Template talk:phrasebook

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


If this is to be kept, it needs to be turned into something useful. I'll add a <lang> parameter now, but that's not enough for this to warrant a template. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion debate[edit]

Green check.svg

The following information passed a request for deletion.

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

This does not seem to have any real advantage to just writing out the category. -- Prince Kassad 05:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Indeed. It either needs something adding to it (but what) or deleting. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep in hopes that someone can make more of it eventually. I really don't see the point of replacing the template with the category in all the entries involved. At least it saves a few keystrokes, unlike {{non-gloss definition}}, which may eventually be useful as marking types of senses at a cost of many keystrokes. DCDuring TALK 15:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per DCDuring.​—msh210 16:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete (or possibly rename). We don't generally have templates whose only function is to add a category (I can't think of any). Therefore the name should be more indicative of it's function (there could be many template actions associated with the Phrasebook). Maybe {{phrasebook-cat}}? But the more letters added, the less useful this shortcut is. So leaning delete. --Bequw¢τ 17:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I think if kept it should be orphaned and sent to RFC, per above. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
This deletion effort seems analogous to a cost accountant saying that we should take down the scaffolding for the new building because we don't need it this week. Do you think this project is almost finished? We are regularly reinforcing the structure, haven't finished the floors or exterior walls, let alone the interior walls, carpeting, elevators, basic utilities, furniture, etc. And we're doing it all on spec, without really knowing who the tenants will be. And, for some reason, we are adding new wings. I'd venture to say that we still should be issuing figurative hard hats to site visitors, including both job-seekers and future tenants.
Among the many things that a template could do that a category alone cannot is present a distinct look to phrasebook pages, offering a visual clue that the entry has special value and content for language learners and is not like our true dictionary entries. We already have distinct presentation for WikiSaurus. We probably should have it for WikiGazetteer entries, too. DCDuring TALK 12:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Well orphaned, so keep. Orphaning it means editors can do test edits without it affecting the main space. Note also it was used in an Icelandic entry, but it doesn't yet have a {{{lang}}} parameter. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned, so kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Random thoughts[edit]

Appendix structure like...

I figure this is the easiest place to talk about how to do this. BP doesn't work, and there's not really a Phrasebook talk area.

Might also be worth making {{phrasebook cat}}, {{phrasebook appendix}} or something similar, for visual description, categorization in the case of the appendix one...etc. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories like Category:English phrasebook and Category:Portuguese phrasebook already use a boilerplate. I agree with your ideas of creating another boilerplate for appendices and replacing the contents of Appendix:English phrasebook with situational subpages as you described. --Daniel. 15:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of {{phrasebook cat}} for the subcategories, like Category:English phrasebook/Emergencies (which is currently the only situational/topical one that I think we have). Working in a way similar to {{topic cat}} and this template itself, you know? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I may easily add support for subcategories to the current boilerplate; I may also rename it to Template:phrasebook cat if it's a better name. But I'm not so sure about copying the system directly from the {{topic cat}}, if that's what you suggested, because such a transfer would require some tricks like converting category prefixes and perhaps adding automatic links to appendices because that would be cool. The current boilerplate doesn't require such tricks because it already has them secretly (?) implemented. --Daniel. 16:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The coding in {{topic cat}} is a bit too deep for me, so I can't really comment on that...heh. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 16:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


Alright, better to plan this out at least a little bit.

I can only think of so many because I'm boring and one-dimensional :) — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 19:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It had occurred to me earlier that we'll have some entries that fit into more than one of these categories, and I've recently created I'm Jewish which fits into both of these. So {{phrasebook}} will need a way to accommodate more than one category/appendix linky. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 02:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That function of categorizing I'm Jewish twice is done. The boilerplate for PB categories is done too. I've added it to the English categories of "Religion", "Spoken languages" and "Sex". I think we should have different categories for "Nationality" and "Ethnicity". "Directions" and "Travel" look like they're doomed to overlap each other forever. Can any category list together both I'm blind and I'm allergic to aspirin, like one for personal details? And, what about family (do you have children; I'm married)? Would I'd like to kiss you be a member of both "Sex" and "Love"? --Daniel. 13:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
At first I thought nationality and ethnicity would probably overlap mostly, but nationality can I guess be applied to more minute regions that wouldn't always be reflected by ethnicity... it's hard to say.
Anyway, for directions I was thinking of like "how do you get to the library" and for travel more specifically actually getting places and dealing with airports, train stations and that kind of thing. So I guess I think of "directions" as getting around locally and "travel" as longer distance stuff.
For I'm blind and I'm allergic to aspirin, the first thing that comes to mind is "Health". We could put I need a doctor on that one, too.
Family is another good one... and I guess I'd like to kiss you could go in both love and sex, especially if the 'where' isn't specified haha :S I'm such a bloody perv[ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I like the possible category "Health"; then I created it and one for "Family" too. Would I'm Caucasian or I'm black merit a place in the phrasebook? Probably I'd like to kiss you should be more specifically defined, since it supposedly means to kiss in the lips; not in the forehead of one's son or the breasts of one's girlfriend. Your differentiation between "Directions" and "Travel" is very confuse, especially since one can get a train to go to the local library; so, perhaps "Transport" is more acceptable for all such terms. Can you think on some category to place together I've been robbed and I lost my wallet? --Daniel. 15:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe "Travel, transport and directions" or some kind of catch-all would work... I live in a town where there's no public train and no city bus or anything, so you either have to walk, drive or take a taxi lol.
I don't know about other places, but in most of the US people say they're white, except in Hawaii where people did say caucasian, and we almost always say black instead of African or African-American or whatever.
At first I didn't really like "Emergencies" but it seems general enough to work.
I'm thinking "Buying illegal drugs" would be a good section LoL... always useful in Amsterdam. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm white and I'm black as members of "Ethnicity" but not of "Nationality", then. I guess transport is already a pretty catch-all term, since even where's the bathroom involves physical displacement, but maybe other English speakers wouldn't come to this conclusion naturally. And there's a train station close from where I live. :P Looks like the "Emergencies" is catch-all enough to place all "I need X" together. Since we have Family, Sex, Health, which are generic terms as opposed to Sexually attractive body parts or Contracted diseases, I think that "Spoken languages" should be renamed to "Communication"; please speak more slowly and please repeat after me simply do not fit the current category. I think a phrasebook for crimes would not be well accepted by the community, but given the crime rate in the world, phrases like maybe take off your clothes and don't scream or else I'll kill you would nonetheless be useful for someone. --Daniel. 15:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that one would be useful to Joran van der Sloot :p I also like the 'Communications'. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

More situations[edit]

...Hmm maybe that's all I can think of. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 17:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Appendix:English phrasebook/Etiquette (thank you! excuse me!)? Appendix:English phrasebook/Greetings (good morning! hello!)? --Daniel. 14:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
"basic conversation" is generic and subjective enough to contain the whole phrasebook. --Daniel. 14:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Good point... I'll strike it out :D — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that would be reasonable. At first I thought of putting just a few age related things in a more general category, but you could reasonably put quite a few things under Age — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 18:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


Since one of the various opinions about the current yellow and huge banner at BP was opposition due to possible banner blindness, should this notice be smaller and draw less attention? How about formatting it as a single line (or two lines), like the Most common English words in the entry not? --Daniel. 07:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if that would provide enough of a visual indication that the phrasebook entries are separate from the normal ones. Proto-Indo-European entries often have a big banner that tells you "these are based on reconstructed forms" and bla bla. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 11:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


I did a bit of work on Appendix:English phrasebook/Spoken languages, which I think is pretty fine and not controversial.

I'm not sure of the best way to do translations on non-English ones, though. Appendix:Romanian phrasebook/Religion. I have it there like our standard for example sentences. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I like how Appendix:Romanian phrasebook/Religion is currently formatted. As an alternative and more used list system, I also like how Appendix:Tolkien's legendarium derivations is formatted. --Daniel. 17:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
They're pretty similar, except for the list style and bolding... — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 17:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion debate 2[edit]

Green check.svg

The following information passed a request for deletion.

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

Honestly, this template is completely useless and visually very annoying. There seems to have already been discussion about it in the past at Template talk:phrasebook. --WikiTiki89 15:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It is one of the relics of the most recent effort to pull together a phrasebook. As if a template would substitute for the lack of consensus on criteria for inclusion, goals, target user, etc.
In addition, it is visually ugly. Delete. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep, to visually distinguish phrasebook entries from regular entries. (Note that much of the previous discussion was about a different template named "phrasebook", that did nothing but add a category.) --Yair rand (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep because it's also used to categorise pages. However, the appearance should be made less intrusive, maybe something more like {{LDL}}? —CodeCat 23:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. The look and feel can be tweaked but I don't think it's ugly or intrusive. Also per Yair rand (distinction) and CodeCat (categorisation). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Also a comment to DCDuring's reply: If a CFI could be set up for phrasebook entries, I would support it (as long as the criteria make sense of course). The primary characteristic of a phrasebook entry is that we sacrifice the idiomaticity requirement, but substitute it with the requirement that the phrase should be basic, common and useful (we would still need to establish who they'd be useful for, but I imagine it includes tourists). —CodeCat 00:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    As the template is now, it misleadingly wikilinks to WT:CFI, leading any user who made the mistake of taking it seriously on a wild-goose chase, as "phrasebook" or "phrase book" are not mentioned on the page. The text in the banner presupposes something that (predictably) hasn't come into existence in the more than two years since the template was created. DCDuring TALK 00:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    Are you sure? What about this bit? —CodeCat 01:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers. Although these are included as entries in the dictionary (in the main namespace), they are not usually considered in these terms. For instance, What's your name? is clearly a summation of its parts.
    Sigh. Sorry. I let FF's search do it but had Match case selected and the lowercase form. DCDuring TALK 14:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    I think it would be better to take this discussion to Wiktionary talk:Phrasebook though. —CodeCat 01:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    If I can mention one more point, there is another thing that is really annoying about this template if we are to use it to distinguish entries that would otherwise not meet CFI. Some entries that are useful for a phrasebook do otherwise meet CFI and it can be misleading to have this template on that page. What if we changed it to explicitly state that this entry only meets CFI because it is part of the phrasebook and only use it on such entries? The other entries could be simply put in the category. --WikiTiki89 07:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    Keep and reform as necessary. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    I believe you are talking about thank you, good morning and whatnot. They are part of the phrasebook even though they definitely meet CFI otherwise, aren't they? That's why they are members of Category:English phrasebook. (but, of these two, only good morning has Template:phrasebook, at the moment) --Daniel 10:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    Well if this template is to be used for only SOP entries, then the template should specify that. --WikiTiki89 10:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    But using the template only for SOP entries would be a bad idea in the first place... Don't you think so? --Daniel 10:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    Why is that? --WikiTiki89 11:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    Because good morning is part of the phrasebook but is not SOP and Template:phrasebook is used in the front-end to let readers know which entries are part of the phrasebook, categorize them and link them to appendices. I'm not saying anything about whether this system is a great idea, but as long as we have it... It'd better be complete and accurate.
    Which is different from having a list of "entries that are SOP but part of the phrasebook", which could be helpful to editors, but definitely not to casual readers. I believe it would, more accurately, be a list of "entries that are currently ignoring the rule that says SOP is forbidden here in order to incubate the controversial phrasebook project". That's the only purpose of such a list that I think of, and if it's correct, then it should be hidden from viewers; as an alternative idea, maybe the talk pages of the affected entries should have a similar template with categorization... --Daniel 12:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
My opinion is that we should have some way of identifying whether or not an entry is a "phrasebook-only entry" (something we would not include if not for the phrasebook). Whether that's a category, a gloss, or whatever, I don't mind. Equinox 12:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm referring to. I now think we should modify this template to be displayed as a box on the side rather than a banner up top and add a parameter that differentiates phrasebook-only entries and makes this visible somehow. --WikiTiki89 12:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I think a banner at the bottom in the style of {{LDL}} would be better, though. You can fit more text into it. Instead of using a parameter, we could have two near-identical templates. One would be for phrasebook entries that claim exemption to the idiomaticity criterium of CFI, the other for entries that do not. If we prefer, we could decide that the latter does not include any banner, just a category. —CodeCat 13:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 03:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)