Wiktionary:Grease pit/2019/July

discussion rooms: Tea room • Etym. scr. • Info desk • Beer parlour • Grease pit ← June 2019 · July 2019 · August 2019 → · (current)

---

In other languages malfunctions?

隨便 shows only five other languages (Français, 한국어, Magyar, Malagasy, 日本語) to me. Chinese is notably missing. Over there, zh:隨便 shows two extra, ᏣᎳᎩ and Українська. Is this limited by some settings, or is the sidebar malfunctioning?--Roy17 (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17: 隨便 is the traditional form. 随便 is its simplified form (it looks somewhat similar but the first character is different), which has all the interwiki links you're missing. The traditional form of 隨便／随便 (suíbiàn) (the first part) is not linked directly to the the Chinese Wiktionary but it has a redirect. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 14:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Atitarev: Thanks a lot! Now I realise it's not a redirect by the command # redirect ... though. It's some special automatic simp-trad conversion they have in place. Even though the trad form is not created yet, it would show the simp form. When I was not redirected the usual way I failed to notice I was looking at the simp form. Case closed.--Roy17 (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

And your filters prevent me from explaining.--Roy17 (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. Not sure what filters you mean. It's some kind of web redirect in the Chinese Wiktionary, not a page redirect. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 14:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

snaughle

I created the neologism snaughle, and it's categorising under 'English 1-syllable words'. Not sure why. Leasnam (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I added schwas in and the problem disappeared. So it looks like vocalic nuclei are the determiners for syllable categorization. I didn't try just adding a syllable boundary to see if that would work as well, or a syllabic diacritic to the /l/'s, but you could try that as well, if you prefer. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Leasnam, Andrew Sheedy: Module:syllables counts the syllables. The reason it wasn't counting the l as a second syllable was that it didn't have a diacritic indicating that it was syllabic. The module doesn't look at syllable dividers so that has no effect. — Eru·tuon 19:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew Sheedy and Erutuon ! Leasnam (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Erutuon, Leasnam: if you wish to indicate that the schwa is optional, you could indicate /ˈsnɑːf(ə)l/, which would also cause the module to count the word has having two syllables. Aslo, as far as I am aware, if a full stop is used as a syllable marker, this is noted by the module. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: What I meant by "syllable dividers" above was full stops or periods. Module:syllables doesn't pay attention to them when counting the number of syllables. — Eru·tuon 21:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Erutuon: that's odd. As far as I'm aware, /iə/ is treated as one syllable, while /i.ə/ is treated as two, suggesting that the full stop is effective as a syllable marker. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that's right. That's because /iə/ is treated as a diphthong (a New Zealand diphthong). But any character will serve to break it up; the syllable break isn't special here, but just happens to be the correct character to use. — Eru·tuon 14:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

My wording probably suggested that the module removes syllable breaks when calculating the number of syllables; it does not. But they are treated like any other character. — Eru·tuon 14:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see! — SGconlaw (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't l̥ (l dotted below) also create an additional syllable ? e.g. /ˈsnɑːfl̥/ ? Leasnam (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The ring is the syllabicity diacritic in Proto-Indo-European, but in the IPA, the correct character is a vertical line below: /ˈsnɑːfl̩/. — Eru·tuon 14:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Language links to entries on other Wiktionaries

When I look up Afrikaans aalwyn, I see a link to https://af.wiktionary.org/wiki/aalwyn under “In other languages”. But when I look up Afrikaans aandag, I only see a message “Wiktionary does not yet have an entry for aandag.” There are no language links, even though the entry https://af.wiktionary.org/wiki/aandag exists. Would it be possible to also make links to existing pages on other-language wiktionaries visible for pages that are missing hedre?  --Lambiam 11:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This has to do with the Cognate extension. I don't know exactly how the extension works in relation to uncreated pages, but as soon as I preview an uncreated page, the interwiki links show up. Maybe the developers could add the feature of showing interwikis on uncreated pages if someone requested it on Phabricator. — Eru·tuon 16:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. For now using preview is good enough for me.  --Lambiam 20:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

url link for {{cite-web}}

The url parameter of {{cite-web}} is used to attach an external link to the rendering of the work parameter, also when a title is present. But in most cases, the link goes to one of many pages is the work identified, one that has that title, so in such cases it would be better to attach the link to the title.

Example:

• code:

  {{cite-web|title=Aardvark|url=https://eol.org/pages/327830|work=Encyclopedia of Life|year=no year}}

• rendering:

  “Aardvark”, in Encyclopedia of Life‎^[1], no year

I have not looked at the situation for other templates with a url parameter.  --Lambiam 20:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lambiam: if, in a particular case, you feel that the URL is better linked to the title, use |titleurl= instead of |url=. This is explained in the documentation. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Unicode Private Use Area Characters for "Jurchen Script"

An IP has been adding "Jurchen script" to a number of Jurchen entries that seems to be in one of the Unicode Private Use Areas. Is there any reason not to revert the lot? How do we know what characters site visitors will see, since AFAIK the glyphs displayed are entirely dependent on which version of which font is installed on a given system? Or is there some way to force use of a font that has the correct glyphs in the correct range? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

As I told in Category talk:Jurchen script, and PUA's appearance is different among users, so it should not be included at the moment. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

template:m should have a non-gloss parameter

Can someone who knows modules please edit template:m so that it has a parameter for a non-gloss definition? For example, {{m|he|א־ג־ר|tr=ʾ-g-r||forming words relating to [[hoard]]ing and [[store|storing]]}} should display not “forming words relating to hoarding and storing” as it does now but forming words relating to hoarding and storing or even the same unitalicized.​—msh210℠ (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Even though it's not optimal, you can use the |pos= parameter for that. I remember briefly discussing this with @Erutuon and @Sgconlaw on the talk page of a recent Word of the Day, but I can't remember which. Canonicalization (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have been using |pos=''non-gloss definition'' where required. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I use it without italics: |pos=non-gloss definition. — Eru·tuon 16:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been adding italics to match the formatting of {{non-gloss definition}}. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

But that template doesn't include '' in its output: {{n-g|foo}} → <span class="use-with-mention">foo</span>. —Rua (mew) 21:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m not following. Clarify? — SGconlaw (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect ablaut at *ḱl̥néwti

On the page, the ablaut is given by the inflection table as *ḱl̥néwti ~ *ḱln̥wénti. But this is incorrect; the nasal infix is never syllabic, and it's the l that should be vocalised instead. The parameters are correctly given in the wikicode, so something is messing it up on the way out. —Rua (mew) 21:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Technical Assistance Request: Mandarin Chinese Romanization

Thank you for your time. About week or two ago, I think we got very very close to including the Tongyong Pinyin Mandarin Chinese romanization system in the list of Mandarin Chinese romanizations that appear in Template:zh-pron. Here is the progress we made: [2] [3]. When I unsuccessfully tried to incorporate this romanization system into zh-pron [4], it caused a failure of the module: "Lua error in Module:cmn-pron at line 1150: wrong number of arguments to 'insert'". Yes, I do need to learn to code, but I haven't done so- I'm incapable of making any more progress in this area because I don't know how Lua works or why this error appeared. My request for including Tongyong Pinyin has been logged at Wiktionary:About_Chinese/tasks, but because the Tongyong Pinyin romanization system is intensely frowned upon by the Hanyu Pinyin-only fanatics among Mandarin Chinese users, it is difficult to convince others of the necessity of adding this romanization system to Wiktionary and my request will fall on deaf ears until such time as a rationale can be found to delete my request. To me, this is not a question of whether or not Tongyong Pinyin is helpful, harmful, good, bad, important, dangerous, economical, time-wasting etc etc. I'm merely trying to provide the readers of the dictionary with information they may need if they visit somewhere like Kaohsiung or Tamsui, where the Tongyong Pinyin system is seen on street signs and websites. Despite the relentless pestering, nagging and naysaying of the anti-Tongyong Pinyin people, the Tongyong Pinyin system is in current use in the Republic of China (Taiwan) (albeit on a limited scale and not by the central government). Tongyong Pinyin can be found in Mandarin Chinese language teaching materials currently in use. The small amount of usage that Tongyong Pinyin sees in modern Taiwan is way more than the Gwoyeu Romatzyh ever saw (as far as I'm aware), but Wiktionary includes Gwoyeu Romatzyh in zh-pron. That's a good thing. It makes this website more useful and more fun. As far as I am aware, the influential Chinese-langauge editors on Wiktionary may never be interested in helping me add Tongyong Pinyin to Wiktionary, so I may need assistance from someone who does not normally do editing of Chinese language topics. I have made similar requests about multi-syllable Wade-Giles in the past that have never come to fruition because Hanyu Pinyin is considered to the be the de-facto Chinese- who needs to see Wade-Giles anymore? (Answer: people who read books, the type of person that would use Wiktionary.) Of course, everyone knows about Hanyu Pinyin. I use it all the time. I know the official Mainland China rules of Hanyu Pinyin better than most do. But the Hanyu Pinyin-only mindset is too limiting to express the historical relationship between Mandarin Chinese and English. The more minor romanization systems are out there being used. They are used in people's names. A good editor who I admire wrote: "We don't need to contextualize Hanyu Pinyin, because it is the standard that people have come to expect. It is the de-facto "Chinese", and has clear prestige over other forms of Chinese."[5] I can't agree with this view, and neither do the all the people in Taiwan. For instance, the default translation of Mandarin Chinese personal names into English in Taiwan is Wade-Giles (at least at the place I went to translate documents). It is true that Hanyu Pinyin is overwhelmingly important, OF COURSE! Hanyu Pinyin is much more important than Tongyong Pinyin ever was or ever could be. 當然! But that doesn't mean Tongyong Pinyin should be ignored or intentionally maligned. We need to be respectful of the people who are using this system and respectful of the history of Taiwan. Anti-Tongyong Pinyin bias is found throughout Wikipedia too: see my edits to Tongyong Pinyin where I have been trying to "de-propaganda". This request has nothing to do with the fact that Hanyu Pinyin is the official romanization for Mandarin Chinese at the United Nations, the People's Republic of China and the central government of the Republic of China (Taiwan). None of that matters. What matters is that people are using this system in real life, and Wiktionary has the capability to incorporate information about this romanization system just like it does for the Gwoyeu Romatzyh and Wade-Giles romanization systems. Tongyong Pinyin was the official transliteration system of the central government of Taiwan for about six years in the 2000's. I believe I have made a conclusive case that Tongyong Pinyin must be included on this website at some point, and I would appreciate your technical assistance in making this possible. All I'm asking for is inclusiveness, fairness and informativeness. In this wretched age of the wide-scale destruction and intentional suppression of the minor languages and cultures of our world, let Wiktionary reflect the existence of the minority. Tonyong Pinyin is reflected in the names of English langauge Wikipedia articles like List of cities in Taiwan, Cijin District, Kaohsiung and redirects like [6] etc. Get the boot of Hanyu Pinyin-only off our necks. Hanyu Pinyin is definitely a great thing, but Tongyong Pinyin exists too. Thanks for reading my magnum opus. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

"[T]he influential Chinese-langauge editors on Wiktionary may never be interested in helping me add Tongyong Pinyin to Wiktionary": that's a bit unfair because @justinrleung got the tongyong pinyin function working. It's now a simpler matter to add it to {{zh-pron}}. — Eru·tuon 01:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Added Tongyong Pinyin to the hidden part of the {{zh-pron}} table using your previous edit. — Eru·tuon 01:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I deeply believe that there's nothing our world needs more right now than a good dictionary, and that is why I am fighting for it. The fact that the Wiktionary page for Cijin can exist as it does at this time proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that little Wiktionary is primed to become the best dictionary in human history. We are being respectful and mindful of the choices of the people of that area concerning proper romanization of their district's name, more so than the USA government National Geospatial Agency's GEOnet Names Server, more so than Google Maps, and more than the non-English Wikipedias. We must understand that Hanyu Pinyin is of course vitally important, but at the same time we must realize that to ignore Tongyong Pinyin can only be called evil. I apologize for cracking skulls and being generally unruly, but the time has come for humanity to finally have a real dictionary. I, for my part, have had enough with the half-truths and lies that have smothered the promise of humanity in the cradle. You are all great people, and I'm proud to be among you (at least until I get kicked out of here!) and I'm sorry for anything I have said that offends: I'm just speaking the truth as I see it in the moment, and I will change my opinion according to the facts as I understand them. Please understand that I will make mistakes that are based on my biases and foolishness, and I hope you will not hold your punches- we must have a good dictionary in our time. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Erutuon. @Geographyinitiative:, I can understand your passion to have everything represented, but I hope you could learn to be a little more patient. I was a little busy last week and it was my fault for kind of forgetting about it. There were still some edge cases to work out, like how we should deal with hyphens and apostrophes; that's why I haven't put it into the table for display yet. The sources I've looked at have been contradicting with regards to these issues, so if you have any input, that'd be great. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

{edit conflict) I can think of lots of things our world needs more than any dictionary. It seems like you're getting too caught up in the drama of it all. You're also mistaking quantity for quality. Just as no one is going to take the time to read the walls of text you just added, no one wants to wade through tons of trivia to find the basic stuff they're looking for. It's okay to have extra details, but things need to be organized so they don't get in the way of the more important ones. It does no good to be the most extensive and thorough reference in history if no one can use it. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)