* {{oppose}} --[[User:Victar|Victar]] ([[User talk:Victar|talk]]) 04:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
* {{oppose}} --[[User:Victar|Victar]] ([[User talk:Victar|talk]]) 04:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
*: {{ping|Victar}}: I have changed the the title to show →. Can you please indicate that you oppose that as well? --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 08:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
*: {{ping|Victar}}: I have changed the the title to show →. Can you please indicate that you oppose that as well? --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 08:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
*:: I am against any symbols in a title. --[[User:Victar|Victar]] ([[User talk:Victar|talk]]) 08:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Our current practice is to recognize apostrophes as part of the spelling of a word (e.g. fo’c’s’le), except when used to form the possessive of a noun (so father’s is not an entry), with an exception to that exception when that possessive itself forms part of an idiomatic phrase or (part of) a proper name (e.g. men’s room and McDonald’s). We similarly recognize capitalization and hyphens as part of the spelling. We aim at being descriptive. As long as apostrophes are in widespread use, we are not going to abolish them. We do have an entry for anapostrophic aint because it is attestable but label it as a misspelling because that is how it is generally considered today. Whether or not we see apostrophes or hyphens as letters seems irrelevant. Do you feel we should take a position? In that case, please give some argument indicating the relevance. --Lambiam12:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For every word, someone must have been the first to use it. Apart from my dislike of Greek–Latin chimeras like tele- + vision – why not teleopsis? – I feel that the Greek prefix an- carries a connotation of lacking and not merely negation. For example, since one cannot reasonably say that the word “sock” is lacking an apostrophe, one should not label it as anapostrophic. In fact, since it is not lacking an apostrophe, it is non-anapostrophic :). --Lambiam23:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lambiam: Everyone is free to make up words, but it's important that those who read them can understand them. Simple prose is often best, and "without an apostrophe" would have been understood by everyone. — Paul G (talk) 07:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary-only diacritics need to be documented better
Currently, where we do document dictionary-only diacritics, it's usually on the WT:About (language) page. But those pages seem to be primarily aimed at editors for a particular language, and are probably rather hard to read for people who merely read Wiktionary. I therefore think that these concerns should be separated more clearly: one page to document the reader-facing parts of Wiktionary, and another to document what editors need to know in addition. A paper dictionary would usually document its conventions somewhere in the prologue, so we should have something equivalent. Given that our namespace convention so far is to use Wiktionary: for editors and Appendix: for readers, Appendix: seems like the logical choice. However, Help: is also a good candidate, and is not used as much as it should be currently. —Rua (mew) 14:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to suggest that we have a User's Guide for each language (shortcut U+language code), giving the kind of information that one would find in the introduction to an English-language dictionary or lexicon for that language. That would be a good place for explaining practices like which form is the lemma, what we don't cover (things like forms with clitics like 's or Latin -que) and other features that need to be understood to use the entries, like the difference between attributive nouns and adjectives in English. We would need to develop a standard format and some ground rules to keep them from turning into reference grammars or verbose essays, but I think it would be worth the effort. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think something like Help:English would be a good name. Alternative names for the language can be redirects, and ambiguous names can be "disambiguation" pages. —Rua (mew) 11:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adding information about historical inflections for Japanese entries
For verbs (conjugations, more specifically than inflections), I believe the {{ja-verb}} template already supports type=yo for yodan verbs, as well as ni, kami ni, and shimo ni for the nidan verbs. Granted, this isn't yet documented anywhere besides the module code itself, which is not ideal. I've added or edited a few verb entries where I've used these type values; see the relevant subcategories at Category:Japanese_verbs.
I'm not sure what you mean by "ra, na, ka and sa inflection". What part of speech are you referencing? I'm used to さ(sa) as the nominalizing adjective suffix that is a rough equivalent of English-ness, but I suspect you're talking about something else?
Re: -ku and -shiku adjective types, we haven't had occasion yet to build out those paradigms -- these are largely gone from modern Japanese, although they are widely known and occasionally used to deliberately archaic effect. See, for instance, that scene in the Ghibli movie Spirited Away when Sen saves the "stink god" who turns out to be the god of a polluted river -- at the end of his big reveal, he says, 良きかな (yoki ka na, “that's better, isn't it”) and disappears.
Re: せず, that form is already accounted for -- see する#Conjugation, in particular the Negative continuative row. Granted, the ず ending is also used as a terminal form in formal modern Japanese; however, I'm not sure if a per-entry conjugation table is the best place to treat such stylistic and usage information...
More broadly, we (Wiktionary JA editors) are collectively still in a bit of a muddle about what to do with these aspects of the language -- as you note, many of these constructions are still productive in limited fashion, and thus don't really belong to a wholly different stage of the language in quite the same way that Middle English is differentiated from modern English. We've batted around ideas of setting up "Classical Japanese" or some such as a new L2 "language". But there's no lang code, we're unclear on how to differentiate, and there's potential for tons of duplication -- some verbs are no longer in common use and linger on as yodan paradigms, while others are modern godan verbs that evolved regularly from earlier yodan forms → would we have "Classical Japanese" entries for both? Or only for the yodan-only verbs? Etc. etc.
Setting aside the bigger issue of our overall approach to earlier Japanese grammar, it'd be helpful for starters if you could explain what you mean by "ra, na, ka and sa inflection". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig00:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mainly suggest we give two inflection tables, one modern and one archaic/classical, for every Japanese entry, e.g. 燃える: 燃え 燃え 燃える 燃える 燃えれ 燃えよ and 燃え 燃え 燃ゆ 燃ゆる 燃ゆれ 燃えよ. I think this is not hard.
"ra, na, ka and sa inflection" are archaic/classical irregular inflections, e.g. 死ぬ: 死な 死に 死ぬ 死ぬる 死ぬれ 死ね.
@Huhu9001 -- Re: the irregulars, ah, yes, now I've got you. For 死ぬ, for instance, that's more formally called called the ナ行変格活用(na-gyō henkaku katsuyō, “na-row irregular conjugation”). Only two verbs exhibited that pattern, 死ぬ(shinu, “to die”) and 往ぬ / 去ぬ(inu, “to go away”, obsolete), with scholars apparently undecided on whether shinu might derive from inu, thus suggesting only one underlying verb with this paradigm.
Re: adding two inflection tables to all modern verbs, I'm not sure I can agree with that. For instance, the classical terminal (i.e. dictionary) form of modern terminal-form 燃える(moeru) is 燃ゆ(moyu): the lemma form is different for certain verb classes. Additionally, various verbs spelled -える in the modern language, such as 変える(kaeru, “to change something”), were spelled -へる before the spelling reforms of the 20th century, tracing back to terminal (lemma) forms ending in -ふ. Wiktionary practice, as I've understood it, is for conjugation tables and other detailed information to go in the entry for the lemma form of a word.
We don't seem to have any consensus at present for building out a whole new L2 language as "Classical Japanese" or something along those lines. As such, it seems to me more like the conjugation tables for the older paradigms should go collectively on the WT:AJA page, or somewhere similar, rather than on each entry page. Would that be acceptable? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig20:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the classical form in {{ja-pron}} seems really weird -- the pronunciation template is intended to show the pronunciation of the headword. The example above ... hides the pronunciation, which seems confusing and poor usability. Also, /moju/ is not a pronunciation of 燃える(moeru, “to burn”, intransitive). Likewise, conjugation type, historical kana spellings, and romanization schemes do not belong in this template. I'd be fine if some other template were created for this purpose, but {{ja-pron}} is not the place for this.
(Separately, I'm confused by the comment, "what about dropping the inflection templates", since the example above ... includes the inflection templates?)
I'm resistant to the idea of conjugating 燃ゆ in the 燃える entry. The Ancient Greek example does not seem germane here; τελῶ(telô) appears to be simply a contemporaneous contraction of τελέω(teléō), and it looks like the editors collapsed the information about the former into the entry for the latter as an exceptional case. For classical Japanese, we're talking instead about every verb in sizable verb classes.
That said, I'd like to survey other dictionaries, get a handle on their approaches. Let me chew on this a bit (where to put classical conjugations).
@Eirikr: Thank you for your reply. By "what about dropping the inflection templates", I meant to make {{ja-pron}} generate the inflection tables, thus eliminating individual inflection templates such as {{ja-ichi}}. Here are some considerations.
Putting the historical kana spellings and the romanization schemes in headword templates might seem good at first, but when there are more than one parts of speech, they have to be duplicated, which is not ideal. The Korean pronunciation template {{ko-IPA}} includes romanizations, and the Chinese {{zh-pron}} includes not only romanizations but also Middle and Old Chinese, which can be comparable to historical kana spellings. Therefore I find it convenient for Japanese to follow the model of Korean and Chinese, which means putting the historical kana spellings and the romanizations in the pronunciation template.
As for inflection tables, I have no objection to having a separate "Inflection/Conjugation" section and templates, but making {{ja-pron}} take over that functionality is more convenient for editors, isn't it? Moreover, by doing so, phonetic information such as もえる (for 燃える), き.いろい, or |acc=0 can be directly used when generating the inflected forms, eliminating the need to copy them to the inflection templates.
燃ゆ and 燃える are pretty much the same lexeme if you consider what linguistics call the stem or the base: the former is /moje-/, and the latter is /moe-/, clearly regular development. The reason the dictionary form look different is because the modern 終止形 comes from the classical 連体形 and 二段動詞の一段化, both of which concern morphology only. Even in the traditional Japanese analysis, も・える（ア下一） is a direct reflex of classical も・ゆ（ヤ下二） too. Larger dictionaries such as 広辞苑, 大辞林, and 国語大辞典 are all diachronic and treat 上代 も古事記では甲ゆ, 中古 もゆ, and 中世 もゆる in the same entry as modern もえる, and I think we can follow the same approach too. --Dine2016 (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that ja-pron is not the appropriate place for such information. I can sympathize with the desire to include as much information as possible as readily as possible. But there is no direct link between historical inflection and pronunciation as such. I also keep thinking about a comment left some time ago at 'Feedback' where a user complained about having Etymology at the top of the entry because the user was not interested in Etymology. I think that there probably are a lot of users interested in pronunciation of Japanese lemmas, but probably far fewer interested in historical forms. In that case, putting those pieces of information together at the top of an entry may be frustrating. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, although there are reflexes of historical forms in the conjugation of some words, this is not the case for all words. In short, ja-pron is the wrong place for this information, if it is even desirable for all entries. Cnilep (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, I agree with the idea to limit the pronunciation section to the modern lemma form only and put inflections in a separate section below the definitions. What about creating a unified interface, for example {{ja-infl|もえる|v1|acc=0}} (for modern Japanese) and {{ltj-infl|もゆ|v2s}} (for Classical Japanese) and code the inflection rules in a module, instead of having a separate template for each inflection type? That will be easier to program and come with better extensibility, I think. --Dine2016 (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Eirikr: Putting the classical form (e.g. 燃ゆ for 燃える) in {{ja-pron}} was actually an idea from 日本国語大辞典, which has a 発音 section of entries that looked like this:
As can be seen, the classical 終止形 also has relevance in modern Japanese, with modern pronunciation, Tokyo accent, and Kyoto accent. A Reference Grammar of Japanese even identifies more conjugated forms borrowed from the literary language such as V-uru and V-uréba and give them modern accentuation, indicating their relevance to modern Japanese.
Since the pronunciation section already deals with two different forms: classical 終止形 (≒ modern 連体形) and the modern 終止形, I concluded that it would be convenient to deal with other forms there together. However, if the pronunciation deals with only these two forms, or better yet, only the modern 終止形, and other conjugated forms are listed in a “Conjugation”/“Inflection” section below the definitions with their pronunciation dealt with on their perspective entries, I'm totally fine with that, and it would be more logical as each entry deals with its own pronunciation.
@TAKASUGI Shinji On the other hand, I also agree that separating Ancient Japanese and Modern Japanese has advantages. The current entry ない has three lexemes; the first (suffix in 切ない、幼けない、ぎこちない) is no longer productive in Modern Japanese and is likely to confuse learners. Putting the first lexeme under the Ancient Japanese L2 header would surely be an improvement. --Dine2016 (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This month is Wikipedia Asian Month and Tofeiku suggested we, wiktionarians, take part of this. So, we discussed in Meta about it, and we ends up with the proposal of working on traditional asian games such as go, hanafuda, xiangqi, shogi, mahjong. There is a lot of games but no category here, and we may also look at the vocabulary used in the game, such as the famous atari in go. So, it's part of LexiSession initiative, and we aim at showing interproject short term projects can be cool, so I hope you like the suggestion, and let us know what you improve around it! Noé15:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Synonyms given after each sense
I see that color has synonyms given immediately after each sense rather than in a separate section. Is this how we are doing synonyms now, or is this a permissible alternative method? Or should they be moved to the "Synonyms" section that is also on that page? — Paul G (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In Northern Sami, there is technically no passive inflection, but many verbs have an accompanying passive verb. This passive verb is a full verb in every respect, and has its own infinitive, participles and can also have words derived from it. Moreover, the meaning can sometimes be somewhat idiosyncratic, and there is more than one way a passive verb could be formed. This makes it seem like it is a lemma in its own right. On the other hand, passive verbs are used very much productively to form passive sentences, and I've often found them missing from other dictionaries, which suggests they are also somewhat inflectional in nature like the North Germanic passive.
I'd like to know how to best treat these. Should they be given a full definition, as if they were a true lemma, or should they be defined with {{passive of}}? Should they appear in the inflection tables of verbs, or the "derived terms" section? —Rua (mew) 13:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In Mongolian I use {{passive of}}/{{causative of}} but also add definitions below that if they don't obviously follow from the verb it is derived from. I use the usual verb lemma headword and they of course don't have an etymology section, but I stopped listing them in derived terms, with a possible exception for passives that have many derived forms themselves. Crom daba (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism with "by ___" edit summaries
Just curious whether anyone else has noticed the periodic vandalism (it looks like ignorance rather than malice) where the edit summaries strangely begin with "by", along the lines of "by adding it" or "by writing my name". What could be the cause of this odd grammar? Possibly some kind of automated translation? Equinox◑14:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Open call for Project Grants
Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals until November 30 to fund both experimental and proven ideas such as research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), or providing other support for community building for Wikimedia projects.
We offer the following resources to help you plan your project and complete a grant proposal:
It's strange that {{quote-meta}} accepts a |transliteration= param but doesn't auto-transliterate the way that {{ux}} does. Unless someone objects, I'll fix this and make it auto-transliterate. Benwing2 (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think we should get away from having templates do this sort of thing. Any result which is unlikely to change often should be static text, which is better for the servers and better for anyone who might wish to use the underlying data in any context other than this wiki. If we could make the template subst in the transliteration automatically I would support that. - TheDaveRoss14:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One would hope that such activity would be rare. And when it was required it can be done through via a bot just as easily as through module editing. - TheDaveRoss19:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDaveRoss: I don't understand your opposition. subst is always a preferred functionality for long transliterations but manual transliteration is also always an option for languages, which don't transliterate automatically or occasionally need it. It shouldn't be a showstopper for not implementing the auto-transliteration. Can you give an example where it's a bad idea?
Note that automatic transliteration for usage examples in Chinese, Japanese, Thai and Khmer exists but it's implementation is different from other non-Roman languages for known reasons. There's also an implementation for Korean with a few tricks, which make it different from the automated Korean transliteration. It would be hard or impossible to merge these three five into the common citation templates. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)22:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember where I got the idea, but I use the quotation templates w/o giving them the actual text + templates like {{ja-usex}}. Perhaps doing this all the time would be more simple, and would avoid duplication of {{usex}} and {{quote}} functionality. —Suzukaze-c◇◇02:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Suzukaze-c: Well, that's what I mentioned in the side comments. These language-specific templates are far-more advanced and do a lot of great work but they don't necessarily have all the bits and pieces present in the other generic templates, such as categorisations of e.g. citations by language or parameters like year, URL, page number, etc. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)23:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right now this template has only one parameter, which is just plain text. This means that there is no actual standard format, the text could be written in any number of ways, which makes Wiktionary harder to parse for automated processes. I therefore propose to introduce a second parameter, so that the first and second give the start and end dates of use respectively. The second argument would be left empty if the sense is still in use. The format of these parameters would still need further standardisation, but it's a start. —Rua (mew) 13:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a good idea. I am not sure it will ensure the values are standardized or machine readable, but it is a step in the right direction. Oh, and I think it should show still in use if the second argument is empty or missing. - TheDaveRoss14:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Introducing a second parameter has no effect on whether the values are standardized. Sure, let's add a second parameter as a first step though. DTLHS (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting it into a from and a to date makes that part at least readable. You know, then, that each parameter only contains a single time description, rather than a range between two. My plan is to automatically add "from" before the first argument if there is no second, like the template's talk page suggests that people enter manually. The next step would be to make a module that parses each date and throws an error for a format it doesn't understand. —Rua (mew) 18:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I vehemently oppose this effort as at best premature and probably wrong-headed.
We don't have the information to support the changes proposed, nor is such information likely to be forthcoming, especially not without risking COPYVIO.
At the very least could someone take the trouble to take a census of the information currently in {{defdate}}?. I have never understood how such proposals can be made without a fact base.
If we are to attempt to standardize the use of {{defdate}}, shouldn't we begin by agreeing on what is acceptable data.
I think "we don't have the information" is the main problem. If we lack it for most senses of most words, there seems little point in making things more complex than they are. Equinox◑19:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting it into from and to parameters might be good, but parsing dates and throwing errors for strange formats would essentially make this template useless for some ancient languages (I am thinking particularly of Egyptian here), as chronologies are uncertain and dates can usually only be narrowed down to specific dynasties, reigns, bodies of religious texts, etc. rather than centuries or years. Such usages need to be taken into account somehow. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 02:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection on the face of it. When I created {{defdate}} it was really just to force the font size and square brackets, the actual text bit was always a more-or-less stopgap decision. I do think we are safer continuing to use centuries rather than specific years (in most languages – ancient extinct languages will have to do things differently), partly from lack of information and partly to avoid COPYVIO issues. Ƿidsiþ07:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support. I quite like the idea (it bugs me that we vary between "c." and "century" and "Century", or "from" and "From", etc.). However, I'm hesitant about being too restrictive with this. Usually we give dates in terms of centuries, but occasionally we know the exact date something was coined, and it can be useful to give the specific date. We need to make sure that one can use "early", "mid-", "late" in descriptions, and it should be possible to add other notes as well, in case there is more complex information. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some format standardization seems appropriate, but will it be the same for English, Middle English, Old English, Torre Straits Creole, and Ancient Egyptian? DCDuring (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why the format itself wouldn't be the same most of the time (the meaning might be different (e.g. an Old English word might be marked as "from 10th century", meaning that it survived into Middle English, but not necessarily that it is used today). Ancient Egyptian, I suppose, might mention dynasties rather than centuries, or have more speculative dates, so I'm not sure if it could be forced into a regular format. It might be preferable to vote on a preferred format, rather than imposing it via a template. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, "Alternative forms" was allowed to be entered as a level 4 header under the lemma/part-of-speech header, instead of at level 3 above everything else. I want to do this with the Etymology header as well. It makes no sense to me that the etymology is structurally disconnected from the lemma it belongs to (both on level 3) or even that the lemma is subsumed under the etymology. Assigning etymology to lemma instead of lemma to etymology is much more sensible, and it's the structure that Wikidata's lexemes follow as well. My ultimate desire is to entirely abolish level 3 etymology sections, and especially numbered etymologies, but I think in the meantime the two formats can be allowed as alternatives like we already do with "Alternative forms". That way, there is no immediate need to change any entries, and those who want to can experiment with the new format.
For those who think etymology should be visually the first thing to appear in a lemma, before senses, keep in mind that this proposal is about the logical structure of the entries, not the visual ordering. If you want to preserve the ordering, then the only option that also has a sensible logical structure is to have senses under their own L4 header with the etymology L4 header immediately above, both with the lemma's L3 header as their parent. I'm open to this option, but I think senses should come before etymology, those are what users are mostly looking for and not etymologies. —Rua (mew) 19:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So for the English entry set, for example, we would have the level 3 headers Verb, Noun, Adjective, Noun (2), Verb (2), each with potentially their own etymology and no possibility to group them? DTLHS (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the idea. I just think we should do it all at once and not introduce a 3rd layout possibility that will probably stick around with the others for years. DTLHS (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at leave as an example of how this would work out. @Rua, might you be inclined to create a trial page demonstrating the proposed new look for our perusal? (BTW, what is the point of the repeated use of heading in the labels for the first leave#Verb?) The proposal makes sense to me; it is also what is promised by the inscrutable passage in WT:ELE that states that “[a] key principle in ordering the headings and indentation levels is nesting”. As an aside, if we had a more structured way of marking up the entries, along the lines of {{entry|lemma=...|language=...|part_of_speech=...|...}}, somewhat similar to many of the citation templates, such sweeping changes could be effected in one swell foop. (See also the (much more modest) suggestion in Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/October#What about uniformise a little bit all Wiktionaries?.) --Lambiam08:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to this, but I don't like that closely related nouns and verbs will be no more closely grouped than completely unrelated homographs. I think if we make a change like this, there should be some way of linking them together (especially when one POS comes from another POS in English, and their etymologies are no more distinct than the etymologies of different senses under the same POS). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how do other dictionaries do it? I don't remember ever seeing a dictionary that gives special treatment to etymologically related words. —Rua (mew) 18:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rua I don't use online dictionaries other than Wiktionary very much, but the way I usually see it in print dictionaries is that for different etymologies, the headword will be listed again (usually with a number, like a superscript 1, 2, etc.). Each headword is then followed by its various definitions, further grouped by part of speech. This is especially common with more inflected languages, I find, where homographs might have different genders. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, paper dictionaries don't normally give any etymology at all, so the idea of being "somewhat" related (e.g. from the same PIE root) is enough to justify a grouping. But on Wiktionary, we do give proper etymologies, and words that are related will still each have their own etymology. The verb sleep and the homographic noun have separate histories that each deserve their own etymology section. This is the same whether the history of the words is long or short (if the noun had been derived from the verb only in modern English, for example). My experience is that when multiple lemmas are grouped under a common etymology, this is almost always an error of omission and each one could be given its own etymology. One of them is always the older, and the other derived from the first, or something similar. So in a future situation where every lemma indeed does have its own proper etymology, each etymology section will have at most one lemma. What is there to gain from that layout then? —Rua (mew) 00:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree that it would be an improvement to give etymological information for each part of speech (as well as to better indicate the development of different senses over time). I still don't like that the first verb and noun sections of lay would be no more closely connected than they would be to any other senses. However, one possible compromise would be to adopt the same style as the French Wiktionary, and have only one etymology section, and have "Noun 1", "Verb 2", etc. headers. (See botte for an example of what I mean.)
I oppose etymologies following the definitions for the folowing reasons:
There's enough clutter as it is with all the -nyms, translations, derived terms, references, usage notes, etc. following the defs;
Many dictionaries begin with the etymology. Every print dictionary I've seen with etymological information has it before the defs;
Etyms are currently at the beginning of entries, and it would be far, far more work to place them all below defs than it would be to make the modification I am suggesting;
As has been mentioned, it's very easy to skip over information one doesn't care about, and far more confusing if there is inconsistency in the way information is presented, as there would be for some time if we tried to move etyms from where they are;
And finally, if all etymological information were to be put under one header, as I am suggesting, putting it at the very bottom of an entry would make it hard to find and not very clear. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my first post, this proposal is about rectifying the logical structure of the entries. If you want the etymology to appear first, then it should still be nested under a header of some sort, so that it's clear that the etymology belongs to some word and doesn't stand entirely on its own. However, I think both that and the current structure are less desirable than the one I proposed, which simply nests etymology below part of speech and definitions. Definitions are primary, so they should come first.
I'm also opposed to the French structure, which is essentially what we used to do for synonyms and antonyms using the {{sense}} template. Each lemma has its own etymology, just like each sense has its own synonyms and antonyms, so separating them out makes no sense for the logical structure of an entry. —Rua (mew) 13:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like what you are trying to accomplish, but I think that not having etymologies as headers at all is the way to go. Page ordering and layout is currently logical, but has nothing to do with usability (except, perhaps, that English is the first language presented). While etymologies are very interesting, they are, at best, secondary information for most users. The fact that etymology is present before, and with more prominence, than definitions and translations is downright silly. I would have etymologies live in their own namespace, and transclude them at each relevant definition. I would have them displayed in the same manner as usage examples, hidden by default with a small link indicating their existence. Obviously that is not an easy transition to make. To be clear, I like what Rua is proposing more that the status quo and would support pursuing it further. - TheDaveRoss19:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why, heavy language learners sort the words by etymology. Older dictionaries mingle unrelated words to safe space in a confusing manner. I would still separate unrelated words spelled (with all diacritical marks, if applicable) the same as different lemmas even if they aren’t nested under etymologies. عقار looks totally fine. Not knowing the relation of the meanings of كُور(kūr) makes me uncomfortable. And as a dictionary aiming at depicting historical beginning with the etymology as the root of all things is obvious anyway. I can’t follow @Rua’s argument “It makes no sense to me (…) that the lemma is subsumed under the etymology.” – Umm that’s the way I imagine the words, so it makes sense to me?
If one uses this dictionary often, the consistent structure allows to learn where to put the eyes to get only the information one wants, so abundant etymologies can be overlooked with resolve (your own fault then if you read too much). People don’t care what is under what, they only care that things are always in the same order. Fay Freak (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That last point is of course an argument for the change as well as against it. However, I made arguments in favour of a logical nesting structure as well, and that is not achieved with the current layout, but is with my proposal. So if all else is equal, logical nesting wins out. —Rua (mew) 00:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how it’s for it, it seemed to me that you wanted to introduce a new order. However I do remove splitups into numbered etymology sections, often they are really nasty as on حرس, in this example even containing the identical references under each section, which I have lamentably perceived to be the “Benwing layout”. Sectioning needs more discretion. Notably, I have now put that pronunciation file between a lemma template and its header because somebody recording a pronunciation file does not lead me into banjaxing the whole layout based on this file. By the way the pronunciation section layout believed to be standard is too much based on “inflectionless languages” – there is no point in having such sections when words have many permutations and the lemma form is just one, particularly when the pronunciation in a language is certain based on spelling or transcription. Instead the tables should convert the Latin spellings to IPA with a click (like tables resort) and allow inclusion of audio files in parameters. @RuaFay Freak (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fay Freak A problem I see with the current version of that Arabic entry, is that it's not possible to see how each of the words was formed. Surely, Arabic has well-developed methods of deriving words from roots, and it's not just a matter of "fill in some random vowels"? This is the kind of information that I would want to see in an etymology, and it's currently lacking. —Rua (mew) 12:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposal. The "lateness" with which our entries get around to providing definitions is a recurring complaint from new and experienced users alike, on WT:FEED, entry talk pages, and even in other sections of this very subpage. I sympathise with the sentiment that this should be done all at once, though also with the original suggestion of allowing either format, like with alternative forms: most entries have only one POS and etymology, but for the few that have several etymologies, maybe the current setup is better. (Still, even switching all entries to nested/L4 etymologies would be better than the current setup, I think, if it were a choice between those two options.) Other online dictionaries I can think of also put etymologies after pronunciations and definitions. - -sche(discuss)17:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was ambivalent at first, but having thought some more, I also support the proposal. For words with multiple etymology headers, currently the POS is L4, while all its subheadings are L5 — but L4 is visually indistinguishable from L5, rendering the hierarchy confusing and unclear. While I think the loss of closer grouping for multiple headwords with similar etymologies is regrettable, it’s not that great a loss: those headwords will still directly follow each other, and their individual etymology sections will still indicate their close relation. While most print dictionaries have etymologies before definitions, most online dictionaries seem to have it the other way, so either choice seems find as far as precedent (and thus new users’ expectations) goes. I am, however, opposed to hiding etymologies in small links like usage examples, as they’re one of Wiktionary’s greatest strengths — from what I’ve read elsewhere, many users come to Wiktionary specifically to find etymological information — and also as etymologies don’t generally correspond to specific senses but to the whole headword. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 19:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can’t the distinguishability of L4 and L5 be tweaked in some CSS?
The rest I rather harmonize with, particularly the emphasis about similar etymologies: But what’s with leave’s different etymologies for noun and verb if the headwords are even more riven by translation sections? @Rua, you have not mentioned this. Fay Freak (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That has been suggested before, and I would support it in principle. It would make the wikicode very hard to navigate though. —Rua (mew) 20:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that ideally (in my head, and in all historical dictionaries), the definitions flow on from the etymology and so should come after it. But I do agree that it's normal to see at least some indication of the lemma and part of speech before any of that. In an ideal world, the inflection line would itself be the L3, with etymology and definitions coming below, but I realise this is probably unfeasible at this point. Ƿidsiþ08:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I have TLDR'd this, but just in case my point is relevant, I would like to say that I am strongly opposed to having top-level etymology heading splits for words (esp. parts of speech) that are closely etymologically related. I think this is immensely confusing for users, and that these splits should be reserved for words that are etymologically unrelated. If this is not on-topic, apologies, and please ignore. Mihia (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But for what reasoning? As I mentioned to Benwing below, what if these words weren't spelled the same, and therefore were placed on different pages? Would it be equally confusing? —Rua (mew) 13:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rua I am a bit late to this discussion, but IMO it's extremely important to be able to group etymologically related terms with different POS's under a given etymology. Print dictionaries do this, too; see for example https://books.google.com/books/about/Webster_s_New_World_Dictionary.html?id=wSISgTZ7xrQC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false on page 223 (for the word "fine") or pages 261-262 (for the word "ground"). For example, there are two entries for "fine", labeled "fine1" (= good, well) and "fine2" (= penalty); "fine1" has two POS's under it (adj. and adv.) and "fine2" also has two POS's under it (n. and vt.). I also distinctly remember there being four etymological entries for "flag", each with its own etymology and multiple POS's at least under "flag1". In Russian entries we also rely on this, even though it's less common to have multiple related POS's under the same lemma; see хвата́ть(xvatátʹ) for an example. Benwing2 (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But under what conditions do both parts of speech have the same etymology? If they both existed in Middle English, then one of them derives from each Middle English part of speech, so the etymologies are different. If they were both formed in modern English, then did they both pop into existence at the same time, or was one of them first, and the second derived from the first? Once you start looking at such details you realise that two different parts of speech never have the exact, word-for-word same etymology. And given that assumption, it means that every etymology section will only have one part of speech, in which case my proposal makes more sense anyway. —Rua (mew) 12:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, consider the case where all those different parts of speech on fine all had different lemma forms, too. What would their etymologies be then? I am a strong supporter of the principle that entries should be independent of the chosen lemma form and independent of the existence of other entries that happen to be spelled the same. So I would write the etymologies for each part of speech of fine the same way I would if they were all on different pages instead. I don't think we should be omitting etymological information just because certain words are homographs. Each lemma should stand on its own. —Rua (mew) 13:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To give a case in point for my argument that homography of lemma forms should not affect etymologies: In Dutch there is the noun adem(“breath”) and the verb ademen(“to breathe”). Both of these have a form in common, namely the singular of the noun is homographic with the first-person singular present indicative and the imperative of the verb. This means that, given a different course of history, the lemma form of both could have been adem and it is just a historical accident that the lemma forms are different. Yet, as you can see, these two lemmas have different etymologies. If the lemma forms were the same, would you keep the two etymologies split, like they are now, or would you merge them like some people do now for English, thereby omitting information that is currently present in Wiktionary, just because the lemmas are homographs? This is why I'm strongly opposed to merging etymologies of related words. The etymologies aren't the same, you're just pretending they are by omitting the information that makes them different. —Rua (mew) 13:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am not technically knowledgeable about etymologies, I can see that different POS of the "same word" might (and probably do) need different, or at least slightly diverging, etymology explanations, and I absolutely agree that these should be included (given that etymologies are potentially long and technical, and the detail may not be of interest to all users, whether they need to be so prominent at the top of articles is a different question). However, I think this can be readily achieved within one top-level section. For words that are "sufficiently closely related" I advocate this kind of approach:
Etymology
Noun from ... blah blah ... ; Verb from ... blah blah ...
Classical K'iche'(Quiché) Mayan vs Modern K'iche' Mayan
There are two languages that are currently sharing the tag K'iche', the modern variety spelled "K'iche'", and the Classical variety, "Quiché". The Classical Variety is written in documents from the 1600's, and differs from the modern variety; for example: the Classical Quiche word for food is tioh, and its modern descendant is ti'ij. I have created the category "Classical K'iche'" to sort the Classical words from the Modern. We should change the tag "quc" tag or change the word headings to Classical K'iche' to avoid confusion. Aearthrise (𓂀) 14:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Etymology of phrasal verbs
Would it be possible to trace some notion similar to etymology for phrasal verbs? Otherwise, what relevant lexicographic information could be added? --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few etymologies for phrasal verbs (I can't seem to actually find an example at the moment though...) where it was possible that the verb + adverb was derived from an inflected or imperative form of an earlier separable-prefix type verb (similar in Dutch and German) in Middle English, like come up from upcomen. We still have upcome however which is fading away in favour of its replacement, and it's possible that the adjective upcoming may be a relic of the earlier verb's present participle. I'll keep looking for an example I've actually worked. Additionally, there may also be the kind mentioned by Backinstadiums where the verb has been supplemented (translated?) from an earlier synonymous verb with a different structure. Those are more difficult to prove a connection to IMO, but is possible that a move from for- + verb to verb + up (compare also for be- + verb to verb + about) was made across multiple verbs at one time. I haven't really read anything (yet) stating that was the case. Leasnam (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in that article that says that phrasal verbs are direct descendants in an etymological sense of anything in Old English. They're a different construction that replaced the prefixed-verb construction and filled in the same "slots", just as the gerund replaced many uses of the infinitive. Referring to one as the "ancestor" of the other seems to be strictly a metaphor, and not something to be cited in an etymology. I would say that the replacement of Old Englishforbrecan with Englishbreak up is just applying a different, but equivalent construction to the same verb- Englishup and Old Englishfor- aren't related in any etymological sense, and one isn't a descendant of the other. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuck Entz, I would agree with you...there is no etymological connection between forbrecan and break up. Break up simply replaces OE forbrecan/ME forbreken/ModE forbreak with a newly constructed word: break upLeasnam (talk) 08:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Backinstadiums I suppose then the answer is simply: not much. You could list the Middle English or Old English word for comparison, but that does little except show that those languages had a synonymous term for whatever the new English term is. In cases where the change-over is regular, like a note showing break up replacing earlier forbreak might be interesting (and we do this often when a French word displaces a native word)...but it also can add unnecessary clutter. Leasnam (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, Proto-Germanic had no phrasal verbs. All it had were verbs prefixed by various (unstressed!) adverbs, and verb+adverb phrases like they still exist in English. This is the situation that's found in Gothic. The prefixed verbs have become relics in modern English, and the verb+adverb combinations have taken over. The separable verbs of Dutch and German arose from those same verb+adverb combinations, but the quirks of OV+V2 word order in those languages mean that the verb is sometimes after the adverb (OV) and sometimes before (V2). English has VO word order, so there is no need for separable verbs; the same situation is found in other Germanic languages with VO order, such as Swedish. —Rua (mew) 22:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Change coming to how certain templates will appear on the mobile web
Change coming to how certain templates will appear on the mobile web
Please help translate to your language
Example of improvements
Hello,
In a few weeks the Readers web team will be changing how some templates look on the mobile web site. We will make these templates more noticeable when viewing the article. We ask for your help in updating any templates that don't look correct.
What kind of templates? Specifically templates that notify readers and contributors about issues with the content of an article – the text and information in the article. Examples like Template:Unreferenced or Template:More citations needed. Right now these notifications are hidden behind a link under the title of an article. We will format templates like these (mostly those that use Template:Ambox or message box templates in general) to show a short summary under the page title. You can tap on the "Learn more" link to get more information.
Please take a look at policy and imagine this is your first time here.
Our article layout makes (especially but not only longer pages in) our dictionary very user unfriendly or even unusable for most people because we don't have the policy of listing the rare and obsolete meanings last, as most or all other good modern dictionaries now do.
In addition, we need a better UI that puts meanings with different etymologies close to each other. Most people never find the only other common meaning of the noun "policy" because it's physically so far away, and confusingly after the verb with the first etymology.
Etymologies are wonderful and one of the strengths of this dictionary, but they should be folded away (like the quotations are now) instead of confusing users and preventing them from finding what they're looking for (or, in fact, ever coming back). --Espoo (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that etymologies should be hidden by default, but I do think that we should organized definitions by how common they are, and/or by their relation to each other, and include information about historical development in the etymology. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree that an obsolete sense should never be the first sense listed, unless there are only obsolete senses. —Rua (mew) 13:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think earliest senses should be first, including when they're obsolete, as in any historical dictionary (which Wiktionary is, like it or not). Ƿidsiþ14:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Currently entries have a chronological logic, hence first the origin, then the (known or presumed) first or original senses. That’s useful for historical reading. Often one can also group meanings in abstract formulation (so field) to make pages more readable. Frequency is also a criterion however, and it does not exclude counting historical usage. One just has to look if one thinks the result looks best. On policy one may perhaps try grouping. Fay Freak (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to a historical ordering of definitions, personally, but if we're going to do it, we should do it consistently, and recognize that mainstream users are not our target audience. I doubt Wiktionary will ever be a truly valuable resource for the average person, unless other dictionaries go out of business or something. We're much better off tailoring ourselves towards people with an interest in language. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I agree. Serious dictionaries are not really ideal for casual users looking up common meanings of slightly uncommon words. On the other hand, there are ways that could be tried. For instance, we could order things historically but slightly "grey out" the obsolete senses, and/or perhaps "highlight" or "star" in some way the most common ones. Ƿidsiþ08:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Currently entries have a chronological logic" They certainly do not- that is promulgated by certain users but by no means universal in practice or required. DTLHS (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aye that’s what I said. They just have it. Not exclusively. Also frequential and topical or abstract grouping is done and of course no or arbitrary grouping in many entries. This dictionary is driven by fancy. Fay Freak (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apropos of one or two of the comments above, I would be disappointed if Wiktionary did not aspire to be accessible to mainstream users, or at least "upper mainstream" users. I would consider myself a upper-ish mainstream dictionary user, certainly not a linguist or language expert, and I find myself increasingly using Wiktionary as a go-to dictionary for practical purposes. Partly this is because of the absence of ads and extraneous crap, and partly because of its breadth of coverage and the pretty good quality of a large part (not all) of its content. Personally I disagree with the chronological order approach, and the consequent risk of obsolete senses appearing first, though I understand the reasons why some people advocate this approach. In an ideal world, in my opinion, definitions should by default appear with common modern senses first and/or in "logical" order, but each definition would have a "first recorded use" date attached, and there would be a function for users to sort by that if they desired. Obviously it would be a huge task to implement that across the project. Mihia (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested that before, but I think it's a distant dream at this point... Maybe in 20 years, when people have nothing better to do here than adding {{defdate}} to entries. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It just doesn't work for entries with dozens or hundreds of senses, and besides, having "common modern" senses first is not the same as a "logical" order. The most common use of "mouse" for most people now is a piece of computer technology, but it would surely seem bizarre to list it first. Historical ordering is the only system that has any data-based logic to it, and it also helps explain the sense-development of a word, which should be one of the main jobs of a dictionary – see something like bead for a simple example. But I agree it would be nice if, for instance, obsolete senses could be "greyed-out" or something, or maybe if very common senses could be highlighted somehow. Ƿidsiþ08:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "it just doesn't work", "it" refers to putting "common modern senses first and/or in "logical" order", right? (I initially replied thinking that it referred to the idea of having a user sort function.) Mihia (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why "common modern senses first and/or logical order" does not work for long entries. Of course, unlike chronological order, it does not provide a unique ordering. It is to some extent a matter of opinion how senses are grouped and ordered. However, I don't think, in my somewhat limited experience here, that I can recall any serious dispute between people about this issue (I mean, assuming that "common modern senses first and/or logical order" is to be followed, a dispute about how entries should be ordered under that scheme). I think in the majority of cases there will be broad acceptance across a moderately flexible spectrum of orderings. By the way, I did not intend to suggest that "common modern senses first" and "logical order" were always the same thing. In fact, "and/or" was supposed to indicate exactly the opposite. For example, if a long entry is split into subgroupings A, B, C, etc., and A contains common senses, but a less common one should also "logically" go in that grouping, rather than further down the list, then fine, that can be accommodated. Mihia (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what's the commonest meaning of set? Or put? How do you quantify it? As for logical groupings using subsenses, I see what you mean and yes, that is also done with historical ordering too – each main logical "group" is organised chronologically but related senses are then kept together. See for instance mark, Etymology 1. Ƿidsiþ09:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Finding the single commonest meaning of a highly polysemous word may be difficult, but there is no difficulty in putting all archaic/obsolete senses after all those that are not. Equinox◑11:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally think that "common modern meanings first and/or logical order" requires us to exactly quantify "commonest". My feeling, as I say, is that there is a fair degree of flexibility. I think that, under this scheme, most people would be happy most of the time with anything that seems "sensible". Mihia (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I originally supported ordering senses by date, and I appreciate that this helps show how senses developed, but I now agree that putting obsolete senses first is unhelpful to people who turn to the dictionary for the unlikely</sarcasam> purpose of learning what the word means (present tense). (It also precisely doesn't show how senses developed, whenever a 'bridging' sense obviously must have existed between two senses but doesn't have surviving attestations until later.) On polysemous entries I've overhauled like take or know or absolute, I've used a "logical order", and this is indeed (as Mihia says) easier to do a de-facto-acceptable job of than some people think: I haven't tried to ascertain which common sense is exactly most common, just started with a common basic sense and ordered other common senses after it "logically" based on (synchronic) semantic similarity/development, which people have found acceptable and indeed liked enough that they've asked me to overhaul other entries. Greying-out obsolete senses is an interesting idea, and I'd like to see it mocked up; perhaps it wold help, though it might be tricky to make the greying-out sufficiently noticeable without making it so light as to make the text hard to read; or, if grey background/highlighting were used, it might perversely highlight those senses (but maybe that wouldn't actually be a problem / confuse anyone). Also, as someone (Ruakh?) pointed out about an earlier idea in that vein, editors' decision of whether to mark something as obsolete vs archaic vs dated might then be influenced by whether or not they thought it was important enough to deserve 'full' display (although that seems entirely manageable / relatively easy to fight/fix). - -sche(discuss)17:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this seems like the right approach to me. Don't worry about precisely which sense is most common, but in principle do put the "common sense" current uses early in the list. Other senses can be ordered "logically", whether that be by synchronic similarity or diachronic evolution. This will, of course, always be imperfect and controversial, as people don't all share one idea of "common sense" or "logic" in this sense, but the difficulties seem workable. Also, I would support making etymologies collapsible. I don't have a strong preference for whether they should be collapsed by default – whether showing them should be opt-in or opt-out – but whichever version is the default, the other should be readily opt-able. Cnilep (talk)
According to the present policy, Pinyin romanisations of monosyllables and polysyllables for Standard Mandarin (aka Putonghua), such as "yī" and "bùguò" are allowed. However, for Standard Cantonese, only Jyutping romanisations of monosyllables of monosyllables are allowed (e.g. jyut6, ping3), while those of polysyllables are disallowed. Why is there such unequal treatments for the two languages? I believe that Jyutping romanisations of polysyllables should be allowed and massly created, as Pinyin romanisations of polysyllables are allowed and exist in a large quantity. Jonashtand (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to WT:EL, the "Further reading" heading should be level 3, placed below all the lemmas. But there is always further reading about something. I doubt you'll find many cases where you find further reading material about all words spelled X, but instead you would find material about a particular lemma. To me, it therefore makes more sense to treat this as a level 4 header, and nest it underneath the lemma to which it applies. This is also useful in the interest of machine readability, because a bot can't tell which information belongs to which lemma if it's all put together under the same section. —Rua (mew) 11:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this makes more sense. In those cases where there are several lemmas for a given language and the further reading happens to apply to all, it should remain at the L3 level, though. --Lambiam07:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably we should, in general, attach extra info to the deepest common node of all lemmas to which it applies, so as to avoid duplication while remaining otherwise as specific as possible. But there may always be exceptions to the general rule, based on considerations of common sense. --Lambiam06:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the same should apply to References, Derived terms, Related terms, See also. Perhaps we should follow the example of Synonyms and place the items under appropriate senses and/or subsenses. DCDuring (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the “Further reading” section is on L3 it apparently applies to the whole language section – the machine-readability part is a strawman. And indeed in many cases one finds reading material about words spelled X, like general Arabic dictionaries include words spelled a certain way. And in general my impression is that the links and references are detached from the lemmata and I have an aesthetical aversion to “further reading” placed on L4; it clutters. When I prefer a layout it is to make it palatable to the eyes and not because it is most logical. Like with map projection you must bid farewell to the notion that you could project the reality of language in a truest way into the two-dimensional space of a reference work. Fay Freak (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stumbled across the layouts of zenith and nadir just now (see synonyms and antonyms specifically). This is not the WT:ELE standard layout, but I do like it. Has this been discussed before? Especially if the synonyms and antonyms become collapsible this would be my strong preference. @Jberkel as the editor in question. - TheDaveRoss15:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing that. While I appreciate being able to have a better personal experience, I also think that it this would be a better experience for the 24 million other people who will view the site this month. I appreciate the thought Rua has been putting into the user experience tweaks, it would be great if we could collectively put some additional thought and effort into that front. - TheDaveRoss13:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The use of k in normalisation of old continental West Germanic languages
The general practice among dictionaries of these old languages is to use k and never c, when spelling normalisation is applied. Our own entries mostly follow that practice. But when you look at how these languages are actually written, you find that c is the norm, and k is only used before e or i. This is the standard that's used for Middle Dutch normalisation on Wiktionary, but not for Old Dutch, which is a bit strange. For example, look at the various attested spellings of drinkan, fisk, folk, kraft, kuning and sprekan. There are some forms with k, but c is definitely in the majority. In the case of kwethan, there's not a single attestation with a k. So I think it would make more sense to use the forms with c as the lemmas on Wiktionary, at least for Old Dutch. What is the situation for Old Saxon and Old High German? —Rua (mew) 20:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would say whatever form is most commonly attested for each individual word should be the form used for the wikt entry. I'm not a fan of fabricating standardized forms that never actually existed. --Victar (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But what if the fabricated form itself is standard in the field? Grammars of these languages, Old Norse in particular, use only normalised spellings. We'd be doing a disservice to people studying these languages if we included them in an orthography that's incomprehensible to them. —Rua (mew) 12:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree... and therefore also think that, iff we did move words to c, we would probably need to leave soft redirects from the "normal normalization" (if it is indeed widespread in literature, and thus the form someone would see and look up), as Widsith suggests. - -sche(discuss)17:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The study of these languages isn't as widespread as, say, Old Norse or Old English. It's probably mostly confined to people in the Netherlands and Germany who want to learn about the history of their language. This means that the norms are less firmly established overall. Philippa's Dutch etymological dictionary gives this: "Onl. kuning ‘heerser, vorst’ in cuninga tharsis in alende geuon bringon sulun ‘de koningen van Tarsis en de eilanden zullen geschenken brengen’", with the lemma cited with k, but then c in the actual citation. Personally, I find normalisation invaluable, because it helps people studying the grammar and vocabulary by getting rid of variations that don't actually matter. At the same time, the use of normalisation into spellings that aren't used in texts is strange, because then you have to include all actually attested forms as alternative spellings. I suppose if these spellings with k are standard in reference works, then we have to stick with them, even if I wish they'd chosen a different normalisation scheme. For Old Dutch, it gives the impression that Old Dutch writers followed different spelling norms regarding the use of c, k and q than Middle Dutch writers, when that isn't actually the case. —Rua (mew) 11:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Generally it's better to have the best-attested form as the lemma, but there may be conventions with some languages which make this undesirable, especially if a language is not well attested overall. If all reference works cite "kwethan" then there is a logic to lemmatising it here. But in the end it doesn't really matter, as long as C-forms and K-forms are both here and one of them acts as a soft redirect to the other. Ƿidsiþ07:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to recommend changing the inline formatting of {{usex}} from:
वृषणं धीभिर अप्तुरं सोमम ऋतस्य धारया । मती विप्राः सम अस्वरन ॥ ― vṛ́ṣaṇaṃ dhībhír aptúraṃ sómam ṛtásya dhā́rayā । matī́ víprāḥ sám asvaran ॥ ― To the water-crossing bull, Soma, in a stream of truth have the inspired poets cried out in unison with their insights, their thought.
यस्त्वेतान्युपक्ल्प्तानि द्रव्याणि स्तेनयेन्नरः ― yastvetānyupaklptāni dravyāṇi stenayennaraḥ ― (please add an English translation of this quotation)
to:
वृषणं धीभिर अप्तुरं सोमम ऋतस्य धारया । मती विप्राः सम अस्वरन ॥(vṛ́ṣaṇaṃ dhībhír aptúraṃ sómam ṛtásya dhā́rayā । matī́ víprāḥ sám asvaran ॥, “To the water-crossing bull, Soma, in a stream of truth have the inspired poets cried out in unison with their insights, their thought.”)
I object. A usex is not a list so it's not clear to me why we should use the same formatting. In a list, the translation and transliteration are truly parenthetical. In a usage example they are much more important. DTLHS (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DTLHS:, I'm sorry, what do you mean by "not a list" and why's it relative? I'm not sure also why a transliteration and translation wouldn't be parenthetical to the given sentence. --Victar (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. No reason to misuse mdashes and this is actually a more logical way to do things. But please do not misuse HTML5's <small> tag: it is for fine print. There's no need for small text at all, as this isn't a print encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯05:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing another 2p in the pot, I very much prefer the italics for romanizations, as that immediately and obviously sets the romanization apart from the translation. It's much easier to visually parse.
Thanks for your input, @Eirikr. To counter your two points:
If you recall, we recently had a whole debate and subsequent vote about the italicization of transcriptions in {{l}}, and the consensus in the end was that a) italicized transcriptions are more difficult to read, particularly with special ligatures, and b) it causes a loss of data in language transcription systems that use italicization as a means of distinction, such as seen in Hittite.
Em dash as a separator can be very problematic in texts that actually use dashes. For instance, in Rigvedic transcription, dashes are used very heavily to break up sentences. Parenthesis are also good at making it clear that everything within the parentheses is related to the previous sentence. --Victar (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I ultimately came to disagree then with a blanket approach to changing italicization, and I disagree more now after dealing with some messy fallout from related changes. There were blanket assertions that "italicized transcriptions are more difficult to read", but those were largely subjective statements limited to specific people and specific contexts -- I have encountered no such difficulty myself in working with Japanese, and I've found instead that non-italicized transcriptions can be visually confusing. Granted, I am fully aware that this is specific to my work with Japanese. One idea floated on the vote's talk page was having language-specific settings. I suspect that might still be the better route. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig19:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Definite oppose. I think the way it looks know is pretty much perfect. It's easy to parse, thanks to transliterations being set apart from the example sentence, and the translations being set apart from the translaterations. And because the latter are italicized. Parentheses and quotation marks don't do that, and end up squishing everything together. Not to mention that in longer examples like the ones you give, its better if they're on different lines, in which case it makes little sense to add quotation marks and parentheses. Not to mention that people have not used the template in many entries, and the format they usually use is fairly consistent with the current format of the template, so changing what {{usex}} displays would create a lot of inconsistency. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Sheedy see my remarks regarding italicization and the use of dashes above. I want to make it doubly clear, I'm only talking about inline formatting when |inline=1 is used. When not used, the formatting would be the same as it is currently, on multiple lines. --Victar (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay the current formatting looks goofy when one actually uses the quotation dash U+2015 the way it is devised for. So as I just have written:
Indefinite: Haben wir noch Zwiebeln? ― Es gibt noch welche im Keller. ― Do we have any onions yet? ― There are some in the cellar.
Haben wir noch Spinat? ― Es gibt noch welchen im Gefrierfach. ― Do we have spinach yet? ― There is some in the freezer.
Haben wir Streichhölzer? ― Ich hab eins / eines hier gesehen. ― Do we have matches? ― Ich have seen one over here.
We should use an obelism, which would be in Unicode apparently ÷ U+00F7 DIVISION SIGN, or perhaps ⁜ U+205C DOTTED CROSS. I want the one the left of that image. Such is found as a mark of conclusion in medieval and early modern notarial deeds. (Usex are not comparable to {{l}} links anyway.) Fay Freak (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to this, although I would rather a regular slash or backslash be used (with about the same amount of space on either side as there is now with the em dashes). I see no reason why spaces should surround slashes in example sentences (as you did in your third example). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The style I usually use is no spaces when the alternative is between two words, and spaces when the alternative is between phrases. Personally I am not very keen on using slashes to separate original text, romanisation and translation. Forward slashes tend to visually blend in with italic text, and backslashes would just look a bit odd and unexpected, IMO. Mihia (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I did not suggest ”using slashes to separate original text, romanisation and translation.” That’s only coincidentally in the midst of the third example to point to variant declension. I want something ornate that separates original text, romanisation and translation. Fay Freak (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't, but I did. Other possible alternatives might include ～ (U+FF5E FULLWIDTH TILDE) or ⁓ (U+2053 SWUNG DASH), although maybe that would be confusing, given the role they play in other dictionaries. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Haben wir Streichhölzer? ― Ich hab eins hier gesehen. ➢ Do we have matches? ― Ich have seen one over here.
U+27A2 THREE-D TOP-LIGHTED RIGHTWARDS ARROWHEAD
Haben wir Streichhölzer? ― Ich hab eins hier gesehen. ⧐ Do we have matches? ― Ich have seen one over here.
U+29D0 VERTICAL BAR BESIDE RIGHT TRIANGLE
And to separate transcription and original text there can be a different sign because the connection is closer.
Есть у нас спи́чки? ― Я тут одну́ ви́дел. ⎬ Jestʹ u nas spíčki? ― Ja tut odnú vídel ⧐ Do we have matches? ― Ich have seen one over here.
U+23AC RIGHT CURLY BRACKET MIDDLE PIECE and U+29D0 VERTICAL BAR BESIDE RIGHT TRIANGLE
Есть у нас спи́чки? ― Я тут одну́ ви́дел. ║ Jestʹ u nas spíčki? ― Ja tut odnú vídel ┃ Do we have matches? ― Ich have seen one over here.
U+2551 BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE VERTICAL and U+2503 BOX DRAWINGS HEAVY VERTICAL.
How about using an arrow? Like one of the following: → ⟹ ➞ ➥ (the latter could be used when transliterations/translations are displayed on a separate line, for consistency). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against inventing new symbols and rather think we should stick to close publishing standards. One formatting you might find is Шустрая бурая лиса прыгает через ленивую собаку, Šustraja buraja lisa prygajet čerez lenivuju sobaku, "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog", or perhaps 날쌘 갈색 여우가 게으른 개를 뛰어넘는다 [nalssaen galsaek yeouga geeureun gaereul ttwieoneomneunda] (The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog), both of which I think would be better than the current formatting, though I prefer my original suggestion. --Victar (talk) 06:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In cases where there is a romanisation, I like this to be in italics. It's what I'm used to, I think it sets the romanisation apart clearly, and I do not find it in any way difficult to read. I don't mind the brackets and quotation marks. Mihia (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: the lack of decorations in t:uxi is consistent with t:ux. I don't like the idea of making it visually similar to t:l/m either; the decorations of the latter are suited for short text embedded in a sentence (including t:usex-suffix). (yes, t:l is used in lists: but I have personal gripes about those as well). I think that this is a potential application for personal CSS gadgets that can be toggled in Special:Preferences. —Suzukaze-c◇◇23:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of decorations or not, separating the three parts with quotation dashes is unfortunate if the original text contains a quotation dash (which it does when it is in “question ― answer” format). Fay Freak (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Greek pronunciation and funny ordinals
I found myself at Template:grc-IPA, wondering why periods are identified with Microsoftised ordinals (10th CE and so on). I am not familiar with the language the script is written in, but surely someone should be able to remove the superscripts for normal style? Imaginatorium (talk) 06:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Community Wishlist Survey. Please help translate to your language.
Hey everyone,
The Community Wishlist Survey is the process when the Wikimedia communities decide what the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech should work on over the next year.
The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. The communities have now posted a long list of technical proposals. You can vote on the proposals from now until 30 November. You can read more on the wishlist survey page.
(Sorry if this is not the correct forum. Correction welcome)
Currently Thesaurus:shit is a redirect to Thesaurus:feces. But while "feces" is the most common meaning of shit, the word also refers to various other things, including rubbish, recreational drugs, and objects generally. Also, Thesaurus:feces includes a Ws link to Thesaurus:shit, which winds up being circular. That is, if one clicks the "shit [Ws]" link on Thesaurus:feces, they find themselves at Thesaurus:feces. It seems to me like the title Thesaurus:shit should be either reworked or deleted. Cnilep (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not all uses are considered vulgar. We could distinguish the various senses and link for each to the thesaurus entry for an appropriate synonym. --Lambiam09:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But there aren't usually separate pages for each sense; there is one page for a lemma. See, for example, Thesaurus:spirit. I think the question is, should we delete this title or rework it into a proper page? Cnilep (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It ({{der3}}) was edited last month removing the automatic title "Terms derived from" and replacing it with "Derived terms" which is merely a repeat of the header, diff. I could revert the edit but …. {{der3-u}} wasn't touched. DonnanZ (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it is necessary to distinguish between different parts of speech, for example, "Terms derived from walk (noun)" and "Terms derived from walk (verb)". If so, then for consistency I feel it would be preferable for other templates to display "Terms derived from walk" rather than just "Derived terms" or nothing. Do we need to have a vote on this? — SGconlaw (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To achieve "Terms derived from xyz (noun)", (verb) or even (adjective), it requires adding "title=Terms derived from xyz (noun)" etc. whether the displayed wording of the template is "Derived terms" or "Terms derived from xyz". I can't see any other way of doing it. But on the whole I would prefer restoring "Terms derived from" by reverting these edits. I don't think a vote is necessary. DonnanZ (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, there would be separate sections for derived terms from the noun and verb anyway. When does a given derived terms section ever need to contain more than one collapsible list? —Rua (mew) 13:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer a layout for these collapsible lists that is as follows:
In the collapsed state, a few items are still shown, up to a set maximum number of lines, in order to limit the vertical space used. Any additional items will be hidden. This way, if there aren't many items to begin with, there is no need to expand the template.
In the expanded state, all items are shown.
No visible box around the list, so that it looks the same as a plain list. This reduces visual clutter.
No title bar at the top of the box, just a single floating clickable more/less link. The link could be placed in various locations, such as above the list (like now) or below it.
It has been my position that repeating "Derived terms" looks less silly than "Terms derived from X", and I pointed out we could leave the title empty and or we could say "Term list" to avoid repetition. As for "Terms derived from walk (noun)" and "Terms derived from walk (verb)", that is not necessary since these are under separate section headings. Showing some terms in the collapsed state as proposed by Rua is also an option. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for forum, this does not belong to Grease pit: it is about the user-visible appearance of things, not about technical means of achieving a particular appearance. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I brought the matter here as they are templates, without thinking that it would grow into a lengthy discussion. Fortunately there are ways around the problem created, which I will use. DonnanZ (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like Dan's suggestion to use "Term list" as the header, or maybe even just "List". That way, you don't need different titles for different types of list, and can bring down the number of templates needed ({{der3}} vs {{rel3}} etc). My ultimate preference is still for what I suggested above, though. —Rua (mew) 11:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This matter is getting out of hand, diff. I hate to say this, I think these templates need to be protected by admin-only editing. And maybe the discussion should be moved to the Beer Parlour. DonnanZ (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with Rua's "List" as well. I am fine with showing a condensed list unless uncollapsed, as proposed by Rua. As for the out of hand thing, this is handled by the status quo ante principle, which I am applying as usual. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Despite DonnanZ's view, I think a vote is going to be required to eventually resolve this issue. By all means please continue the discussion above the line, but I've created a voting section below. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize my reasons, as mentioned above, if some templates are going to be titled "Terms derived from XYZ (noun)", for instance, then for consistency I feel the rest of them should be similarly titled "Terms derived from XYZ". — SGconlaw (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But there is hardly ever a need for there to be "Terms derived from XYZ (noun)"; the location of the section heading makes it clear whether they are derived from a noun or a verb. Furthermore, even if such sections were next to each other, they could be just listed as one list since it does not really matter whether a term is derived from a verb from a noun. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2: The default text should be "Derived/Related/etc. terms"
Abstain This is acceptable, but "Term list" or "List" would address the concern that the heading, e.g., "Derived terms" is then immediately repeated in the title of the collapsible section. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is to avoid an empty title. I think an empty title is acceptable; it is also not listed as an option. And if duplicating a section heading is pointless, it is even more pointless to rephrase the section heading and at the same time duplicate the entry name. Such a duplication may fool the eye, but will not fool the perceptive mind. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3: The default text should be "Term list" or "List"
Support, given the three options given. The creator of the poll omitted Rua's proposal of showing a couple of items even when uncollapsed, which is also a good option that I's support. Let's explore options. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SGconlaw: Can you clarify? Are you saying that when there is a heading "Derived terms" and, underneath, there is a collapsible section entitled "Term list" or "List", the user would not know what to expect there? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I feel that "term list" is an odd collocation, the meaning of which is not immediately evident. As for "list", it seems too terse and so a little unclear. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SGconlaw: Why does "List" need clarifying, given there is "Derived terms" immediately above it? What makes you say "term list" is an odd collocation, in view of google books:"term list", which finds "A bridge of words: a term list based on the study and classificatio ..." as the first item found and contains plentiful other items found? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Equinox: May I ask about your preference, if any? Should the collapsible box be empty? Should it show →? Should there be no collapsible box per default? Or should it show a truncated list, as proposed by Rua? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that we wouldn't need a default. It just occurred to me that it would be nice if there were a list of common valid content that automagically appeared when {{der}} was first added or on demand by, say, clicking on a "+". Show/hide bars are useful for concealing all kinds of space-consuming content (other than definitions), such as multiline cognates sections and multiple conjectural etymologies, semantic relations etc. Thus "cognates" and "conjectural etymologies" might be included among the choices as well as "<nowiki>terms derived from Beer parlour/2018/November ([pulldown for PoS])", "terms related to Beer parlour/2018/November ([pulldown for PoS])". We could add other possibilities such "hypernyms of", "hyponyms of", etc. At least there would be some significant labor-saving, arthritis-relieving benefit associated with nudging contributors away from free-form and absent content. DCDuring (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Noé 15:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - I think we should get away from having templates do this sort of thing. Any result which is unlikely to change often should be static text, which is better for the servers and better for anyone who might wish to use the underlying data in any context other than this wiki. If we could make the template subst in the transliteration automatically I would support that. - TheDaveRoss 14:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Support. DTLHS (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Abstain This is acceptable, but "Term list" or "List" would address the concern that the heading, e.g., "Derived terms" is then immediately repeated in the title of the collapsible section. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)