {{vern|golden cicada orchid|link=bad}}, {{taxlink|Chrysoglossum ornatum|link=bad}} to convert the blue links into red links. I hope editors using this template would at least check to see whether Wikipedia/Wikispecies entries have been created or not. KevinUp (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I use to check if Wikipedia/Wikispecies entries have been created or not and of course use the templates even if no link is available. |link= or what you may call it is a good idea. One might also track names which are in neither Wiktionary nor Wikispecies/Wikipedia. Fay Freak (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so. I think the parameter |link=bad to convert non-existent blue links to red can be done. We could even create a specific category so that editors from Wikipedia/Wikispecies can work on it. KevinUp (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Fuller documentation

@DCDuring: would it be possible for you to provide a fuller documentation of this template, explaining what parameters are available? For example, looking at the template coding I see that it is possible to specify an alternative form of a term using the second parameter, but this is not documented. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Your wish is my command. Is the added documentation content satisfactory? DCDuring (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Deficiencies

1. The Wikipedia link should be specifiable, as the Wikipedia page may carry a disambiguator.
2. The language of the vernacular name should be specifiable, since Wiktionary carries entries for languages other than English, and vernacular names are not exclusively found in English.

• This should be consistent with other link templates, having the first paramenter being the language code.

-- 65.93.183.191 22:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Aye, the parameter |wp= ain’t even working right now, I tried {{vern|common lime|wp=Tilia × europaea}} for parklind because otherwise it links to a lepidopter which on Wikipedia squats on the tree name. @DCDuring, Benwing2, Gabbe. Fay Freak (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fay Freak Back in March, some random IP deleted the parts of the code that supported |wp= and |lang=. I reverted those changes and protected the template against similar corruption. Benwing2 (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Does it seem to be working? DCDuring (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@DCDuring: Yes, I have applied it on the same entry I intended it as indicated in my message introducing the bug—after Benwing’s being fast to fix it. Fay Freak (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

When practical, I think it is beneficial for the WP user community to add a redirect on WP from an attested vernacular name to wherever the best content resides on WP, eg, from w:common lime to w:Tilia × europaea. I see that w:common lime redirects to a butterfly, illustrating the limits to what can be expeditiously done at WP. I would bet that common lime refers to the tree much more commonly than to the butterfly, but that takes more time to investigate and the conclusion might be a disambiguation page on WP. A disambiguation page is less helpful to an enwikt user than either a WP redirect or the wp parameter. (WP already has a redirect from w:common linden.) DCDuring (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)